Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

It's not from Wikipedia, moron... YOUR "wiki eduction" has failed you. Get a real education instead of constantly making a fool of yourself on the internet.

I'm not sure where your STUpidity ends and your lying/trolling begins but apparently you're oblivious to what a total ZERO you are. Which I find highly amusing :p

You're also living proof of the old adage that "you can't fix STUpid." :D

And of course you've proven once again that you're too unread, too intellectually dishonest and too STUpid for this conversation.

P.S. Get your nasty teeth fixed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from stu:

As a complete idiot you seem to think photoshopping your plug ugly face and dramatically underlining extracts via your wiki eduction that don't apply to what is being said to you, is a smart thing to do.
But then it has to be remembered, you are complete idiot.

What part of impossible or... NOT possible = TRUE ... don't YOU understand?

It is NOT stated .... " the set of solutions = the EMPTY set = NO elements = a NEGATIVE? ".... = true, although you are obviously dumb enough to imagine it might .
Even if you want to refer to the result as a set, how exactly do you imagine a set that = TRUE is "EMPTY" or has "NO elements" when it has the element TRUE, or that is "a NEGATIVE" ?
Tosser. :p

Lol! was that you trying to look like you have a clue :D
Lindemann and others before him showed a NEGATIVE SOLUTION you prick. As already mentioned earlier it's referred to in math as a negative solution, or a negative proof for good reason - but not known as your "proof of a negative", which is an argument made in natural language -outside of math, and not an argument from proof, as Lindemann's is, made by deductive reasoning.
They are different.
You didn't know.
But then you are a complete idiot.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

stu you learned something but you are still completely ignorant.
Try reading hawking's paper you tool.

1. You now admit the appearance of fine tuning. That is a major change in your level of ignorance over the past 7 years. Congrats... you have absorbed some science.

2. There is no doubt that eternal inflation when used in the context of that paper by Hawking is coupled with the multiverse. The paper fricken says the multiverse is populated by eternal inflation. Check section 7 you moron.

3. You keep on quoting the thing about gravity out of context.... and that is proof you are a fucking troll. I have asked you to quote in context- dipshit - so I could answer your questions.

If you read the paper I linked to .... you will see that Hawking states that if you couple topdown cosmology with the multiverse... your question ( or you observation of Gravity) selects the past histories of the universe. Its a very speculative sci fi... way to explain the fine tunings... you should read it.

You should learn some science.
More...
 
Quote from stu:

Do you have Tourette syndrome or something?

You've referred both to Susskind and Hawking as Nobel prize winners before. Neither are.
I have corrected you on dozens of things many times though you make no discussion , generally take no notice, but like a mad person usually create a tirade of abuse just like you have now.
That'll be why you don't recall.

Not only did you quote out of context, you left out half a sentence because it wrecks your false choice assertion.


Now you think just quoting the paper changes what you did and that makes me wrong ?

Lol. You get worse and worse.
More...

Nice change of subject troll and you are full of shit.

You are the asshole who just took Hawking out of context and refuses to put the quote in context.

I have put him context... and now you are making this shit up.

I posted the discussion above.
 
Quote from Trader666:

It's not from Wikipedia, moron... YOUR "wiki eduction" has failed you. Get a real education instead of constantly making a fool of yourself on the internet.

I'm not sure where your STUpidity ends and your lying/trolling begins but apparently you're oblivious to what a total ZERO you are. Which I find highly amusing :p

You're also living proof of the old adage that "you can't fix STUpid." :D

And of course you've proven once again that you're too unread, too intellectually dishonest and too STUpid for this conversation.

P.S. Get your nasty teeth fixed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
More...

Your photo, your ugly face and so follows, your nasty teeth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. How thick can you get.

But when push comes to shove that's all you've really got isn't it. A big fat mouth, no argument and no clue.
 
Quote from jem:

Nice change of subject troll and you are full of shit.

You are the asshole who just took Hawking out of context and refuses to put the quote in context.

I have put him context... and now you are making this shit up.

I posted the discussion above.
More...

I already responded to your "discussion" above.
As usual you ignored it and like the dickbrain you are , just repost your "discussion" again as if that meant anything at all.

Yeah that's right Jem, you changed context, posted edited comments, misrepresented what was actually being said, made up a false choice from it all …so if you just ignore everything , repost and accuse someone else of taking Hawking out of context, you can pretend you got it right ... duh. That'll work, not.

You two goons should get married.
 
You're STUpid even for an idiot.

Again you show your ignorance of basic terminology. Negative solutions and negative proofs aren't synonymous you troll. A negative solution is a negative value that solves an equation, for example -2 is a negative solution for X^2 = 4. A negative proof proves a negative, a goal of the form ¬P.

Get your teeth fixed!!!

attachment.php

Quote from stu:

Lindemann and others before him showed a NEGATIVE SOLUTION you prick. As already mentioned earlier it's referred to in math as a negative solution, or a negative proof for good reason - but not known as your "proof of a negative", which is an argument made in natural language -outside of math, and not an argument from proof, as Lindemann's is, made by deductive reasoning.
More...
This from the STUpid ignoranus who constantly spews unsupported moronic nonsense. :p
Quote from stu:

But when push comes to shove that's all you've really got isn't it. A big fat mouth, no argument and no clue.
More...
 

Attachments

Quote from stu:

I already responded to your "discussion" above.
As usual you ignored it and like the dickbrain you are , just repost your "discussion" again as if that meant anything at all.

Yeah that's right Jem, you changed context, posted edited comments, misrepresented what was actually being said, made up a false choice from it all …so if you just ignore everything , repost and accuse someone else of taking Hawking out of context, you can pretend you got it right ... duh. That'll work, not.

You two goons should get married.
More...

you did not answer.
you provided no science
you provided no citation
just your usually troll bullshit.

show the science or shut up.

----------------------

End of page 2 in hawkings 2006 paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

" In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see."


---

now you asserted like a fool eternal inflation did not mean multiverse. and I showed you in the paper where it did.

so you are the full of shit troll.

I give you hawkings paper you post bullshit.
I am I tired of you stating I post out of context.
You do not even provide sources for your bullshit you just make it up out of your own festering brain.

Next time you state I post out of context... put your proof in context, asswipe.
 
Quote from Trader666:

You're STUpid even for an idiot.

Again you show your ignorance of basic terminology. Negative solutions and negative proofs aren't synonymous you troll. A negative solution is a negative value that solves an equation, for example -2 is a negative solution for X^2 = 4. A negative proof proves a negative, a goal of the form ¬P.

Get your teeth fixed!!!
More...
You still seem convinced your infantile comments, ridiculous assertions and a say anything approach is making an argument .

But yes, you certainly do show your ignorance when it comes to basic terminology. So much so you use terminology - in particular "proves a negative" -which isn't even there:p .

The only terms used are negative result and negative proofs arrived at by deductive reasoning. Subjective inferences such as "proves a negative" wrongly extrapolated from a mathematical solution stating impossible = true, are however arrived at by birdbrains such as yourself.

No one but you has mentioned negative solutions and negative proofs being synonymous.
In the confusion you replace normal rationality with, you wrongly placed a "goal", which wasn't there in the first place, synonymously with an implicit outcome that never happened.
The "goal" if anything was to 'square the circle'. Obviously the outcome didn't occur according to the "goal". Yet you put them equal. Weird how you can't grasp stuff.

Lol. Now it appears both your wiki education and trying to show off has again lead you up the garden path to that mathematical fallacy of -2. Dear me, let's face it, you're nothing more than a pseudo-mathematical , pseudo-intellectual genuine-numbskull.

It is ... impossible = true... arrived at by deductive reasoning. It isn't ... "possible = true = 'proves a negative'" ... arrived at by you the befuddled.

That is the same reasoning, if it could ever be called reasoning, which makes you believe your own picture, which you provide, with the god ugly face and the bad teeth, wearing a dunce's hat, would not be you, just because you put some text on it. :D

No wonder you rose so quickly to apparatchik in the ET No Clue Club.
 
Quote from jem:

you did not answer.
you provided no science
you provided no citation
just your usually troll bullshit.

show the science or shut up.

----------------------

End of page 2 in hawkings 2006 paper.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

" In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see."


---

now you asserted like a fool eternal inflation did not mean multiverse. and I showed you in the paper where it did.

so you are the full of shit troll.

I give you hawkings paper you post bullshit.
I am I tired of you stating I post out of context.
You do not even provide sources for your bullshit you just make it up out of your own festering brain.

Next time you state I post out of context... put your proof in context, asswipe.
More...


Eternal inflation is the expansion of the universe which explains lots of things from quantum fluctuation to big bang to galaxy formation.
Multiverse is just one hypothetical aspect derived from eternal inflation. Multiverse is postulated by Stephen Hawking. Multiverse is NOT eternal inflation.

There are others , specifically Stephen Weinberg, who does actually have a Nobel Prize in Physics unlike scientists you say do but don’t, who refer to Chaotic Inflation , and again that is not the same thing as Multiverse.


For all your abuse and profanity you did not show anyone anything but your uninformed ignorance along with your usual delusional reading and comprehension disabilities along with a peculiar desire apparently to put everything out of context
 
Quote from stu:

Eternal inflation is the expansion of the universe which explains lots of things from quantum fluctuation to big bang to galaxy formation.
Multiverse is just one hypothetical aspect derived from eternal inflation. Multiverse is postulated by Stephen Hawking. Multiverse is NOT eternal inflation.

There are others , specifically Stephen Weinberg, who does actually have a Nobel Prize in Physics unlike scientists you say do but don’t, who refer to Chaotic Inflation , and again that is not the same thing as Multiverse.


For all your abuse and profanity you did not show anyone anything but your uninformed ignorance along with your usual delusional reading and comprehension disabilities along with a peculiar desire apparently to put everything out of context
More...

I told you to read the paper you moron. Put it in context.

And note asswipe - it was weinberg's calulation of the cosmological constant which convinced many of the scientists and nobel prize winners I have quoted... to say our universe appears designed.

you are deceitful troll, ignorant of science.
And you have admitted our universe appears designed so you lost this argument pages ago.

That is what I have been saying for years...

To many top scientists including nobel prize winners our universe appears designed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top