Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
This was the troll asswipe earlier in the thread. And for the last seven years denied the appearance of fine tuning... He lied his ass off about the science every step of the way.
and this was a quote after being presented with overwhelming scientific evidence including quotes from nobel prize winners... on the appearance of fine tuning....
After a years of being and ignorant trolling foul mouth asshole the troll reverses himself and then starts to lie about a new concept.
and this was a quote after being presented with overwhelming scientific evidence including quotes from nobel prize winners... on the appearance of fine tuning....
After a years of being and ignorant trolling foul mouth asshole the troll reverses himself and then starts to lie about a new concept.
You really ought to get professional help for your compulsive lying. In the meantime, maybe your mommy will spank you next time she changes your diaper 
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...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3368221#post3368221
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...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3368221#post3368221
Your STUpidity seems to have no bounds.
You idiot, "¬" by definition negates "P" so proving ¬P is proving a negative.
As for YOUR confusion and total ignorance of how "goal" is used wrt proofs, you're just trying to obfuscate the beatdown I gave you here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3362824#post3362824
Tell us again how "goal" is "inappropriate parlance" and reexpressing a negative is "just too ridiculous for words!"
You idiot, "¬" by definition negates "P" so proving ¬P is proving a negative.
As for YOUR confusion and total ignorance of how "goal" is used wrt proofs, you're just trying to obfuscate the beatdown I gave you here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3362824#post3362824
Tell us again how "goal" is "inappropriate parlance" and reexpressing a negative is "just too ridiculous for words!"
Quote from stu:
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
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.
No wonder you rose so quickly to apparatchik in the ET No Clue Club.
Yeah well, now you're once again merely displaying your true level of intelligence.
L@@k...Bollocks to your silly comparisons with "¬" "P" and "¬P" solutions. THE mathematical solution to square a circle IS impossible = true. You are the one considering impossible = true as "proving a negative".
It isn't.
Why the hell do you even assume 'not possible' is in the negative? Why is a true outcome to be held negative in all cases, which it would have to be if reasoned deductively in math.
Nowhere in math is the solution, or are such outcomes declared or described, as "proving a negative".
You can pratt about as much as you want but it won't change that fact.
You gave square the circle as proving a negative , it isn't, but as was all I mentioned, not a good example anyway , especially considering the proving of a negative statement was clearly being made in a completely philosophical context , not even in the same league as the deductive reasoning of math.
Well it's clear by now you are going to stay too thick to even read what's being said let alone understand, so how do you suppose 'telling you again' is going to help you be at all reasonable about any of this.
The reasons I gave are clear. Why not try and work out a rational response to them for once.
Telling me to read the paper and put it into context is no answer as to why you evidently havenât read the paper and keep taking it out of context.
You don't even realize how absurd you are, do you?
This is like the times I had to tell you over and over and over, not to spell cite as site.
Now its over and over and over again; the scientists you misquote, misrepresent, and take out of context, namely Susskind and Hawking amongst others, are NOT Nobel prize winners.
Furthermore as everyone well knows, they do not say they are in any way at all convinced about intelligent design.
On the other hand, anyone can see how you are always trying to confuse, misdirect and take out of context the suggestion of so called intelligent design, by dishonestly using the generic word design in place of it.
Problem is you can't show one example that what you say is true. All you can do is get angry because you are wrong and then blame me for your ignorance.
So what do you still not get? Appearances of fine tuning won't do. There is no scientific evidence, never mind "overwhelming scientific evidence".
There is only your wild false assertions and confusion about fine-tuning and what you evidently imagine it would have to mean.
There is no new concept. There is no reverse or lie on my behalf.
There is your usual purposeful confused comprehension about what is actually said against what you obviously like to pretend is being said.
I repeat There is NO science to support any so called fine tuning or any appearances of it. NONE to support fine-tuning.
Science does support ONLY the laws of physics being responsible for the observed values mentioned in connection with the description fine-tuning , as Stephen Hawking shows.
Obvious to anyone but a religious loon as yourself , all there is - is only an appearance, like there is only an appearance the Earth is flat.
Truth is, rather than the appearance of false accusation, it is all you can ever manage in reality.
Quote from jem:
"After a years of being and ignorant trolling foul mouth asshole.."
"asshole
troll asswipe
dipshit
shit liar
fuck you"
You can hardly manage English but there are plenty choice profanities from you in this thread alone - as the foul mouthed troll, who after years of being willfully ignorant , can do no better.
All only for the maddened defense of irrational god beliefs.
Stu the foulmouthed no integrity troll has been lying about this subject for 7 years. For 7 years he lied his ass off saying there was no appearance of design. For 7 years he claimed I was misquoting scientists about the appearance of design.
But now we know he was the fraud... out of his own mouth.
......................................................................................
Quote from stu, earlier on this thread:
"Appearances of fine tuning won't do. There is no science to support any so called fine tuning or any appearances of it.
That'll be why misrepresenting what's actually being said will be all you know about it."
....
then when I presented videos, books and papers from nobel prize winners and prize winning scientists (which have been piling up on the internet lately, he attempted to change the argument by saying this...
Quote from stu:
"...There is only an appearance of tuning.
He has already said the laws of physics, particularly gravity with no need for anything else, explains why there is a universe."
...............................................................................
Some might wonder why Stu the lying zealout would lie his ass off for 7 years.
The reason is... if there is an appearance of design... there is evidence of a Designer. (not proof... but evidence)
Note- how deceptive the asshole troll is...
I present the paper and he comes back and takes it out of context.
Hey asswipe... Hawking says gravity can be responsible for the carefully tuned appearance when you couple top down cosmology and couple it with a multiverse.
Go read the paper troll asswipe.
And here is a noble prize winner on the fine tuning....
But now we know he was the fraud... out of his own mouth.
......................................................................................
Quote from stu, earlier on this thread:
"Appearances of fine tuning won't do. There is no science to support any so called fine tuning or any appearances of it.
That'll be why misrepresenting what's actually being said will be all you know about it."
....
then when I presented videos, books and papers from nobel prize winners and prize winning scientists (which have been piling up on the internet lately, he attempted to change the argument by saying this...
Quote from stu:
"...There is only an appearance of tuning.
He has already said the laws of physics, particularly gravity with no need for anything else, explains why there is a universe."
...............................................................................
Some might wonder why Stu the lying zealout would lie his ass off for 7 years.
The reason is... if there is an appearance of design... there is evidence of a Designer. (not proof... but evidence)
Note- how deceptive the asshole troll is...
I present the paper and he comes back and takes it out of context.
Hey asswipe... Hawking says gravity can be responsible for the carefully tuned appearance when you couple top down cosmology and couple it with a multiverse.
Go read the paper troll asswipe.
And here is a noble prize winner on the fine tuning....
Stu... you keep repeating there is no science showing fine tuning.
I keep presenting overwhelming evidence.
here is a nobel prize winner...
are you really saying he does not understand science or probabilities... he is the guy who predicted the cosmological constant.
are you that ignorant or that much of a liar stu?
---
"This new twist in the story of fine-tuning astonishes even the most atheistic of physicists. I spoke with Steven Weinberg, the Nobel-prize winner who has himself penned some witty lines mocking belief. On the telephone, from his office at the University of Texas at Austin, he said: âThis is the one fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident.""
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
I keep presenting overwhelming evidence.
here is a nobel prize winner...
are you really saying he does not understand science or probabilities... he is the guy who predicted the cosmological constant.
are you that ignorant or that much of a liar stu?
---
"This new twist in the story of fine-tuning astonishes even the most atheistic of physicists. I spoke with Steven Weinberg, the Nobel-prize winner who has himself penned some witty lines mocking belief. On the telephone, from his office at the University of Texas at Austin, he said: âThis is the one fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident.""
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
You probably know less about math than you do about science... and considering you're so STUpid that you got the 96% / 4% split of dark matter & dark energy versus everything else BACKWARDS, that's not very much. On top of that you're a compulsive liar and troll as you've proved many times. If I dipped you in red paint you'd swear it's blue. But all that is why I DON'T put you on ignore -- you're such a train wreck the amusement factor is too great
