Wondering if my "Matthew Slepitza's" theory of the big bang could be correct?

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

After listening to you two, I wonder: Are you asserting the big bang to have been galactic flatulence?

Absolutely. It is exactly what the Big Bang 'theory' is, and will always remain: accumulation of gas in the alimentary canal of Science.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

his broken record has never been my theory.

Herald wrote:

... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th.; 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter....

Do you really want to re-start this? Really?

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Do you really want to re-start this? Really?

     Actually I don't care. You have republished that quote so much that it doesn't matter whether you will republish it with your twisted misinterpretation once more time or not. Obviously you plan to spoil that thread as well.
     1. Misrepresenting the size of the font is also a forgery - and it doesn't matter that it is formally into the syntax, and not in the semantics. When you put quotes you cannot put from yourself anything else. All and any interpretations ... and misinterpretations and misrepresentations to infinity are after that and outside - not within.
     2. This is said in another course of the discussion, in a different context and by taking it out of the text and of the context you are trying to misinterpret it and to misrepresent it to infinity.
     3. Besides that broken record, to which you casually add gaps and the aliens (for there is nothing of the kind in the original text) you actually make your own personally designed strawman ... and after that are trying to defeat it ... to infinity.
     Do you deny that the 'god-of-the-gas' is your personally designed strawman ... and that you subsequently converted into a broken record and started playing it to infinity? ... all-in-all that is just because you don't dare to provide the explanation, why you believe 0% in God, 0% in Science, 0% in Morality, and 100% in Money & Power ... and perhaps a little bit in the aliens?
     BTW, if you believe 0% in God and 0% in Science how did it happen so, that you took the side of Science in this dispute ... and why? Aren't you afraid much more of the wrath of Science than the wrath of God - in your place I would not overexpose science that much.

1 Reply

@Herald,

They're your exact words, emphasis added. The context was practically indistinguishable: cosmogony. Now, in the other thread, you gave up, rejected your own claim and admitted defeat. If you're backpeddling now, then you will have to accept that you have made a claim about what you believe to be the origins of the universe, but have yet to provide any evidence for. And as long as you continue to contradict yourself and try to claim gaps in science in which to fit your claim, I will continue to point out your abject lack of supporting evidence. Which will it be?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Emphases removed:

Herald wrote:

... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th.; 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter....

Think carefully about how strongly you want to continue defending this stinking turd...

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

They're your exact words, emphasis added.

There is not a trace of emphasis in the original text - the emphasis may change the semantics and a lot of other things ... and it is absolute misrepresentation of 'a quote' in any case scenario.
Actually to outcommunicate me from your presence on this and on the other thread that you spoiled as well with your straw-men top designs is a not entirely bad idea.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Exact words, no emphasis added, proper context. Are you now going to start defending your "personal" 45%/30%/25% (then deny that part) teleporting, undetectable alien/ILF/god-thingy? Laughing

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Are you now going to start defending your "personal" 45%/30%/25% (then deny that part) teleporting, undetectable alien/ILF/god-thingy?

Absolutely not. Perhaps I may think it over if you succeed to explain how exactly have you become a M.S. in Pyrotechnics by having 0% belief in Science?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Where did you get the idea that I have an M.S. in Pyrotechnics? Why do you assume science literacy entails belief?

0 Replies

@Herald,

OMG.. a satanist!!!

Wow!!!

I see you have decided to change up your logical fallacies by introducing name calling.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

OMG.. a satanist!!!Wow!!!

Perhaps you mean FBM.

parados wrote:

I see you have decided to change up your logical fallacies by introducing name calling.

I have had great teachers - on this, and on the other thread ... and I am learning fast. Actually it is amazing how some people have the magic property with their infinite ignorance to make you forget where are you going.
If you think that your Church of the Pyrotechnics is too much way from Church of Satan - think again.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Yes, I've taught you that the international science community has been using the metric system for decades now. I taught you that natural selection doesn't mean that all surviving animals are predators. I've taught you by demonstration how to use Pyrrhonist techniques to defeat ridiculous, faith-based claims of invisible alien/ILF/god-thingies... Laughing

We've all taught you buttloads of basic logic, too. Problem is, we can teach you, but we can't understand for you...

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Yes, I've taught you that the international science community has been using the metric system for decades now.

... and what do you and your major in pyrotechnical basics of philosophy have in common with the international science community? If you were really interested in 'international science' you would have studied some more serious scientific major, like for example quantum mechanics, photonics, physics of the solids, astrophysics, astrobiology, analytics, applied math, data communications, computer science, cryptanalysis - that pyrotechnics of philosophy does not sound seriously?
Actually you are not interested in any science at all - all you need is a certificate from some super-unpopular subject that will provide you a ticket to the 'international science community' ... where beyond any doubt you will become without any rivals. This is the oldest villigers' rural fishing in town.

1 Reply

@Herald,

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/bored-1.gif

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

When will you confess that the 'aliens-of-the-gaps' is your personally crafted top design straw-man?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
When will you confess that the 'aliens-of-the-gaps' is your personally crafted top design straw-man?

Exactly your words, no emphasis, proper context. Are you sure you want me to keep on discussing the logical validity and plausibility of that claim? If I were you, I'd want to put that stinking, embarrassing turd behind me and move on. But if you want me to continue pointing out how ridiculous it is and how little evidence you have for it, I will. Your call, homie.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Are you sure you want me to keep on discussing the logical validity and plausibility of that claim?

What claim - this is hypothetical scenario, what validity are you going to discuss. The percentages are exemplary and for the purposes of the discussion only ... and I doubt that you are competent at all to discuss probability, randomness of events, feasibility, plausibility, risk assessment of case scenarios, etc.

FBM wrote:

But if you want me to continue pointing out how ridiculous it is.

You are a free man in a free world and you may remain beyond the event horizon of your favourite broken record with the aliens-of-the-gaps as much as you wish. Actually I doubt that you understand at all what I am saying. Anyway.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Are you sure you want me to keep on discussing the logical validity and plausibility of that claim?
What claim - ...

This one:

Herald wrote:

... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th.; 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter....

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/20187_1060694407277491_113535982501989184_n.jpg

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

This one: ...

     Will you stop spoiling at least this thread ... with your personal problems with the hypothetical existence of the aliens.
     This is simply another (hypothetical) life form? Yes, it was absolutely rough mistake to discuss such issues with such people and no hypothesis that will be distorted and misrepresented to infinity in order to be published 300 times as a minimum after that will be given to absolute retards any more.
     Even taking something out of the text and out of the context is an absolute forgery and misrepresentation of the quote.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I reckon it's back to teaching you English again...

Quote:

forgery
for·ger·y (fôr′jə-rē)
n. pl. for·ger·ies
1. The act of forging something, especially the unlawful act of counterfeiting a document or object for the purposes of fraud or deception.
2. Something that has been forged, especially a document that has been copied or remade to look like the original.

I presented your exact words, without any embellishment or alteration. The context was another thread in which you were also in denial about the Big Bang. You presented your alternative hypothesis, which I quoted. Straight up, your exact words in the proper context. I can understand why you're embarrassed; that's some pretty harebrained crap there. But you laid it, homie, so you own it.

2 Replies

Wondering if my "Matthew Slepitza's" theory of the big bang could be correct?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know