Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

I am on a diet, but neither word salad nor psychobabble are a part of it. Intellectual integrity determines that you provide evidence for your claim. Intellectual integrity determines that I call your ideas bullshit when you don't provide any evidence and instead post a prolonged series of logical fallacies. You ain't got ****, Homer. And you haven't done **** but expose yourself as a pseudointellectual wingnut. Thus:

4:0

0 Replies

@Herald,

What FBM is doing is scientific integrity. What you are doing Herald is pseudo-scientific obfuscation. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your argument. You are clearly not playing by the rules of science or letting science play by your rules when you demand evidence of others but supply none yourself.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

What FBM is doing is scientific integrity.

This is not scientific integrity - this is called stubborn donkey fallacy. The scientific integrity is to explain his personal understanding (without irrelevant random quotes) of the: 1) Infinite Temperature& its material carrier; 2) Infinite Gravity & its force carrier; 3) the event 'all of a sudden' that switches on the Time; 4) the possibility for the existence of the 'out of nowhere' in the physical world; 5) the justification of the claim 'by reason unknown'; 6) and how exactly the Big Bang is operating - by stochastics or by determinism.
Everything else is red herring ... coming 'out of nowhere' and 'by reason unknown'.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

The scientific integrity is to explain his personal understanding

I see. So FBM is right when he points out you don't have any scientific integrity.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

This is not scientific integrity - this is called stubborn donkey fallacy.

Making up fictitious logical fallacies is integrity? That shows no more integrity than making up stories about alien/ILF/g0d-thingies teleporting the structure of the universe through billions of years. Laughing

Quote:

The scientific integrity is to explain his personal understanding ...

Horse hockey. Scientific integrity is providing evidence for your claims so that others can test it. Major lexical and logical fail.

4:0

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So FBM is right when he points out you don't have any scientific integrity.

What about your scientific integrity - why don't you publish your avatar from here on the articles to the off-line publishers, and on the CV to the scientific board ... to make you the proper medical record?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

That shows no more integrity than making up stories about alien/ILF/g0d-thingies teleporting the structure of the universe through billions of years.

What are you talking so much about that logical fallacies, when most of your references (with few exceptions I have to confess) are double blind beliefs - you don't know to whom you are believing, and the proxy scientists you are quoting there base the presentation on appeal to (the infinite) ignorance. Perhaps one should take a look at the logical fallacies in his own backyard before start commenting the logical fallacies of the others.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You obviously don't know enough about genuine research to know what "double blind" means. Not surprising that you accept crappy ideas without evidence. Laughing

By all means, Aristotle, reveal my logical fallacies.

And while you're at it, how about a sliver of evidence for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps? Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Not surprising that you accept crappy ideas without evidence.

Would you specify that 'crappy ideas' as ideas (your understanding of my understanding) inter alia with the enumeration of your favourite Gaps (in the scientism actually)?

FBM wrote:

By all means, Aristotle, reveal my logical fallacies.

After Aristotle there are 2400 years of development of philosophy and its descendant sciences, like for example the predicate logic, fuzzy logic, and probabilistic theory. If you are curious to know you cannot assign truth values to beliefs by the metaphysics of Aristotle, for there is no feasibility there to do so, there is no metrics and no mechanics there to make such assessments by discrete math calculations. The crap that the scientism is explaining to the population is in most of its part without any serious justification, no matter how many informal, semi-formal, and formal-like arguments the priests of scientism can take out ... of wherever.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Would you specify that 'crappy ideas' as ideas (your understanding of my understanding) inter alia with the enumeration of your favourite Gaps (in the scientism actually)?

What? For the hundredth time? Listen carefully: YOU MAKE CLAIMS AND HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

Quote:

After Aristotle there are 2400 years of development of philosophy and its descendant sciences, like for example the predicate logic, fuzzy logic, and probabilistic theory. If you are curious to know you cannot assign truth values to beliefs by the metaphysics of Aristotle, for there is no feasibility there to do so, there is no metrics and no mechanics there to make such assessments by discrete math calculations. The crap that the scientism is explaining to the population is in most of its part without any serious justification, no matter how many informal, semi-formal, and formal-like arguments the priests of scientism can take out ... of wherever.

You make a claim and present zero evidence and a plethora of logical fallacies, such as this red herring. Your argument couldn't be weaker if you tried.

4:0

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/11133689_10153176535056605_885752003345728386_n.jpg

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

What? For the hundredth time? Listen carefully: YOU MAKE CLAIMS AND HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

What about you claims - it was not me claiming that Gaps - the Gaps are your idea from the bery beginning (actually plagiarised, but it doesn't matter). You claim the gaps, you base your claims on that gaps - you are the one who is supposed to enumerate them at least, as a minimum, for otherwise you cannot construct your favourite broken record fallacy about 'God-of-the-Gaps', not to say that you will never be able to prove that God & ILFs cannot exist, have not existed, and are not existing at present.
... and my claim is that you are not at the level to understand Prof. M. Kaku and Dr. Carl Sagan ... after you arrange them right next to the greatest clowns of modern scientism.

1 Reply

@Herald,

My analyses of your fallacies go back dozens of pages. Read the ******* thread and pay attention, dimwit.

Where's your evidence for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps? You have none? Then you don't have a ******* thing. You're dead in the water. Spouting fallacious, batshit bullshit endlessly.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/download%202.jpg

1 Reply

@Herald,

FBM is still correct when he points out you don't have any scientific integrity.

My avatar has nothing to do with the integrity of science. Since you bring up avatars, I notice the avatar you have chosen has as much substance as your evidence to support your wild claims, i.e. it is non existent.

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/hehe.gif

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10900117_10153181672806605_7811940304580170009_o.jpg

1 Reply

@FBM,

This cheatsheet is only for drugs' trials.
In physics for example, the Nobel prices from the experiments with the large hadron collider are given for the interpretation of super high-speed snapshots and math formal models for the explanation of the underlying QMs. I cannot say whether this is exactly a case study, or something else.
I don't see your listing for the enumeration of the Gaps.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Read the ******* thread and try to engage a little memory function, then. I don't see your evidence for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps. Fail. Epic fail.

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

My analyses of your fallacies go back dozens of pages.

What analysis - you don't have any of the kind. I told you about that logical fallacies, and you cannot stop misusing with them and misinterpreting everything thereafter. Anyway.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I don't see your evidence for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps.

The fact that you 'don't see' something does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. You don't see and don't perceive also the RF pollution, but it exists - especially in the hotels.
Why do you think that after all that scientism and misinterpretations and inability even to define the Gaps of your favourite broken record 'God-of-the-Gaps' that you cannot stop repeating to infinity I am going to discuss anything like that exactly with you?

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know