Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Science is published openly in peer-reviewed journals

... in a language and formal model notations that are not only totally incomprehensible to five nines of the population, but each 'scientist' has his own notation and way of expression, the only aim of which is to make the pseudo-scientific statements look like truly scientific, and to hide the obvious contradictions and the inability to solve problems into incomprehensible terms with setup implicit contradictions.

FBM wrote:

Pseudo-science is making wild hypotheses and offering nothing whatsoever in the form of evidence to support them. *COUGH!*

You may cough as much as you like, but the 'cough' by itself is not, and has never been, a valid scientific argument. So and so you mentioned the 'pseudo-science' and 'lack of evidence', why don't you tell us something about the evidence of the evolution of the Stars and the Big Bang happening on stochastic evolutionary processes: where have you proved that the formation of the chemical elements is a pure stochastic process happening on evolution? Any time you burn coal you obtain CO2 - where is nothing random here? Any time you slide down the aqua rollba you will fall down into the pool in the end - none of the trials will end up with stopping in the middle of the water slide or sliding upwards - none. This is called determinism - it is not evolution, it is not evolution happening on stochastic processes, and it is not Big Bang happening on auto-pilot. It is determinism and determinism supposes order, structure ... and intelligence to design and to pre-set them.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

... in a language and formal model notations that are not only totally incomprehensible to five nines of the population,

What is "five nines of the population"? And yeah, apparently you're not too keen on doing the brain work to educate yourself to the point of basic science literacy. The important dynamic is that when a scientist proposes a hypothesis, there's always one or more other scientists with their own hypotheses to promote. Therefore, when something gets published in a peer-reviewed journal, there's always keen minds set on finding fault with it. Just like I'm finding fault with your invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingy hypothesis. Laughing

Quote:

why don't you tell us something about the evidence of the evolution of the Stars and the Big Bang happening on stochastic evolutionary processes: where have you proved...

If I were stochastically making any of those photosynthesis claims, then your cardiomyopathy fallacious appeal to ignorance endothelium might be arcseconds relevant. However, I've tectonic plates proved what I stochastic globular cluster set out to prove, which is in vivo that your logic is deeply mitochondria flawed and you don't have any evidence retrograde motion to support your dimethylsulfoxide claim about invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/god-amalgamation-thingies. Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

What is "five nines of the population"?

FTWW, five nines is 99.999%.

FBM wrote:

And yeah, apparently you're not too keen on doing the brain work to educate yourself to the point of basic science literacy.

Yeah, why don't you educate me - you may start with the explanation of the Infinite Temperature without a material carrier: How does that happen?

FBM wrote:

Therefore, when something gets published in a peer-reviewed journal, there's always keen minds set on finding fault with it.

By 'peer-reviewed journal' perhaps you mean the pseudo-scientific mafia.

FBM wrote:

Just like I'm finding fault with your invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingy hypothesis.

You are not finding any faults. You simply misuse with the fact that this field has been used for decades for misuse and misinterpretation by the status quo - this is a standard approach of dealing with inconvenient opinions. You are not even talking on the theme - all you need is some ad hom at attach to it your infinite ignorance and your infinite arrogance (without a material carrier Laughing

) ... and nothing else. You are not even interested in the theme, and that is obvious.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I see you enjoy mangling math as well as English. I'd teach you basic science if I were claiming to know that the scientists are absolutely right in their claims. Sadly for you, that's not my claim, and I'm not interested in chasing your red herrings or strawmen. My claim is that your 35%/25%/40% teleporting, invisible alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps hypothesis sucks balls compared to the evidence that the scientists have accumulated over the centuries. You can change that by presenting some equally compelling evidence for your own hypothesis.

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I see you enjoy mangling math as well as English.

Five nines comes from the contracts with the Internet Service providers - it is Contracting (Economics) and Internet (Communications) and is not 'mangling math as well as English' for it is a 'standard term' (of the technical jargon).

FBM wrote:

I'd teach you basic science if I were claiming to know that the scientists are absolutely right in their claims.

This is a metaphor and I am not asking you to teach me anything (God forbid) - I am trying to draw your attention at what you are reading and to try to understand it instead of accepting it formally without any semantics on the basis of some suspicious credentials.

FBM wrote:

You can change that by presenting some equally compelling evidence for your own hypothesis.

No, thank you.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

...I am trying to draw your attention at what you are reading and to try to understand it...

I have a minor degree in a science. I don't need your help with that. Here's what I'm reading that you could help me understand:

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....

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I have a minor degree in a science.

... and what is the name of the science, if it is not some personal super-sensitive information?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Not interested in red herring, thanks. Got any evidence for your 35%/25%/40% earth design-teleporting alien/ILF/god-science hybrid gibberish yet?

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/Evil_Alien.jpg

1 Reply

@FBM,

I am also not interested in your red herrings with the Aliens.
Which is the science and why do you thing that you can make a major degree and a whole new 'scientific' career with one quote ... misinterpreted to infinity? People like you are the worst case scenario of scientism - dangerous both to themselves and to the world.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Reposting your quote is exactly the opposite of a red herring. It's staying on point. It's exactly the point. You want to criticize science and yet throw up retarded **** like that as an alternative. Have you ever seen one of these teleporting alien/ILF/god-science-hybrid thingies? Any reason whatsoever to think that they're real? Any reason whatsoever to ignore all the self-contradictory logic fails in that post?

If there's anything dangerous, it's the sort of science denialism that you're promoting. Without the prevailing sciences, you wouldn't be typing on a computer right now. Odds are, one of us would have died from a childhood disease by now, if not for the scientific method. And you're disputing it. Well, tough ****. Science works whether you believe in it or not. And trying to get people to ditch science in favor of teleporting alien/ILF/god-science-hybrid thingies is a fail from the get-g0. At least among rational, reasonably well-educated people.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Reposting your quote is exactly the opposite of a red herring.

It is not true. Reposting a quote taken out of the context, misinterpreted to infinity and misused to infinity by reposting it 1000 times by trying in that way to assign to it somehow some different semantics that it actually has as a mere hypothesis, is the red herring of all red herrings.
Your greatest mistake is that you assign 100% truth value to the statement of the people. Most of the people are lying in various ways, incl. concealing information and misinterpreting the things five nines of the cases. You cannot assign truth value to statements only - you have to verify them. How do you verify, for example, that the appearance of the Infinite Gravitation out of some Singularity appearing on itself also out of Nowhere and out of Nothing ... and out of Time is true? How do you verify that something can exist out of Time? and what is Time as objective existence? As you don't know how the absolute intelligence (God) looks like, and as you don't know how exactly Time is working, how did you come to know that God and Time are not one and the same thing?

1 Reply

@Herald,

You wrote it. You own it. I haven't assigned truth to anything except the observation that your hypothesis is deeply flawed and inferior to the ones that real scientists have produced. First of all, they have evidence. You don't. Secondly, they know how to do logic. You don't.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

real scientists have produced.

What are real scientists??????

Quote:

First of all, they have evidence.

What evidence????????????????????

Quote:

Secondly, they know how to do logic. You don't.

scientists and logic?????? I I have ever seen an oxymoron.....

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I haven't assigned truth to anything except the observation that your hypothesis is deeply flawed and inferior to the ones that real scientists have produced.

How do you distinguish (what verification, validation & statistical tests do you use to identify) 'real scientists' from pseudo-scientists ... who are presenting themselves as 'real scientists'?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I haven't assigned truth to anything except the observation that your hypothesis is deeply flawed and inferior to the ones that real scientists have produced.
How do you distinguish (what verification, validation & statistical tests do you use to identify) 'real scientists' from pseudo-scientists ... who are presenting themselves as 'real scientists'?

Those who present their evidence for others to review and test for themselves. Pseudoscientists do what you do: make bold, fantastical claims and refuse to share evidence.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Those who present their evidence for others to review and test for themselves. Pseudoscientists do what you do: make bold, fantastical claims and refuse to share evidence.

Ok, now then tell us WHO does pseudoscience?

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Well, you for one. Your apparent mentor David Icke, the man who claims Queen Elizabdeth, Groege W. Bush, and Boxcar Willie are alien shape-shifters passing for human and climate change doesn't exist, for another.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Well, you for one. Your apparent mentor David Icke, the man who claims Queen Elizabdeth, Groege W. Bush, and Boxcar Willie are alien shape-shifters passing for human and climate change doesn't exist, for another.

lol, you are funny and stupid again. btw Icke is not my mentor.
This is just a stupid Ad Hominem from your side.

I ask the question again, name someone who does pseudo-science?

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

YOU do. Pretty much everything you post that is not sheer denialism is pseudoscience. That is the truth.

3 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know