Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@MontereyJack,

If you think it is an ad hominem, tough ****. It is still the truth.Y

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

If you think it is an ad hominem, tough ****. It is still the truth.Y

@Quehoniaomath,

He named two. Even if Icke isn't your mentor, he still does pseudo-science. You tend to post a fair amount of his stuff, so it is unclear how it can be an ad hominem to say he is your apparent mentor unless you don't believe the stuff you post.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

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

Truth?? You even won't recognize any truth!

You know very well it is not about me. Now, tell me who does pseudoscience?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

If you think it is an ad hominem, tough ****. It is still the truth.Y

btw you are very funny in your stupidity and irrationality. Thank god for that!~

Smile

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Seems to me the stupidity and irrationality are in the person who asked for photographic evidence and was given photographic evidence, who has been provided fossil evidence and documentary evidence, who demands a transitional fossil with "half an evye" or "half a nose" when it has been repeatedly pointed out to him that by definitio0n a transitional specimen has to be a functioning, reproducing organis, who has ignored the biological evidence presented him of many transitional forms of eyes which span the range from sensitive spots on the cell wall or skin up to fully functional higher mammal eyes, all of which transitional forms serve functions that help the organism cope better. That's the stupid and irrational person. And it ain't me. Of the two of us, you and me, which does that leave?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Seems to me the stupidity and irrationality are in the person who asked for photographic evidence and was given photographic evidence, who has been provided fossil evidence and documentary evidence, who demands a transitional fossil with "half an evye" or "half a nose" when it has been repeatedly pointed out to him that by definitio0n a transitional specimen has to be a functioning, reproducing organis, who has ignored the biological evidence presented him of many transitional forms of eyes which span the range from sensitive spots on the cell wall or skin up to fully functional higher mammal eyes, all of which transitional forms serve functions that help the organism cope better. That's the stupid and irrational person. And it ain't me. Of the two of us, you and me, which does that leave?

lots of of stupidity again. And a lot of LIES.
what is eating you?

0 Replies

No lies. Total truth. You're blind. As Monty Python put it, with you no doubt in mind, "blinkered, Philistine pig-ignorance."

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

No lies. Total truth. You're blind. As Monty Python put it, with you no doubt in mind, "blinkered, Philistine pig-ignorance."

No lies? lol. you are very funny. No lies? your postings are filled with it.

You just can't handle the truth and that is ok by me you know.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Herald wrote:
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.

This is absolute nonsense. It is definitely not true. A question: how do you choose the type of the scientists for the peer review? How do you know that this and this peer review is for physicists and for 'pyrrotechnicians in philosophy' ... and not for cryptanalysts or math logic experts, or expert analytics integrity & verification explorers, for example. If I state some absolute nonsense and give it to a carpenter for 'peer review' how exactly it will become 'science of the last resort'?

2 Replies

@Herald,

You don't understand how it works.

0 Replies

@Herald,

I don't choose anybody. Geologists publish in geology journals, physicists publish in physics journals, etc. In the educated world, you can't publish BS without getting called on it. Just like you can't post BS about 45%/30%/25% alien/ILF/god-science-thingies on A2K without getting outed as a freak. Evidence or STFU, freak. You've got no evidence, so you've got nothing but a twisted fantasy.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Geologists publish in geology journals, physicists publish in physics journals, etc.

What about mistakes and discrepancies that are not geology and physics, but some logical contradictions in essence, for example. None of the two kinds of specialists is taking any effort to see what does that mean and how far this may go. They don't even take the effort to make the physical interpretation of a contradiction, which is that one of the two states is impossible to exist in the physical world.
BTW our knowledge is not abstract physics and geology - it has absolute integrity for it is a representation of a world existing in the reality - in other words a world that for sure has absolute integrity and non-contradiction. The appearance of contradictions in essence in the knowledge representation means that part of the knowledge is fake ... for sure.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

What about mistakes and discrepancies that are not geology and physics, but some logical contradictions in essence, for example. ...The appearance of contradictions in essence in the knowledge representation means that part of the knowledge is fake ... for sure.

Ta-daa!!! I've got a perfect example in mind at the moment, now that you mention it:

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:

Ta-daa!!! I've got a perfect example in mind at the moment, now that you mention it.

You don't have any examples. All you have is a personally designed broken record in the form of a straw-man on the grounds of misrepresentation & misinterpretation that supports your infinite overconfidence & arrogance ... without any covering.
Without that quote you are absolute zero on this blog ... and not only on this one. The triumph of the ignorance and arrogance is the worst case scenario of 'knowledge acquisition'.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I'd teach you basic science ...

     Really, let's see what we have here up to the present moment.
     Up to page 169 this blog has been full of people, discussing more or less on the issues of the theme, which was: how is the Universe operating: on determinism, or on stochastic evolution (whatever is that supposed to mean, BTW)?
     At page 192 you started trying to replace the theme with your personal red herring of the 'God of the Gaps' ... that later became all of a sudden and out of nowhere and by reason unknown 'Aliens of the Gaps'.
     At post No. 5 838 014 you genuinely confess that you haven't got anything to do with any serious science, by claiming: 'I don't have any "personal assumptions" of the Big Bang', which means that in the real world you are 'producing "theories" on a conveyor' without any assumptions.
     At post No. 5 841 141 appears your favourite quote with the broken record of the aliens, which is BTW an example of fuzzy logic assumptions for assigning beliefs in agnosticism ... and does not have any of the interpretations that you are assigning and trying to assign to it subsequently.
     At page 225 you launch the broken record with the aliens ... and by doing so you expelled most of the participants from the blog.
     At Post No. 5 910 586 you confess that you have serious problems with the perception of the reality by denying that this is a blog on a theme, by claiming: 'This isn't a blog in the first place'
     At post No. 5 895 141 you confess genuinely that you have personal problems with the identity of your personality, by claiming: '... then I am going to Xenu' ... with a personal picture attached therewith.
     At post No. 5 984 891 and at some others you confirm your personal confusion about your personality by publishing self portraits - the way you look like in your personal imagination.
     I don't know whom you are 'teaching basic science' ... and I honestly speaking don't want to know.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Translation: "I still don't have any evidence to support my claim, so I'm going to spray a lot of empty rhetoric and red herrings to try to change the subject.

You wrote it; you own it. Now show us a single reason to consider it "plausible." (also your own word) Laughing

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Translation: "I still don't have any evidence to support my claim ..."

So what?

FBM wrote:

So I'm going to spray a lot of empty rhetoric

You are doing that all the time - nothing new under the Sun ... the question is: What is there 'above it'?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Translation: "I still don't have any evidence to support my claim ..."
So what?

You don't got no evidence, you don't require no evidence, then I can say turtle equipollent sofa demons are just as good an explanation as your 40/35/25% bullshit. You don't got no evidence, then you don't got nuffin', Pedro.

Quote:

You are doing that all the time - nothing new under the Sun ... the question is: What is there 'above it'?

Au contraire, mi amore. I've observed repeatedly that you have no evidence to support your claim, and you keep on proving me right with every evidence-free post you offer. Laughing

1 Reply

@FBM,

But what then about evidence for (macro) evolution? There is just NONE.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know