Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

... Bring a link and prove it.
I wrote:
they are missing imagination, heuristic search and logical inference

No problems, Bro. at the Post of Wed 17 Dec. 2014 01:43 of ID vs. the Casino ... always wins, where is your favourite broken record with the straw-man of the aliens, you conveniently skip always when quoting the following text that is preceding the broken record itself:

I wrote:

You don't understand something - an agnostic is not non-believer - he simply assigns probability to various hypotheses

... then follows your favourite broken record with the aliens ... repeated to infinity from page 203 to page 308 of the same blog (and on two other blogs BTW, absolutely irrelevant to that issue) ... in various misinterpretations and misrepresentations ... to beautify the straw-man to infinity, I guess.
To this retarded inquiries about the validity of your straw-man (I don't know why are you continuously asking me about that) you were provided different answers (some of them serious, some of them not entirely serious, but all of them different), and to that totally different answers you always asked back with the straw-man ... until you converted it in the end into an absolute broken record. Excuse me, but there are true autists with greater imagination and logical behaviour than that one.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You don't know how to post a link, Bro? "agnostic" means "without knowledge." I guess you're agnostic, after all. Very Happy

It's irrelevant, anyway. My point still stands. You're just exposing your inability to understand basic logic and science even further.

Quote:

he simply assigns probability to various hypotheses

And you assigned probabilities like this:

Herald wrote:

... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th.;

Which? Those are all different things, except that a god would be a meta-intelligence, but you don't seem to know that, since you separated the words with "or." And you're assigning them all the same 45%, despite them being contradictory ideas. Why not just simplify it by admitting that you don't have a clue?

Quote:

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),

L. Ron Hubbard much? (answer: yes) Laughing

Quote:

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....

"Big Bang and the theory that we are made of star dust (whatever that might mean)" How about figuring out what that actually means, instead of inventing random science fiction crap? You know, learning basic science? That too hard for you?

"and fused with the time by..." etc. So, you think that "perhaps" there was a Big Bang, and then this theory, and "the" DE and DM fused them with "the" time. Makes perfect sense. Wonder why you haven't won that Nobel Prize yet?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/respect-040.gif

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

"agnostic" means "without knowledge."

Definitely false. For further details see the Wiki on the issue: 'Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.' - where do you see here 'without knowledge' ... in general.
You can misinterpret me and anyone else to infinity - one-by-one - but to design straw-men forgery on the Wikipaedia, which is actually compiled knowledge of the humanity and 'peer-reviewed' 24/7 is a masterpiece of arrogance ... and self-conceitedness.

FBM wrote:

I guess you're agnostic, after all.

You don't need that information and it is none of your business, as long as you are not discussing on the themes, but rather make straw-men and fireworks out of everything.

FBM wrote:

It's irrelevant, anyway.

As you say it.

FBM wrote:

You're just exposing your inability to understand basic logic and science even further.

... and you have neither logic nor scientific reasoning to pronounce on that issue. The fact that you present yourself as science (on several occasions) does not mean at all that you have or ever have had anything to do with any science.

FBM wrote:

Those are all different things

... that are connected with OR in case you have not noticed (which may be even XOR) - what in particular is your problem? Don't you have some fatal system error in your logic (what you have never had), or what?

1 Reply

@Herald,

More red herrings. Where's your evidence for your self-contradictory, transporting alien/ILF/g0d-not-god claim? How is it as "plausible" as real science? That's the only real issue. Convince us that you're not whacked out of your mind for even considering such rubbish as "plausible."

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

More red herrings.

It is interesting who is saying that. Have you tried to forge and misinterpret a public claim in the Wiki, or not? ... and BTW, what are you holding in your hands when you are teaching 'basic science'?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Stil more red herrings. Got any evidence or any reasoning whatsoever to justify your claim and your claim that your claim is "plausible"? No? Then you've done absolutely zero to challenge the current standard models of cosmology and physics. Zip. All you've accomplished is exposing your basic ignorance of the scientific method and general tendency to grasp desperately at wild-ass fantasies and dreams.

4:0

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Then you've done absolutely zero to challenge the current standard models of cosmology and physics.

... and what does the Big Bang 'theory' have to do with the 'standard model of physics' - there is hardly any law of physics that the BBT is not violating.

1 Reply

@Herald,

How about asking your alien/ILF/god-not-god thingies to teleport that to the Nobel committee so that you can get your prize? Laughing

4:0

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Then you've done absolutely zero to challenge the current standard models of cosmology and physics. Zip.

     I am not challenging any physics, and I am not interested in your fake Cosmology. What I am challenging is that the dissemination of lies about the history of development by misinterpretations and misrepresentations of any kind is creating distortion to the present, and imposing risks to the future.
     No tree can adapt to the increasing acid rain, no plankton can adapt to the acidity of the ocean, there is no emerged yet super-species breathing sulphuric acid, having appeared as a result of mutation & natural selection ... in the place of the 400 extinct since 1990s mammals, and we are not going to adapt to the GMO with terminated germ and to the changes in the metabolism imposed by deviations in the CO2, and you have neither idea who has created the atmosphere and the biosphere of the Earth, nor why.
     The theory of FM that the cyanobacteria will fix everything cannot even tell whether they would survive in the present day biosphere or not ... and what will happen with the rest of it ... and also whether the atmosphere of the Earth has really been created in that way.
     I don't care about whether we have been created by God (whoever He may be), whether we are bio-robots of another ILF, whether we are simply the next ILF in the relay race of Life in the Universe, or whether we are the jackpot of the Big Bang 'theory' - what I am interested is why should I listen to infinity to some mumbo-jumbo that obviously is not true, and who is going to take the responsibility when the fan hits the ****. There are 12 MN scientists on that planet - why don't simply sit down & find the truth.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Exactly! Why should anyone listen to any mumb0-jumbo about teleporting alien/ILF/god-not-god thingies when there is a plentitude of genuine, verifiable, falsifiable evidene that doesn't point to such an ex recto hypothesis? Genuine, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that points towards a big-bang-like event? Collect data. Analyze it. It will point you to the standard models of physics and cosmology. It will not point you towards invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/g0ds-of-the-gaps bullshit that any wingnut can make up while drinking Jack Daniels and playing with his dream catcher.

4:0

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

No tree can adapt to the increasing acid rain, no plankton can adapt to the acidity of the ocean...

Derp. And yet, all the credible, non-imaginary evidence says that that's exactly what's been happening for a few billion years now. Back up your teleporting alien/ILF/god-but-maybe-science crap with equivalent evidence. Can you?

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Derp. And yet, all the credible, non-imaginary evidence says that that's exactly what's been happening for a few billion years now.

Forget about that few billion years. Tell us something about the recent years: 90% deforestation of US since 1600s; 24% deforestation on global scale in the last 3 years ... and 12% deforestation only in the last year. Where are your new species, where are your new mutations adapting to the environment changes - and why don't you simply look at the data ?

FBM wrote:

Back up your teleporting alien.

     First of all, the Alien is not mine (I thought that it was yours). Second, I am a simple analyst - I am not supposed to provide you any data ... that you might be missing for your fake theories. The movie about the Tomb of the Visitor is not forged ... which does not mean that the Visitor is 100% real evidence (for there exist some other ways to forge an evidence). Why don't you ask the former KGB officers, why they have cremated the body of the alien?
     If you want to prove that the movie is fake - prove it. If it is real - find a plausible explanation: How has an alien ended up as a pharaoh of Egypt? If you cannot prove anything - just shut up.
     ... and BTW speaking about imaginary evidence, what exactly is your evidence about the Infinite Temperature without a material carrier, the Infinite Gravity of the Singularity without a force carrier, and the design of the chemical elements out of Infinite Energy (notwithstanding the form). Excuse me, but if your theory is true, the 'Infinite Energy' of the atomic bomb should have created a Parallel Universe - where is Your Evidence, Mr. Genius?

1 Reply

@Herald,

I don't blame you for trying to scrape that pile of **** off your shoe and blaming it on someone else, but they're your words and your ideas. Your "personal." You outed your whacked-out way of fantasizing about reality, believing in maybe science, maybe god, maybe aliens, but none of them, maybe all together or just one of them "or s.th." Laughing

Do better. Show us evidence and coherent reasoning, not red herrings.

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I don't blame you for trying to scrape that pile of **** off your shoe and blaming it on someone else.

I don't have a pile of **** on any shoe - all the **** is on your shoe. Look in the mirror to see how deep in **** you are. Who is paying you to publish all that scrap on the net? This thread here is exactly about people like you - people with zero knowledge, two-digit IQ who have attached themselves somehow to the 'scientific system' of peer reviews and will destroy the planet some day with their lies and misrepresentations of whatever.
You are obviously making 'scientific' career by bio-hacking people on the net and I truly hope that someday someone will biohack you and torture you with your own shrink billshit to infinity.

1 Reply

@Herald,

The steaming pile of **** in question:

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....

How is this "plausible," Bubba? It's not even coherent or comprehensible.

4:0

0 Replies

Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know