Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

It's your hypothesis, it's your burden to provide the evidence. Your fallacies have been pointed out over and over and over and over again. Read the thread. Where's your evidence for you alien/god/science self-contradictory hybrid?

     This thread here is not about that - it is about how did it happen so that people making stochastic references to some mind-blowing fake oval diagrams all of a sudden and out of nowhere have become the greatest scientists by all odds and for any age?

The title of the thread is a slur on science. I'm saying that science is based on evidence, as are its claims. Compared to your claims an alternative description of the universe - one with teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingies - the genuine science is comparatively robust. The main reason for that is that you have not yet presented your evidence for your hypothesis.

If science denial of the variety you represent were legitimate, then we could make up any old story and claim it's true with no need for evidential support. Win support with, say, charisma or by spreading fear or preying upon people's desires for immortality, etc.

There is a legitimate reason for demanding evidence, which is exactly what science does, and your fantasy-based denialism doesn't.

     Can you list all types of evidence that you know ... and accept as evidence? What is the evidence for your Quackery Bollocks and Pseudoscientific Bollocks in your favourite oval diagram? People using Pseudoscientific Bollocks instead of pseudoscience are absolute retards because they know the semantics of bollocks and have a vague idea of the semantics of pseuodscieince and use it in combination with bollocks just in case. Taking in mind that this is your favorite diagram and an oval roadmap in life your state of mind is not too much away from that.
     BTW you don't understand five nines of the Big Bang 'theory' as well, not to tell that you cannot tell what does five nines mean. For what for example might be evidence the red shift in the light spectrum - can you enumerate in a list all the plausible suggestions.

Irrelevant and fallacious attempt at yet another red herring and argumentum ad ignorantiam. I'm not claiming to know whether or not anybody's ulitmately right. I'm just pointing out that they share their evidence far and wide, critique each other, repeat each others' experiments, etc, while you do nothing but dodge, duck, weave, evade, obfuscate and spray word salads in response to a simple request for a mere scrap of evidence for your invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingy. Big difference, in terms of intellectual honesty. BIG.

     It is not true. You are claiming to know that the status quo is always right. Well, this may be convenient to some extend, but it has never been an idea of first brightness. Besides that what you know and what you think that you know are very different things. How did you come to know for example that the Universe is expanding ... with acceleration, and what does 'expanding with acceleration' actually mean? The A-bomb is expanding with deceleration, the volcano is erupting with deceleration - how did you come to know that the Big Bang is expanding with acceleration ... and from where it is taking all that energy from? If there is something outside the Big Bang driving the process, what exactly has the Big Bang created in that case ... when the Outside Hyperspace has always existed?

Here's the thing. I get to decide what I'm claiming and so do you and everyone else. You don't get to decide what I'm claiming, and I don't get to decide what you or anyone else is claiming.

You claimed invisible aliens/ILFs/god-thingies are teleporting the designs for the earth from billions of years in the past. Want me to repost it again?

I'm claiming that the logic in your claim is inherently flawed and that you have no supporting evidence for it.

So far, I'm right. You can change the state of affairs by retracting or revising your claim and/or by showing us some genuine evidence for these alien/ILF/god-thingies.

     I am not 'deciding' what you are claiming - I am observing it. It is called evidence - it is evident that you don't understand five nines of what the Big Bang 'theory' is claiming, and you believe 100% in it just because it has been 'peer-reviewed' by the status quo. This is the most dangerous scenario of 'knowledge acquisition' - when you blindly believe to some certificates and credentials without being able to verify personally what the claim actually is.
     1. I am neither claiming that nor exactly that as you are trying to present it like a straw man - this is a hypothesis for the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' (that you have zero knowledge of). It is a plausible suggestion, only that and nothing else.
     2. Second there are 400 species of Vertebrata that have become extinct since 1900s, and your peer reviewed biddies have zero knowledge of what Biology actually is - for otherwise they would have been able to revive those species back to life. We are not talking about the impact of that on the Bioshpere yet ... and how far this may go.
     3. You don't have the slightest idea of how the Intelligence (at least ours) has come into existence in the physical world ... and as a 'natural continuation of the operation' of the Big Bang 'theory'.
     4. With or without your favourite theory of the Aliens, the Apocalypse and the End Days 'predicted' in the Bible are a fact - the World is going to Hell as described there, and exactly as a result of infinite greed, stupidity, arrogance, ignorance, and lies. What if that is not a prediction - what if it is a forecast?

Where have you "observed" me claiming anything regarding the Science vs Herald thing other than the fact that your alien/ILF/god-thingy hypothesis sucks balls? Let's see your evidence. Can you produce this time?



How is it plausible if you don't have any evidence for it? By your standards, anybody can make up any science fiction and as long as there's no evidence required, it's "plausible." Check your dictionary. Also, look for "red herring," "strawman argument," "fallacious appeal to ignorance" and "FBM refuses to be sidetracked."

You have accomplished nothing whatsoever towards defending your alien/ILF/god-thingy hypothesis. Certainly you have produced nothing remotely resembling evidence. *cough*

     You are talking all the time on behalf of science ... and cannot explain elementary pseudo-scientific concepts, like for example the existence of Infinite Temperature without a heat carrier.
     It is happening all the time. The Infinite Gravitation without force carrier; the Infinite Temperature without heat carrier; the appearance 'all of a sudden and out of Nowhere ... and out of Nothing' to name just a few.
     You cannot be 'sidetracked', for you are driving on the side track all the time.
     The theme of this thread is not about your favourite theme of the Aliens. Read it very slowly and very carefully: Why people, who don't understand five nines of a fake theory, have such great confidence and self-esteem ... on the grounds of zero knowledge proof of knowledge?

Practice reading comprehension. When I'm saying that the scientists have abundant and robust evidence compared to your 35%/25%/40% gibberish, it's just a comparison of the relative strengths of claims. Yours has no strength whatsoever, because you have yet to provide a single scrap of evidence to support it. When are you going to change that?

     Unfortunately this thread here is not about your bad habits of discussing and denying your own favourite straw-men of the Aliens.
     The question here is: how did it happen so that people, who cannot distinguish science from pseudo-science, stochastic process from deterministic process, and justified statement from totally unjustified statement ... and also making theory as inference of facts & phenomena from matching patches to a 'theory' pronounced a priori as truth of the last resort could be so self-interested, self-conceited, and self-assured ... and on the grounds of what?

True, this thread is actually about you claiming to know more than all the scientists through all the centuries put together, yet failing miserably to supply the smallest scrap of evidence for that claim. A smokescreen of logical fallacies does not constitute evidence of anything other than your deeply lacking critical thinking skills. If you've got an alternative hypothesis to the scientific one, such as the earth design-teleporting 35%/25%/40% gibberish, cough it up, Prof. Nobel.

Exactly how is this:



better than everything every scientist has ever produced all put together?

... this quote is not from this thread and is not said in connection with the scientism - why is it here?

This is your challenge to science. It's relevant. As relevant as it is ridiculous.

     No, this is not my challenge to science. This is your misrepresentation of 'my challenge' because you feel very comfortable with it and because you can misuse with the fact that most of the people dealing with aliens (on other occasions) are sent to an institution. You are not looking for any truth - you are always looking for the status quo and how to sit in the most comfortable armchair there.
     My challenge to science is that some theories 'are made' by attaching patches to pronounced a priori truth of the last resort and that a theory should not be made in that way. You have the red shift as a fact, only this and nothing else. You make all the plausible hypothesis to it and start discussing them one-by-one. You cannot exclude any hypothesis without considering it.
     The same is with the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory'. Either you match all the pieces of the puzzle to the last one or you pronounce it as highly suspicious and fake. There is no such thing as partially completed puzzle - either you have all the pieces of the puzzle matched in place or you have nothing. You cannot just so assume without any evidence and just because it suits you that the Universe has been Created, for there are a lot of other hypotheses to that as well, the least one of them being that the Universe might have always existed.

Science has what it has. What do you have to support your self-contradictory, teleporting alien/ILF/god-science-hybrid-thingies? Until you produce something other than logical fallacies, it's perfectly reasonable to call BS on it when comparing it to what the scientists have.

     ... and what is it, if it is not some secret? BTW you are not the Science. Nobody has ever empowered you to talk on behalf of any science, and to present your personal misunderstanding of the things as the consensual scientific position on an issue. You could not even be a vague approximation of a science ... an ugly caricature - maybe, but only that and nothing else.

There are no secrets in science for long. Scientists publish their claims and their evidence for others to review. Unlike you and the other pseudosciene wingnuts, who make claims, then refuse to show any evidence.

Where's your evidence for your alien/ILF/god-science-hybrid claim, Herald?