Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Scientists publish their claims and their evidence for others to review.

So your special theory of the things is that if something is published in a hedge scientific journal, somehow it becomes truth of the last resort - how does that happen?

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Unlike you and the other pseudosciene wingnuts, who make claims, then refuse to show any evidence.

If you have in mind your broken record with the aliens - actually I am not quite sure whether it is still mine. You are so fond of it, you have quoted it billions of billions of times with any interpretations ... and mistinterpretations that I am wondering whether it is still mine and not actually yours.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Yes, I understand how fragile your grasp of reality is, so let me help you out with that:

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....

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

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Yes, I understand how fragile your grasp of reality is ...

No, you don't understand anything - you simply cannot stop misusing with the misinterpretation of a single quote ... taken out of the context.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I can understand why you're embarrassed about having written it. It's pretty loony. But it's in the context that you set for it, you wrote it, and you own it. Get used to it, Pedro. Everybody can see your loony tunes ideas.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I can understand why you're embarrassed about having written it. It's pretty loony. But it's in the context that you set for it, you wrote it, and you own it. Get used to it, Pedro. Everybody can see your loony tunes ideas.

Wretch. What you are trying to do is called 'zero knowledge proof of ignorance' - by your zero knowledge in math logic and physics you are agonizing to prove that I have zero knowledge in math and physics ... and your greatest tragedy is that you are totally ignorant in cryptanalysis as well ... to implement such an approach.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I'm only proving that you have no evidence to support your loony-tunes 40/35/25% this-that-and-the-other, invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/g0d-not-god, self-contradictory nonsense. Of course, I'm ready to look at anything you present as evidence, if you ever do. I'm not holding my breath, though. Laughing

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I'm only proving that you have no evidence to support your loony-tunes 40/35/25% this-that-and-the-other, invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/g0d-not-god, self-contradictory nonsense.

Wretch. You don't understand what the statement is, but request evidence, for the statement (that you have conviniently onitted for the purposes of straw-manning) is that the assumptions of the Bingie Bangie 'theory' are unknowable at the present stage of technological development. How exactly do you imagine the evidence for the unknowable?

1 Reply

@Herald,

I don't see any reference to the Big Bang Theory here:

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....

And I sure as hell haven't seen any "evidences" to support your whacked-out hypothesis. Care to correct that? Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I don't see any reference to the Big Bang Theory here

So much worse to you.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Still no evidence? So much the worse for your cosmology. Show me the evidence, Pedro. Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Still no evidence?

I don't have any cosmology, but I don't like to be bullshitted to infinity by things that are obviously inconsistent.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Still no evidence?
I don't have any cosmology, but I don't like to be bullshitted to infinity by things that are obviously inconsistent.

*COUGH*

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:

*COUGH*

These things are not inconsistent. They are either ID, or stochastics on auto-pilot, or evolution driven by something else, or all of them invalid (in case the Universe has always existed). It is OR here, and the percentage is the probability of the various options to be the case (of the assumptions). Before couching perhaps some people should have checked how the fuzzy logic works.
... and 'coughing' is not the theme of this thread. You may cough as much as you like on the other thread. On this thread you are supposed to explain how do people considering themselves serious may claim that Infinite Temperature can exist out of Time and without a Material Carrier.

1 Reply

@Herald,

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....

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
*COUGH*
These things are not inconsistent. ...

Seriously. It's self-contradictory bullshit. "God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th"

45% either God or a meta-intelligent string theory? String theory isn't even an entity, wingnut. How could it be a creator? It's a hypothetical mathematical model. I can't think of any better example of a meaningless, inconsistent claim. "or s.th"? Like, just add whatever pops into your imagination here? You call this consistent?

30% some unnamed 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)"

Translation: or something I just made up that contradicts the 45% something that I also made up. Consistent, my left butt cheek.

"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...."

Let me just quote you and reply: Whatever this might mean. Rolling Eyes

What you need is a consistent, non-self-contradictory hypothesis and evidence that makes it plausible. You don't have either, Pedro. You've got a dream that you pulled out of la-la land, probably when you forgot to take your meds.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Seriously. It's self-contradictory bullshit. "God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th"

Obviously you don't know what does OR mean.
As you cannot explain our own Intelligence, from where comes your arrogance to give assessments of the last resort on some meta-Intelligence (if exists) ... without even taking the effort to get knowing what it might be? What about the Order in the Universe? Even Einstein has believed that the Order of the Universe is created by God (some form of Intelligence)? Can you explain how exactly the stochastics of the Big Bang 'theory' guessed to create the elementary particles (out of whatever), and started arranging them into beautiful chemical elements with the time ... in a periodic table?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Seriously. It's self-contradictory bullshit. "God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th"
Obviously you don't know what does OR mean.
...

Let's have a look at what "OR mean." My personal are the universe was created by Jimi Hendrix, who time travelled to the distant past to ejaculate the universe from his massive dong, "or" perhaps it was Captain Kangaroo OR s.th. Or perhaps 25% Brahma or the multiverse theory (whatever that means), melded with Lego substrata and emitted by pulsars.

See? Making up random, nonsensical **** without evidence is easy. It's what fiction writers like L. Ron Hubbard, you ideological mentor, specialize in. Fantasy.

When you write "or" and then something completely unrelated and contradictory, you're just saying anybody's imagination is as good as anybody else's. Which is true, since imagination doesn't require evidence. Thing is, we have all these scientists who have been accumulating evidence for centuries, and that accumulated evidence - and the logic that made it possible - says you're pulling random crap out of your brain and claiming it's as "plausible" and "consistent" as everything all the scientists have, despite having absolutely ZERO evidence to support it. Wingnut City wants its founding citizen back. Go home.

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

See? Making up random, nonsensical **** without evidence is easy.

Where is your evidence that the Universe has been created ... and has not always existed for example?
Math logic for super-beginners:

Quote:

Negation of "A OR B".
Before giving the answer, let's try to do this for an example.
Consider the statement "You are either rich or happy." For this statement to be false, you can't be rich and you can't been happy. In other words, the opposite is to be not rich and not happy. Or if we rewrite it in terms of the original statement we get "You are not rich AND not happy."
If we let A be the statement "You are rich" and B be the statement "You are happy", then the negation of "A OR B" becomes "Not A AND Not B."
In general, we have the same statement: The negation of "A OR B" is the statement "Not A AND Not B."

BTW you are hopeless case of self-conceit bias.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
See? Making up random, nonsensical **** without evidence is easy.
Where is your evidence that the Universe has been created ... and has not always existed for example?
...

If I were making any such claim, which I'm not, the burden of evidence would indeed be on me. However, since I'm not making that claim, it's not. You've been told repeatedly that my only claim is that you haven't provided the first shred of evidence for your hypothesis. You're making the claim for the 45/30/25% teleporting alien/ILF/god-not-god thingy, so you bear the burden of evidence.

And you obviously have nothing, so:

4:0

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/images_1.jpg

0 Replies

Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know