The Devil’s Delusion

[PoliticalChic]

Really? What do you think the word "ignorant" means?

Oh? You're going to "prove" what "... an ignorant fellow [I am?]

This will prove to be rich.

I don't have to provide the evidence; you will.

Oh but there is. You provide it below.

Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.

Thanks for the evidence.

Despite the erroneous assertion that there's some "exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics", thank you for the validly logical conclusion as well.



You see PoliticalChic, despite your intellectually dishonest quote-mining, there's nothing about the Big Bang Theory that necessarily excludes the existence of this Creator, or Designer or God of yours, there's just nothing in it that requires one--and that's the problem that superstitious retards have with it.

Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs, and that's just retarded.

No. It just allows for such a suggestion to still be made by the superstitious, but the evidence does not suggest any such thing.

Except you fail to demonstrate ANY of my beliefs are faith.

These assertions are what makes you intellectually dishonest. You just project your intellectual paradigm, in which verifiable evidence and valid logic are irrelevant, on other people. That's retarded.

No. It's because my beliefs (where founded upon evidence and valid logic) aren't retarded, and trying to demonstrate they are will only serve to expose you for a retard.

You're joking, right?

This is the best you can do?
Might as well throw in the towel.

1. "Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic
a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
Thanks for the evidence. "

Possibly you really don't know the meaning of " discrepancy" or "considered a problem for the original model" or "revised calculations" or "various reevaluation proposals" or "inconsistencies between" or "more inconsistent with observations rather than less"
or "very different from observations" or "a shaky measuring rod."


And you see the above as proof of scientific models???
If I were a Liberal, I'd be calling you a liar...but I realize that the Left has that
term trademarked.


Here, let me explain it to you in a manner that one of your ability might understand: the translation from science-speak is "Ooops!"

2. I really like the direction this argument is taking.
Let me suggest to anyone interested in judging the science vs. theology questions, take a look at the currenct Harper's (The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)) in which M.I.T. physicist Alan Lightman, makes a fascinaing admission, and then poses science's answer....

a. Professor Lightman (atheist) explains that there are fundamental forces that seem to 'fine tune' our universe so as to allow life.
"according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life."

Guess where this idea is leading?

b. "...the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.” Ibid.

So, more scientists suggesting what this thread suggests, huh?

3. OKey-Loki....you're gonna like this part:
Know how guys like you, you know, those with a fear of admitting the possibility, answer this?

Mulitverse!
No longer a Universe with a consistent set of fundamental principles as revealed by physics!!!
a. "If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true." Ibid.

Now there must be an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of principles!!!


4. You buying this?
No single set of fundamental laws, such as science has expounded all along???
No???

You're busted, Lok!
Our univese is too perfect for life to have been a pure accident, and if there is no God, then there must be infinite varieties of univereses with different fundamental priciples...and that means that science was dead wrong all along!!!!


OK...since there is no proof of any other universe based on alternative fundamental principles of physics........what has just happened to your view that science is not based on faith or 'superstition'?

Shredded, huh?
Tough day for you, Lok?
You have that deep-seated fear of being labelled a 'retard'...
...luckily for you, I don't use that term.

Hey...take heart...it makes friend G.T. look just as dumb.

Shredded, hardly.

It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms to create the illusion that you have demonstrated ANY ERROR WHAT-SO-EVER in my response to you, speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

But fret not little turnip, your weakness of character and paucity of rational capacity are well understood. Somewhere deep in your consciousness--in the the consciousness of every Christian Creationist--is the unavoidable self awareness that you are a fundamentally superstitious retard; lacking any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to assert the objective validity of your beliefs, you seek only to assert that the beliefs of others are just as invalid as yours. Since valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence can only further validate the beliefs of your opponents, your only recourse is the application of lies, misrepresentation, misinformation, false witness, logical fallacy, and resolute denial of the objective reality where your convictions of certainty, no matter how strong, remain valueless and utterly meaningless.

1. I've usually found that losers spring to personal vituperations as they are 'light' in the argument portion of the thread...that would be you, Lowest.

2. To see what the left is doing, one must simply observe what they accuse their opponents of doing....
...i.e. 'dishonest'.

While I have used numerous accurate quotes and links, whose authenticity and veracity you cannot deny, you refer over and over, in parrot-like manner to 'quote-mining,' as thought that were an actual defense or deflection.

It is not.

If I may borrow your cackle, it is 'dishonest.' There is no such valid response. The actual complaint would be ‘quote-mining out of context.’
I have used same in context, in the way they were spoken.
Of course, you pretend the two are the same because without said obfuscation, your argument falls apart.

3. Therefore, I see no valid argument on your part, Lowest, that denies

a. Science and religion each have their own dominions.

b. Both science and religion, at their fundamental level, are based on faith rather than empirical data.

c. As verified by Professor Lightman, there are atheist physicists who realize that there positions are untenable if they do not hypothesize situations where the laws of physics do not apply.

I contend that this is tantamount to the kind of faith seen in theology.

d. There are many scientists who are people of faith. This, in itself, is proof of my argument.


If I may indulge in a bit of psychobabble, the mean-spirited, and hostile manner of your posts is due to the unhappyness of your life, and your attempts ot bring same to others.
My suspicion is that whatever has befallen you, is of your own causing.

No doubt losing the argument is one more of the scourges you have faced. Couldn't happen to a more deserving individual.

 

[LOki]

You're joking, right?

This is the best you can do?
Might as well throw in the towel.

1. "Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic
a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
Thanks for the evidence. "

Possibly you really don't know the meaning of " discrepancy" or "considered a problem for the original model" or "revised calculations" or "various reevaluation proposals" or "inconsistencies between" or "more inconsistent with observations rather than less"
or "very different from observations" or "a shaky measuring rod."


And you see the above as proof of scientific models???
If I were a Liberal, I'd be calling you a liar...but I realize that the Left has that
term trademarked.


Here, let me explain it to you in a manner that one of your ability might understand: the translation from science-speak is "Ooops!"

2. I really like the direction this argument is taking.
Let me suggest to anyone interested in judging the science vs. theology questions, take a look at the currenct Harper's (The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)) in which M.I.T. physicist Alan Lightman, makes a fascinaing admission, and then poses science's answer....

a. Professor Lightman (atheist) explains that there are fundamental forces that seem to 'fine tune' our universe so as to allow life.
"according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life."

Guess where this idea is leading?

b. "...the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.” Ibid.

So, more scientists suggesting what this thread suggests, huh?

3. OKey-Loki....you're gonna like this part:
Know how guys like you, you know, those with a fear of admitting the possibility, answer this?

Mulitverse!
No longer a Universe with a consistent set of fundamental principles as revealed by physics!!!
a. "If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true." Ibid.

Now there must be an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of principles!!!


4. You buying this?
No single set of fundamental laws, such as science has expounded all along???
No???

You're busted, Lok!
Our univese is too perfect for life to have been a pure accident, and if there is no God, then there must be infinite varieties of univereses with different fundamental priciples...and that means that science was dead wrong all along!!!!


OK...since there is no proof of any other universe based on alternative fundamental principles of physics........what has just happened to your view that science is not based on faith or 'superstition'?

Shredded, huh?
Tough day for you, Lok?
You have that deep-seated fear of being labelled a 'retard'...
...luckily for you, I don't use that term.

Hey...take heart...it makes friend G.T. look just as dumb.

Shredded, hardly.

It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms to create the illusion that you have demonstrated ANY ERROR WHAT-SO-EVER in my response to you, speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

But fret not little turnip, your weakness of character and paucity of rational capacity are well understood. Somewhere deep in your consciousness--in the the consciousness of every Christian Creationist--is the unavoidable self awareness that you are a fundamentally superstitious retard; lacking any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to assert the objective validity of your beliefs, you seek only to assert that the beliefs of others are just as invalid as yours. Since valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence can only further validate the beliefs of your opponents, your only recourse is the application of lies, misrepresentation, misinformation, false witness, logical fallacy, and resolute denial of the objective reality where your convictions of certainty, no matter how strong, remain valueless and utterly meaningless.

1. I've usually found that losers spring to personal vituperations as they are 'light' in the argument portion of the thread...that would be you, Lowest.

2. To see what the left is doing, one must simply observe what they accuse their opponents of doing....
...i.e. 'dishonest'.

While I have used numerous accurate quotes and links, whose authenticity and veracity you cannot deny, you refer over and over, in parrot-like manner to 'quote-mining,' as thought that were an actual defense or deflection.

It is not.

If I may borrow your cackle, it is 'dishonest.' There is no such valid response. The actual complaint would be ‘quote-mining out of context.’
I have used same in context, in the way they were spoken.
Of course, you pretend the two are the same because without said obfuscation, your argument falls apart.

3. Therefore, I see no valid argument on your part, Lowest, that denies

a. Science and religion each have their own dominions.

b. Both science and religion, at their fundamental level, are based on faith rather than empirical data.

c. As verified by Professor Lightman, there are atheist physicists who realize that there positions are untenable if they do not hypothesize situations where the laws of physics do not apply.

I contend that this is tantamount to the kind of faith seen in theology.

d. There are many scientists who are people of faith. This, in itself, is proof of my argument.


If I may indulge in a bit of psychobabble, the mean-spirited, and hostile manner of your posts is due to the unhappyness of your life, and your attempts ot bring same to others.
My suspicion is that whatever has befallen you, is of your own causing.

No doubt losing the argument is one more of the scourges you have faced. Couldn't happen to a more deserving individual.

Your resolute denial of reality is noted; consider your surrender acknowledged.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Shredded, hardly.

It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms to create the illusion that you have demonstrated ANY ERROR WHAT-SO-EVER in my response to you, speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

But fret not little turnip, your weakness of character and paucity of rational capacity are well understood. Somewhere deep in your consciousness--in the the consciousness of every Christian Creationist--is the unavoidable self awareness that you are a fundamentally superstitious retard; lacking any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to assert the objective validity of your beliefs, you seek only to assert that the beliefs of others are just as invalid as yours. Since valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence can only further validate the beliefs of your opponents, your only recourse is the application of lies, misrepresentation, misinformation, false witness, logical fallacy, and resolute denial of the objective reality where your convictions of certainty, no matter how strong, remain valueless and utterly meaningless.

1. I've usually found that losers spring to personal vituperations as they are 'light' in the argument portion of the thread...that would be you, Lowest.

2. To see what the left is doing, one must simply observe what they accuse their opponents of doing....
...i.e. 'dishonest'.

While I have used numerous accurate quotes and links, whose authenticity and veracity you cannot deny, you refer over and over, in parrot-like manner to 'quote-mining,' as thought that were an actual defense or deflection.

It is not.

If I may borrow your cackle, it is 'dishonest.' There is no such valid response. The actual complaint would be ‘quote-mining out of context.’
I have used same in context, in the way they were spoken.
Of course, you pretend the two are the same because without said obfuscation, your argument falls apart.

3. Therefore, I see no valid argument on your part, Lowest, that denies

a. Science and religion each have their own dominions.

b. Both science and religion, at their fundamental level, are based on faith rather than empirical data.

c. As verified by Professor Lightman, there are atheist physicists who realize that there positions are untenable if they do not hypothesize situations where the laws of physics do not apply.

I contend that this is tantamount to the kind of faith seen in theology.

d. There are many scientists who are people of faith. This, in itself, is proof of my argument.


If I may indulge in a bit of psychobabble, the mean-spirited, and hostile manner of your posts is due to the unhappyness of your life, and your attempts ot bring same to others.
My suspicion is that whatever has befallen you, is of your own causing.

No doubt losing the argument is one more of the scourges you have faced. Couldn't happen to a more deserving individual.

Your resolute denial of reality is noted; consider your surrender acknowledged.

Flaccid, Lowest.

You lose by definition...you're a loser.

 

[LOki]

Flaccid, Lowest.

You lose by definition...you're a loser.

Coming from someone whose intellectual dishonesty and stolid denial of reality is so well documented, how do you think those of us with integrity of intellectual honesty should take your "definition" and your consequent assertion?

Just thoroughly LOLsome.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Flaccid, Lowest.

You lose by definition...you're a loser.

Coming from someone whose intellectual dishonesty and stolid denial of reality is so well documented, how do you think those of us with integrity of intellectual honesty should take your "definition" and your consequent assertion?

Just thoroughly LOLsome.

This post blurs the line between insanity and stupidity…

Impervious to rational discussion…

 

[LOki]

Flaccid, Lowest.

You lose by definition...you're a loser.

Coming from someone whose intellectual dishonesty and stolid denial of reality is so well documented, how do you think those of us with integrity of intellectual honesty should take your "definition" and your consequent assertion?

Just thoroughly LOLsome.

This post blurs the line between insanity and stupidity…

Impervious to rational discussion…

And PoliticalChic exhibits another hallmark of intellectually dishonest retards--pathological projection.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coming from someone whose intellectual dishonesty and stolid denial of reality is so well documented, how do you think those of us with integrity of intellectual honesty should take your "definition" and your consequent assertion?

Just thoroughly LOLsome.

This post blurs the line between insanity and stupidity…

Impervious to rational discussion…

And PoliticalChic exhibits another hallmark of intellectually dishonest retards--pathological projection.

I see no valid argument on your part, Lowest, that denies

a. Science and religion each have their own dominions.

b. Both science and religion, at their fundamental level, are based on faith rather than empirical data.

c. As verified by Professor Lightman, there are atheist physicists who realize that there positions are untenable if they do not hypothesize situations where the laws of physics do not apply.

I contend that this is tantamount to the kind of faith seen in theology.

d. There are many scientists who are people of faith. This, in itself, is proof of my argument.

Upset, Lowest?

If you need a shoulder to cry on, pull off to the side of the road

 

[LOki]

I see no valid argument on your part, Lowest, that denies

a. Science and religion each have their own dominions.

Well retard, that's probably because I made no argument that denies the separate dominions of science and religion.

Maybe if you weren't so absolutely sure that your preconceived and baseless notions of my position were what my actual position is, you'd have some traction, at least, in intellectual honesty.

b. Both science and religion, at their fundamental level, are based on faith rather than empirical data.

Valid logic counts too, and religion has neither.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that science has no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. The laughable part is, that you deny that science is based upon evidence, while providing documentation of scientists disagreeing on what specifically the evidence suggests about a subject.

You're just a total failure at reality.

c. As verified by Professor Lightman, there are atheist physicists who realize that there positions are untenable if they do not hypothesize situations where the laws of physics do not apply.

I contend that this is tantamount to the kind of faith seen in theology.

Normally I would suggest that you're just unacquainted with the weak anthropic principle; given your consistently mendacious track record (including your dumbass assertions regarding the realizations of atheist physicists), I am relatively certain you're just refusing to acknowledge it as you disingenuously bring Professor Lightman as a witness to the validity of your point.

d. There are many scientists who are people of faith.

So what? If they are applying faith as a source for their conclusions, then they are not practicing science.

It's just that simple.

This, in itself, is proof of my argument.

It certainly does not.

Upset, Lowest?

Nope. Just amused and gratified by exposing you again for the intellectually dishonest retard that you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see no valid argument on your part, Lowest, that denies

a. Science and religion each have their own dominions.

Well retard, that's probably because I made no argument that denies the separate dominions of science and religion.

Maybe if you weren't so absolutely sure that your preconceived and baseless notions of my position were what my actual position is, you'd have some traction, at least, in intellectual honesty.

b. Both science and religion, at their fundamental level, are based on faith rather than empirical data.

Valid logic counts too, and religion has neither.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that science has no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. The laughable part is, that you deny that science is based upon evidence, while providing documentation of scientists disagreeing on what specifically the evidence suggests about a subject.

You're just a total failure at reality.

Normally I would suggest that you're just unacquainted with the weak anthropic principle; given your consistently mendacious track record (including your dumbass assertions regarding the realizations of atheist physicists), I am relatively certain you're just refusing to acknowledge it as you disingenuously bring Professor Lightman as a witness to the validity of your point.

So what? If they are applying faith as a source for their conclusions, then they are not practicing science.

It's just that simple.

This, in itself, is proof of my argument.

It certainly does not.

Upset, Lowest?

Nope. Just amused and gratified by exposing you again for the intellectually dishonest retard that you are.

I don't belive that there is a cure for your Voluntary Tourette’s…
.Your post was overstated, unjust, slanderous, weak, lazy, irresponsible, poorly informed, and misleading. Other than that, I liked it.

 

[Disenchanted61]

Science performs the same duty as Religion, strokes the ego!!

 

[koshergrl]

*snicker*

Loki calling anyone a retard is always fodder for amusement.

But calling PC of ALL people "retarded" does nothing more than draw attention to his own mental deficiencies.

 

[G.T.]

Science got you the computer you're posting on fools, Religion did not.

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you for that completely irrelevant remark.

Besides which, those of faith would argue that all things issue from God and at his behest.

 

[LOki]

i see no valid argument on your part, lowest, that denies

a. Science and religion each have their own dominions.

well retard, that's probably because i made no argument that denies the separate dominions of science and religion.

Maybe if you weren't so absolutely sure that your preconceived and baseless notions of my position were what my actual position is, you'd have some traction, at least, in intellectual honesty.

Valid logic counts too, and religion has neither.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that science has no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. The laughable part is, that you deny that science is based upon evidence, while providing documentation of scientists disagreeing on what specifically the evidence suggests about a subject.

You're just a total failure at reality.

Normally i would suggest that you're just unacquainted with the weak anthropic principle; given your consistently mendacious track record (including your dumbass assertions regarding the realizations of atheist physicists), i am relatively certain you're just refusing to acknowledge it as you disingenuously bring professor lightman as a witness to the validity of your point.

So what? If they are applying faith as a source for their conclusions, then they are not practicing science.

It's just that simple.

It certainly does not.

upset, lowest?

nope. Just amused and gratified by exposing you again for the intellectually dishonest retard that you are.

i don't belive that there is a cure for your voluntary tourette’s…
.your post was overstated, unjust, slanderous, weak, lazy, irresponsible, poorly informed, and misleading. Other than that, i liked it.

translation:

i am grateful for loki's stoic persistence in exposing me; i can no longer deny the obvious validity of his assertions regarding my intellectual and moral inferiority.

 

[PoliticalChic]

well retard, that's probably because i made no argument that denies the separate dominions of science and religion.

Maybe if you weren't so absolutely sure that your preconceived and baseless notions of my position were what my actual position is, you'd have some traction, at least, in intellectual honesty.

Valid logic counts too, and religion has neither.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that science has no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. The laughable part is, that you deny that science is based upon evidence, while providing documentation of scientists disagreeing on what specifically the evidence suggests about a subject.

You're just a total failure at reality.

Normally i would suggest that you're just unacquainted with the weak anthropic principle; given your consistently mendacious track record (including your dumbass assertions regarding the realizations of atheist physicists), i am relatively certain you're just refusing to acknowledge it as you disingenuously bring professor lightman as a witness to the validity of your point.

So what? If they are applying faith as a source for their conclusions, then they are not practicing science.

It's just that simple.

It certainly does not.

nope. Just amused and gratified by exposing you again for the intellectually dishonest retard that you are.

i don't belive that there is a cure for your voluntary tourette’s…
.your post was overstated, unjust, slanderous, weak, lazy, irresponsible, poorly informed, and misleading. Other than that, i liked it.

translation:

i am grateful for loki's stoic persistence in exposing me; i can no longer deny the obvious validity of his assertions regarding my intellectual and moral inferiority.

I don't take your 'anger' seriously....it has become comedy gold. The more I offer
dispositive posts, the more angry you get...and the more I chuckle.


But don't give up, Lowest... Moses was once a basket case.
At some point, you'll have to buy a ticket on the clue train.

 

[G.T.]

Thank you for that completely irrelevant remark.

Besides which, those of faith would argue that all things issue from God and at his behest.

It's relevant to the point p.c. made: "Both science and religion, at their fundamental level, are based on faith rather than empirical data."


Computers weren't brought to you by faith, they were brought to you by recreatable scientific experimentation, i.e. the antithesis of faith. Thanks for playing.

 

[LOki]

i don't belive that there is a cure for your voluntary tourette’s…
.your post was overstated, unjust, slanderous, weak, lazy, irresponsible, poorly informed, and misleading. Other than that, i liked it.

translation:

i am grateful for loki's stoic persistence in exposing me; i can no longer deny the obvious validity of his assertions regarding my intellectual and moral inferiority.

I don't take your 'anger' seriously....it has become comedy gold.

Comedy gold is this delusion of yours that I'm angry.

The more I offer dispositive posts, the more angry you get...and the more I chuckle.

Your "dispositive posts" ... now that's funny!

But don't give up, Lowest... Moses was once a basket case.
At some point, you'll have to buy a ticket on the clue train.

Cupcake, you should take a moment away from the unappetizing contemplation of your nostrils and licking windows to take note that you're not on any train at all, but rather the shortest possible of short buses.

 

[koshergrl]

Loki have you noticed you are all by your lonesome in repeatedly calling PC a big dummy?

Could it be because on the board she is universally considered anything but?

And have you considered the implications it must necessarily have upon our perception of your intellect?

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you for that completely irrelevant remark.

Besides which, those of faith would argue that all things issue from God and at his behest.

It's relevant to the point p.c. made: "Both science and religion, at their fundamental level, are based on faith rather than empirical data."


Computers weren't brought to you by faith, they were brought to you by recreatable scientific experimentation, i.e. the antithesis of faith. Thanks for playing.

In your world, maybe. Constructed entirely of your imagination.

In the real world, the faithful are quite involved in science, and have been instrumental in illuminating the world in wonderful ways...via science...and guided by God.

The Human Genome project, for example. And the construction of the world's greatest supercomputer, and a variety of other very interesting things that you have probably never even given any thought to, given the narrow scope of your mind and your adamant refusal to let go of your ignorant assumptions and reprehensible understanding of science.

 

[G.T.]

Thank you for that completely irrelevant remark.

Besides which, those of faith would argue that all things issue from God and at his behest.

It's relevant to the point p.c. made: "Both science and religion, at their fundamental level, are based on faith rather than empirical data."


Computers weren't brought to you by faith, they were brought to you by recreatable scientific experimentation, i.e. the antithesis of faith. Thanks for playing.

In your world, maybe. Constructed entirely of your imagination.

In the real world, the faithful are quite involved in science, and have been instrumental in illuminating the world in wonderful ways...via science...and guided by God.

The Human Genome project, for example. And the construction of the world's greatest supercomputer, and a variety of other very interesting things that you have probably never even given any thought to, given the narrow scope of your mind and your adamant refusal to let go of your ignorant assumptions and reprehensible understanding of science.

Here's a classic example of your lacking of reading comprehension.

My statement doesn't mean that the faithful ARENT involved in science.

All it means - is that "science" at its fundamental level is not "based on faith rather than empirical data."

Yes, really, that's all that it means. And you took that to mean that The faithful can't like/use science, or vice versa? Learn comprehension, especially if you're going to spend all thread mocking how stupid you think that people are.