Posted: Jan 24, 2015 1:23 am
by Calilasseia
carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
carl wrote:
BTW, will those studies actually claiming to confirm the origin of the universe (as if !) contain the words: "possibly", "maybe", "we propose", "it seems likely", "could", "should", "might", "in all likelihood", "theorize", etc.. ?

I doubt if any study will authoritatively claim to confirm the origins of the universe. We leave the delusions of 100% certainty to religion.

We need to discern what is speculative and what is confirmative.

We can and we do. It's called science. You should learn about it.

We ought never to confuse true science with speculation. For example, to put modern medicine alongside the theory of abiogenesis is very deceiving. It is a deceitful practice of many skeptics and atheists on the internet.

Bullshit. Oh wait, the researchers in the field have already determined, that many of the chemical reactions postulated to be responsible for the origin of life work, and produce the anticipated results. How many of the 261 papers in the field in my collection shall I bring here, in order to demonstrate that your above assertion is a bare faced lie?

carl wrote:This is what happens when we are overly impresses with those who have PhDs in some field of pseudoscience (not science) when they discuss their theory of abiogenesis, theory of evolution, theory of cosmology, theory of......

Bullshit and lies. Oh wait, the science you're dismissing here with your manifestly false and defamatory comments, enjoys a level of empirical support that your mythology has never remotely come close to. Indeed, in the case of evolution, I can bring any of three thousand, three hundred and thirty eight peer reviewed papers in my collection to the table, many of them documenting direct empirical test and verification of evolutionary hypotheses. So before launching into an embarrassing display of ignorance, you might want to check some facts. The only "psuedoscience" we see around here, consists of creationists playing apologetics with science.

Plus, I notice with interest that it's always when observing creationist propaganda outlets, that appeals to credentials loom large. Funny how real scientists don't need to do this, they simply point to the data.

carl wrote:Unfortunately, what we don't understand is that immense topics such as the origin of the universe or the origin of life are out of our reach to scientifically confirm

Bullshit. How many of those papers shall I bring here again? Oh, you might want to factor into your choice of decision, that those papers in my collection constitute less than one percent of the total extant in the field.

carl wrote:leaving us with speculation about that which occurred in ancient history.

Bullshit. Studied any of the requisite disciplines to any reasonable level have you Carl? Or are you merely regurgitating the sad apologetic bullshit you found on creationist websites, because it tickles your ideological erogenous zones?

carl wrote:There is no way to apply the scientific method - or any other scientific method - to confirm such theories

Lie. How many of the papers shall I drop on you from a great height in order to establish this?

carl wrote:leaving us with the dubious position of placing our faith in those whom we listen to, with their grand theories and presuppositions.

Lie. We leave faith and presuppositions to supernaturalists.

carl wrote:This is why Jesus said:


After launching into a duplicitous tirade, defaming valid, empirically verified science, you turn to fucking mythology?

Your apologetics are a joke.

carl wrote:"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Oh wait, to how many decimal places is your mythology in accord with the data again? Oh wait, it isn't in accord therewith. The data carpet bombs the assertions of your worthless mythology back to the primaeval slime.

carl wrote:The level of our education has nothing to do with the condition of our heart. We can have ten PhDs but if we're bent away from God, we're on the road to destruction, as well as those who foolishly listen to them.


carl wrote:NO faulty HUMAN BEING will ever be able to tell us, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or origin of life, through ANY technology.

We've seen assertions of this sort being peddled by supernaturalists before. Such as the assertion that no one would ever unlock the underlying mechanisms behind biodiversity. Oh but wait, that assertion died a death 150 years ago.

carl wrote:If they try to tell us so, they are not a braniac but a megalomaniac. It should never cease to amaze us how much stretching of the truth, exaggeration, and extravagance of the claims we see in the media today.

Not by any actual scientist I know of. Hmm, seems like this cartoon is apposite:

How Science Reporting Works.jpg

How Science Reporting Works.jpg (509.65 KiB) Viewed 4320 times

carl wrote:Every pseudoscientist wants to be in the limelight, and there are throngs of armchair science-fiction fans out there to satisfy their ridiculous egos.

Funny how the actual psueodscientists are usually the ones complaining that the scientific community won't accept their crackpot assertions. Rupert Sheldrake, anyone?

carl wrote:Megalomania:
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

Oh you mean the way supernaturalists are obsessed with fantasies of power and omnipotence? Not to mention rampant greed? Such as for example, Benny Hinn, the aptly named Creflo Dollar, the late Jerry Falwell, and all the other "prosperity gospel" brigade? Funny how it was a televangelist who persuaded millions of suckers to pony up for $36 million worth of private jet, not a scientist. Benny Hinn persuaded his gullible rubes to pony up for one of these:


Most scientists I know are running ten year old second hand cars, not private jets, with the exception of those fortunate few who have picked up their Nobel Prizes.

Keep peddling those lies, Carl, all you're doing is making your mythology even more repugnant to us than it already is by peddling them.

carl wrote:Habakkuk 2
See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright--but the righteous will live by his faith.

Oh you mean like Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar, etc?

carl wrote:Psalm 10: The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God...

Oh, you mean the "wicked", such as all those child raping Catholic priests?

carl wrote:1 Timothy
Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called...

You made this one up. 1 Timothy 4:7 actually says " But refuse profane and old wives' fables ..."

Tell me, if you have to peddle falsehoods about what your own mythology says, why should any of us bother with it?

carl wrote:"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—W. Kaempffert.

If you're referring to Waldemar Kaempffert, he died in 1956. We've learned much since then. How many of those papers shall I bring here to demonstrate that your apologetics are all lies and bullshit? Are you even going to be man enough to accept the challenge?