Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wonderful new discovery part of my theory of everything! Headsplodation offered again!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:02 AM
Original message
Wonderful new discovery part of my theory of everything! Headsplodation offered again!
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 09:36 AM by originalpckelly
"OMG! Where's the alert button?"

Why is it when you see that you assume:
1. I'm sanity challenged
2. A crank/ignorant
3. High on some pretty good shit
4. Or some combination of the above

But when the physicists literally working on the same thing, based upon observing a single planet in depth, a moon through telescopes/robots/a few guys, other planets/bodies through robots/telescopes and everything else through telescopes say the same thing, you don't think they are total morons/insane/high?

It's obvious that no one would publish a thing on DU even if they had found something, I hate to inform you, it's not the pinnacle of peer review.

It's also plainly obvious to me, that if a theory is only as good as its weakest evidence, then their evidence for such a theory would be pretty fucking weak. Yes, that's right, I really don't think it's possible to find a "theory of everything" after observing only a single planet in depth. Oh and by the way, we're still figuring shit out about Earth, if we don't have Earth down pat, how the fuck can we know about everything? Knowing error, as I understand it, is a vital part of science. If that's true, then they should have a pretty fucking big margin of error (the vast majority of the universe), wouldn't you agree?

I submit to you that these "scientists" are doing nothing more than holding math laced bull sessions or looking for God through science. If you want to be a man of God, join a church and become a priest, not a scientist. Even if there is a God, there is absolutely no evidence for God, it is the pinnacle of unfalsifiable claims.

I pick on scientists, because although many still have inherent credibility, scientists get kicked around more than Dick Nixon, even when they're not full of crap. (Where my chemists at or my real physicists? Stand up and be counted, you guys fucking rock!) Any other topic would have been sent to the dungeon(s)/locked.

I have studied the idea of inherent credibility the last few years, mainly through the perspective of politics. I have come to the conclusion it's a bunch of bullshit to think someone won't lie to you, simply because they speak from a position of authority. My evidence for these claims?

THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD, FUCKHEAD!

What are you people a bunch of morons? You all must have been the kids who believed that Johnny really did have a magic unicorn as a pet in school. I hate to break it to you, but Johnny was:
1. Sanity challenged
2. A crank/ignorant
3. High on some pretty good shit
4. Or some combination of the above

Just about every part of our lives is touched by the evil of inherent credibility:
1. Economists/business types (aka rich bullshitters): Show me a controlled experiment where people behave like they do in the real world, the economy is the ultimate uncontrolled experiment, and in that case, all economists are doing is studying history. I will not let a person in authority tell me how to interpret history, no one should. Making a lot of money is the ultimate position of authority, and it would seem, the ultimate reason to bullshit someone.
2. Politicians ("elected" bullshitters): Yes, I hate to break it to you, they're all a bunch of fucking lying douchebags.
3. Religulous types ("holy" crappers): Today there will be some teen boys who find out that their going to hell for spanking the monkey, or rather their own monkeys, the priests can spank theirs or have the alter boys do it for them, then it's all good. <---Don't you DARE talk about the reality that some of these men of God got in trouble for diddling kids. This is SUNDAY, after all, if God could give it a rest today, why not you? :spank:

A guy can be gay his whole life, and take better care of the kids than the priests do, but he's going to hell, while the kididdling priest will be going to heaven because he asked for forgiveness. Or lets make this really more absurd, a gay humanitarian v. ax murderer. Ax murderer is going to heaven, because he found God at the last minute while the gay dude is going to hell after a life of good work. (Death sentences tend to do that, maybe we should give everyone a death sentence first, then they should work their way up. It's not like it would take less than a lifetime to run through the appeals. It's a life sentence with the possibility of parole to the great unknown.)

Not all religions are intolerant, and the ones who are tolerant can exempt themselves. You may still be full of crap, but if you don't hurt anyone, then it's none of my business what's going on in your head. If you are a model citizen because the Great Pumpkin tells you to do it, I won't argue against that. Just don't lecture me on the Great Pumpkin? OK? :P

Inherent credibility = believing what someone says without evidence based upon the credibility they have either earned through studying the subjects long and hard or from their position of authority (NO ONE in a position of authority would have any reason to lie to us, you stop implying that!)

1. Degrees are great, but they are meaningless if you only use them to back up your claims instead of using the tools you learned in the process of education to prove your claims. Having a doctorate means precisely dick, as long as you only back up what you say by citing it for credibility. Even intelligent people make mistakes, even when they don't intentionally mislead their peers for some reason. For the most part, it appears science has learned the lessons of not having inherent credibility, except for those theory of everything types.

Citing a degree on a discussion forum for anything more than a pat on the back from people after receiving it is meaningless, prove to us you know what you're talking about. Even if you scanned the degree in, we'd have no idea if you are actually the person on the degree. Show us you know what you're talking about. That's the idea of a discussion forum on the internet, people learn by debating, and sometimes they must fall on their face to learn a lesson. It's the way I finally learned how to lose. (I am that stupid, but I'm not a looser anymore! :P)

2. It's obvious those in positions of authority will lie to people in the jurisdiction of their authority. How else do you think these people managed to raid the Social Security trust funds in the late 90s to fill in for the deficit, while still making it look like there was a surplus? Oh and you know Bush? Yeah, remember that whole Social Security reform? He's part of the reason Social Security is fucked, because after arguing to privatize it (like 401Ks, that really worked well for everyone, right?) because of insolvency, his budgets literally stole billions from that and the government employee pension funds to pay for his deficits.

You see folks, America is done for because of all the bullshit. It's crashing under the weight of its own bullshit. I hate to say it, because I live in this fucked up country. I also hate to say it, because I see people making pleas to inherent credibility (Glenn Beck on a "fair and balanced news network" and that dude dressed up as Thomas Jefferson) and they clearly don't mean well and they highly sanity challenged. If you think those two are the end of this, you're out of your minds. To quote Emperor Palpatine, everything I have foreseen is going according to plan. Not because I have some mystical force, but because although I'm a total moron, I am just smart enough to see shit with common sense (although, I have licked a couple cold metal poles myself, so it's not all common sense for me. I'm still a loser.)

I've been trying to say this for years now, now it's important because the fate of everything rests on America restoring its common sense. Common sense is not believing a charismatic person or their advisers based upon inherent credibility, no matter how nice they seem, if they really are nice they will open shit up. You have the inalienable right to know. If there's just one thing you should hold true without any evidence, it's that in a lack of evidence, you shouldn't hold the statement to be true.

Now, before the fuck up vultures descend to point out some major flaw in my logic, spelling, or grammar, I would like to tell them one last time to go fuck themselves. We all make mistakes, even the fuck up vultures.

*I fucking misspelled headsplodation. I made the shit up, and I still can't spell it right. :rofl: Now that's some funny shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. Cleanup in aisle nine.
:nuke:
:freak:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Oh really? Well, this is my only reply:
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 09:30 AM by originalpckelly
You can't gut a fish to get the crap out of it without making a mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. Ohhhh... "headsplodation"!
I was wondering what the heck you were talking about.

Now, I know. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. That has double meaning:
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 09:44 AM by originalpckelly
1. Either I'm totally fucking full of it
2. You're talking about when I messed up the headslopdation, right?

I'm a total moron, so 1 could be true. 2, however seems to be a reasonable possibility. Which one do you mean? It doesn't matter, because this will crater just like the threads before it about common sense. God forbid we not trust someone and make them prove something to us with actual evidence!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I choose...
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 10:29 AM by Hugin
#2.

"God forbid we not trust someone and make them prove something to us with actual evidence!"

How true.

In my warped view of the the world... Gaining those credentials does not grant one, as you call it 'inherent credibility'. It only indicates that the degree holder has been trained in the methods of gathering facts and evidence in support of a theory or hypothesis.

What people miss is that this process must be repeated for every claim.

It does not grant 'authority' to present opinions or insights other than perhaps an opinion or insight informed by experience in the topic under discussion. But, without some 'proof'... That's all it is, an opinion. Even the most informed person can be mistaken about what is really going on... Especially, if there is a history of bullshit in the topical area. A snowballing of the bullshit, if you will.

Edit: Switched inherent for implied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Every area of society where we have inherent credibility...
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 10:20 AM by originalpckelly
is like holding a trial where we presume the defendant is guilty until he or she can prove themselves innocent.

It would be like believing a prosecutor 100%, without a prosecutor having to prove a crime existed, simply because the prosecutor has a law degree and has won cases in the past.

You get what I do, in fact I have to wonder how anyone doesn't get this. I think people must be willfully putting common sense aside to believe something is true without having any proof to back it up.

That's why the shit in this is possible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGyObuH3WTY

It doesn't matter what you call it (implicit, implied, inherent credibility), it's just the idea that we believe someone without any proof to actually support what they're saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. In our Instant Gratification society there's no money in proof... Only in having opinions.
Or in selling a bunch of opinions.

That's why Investigative Journalism is dead and all we see on the TeeVee Machine are highly paid Opinion Apes mouthing words they get paid to say.

Oh, and that's the way whoever is really running this Circus likes it.

It may turn out they are we... :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Why should we have to rely on reporters to tell us things we have the inalienable right to know?
Nothing should be secret in the first place. How is it possible to have a democracy such undemocratic control of knowledge?

I don't see reporters as anything better than politicians or anyone else who might use inherent credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. Please go on - surely that can't be all of it
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 09:46 AM by ThomWV
Continue, I'm interested in how you try to say whatever it is you're trying to say. Its like the fucking Rosetta stone, just more stone and less Rosetta.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Don't believe anyone until they provide proof to back up what they're saying.
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 10:17 AM by originalpckelly
The Presidential debates of this country are total jokes. Not one citation, not one real independently verifiable fact, and the "facts" these clowns cite are really half-truths. They place the burden of finding out what is and is not true on the people in the audience, rather than assuming it themselves. I don't think anyone would accept the responsibility voluntarily, we the people must force them into it.

It's like a court where the prosecutor can bring anyone in on any charge, but instead of presuming someone innocent until proved guilty, we assume guilt until the defendant can prove themselves innocent. Such a system would be wrong, because if there's a lack of evidence to prove a crime, there may be a lack of evidence to disprove a crime.

Everything, it appears, operates on this principle, save for the justice system, journalism with open sources, and certain well-established areas of science.

Why should we trust a representative when so many in the past have shown themselves to be full of crap? Huh? You prove to me why that should be. Elections mean nothing for someone's credibility, Richard Nixon was elected, and he was obviously full of crap. All elections mean is that someone is believed by a lot of people, which could mean that the elected official is not full of crap or equally that the people who elected the official are stupid enough to fall for bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGyObuH3WTY

George Carlin got this, and thankfully some kind DUer posted this video. My whole life changed, just by assuming that people are full of crap and work their way up from there by proving what they say. It's a whole different perspective on life. One that seems to make more sense than simply believing someone without evidence.

I say this in the context of politics, as politics is a well established area of discussion on DU. We all obviously have the tools to make arguments about it, that's why we're here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. ha - nice
i dig it bro :hippie:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the other one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
10. Greatest post ever!
I don't understand a word of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I know, I have a round about way of saying something simple.
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 11:03 AM by originalpckelly
I apologize for that, that's just the way I write. :-( It's long and drawn out and methodical. If you didn't understand it, basically I'm saying that there was no theory of everything, and I was making a point via it, and that anything I said pertaining to science was complete and total mental diarrhea.

Here's the gist of what I'm saying:
Everything in life is a like court room where a prosecutor can make any charge without actual proof to back up what they're saying. Life, for the most part, is a court where there is a presumption of guilt, rather than a presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is on the defendant, not the prosecutor.

That's not supposed to be true in a real court (although it is sometimes), or where someone is citing experimental evidence. If a result is found in one lab, it should be found in others with the same conditions.

If something is a fact for one person, it should be a fact for another.

Science is really not even a part of this, it was just an area where I could bullshit and not get the thread locked/moved to a dungeon.

The idea is simple: don't trust anyone, don't simply believe them because of who they are and what office they hold, make them prove what they are saying is true. To not do that, is like letting a prosecutor charge someone with a crime, with the presumption of guilt and burden of proof on the defendant.

Again, I apologize for making common sense look like bullshit. I'm an ass, so it tends to happen. Let me say this again, there is no theory of everything, that's kind of the point here.

It's kind of like someone walking into a 6 Foot Man Eating Chicken exhibit, and asking where the chicken is, "There's just this guy who's six feet tall eating chicken. Come on, dude, where's the giant chicken already?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
11. I'll give that a K & R
but surely you know common sense has never been common?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yes, and you know what's scary?
Everyone just assumes this is true, so they never really talk about it. Before I put up these bullshit theory of everything posts, I made a couple of stabs at common sense posts, and let me tell you, they sink like a fucking stone. It's pretty pathetic.

Thinking you have common sense is THE WAY a sucker is born. I don't have common sense, I don't know anything, and I must have people explain it to me before I nod my head and smile. Oh and they must use facts too, ones which I look up, because I'm not smart enough to get it without seeing it from an independent source.

;-) You see what I mean, because you're probably not a total fucking moron like most of the people in our fair country. It's really like seeing a bright flash of light, walking over to the window, and seeing that there's this mushroom cloud off in the distance. That's how I feel about most of America when it comes to common sense, how would you react if you saw a nuke go off in a major city? It would fuck anyone up.

Now just think about this, we have people who control nukes telling us they're responsible enough, without any real evidence of that before the people get into situations where the nukes might be used. It really is about nuclear bombs going off.

Just imagine if Rod Jerkinabox Blagojevich had become President. :scared: I would hope we wouldn't fall for it, but look at Illinois. They have a history of corruption in that state government, but Illinois includes Chicago, and I tend to think people in Chicago are street wise. If they can get fooled, we all can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I come and go - mostly skimming the "latest" page for subject lines that
catch my eye, so this one worked for me, heh.

As for fooling a lot of people, well again, that has been going on for a LONG time. In some ways the inertia of lazily accepting BS at face value may be stabilizing - I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yes, I know, I'm basically saying 2+2 = 4...
but a lot of stupid fucks in this country have been listening to these politicians say 2+2 = 5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGyObuH3WTY&feature=related
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hanse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. You mean like the other week when you concluded that 1 - 1 = 0?
Thereby proving that tetrahedrons are the theory of everything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. Isn't this a Lounge thread?
:spray: :hi:

Hope the Septics don't catch up to ya
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
18. Is this a seinfeld style thread, really long op about nothing
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Nothing more than simple common sense.
I just gave the least common sense explanation of common sense in the history of humanity. Is there an award for this? :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yeah, a DUzy
:)
(It was a good read though, all kidding aside)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I ALWAYS take too much space to say something simple.
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 12:08 PM by originalpckelly
I'm like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3HUUtVI0tY

I have studied the movement of the bullshitter, he raked across my face, and I lost an eyebrow due to it. :P

Watch that if you can, by the end you will shit brix.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
23. Forget "Question Authority." There is no authority.
You must decide how much you trust someone or some system, based upon the actual evidence, and act accordingly.

I trust the Pope knows his way around the Bible, but he knows diddley squat about human sexuality. Many of his beliefs are very harmful to others. Denying sexually active people condoms and birth control kills people, exacerbates poverty, increases the number of abortions, and is a great danger to the public health. Denying equal rights to homosexuals is a gross violation of their humanity. The Pope has no authority.

I don't trust any politician. Many of them are crooks. The best among them are merely competent managers. Trustworthy political leaders who are building a just and sustainable society are extremely rare. Politicians have no authority.

I trust the police only so far as they do not abuse their position as forceful agents of the law. They have no authority.

I trust scientists only so far as their work bears scrutiny. They have no authority.

I do not trust large corporations and market capitalism. Absent strict regulation these inevitably become harmful to human society.

I do not trust the regulators...



etc., etc., etc.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
24. Words. Words words words words words words words. Words words.
Words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words manic laughter words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words hysterical scream words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words more manic laughter words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words. Words words words words words words. Words words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hanse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
25. Weeee, here we go!
"Why is it when you see that you assume:
1. I'm sanity challenged
2. A crank/ignorant
3. High on some pretty good shit
4. Or some combination of the above"

Because scientists rarely present theories of everything. They never do it on internet message boards (at least not the insane ignorant cranks), and they have substance to their arguments. Not your harmonic timecube stuff.

"But when the physicists literally working on the same thing, based upon observing a single planet in depth, a moon through telescopes/robots/a few guys, other planets/bodies through robots/telescopes and everything else through telescopes say the same thing, you don't think they are total morons/insane/high?"

When physicists do it, they post evidence. And use logic. And don't avoid questions and challenges to their work, as you're prone to do.

"It's obvious that no one would publish a thing on DU even if they had found something, I hate to inform you, it's not the pinnacle of peer review."

Gee, you think?

"Oh and by the way, we're still figuring shit out about Earth, if we don't have Earth down pat, how the fuck can we know about everything? Knowing error, as I understand it, is a vital part of science. If that's true, then they should have a pretty fucking big margin of error (the vast majority of the universe), wouldn't you agree?"

Are you asking about the theory of everything? The theory of everything has to do with understanding fundamental physics, uniting quantum theory and relativity, and the four fundamental forces. If you can do that, little things like the earth are trivial.

"It's also plainly obvious to me, that if a theory is only as good as its weakest evidence, then their evidence for such a theory would be pretty fucking weak."

Well, that would depend on what their evidence is, now doesn't it?

"Yes, that's right, I really don't think it's possible to find a "theory of everything" after observing only a single planet in depth."

Theories of everything aren't based on a single planet in depth, but the entire universe at large. Thus, your argument is moot.

"I submit to you that these "scientists" are doing nothing more than holding math laced bull sessions or looking for God through science. If you want to be a man of God, join a church and become a priest, not a scientist. Even if there is a God, there is absolutely no evidence for God, it is the pinnacle of unfalsifiable claims."

Scientists aren't interested in God, so this argument is also moot.

"I pick on scientists, because although many still have inherent credibility, scientists get kicked around more than Dick Nixon, even when they're not full of crap. (Where my chemists at or my real physicists? Stand up and be counted, you guys fucking rock!) Any other topic would have been sent to the dungeon(s)/locked."

Well, I'm a real chemist. Not that it matters.

"1. Degrees are great, but they are meaningless if you only use them to back up your claims instead of using the tools you learned in the process of education to prove your claims. Having a doctorate means precisely dick, as long as you only back up what you say by citing it for credibility."

Weren't you just claiming real chemists and physicists rock?

"For the most part, it appears science has learned the lessons of not having inherent credibility, except for those theory of everything types."

Cosmologists don't rely on "inherent credibility" any more than any other scientist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
27. There's a major flaw in your logic
You think that we give a shit what you write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. LOL, I love succinct posts!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC