Funny you should say that...

Anyways, when I get some time, I'll demolish this bullshit too (again): http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72993427&f=90&o=1270

i've told you multiple times i question everything down to the big bang. you just forget that in order to create a strawman to fill with arrows so u can keep your biases. you tell yourself no one else questions anything, when in fact we all question everything and look at the available data which overwhelmingly supports mainstream science more than your position. again, this is something you ignore (along with all of the data and definitions that counter your side) in order to keep the shroud over your head. you are the one who denies everything including your own posted definitions in order to keep that shroud on. see the slinky debacle in which u eventually retreated all the way to a definition's context to keep your bias. it's pretty sad.

I can't wait to hear your bs excuse as to how a rocket can maintain a pressured interior while in a vacuum and while exhausting combustion, is it something similiar to how the awesome and more powerful force of the vacuum of space cannot suck the atmosphere of earth because the gravity of the Earth sucks the air to it even though vacuum always prove more powerful than gravity? Is it the gravity of the rocket fuel perhaps, sounds like some silly excuse you'd claim.


Anyway - time for some real science - Heart transplants!







Ha ha , you question the big bang - what a heretic. Perhaps you could elaborate on your anti-science beliefs?

Where is this overwhelming data that supports the big bang theory when they consistently avoid answering basic questions like which came first - the gravity to create mass or the mass to create gravity?

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 2 2017 10:13am

sure, i think the big bang is a possibility. and i think we're pretty far off from scientifically being able to even guess at the real causes in the start of the universe. i also, as a religious person, leave the chance of intelligent design and my ideas on that are constantly changing and not concrete at all.

this is but one instance where you've assumed FOR YEARS my position on something because it makes it easier for you to argue against. Its a lot easier that way, isnt it?

but your question is also nonsensical. not believing in the big bang isn't "anti science" as its not a replicated experiment nor are a literal 100% of scientists in agreement about the big bang much less the particulars of a big bang event. you just simplify "most" to "100%" in another attempt to make it easier for you to argue against.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 2 2017 10:27am

Yep we have proof of the view count before, we gave it too you. You said that was then but currently the vid thread gets more views. I'm giving you the current views since the day I ss'ed both threads.
Also 2400/7 is around 300 unless your claiming I contributed 100. Either way that leaves 200 views per day, which still more that the ~70 per day of the vid thread. And if we account for your clicks per day of vid thread I guess that means your the only viewing it.

Holy crap what do you call that - I question the big bang and you assume im anti science, you dont believe the big bang but of course that doesnt make you anti-science, i think you call that a "hypocritical troller".




so still no proof of view count before your assumptions and you started to mass view that thread, yet you still continue to troll with your lies, sad.

i never at any point said you're lack of belief in the big bang makes you anti science, i dont think ive even criticized your lack of belief in the big bang. maybe u can provide me with a link to where i did that, specifically.

I call you anti science because you weave in semantics arguments into scientific arguments. such as the slinky debacle where u claimed a slinky needs to lift a garage door, out of the fucking blue. you were leaning on the semantics argument of the slinky's "mechanical" context definition to claim this meant it needed to have a use in a mechanical machine. even though that was not stated anywhere, you just made it up.

this is just one of the many reasons you are anti science, your inability to own what you say for more than a few posts when u squirm and backtrack. your anti science beliefs though are less of a problem than your use of strawmans, such as the post i am quoting in which you created this supposed big bang criticism of mine that surely doesnt exist. but hey, maybe you'll prove me wrong by posting actual proof. or maybe you're just confusing me with someone else, another habit of yours.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 2 2017 11:27am

Questioning Cosmology ≠ Anti Science


Glad we cleared that fallacy up!




MICHIO KAKU saying that quote at 4:36

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 2 2017 11:42am

You don't either but... since it's creation the vid thread has averaged aroun 400 views per week, and that's what it got in the week since I started keeping track.
Since it's creation the pic thread has averaged 650 views per week , and in the time since I tracked it it has received 3 times that.

So thus far your claim the vid thread is more popular at anytime past present or future is pure bollocks.

i guess dodging my specific accusation where u used semantics interwoven into a scientific discussion is a good call. wouldnt want to get all embarrassed.