Pseudo-science is demonstrably false.

Where on earth did you pull this from? Nothing could be farther from the case. Being able to demonstrate something false is very rare outside of simple deductive proofs and cut-and-dried empirical propositions- a realm into which few propositions lend themselves. Most pseudoscientific propositions or theories fall into the category of 'not disprovable'.

For example- One pseudoscientific notion is, as you put it, creation science- but lets loosen that a little bit and replace 'creation' with 'Intelligent Design'. Intelligent Design Theory supposes that some agency arranged for, directly or indirectly, Life on earth- and that it is a necessary condition for life to exist.

This proposition, that some intelligence aranged for life to exist, is not in itself disprovable.

As the ultimate fall back position, you can claim that the reason we ended up with this certain set of Physical Laws, Constants and properties was the direct intervention of a creating intelligence. You don't have to even provide proof for the existence of this creating intelligence- all you have to do is note that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

BUT, it is a pseudoscientific notion because it presents no testable hypothesis, no causal mechanism, nor does it describe its hypothesies in terms of a logical or mathematical model that:
1) Depends upon other accepted mathematical truths or
2) can have predictions derived from it (IE proof by proxy, how we originally proved the Theory of General Relativity) or
3) Can be subjected to formal logical analysis

So in esence, it pretends to be a scientific explanation of the universe, but fails in all ways to meet the criterion of REAL SCIENCE.

Now its interesting that I did not directly reference you in my post. You might want to reflect upon this, and your running to the pant-legs of your supposed IQ test (which, BTW, probably I and a good percentage of people here match numerically). But now that you have brought the coal to Newcatle, yes- what you post is pseudoscience, as is a lot of what Lindy posts, and others.

If you have to evoke logical fallacy and appeal to privilege (unique perspective, High IQ, PdD, spiritual enlightenment, a uniquely open mind, etc ), then chances are you are spouting Pseudoscience. I have seen NO CRITERION OF SCIENCE applied to your nonsense, and I see a lot of bombast used to defend it, so yeah- its pseudoscience.

In general, while some things are in the grey area of Pseudoscience, its simple to see if someone employs logical fallacy or claims of privilege when arguing their point, or if they make sweeping claims of fact without applying any scientific reasoning. So yes, beyond the fact that I think what you bloviate is pseudoscience, I think pseudoscience can be easily identified and that it should be exiled to off-topic. I furthermore think that those who repeatedly post Pseudoscience should be treated as agitators and offenders against the community.

There is this notion that those who insist upon intellectual hinesty, integrity and standards are somehow tyrants or intolerant. I don't buy this. I see no reason why the rational and erudite should be forced to suffer the fools. Why is it not they who are looked at as tyrants and intolerants?

"My own theorizing and postulations are also not demonstrably false"

Indeed, they are directly in line with pseudoscience.

"and if anything there is increasingly more observational evidence for my view of the universe than the big bang cosmological model"

Oh, really? please elaborate at length!

"Few here are hard scientists,"

No, many here are. I was trained to be one, but decided the life was not fore me.

"you better know what it means"

If I had a dime for every bit of crappy pseudo-advice you dispensed, that you are sorely needing to take, I would be a very, very wealthy man.

DL