You give it 25% and have subsequently posted pages and pages of posts claiming that it never happened.
The red shift in the light is real. The CMB is real
FBM wrote:FTWW not everything with the Big Bang story is fake - the discovery of the particles in the QMs is real, notwithstanding that it has little to do with any Big Bang. The red shift in the light is real. The CMB is real - the circumstance that they are misinterpreted to infinity and patched here and there at random, all of a sudden, and out of nowhere, is another issue. Some of the processes around the Singularity might be true as well, but hardly operating in reverse and without causality. The problem of the Big Bang 'theory' is actually in itself as a theory. Any process can be expressed in words - this is called general semantics of the language. If you have a 'process' or a 'theory' (its formal representation) that cannot be expressed in words - the question is whether that 'process' has existed, is existing, or is able to exist at all.You give it 25% and have subsequently posted pages and pages of posts claiming that it never happened.
Actually both the Religion and the Cosmology desperately need each other, for otherwise they will hardly be able to exist.
Honestly speaking both the Religion and the Big Bang 'theory' turned out to be constructive driving forces in terms of our self-awareness. This dispute will never end unless the truth is found.
What happened with the unanswered question: which is the greatest achievement of the present day science?
Quote:The red shift in the light is real. The CMB is real
So they are real and you simply discount the explanations with the most evidence while providing no evidence in support of any other explanation.
You have unicorns in your butt. I see no reason to give any explanation of evidence. Now, it is up to you to defend why you have unicorns in that orifice. What medium is keeping them there?
So they are real and you simply discount the explanations with the most evidence
I see no reason to give any explanation of evidence.
FBM wrote:... and so am I ... with your personal problem with the hypothesis of the aliens.I see no reason to give any explanation of evidence.
And where and when have you proved that the teleportation of the instructions for the universe by invisible, undetectable "personal" 45%/30%/25% alien/ILF/gods-of-the-gap is the most probably interpretation of anything whatsoever besides your pathological derangement?
Well, I am interested in something particular
ONCE AGAIN, I have no claims about the achievements of science.
A lot of vitriol and confusion in this thread.
Excuse my etymological deficiency. Please explain your use of the term Sulfate.
Technobabble and tenuous terminology: the use of pseudo scientific language
May 25, 2012
If someone argues using lots of scientific terms, would it convince you, or is that a red flag?
How to recognise this tactic
In this tactic, people use invented terms that sound “sciencey” or co-opt real science terms and apply them incorrectly.
Why do people use this tactic?
People use pseudoscientific language to try to fool their audience into believing their ideas have scientific status. There would be no need to resort to bogus terminology if their ideas were supported by evidence from real-world testing.
What’s wrong with this tactic
The perpetrators of this tactic throw up invented or misused terms, but rarely define them precisely. They leave their audience to assign meanings according to individual preconceptions. On the rare occasion that a definition is given, it, in turn, refers to further meaningless or undefined terms. The result is that their argument has no foundation, since the concepts used to justify it are meaningless.
What to do when confronted by this tactic
Don’t be intimidated by a barrage of sciencey-sounding words. Ask for an explanation in plain English. Anyone who has a bona fide argument should be able to explain it without resort to jargon. If you can’t communicate with the person making the claim, try to put it into plain English yourself. If it turns out looking like gobbledygook, it probably is.
Variations and related tactics
Pseudoscientific language is one indicator of what Stephen Law, in his book Believing Bullshit, calls pseudoprofundity:
Pseudoprofundity is the art of sounding profound while talking nonsense.
I found a stochastic teleportation of vitriolic counterinception