Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

All you gotta do is show up with something better.

Tediously, once again, evolution stipulates no cosmic origins. The so-called "Big Bang" has nothing to do with the diversity of life on earth . . . evolution does.

FBM wrote:

All you gotta do is show up with something better.

     No problems, bro.
What would you say about that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBo1TRjm9gk
Or perhaps this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sRJ-eOHnc
Or maybe this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRd75sj4ENM
and that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajf2pg1Eow
... and about that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3XdXEJEI4E&list=RDB3XdXEJEI4E#t=0
... and the question is: How has the Big Bang succeeded to design all that?

FBM wrote:

All you gotta do is show up with something better.

     No problems, bro.
What would you say about that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBo1TRjm9gk
Or perhaps this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sRJ-eOHnc
Or maybe this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRd75sj4ENM
and that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajf2pg1Eow
... and about that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3XdXEJEI4E&list=RDB3XdXEJEI4E#t=0
... and the question is: How has the Big Bang succeeded to design all that?

"Neither science nor rationality are universal measures of excellence. They are particular traditions, unaware of their historical grounding." (p. 223).

For Paul Feyerabend, modern science could never be above challenge and, as an example, he saw evolutionism and creationism as just opposing cultural beliefs - neither of them being 'science' in any meaningful sense[/b]. He did not believe that scientists had the knowledge nor even the methodology to assume that it's evolutionary view was exclusively right and that creationists were just plain wrong. He 'threw the cat among the scientific pigeons' in many other ways too. Unfairly branded as "science's greatest enemy," the irony is that he loved the discipline of science but hated its numerous assumptions being presented as 'science.' For Feyerabend, a purer science was possible and preferable but much of its constructed elitist edifice needed to be dismantled first. This obviously led to him being seen as a threat to the 'scientific' establishment status quo, but how many such critics even properly read him or understood him?

Sure, bruh. Old songs, therefore god. Nice work.

Your theory of the Big Bang - as it is based on contradictions - can explain everything without any problems, can't it? Why don't you try to explain with the red shift in the light spectrum how exactly these ones have been made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0UmrCXxVA&list=RDuYaPF5wZNEo&index=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6NRLYUThrY&index=7&list=RDuYaPF5wZNEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKrxesI3ziE&index=15&list=RDuYaPF5wZNEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=salrwSVWpC4&index=22&list=RDuYaPF5wZNEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWDwa5ToY3o&index=29&list=RDuYaPF5wZNEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWmj1bMR4Mo&list=RDuYaPF5wZNEo&index=32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3217H8JppI&list=RDuYaPF5wZNEo&index=30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_WmavzeFh4&index=34&list=RDuYaPF5wZNEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBqxw6I0aoY

FBM wrote:

Sure, bruh. Old songs, therefore god. Nice work.

     Let's start from the very beginning. You have an Universe - where we live in. You have an Intelligence in the Universe that you cannot deny. These are the indisputable evidences...

... and you have some scientists and their servants that are ready to tell you anything for the sake of money and power. These are the assumptions for the Big Bang theory.
    Then the moment comes when you have to construct the very theory.

Do you agree that the theory should be uncontroversial in order to function as inference engine for drawing valid conclusions?

“People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe”
― Hippocrates

tags: epilepsy, fallacy, god-of-the-gaps, ignorance, knowledge, superstition, understanding 55 likes like

Robert G. Ingersoll
“No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, from the unknown, and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.”
― Robert G. Ingersoll, On the Gods and Other Essays
tags: complex, god-of-the-gaps, ignorance, incomprehensible, science, unknown 19 likes like

Paul Henry Thiry d'Holbach
“If the ignorance of nature gave birth to such a variety of gods, the knowledge of this nature is calculated to destroy them.”
― Paul Henry Thiry d'Holbach, System of Nature
tags: atheism, atheist, destruction, god-of-the-gaps, gods, ignorance, knowledge, nature 14 likes like

George Carlin
“The God excuse, the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument.”
― George Carlin
tags: argument, excuse, fallacy, god-of-the-gaps, pathetic 8 likes like

William A. Dembski
“Scientists rightly resist invoking the supernatural in scientific explanations for fear of committing a god-of-the-gaps fallacy (the fallacy of using God as a stop-gap for ignorance). Yet without some restriction on the use of chance, scientists are in danger of committing a logically equivalent fallacy-one we may call the “chance-of-the-gaps fallacy.” Chance, like God, can become a stop-gap for ignorance.”
― William A. Dembski
tags: biology, chance, coincidence, darwinism, evolution, god-of-the-gaps, ignorance, science, serendipity, supernatural

Anything we cannot explain is 'God did it'