Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

1. You are not the Science.
2. The very fact that you are continuously copy-pasting some irrelevant to the discussion stuff, does not in anyway mean that you are becoming some Science.
3. Do you have the assumptions of the Big Bang?

1 Reply

@Herald,

1. Never claimed to be.
2. It's relevant whether you're able to understand it or not.
3. I've told you over and over again that I don't.
4. How does your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" explain observed phenomena better than science does?

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

. How does your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" explain observed phenomena better than science does?

But you don't get it mate. science 'doesn't'

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

1. Never claimed to be.

This is not true. You are experiencing yourself all the time as a great scientist, citing even more great 'scientifc' quotes. Why don't you go through the history record of this thread to see what it is all about.

FBM wrote:

2. It's relevant whether you're able to understand it or not.

You cannot deny that you are overdoing (and misusing) with the copy-paste option ... all the time.

FBM wrote:

3. I've told you over and over again that I don't.

You don't what? You don't have any assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' or what ... but this does not deprive you from claiming that you have a great theory. WFM.

FBM wrote:

4. How does your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" explain observed phenomena better than science does?

     1. This 45% God of the gaps is your personal development - some red herring, most probably.
     2. What do you mean by 'better than science'? Does this include any misinterpretation of the data ... or what?
     3. You are not the Science, dude ... for you are light years away from the nearest scientific interpretation of the world - can you understand that?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
1. Never claimed to be.
This is not true. You are experiencing yourself all the time as a great scientist,

Nope. I've told you over and over and over again that I'm merely an amateur. That's why I cite sources.

Quote:

You cannot deny that you are overdoing (and misusing) with the copy-paste option ... all the time.

Citing sources greater than myself is an obligation.

Quote:

You don't what? You don't have any assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' or what...

You don't remember your own #3 question? Simple. Scroll up.

Quote:

This 45% God of the gaps is your personal development...

You introduced both your "personal 45% god" and the god-of-the-gaps argument. How does your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" explain any particular phenomenon or any observed set of phenomena better than the Standard Model? By what criterion or critera is "goddidit" better than all that science has to offer?

2 Replies

@FBM,

All you are showing is that you are totally incapable of real independent thinking, mate

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/goddidit.jpg

1 Reply

@FBM,

Can you stop your nonsense now?

You are not saying anything now.

Gee, what is your age?

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Nope. I've told you over and over and over again that I'm merely an amateur. That's why I cite sources.

... and how do you assess what is said there - the text may be some mumbo jumbo of seventh star magnitude - how do you assess what has real scientific value and what is science-like pseudo-scientific text.

FBM wrote:

Citing sources greater than myself is an obligation.

Obligation to what? ... actually this sounds like mania for career upgrading.

FBM wrote:

You don't remember your own #3 question? Simple. Scroll up.

Do you have any assumptions of the Big Bang and are you able to write them down in no more than 25 characters.

FBM wrote:

How does your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" explain any particular phenomenon or any observed set of phenomena better than the Standard Model?

Without-any-problems. If the Universe, the Intelligence in the Universe, and the Time have always existed, this is in absolute compliance with the laws of classical physics for conservation of energy/mass/momentum; the contradiction for the existence of something without Time component is also eliminated; the Dark Energy and the Dark Matter can be explained with impact from outside (from the Hyperspace - that has always existed as well). Everything with the fundamental sciences is hunky dori. The only problem that remains is the 'theory' of the Big Bang ... with its mania for creating whatsoever out of Nothing.
Actually, if you understand anything of science, as you claim, to everything that has no justification, that has no or has shaking assumptions and that is based on missing information, irretrievably lost in the nearest Black Hole - is much better to be assigned the status of 'having always existed', instead of making fake assumptions, non-subjectable to any verification & validation.

4 Replies

@Herald,

You wrote *with my revision,

Quote:

The only problem that remains is the 'theory' of your god ... with its mania for creating whatsoever out of Nothing.

Definitions:

Quote:

the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

and,

Quote:

God
ɡäd/
noun
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"

and,

Quote:

Big Bang
nounASTRONOMY
the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

Evidence for big bang theory, http://space.io9.com/have-physicists-detected-gravitational-waves-yes-1545591865

Evidence for god,

Quote:

?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Nope. I've told you over and over and over again that I'm merely an amateur. That's why I cite sources.
... and how do you assess what is said there - the text may be some mumbo jumbo of seventh star magnitude - how do you assess what has real scientific value and what is science-like pseudo-scientific text.

I've taken my share of science and math classes. Being an amateur only indicates that science is not my profession. It says nothing about how much I understand about it.

Quote:

Obligation to what?

Intellectual integrity. Consider giving that a try sometime.

Quote:

Do you have any assumptions of the Big Bang...

Like I said before, no, I don't. I'm not going to answer this again.

Quote:

How does your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" explain any particular phenomenon or any observed set of phenomena better than the Standard Model?

Quote:

Without-any-problems. If the Universe, the Intelligence in the Universe, and the Time have always existed, this is in absolute compliance with the laws of classical physics for conservation of energy/mass/momentum; the contradiction for the existence of something without Time component is also eliminated; the Dark Energy and the Dark Matter can be explained with impact from outside (from the Hyperspace - that has always existed as well). Everything with the fundamental sciences is hunky dori. The only problem that remains is the 'theory' of the Big Bang ... with its mania for creating whatsoever out of Nothing.
Actually, if you understand anything of science, as you claim, to everything that has no justification, that has no or has shaking assumptions and that is based on missing information, irretrievably lost in the nearest Black Hole - is much better to be assigned the status of 'having always existed', instead of making fake assumptions, non-subjectable to any verification & validation.

You didn't even mention your god-of-the-gaps, much less use it to explain anything. Wake up the hamsters and try again. Unless you mean your first bit about "If the Universe, the Intelligence in the Universe..." That's just the beginning premise to a hypothetical syllogism, and a fallacious one at that. It's not explaining anything. It's just "if."

Quote:

Fallacy: Begging the Question

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

So try again. Look up the word "explain" in a dictionary, the tell me at least one thing that your g0d-of-the-gaps explains better than science. Careful about those gosh-darn logical fallacies! They can slip up on you! Very Happy

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/1503548_850498281638773_6566254600041103896_n.jpg

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/1489054_1531277760445912_4759620917405686554_n.jpg

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10421142_10152860769191605_6115207273214491242_n.png

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote *with my revision,
Quote:
The only problem that remains is the 'theory' of your god ... with its mania for creating whatsoever out of Nothing.

Definitions:
Quote:
the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

and,

Quote:
God
ɡäd/
noun
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"

and,

Quote:
Big Bang
nounASTRONOMY
the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

Evidence for big bang theory, http://space.io9.com/have-physicists-detected-gravitational-waves-yes-1545591865

Evidence for god,
Quote:
?

This infographic might make it easier for some people to understand...

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10885546_751930134893398_5118645021736748759_n.jpg

0 Replies

@Herald,

I'll make it easier for you by making the questions more specific. How doe your "45% god-of-the-gaps" hypothesis explain these things better than science does?"

1. Gravitational lensing.

2. Pulsars. (Quasars will do, if that works better for ya.)

3. Why birds don't have teeth.

4. The fossil record.

5. Radioactive decay.

If you can't do that, then by all means offer your own specific example(s) of what observable phenomeonon/a "goddidit" better than science currently does.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Actually, if you understand anything of science, as you claim,

Strawman fallacy.

Quote:

...to everything that has no justification,

Non sequitur. You're babbling nonsense.

Quote:

...that has no or has shaking assumptions and that is based on missing information,

Shakier than the assumption of an invisible, all-powerful, undetectable sky-fairy? Laughing

Quote:

irretrievably lost in the nearest Black Hole - is much better to be assigned the status of 'having always existed',

You're doubling up on the fallacies there. Getting desperate, seems. Non sequitur, strawman both.

Quote:

instead of making fake assumptions,

How can an assumption be fake? Laughing

Learn English if you're going to argue in it. If you want to post in your native tongue, I'll use Google Translate. It sucks, but it'll probably do a better job than you are.

Quote:

...non-subjectable to any verification & validation.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/hehe.gif

Let's see you verify and validate your " personal 45% god-of-the-gaps," why don't we?

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

1. Gravitational lensing.

     By Def.(from Wiki): Gravitational lensing is caused by a massive body between a distant object and ourselves. It can create the appearance of two or more objects where there is really only one. The light from the object gets bent round the massive body in between.
The massive body, such as a galaxy or black hole, creates a very strong gravitational field in space. The exact nature of the effect depends on:
* relative distance and position between observer, lens and lightsource
* size of the lens
* mass inside the lens
     So, what is so much interesting about that. The light may travel in various media. It can travel through optical fiber, it can travel through water, it can travel through massive gravitation. In essence light is electromagnetic field (and is not so much different from any other waves of the EM spectrum), but as it is with super-high frequency it is not influenced by the EM fields that we use in our everyday life. Obviously when travelling through super-high gravitational field, there is some interaction, there is something that has impact on it - what is so interesting about that. Perhaps it is your dogma that light should travel in a straight line - always and through any media. Well, it is not. It does not travel along a straight line even in a single-mode fiber optic cable installation.
     As far God is concerned here (I actually don't see any ID in the example) - but if we, in the capacity of retarded descendants of the ILFs before us and as a form of existence of the Intelligence of the Universe can find some plausible explanation, why not an ILF that is superior than us not to be able to explain that to you perhaps even better - if only you succeed to decode the communication signals 'observed' by the radio telescope - for now we don't even have the computer systems able to do such decoding variations in acceptable time.

FBM wrote:

2. Pulsars.

By Def.: A pulsar (short for pulsating radio star) is a highly magnetized, rotating neutron star that emits a beam of electromagnetic radiation. This radiation can only be observed when the beam of emission is pointing toward the Earth, much the way a lighthouse can only be seen when the light is pointed in the direction of an observer, and is responsible for the pulsed appearance of emission. Neutron stars are very dense, and have short, regular rotational periods. This produces a very precise interval between pulses that range from roughly milliseconds to seconds for an individual pulsar.
What about them - you are talking as if you can make an artificial pulsar in the lab. Most probably you have a huge gap of missing information (no matter how many theories about the 'evolution of the stars' you may take out of your sleeve).

FBM wrote:

3. Why birds don't have teeth.

This is in the subject matter of FM - you may ask him directly. He can wash you up with any explanations - which of which more improbable and without processes justifying the claims.

FBM wrote:

4. The fossil record.

The fossil record is a history record. It is evidence about the existence of some species at some point of time in some place on the planet (only this and nothing else as evidence) - there is no record there and no direct evidences of any processes ever happening - the evidences are only about results (current standing and no processes). There is no record of any positive and negative mutations ever being able to make brand new species with heredity.

FBM wrote:

5. Radioactive decay.

     By Def.: Radioactive decay, also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity, is the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing radiation. A material that spontaneously emits this kind of radiation—which includes the emission of alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays—is considered radioactive.
     You may read the classics on the theme - Marie Curie or something.
     The radioactive decay is due to the fact that at some level of arrangement the matter becomes so unstable that is starts decomposing - gradually or more rapidly. What is the question: why the water falls down the waterfall and becomes spray if it is falling enough long? - and why not? ...

FBM wrote:

If you can't do that

Whether I can or cannot, and whether I will be willing to, or not are very different things. Why do you think that these five issues should concern directly the Intelligence of the Universe? You may discover and observe this and that, here and there, but who designed the laws of physics (not who discovered them)? Who arranged the sequences of the events happening with the time in our Universe to happen exactly in that way as we are seeing them today - not to ask who has invented the Time process itself - for in any case it is hardly the Big Bang 'theory'.

1 Reply

@Herald,

1.

Quote:

but if we, in the capacity of retarded descendants of the ILFs before us and as a form of existence of the Intelligence of the Universe

Begging the question. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Circular reasoning: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/67-circular-reasoning

2.

Quote:

Most probably you have a huge gap of missing information

God-of-the-gaps! God-of-the-gaps! God-of-the-gaps! God-of-the-gaps!

3. Evasion.

4. Evasion.

Quote:

who designed the laws of physics (not who discovered them)? Who arranged the sequences of the events happening with the time in our Universe to happen exactly in that way as we are seeing them today - not to ask who has invented the Time process itself - for in any case it is hardly the Big Bang 'theory'.

Begging the question. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Circular reasoning: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/67-circular-reasoning

So, there's apparently nothing that your "personal 45% g0d-of-the-gaps" can explain better than the Standard Model. What good is it, then? Other than to help you sleep better at night, that is.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know