Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/27/373298310/after-year-of-atheism-former-pastor-i-dont-think-god-exists

     Really - and where is all that evidence. The truth of the matter is that you don't have an idea of how the valid assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' should look like. You don't have any assumptions about any Big Bang - all you have is red shift and CBR that may be indirect assumptions of something like Big Bang (if has ever happened), but they may be not, because the indirect link can be interpreted in many other ways and depends exclusively on a lot of IFs - much more IFs than you can possibly imagine.
     The whole biosphere on the Earth is an evidence about an Intelligence (other than ours or the our one in another form) having existed somewhere else in the Universe (or outside it into the Hyperspace) or even existing at present.
     The very fact that you are unable to explain how the nano-engine of the flagella of the bacteria has been made by a lightning (as your theory claims); how the Big Bang guessed 'to create' at all s.th. like the cyanobacteria (a phenomenon non-observed anywhere else in the Universe for now) means that there might exist much more evidence about God and ID than you can possibly imagine.
     When you tell me which one of the following claims has the highest improbability I may tell you some other (indirect - for yours are also indirect) evidence about ID; and also about the inability to exist of your fake non-ID casino theories of the things.
   - No Intelligent Life Form (ILF) has ever existed in a given Universe that has always existed
   - No ILF has ever existed in a given Universe that has existed for a limited period of time
   - Only one ILF has ever existed in a given Universe that has always existed
   - Only one ILF has ever existed in a given Universe that has existed for a limited period of time
   - More than one ILFs have ever existed in a given Universe that has always existed
   - More than one ILFs have ever existed in a given Universe that has existed for a limited period of time
     First of all a question cannot deny anything - it is simply a question ... with many possible positive & neutral & negative answers - let alone be a denialism; how can a question be a behaviour or negating the truth of the reality - the question has no truth value - it is only valid or invalid ... as a question, not as a statement; Second - by Def.: behavior, exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.. The reality of a dispute with Questions & Answers is Q-AQ-A-Q-AQ-A. Anybody escaping from that scheme is avoiding the reality and hence denies to see the truth (of the Big Bang 'theory' in its full glory of misrepresentation of the world), from where automatically follows that such people can be viewed as much greater denialists than the people asking the inconvenient (but absolutely valid) questions.
As about continue asking - no problems. Which one is the most improbable:
   - A Universe without beginning and with no end?
   - A Universe with beginning but with no end?
   - A Universe without a beginning but with an end?
   - A Universe with a beginning and with an end?
     By your fake theory about the 'creation' of the Universe you actually impose infinite risk to the existence of the present day world as we know it: any moment any anti-Big Bang 'theory' may come out of any Singularity and shrink the Universe into Nothing in several Planck times, which is the masterpiece of any denialism ... and for any age.
     ... and its very 'serious' when people like you accept any mumbo jumbo as 'logic and common sense' (so far it is not in contradiction with their personal fake beliefs and understanding of the world) and as 'science' something that is in contradiction with the laws of the standard fundamental sciences.
     The art of talking nonsense here and there is a Gift of God - can you quote exactly where 'I negate the logic', what exactly is the logic that 'I am negating' ... and how the very 'negation' is done - step-by-step? ... with the math equations, if possible

Just replace "Kirk Cameron" with "Herald."

Just another Ad Hominem.

Something must bothering them?

     'Nice try Lao Che!' - unfortunately you don't even know who are the main contributors to that 'theory'.
     1. Steven Hawking has developed the theory of the Black Holes and studied mainly the phenomena there - with serious physical methods and math apparatus and logic inference engines ... that the Big Bang 'theory' has never had.
     2. The developers and main contributors to the Big Bang 'theory' are Friedmann - Lemaitre - Robertson - Wlaker: where do you see Hawking in the list?
     3. RE: the claim:      The Big Bang 'theory' depends on very much different assumptions (IMHO):
     - How has it succeeded to launch the Time?
   - How it succeeded to use anything existing before the launching of the Time - no matter whether gravitational continuum, infinite density or infinite temperature.
   - The Big Bang 'theory' cannot explain how all those things: gravitational continuum, infinite density or infinite temperature (if possible to exist at all) have succeeded to exist before the launching of the Time?
   - The Big Bang 'theory' claims that the Singularity is smaller than the Planck's length (1.6 x 10^35 m, or about 10^-20 the size of a proton) and at the same time it has the capacity:
      - To possess infinite temperature (by not bothering itself to explain which is the material carrier of that temperature, having in mind that the Singularity is smaller than any known elementary particle);
      - To possess infinite density (by not explaining which is the material carrier of that density, let alone infinite);
      - To possess infinite gravitation having in mind that a single graviton is much larger than the Singilarity itself - which exactly is the material carrier of that gravitation;
     Further, how has the Big Bang decided that the Doppler effect (which is valid to sound waves, ranging 20 Hz ÷ 16 kHz, with material carrier air-molecules and elementary particles (electrons in copper & coax)) is somehow automatically valid for the light spectrum (frequency 4.3 x 10^14 ÷ 7.5 x 10^14 with material carrier photons, fiber optic medium of propagation). In the very same way I may start claiming that the properties of light are automatically valid for the gravitation as well - what is the difference?

Your point being? Other than more "God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps!"?

All you gotta do is come up with something better, Professor. Still waiting.

It's also missing delusion, logical fallacies and denialism, but I guess the point is made.

lol, you are implying that in the evolution shite there is no delusion, logical fallacies and denialism?

You are a very funny girl!

     Why don't you ask yourself the question: Why are there so many gaps with that 'theory' of that Big Bang (if has ever happened)?
     Having in mind that you not only don't have the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory', but you even don't have the vaguest idea of how they may look like, you are not exactly in a position of waiting for whatsoever. You should run to the nearest library or bookstore ... as fast as you can.

You wrote,
All the evidence available points to the big bang. Show us where it fails.

are you serious????????????????? It has huge holes in it!!

At least now you're not denying the fallacy. There are many gaps in science, scientists eagerly acknowledge that; that's why they still get excited about doing their work. The only people who don't see this as normal are denialist ID'ers, conspiracy theorists and other such wingnuts who don't actually understand how science works. You're the one claiming omniscience for your god; nobody in science is claiming to know everything.

Furthermore, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you already, limits in science do not support the supernatural explanation. That's called a false dichotomy. Look it up. If you want to support the existence of your god, you won't do it by pointing at all the well-known gaps in scientific knowledge; you'll only do it by presenting positive evidence for that god. People who know how to reason well are immune to your god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Wake up. Learn something for a change.



I know what scientists use as reasoning for the BBT, and it's solid. Much more solid that the NOTHING that you offer as support for your assumptions of the Big God Theory.

Can you tell us anything about your god at all? Anything? Does it have gender? Where does its power come from? What's it made of? How old is it? Do you know anything whatsoever about this being? No? Then why the **** should a rational person even give it a moment's consideration? Especially since your defense of it is deeply and apparently inevitably full of flawed logic? Why would a rational person give credence to shitty ideas presented without evidence?

     In the mediocre interpretation of the red shift and the CMB, perhaps.
    You are skipping a lot of hypotheses in-between in the interpretation of the things, which are the actual evidence, by assuming a priori (and by default) that the red shift is expansion of the space observed in the form of Doppler effect.
     What is actually the evidence - the red shift (we don't know yet due to what).
     What is red shift?:
     By Def.: red shift means that the electromagnetic-radiation from an object (observed Star, Galaxy, Nebula, etc.) is increased in wavelength, shifted to the red part of the spectrum - equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy in accordance with respectively, the wave and the quantum theories of light.

     What does that actually mean?
   - We have EMR traveling through various media (some of which we don't even know what they actually are, or sooner have been, when the light has passed through them);
   - We have a complex light beam (that may carry also - by interference & modulation, for example - some other RFs);
   - Can the light medium be changing continuously with the time ... even at a speed comparable to the speed of light - it is not clear?
   - The dogma is that the light travels along a right line at a constant speed - but is that actually the case? What if the light travels through a propagation medium along the path of least resistance (to it), and there exist cases in the Universe, in which this least resistance is not necessarily along a right line?
     Onto this moment there isn't any space and any correlation with any ('expanding' or non-expanding) space ... and Universe.

     Further, the Doppler effect is observed with sound waves propagating usually in the form of vibrations through the molecules of the air that are most susceptible to transfer of energy (least resistance); the chemical molecules are more or less correlated to space by the chemical concentration of the substance - but what is the correlation (if any exists at all) of the photons to space ... who cares?

     Then we have 'EMR from an object' - what does that mean? - Forget that the Object is 'getting away (with acceleration)' and lets see what are actually the evidences. An object emits light at a constant speed (is that really the case?) - what about the case when the speed is variable, like for example due to some changes in the medium of transmitting the light with the time - after all 13.8 By is a lot of time (that we cannot possibly imagine); and a distance of 13.8 billion light years is a lot of path (if we multiply 1 ly by 1 trillion km);
     Suppose we have a Space Object at a distance of 1 By emitting light at a speed of c; one year later the medium around that object becomes 'better fiber optics' - by some reason, like for example becomes cleaner in terms of something: Will the light emitted an year later at a speed of c+ overtake the light emitted an year before at the speed of c if the both rays travel for a period of 13.8 By, for example?

     Another interpretation of the evidence is 'lower frequency' and 'lower photon energy' - is it possible to the photon to lose part of its quantum energy when travelling a distance of 13.8 billion light years for a period of 13. By? In order to claim that this is not the case, all the possible interpretations and hypotheses here have to be excluded beyond any doubt ... and the theorists of the Big Bang are not even bothering themselves to consider them.
     Up to here we have no correlation of the red shift to space - none ... let alone any expansion.

RE: Show us where it fails.
     The reasoning fails in the vicious approach in constructing the theory from backwards. A priori it is almost axiomatically accepted that the red shift is Doppler effect and nothing else, and that the space of the Universe is 'obviously' expanding due to that 'evidence' - and everything after that is explained on the grounds of that 'evidence' (actually assumption).

     The very same is the case with the CMB. A priori it is excluded that there may exist any Hyperspace, and that this MW heat may come from 'outside' by penetrating into out space (which is not in contradiction with the laws of conservation of energy), but then: Eneters the Big Bang (without further ceremony) ... and starts explaining everything (without having any serious justification, BTW).

     The 'explanations' are demolished into an avalanche with the time and at some moment they run across the laws of classical physics and math logic ... and the things start becoming more than interesting.

No. What you need to do is refute any of the science that supports the big bang. Not your bull shyt challenge that doesn't say anything.

Cut and paste from any scientific journal about the big bang, then refute that with your science. ha ha ha... Your science that refutes the big bang must have the support of reliable scientists in the field of astrophysics. Otherwise, all you're doing is whistling in the wind.

     Why ... should I refute any fake inferences based on logic with contradictions? To everyone it is clear that logic with contradictions can infer everything - no matter true or false.

They're fake, but you can't prove it. LOL

     Obviously - so far as 'the basics of science' is affixed to some accidental & casual quotes from science fiction entertainment franchise of the 1970s.