Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Quehoniaomath,

that's merely because you are, sadly, uneducable.

Duane Gish,in public appearances is kinda like you Quahog. He preaches and tries to shout down any questions counter to his religious worldview.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I was in a presentation by Duane Gish at a "Creation in His Name" lecture. I and two of my students came in and sat down.
During the Q and A I asked him how Creation "Science" explains biogeography, specifically island , cavern, and topographic speciation where these local cave species and island species were entirely different from their parent species and how those differentiated species only occur in those very localized environments.

We were asked to leave the "fest".

It was open to all who were true believers in Creation "Science"

I was actually afraid for my students who came along . But they thought it was great fun.

The NCSE has taken on so many different fights these days that I dropped my membership, where Id been active since 1988 (about a year after the Edwards v Aguillard USCS case)

I wish I'd been there to see that. I've only just heard of Gish and watched a few Youtube videos of his performances. And "performances" is the appropriate word. His rhetorical approach was as transparent as it was dishonest, and it's not surprising that he stacked the deck by filling his audiences with YEC advocates. No matter what happened, they'd always be eager to declare him the winner of the debate. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

For those that are too stupid to do their own research...

Quote:
The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place and that as it expands, the gas within it cools.

... and for those who are even more stupid to believe that the Singularity (size less than 10^-24 by definition) has had the thermal capacity to make any very hot Universe, there is another question: how? from where (appeared all that energy)? and in what way has it existed before the launching of the time?

Quote:

The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George Gamow.

... and what if the CMB is not thermal radiation (from whatever), but diffused light and EM reflections from the outer membrane of the Universe, or the CMB is energy penetrating from the Hyperspace? BTW if it is traces of the Big Bang it should have some linear or any other standard distribution along space - and it doesn't have anything of the kind.

parados wrote:

If light is reflecting it would be seen as light in the same wavelength.

Not only light is able to reach the membrane (if exists) - there are a lot of other EM wavelengths that have almost the same penetration & propagation ability.

parados wrote:

If light was reflecting why would it result in a constant low level microwave radiation?

Because it may be red-shifted 'to infinity' ... for example.

parados wrote:

Your hypothesis fails just based on the principles of how reflected light acts.

My explanation may fail, but the explanation of your favorite 'theory' fails much before that, for you are not able to explain why the approximation function of the distribution of the CMB in space is non-linear & even non-exponent, but is some casual curve ... that sends automatically any explanation in the 'Dimension X'.

parados wrote:

I already did. Rather than accepting facts, you seem to want argue your fantasies.

Which facts - perhaps you mean the random patches attached at even more random places to the 'great theory of creation' of the world, or what? Even if you ever succeed to justify that mumbo-jumbo you will never be able to create in a lab 3-D space out of Nothing ... through explosion.

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

It's Herod and all the trivial crap questions about nth-dimensional hyperspace

The 11-D hyperspace is official theory in astrophysics (not in some fake sciences like cosmology).

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Which facts

As in, which facts entail your "45% god-of-the-gaps" explanation? Laughing

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
It's Herod and all the trivial crap questions about nth-dimensional hyperspace
The 11-D hyperspace is official theory in astrophysics (not in some fake sciences like cosmology).

How about some real scientific evidence to support your god hypothesis, then? Where's that? Wink

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

As in, which facts entail your "45% god-of-the-gaps" explanation?

Some of these facts are the impossibility of the mumbo-jumbo explanations of the Big Bang 'theory' to exist as a formal model and in the real world - which is called plausibility and feasibility. ... and how much is your personal belief in the Big Bang 'theory', and which is the justification?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
As in, which facts entail your "45% god-of-the-gaps" explanation?
Some of these facts are the impossibility of the mumbo-jumbo explanations of the Big Bang 'theory' to exist as a formal model and in the real world - which is called plausibility and feasibility. ... and how much is your personal belief in the Big Bang 'theory', and which is the justification?

There's a shitload of evidence to support the BBT. How about showing us a little to support your "invisible man in the sky" explanation? Laughing

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

How about some real scientific evidence to support your god hypothesis, then? Where's that?

How about changing the record - by explaining what are the capacity and the ability of the Big Bang to create space, for example? Where is your 'real scientific evidence to support' your fake theory?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
How about some real scientific evidence to support your god hypothesis, then? Where's that?
How about changing the record - by explaining what are the capacity and the ability of the Big Bang to create space, for example? Where is your 'real scientific evidence to support' your fake theory?

"Fake theory" is an oxymoron. How about some evidence to support your "invisible man in the sky" hypothesis? Wink

1 Reply

No god required:

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

"Fake theory" is an oxymoron.

With the Big Bang 'theory' (forgery) it actually is - fake forgery.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

How about some real scientific evidence to support your god hypothesis, then?

When you prove with the methodology of any science (different from Cosmology) that the brainless Big Bang is able to create without any design the nano-engine of the flagella of the bacteria 'gradually with the time', 'out of nothing' and by 'striking at random amino-acids with a lightning' ... and after that you succeed to explain in details how exactly the brainless Big Bang has collected the appropriate amino-acids for the act of creation ... and then how exactly the brainless Big Bang guessed to start making, collecting, and burning into 'Bengal fireworks' any amino-acids with the aim to create cyano-bacteria that will prepare the atmosphere of the planet for the successful development of biosphere ... for the next several million years; and also how you, who pretend to have some rudimentary intelligence will fix the biosphere to cope successfully with the super-production of CO2, NOx, SO2, dust particles 2.5 and 10.0 (we are not talking about the arsenic and the mercury into the river yet) with the aim to avoid self-extinction of the species - I may start believing in your great theories.

1 Reply

@Herald,

So, anyway. What about a smidgen of evidence for your god, Professor Gish? Laughing

1 Reply

*crickets*

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

So, anyway. What about a smidgen of evidence for your god, Professor Gish?

     So, anyway. What about a small amount of something about your favorite Big Bang 'theory', Prof. Einstein: what is the math formal model of the Big Bang; what are the major characteristics & definition of the variables with the Big Bang - stochastics/determinism; brainlessness/creative abilities; plausibility/feasibility;
     - which are the laws of the fundamental sciences that the Big Bang is standing above ... and why?;
   - what is the form of the super-production of the Big Bang (the Universe) - sphere/torus/non-Euclidean solid geometry/virtual reality;
     - main assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' - definitions, metrics, verification, validation, values, probability/exclusion of the other hypothesis (incl. God, other ILFs), etc.
     You see - in order to start presenting the Big Bang as a theory you will have to define as a minimum its main characteristics and assumptions, which means that without specifying the assumptions you cannot pronounce it is a theory, let alone standard, and this on its side means that you will have to prove that all the processes are at least possible without any ID interference, incl. without limiting to:
     - existence of temperature/gravitation/singularity before the launching of the Time ... and without any material carrier;
     - creation of particles from ground zero;
     - Boyle-Mariotte law at 1 Plank time after the Big Bang - P0.Vo = Pn.Vn, where Po is the pressure of the Singularity at 1 Plank time, Vo is the volume of the Singularity (having in mind that any of its dimensions is less than 10^-24);
     - Pn is the average pressure of the Universe at present; and Vn is the volume of the Universe within the outer membrane/boundary (if exists) - at rough estimate you have infinity times super-zero equals finite number times finite number.      To make only the last calculation you will have to make a brand-new hypercalculus with analytic non-Euclidean solid geometry - Laughing

BTW the Nobel prize of Einstein is not for the Theory of General Relativity > sorry, merci, thank you.

2 Replies

@Herald,

You've been provided tons of evidence for the BBT; that you choose denialism is your problem. What we lack is even a microscopic smidgen of evidence for your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" or even by what metrics you arrived at that 45%. Seems to me that 45% is less than the probability of a coin toss. If you don't even have a 50% confidence in your supernatural explanation, why would anyone else give it the time of day?

1 Reply

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You've been provided tons of evidence for the BBT; that you choose denialism is your problem.

You stubbornly don't want to understand something - the assumptions of the Big Bang and the assumptions of God are one and the same problem; and that excluding the one hypothesis does not in any way mean that you confirm the other, for this will be a logical fallacy of the type excluded middle.

FBM wrote:

If you don't even have a 50% confidence in your supernatural explanation, why would anyone else give it the time of day?

Because 45% is much better than 10^-84 (the probability for the telescope to be into the center of the Universe - as your favorite theory is presenting the things - equal red shift in all directions). Would you write down that number in the usual non-exponential form, in which the numbers are written.

1 Reply

@Herald,

There is no assumption of a Big Bang; the evidence points necessarily to it. The only assumption is yours, viz, that an invisible Sky Santa did it all. Laughing

You've already been shown that there is no center of the universe, just as there are no edges. Your strawman about the probability of a telescope being in a place that doesn't exist is obvious evidence of your persistent ignorance.

What we need is some sort of evidence for your god hypothesis that has approximately as much convincing power as the evidence for the BBT. Still waiting.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/teaemoticonbygmintyfresxa4.gif

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know