Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

The reality I am talking about is the reality that the Big Bang theory predicted CMB and then CMB was found. You don't seem to want to accept that reality.

Why should the Big Bang theory be required to predict your fantasies?
1. The Big Bang does explain the form of the universe and how it is moving.
2. There is no "Telescope into the center of the universe". That is just your idiotic fantasy.
3. You haven't presented anything that is in contradiction to the laws of physics. Just your fantasy again.

Quote:

you cannot admit that being in contradiction with the laws of physics, math logic and Euclidean geometry is not an idea of first brilliance

Please expound on this and give us your calculations for math, the specific laws of physics and how they are violated and your exact geometry. Your valid "it violates the laws" is nothing but garbage until you back it up with solid evidence. I predict that you will never provide a single supported lucid argument to back up your claims.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

1. The Big Bang does explain the form of the universe

Seriously - and what is the form of the Universe (in compliance with the 'predictions' of the Big Bang)?

parados wrote:

2. There is no "Telescope into the center of the universe". That is just your idiotic fantasy.

... and how do you interpret the equal red shift in all directions?

parados wrote:

3. You haven't presented anything that is in contradiction to the laws of physics.

I am not supposed to present anything - you are the one who is supposed to verify and validate the assumptions of your favorite theory - to me it is obvious.
How much energy has had the Big Bang right after - at 1 Planck time ... and how much energy does the Universe have right now ... and from where has the Big Bang acquired all that energy? How has the Big Bang created the 17th elementary particles when the Singularity is much smaller even than the smallest of them - the photons, for example? When information (about the structure of a star system) is lost in a Black Hole in the Universe how exactly do you find it later on in the CMB 'predicted' by the Big Bang? The truth of the matter is that you don't have the vaguest idea of how much information in the Universe has been lost so far ... let alone making inferences on the grounds of incomplete, unverified and a priori misinterpreted and 'fixed' information of any kind? How many petabytes you are missing from the assumptions of the Big Bang only?

3 Replies

@Herald,

I was also wondering that if the Biggie Bangie happened spontaneously,
and something was created out of nothing. (I always have a laugh when I hear that!!) , why hasn't it happened again, and again, and again, and.......

Those theories are all soooooooooooo infinitely extremely stupid!!!

0 Replies

@Herald,

ROFLMAO.
You don't understand anything about science, do you?
Theories explain the observed facts. The Big Bang explains the expanding universe. The theory should then make predictions which the Big Bang theory did. You can't seem to get your mind around anything more then one simple concept at a time.

Quote:

... and how do you interpret the equal red shift in all directions?

I explained this to you and you didn't understand the simple concept.

Let me try it again....

Initial state is as follows:

Code: ABC

After explosion the following state is found at a given time:

Code:

 

                    B



                     .





A                                              C

A is not the center but sees B and C moving away.
B is not the center but sees A and C moving away.
C is not the center but sees A and B moving away.
All three objects see the same red shift. No one has to be center and none of them are center. Clearly you never bothered to do the simple experiment I told you to do that would prove your thought about center is demonstrably wrong. Willful ignorance on your part is not a valid argument.

Quote:

I am not supposed to present anything - you are the one who is supposed to verify and validate the assumptions of your favorite theory - to me it is obvious.

And yet when I do present things. You don't show me to be wrong. You simply ignore them and repeat the same clap trap over and over. I have shown you are wrong about red shift. I have proposed an experiment for you to try. You didn't do any of it. You clearly have no intention to try to learn. You want to point out your same mistakes over and over.

1 Reply

@parados,

try some logic! You are lacking in that department, mate!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Feel free to point out errors in my logic. I won't hold my breath waiting.

While we are talking about logic, I wonder what your logic is in responding to someone you have claimed to have on ignore. Is your logic to prove what you say should never be trusted?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

I am not supposed to present anything - you are the one who is supposed to verify and validate the assumptions of your favorite theory - to me it is obvious.
How much energy has had the Big Bang right after - at 1 Planck time ... and how much energy does the Universe have right now ... and from where has the Big Bang acquired all that energy? How has the Big Bang created the 17th elementary particles when the Singularity is much smaller even than the smallest of them - the photons, for example? When information (about the structure of a star system) is lost in a Black Hole in the Universe how exactly do you find it later on in the CMB 'predicted' by the Big Bang? The truth of the matter is that you don't have the vaguest idea of how much information in the Universe has been lost so far ... let alone making inferences on the grounds of incomplete, unverified and a priori misinterpreted and 'fixed' information of any kind? How many petabytes you are missing from the assumptions of the Big Bang only?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/20131106-144155.jpg

0 Replies

The information is out there, and often in easily digestible formats. All you need is the genuine desire to learn something new, rather than stubbornly try to confirm your old biases.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

The information is out there, and often in easily digestible formats. All you need is the genuine desire to learn something new, rather than stubbornly try to confirm your old biases.

This is some general talk - do you have the assumptions of the Big Bang ... specified or not?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
The information is out there, and often in easily digestible formats. All you need is the genuine desire to learn something new, rather than stubbornly try to confirm your old biases.
This is some general talk - do you have the assumptions of the Big Bang ... specified or not?

I've already answered this several times. Do you have brain damage?

Even if they did make reasonable assumptions, those assumptions would pale in comparison to the assumption that an invisible sky-Santa is behind it all.

0 Replies

@Herald,

You want to talk about what cosmologists assume? They assume that if you ignore the evidence and just go on gut feelings that make you feel good, you'll wind up with some fucked-up answers that don't hold up to scrutiny. That's a pretty solid assumption they make. And I'm glad they do, because it means we can rely on their ever-tentative conclusions to match the data.

Which is more than we can say for the claim that an invisible sky wizard waved a magic wand and made it happen. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw

A neurologist explains why you shouldn't believe in political candidates that sound too sure of themselves.
October 9, 2008

Robert Burton is the former chief of neurology at the University of California at San Francisco-Mt. Zion hospital. He recently wrote a book, On Being Certain, that explored the neuroscience behind the feeling of certainty, or why we are so convinced we’re right even when we’re wrong. He and Jonah Lehrer, the editor of Mind Matters, discussed the science of certainty.

LEHRER: What first got you interested in studying the mental state of certainty?

BURTON: A personal confession: I have always been puzzled by those who seem utterly confident in their knowledge. Perhaps this is a constitutional defect on my part, but I seldom have the sense of knowing unequivocally that I am right. Consequently I have looked upon those who ooze self-confidence and certainty with a combination of envy and suspicion. At a professional level, I have long wondered why so many physicians will recommend unproven, even risky therapies simply because they "know" that these treatments work.

It is easy to be cynical and suspect the worst of motives, from greed to ignorance, but I have known many first-rate, highly concerned and seemingly well motivated physicians who, nevertheless, operate based upon gut feelings and personal beliefs even in the face of contrary scientific evidence. After years of rumination, it gradually dawned on me that there may be an underlying biological component to such behavior.

LEHRER: In your book, you compare the "feeling of certainty" that accompanies things such as religious fundamentalism to the feeling that occurs when we have a word on the-tip-of-our-tongue. Could you explain?
...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-certainty-bias/

In short, forget your gut feelings and follow the evidence wherever it leads, whether you like it or not.

1 Reply

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/04/the_destruction_of_creationism_how_the_search_for_the_beginning_of_time_sparked_a_scientific_revolution/

Quote:

MONDAY, JAN 5, 2015 04:30 AM KST
The destruction of creationism: How the search for the beginning of time sparked a scientific revolution
When scholars used the Bible to pinpoint the moment of creation, they actually paved the way for a radical change
MARTIN J.S. RUDWICK

0 Replies

Decoding the Universe: Astronomy 101

0 Replies

I am no creationist but I alwasy wonder why those evolutionists are soooooooooooooooooooooo afreaid of creationism or ID?
They **** in their pantys when they read about it and see the enormopis ridiculous reactions here from so called evolutionists! It really looks and feels like a religion!!

They haven't been able to explain that!

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/600x400IAhome.png

0 Replies

@FBM,

Its amazing that, even in arguments like this, I often feel a segree of envy of these Creationists who rattle their"evoloders" and seem so certain in everything they say when all I can come up with is "This is what the evidence says right now"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I clearly remember the comfort of certainty I had when I was a steadfast believer. However, I also had a strong and abiding interest in science and later, philosophy. Seems a believer can only maintain that sense of certainty and security by ceasing to think and investigate.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I clearly remember the comfort of certainty I had when I was a steadfast believer.

You are still steadfast believer - in the Big Bang 'theory' however ... and that science has the freedom to dispose with the destiny of the people on its discretion - to make N-bombs, retro-virus mutations, and any other performances as it finds appropriate.
BTW, to replace one steadfast belief system with another - where you personally feel much more comfortable as God who has 'decoded' the Big Bang mystery of 'creation' of the the Universe (that might have always existed) - is not a big deal.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know