32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 12:31 am
@FBM,
Quote:
The evidence for the Standard Model is so abundant as to be overwhelming


You like to kid yourself, right?
Standard Model has too many holes in it too be working proloerly!

It is RUBBISH, mate!!

0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 10:56 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture.
     This is absolute misrepresentation of the things as they actually are. The truth of the matter is that 'Even though the Standard Model is currently explaining not more than 4 % of the subatomic world, it does not explain in any way the other 96% of the Universe as we know it ... and as observed from the telescope ... not to say that it cannot even start explaining the appearance of life in the Universe and the appearance and equilibrium of the Biosphere on our own planet ... and the missing function of stochastic distribution anywhere else throughout the Universe.'
     O.K., can you explain how exactly do you justify your 95% belief in the Big Bang system?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 11:00 pm
@Herald,
Where did I say anything about having a 95% belief in anything? That's a strawman fallacy and a blatant lie, compounded by yet another g0d-of-the-gaps fallacy.

How much of the observable universe does your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" account for with evidence and necessary reasoning?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 11:07 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

... my personal are 45% God or some meta-intelligence (string theory or s.th.); 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
...


http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10565239_608185829312451_1162164996702832020_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 11:15 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
perhaps 25% of the Big Bang


Interesting that you can have 25% faith in something, then spend inordinate amounts of time and energy to shoot it down. Laughing
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 11:34 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Where did I say anything about having a 95% belief in anything?
     You don't remember what you are publishing - I wonder whether you are watching at all all those videos that you are providing as a reference to me.
     At post No.5 852 823, the video there at 0:25 claims that 95% of the scientists believe that the Big Bang is the absolute truth of the last resort without even bothering to prove its truth value and justification, and you believe 100% to those videos and to those 'scientists' (whoever they might be - for this may be 95% of the scientists that are atheists and are denying God a priori as a guarantee for their cloudless scientific career, for example) - hence you believe 95% in the Big Bang 'theory' ... on the grounds of any videos.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 11:36 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
claims that 95% of the scientists believe


That's a statement of fact about how many scientists accept the BBT, not how much I personally believe in it. I've made it clear that I'm a layman. Logic fail. Intellectual dishonesty and/or ineptitude revealed once again.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 11:38 pm
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/1497678_608233155944217_4874978849193677319_n.jpg

Herald wrote:

... my personal are 45% God or some meta-intelligence (string theory or s.th.); 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
...


Laughing
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 11:40 pm
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10885193_751932138226531_4508021827485521163_n.png
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 12:02 am
@FBM,
and 'science' doesn't 'exploit'?!


Man, how naive you are!!!
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 12:09 am
@FBM,
Quote:
That's a statement of fact about how many scientists accept the BBT, not how much I personally believe in it. I've made it clear that I'm a layman. Logic fail. Intellectual dishonesty and/or ineptitude revealed once again


Beieng a layman is ok. Nothing wrong with that and it is an honest staement.
However, I am amazed at how much faith you put in 'science'!
It looks really like a blind faith!
Why not be more critical about it! Being a layman that must be more easy for you.
You might think I am a trol or this or that. But I really mean it that it is dangerous to put so much faith in science.
That way we are heading, if we are not already, in a technocratic society!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 05:58 am
http://assets.amuniversal.com/c15d24f070e20132b90b005056a9545d
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 10:45 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
That's a statement of fact about how many scientists accept the BBT
     At rough estimate onto 2010 there have been 2.2 MN scientists, and at present they are most probably 3 MN.
     How exactly have you collected the data and the opinion of all those 3 MN scientists?
     How have you generalized the data from 3 MN opinions ... when you cannot generalize the data for the assumptions of a formal model (like the Big Bang 'theory', for example);
     You have nowhere proved that such a great number of opinions is subject to generalization at all.
     BTW have you ever seen any statistics - with such a great number of opinions there is no way to obtain such beautiful percentage.
     To make heuristic assessment of implicit personal beliefs is one thing, and to make comments on things that you have no idea of, and to assign rounded numbers to statistics that is actually measurable after collecting the primary data, and not before - is very much different. From where automatically follows that all the other numbers provided by the atheists in connection with any comments the Big Bang 'theory' have the very same casual justification - none.
FBM wrote:
I've made it clear that I'm a layman.
     Layman ... believing in the Big Bang. Do you pray to the Big Bang, or what ... and how does your Church look like?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 10:48 pm
@Herald,
I'm becoming more and more convinced that you really do have a cognitive developmental disorder. What part of "I don't believe" can't you understand, Prof. "Personal 45% god-of-the-gaps"?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 10:49 pm
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/20131106-144155.jpg
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 10:52 pm
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10882388_857157840972817_6930559930720196084_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 11:01 pm
The key is education: http://www.doublexscience.org/real-science-vs-fake-science-how-can-you-tell-them-apart/

Quote:
Real science vs. fake science: How can you tell them apart?
Posted on December 11, 2011 by Emily Willingham

Pseudoscience is the shaky foundation of practices–often medically related–that lack a basis in evidence. It’s “fake” science dressed up, sometimes quite carefully, to look like the real thing. If you’re alive, you’ve encountered it, whether it was the guy at the mall trying to sell you Power Balance bracelets, the shampoo commercial promising you that “amino acids” will make your hair shiny, or the peddlers of “natural remedies” or fad diet plans, who in a classic expansion of a basic tenet of advertising, make you think you have a problem so they can sell you something to solve it.

Pseudosciences are usually pretty easily identified by their emphasis on confirmation over refutation, on physically impossible claims, and on terms charged with emotion or false “sciencey-ness,” which is kind of like “truthiness” minus Stephen Colbert. Sometimes, what peddlers of pseudoscience say may have a kernel of real truth that makes it seem plausible. But even that kernel is typically at most a half truth, and often, it’s that other half they’re leaving out that makes what they’re selling pointless and ineffectual.

If we could hand out cheat sheets for people of sound mind to use when considering a product, book, therapy, or remedy, the following would constitute the top-10 questions you should always ask yourself–and answer–before shelling out the benjamins for anything, whether it’s anti-aging cream, a diet fad program, books purporting to tell you secrets your doctor won’t, or jewelry items containing magnets:

1. What is the source? Is the person or entity making the claims someone with genuine expertise in what they’re claiming? Are they hawking on behalf of someone else? Are they part of a distributed marketing scam? Do they use, for example, a Website or magazine or newspaper ad that’s made to look sciencey or newsy when it’s really one giant advertisement meant to make you think it’s journalism?

2. What is the agenda? You must know this to consider any information in context. In a scientific paper, look at the funding sources. If you’re reading a non-scientific anything, remain extremely skeptical. What does the person or entity making the claim get out of it? Does it look like they’re telling you you have something wrong with you that you didn’t even realize existed…and then offering to sell you something to fix it? I’m reminded of the douche solution commercials of my youth in which a young woman confides in her mother that sometimes, she “just doesn’t feel fresh.” Suddenly, millions of women watching that commercial were mentally analyzing their level of freshness “down there” and pondering whether or not to purchase Summer’s Eve.

3. What kind of language does it use? Does it use emotion words or a lot of exclamation points or language that sounds highly technical (amino acids! enzymes! nucleic acids!) or jargon-y but that is really meaningless in the therapeutic or scientific sense? If you’re not sure, take a term and google it, or ask a scientist–like one of us (seriously–feel free to ask). Sometimes, an amino acid is just an amino acid. Be on the lookout for sciencey-ness. As Albert Einstein once pointed out, if you can’t explain something simply, you don’t understand it well. If peddlers feel that they have to toss in a bunch of jargony science terms to make you think they’re the real thing, they probably don’t know what they’re talking about, either.

4. Does it involve testimonials? If all the person or entity making the claims has to offer is testimonials without any real evidence of effectiveness or need, be very, very suspicious. Anyone–anyone–can write a testimonial and put it on a Website. Example: “I felt that I knew nothing about science until Double X Science came along! Now, my brain is packed with science facts, and I’m earning my PhD in aerospace engineering this year! If they could do it for me, Double X Science can do it for you, too! THANKS, DOUBLE X SCIENCE! –xoxo, Julie C., North Carolina”

5. Are there claims of exclusivity? People have been practicing science and medicine for thousands of years. Millions of people are currently doing it. Typically, new findings arise out of existing knowledge and involve the contributions of many, many people. It’s quite rare–in fact, I can’t think of an example–that a new therapy or intervention is something completely novel without a solid existing scientific background to explain how it works, or that only one person figures it out. Also, watch for words like “proprietary” and “secret.” These terms signal that the intervention on offer has likely not been exposed to the light of scientific critique.

6. Is there mention of a conspiracy of any kind? Claims such as, “Doctors don’t want you to know” or “the government has been hiding this information for years,” are extremely dubious. Why wouldn’t the millions of doctors in the world want you to know about something that might improve your health? Doctors aren’t a monolithic entity in an enormous white coat making collective decisions about you any more than the government is some detached nonliving institution making robotic collective decisions. They’re all individuals, and in general, they do want you to know.

7. Does the claim involve multiple unassociated disorders? Does it involve assertions of widespread damage to many body systems (in the case of things like vaccines) or assertions of widespread therapeutic benefit to many body systems or a spectrum of unrelated disorders? Claims, for example, that a specific intervention will cure cancer, allergies, ADHD, and autism (and I am not making that up) are frankly irrational.

8. Is there a money trail? The least likely candidates to benefit from conclusions about any health issue or intervention are the researchers in the trenches working on the underpinnings of disease (genes, environmental triggers, etc.), doing the basic science. The likeliest candidates to benefit are those who (1) have something patentable on their hands; (2) market “cures” or “therapies”; (3) write books or give paid talks or “consult”; or (4) work as “consultants” who “cure.” That’s not to say that people who benefit fiscally from research or drug development aren’t trustworthy. Should they do it for free? No. But it’s always, always important to follow the money.

9. Were real scientific processes involved? Evidence-based interventions generally go through many steps of a scientific process before they come into common use. Going through these steps includes performing basic research using tests in cells and in animals, clinical research with patients/volunteers in several heavily regulated phases, peer-review at each step of the way, and a trail of published research papers. Is there evidence that the product or intervention on offer has been tested scientifically, with results published in scientific journals? Or is it just sciencey-ness espoused by people without benefit of expert review of any kind?

10. Is there expertise? Finally, no matter how much you dislike “experts” or disbelieve the “establishment,” the fact remains that people who have an MD or a science PhD or both after their names have gone to school for 24 years or longer, receiving an in-depth, daily, hourly education in the issues they’re discussing. It they’re specialists in their fields, tack on about five more years. If they’re researchers in their fields, tack on more. They’re not universally blind or stupid or venal or uncaring or in it for the money; in fact, many of them are exactly the opposite. If they’re doing research, usually they’re not Rockefellers. Note that having “PhD” or even “MD” after a name or “Dr” before it doesn’t automatically mean that the degree or the honorific relates to expertise in the subject at hand. I have a PhD in biology. If I wrote a book about chemical engineering and slapped the term PhD on there, that still doesn’t make me an expert in chemical engineering.

There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but there is also nothing wrong in acknowledging that a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing, that there are really people out there whose in-depth educations and experience better qualify them to address certain issues. However, caveat emptor, as always. Given that even MDs and PhDs can be disposed to acquisitiveness just like those snake-oil salesmen, never forget to look for the money. Always, always follow the money.

Emily Willingham, Double X Science Editor
@ejwillingham


Here is a handy short version, too!


http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/pseudosciencechecklist.jpg
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 11:15 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
What part of "I don't believe" can't you understand
     Your personal definition of layman: is it in the sense of 'a person who is not a member of a particular profession' (like for example is not a top cosmology lecturer) or layman in the sense of 'a person who belongs to a religion, but is not a priest, minister, etc.'
     BTW the constrained resources of the Earth are not a problem of the Cosmology (to generate fake theories and to throw dust into the eyes of the population) - they are problem to UNFCCC and OECD ... and all of us in the capacity of 'laymen'.
     The theory of the Big Bang has never had any objective to explain the origin of the Universe - its main idea is 'that things are just happening on autopilot in the Universe' and 'nothing can be done ... with the waste of the resources of the planet and the promiscuous emissions of any kind into the atmosphere ... to infinity'. The general idea of the Big Bang 'theory' is that we are living in a casino world with casino economy and unlimited rights to a handful of financial crooks and their scientific servants to collect to infinity the money of the population, and that the "other people's life is nothing" and all that matters is the "other people's money" & "our power".
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 11:17 pm
@Herald,
And your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps" explains what, exactly? Laughing
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 11:21 pm
Quote:
Index to Creationist Claims,
edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2004
Previous Claim: CI001.4 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CI009
Claim CI002:

Intelligent design has explanatory power, especially given Dembski's "explanatory filter." It accounts for a wide range of biological facts. This makes it scientific.
Source:


Dembski, William A., 2001. Is intelligent design testable? http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm
Response:

Merely accounting for facts does not make a theory scientific. Saying "it's magic" can account for any fact anywhere but is as far from science as you can get. A theory has explanatory power if facts can be deduced from it. No facts have ever been deduced from ID theory. The theory is equivalent to saying, "it's magic."

Dembski's explanatory filter requires the examination of an infinite number of other hypotheses -- even unknown ones -- to accept the design hypothesis. Thus it is impossible to apply. Intelligent design remains untestable and impossible to use in practice. Dembski himself has never rigorously applied his filter (Elsberry 2002).

"Intelligent" and "design" remain effectively undefined. A theory cannot have explanatory power if it is uncertain what the theory says in the first place.
References:

Elsberry, Wesley R., 2002. Commentary on William A. Dembski's "No Free Lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence" http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/rev_nfl_wre_bn.html
Further Reading:

Pennock, Robert T., 1999. Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI002.html
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.41 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:22:21