Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

     The very same is applicable to the Big Bang 'theory' as well. The observation of red shift and CMB does not prove in any way any expansion ... let alone to make such a theory scientific.
     Do you have the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' as a formal model with specified & defined variables at 1 Planck time, with assigned values ... and completed with a set of verification & validation tests?
     Do you have any plausible explanation for the remaining 96% of the Universe (except for the 4% that the Big Bang 'theory' is 'explaining')?
     How exactly the Big Bang has launched the Time)?
     How do you trust the Big Bang 'theory' to infer whatsoever, when it is full of contradictions in terms of classical physics and math logic?
     Do you have any plausible explanation how exactly the elementary particles 'have been made' ... out of the Singularity, or whatever?
     Do you have any fresh idea how has the Big Bang guessed to start designing the chemical elements?
     ... and when will you stop copy-pasting various references and will start writing with your own reasoning and statements?

Do you have any information whatsoever about your "personal 45% god-of-the-gaps"?

     First, I don't have 25% belief in the whole Big Bang 'theory', but rather I believe in 25% of the things it is claiming to explain, and second how did you come to know that I am trying to shoot down something that is dead-on-arrival? In a heuristic search one never knows where the road leads to, and it is not done with some specific intention and bias (as you imagine it), and nothing is over until all the contradictions are resolved ... as a result of which anything may come out.

     I may have, but it is not of your business, for the key word here really is 'personal' as you have noticed.

So that's it, then? You could save yourself a lot of trouble by just posting "God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps!" over and over and over and over again. That's essentially all you've done, anyway.

     Why don't you simply answer the questions at post No.5 852 823 herein above?

Why don't you say one thing about your hypothesized god?

     BTW how did you come to know that your idol formal model of verification & validation tests that you are continuously publishing as a reference, works at all (is what it presents to be)?
RE: Real of fake? (from your video references presented as Verification and Validation test)
     1. What is the source? - it doesn't matter. What matters is whether the data acquisition is primary and the data are true and correct, or are some kind of secondary bias interpretations and misinterpretation.
     2. What is the agenda? - The list of items to be discussed on a formal meeting is personal understanding of the world - it is in no way something objective & attached to the telescope.
     3. What kind of language does it use? - It doesn't matter. The language is defined by the subject matter a person is expert in. A mathematician talks with math terms, a politician talks with political terms, and a cosmologist talks with fuzzy logic 'cosmological' terms without any definitions, like for example Singularity, Gravitational Continuum (that has 96% Dark Energy & Dark matter in it), Expand into Nothing (whatever that is supposed to mean), etc.
     4. Does it involve testimonials? - The real question is what kind of evidences are accepted? - are the cherry-picked and confirmation bias only, or is it open to any applicable verification & validation.
     5. Are there claims of exclusivity? - This is a purely formal check up and it is not entirely clear what does 'exclusivity' here is supposed to mean.
     6. Is there mention of a conspiracy of any kind? - This is a test for paranoia and is based on ad homs justified by infinite aggression and personal complexes on the side of the 'verifier' for its assumes a priori (with or without any reasonable ground to believe) that the claim is made by a person detached from reality ... and this 'verification' test is very suitable for career promotions with the institute of psychotronics & mind control, for example. Besides that the suspected 'conspiracy' (imaginary hypothesis without any justification) should be based on some personal problems that have to be proved separately. When the claims are justified and objective (like the uncontrolled increase of the CO2 into the air for example that can be always measured in real time) this 'conspiracy theory' may be a real problem swept under the table by some other reasons.
     7. Does the claim involve multiple unassociated disorders? - ... like for example continuous aggression and ad homs on the side of the self-pronounced as expert of the last resort 'verifier'.
     8. Is there a money trail? - There is always some kind of money trail ... everywhere - this cannot prove anything.
     9. Were real scientific process involved? - This question is invalid as a question for it is not asking to prove anything. It strongly relies on the manipulation in the definition of real scientific process and is suggestological - it assumes a priori that any casual and irresponsible statement that is labelled as 'real scientific process' by some people of the status quo becomes real scientific process simply because of the mechanisms for repression of the status quo.
     10. Is there expertise? - Expertise is personal assessment and is usually based on general relativity and personal bias. Is somebody with an IQ of 50 and Diploma of Academician in Cosmology that has self-proclaimed himself as an expert really an expert? Is a person who controls the button of the RF for mind control ... and cannot stop misusing with it to infinity, an expert in communications?

     First you will have to prove that your question is valid at all - that 'God is mine' (and nobody else around the world believes in any God); and that the Intelligence in the Universe is imaginary hypothesis (no instance of Intelligence in the Universe is existing (incl. our own Intelligence)); ... and to say also, why don't you try to start answering some of the real questions of you favorite Big Bang 'theory'.

It's your hypothesis in this thread. All you need do is account for at least 4% of the observable universe with it and you've got a competing hypothesis. Bring it out and let's see how it stacks up.

Start researching the religion called 'science!

I am also agains religion, hence I am again 'science'

You follow?

Quahog insists on developing a new language.

He is such a "scholar" .

Grammar and logic both optional...or rather, discouraged.

     Have you read the title of the thread at all: it is 'Eaither ID or Big Bang stochastics' - where do you see hypothesis here.
     The remaining 96% is not a negligible number ... at all.
     I have answered you already - read the past posts ... very slowly and carefully. In case you will need some subtitles - don't hesitate to ask.
     Meanwhile you may start answering the previously set forth questions:
     - Do you have the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' as a formal model with specified & defined variables at 1 Planck time, with assigned values ... and completed with a set of verification & validation tests?
     - Do you have any plausible explanation for the remaining 96% of the Universe (except for the 4% that the Big Bang 'theory' is 'explaining')?
     - How exactly the Big Bang has launched the Time)?
     - How do you trust the Big Bang 'theory' to infer whatsoever, when it is full of contradictions in terms of classical physics and math logic?
     - Do you have any plausible explanation how exactly the elementary particles 'have been made' ... out of the Singularity, or whatever?
     - Do you have any fresh idea how has the Big Bang guessed to start designing the chemical elements?

What you do is point out the limits of science (many mistakenly, however), which are no big secret. As if that were logical support for ID. Thus, the g0d-of-the-gaps fallacy. That's all you have. A fallacy that you repeat over and over and over and over again. You complain that science can only explain 4%? So how much does your magical, invisible cosmic IDer explain? 0%.

"God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps! God of the gaps!"