Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Yes, but I'm a member of a super-secret club and we're not supposed to tell our secrets to mere mortals like you.

For you perfectly know that there is no such correlation. Nobody has ever proved that the red shift is Doppler effect with light and could be nothing else ... and that the light (which has different material carrier than sound) can be subject to Doppler effect at all.

FBM wrote:

That's one of several possible definitions. Be careful around dictionaries, Herod. You're not very good with them.

It doesn't matter what the different disctionaries are saying (in the various types of contexts). What matters is what is your personal definition of atheism that you have accepted for your super-personal beliefs.

FBM wrote:

Quote:
Prove it. Prove that the hypothesis for the Universe to have always existed is impossible
You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

That claim is of Carl Sagan and he bequeathed it to us, the future generations to prove it.

FBM wrote:

I haven't said anything about it being impossible.

You said and even how - you claim that it is 'God-of the-Gaps', which implicitly supposes that you believe that this hypothesis is not plausible, but has been invented willy-nilly by the theists on the grounds of the inability of Science to explain 'some of the things' (that you and your mason-bros call 'God-of the-Gaps'). Your Science is not the case of being unable to explain 'some of the things' - it is unable to find a justification and to verify & validate by any plausible physical interpretations the whole 'model'.

FBM wrote:

I quoted your very own post. Pay attention.

No, you havn't. You quoted only part of it, then twisted it with your personal misinterpretations and assigned to it status of 'God-of-the Gaps'. This is not called 'quote' - this is called 'misuse with quotes'.

FBM wrote:

Blah blah red herring blah blah. I'm quite happy not knowing and very comfortable with the possibility that some things may be unknowable.

Evidently. You are happy with the status quo only ... and with the ability to misuse with it at the expense of the truth to infinity, by taking advantage of the shortcomings of the system, which BTW is not interested in the truth as well. All that it is interested in is its self-preservation and the preservation of its competitive adgantage to manipulate the public knowledge to infinity and as it funds appropriate for the purposes of money and power. You are a servant of the status quo, and with every day and in any way you are becoming better and better at that.

FBM wrote:

Got any evidence for your "personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps"?

It has been explained to you that this is your personal designed straw-man. The idea of the 'God-of-the-Gaps' is yours (or of your mason-bros) - not mine. You are the one to present the prove of it. Who makes the claims he presents the proves.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Denialism isn't evidence. The evidence for the red shift is a slam dunk. More so than anything you've offered for your god/alien/ILF/perhaps 25% Big Bang smorgasbord of contradictions.

I haven't said anything is impossible; I've just pointed out that you post nothing but logical fallacies and fundamental ignorance of science. Post something without logical fallacies for a change. Show some evidence for your claim. Something worthwhile. Anything.

Sagan and other scientists are very clear that we don't know whether the universe has always existed or not. Scientists are very comfortable not knowing everything. They're not comfortable with people making claims that they can't support.

To wit: Where's your support for your god/alien/ILF/perhaps 25% Big Bang? How can you give the Big Bang 25% and then turn around and deny that it ever happened? You've got a lot more explaining to do about the gaps in your knowledge and reasoning than science does. Laughing

4:0 and holding strong.

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I haven't said anything is impossible; I've just pointed out that you post nothing but logical fallacies and fundamental ignorance of science.

I am not inventing the contradictions - I am only observing them. In the very same way you are observing the red shift. I don't claim that the red shift is your conspiracy theory. What I claim is that you are absolutely unable to make any plausible interpretation of it (that is not demolishing half of the classical physics, math logic, and quantum mechanics, for example).

FBM wrote:

Post something without logical fallacies for a change.

You obviously don't understand something - an insolvable contradiction is Impossibility to Exist. Unless you explain how a Singularity can be a carrier of Infinite Temperature, and that Infinite Temperature (suggesting infinite velocity of the particles) can exist at all in the physical world, your construct 'Singularity having Infinite Temperature' is impossible to exist - no matter whether appearing all of a sudden or 'out of nowhere'.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I haven't said anything is impossible; I've just pointed out that you post nothing but logical fallacies and fundamental ignorance of science.
I am not inventing the contradictions - I am only observing them. In the very same way you are observing the red shift. I don't claim that the red shift is your conspiracy theory. What I claim is that you are absolutely unable to make any plausible interpretation of it (that is not demolishing half of the classical physics, math logic, and quantum mechanics, for example).

FBM wrote:
Post something without logical fallacies for a change.
You obviously don't understand something - an insolvable contradiction is Impossibility to Exist.

Yeah, what I don't understand is your English. Word salad after word salad. You need to work on that. And logic. And actually understanding the science that you're so intent on trashing.

And the reason why evidence is so important. Got any for your god/alien/ILF/perhaps 25% Big Bang-that-didn't-happen-of-the gaps hypothesis?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Yeah, what I don't understand is your English.

Do you have a physical interpretation of Infinite Temperature ... and which part here is not entirely clear to you ... as semantics in English?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Let's discuss contradictions, shall we?

Herald wrote:

... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence [Which? Those are different things, as evidenced by your choice of the disjunctive "or."] (string theory [String Theory is not a meta-intelligence being. It's a physical theory, 100% man-made] or s.th. ["s.th."? What? You don't even have a word for it? Then how can you give it the 45% possibility of being responsible for the universe if you can't even identify it? You've named four different CONTRADICTORY possiblilities that you're giving 45% faith to. And you think this **** is a "validly plausible" as the Standard Model? I'll say one thing, it's as "validly plausible" as the Scientology you seem to admire.]; 30% another ILF [Why "another ILF"? Why not the "meta-intelligence you included in the 45% part?], 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)[Cool story, bruh. Very L. Ron Hubbard-ish. Problem is...evidence. Got any?], and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang [Which you have repeatedly denied ever happened, and yet give 25% credit to? Puh-lease.] and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean)[It means the Standard Model, which you have also subsequently argued to be trash. Make up your mind. Does it share 25% credibility along with the Big Bang (which you also deny) or is it a profoundly flawed product of a scientific conspiracy?] and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter.[This just does not make any logical sense. What is "fused with 'the' time" and how did Dark Energy and Dark Matter do this? What are you even talking about? How can you give 25% to it/them, then deny that it/they ever happened?]
...

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Yeah, what I don't understand is your English.
Do you have a physical interpretation of Infinite Temperature ... and which part here is not entirely clear to you ... as semantics in English?

Do you have a physical interpretation of your god/alien/ILF/Big Bang-that-never-happened-of-the-gaps?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Do you have a physical interpretation of your god/alien/ILF/Big Bang-that-never-happened-of-the-gaps?

... 'Something-of-the-Gaps', in the capacity of being extreme autism towards everything rational and plausible IS the best universal method and the best easy-makering to justify any mind-blowing claims, like for example, without being limited to: Infinite Temperature, Existence of Temperature without Media, Existence of Singularity before the Time, Infinite Gravitation, Approximation of Infinity with 'ten trillion trillions', Expansion of the Universe (only in terms of light, and not in terms of neutrino emissions, for example), Appearing out of Nowhere; Launching the Time without any Reason, etc. ... for this is not 'God-of-the-Gaps' - it is a Hit Parade of the Arrogance & the Absolute Inability to perceive adequately the real world.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I take that as a "No, I don't have any evidence to support my claim, nor even a rational representation of it, much less a physical one." Laughing

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Quote:
... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence
Which? Those are different things, as evidenced by your choice of the disjunctive "or."

In terms of your fake Big-Bang-'theory'-of-the-Gaps it may be, but in terms of the inference by which they have been derived they are not. As you are not trying to understand the inference, you will never be able to explain its results ... with your God-of-the-Gaps straw-man 'theory'. Both of these can explain from where the brainless Big Bang has acquired all that Information for structuring the Universe upon Creation (if has ever happened). Obviously you are too much prejudiced to start understanding that whenever.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I'm prejudiced against random, illogical claims that are made without supporting evidence. Anybody can make up wild stories and concoct a purely a priori fable. Come up with some evidence. Even a clearly stated hypothesis that doesn't contail logical fallacies would help you, since you haven't even been able to construct one of those yet.

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

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I take that as a "No"

... and it is not "No". It is sooner: "When will you present your physical interpretation of Infinite Temperature, Infinite Gravitation, Appearing out of Nowhere & out of Nothing ... and also the physical interpretation of 'Nowhere' and 'Nothing' themselves?
BTW do you make any distinction between 'Appearing out of Nothing', 'Existence of Nothing' and 'Existence out of Time'?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I'm prejudiced against random, illogical claims that are made without supporting evidence.

This is 'five nines' of the uptime of the Big Bang 'theory'. Do you know what does 'five nines' mean?

0 Replies

@Herald,

I don't personally give a **** about any of that. I'm just comparing relative strengths of claims made. Yours is shot through with fallacies, lacks supporting evidence and is not falsifiable through experimentation or observation. It's so far just your imagination.

4:0

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I don't personally give a **** about any of that. I'm just comparing relative strengths of claims made. Yours is shot through with fallacies, lacks supporting evidence and is not falsifiable through experimentation or observation. It's so far just your imagination.

And you really think you can't say the same of the religion called 'science'?
Wake up, mate!

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

The evidence for the red shift is a slam dunk.

When you tell us what you understand of light and of light effects you may talk about 'slam dunks'. You can neither explain what double moonbow is, for example, nor what optics and video recording equipment you will need to observe it, but you can talk with such a great ease about 'slam dunks' and 'expansions of the Universe'. Where is your math from the red shift and the CMB of the observations to the mumbo-jumbo talk after that presented as scientific claims and plausible inferences?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I don't personally give a **** about any of that. I'm just comparing relative strengths of claims made.

You cannot compare things just so, especially when you don't understand five nines of the claims ... of both of the sides.

0 Replies

@Herald,

What I understand about details of physics is irrelevant. We've been over this. Pay attention.

Would you tell us what you know about the importance of presenting empirical evidence to support your claims? Or the need to use fallacy-free premises in order to produce a valid argument? You're obviously incapable of weaning yourself off the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

4:0

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

What I understand about details of physics is irrelevant.

ONE WORD:

******* UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IDIOT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS AND THINKS HE HASN'T TO, BUT WHAT A ******* BIG MOUTH ABOUT SOMETHING HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT!!!

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

What I understand about details of physics is irrelevant.

... and how is that? The physical interpretation of the standard model is all over physics - from the very beginning to the very end. How can you assess the claims without understanding what they are saying?

FBM wrote:

Would you tell us what you know about the importance of presenting empirical evidence to support your claims?

No. As you claim that you don't understand anything of physics, why would you need any physical and non-physical evidences? If you call the verification tests for plausibility 'empty talk', why should I provide to you 'any reasonable ground to believe'? You deny the contradiction as a method for verifying possibility. You are ready to believe in any mumbo-jumbo so far it is certified for 'authenticity' by the status quo. You don't even make the effort to look for the reasons of the 'certification', for example ... and the way it has been done, as well. Can I certify myself that I am the best ... and what value would that have at all?

FBM wrote:

Would you tell us what you know about ... the need to use fallacy-free premises in order to produce a valid argument?

No. When and if you prove that the Infinite Temperature is 'fallacy-free premise' I may think it over (I am not saying that I will tell you anything in particular) - I will reconsider the question only.

FBM wrote:

You're obviously incapable of weaning yourself off the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Just like you ... with your inability to wean off from the status quo, and from the fallacy that it has ever looked for any truth at all.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know