Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Herod, this is how you score points. Bring testable observational data and a logical, non-fallacious analysis of it. Share it freely with anyone who's interested in testing it. Adjust the model to fit the observation whether you like it or not, not the other way around:

http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/looking-back-time-oldest-light-existence-offers-insight-universe

Quote:

Spotlight Live: Looking Back in Time - Oldest Light in Existence Offers Insight into the Universe

THE OLDEST LIGHT IN THE UNIVERSE, called the cosmic microwave background, is a fossil from the Big Bang that fills every square inch of the sky. It provides a glimpse of what the universe looked like 14 billion years ago, and can shed light on everything from the evolution of the universe to how much dark matter and dark energy the universe contains.
Recently, two high-profile experiments released new data and analysis of this early light. These data support the theory of cosmic inflation, which posits that the universe underwent an enormous expansion in the moments following the Big Bang. During this time, space grew monumentally, swelling from smaller than a proton to an enormity that defies comprehension.

Planck Satellite Brings Early Universe into Focus

Just last week, Planck released new maps of the cosmic microwave background supporting the theory of cosmic inflation, which posits that the universe underwent a monumental expansion in the moments following the Big Bang. During this time, space expanded faster than the speed of light, growing from smaller than a proton to an enormity that defies comprehension.

ON FEBRUARY 18, 2015, three preeminent scientists came together to discuss the latest results, what they mean for the theory of inflation, and what we can expect to learn about the very early universe in the coming decade.

About the Participants (left to right)
GEORGE EFSTATHIOU is a cosmologist with a leading role in the Planck mission, which studies the oldest light in the universe. He is the Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge and Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge.
CLEMENT PRYKE is an experimental cosmologist and Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota. He has played a leading role in the construction and operation of a series of telescopes that study the universe's first light from the South Pole, and in analyzing the data they produce.
PAUL STEINHARDT is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University. His research spans particle physics, astrophysics, condensed matter physics and cosmology, and he shared the 2002 P.A.M. Dirac Medal for his role as one of the architects of inflationary theory.
KELEN TUTTLE (moderator) is a freelance journalist with more than a decade of experience in science communications. Most recently, she served as Editor-in-Chief of Symmetry, a magazine dedicated to the science and culture of particle physics. Her fields of expertise also include astrophysics, biology and chemistry.

4:0

1 Reply

How to NOT score points:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/9148130.jpg

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Bring testable observational data and a logical, non-fallacious analysis of it.

     Perhaps when and if you succeed to 'bring testable observational data and a logical, non-fallacious analysis' for authentication (check for authenticity), verification (check for compliance) and validation (check for feasibility) of the Big Bang 'theory'.
    1. You will have to prove that the Big Bang is physics, and is a valid theory (has no contradictions with any other sciences, especially classical fundamental ones).
     2. Verification tests:
   - Infinite Temperature - what is the interpretation in the physics of that?;
   - Infinite Gravity - physical interpretation;
   - Out of Nowhere - physical interpretation;
   - Out of Nothing - physical interpretation;
   - All of a Sudden - physical interpretation;
   - Launching the Time - physical interpretation;
   - By Reason Unknown - physical interpretation;
   - Convert Temperature into Space - physical interpretation;
   You will have to eliminate the ambiguity - what does 'Out of Nowhere' mean: Is it 'appearing in no time' of 'appearing from a place that has not existed onto the time of appearance'? ... this is before making the physical interpretation.
     3. Validation tests - check for plausibility & feasibility; proof that the Big Bang is able and has done all the things that it is claiming to have done:
   - Has launched the Time - evidence that the Big Bang has had and has the abilities to launch the Time;
   - Has appeared out of Nowhere - evidence for the abilities of the Big Bang to appear without a source-point;
   - Is in Operation Now - evidence?!;
   - Has been in Operation All the Time ... for a paeriod of 13.8 By - evidence for discontinuity of the impact;
   - Can have used anything coming from 'before the Time' - evidence;
   - Is able to create the particles - evidence?!;
   - Is able to create the chemical elements - evidence?!;
   - Is able to create the stars, star systems, galaxies, black holes, etc. - evidence?!;
   - Is able to create the Dark Energy - evidence?!;
   - Is able to create the Dark Matter - evidence?!;
   - Is able to create Life - evidence?!;
   - Is able to acquire, use, & manage Information without having any Intelligence - evidence?!;
   - Is sustainable as a theory ... honestly speaking I don't see you
     What you call 'fallacious analysis' is called verification & validation of the formal model (theory in this case). If the Big Bang is not representing the physical world - what exactly it is a representation of?

1 Reply

@Herald,

There is no evidence in all that for your "personal 45% alien/god/ILF." It's just more god-of-the-gap fallacy.

4:0

1 Reply

http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w561/hapkido1996/gaps_zpsc8b2d23e.jpg

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

There is no evidence ...

What evidence and what score - I doubt that you are reading the questions at all ... for you don't have the problem to ever answering them. Why don't you 'change the record' for a while.

1 Reply

@Herald,

How about you provide some evidence to support your "personal 45% god/ILF/alien-of-the-gaps" for a change? Show us one single thing about your intelligent designer, Herod. Just one thing.

4:0

2 Replies

@FBM,

ok I give up. This one has some concrete in front of his head!

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

How about you provide some evidence to support your "personal 45% god/ILF/alien-of-the-gaps" for a change?

If you are curious to know you cannot exclude the ILF 100% ... for a change. You cannot claim for sure that among all the data collected from the radio-telescope you don't have any encoded communications 'of the aliens'. There exist at least one crypto-system (the proposed by Bell Labs. in 1911) - called one-time pad - for which you cannot distinguish random-text from ciphertext. Hence, in case you have some ciphertexts in the data, collected from the radio telescope, there is no way to find them and to recognize them as such in case you don't know anything about the crypto-system and the random generator, and the encryption algorithm for encoding the messages and the communications of the aliens - this was the bad news ... and the ugly news is that you don't even know anything about the 'criptographic key of the aliens', nor anything about their way of thinking. If they have a math logic that is tautology (like the math logic of the Big Bang system) - you will never be able to get knowing for sure anything about them.
In other words you may have the 'TV shows of the aliens' on your data storage, and may not be able to get knowing that you have anything of the kind for life ... and you cannot even find verification & validation tests to exclude that option 100%, for it is mathematically proven that this case scenario is cryptoanalytically unbreakable. Have you understood that ... as for a change.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Of course, if we go to that extreme then we can't know for sure that you haven't inserted crypto nonsensical text amongst your words you post here.

0 Replies

@Herald,

I'm not excluding it at all. I'm just asking for evidence. Got any? Otherwise, your claim is no stronger than that for unicorns or Quetzalcoatl.

4:0

1 Reply

I would even believe this guy, if he were to produce actual evidence for a change:

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I'm not excluding it at all.

How? Why don't you tell us what exactly do you accept as plausible and feasible, or different from impossible?

FBM wrote:

I'm just asking for evidence.

The Universe does not turn (or expand, or whatever it might be there) in compliance with your personal understanding of the world - the things are staying just the opposite.

FBM wrote:

Got any?

     It doesn't matter - you will not have it.
     BTW, from where are you so sure that the 'evidence' about the existence or non-existence of God looks like a fifteen pages of math as you obviously imagine it? In the capacity of great scientist you should be able to accept any types of evidence - especially the ones that you don't like and are in some contradiction, or that impose some uncertainty.
     There is more - I am agnostic. All of my evidence is showing that you cannot define beyond reasonable doubt the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory', and you cannot verify & validate the math 'evidence' that you are so keen of. A math inference usually proves only plausibility - it does not prove any feasibility. Feasibility is tested in the large hadron collider ... for a change.
     The feasibility has to be proved separately ... and independently of the math, on the basis of which the subjected to verification and validation hypotheses has been made ... and why don't you start talking on the 'soundtrack of the discussion' ... for a change? With people like you I feel like talking to a broken record ... or to a non-decrypted radio station.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You really haven't been paying attention, have you? I haven't claimed to know or even care about the existence of any god. I'm just comparing two claims: the scientists and yours. They have physical, observational and theoretical, falsifiable evidence; you don't. By your own reckoning, they can explain 4% of the observable universe; you can't explain a single phenomenon with your "personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps." The Standard Model is devoid of logical fallacies; your posts here are founded upon them. Thus, until you do much, much better than you have so far:

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

How? Why don't you tell us what exactly do you accept as plausible and feasible, or different from impossible?

Where is the answer to that? I am not asking you about any existence of any God. The question was: 'what exactly do you accept as plausible and feasible, or different from impossible?' ... where do you see any God here?

2 Replies

@Herald,

What is see is an abundance of logical fallacies in your posts and your claims. The fact that you use logical fallacies doesn't even mean that your conclusion is wrong; it only means that you have failed to support your conclusion. Plausibility and "feasibility" [sic] are irrelevant. You either logically support your claim or you don't. You haven't. So far. But I'm still open to the possibility. Until then:

4:0

0 Replies

@Herald,

Let me try a different tack.

Your approach is to point out that the Standard Model is incomplete and includes unresolved paradoxes. Of course, every scientist already knows that; that's why they still have jobs.

However, you would like to use that fact to claim that your "personal 45% alien/god/ILF" hypothesis has equal credibility as the Standard Model. Not proof, just equal credibility.

That's the essence of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. You can't increase the credibility of your own argument by pointing out flaws in the opponent's argument. You can only increase the credibility of your own argument by providing positive evidence for it, regardless of what the opponent's argument says.

So. Show us the positive, falsifiable evidence for your alternative hypothesis or forever languish in limbo with all the other tinfoil hatters. Until you do:

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Let me try a different tack.

No, you are not allowed. If you want to make 'different tack' (in our region it is called 'track') you are free person in a free world and you can open your own thread.
You are not welcome on this thread to turn it into a broken record.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Why not? This is already turning into the Duomo.

0 Replies

Herod says:

Quote:

FBM wrote:
Let me try a different tack.
No, you are not allowed. If you want to make 'different tack' (in our region it is called 'track') you are free person in a free world and you can open your own thread.
You are not welcome on this thread to turn it into a broken record.

No, you maro0n, it IS "tack". It comes from sailing ships, when beating into the wind you would have to change tacks periodically to stay on course, hence by analogy it means coming about onto a new heading to examine the question from a new angle. Don't try to appear superior when you are wrong. And FBM is perfectly welcome here, considering he makes far more sense than you do.. You have no ownership rights on any thread you start here once you start it. So shut up and answer the points he raises.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know