Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

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.

I'm allowed to do whatever any other A2Ker is allowed to do, including taking a different TACK when the old one isn't producing much results. The broken record in this thread has been from the beginning your repeated use of the the god-of-the-gaps fallacy (along with a handful of others) to try to wedge in your god/alien/ILF hypothesis. When you take a different TACK, I will.

Like, for example, showing some actual observational, experimental and theoretical evidence for your claim. Until you do that, you have absolutely nothing to stack up against the Standard Model. Until you do that, the score will remain:

4:0

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/planck-composite-all-sky.jpg

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

... to try to wedge in your god/alien/ILF hypothesis

The very fact that you don't have the scientific culture to specify in the beginning all the possible hypothesis for the assumptions of the formal model that you are trying to construct does not necessary mean that if somebody else puts them on the table for discussion this is a threat to the security of that 'theory'. Yes, it really may be viewed as a threat, but it is not because it is God-of-the-Gaps strawman, but rather because the Big Bang 'theory' has not covered that risk - and that is very much different.

FBM wrote:

Like, for example, showing some actual observational, experimental and theoretical evidence for your claim.

You are talking about some observations all the time, but the observations are nothing when you can't say anything in particular about what you are actually observing ... and why?

1 Reply

@Herald,

More meaningless

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/airwank%201.gif

You have no empirical support for your "personal 45% god/alien/ILF," can't fix the logical fallacies in your arguments, and it explains exactly nothing. You still lose.

4:0

0 Replies

http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w561/hapkido1996/10882123_636937813078372_5365080710080778768_n_zps0a8f89b1.jpg

0 Replies

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

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

RE: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'- Carl Sagan - 'Cosmos' series, 1980s

So far so good. What was your claim: 'There is no proof that the supernatural exists' - wonderful, but this claim uses Jesuit definition of the things, for it formulates the question in a way that does not require proof on the side of the Challenger.
What about converting the same claim a little bit without changing the semantics too much that combined with your reference will look something like this: The non-existence of the supernatural (source of information to make the structures of the Universe) is an 'extraordinary claim' and hence 'requires extraordinary evidence'. Where is the evidence ... of yours? (that the Big Bang has the ability, capacity, & the intelligence, etc.) to guess, to organize, to make to devise & to handle without causality, to deploy, to develop & to execute the Creation of the Universe ... and to maintain it after that in brilliant operation for a period of 13.8 By? Where is your 'extraordinary' proof of that claim? You make the claim - you are the one to supply the proof (that the Big Bang can create the Universe & our Intelligence without having the capacity to do so).

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

What about converting the same claim a little bit...

Nope. I never made that claim, never would. Nice try at deception, but no cigar. You're claiming a "45% god/alien/ILF blah blah," is as good or better explanation than the scientific one, so man up and take responsibility for it. You claim it; you provide the fallacy-free evidence. So far, you haven't done it.

4:0

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/VCVol3No44_pic2.jpg

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/Science-vs-BS-e1403720137245.jpg

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
A lot of things in the living matter are too complex and too improbable to have happened by stochastic processes.

I think this is the key point you are trying to make, yet you don't provide any evidence to support this point. You just state it as an unsupported fact.

Since I don't accept this blindly as truth, the rest of your argument falls apart.

Wow. From the very first reply to this thread, Herod, people have been asking you to provide evidence. The very first reply. And we're still doing it a couple hundred pages later. Does that suggest to you anything? Like, y'know, how useless it is to make claims without supporting evidence? And you wonder why:

4:0?

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Nope. I never made that claim, never would.

What is your claim then: can you state it out explicitly ... without any irrelevant references, said on other occasions, if possible?
BTW Carl Sagan has deceased in Dec. 1996 - when exactly you succeeded to have his consent to publish his thoughts on this thread and to use his picture as an evidence of your fake theory?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

'Broken record' fallacy - if you repeat some ridiculous claim several times somehow it will become significant.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Nope. I never made that claim, never would.
What is your claim then: can you state it out explicitly ... without any irrelevant references, said on other occasions, if possible?
BTW Carl Sagan has deceased in Dec. 1996 - when exactly you succeeded to have his consent to publish his thoughts on this thread and to use his picture as an evidence of your fake theory?

Your memory is very selective, it seems. I've explained that numerous times and you keep forgetting or denying it. My claim is that your "personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps" is the weaker claim when compared to the Standard Model. You offer no evidence and only fallacious attempts at rational support for your claim. Please pay attention.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

FBM wrote:

'Broken record' fallacy - if you repeat some ridiculous claim several times somehow it will become significant.

Suddenly, your selective memory has a hit. It's stochastics! Stochastics is the pseudo-intellectual buzzword that explains everything! Very Happy

Also, there is an extensive list of logical fallacies available to anyone who wants to educate him/herself in the basics of logic. Pulling made-up fallacies out of your ass for rhetorical purposes doesn't cut the cake. Sorry. Insert another quarter and play again.

You keep repeating the god-of-the-gaps fallacy in your attempt to justify your baseless, fantastical alien/god/ILF claim. You've repeated that a few hundred more times than I've posted that image.

How about you start repeating some genuine, positive evidence to support your "personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps" hypothesis? That would be welcomed. Until then,

4:0

1 Reply

Quote:

Rayleigh-Jeans vs Planck

Comparison of the classical Rayleigh-Jeans Law and the quantum Planck radiation formula. Experiment confirms the Planck relationship.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html

*Herod googling madly to try to figure out why that is significant.*

*Hint: Black body radiation.*

*Herod comes back pretending to already know everything about it, yelling "Stochastic! Stochastic!*

Laughing

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Quote:
Rayleigh-Jeans vs Planck

Comparison of the classical Rayleigh-Jeans Law and the quantum Planck radiation formula. Experiment confirms the Planck relationship.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html

*Herod googling madly to try to figure out why that is significant.*

*Hint: Black body radiation.*

*Herod comes back pretending to already know everything about it, yelling "Stochastic! Stochastic!*

All I see is a chart that could have been made by anybody, no cause and no identifiable effect.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Pulling made-up fallacies out of your ass for rhetorical purposes doesn't cut the cake.

     This is your discovery, not mine. I am making only the observations ... and the analysis eventually.
     By definition fallacy is the use of poor or invalid reasoning for the construction of an argument. Let's see what we have here - the invalid reasoning: you think that if you quote secondarily various public speakers (some of which successful, some of which not entirely) you are on the side of the winners (without even understanding most of what they are saying). Is this invalid reasoning - absolutely. It is based on classical fallacies like argument from authority, argumentum ad populum, bandwaggon fallacy - so it is obviously invalid, when verified in another way.
     Is it 'poor' - let's see. The idea standing behind the unprincipled repetition to infinity of one and the same straw-man (God-of-the-Gaps) with one and the same 'hat' (some pulled out of ... 'score') and the multiple evidence that nothing interesting and nothing different is presented (even as interpretation) is a sure sign for lack of creativity and missing productive ideas, in other words absolutely poor as reasoning.
     Do you use the 'broken record' approach to construct your argument on a discussion: absolutely yes.
     From where and on the grounds whereof automatically follows that you are not only superuser with unlimited rights of the God-0f-the-Gaps fallacy, but you are also inventor and top designer of the broken record fallacy ... just do not start believing yourself.
     This approach for repeating untrue things and lies continuously has been invented by the national socialist propaganda of the Third Reich, and later on elaborated to infinity by the communist propaganda ... but has been much before that used by the political propaganda of the British Empire against Napoleon, for example. You may release breathing - you are not the top designer of the 'broken record' fallacy. You are only its greatest fan and superuser.

1 Reply

@Herald,

It's called "citing your sources." It's kind of a thing in academia, Herod. Wink

Quote:

WHAT IS CITATION?

A "citation" is the way you tell your readers that certain material in your work came from another source. It also gives your readers the information necessary to find that source again, including:

information about the author
the title of the work
the name and location of the company that published your copy of the source
the date your copy was published
the page numbers of the material you are borrowing

WHY SHOULD I CITE SOURCES?

Giving credit to the original author by citing sources is the only way to use other people's work without plagiarizing. But there are a number of other reasons to cite sources:

citations are extremely helpful to anyone who wants to find out more about your ideas and where they came from
not all sources are good or right -- your own ideas may often be more accurate or interesting than those of your sources. Proper citation will keep you from taking the rap for someone else's bad ideas
citing sources shows the amount of research you've done
citing sources strengthens your work by lending outside support to your ideas

DOESN'T CITING SOURCES MAKE MY WORK SEEM LESS ORIGINAL?

Not at all. On the contrary, citing sources actually helps your reader distinguish your ideas from those of your sources. This will actually emphasize the originality of your own work.

WHEN DO I NEED TO CITE?

Whenever you borrow words or ideas, you need to acknowledge their source. The following situations almost always require citation:

whenever you use quotes
whenever you paraphrase
whenever you use an idea that someone else has already expressed
whenever you make specific reference to the work of another
whenever someone else's work has been critical in developing your own ideas.

http://www.plagiarism.org/citing-sources/whats-a-citation

Still no evidence for your alien/god/ILF-of-the-gaps, Herod?

4:0

1 Reply

or

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

It's kind of a thing in academia, Herod.

You are light years away from the nearest conception of 'academy'. Perhaps an ugly caricature of 'academia' - maybe.
Especially as far as the last video is concerned, which is a masterpiece of the 'academic reasoning' ... by using 'academic terms' like 'to be unelected' and 'out of body experience'. Honestly speaking these are not too far away from 'out of nowhere' and 'by reason unknown' ... as 'academic reasoning'.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know