Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

LOL

Bill Nye, The LIAR, mate!

This isn't a blog in the first place. I've already explained the relevance of the climate change argument. You have failed to rationally respond.



Can you explain why greenhouse gases absorb and emit radiation in the infrared thermal spectrum and the assumptions that scientists make in constructing the global warming model in 50 words, or not? If not, then obviously there is no global warming.

     FTWW by definition (from Wikipedia): 'A blog (a truncation of the expression weblog) is a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order (the most recent post appears first).'
     Would you explain now how exactly 'This isn't a blog in the first place'?
     There is no such relevance. I am the person over whose beliefs you are trying to make your 100% fake references, and I can tell you for sure that I am not denying anything in the climate change (that you illiterately still call 'global warming', for you don't even have the vaguest idea of what it is all about), and I am not denying the 'standard model' for you personally and obviously never had anything of the kind, since you never have understood completely and in whole what it is actually saying ... as becomes evident from your continuous escaping from the questions.
     You are not answering to the questions - you are avoiding them, by saying something irrelevant, by taking some red herring out of the sleeve, or by making even more irrelevant and even more mind-blowing reference, which in any case can't be viewed as 'rationally respond'. You may think that you 'respond rationally', for you have never had the rationality to assess what is rational and what is 'words on idle mode'.
     If you are capable to draw on paper the molecule of the CO2 with the real angle between the oxygen atoms you may start answering to your questions personally.
     If you are curious to know the 'scientists' claiming 'skepticism' in terms of the climate change, and deny the one-way-ticket of the biosphere (us, included) and the scientists that deny the possibility of existence of Intelligence in the Universe by claiming that they 'know for sure' how the Universe has been created (without even knowing whether it has been created at all in the first place, or not), are two different types of 'scientists', living in two absolutely different parallel Universes ... to our Universe.
     The climate change 'skepticists' (as they call themselves, for the rest of the world is calling them 'deniers') claim that their liability is limited to the providing of fast & easy profits and easy-makering to their shareholders, and that they have unlimited irresponsibility in terms of the destruction of the biosphere. They claim that they are free to dig to infinity tar-sands (at 20% more production costs), and to produce tar-sands oil (that has 23% more CO2 emissions), and to pour to infinity into the river Hg, Cd, and Pb, for in this way they think that they are protecting the basic interests of their investors ... and what are those investors, who are investing in the destruction of the biosphere, is another issue.
     The fans of the Big Bang 'theory' live in a different parallel Universe, bery much different from the parallel Universe in which the climate change deniers are living. The fans of the Big Bang 'theory' rely on the fact that the greater part of the population is too ignorant to ever understand how a fake inference by analogy could be made over inverted and non-existing in the physical world processes, without any problems. So and so the assumptions of the Big Bang are unknowable, why don't we take use of the occasion and construct several forged theories on the basis of misinterpretation of that ... 'in our benefit', naturally.
     ... and obviously you are living in a third type of a parallel Universe, where one can make any fake analogies without even knowing how the inference by analogy is actually made, and can attribute any labels to any opponent, who does not share our fake attitude to the world - to quote things that we personally do not understand and to claim what is convenient to the status quo. This may be designated as the "Fundamentals of 'scientific' reasoning, and the fall of the third shadow".

You didn't explain anything. And you're supposed to do it in 50 words or less. That's your own demand. You can't explain all those things about global warming, therefore it's a hoax. That's your own logic with regards to the Standard Model of cosmology. You lose again, by your own twisted attempt at logic.

4:0

     ... and what exactly have you explained? You are talking all the time about some sort of standard model (of the Universe?!) and you don't have any idea of what they are doing at all at the large hadron collider ... not even the vaguest one.
     Figuratively said, they are throwing stones at a glass window and claim that by measuring the energy of the thus thrown stones they can 'obtain beyond any doubt' (whatever that is supposed to mean) the energy, required to make the glass window ... from ground zero and out of nowhere, of course.
     There is more - the further a given piece of glass flies off the place of collision, the closer it is ('obviously'?!) to the skills of the glazier, whereat the very first pieces of glass fallen from the broken window are the very first pieces of silica, molten into the furnace of the glazier ... by the Big Bang 'theory'. The idea of the whole process is to break to infinity the money of the tax payers.
     In the general case this process of knowledge acquisition is called reverse engineering, but none of them can tell you for sure what exactly they are reverting as engineering.

What I've explained over and over again is the main point that I'm trying to get across in spite of your constant failure to acknowledge it.

It's very simple:

Your argument for your "personal 45% ILF/alien/god-of-the-gaps" sucks balls compared to that presented by scientists for their model(s).

That's it. I'm not saying anything about whether or not what the scientists say is true. That's your major misunderstanding, despite having it repeatedly explained in simple terms.

     Forget about my argument and my personal beliefs. You are not the person that is going to explain me in what should I believe, and in what should I not.
     ... and obviously you fail to understand the question: can you explain (in no more than 25 words) how exactly by beating out to infinity some particles (about half of which is not even known anything apart from the snapshots of the collisions) you personally are explaining any origin of whatever space and time?
     Forget about who is saying what - tell us what do you personally understand from all that, how do you personally explain the particles and the Big Bang 'theory', when you don't even know whether some of the particles really exist in the atom under normal conditions or not, whether they are not simply some effect of the high energies of the matter (the accelerated light beam). What do you know about the photonics ... at super-high speeds?
     ... and why does an option in the assumptions that cannot be excluded 100% is bothering you so much, and how do you make 'scientific' arguments about something in which you believe 0%? You are simply lying - believing zero percent means that you don't believe in something at all ... even in the method of proving it somehow by publishing absolutely at random some irrelevant references. Do you know at all what zero percent believing in something is, as physical interpretation? ... and how exactly can you personally have any belief at all without the existence of the human Intelligence?

Thanks for the offer of red herring, but I'm not interested in more logical fallacies. Here's what I've claimed:



Until you can do something about that:

4:0

     No, no, explain to us very slowly and in details how exactly can you support to infinity something in which you believe 0%? (BTW your claim about your believe 0% in the Big Bang 'theory' is not in the post you are quoting herein above ... it is into one of your previous posts).

Thanks again, but I'm not interested in strawman fallacies, either.



Until you can do something about that:

4:0

     Which scientists you are talking about - there are various types of scientists. ... and you are not the scientists. You claim that you believe 0% in the Big Bang 'theory'. Why don't you tell us how much belief you really assign to the Big Bang 'theory', and how much believe you assign to everything else, including the case for the Universe to have always existed and having no need to be created at all by whom-/whatsoever?
     The system of belief revisions works in the following way: you have a set of hypotheses (by brainstorming, research, surveys, discussions, info from mass media, etc.) - all possible hypotheses. If you prove (to yourself, not to me) for some of them to be highly improbable (probability virtually zero) or beyond the margin of the physical impossibility (that you don't even have the idea of what is the order) - O.K., but where have you proved that the option for the Universe to have always existed is highly improbable, when the laws for conservation of energy and the theories about time show exactly the opposite? You cannot simply believe in everything that you have been told by the status quo (incl. the claims of the TV Church pastors and the jiggery-pokery with the misinterpretation of the physical particles). As a rule the claims of the status quo are not justified by any truth values. Nobody in the status quo is interested in search of the truth - all that they are interested in is their own safety as status quo, they are ready to talk everything on the mass media for the sake of their personal convenience, carrier promotions, and in the general case unlimited access to money and power - where do you see 'searching for the truth' here?

More red herring?

Fun Fact! It only takes one logical fallacy to totally shitwreck an argument!
Extra bonus fun fact! You can read all about how to avoid logical fallacies for free online!

What I believe is what I can see, viz, that your arguments for your ILF/alien/god-of-the-gaps are rife with logical fallacies and devoid of evidence. The scientists' models aren't. That's why your argument is **** and the scientists outscore you by:

4:0

Only you can change this, Herod, and the only way to do that is to present some positive evidence for your ILF/alien/god-thingy, followed by fallacy-free and necessary inference. I'll be waiting here.

     ... and what exactly do you see directly from the Big Bang 'theory'?

I see a lack of the logical fallacies that your alien/ILF/god claim depends so heavily upon. Derp. That's what I've been telling you for pages and pages now.

How much belief at your personal rough expert estimate do you really assign to the Big Bang 'theory', and how much believe do you assign to everything else, including the case for the Universe to have always existed? ... a valid % number would be O.K.
     Further, can you show some of your personal pieces of evidence (anything with your personal understanding, whatsoever) for the existence of the Big Bang ever happening ... different from the beliefs in what some other people might believe ... but might not believe as well, and only claim to believe by whatever the reason?

My beliefs or lack thereof are just yet another red herring fallacy. What I can see with my own eyes are the fallacies inherent in your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps claim. Substantiate your bullshit, rather than trying to evade. Until you do, you don't have **** but word salads, obfuscations, hand waving and fallacious hogwash. You can't do that, though, which is why you have yet to score a single point. It's still:

4:0

     You don understand something - you have a (real) world, that is existing outside and independently of our conscience, and our understanding of the world (our knowledge of the world), which is not the ontological world itself - but it is rather some kind of a representation of the world, it is a map, it is a structured concetualization of what the world might look like, of what might exist out there. The belief value is the accuracy of the mapping - to what extend you believe that the things that you know about the world are actually ontological existence in the real world.
     Let's take your favorite example with the red shift - the photos from the radio telescope of the red shift in the light spectrum that you are showing (without understanding BTW) ... are evidence of red shift in the light beams in all directions. What are they actually evidence of?
     These photos are evidence of the red shift in the light spectrum, only of that, and of nothing else. These photos are not any evidence about any expansion ... let alone 'with acceleration'. In order to claim that the red shift is an evidence of expansion of the Universe you will have to prove that the expansion is the only possible explanation of the red shift observations.
     In order to prove only possible you will have to exclude everything else. The very fact that you don't know what that everything else might be, does not necessarily mean that it cannot exist (without your knowledge) and that you can exclude it 'automatically' from the logical inference.
     Nowtherefore - what that 'everythingthing else' could be? What are all the other plausible interpretations of the red shift? Do you want some 'Jokers' here: it might be shrinking of the particles with the time (blue shift of the particles); it might be loss of energy when the light beam travels at a large distance (13.8 billion light years is a lot of path) - not to mention that most of the time you don't even have an idea of the medium of that transmission might be; further, it might be fading away of the light beam with the time (the existence of a light beam for a period of 13.8 billion years is a lot of time) ... and you will never be able to prove that light cannot 'become sparkling' (with some red shift) when it 'matures in space' for a period of 13.8 billion years.
     Where have you excluded all that plausible interpretations in order to claim that the expansion of the Universe is the only possible physical interpretation of the red shift? Hardly after excluding all that, and not before, you may claim that the photos of the red shift in the light spectrum are evidence of anything else, except for of the red shift itself.

More of the same old red herring and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies? Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same mistakes over and over and over again? Why do you refuse to learn basic logic? This is 101-level stuff. How do you expect to score any points by repeating your previous mistakes? Do you think that you'll get different results by doing the same thing? If I hadn't already explained the fallacies to you several times, I'd explain them again. In the meantime, you have done absolutely nothing to further your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps hypothesis. Sad to say, we're still at:


4:0

     Perhaps before claiming any fallacy you will have to prove it. Why don't you prove that rising the question about the possible alternative physical interpretations of the red shift in the light on a thread about the ontology of the Universe is a 'red herring'. I don't know what is your understanding of red herring and I don't want to know, but in our region red herring means the case when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
     Unfortunately in that case you will have to prove that rising the question about the possible alternative physical interpretations of the red shift in the light on a thread about the ontology of the Universe is diverting the attention from the real problem by changing the subject.

I've already proved it several times. I even demonstrated it for you. Read the thread. Pay attention to the discussion. You're living your life with blinders on.

It's a red herring because the real issue is that your argument for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps sucks balls compared to that presented by scientists for the scientific, magic-free worldview. You're trying to divert attention away from that with inane babbling about trivial details.

It's argumentum ad ignorantiam because you're trying to use what is not known by a single Random Guy on the Internet as support for your alien/ILF/god instead of presenting actual positive evidence for it. This is freshman level logic, Herod. My dog could have learned this by now, but you're still making the same mistakes over and over and over and over again.

Let me demonstrate it for you again:

Why don't you prove that global warming is real by explaining why greenhouse gases emit and absorb radiation in the infrared thermal spectrum? Do you know all the assumptions that scientists make in order to construct their global warming model? No? You can't explain it? Then it's not true. Global warming is a hoax and my claim that aliens are shooting Earth with invisible infrared space-rays is equally valid as their claims.

Got it, maroon?


4:0