Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Nope. You're making the claim for it, you provide the evidence for it. No shifting the burden of proof. Where's your evidence?

     1. This question is not to you.
     2. I may have evidence that it is not zero, but why should I show it to you - for completing your illegal Ph.D. thesis in psychotronics, or for what?
     3. The claim is not mine - he claims (and you by the way) that the aliens are impossible to exist - the burden of proof lays on you both. However I can tell you why you are claiming all that: A) you look much more scientific and knowledgeable in that way; & B) you use that as an insurance policy that no matter what nonsense you may say or make or assume or believe in, it cannot be interpreted as crazy - so you are absolutely guaranteed by the status quo that you are super-sane and super-knowledgeable ... notwithstanding that this position imposes infinite risks to the breaking of the money of the taxpayers.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I appreciate that highy refined and insightful attempt at a distraction. Now, please, show us some positive evidence to support your alien/ILF/god claim. What do you have?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I appreciate that highy refined and insightful attempt at a distraction. Now, please, show us some positive evidence to support your alien/ILF/god claim.

Why?

FBM wrote:

What do you have?

It doesn't matter. BTW it is in the public space - so you may have the pleasure to look for it and find it personally.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
I wonder which fallacy that is ....
You are talking as if you can prove the non-existence of aliens for the whole Universe and for any age - why don't you show us your proof of that?

You are just going to repeat your attempt to shift the burden of proof? You made the claim. You get to provide supporting evidence.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I appreciate that highy refined and insightful attempt at a distraction. Now, please, show us some positive evidence to support your alien/ILF/god claim.
Why?

Because if no evidence is required to support a claim, I could just as well claim that pink unicorns with dildos for ears are telepathically running world governments and causing pulsars and nobody would have a reason to doubt me. You pulled this alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps out of your ass, now show us why we should give a **** about your idea. You've got evidence or you've got nothing but an empty claim.

Quote:

FBM wrote:
What do you have?
It doesn't matter. BTW it is in the public space - so you may have the pleasure to look for it and find it personally.

Why would I bother? You haven't said anything in this thread to make anybody think that there's anything worth looking for. You make the claim; you provide the evidence. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Logic 101. Freshman level.

Your argument for your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps sucks balls compared to what the scientists have for the naturalistic explanation. You've got evidence or you've got nothing. You've so far shown us that you have nothing. Least of all basic critical reasoning skills.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/teaemoticonbygmintyfresxa4.gif

4:0

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You are just going to repeat your attempt to shift the burden of proof? You made the claim. You get to provide supporting evidence.

     We have the Drake Equation and its range of solutions: from 8x10^-12 to 36.4 MN (of possible civilization in our Galaxy). If we place a normal probability distribution function (Gaussean Distribution) on that range we have the bell of probability frequency, where the central value is around 10^-3 (if the scale is logarithmic). What is the physical interpretation of that - probability of 0.001 over the Galaxy for its lifetime?
     1. This probability may not be impressing, but it cannot be interpreted as absolute zero in any way.
     2. This is made with the assumption that the civilization in question is of class III - it has survived for the whole life-span of the Galaxy.
     3. Is there any civilization existing for sure in the Galaxy at present: absolutely yes - ours. How much are we expected to survive as such (not because of the Drake Equation, but because of the 2000 sq.km of self-ignited coal mines in the Gobi Desert, for example) - having in mind that we will hardly survive in the next 100 ÷ 1000 years, our lifespan as a civilization is not more than 200 000 years.
     4. If the average life-span of a civilization is 200 000 years, how much is 0.001 of 13.8 BN divided by the average life span - to get the approximate number of possible existing civilizations: 69 (the number is too beautiful not to be true)
     In various times throughout the existence of the Galaxy there might have existed 50 ÷ 70 in various time and in various parts of the Galaxy.
     Does anyone of them made it (have succeed to become a civilization of class III) - we don't know but most probably not, for otherwise we would be watching their TV shows from space emissions. Really?
     Yet, if they have succeeded to survive for 200 000 years, they must have had radio and TV shows in the last 50 ÷ 200 years, which is a lot of RF pollution in space & time - it should be seen everywhere. Nothing of the kind. Our own radio and TV shows and any other RF pollution that we have made so far are within a range of a sphere having diameter of approximately 50 lys (around the SS) - but the question is: are they recognizable at present as RF signals coming from a civilization? Can we, with our own equipment decode them right now if we catch them somehow from the remote edge (which is actually mission impossible)? I doubt, for the red shift of the RF emissions (and it doesn't matter whether due to expansion of the Universe or to something else) has transcoded them throughout transmission by something like a one-time pad, in other words our RF signals are already unrecognizable as such ... even to us. If they are cryptoanalytically unbreakable to us, then how exactly do we expect for the aliens to recognize and find them, in the first place ... before 'reading off' the code?

1 Reply

The question of whether or not aliens exist is a completely different question than the one about whether or not they're somehow teleporting instructions for the structure of the universe or whatever BS you're trying to push. You need evidence for that Herod, not empty speculation. Evidence. Got any?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

2. This is made with the assumption that the civilization in question is of class III - it has survived for the whole life-span of the Galaxy.

I am curious which theory of the creation of universe you are using to assume that a civilization could exist from the moment stars formed and before planets had cooled, let alone before the elements to create the planets existed.

Quote:

1. This probability may not be impressing, but it cannot be interpreted as absolute zero in any way.

Interesting that you would argue that considering you argue the exact opposite when it comes the possibility of evolution based on how you calculate probability.

2 Replies

@parados,

I think after reading quohog's posts, he got his education from comic books.

I'd even bit a dime on that! LOL

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10955638_651713148293052_3514777354385804973_n.jpg

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I am curious which theory of the creation of universe you are using to assume that a civilization could exist from the moment stars formed and before planets had cooled, let alone before the elements to create the planets existed.

These are the official data and that is the age of the known Universe for the time we know it and you don't have any evidence whether it has been created in the first place or has always existed. I also wonder which theory you are using to prove that the Universe has been created and has not always existed (which is not impossible and has never been disproved)?

parados wrote:

Interesting that you would argue that considering you argue the exact opposite when it comes the possibility of evolution based on how you calculate probability.

     If you start calculating probability with evolution, perhaps you will have to prove before that:
     1. That the biocode (DNA, PNA or whatever) has been created by random events and is subject to probability distribution if that is the case.
     2. That the probability functions are able to create biocode (PNA out of scratch), and to change fundamentally biocode (PNA into DNA for example) by 'positive mutations'.
     The chemical elements could have been created 'with the time' - from Higgs boson into protonium (that you will never be able to prove) & Deuterium, but ever after that the reactions of nuclear fusion are not so incomprehensible: H → D → He(3) → He(4) → ... → Ca → Ti → Fe → Ni → Co ... This process is based on the minimization of the energy of the chemical structures and it is to some extend comprehensible, notwithstanding that we don't even know why the chemical elements tend to minimize their energy - who 'invented' that rule, and how far this could be viewed as stochastics after having rules of structuring (which is classical definition of determinism)?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I think after reading quohog's posts, he got his education from comic books.

If I am a reader of 'comic books' you must be their editor-in-chief.

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10690086_10152878133631605_1027715730993983154_n.jpg

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

RE: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Absolutely ... like the Big Bang 'theory' for example. If it can be asserted without assumptions, one does not need any assumptions to refute it.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
RE: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Absolutely ... like the Big Bang 'theory' for example. If it can be asserted without assumptions, one does not need any assumptions to refute it.

You can't deny the evidence out of existence. Where's your competing evidence for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps? You got jack **** compared to what science has. Zip. Nada.

4:0

1 Reply

@Herald,

There is a difference between assumptions and evidence. I'm really unsure why you have this fetish about assumptions, and what you think they are. There is EVIDENCE for the big bsng, and that is what is important, not any assumptions there may be,

0 Replies

Here is some of the EVIDENCE for the Big Bang, Herald. It appears to be written on about a 6th grade level, which seems about the right level for you to grasp. Notice several of the points are ones which the big bang theory PREDICTED (do those count as assumptions in your view), and which observation subsequently confirmed. That's what EVIDENCE does.

Quote:

Evidence for the Big Bang
Astronomers think that the Universe started with the Big Bang. As with all science, this is based on evidence; so what is the evidence for the Big Bang theory?

The spiral galaxy - M51
1. Redshift of Galaxies
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.

Cosmic Microwave Background
2. Microwave Background
Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.

The Sun is a fairly new star
3. Mixture of Elements
As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right.

You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang.

Galaxies of long ago
4. Looking back in time
The main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time.

Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time.

From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You can't deny the evidence out of existence.

What is 'out of existence' supposed to mean?

FBM wrote:

Where's your competing evidence for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps?

... and where is your enumeration of the Gaps themselves?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

RE: 1. Redshift of Galaxies:The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding.

1. The red shift is not only with the Galaxies - it is observed with any light from great distance (and having traveled for too long) - so it may be probably 'expansion of the Universe', but it may be also a lot of other things, none of which has been refuted so far. In order to claim that it is 'probably expansion' and nothing else, perhaps everything else should be excluded - this is the way of proving such claims. Where is the proof of that expansion.
2. 'Astronomers think' is not an evidence of anything. The applied math thinks for example that this problem for the creation of the Universe (if it has been created at all) is hard instance (of a problem) and cannot be solved the way some astronomers may think. It should be solved by trying all possible solutions over all possible assumptions and in the end to find a solution which is scientifically unbreakable - no science should be able to find any contradictions, inconsistencies and fabled statements. After all this is not explaining only the creation of Astronomy, but it pretends to explain the creation of the Universe (the world in which we are living ... and is jointly expanding with 'our expansion').

MontereyJack wrote:

RE:Cosmic Microwave Background. 2. Microwave Background

... may be reflected light from the edge of the universe, or reflected from astronomical objects and dissipated with the time. BTW Light and CMB are one and the same thing - Electromagnetic Waves, they are not 'different pieces of evidence'. They are absolutely correlated at the level of physical interpretation.

MontereyJack wrote:

The Sun is a fairly new star 3. Mixture of Elements

... and what has been here, in the place of the SS ... before the Sun - from 13.8 bya to 4.57 bya?

MontereyJack wrote:

As the Universe expanded and cooled down ...

You are talking as if you are not living in that very same Universe - what is expanding around you: your laptop? your room? your planet? the orbit of your planet ... or what? The SS is proved to be falling towards Sagittarius - so its orbit is rather shrinking than expanding, etc.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
You can't deny the evidence out of existence.
What is 'out of existence' supposed to mean?

I've already expressed my disinterest in teaching you English as well as the basic logic I'm already schooling you on. Look it up.

Quote:

FBM wrote:
Where's your competing evidence for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps?
... and where is your enumeration of the Gaps themselves?

I've already expressed my disinterest in repeating myself to suit your obfuscatory strategy. Read the thread and start paying attention.

Your argument for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps sucks balls compared to the evidence for the natualistic/scientific model(s). The only way you can change it is to present some evidence.

4:0

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know