Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

jees, herald, you have so many absurd misconceptions it's hard to know where to start. First, what is expanding isw not my laptop, or yours, or you, as you seem to keep thinking. What is epanding is galaxies getting farther and farther apart, not the relatively coold things in them. This is a figment of your imagination.CMBR is all=pervading, it's not a reflection from anything. It's everywhere, from all directions. It's EMR but it's different frequencies from visible light, and the two phenomena are NOT the same thing, but two completely different faccts, reflecting two different sorts of actions. There is no way you can eliminate every possibility, since you keep coming up with new, outlandish ones all the time. The thing is, you hae no evidence for any of your suggestions, you totally pull them out of some invisible hat. There ARE tested explanations for the phenomena, and those are what the Big Bang theory is built out of. Stop creating fantasies.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

     This is definitely not true. The calculations in the astrophysics show collision of the Milky Way with Andromeda in several billion years (8 BN or so). Now, would you explain how exactly two galaxies that are going apart from each other will collide at some moment in time and space if that space is continuously 'expanding'?
     You are talking just so, to avoid falling asleep, aren't you? You don't know whether the Universe is finite or infinite. If it has been created by the Big Bang 'theory' - it must be finite. If it is finite it must have 'edge' - on the inner side of which you have the 3D space of our Universe, and on the outer side you have the 11D Hyperspace or the 0D space of the Nothing, or of the Nowhere. If the Universe is infinite - how exactly the Big Bang has succeeded to create it within finite period of time and finite speed of light (we are not talking about any Creation yet)?
     May I tell you something - in the optical cable, for example, the difference between the core and the cladding is several implanted atoms of Al, P or Ge that are more than enough to cause full refraction and reflection of light. The question is what will happen with the light beam when is reaches a boundary of 3D-space and 0D space? Will the light beam continue travelling into the Nowhere, or what?
     ... and isn't it very suspicious to that the observer is always into the 'epicenter' of the Big Bang 'theory' and into the 'center' of the Universe?
What would I do without that valuable information ... that the microwaves and the light are two different ranges of frequencies in the RF spectrum. What about some of the light being red-shifted to the microwave part of the RF spectrum to infinity - as a result of infinite reflection, refraction, etc. ... due to the loss of energy of the photon with the time?
     What about the alternative explanations - in case you have any of the kind? You don't have any facts about any expansion - everything is probability distribution, not to say that you don't even make the effort to calculate how much it actually is ... as probability. Further, how would you explain that the different matter in the Universe is expanding without cracking and collapsing? Have you seen expansion of ground during earthquake? Have you ever seen expansion of bridge on the sun? Have you ever seen expansion of ice in a bottle?
     1. There are many ways to eliminate options with probability. For those who have never had such problem - there are no ways. 2. Eliminating possibilities by not studying them and by 'sweeping them under the table' does not necessarily 'eliminate them from the equation'.
     ... and what evidence do you have about your 'expansion ... into nowhere', 'infinite gravitation ... without force carrier', 'infinite temperature ... without material carrier' to name just a few?
     Really - and where, when, and how have you tested that you can create 3D-space out of 0D space by explosion of whatever; Infinite Gravity can appear out of Nowhere and out of Nothing ... and without any Causality; the Infinite Temperature can exist in the physical world notwithstanding whether with or without a material carrier ... which carrier you could not have had, BTW, in any case scenario onto the time of launching the Big Bang.

Good bit on the argument from ignorance (and from the ignorant):

So you make a claim that you can't support and rather than providing support you build a strawman and claim I have to support it.

     What I claim is that you cannot use the inference on which a theory is made ... to verify that very same theory, and that notwithstanding what FBM may think of himself and his 'huge scientific capacity' the assessment is not made by the person subject to assessment - the assessment is done when the 'Fat Lady starts singing' ... by the History, which will wipe out some day both the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang 'theory' as dangerous to knowledge and human reasoning, for the truth always emerges on the surface no matter how deeply it has been 'swept under the table' for whatever the reason. Anyway

Strawman fallacy. I never claimed to have "huge scientific capacity." I only claimed to know that you haven't produced any evidence or logically valid support for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps-thingy that somehow teleports the structure of the universe (or whatever you tried to say). Compared to what the scientists have produced, your claim sucks balls. That's my claim, and it's based on both observation and logically valid analysis. And you have yet to refute it. Therefore:

4:0

     What about evidence No.1: the score 4:0 - what is the idea to make random quotes said on different occations and to count them as your super-personal super-scientific contributions, unless you think that you are becoming great scientist in that way, which actually is not unobserved as 'scientific' practice.

Yet again, this has already been explained to you and you're just trying to drag the discussion off-track with yet another red herring. The 4 is based on one of your own claims. Pay attention to your own statements and your own thread. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps thingy? Any non-fallacious reasoning to support it? No? Then you have yet to change the score.

4:0

     Some day you may become the greatest scientist for any age ... all you have to do is to master to perfection the four riders of the apocalypse: Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism, & Questionable Reaserch Practices, like for example the broken record with the God-of-the-Gaps infrared herring. For further details you may take a look at that reference: http://www.kuleuven.be/research/integrity/definition/

No, thanks. I've told you many times that I'm not interested in red herring. Where's your evidence for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps thingy? Got nothing? Nothing at all? Not surprising. Random Internet Wingnuts never back up their wacky claims.

4:0

     Why are you using it then ... all the time.
     Where is your scientific integrity ... and how much time will you need to start understanding what does that mean?
     In terms of falsification and misinterpretation of what has been actually said here and in connection with what, you start outperforming your own ignorance. For further details see alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps
     1. Alieans and IFL are one and the same concept ... for the purposes of calculating hypothesis only. They don't have any other semantics and any other characteristics that you are trying to assign to them. If you have any problems with the aliens this is not my problem.
     2.The term 'Gof-of-the-Gaps' is not your original idea. The term is invented by the theists on a very different occation with very much different purpose - to refute the pseudo-arguments for the Existence of God and to make some realistic and plausible interpretation of what actually has happened around the 'Word of God' several thousand years ago. You are simply a common plagiarist ... and it doesn't matter that you are stealing from the Church, and not from some mega-scientific articles.
     3. You have been asked to enumerate the Gaps within the possible most-polite number of asking something - 1 or 2 times. You were absolutely unable even to understand the question and jumped immediately on your favorite and convenient infrared herring. You really don't understand something: without specifying the Gaps your argument becomes random variable and 'hangs up into vacuum and zero-gravity'. ... and it doesn't matter how much convenient it may seem to you to escape the real questions.
     4. Even the idea about classifying the logical fallacies of the opponent in a discussion is not yours - but once you learned it you cannot stop using it and misusing with it.

Read the thread and pay attention this time. I've explained in detail why your alien/ILF/god (YOU made the distinction, not I) hypothesis is a god-of-the-gaps appeal, as well as an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Your attempts to draw the discussion away from your abject lack of evidence for your alien/ILF/god-thingy is just yet another red herring fallacy. Fail again. You can only change the score by presenting positive evidence. Present your designer. Can't? Thus:


4:0

     What is your understanding of the Gaps. Without having values for the Gaps you cannot claim God-of-the-Gaps no matter what have I said ... in connection with something else.

My understanding of the gaps is that I've already explained this to you several times. While I do in general feel sympathy for people with debilitating cognitive impairments, I've also told you that I'm disinclined to follow your red herrings.

The only way you can say anything contructive with regards to your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps thingy is to provide some positive evidence for it. As it stands now, your claim sucks balls compared to that which the scientists have provided for the naturalistic approach. Without evidence, in terms that you yourself suggested, your score remains on the right:

4:0

     No, enumerate them - where have you enumerated them 'several times'.
     BTW your redundant and stochastic references to some fake arguments are nothing else but wasting the energy resources of the planet ... and the time of the usres.

No, I will not take your red herring bait. Where's your evidence for your mystically teleporting alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps?

     I am not claiming any Gaps - the idea that I am filling some Gaps with 'my God' (that you will never be able to prove ... that God is mine) is absolutely yours ... actually plagiarised from the Church, but abridged and adopted by you, hence the burden of specifying the Gaps lays exclusively on you - otherwise you cannot construct a valid claim let alone use it as argument or whatever. ... and it doesn't matter whether you classify it as red herring or blue gene - just write down the list with ALL the gaps that science has come accross when claiming the Big Bang 'theory'.

Where's your evidence for your alien/ILF/god-thingy that mystically teleports the structure of the universe? Give me that and I'll agree to discuss the details of why your approach is the god-of-the-gaps approach again, as well as an appeal to ignorance. Quid pro quo. Give to get. Fair is fair. Deal?