Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Can you formulate what in particular is your worldview - in no more than 25 words, without stochastic references and without any random animations.

My stochastic worldview is that stochastically you have no stochastic evidence for your stochastic alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-stochastic-gaps. Is that stochastically clear enough for you?

4:0

If it was a red herring then your response to it means you fell for a red herring.

Actually, your failure to quote the entire sentence doesn't make my statement a red herring. It makes you dishonest.

     It doesn't matter. FTWW I am not the only one without scientific integrity on that forum. What matters is that your favourite theory of the Big Bang is so full of randomness and random variables and undefined processes that there is no way for the whole theory not to be random as well ... if not failed yet on the verification test for a theory.
     1. The assumptions comprise absolutely random variable - and it is so genuinely random that you cannot even tell whether it has uniform probability distribution or point distribution or multi-point probability distribution.
     2. The next random variable is the red shift in the light spectrum. Its value of 'expansion of the Universe' is only one of the many possible scenarios and plausible explanations of the observations. Only one of, not the only one.
     3. What about the third random variable - the CMB, about which you cannot even tell whether it is correlated to the red shift or not?
     4. After that come the random functions - enters the Singularity: how, why, out of what, why only once - these are 'insignificant details'. Absolutely undefined as a process and random as function.
     5. What about the other random function - the Infinite Temperature with the missing material carrier.
     6. But the greatest random component in your favourite 'theory' is the Time: it is so random that you don't even have a plausible definition of it and cannot even tell whether it is a variable in the model or some kind of control module.
     So and so you are talking about scientific integrity: How exactly on the grounds of so much randomness have you succeeded to believe that the Big Bang 'theory' is any theory at all ... let alone systematic and methodological 'standard explanation' of the world?

     With the seascapes your are without competition, but I was wondering what happened with your understanding of the world. To be unable to formulate your personal understanding of the world is not so critically fatal - that which is much more critically fatal is to quote at random the other people's world-view ... without understanding it.

Let me know when you get some evidence for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps thingy.

I see you will continue to be dishonest.

     You are the one having problems with the hypothetical scenario of the aliens, you are the one that gets nervous about it, you are the one that is obviously interested too much in it ... much beyond the ordinary interest, so the burden of the proof and disproof of the aliens is your personal responsibility and to nobody else.
     Now, if you have ended up with the broken records about the aliens, would you please enumerate the main points of your understanding (and/or misunderstanding) of the world?

     You are the last person to have any pretentions about any honesty. What about your scientific integrity? Can you answer on the polygraph to the questions: have you ever had the feeling that you are breaking the money of the tax payers? Do you really believe in the Big Bang 'theory' or you 'believe' in it because it is convenient to your scientific and para-scientific career? Can you name without distorting the truth which is the greatest achievement of the modern science - no matter whether with positive or negative effect - just say which is the greatest one?

More dishonesty from you.

To the contrary. The prospects of aliens excites me. I'd be thrilled shitless if you actually had some evidence for them. But you don't. You're just a deluded, ignorant and stubborn denialist. You have nothing but are so arrogant that you think you're smarter than all the scientists in the world. Just one little thing trips you up: evidence. You ain't got none.

4:0

     There is no truth value in a question ... in order to classify it as honest or dishonest.
     Why are you dealing with my honesty? Why don't you take a look at your scientific disintegrity and that of your peers. The greatest liars are the rubbish of the psychotronics and the people tapping the communications, then come the fossil fuel science whores, and then the so called investors with the high frequency traders in the underground data centres, and after that come the 'great discoveries of the large hadron collider' with the irresponsible breaking to infinity the money of the taxpayers, etc. What honesty are you talking about?
     What is the greatest discovery of the present day science ... and why can't you specify it?

When you ask the question of someone else but you have not answered it about your own stand on an issue then it is very dishonest. It is a dishonest attempt to portray others in a fashion you refuse to portray yourself.

This self-absorbed, strutting little emperor has no clothes...or evidence...

     What honesty are you talking about? What is the greatest discovery of the present day science? - where do you see honesty and dishonesty here, when there are no animated persons at all.

     How far have you gone with the greatest discovery of science?