Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

You are dishonest because you are not providing support for your theory. This is merely an attempt to use a red herring or to deflect. An honest person would defend their own theory instead of running away from it every chance they get.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
This self-absorbed, strutting little emperor has no clothes...or evidence...
How far have you gone with the greatest discovery of science?

What's the connection to your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps?

1 Reply

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

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th.; 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter....

Herald wrote:

If you want to belief in the fake Big Bang 'theory' - this is O.K. with me. It starts becoming Non O.K. when you start imposing your fake views, when you start convincing and explaining to me how stupid I am for not believing in the scientism. Perhaps there may be also some other reasons for not believing in scientism - which is actually irrelevant here.

So you claim and refute the same thing, thereby destroying 25% of your own claim. Thanks for the help! This is almost too easy. Fish in a barrel.

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

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

What's the connection to your alien/ILF/god-thingy-of-the-gaps?

You pretend to know everything about any science, you are the one pretending to represent and to speak frivolously on behalf of all sciences, you are the one who present himself as peer to (the hypothesis of) the aliens, you are speaking about mind function in third person singular, by claiming that it is only one and thus excluding all the other functionalities, hence you are the one who is supposed to pass the elementary test for generalisation in order to prove that has no inference engine that is badly & irretrievably broken.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Strawmen and red herrings. You're trying to lure me away from your absolute lack of evidence, but it won't work. Give up. You've got evidence for your claim or you don't. So far, you don't. But you do have a HUGE self-contradiction. 25% of your claim is the science that you're now calling fake. Smooth move, Exlax.

4:0

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You are dishonest because you are not providing support for your theory.

My 'theory' is that unless the assumptions are put in order nothing could be claimed for sure - and this is called agnosticism ... and it does not exclude any plausible hypothesis, no matter whether with or without aliens ... and their online fans. Actually the 'explanation' of the Big Bang 'theory' sounds much more deranged than the hypothetical assumption for an ILF to have established communication with another ILF in space and time.
Now, as suggest that you are very honest and have great scientific integrity, would you tell us which is the greatest achievement of the contemporary science?

1 Reply

@Herald,

I suppose it sounds more deranged if you think lack of evidence is better proof than actual evidence.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I suppose it sounds more deranged if you think lack of evidence is better proof than actual evidence.

Evidence is not evidence until a panel of 12 people collectively agree that it is.

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

If you are referring to the judicial system then you are simply spouting nonsense. 12 people don't have to agree on what is evidence. They can reach a unanimous decision while disagreeing on what evidence they were presented is true.

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/ev5424e689.jpg

0 Replies

I very much look forward to the day when we detect alien intelligence, but so far no good:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alien-supercivilizations-absent-from-100-000-nearby-galaxies/

Quote:

Alien Supercivilizations Absent from 100,000 Nearby Galaxies
The most far-seeing search ever performed for “Dyson spheres” and other artifacts of “astroengineering” comes up empty. Where is everybody?
April 17, 2015 |By Lee Billings

...for more than a half-century a small, scattered contingent of astronomers has gone against the grain, engaging in a search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). SETI chiefly looks for chatty cosmic cultures that might be beaming messages around our region of the galaxy using radio waves or laser pulses. But its interstellar eavesdropping has yet to detect any signals that withstand close scrutiny. Even if brimming with life, to us, the galaxy seems to be a very quiet, rather lonely place.

Now, new results suggest this loneliness may extend out into the universe far beyond our galaxy or, instead, that some of our preconceptions about the behaviors of alien civilizations are deeply flawed. After examining some 100,000 nearby large galaxies a team of researchers lead by The Pennsylvania State University astronomer Jason Wright has concluded that none of them contain any obvious signs of highly advanced technological civilizations. Published in The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, it is by far the largest of study of its kind to date—earlier research had only cursorily investigated about a hundred galaxies.
...

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I suppose it sounds more deranged if you think lack of evidence is better proof than actual evidence.

... and what actual and non-actual pieces of evidence do you personally have about that time can exist without the space; that the singularity can appear out of nothing and out of nowhere; that light can exist without a carrier (fibre optic, or air, of non-ideal vacuum or whatever); heat can exist without a force carrier & temperature can exist without any substantiation (just so, outside of space and time); and that the gravity can be infinite and can come into existence without a force carrier ... and that the Big Bang 'theory' can become 'standard explanation' of the world without any serious substantiation, just because some people have come to an agreement that they would have much more personal gain if they pronounce the Big Bang 'theory' as a 'standard thinking and understanding of the world' (where they would feel comfortable for years on end) than if they put some scientific integrity efforts to find a better justified explanation ... even if that means to announce that the truth about the issue is unknowable.

2 Replies

@Herald,

That "Big Bang 'theory'" you hate so much is 25% of your own claim. Sucks to be you, dunnit?

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

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

That "Big Bang 'theory'" you hate so much is 25% of your own claim. Sucks to be you, dunnit?

Ohoo, congratulations - you have changed the broken record with the aliens. WFM, I cannot believe it.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
That "Big Bang 'theory'" you hate so much is 25% of your own claim. Sucks to be you, dunnit?
Ohoo, congratulations - you have changed the broken record with the aliens. WFM, I cannot believe it.

That's shocking, considering how easily you believe any old wild and crazy idea. Like 45% this, 35% that, 25% something else, then work your ass off to disprove the 25% part of your own claim. With logic like that, it's not surprising that you continue to be utterly incapable of providing genuine evidence for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/11111559_10152772099553144_574140524314580468_n.jpg

0 Replies

@Herald,

So where is your evidence that the Big Bang theory claims temperature existed in the singularity prior to the Big Bang itself?

You do love to make up **** and then argue against it as if it was someone else's theory.

2 Replies

@parados,

Fictitious strawmen defending imaginary spacemen...but too transparent for the average middle schooler, even.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So where is your evidence that the Big Bang theory claims temperature existed in the singularity prior to the Big Bang itself?

It doesn't matter whether it has been one Planck time prior to or after the Big Bang - the Big Bang 'theory' does not have the capacity to launch the Time in anyway.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
So where is your evidence that the Big Bang theory claims temperature existed in the singularity prior to the Big Bang itself?
It doesn't matter whether it has been one Planck time prior to or after the Big Bang - the Big Bang 'theory' does not have the capacity to launch the Time in anyway.

With only one plane telescopes to see with, how can scientists possibly conclude that there IS a big bang and black holes?

“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know