Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

I pick 3. You have assumed something that is unknown and then pretended you can ask a question based on your unknown.

Yes. I think I ought to.

Finding out that a picture of a scantily clad young damsel, in a provocative pose, shown for too short a time to register on the consciousness during a video on stress and load factors in steel structures does actually register on a subliminal level being an example of modern science finding something new and interesting.

I had the missing phrase in mind but somehow overlooked it.

Finding out that we are nothing but a bunch of fleeting sensations continuously becoming as a reproductive organ with an epidermal envelope to contain the support mechanisms (see Woody Allen's fly on the wall inner scrotum scenc) is quite interesting too.

Darwin mentions such a relative of ours on the Tree of Life. It is a bit unscientific to hold the line at monkeys. Coy really. We are related to slime mould in the same way we are related to monkeys. It is only with the advent of religion that we began to think of ourselves as a higher being. In this brave new secular world we will have to deny ourselves such a pleasant affectation.

I didn't give you an equation of background cosmic radiation. I gve you three cpnditions, two of which are described in equations that should be recognized by any 10th grade student of natural sciences. hint H* is the Hubble constant.

I have a deal to make. WHEN YOU LEARN TO EXPRESS YOURSELF IN CLEAR UNGARBLED ENGLISH, maybe we can have a conversation. Right now, your examples are meaningless drivvle.

I have no idea in hell what this even means . Try your native language, I can get it translated, and if its Polish or German, I can read it pretty well
Im beginning to think that youre a random phrase generating bot.



It doesn't harm the theory of evolution. If life is found on other planets, we can study their arc of existence to see how they have adapted and changed also.
Id think that if there were to be life on other planets , you theistic worldviews don't account for it eh? Your Chrsitian views are rather parochial and very narrow. Hell thye don't even account for the majority of the planets residents who ARENT Christian.

Thank you old chap. It was very decent of you. I'm sure we are all mightily relieved that you held back. I am at least.

What equates with background cosmic radiation?

Which must account for our gunboat diplomacy being so effective until some fools passed our secrets over.

Thanks but I don't know what post you're referring to

Best keep it that way ros. That's what I would have said.

Unfortunately the preconditions of the big bang are not exactly these ones, fm.
1. Was the universe created (by evolution of the stars, or whatever), or has it always existed?
In case the universe has always existed there is no way for the big bang to have created anything, let alone space and time.
2. What has caused the cosmic microwave background (CMB)/thermal radiation of the universe? How did you come to know that there has been big bang at all?
You have to exclude here any other possible causes, like for example the possibility for the CMB to be 'the other side' of the black holes; for CMB to be the TV programs of other ILFs in the universe; for the CMB to be the 'mind of god' – the supreme intelligence in the universe that arranges everything, etc. ... all of them, without any exception.
3. Can the thermal background of the universe create space & time ... and what does space mean?
How many universes have you created with your ... microwave oven, for example.
4. Did time existed 'before' the big bang?
If time hasn't existed before the big bang, what does 'before' mean?


Forget about the Hubble constant, why don't you tell us what you think.
So and so you cannot apply any law of physics to the big bang theory, why don't you tell something about the laws themselves.
Do the laws of physics impose logical and causal determinism to the universe?
The laws of physics assume fixed rules of operation & fixed purpose (I cannot engage with 'fixed intention', but it is not to be excluded).
The processes in the universe are not free and stochastic (this is confirmed even by your fellow-atheists), but are (pre-)determined ... by logic and causality - otherwise one cannot present them by formal models & math logic). Even Einstein acknowledges that God in the form of logic & harmony and arrangement of the universe may exist.
I don't know what do logic and causality speak to you, but logic and causality seem to me like preset programming ... driven by intelligence.


Can you prove this: that notwithstanding what the preconditions might be, the validity of any theory remains unshakable?
If you succeed to prove this, some day you may outperform yourself by proving that notwithstanding what the data and the evidences in support or in contradiction to a given theory might be ... and how many black boxes it may be grounded on, the validity of the theory remains unshakable.

You're still an idiot.

Tell me fm--what is the use of such observations and calculations other than providing opportunities for well paid and expensively trained nerds to argue and discuss them in comfortable quarters provided by Congress after hold-ups on the highway of passing taxpayers which, from settled habit, it cannot stop itself from doing?

It seems to me, as a lay observer, that the only result of value is that the earth is the centre of all things, that Mount Wilson is the centre of that and thus that Mr Hubble is the centre of the universe exerting a gravitational force which is, thankfully, only nerd specific.

What is the Hubble constant on any of the cepheids? Or at some point a few billion megaparsecs away on the left hand side of the universe which is galloping off at 99.999 rec. % of the speed of light.

Does Hollywood's "sewing circle" have anything to do with it?

Never mind hints--let's have some answers. Conversational glitter cuts no ice with me my dear.

How does the dimensionless Hubble parameter affect house prices and the virtue of human females?

One thing at a time, your use of English is, Im afraid, not skillful. I have no idea what you are trying to convey with your usage of "Precondition". Precondition to what? and what preconditions specifically? (You fail to state that something even IS a "precondition")
You just assume everything and toss random words out of your closet.

The Cosmic background Radiation has been associated with the Big "Bang" because its existence does NOT support anything but a temperature profile associated with a rapid expansion of the Universe

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left over from the "Big Bang" of cosmology. The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to our observations about the start up of the Universe because it is the oldest light in the universe.
With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson , which earned them the 1978 Nobel Prize.


Measurements of CMB are critical toany understandings of Cosmology , since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K. The spectral radiance dEν/dν peaks at 160.2 GHz, in the microwave range of frequencies.

The glow is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance at different angles of observation in the sky contains small irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. This is a very active field of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example, the Planck spacecraft) and better interpretations of the initial conditions of expansion.
Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMB

The "Math models" you seem to deny are all satisfied by the present theory and several space craft (including the Planck satellite are studying the structure and anisotropy of the CMB radiation even closer.
Prhaps by a little closer reading you could understand things without panicking or defaulting






I think the Hubble Constant is 17 X 10^-3 meters/sec/light year.
Of course weve only been studying the Hubble constant for a few decades. Maybe it isn't really a constant.
The concept of the speed of the RECESSION of GALAXIES (as measured by red shifts) is pretty nicely proportional to its distance from us and the HUBBLE CONSTANT is that "constant" of proportionality (KInda hard to ignore it when it gives us a nice strait line for the
v=H* D
(Where the H* is the Hubble Constant).

Once again, math comes to our aid. (SEE A PATTERN HERE?)






This is , perhaps your zenith of gobbledeegook. I have no idea what youre trying to communicate. See, the success of this whole A2K thing is heavily dependent on people understanding what we each are saying. Im having trouble figuring out what your points are and even what your sentence structure is?

ALL I can say is that evolution theory, (mainly the concept of evolution by natural selection) has been discovered and evidenced quite strongly over the last 155 years. ALL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS NAT SELECTION AND NO EVIDENCE REFUTES IT.

How could any evidence refute it when it is an internally coherent system of teleologies.

How does nepotism in humans fit in? How do cultural variations in sexual arousal mechanisms support natural selection?

Why was Darwin so wary of sexual selection?

CAn you give a coherent example of this assertion?

That is the example.

Why are you asking me questions before answering the ones I've asked you?

When is a constant a constant? When it makes money eh? Or is an insignia of wonderfulness. Do you ever ponder anything else?

when it varies not.

because all of your questions require clarification. Even then they , like the above, are asked merely so you can show us all how "cute and clever " you are.

But you just said that the Hubble Constant might not be constant.

that's true, now you can ponder over what was meant there.

I didn't ponder very long. I smirked a bit though.

Science is peeping up Mother Nature's skirts isn't it? Nosey parkering.

That it is useful or convenient, so far at least, doesn't alter that. And if it gets too useful and convenient we all end up being futile and the only thing left to do is to amuse each other to make the futility less unbearable.

spendi's Law--futility increases in proportion to scientific advance. F=Sa where S varies according to extraneous factors which are unpredictable. Such as a polar spike in the swirling stratosphere starting at the tropopause and breaking through into the troposphere to descend at one in twenty from a northerly direction on the eastern states of The Greatest Country in de Woild to provide 3 months per year, every year, until the effect fades in the Gaian symbiosis, as with El Nino, of conditions similar to those at the North Pole.

It seems to me, fm, that all the addictive habits picked up when oil was $3 a barrel are being put under stress when it reaches $100.

1. what are your units?

2.What is "a"?

1--Pharmaceutical product sales. (F).

2--The coefficient of advance of science.