32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 02:12 pm
@farmerman,
Q's brain is frozen, and it's impossible to absorb new information!
His specialty is cut and paste, but that's his top skill, and parroting bull shyt.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 05:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
"frozen" implies it was once in a working condition. This guy is kinda batshit I think.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 06:05 pm
@farmerman,
Well, when he was born....
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 07:47 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:
for starters, the evoultion THEORY is one big hoax!

Absolutely.
1. By definition 'Theory is a group of ideas ...'
What are the fundamental ideas standing behind the Big Bang - that an explosion can create 3D space out of 0D 'gravitational continuum'; that the gravitation not only can exist in the 0D space, but it can appear before the elementary particles come into existence; that the elementary particles ... and the chemical elements can 'auto-create' themselves from each other by stochastic processes without any information code and any control processes and mechanics; that stochastics can exist in violation to the math laws of probabilistic distribution, for example; that a theory can exist and be above the laws - in absolute contradiction with the laws of physics, laws of math and the principles of math logic, etc.

2. '... meant to explain a certain topic, ... '
... such as the 'observation' that science is smarter than religion in any case scenario.

3. '... or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a).'
... like for example how can our Universe be created on the assumption of no collection of facts, events or phenomena.

4. 'Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.'
The abstract and generalised thinking standing behind the Big Bang is that any contemplation can be used for pseudo-scientific explanations no matter that it might be a collection of pieces of contemplation in space and time ... with finally lost information (in the black holes) and with information appearing out of nothing and out of nowhere (like for example the appearance of the biocode,)

5. 'a theory is often based on general principles that are independent of the thing being explained.'
... and the general principles of the Big Bang 'theory' are:
- Notwithstanding that the Big Bang is currently 'creating' the edge of the Universe and the center of the Universe has been created 13.8 Bya (as the theory claims) all the parts of the Universe are at one and the same age.
- By reason unknown the Earth is into the center of the universe or the center of the Universe can be everywhere ... including along the edges (for the red shift is equal in all directions seen from Earth, but it can be equal in all direction seen from the edge).
- The red shift in the light spectrum cannot be some property of light (and of the particles) not studied yet, but it is exactly the creation of space by an explosion, only creation and nothing else.
- The explosive-creation abilities of the Big Bang can be used not only to create 3D space out of 0D, but also 9D out of 3D ... up to 11D space, where (by reason unknown) the thus created spaces in the math equations start collapsing ... like a tower of cards.

6. 'Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works.'
The Big Bang cannot explain how Nature works, but this does not impede it from self-proclaiming as the father of all mothers of the things ... without any problems.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 11:26 pm
@Herald,
So?, it still is a hoax.

There are enough definitions of what a theory is, enough to satisfy you every need.

But in this case, it doesn't matter.

You are trying to defend that the Naked Emperor has Clothes!

But he has None whatsover.

But, I must admit, it is funny to look at!
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 07:38 am
But what atheists can never answer is WHY would anybody want to invent Christianity?..Smile
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 07:59 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

But what atheists can never answer is WHY would anybody want to invent Christianity?..Smile


Well I am not an atheist...but I can sure answer that, so I suspect almost any atheist can also.

Jews are very inventive people. Always have been. It appears as though they invented the Abrahamic religions. It was a relatively minor step for them when they extended that original invention...and invented Christianity.

Why do you think that such a tough question, Romeo?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 08:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
Anybody who thinks that is an answer to WHY is as stupid as Apisa.

At least Darwin took the trouble to pile up examples of what had appeared. He didn't say WHY either.

I bet he could have answered WHY he married into the Wedgewood dough.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 10:09 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
But what atheists can never answer is WHY would anybody want to invent Christianity?..Smile

We don't have any evidences ... what is more, we don't even have any reasonable ground to believe that Christianity has been 'invented', and not imposed, for example.
1. This is different understanding and attitude to the world, so much different from everything that existed by that time that it is rather strange..
2. This is another level of thinking ... pay attention, appearing 4000 years before the problem has been formulated. Can you give any other example in the history of mankind about such phenomenology?
3. IMV (that I do not engage anybody with) this is a psychotronic theater ... it is supreme form of art and expression, and delivering of messages ... for those who are at the level to understand it.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 11:35 pm
Quote:
we don't even have any reasonable ground to believe that Christianity has been 'invented', and not imposed, for example.


yes, we have.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWiT7YSrgvXH1tEzZBs47Dw3kx0Y_9rYbI3LHg4bTqtuUY97dn
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 08:54 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:
yes, we have.

1. It has not been Caesar who adopted the Christianity in the Roman Empire ... but Constantine. (Caesar has invented the cryptoanalysis)
2. The Christianity dates back to 1200 B.C. - to Krishna and 1880 B.C. - to the tomb of the Visitor. In any case scenario it has not been invented but imposed ... and who, how, why and when introduced the original story is not entirely clear.
3. The things accompanying the Visitor are made of synthetic materials resembling very much nanoplastics (1800 B.C. ?!) Perhaps a more serious analysis is needed
What we have is that all these commercial presentations on the TV and on the stadiums have nothing to do with the original idea of the message ... or whatever there it might be.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 08:56 am
@Herald,
Quote:
1. It has been not Caesar who adopted the Christianity in the Roman Empire ... but Constantine. (Caesar has invented the cryptoanalysis)
2. The Christianity dates back to 1200 B.C. - Krishna and 1880 B.C. - the tomb of the Visitor. In any case scenario it has not been invented but imposed ... and who, how, why and when introduced the original story is not entirely clear.
3. The things accompanying the Visitor are made of synthetic materials resembling very much nanoplastics (1800 B.C. ?!) Perhaps a more serious analysis is needed
What we have is that all these commercial presentations on the TV and on the stadiums have nothing to do with the original idea of the message ... or whatever there it might be.


Research the "Piso Family" in the time of Rome. will open your eyes.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 09:19 am
@Quehoniaomath,
RE: 'Atwill discovered that the Roman emperor Titus Flavius, working with Flavius Josephus and other authors in his patrimony wrote the New Testament.'
This does not mean anything. Before 1045 (China) and 1453 (Europe) there has not been printing press and the books have been re-written by hand, so writing some book does not necessarily mean that the clerk is the writer.
Besides that these stories about Heaven and Hell date back to Ancient Egypt ... to the Book of the Dead and the Book of the Living. There are similar books found in Tibet.
The Christianity has its roots far deeper in history. Jesus of Nazareth (which suggests that by the time being Nazareth has been more famous than Jesus) heimself is identified after a prophesy for the coming of the messiyah (the anointed one ... by God). It is not that easy to navigate through the religions in time without GPS (some sound interpretation of what is all that story all about).
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 09:23 am
@Herald,
Quote:
RE: 'Atwill discovered that the Roman emperor Titus Flavius, working with Flavius Josephus and other authors in his patrimony wrote the New Testament.'
This does not mean anything. Before 1045 (China) and 1453 (Europe) there has not been printing press and the books have been re-written by hand, so writing some book does not necessarily mean that the clerk is the writer.
Besides that these stories about Heaven and Hell date back to Ancient Egypt ... to the Book of the Dead and the Book of the Living. There are similar books found in Tibet.
The Christianity has its roots far deeper in history. Jesus of Nazareth (which suggests that by the time being Nazareth has been more famous than Jesus) heimself is identified after a prophesy for the coming of the messiyah (the anointed one ... by God). It is not that easy to navigate through the religions in time without GPS (some sound interpretation of what is all that story all about).



Ah well, ALL the stories in the Bible can even be traced thousand of years back from the pagan religions.
It really is a recycled old religion.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 09:30 am
@Herald,
Quote:

5. 'a theory is often based on general principles that are independent of the thing being explained.
The facts that evidence a scientific theory are most often quite separate from the subject of the theory. Evolution is underpinned by geology, paleo, geochemistry, genetics, embryology, ecology, anatomy and physiology, organic chemistry biochem etc etc. However, they coalesce nicely in the support of the main theory.


You are the master of the bleeding obvious, aren't you?
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 09:32 am
@farmerman,
underpinned??

yes, but only if you believe in this bloody nonsense.
It is called "Wishfull Thinking"

I understand, you have a religion to defend.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 09:42 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Youre too stupid to communicate with about any subject that involves technology or science.

If you don't get it, just shut the **** up nd learn.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:19 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:
It really is a recycled old religion.

... recycled from what? What is the original story all about?
Take for example the keywords: salvation, hell, heaven, testament
Can you make a sentense out of these words that will make some sense.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:31 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Evolution is underpinned by geology, paleo, geochemistry, genetics, embryology, ecology, anatomy and physiology, organic chemistry biochem etc. etc. However, they coalesce nicely in the support of the main theory.

Underprinted for the purposes of what ... to prevent unauthorised interpretation maybe?
Besides you forgot information science, logic quantification, psychology, quantum informatics based on physical carriers ... and perhaps some other sciences that are not discovered yet.
This is as if to claim that the theory of Maxwell is based on power lines, towers and switches.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:44 am
@Herald,
That too. IS atool for the "Real sciences", the deep web provides us with abilities to "mine data" that took months and months in th early days.
We can now append the entire genomes of organisms nd look T WHERE THE SPECIES DIFFER GENOMICALLY.
(Im happy to report that we can follow evolutions paTH BY the genes that are either active or "turned off"'.

 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 12:00:17