Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

You actually have no idea what a strawman is, do you?

 

Man, oh man. There is no center of the Universe. I think the problem is that you are imagining the Universe expanding outwardly from a single point. That isn't what is happening. When the singularity began expanding, it didn't do so like an explosion from a center point. EVERY single point of the Universe is expanding uniformly.

This page may help you understand better:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=651

 

SHOW US!
Have the stones to make your argument.
How can quoting you not resemble what you said? How is that possible?
You have been quoted to say they are identical. It is a completely vacuous statement. I have shown why

 

Facts are not provable to the point of absolute certainty, but they are provable to a point of pragmatic certainty.

 

Frankly, I am just not understanding how so many of you can subscribe to this contradictory notion that a scientific theory is not provable but can be factual based on a preponderance of the evidence. It's very counterintuitive so much so that I don't understand why you continue with this farcical exercise by why you insist on dragging me into it. If you believe the sky is red you go right ahead and believe that. I thought we were discussing Evolution vs Intelligent Design, not flawed scientific logical arguments.

 

Well Bruce, you are free to derail the topic onto logic fallacies, but don't expect me to play that any more than I would with your straw man arguments.

 

I don't remember anyone saying 'preponderance of evidence'. Did I miss it?

 

If every teacher thought the same way we would all be as stupid as some of your posts.
Show me the way! Show me how quoting you misrepresents you.

 

That explanation is completely useless. No one said anything about the balloon being a 2 dimensional surface. I've always understood the 3 dimensional model. Do you not see the map of the universe I posted? Are we not at the center? Is the same not also true of maps of the CMB?

 

I don't expect you to respond.
I fully expect you to run away.
I'm sure you will not disappoint.

 

"The radiation was "produced" about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, and it was produced at every point of the Universe. From the very beginning, it's been (almost) uniform (the same at all places) and isotropic (the same in all directions). Since that time, the radiation was moving in all directions, essentially without any interactions."

 

No Bruce. I have made my argument. I do not have to restate my argument and have no intention of doing so because you will only do the same things that you did the first time, which is to restate my argument in such a manner as to not even resemble what I said in an attempt to belittle what I said. I can understand that you may not agree with my thesis, you have that right. I will not be brow beaten into withdrawing it, changing my opinion or agreeing with yours.

 

We're at the center because we are observing things from that point. If we went to a different part of the Universe and created a WMAP image from that point, it would look exactly the same.

 

Didn't ask you to.
I asked you to defend yours.
You have chosen not to.
Enough said.

 

I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say here. Scientific theories are not provable in the sense that they are not absolute; they are always falsifiable and we could tomorrow find evidence of them being flawed. They are "factual" in the sense that they are built upon facts, which is just another word for observations in science.

 

Is there no half life if it is just radiation, and if it is moving without any interaction how is it that it is uniform in all directions? Does this not indicate that we are close to or at the center of the universe.

One person said there is not center of the universe which makes no sense since the Big Bang calls for a finite universe and there has to be a volume to it.

 

Which would only be true if the universe were infinite.

 

Which as far as we concerned, it may be.

 

I choose not to defend your erroneous portrayals of my statements.

 

This is the fact that the atheist failed to admit.

=======
There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing.

For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment". If your this prediction shall failed, you can get a Nobel Prize because this is the way how the formula is falsified. You make predictions which will never fail (or else you can get a Nobel Prize), this is what the nature of science is. A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions will never fail.

This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability.

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is.

However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science.

You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion.

Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.
=======

The "science" in the mouth atheists won't attain the same accuracy as a true science does in detecting a truth. Worst still, they can no longer tell what is a truth beyond doubt and what is an assumption requiring faith. They are the true religionists who believe whatever being called "science".

 

I'm saying I am not going to debate a circular contradictory argument that makes no sense.

 

It's endearing that you think the best tactic is to decide what makes sense to you and then just dismiss everything you don't understand, out of hand, and not even address it.

 

You see.
I was right again.
My little runaway.
Run run run run runaway.

 

Wow.....just, wow.

 

That's like saying everyplace is the center of the universe which isn't possible.