Anonymous Participant

If you ask any two people in the world to give their rendition of a pseudoscience theory no two will have the same understanding. That has been my consistent observation. Read this forum , the titles on those subjects and you will see ZERO consensus exists. I understand them as well as you or anyone else does or is supposed to.

I never said anything regarding those two ideas as of yet and neither has anything to do with aircraft or computers regardless of what so called popular science claims.

Planes flying or computers functioning have nothing to do with nor are they dependent on atheistic pseudoscience. According to your opinion, which is totally irrelevant. It's not what you can say that has any significance or relevance in a debate, it's what you can prove. In the future what now see as scientific fact or theory will be ridiculed just as these things are now. I am absolutely certain of it

Don't put words in my mouth and claim I made claims I didn't MMkay?

Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must seem humble. _Albert Einstein Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton What evidence? All that has changed is science has been throttled around the neck by an agenda of secular humanism and atheism

Wrong, it is an observation based upon my knowledge of science and the fact that the most noteworthy contributors to science have all believed the same thing I do. It is only very recently in the past 100 years that atheism and psuedoscience have merged to become a new religion that falsely proclaims itself science.

Atheistic pseudoscience? Think about it.

You can rationalize all you want but atheism is a very specific religious belief without a doubt.. I'm sure not having much exposure to it through you

WOW! The same example I hear over and over. What vestigial organs and non-functional tissues in organisms that have no use or purpose to it in it's current state prove is that a process of evolution exists. I can't think of any more intelligent process than evolution, organisms evolving and adapting to new and variant environments automatically IS an exceptionally intelligent design, and intelligence is reflected in the genetic code itself, it is in fact intelligence in it's purest form.

What have you got? You can't say because bad things happen that there is no intelligence in the universe. I see a lot of so called scientists who do not understand the concept of duality and balance that are evident in all things and prove intelligent design I mean what particular scientific fact do you know of that does not have an intelligence inherent in it? You will find when you look at it objectively that science is the study of the intelligence of the universe. It seems nonsensical to call yourself a scientist and deny the universe is an intelligent construct. Interesting. Rationalization. Common to religious fanatics. Religion is defined as beliefs concerning the existence or nature of a god. Believing no god exists is a belief concerning the existence of god, it IS a religious belief and it is irrational because it cannot be proved.

I simply acknowledge the reality that the universe is an intelligent arrangement and there is an inherent intelligence evident in everything about it. I am not sure of the origin of the intelligence but suspect it has always existed and the way we perceive it is a result of our own conscious interpretation. I also think anyone who calls themselves a scientist who denies the universe is an intelligent arrangement is delusional about one or the other.

You are very confused about my beliefs concerning science. I simply deny religious beliefs and the constraints they have on intellectual thought have a place in science, and that includes atheism

Personally I can't prove to myself the existence of a creator one way or another and I don't think anyone can. What I personally believe is intelligence is an inherent property of the universe itself and that it is an intelligent arrangement. The universe IMO has always existed and time is simply a construct of human consciousness. There is no need to explain its origin and any attempt to do so will ultimately fail. We as humans tend to think in terms of everything having a beginning and an end and yet we see endless examples of where the so called end is a new beginning of a new cycle, that is we seldom actually observe the 'end" of anything and we do it's not really an "end", it's just a transformation or end of a cycle.. I think the evidence tends to support the idea that the universe is currently in a cycle of expansion which will eventually reverse. I don't believe the concept of an infinite singularity simply because it defies rational thought and there is no reason to believe such a thing exists, but I do believe the universe will contract to a point where it will no longer be capable of further contraction and the result be an energetic expansion.

Any moderately intelligent person is fully aware of the tactic of attempting to silence an opponent because of an inability to defend a position. What you all should be wondering is why this tactic even exists in science. One can understand why you can't go into a Baptist church and state Jesus didn't exist, but it doesn't make sense within the context of what science is supposed to be that a faith based idea (the universe is not an intelligent design because no sentient intelligence exists) with no logical scientifically accepted way to prove it is used as a litmus test for what is defined as science. That is religion my friends.The existence or non existence of a creator is a religious faith based idea, and no one denies you cannot prove the non existence of a creator..SO neither preconceived notion has a place in science! We let the chips fall where they may, where the evidence leads, and the evidence leads us overwhelmingly to an intelligent design in all scientific disciplines. I am not attacking REAL science or any real scientist in history., I am denying atheistic pseudoscience is science or that preconceived religious faith based ideas have a place in science. "it doesn't even say there was a singularity"-Hmmm, interesting

The facts that support the idea of intelligent design in science is the entire discipline and how it's methodology is conducted. Without intelligent arrangement the scientific process couldn't function. There is no observation or fact in science that disproves intelligent design, but on the contrary everything we actually know proves it is. How can a person call themselves a scientist and deny that DNA is an intelligent code for instance? That is exactly what it is.What about evolution? Does adaptation of organisms to their environment through an ingrained process in that DNA indicate intelligent design?

Believing that the universe is an intelligent construct based on observations is not a religious idea. Believing that it is not in order to explain it's existence in the absence of an intelligent design IS a religious idea, because it ignores the facts automatically when they conflict with a preconceived RELIGIOUS belief..

You ARE NOT a scientist, you are an atheistic pseudoscience coreligionist.Scientists do not dismiss facts based on religious faith based preconceptions

You could, but you would never get it broadcast on tell lie vision and that is the point. The big bang theory is part of a larger agenda to remove and isolate moral restraints from human society.

Here is what a search of the big bang theory resulted in: https://www.google.com/search?q=big+bang+theory&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Nuff said, I think. It is obviously meant to be a popular atheistic iconic idea promoted by not just academia through pseudoscience but the entertainment industry and media ,and not a real theory. ANYWAY...while the big bang theory doesn't actually claim the singularity exploded, it DOES say it suddenly began to expand rapidly at an extremely high rate, which is loosely the definition of an explosion. It does not explain how the singularity came into existence and even claims space didn't exist before. This IS a genesis theory. The irony of all of this is that the big bang is a creation theory. It claims Discoveries and fact associated with astronomy and physics have proved to a reasonable certainty that the universe did in fact appear to have a beginning. According to this theory, prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something. IT WAS CREATED. How it doesn't explain which is just another lame aspect of this so called theory. The law of entropy proves that the universe is an intelligent construct because it became and is becoming more complex from something infinitely non complex. You are thinking withing the constraints of a preconceived FAITH BASED notion and because of that you are not a scientist, but a coreligionist with other atheists. If you want to explain the existence of the universe the only truly logical conclusion is that it has always existed, there is no need to explain the beginning because there was none, it's just a never ending cycle of contraction and expansion, and we are currently observing the expansion phase. I don't understand why it is so necessary to explain the genesis of the universe in science and why people are so obsessed with it. Almost every observation we make in science involves repeating cycles. Look at a circle, is it really necessary to do the impossible and determine where it begins and ends to explain its existence? That's exactly what you are doing when you try to explain how the universe came into existence because inevitably you are faced with the reality that if it did come into existence from nothing you are never going to actually explain how it came into existence. What I think the evidence indicates is that the universe is an intelligent construct hat has always existed and it is it's own creator. because there is no other possible explanation. We have never observed nothing suddenly becoming something

I don't think real empirical-based science can ever be reconciled with any mainstream religion besides perhaps Buddhism to some extent, which isn't actually a religion but a philosophy of life. The reason I believe this is because people who are religious and hold to religious tenets do so based on faith and belief and not logic and facts. When an idea conflicts with their religious dogma they automatically discount it without having to understand the idea. Unfortunately, modern science itself has become a religion based on the non-belief in an intelligent sentient creator or intelligent design of the universe, in other words atheism. Because of this ll kinds of ridiculous and illogical "theories" have been proposed that conflict with logic and previously well held principals, laws and facts of science. I call this atheistic pseudoscience, because it is faith based and motivated by a singular intent to explain the existence of the universe within the limited context than there is no intelligent arrangement to it. Modern post 19th century science is the religion of atheism. I can state this with certainty because any attempt to mention the fact that the universe is intelligently arranged meets with the same contempt and censorship one would expect if he walked into a Baptist church and declared Jesus wasn't the son of God, and yet it is. When you stick your fingers in your ears when faced with facts that contradict your beliefs, your beliefs do not reconcile with science at all. I have encountered this with so called scientists for the past 40 years. They are emotionally involved, and become angry when you insult their religion by pointing out it doesn't logically compute. Take for instance the big bang "theory", which seeks to explain the genesis of the universe. This is an idea which conflicts with not just logic and common sense, it violates basic premises and laws of science. It is based loosely on the observation that the universe is expanding, which led to the belief an explosion caused it. The problem is that while we have been able to measure some celestial bodies moving away from us, others are getting closer. For the most part other than procession most celestial bodies are in the same places they were when we began to observe them. What you are left with is trying to explain how the singularity came into existence and what made it explode in the first place, and therefor have explained nothing about the origin of the universe. You also cannot explain how an explosion could result in such an almost infintely complex interaction and construct without some intelligent intervention. Explosions do not create, they destroy.

None. I just have a more accurate and rational definition than it rides the bandwagon

I think we all need to realize that an opinion does not qualify something as pseudoscience or legitimate science, nor does a bandwagon fallacy.. From my perspective I can see a lot of what mainstream refers to a legitimate science is indeed pseudoscience , and a alot of what it refers to as pseudoscience is legitimate science. The title fo this thread is how to spot pseudoscience and I think one of the easiest ways to detect what is likley pseudoscience is if it A) forces a preconceived unproved belief as a limitation to it's conclusions, or B) contradicts logic and proved and accepted laws of science. For instance the big bang theory is clearly pseudoscience because it ignores fundamental proved laws of science and defies logic and conventional wisdom. Explosions don't create almost infinitely complex systems, they disrupt an destroy them, and if you're going to use it as an explanation of the origin of the universe you'd better realize unless you explain how the singularity came into existence and why it "chose" to explode you have actually explained nothign.. The big bang theory doesn't pass the basic smell test in science because it is quite bluntly an attempt to explain the existence of the universe within the constraints of an irrational religious belief, that there is no intelligent order int he universe and that complex intelligently ordered things can come into existence without intelligent intervention. They cannot..

You've not misunderstood the last sentence at all, ELECTROmagnetic radiation is composed of ELECTROns moving at light speed oscillating passively to a coupled magnetic field which is vibrating at the frequency of he light energy. The confusion I believe has always been expecting electrons or anything else to always appear to be the same thing in different states You deleted many of the comments I made last night and your own responses to them. Just telling someone "do not bring up this topic again" is insulting, who the hell do you think you are talking to me in that manner? I doubt very seriously you'd say something like that to another persons face like that in such a demanding way without expecting to get the crap kicked out of you, you need to learn to respect before you can expect to eb respected. If you abuse your authority here all you are really doing is proving what a petty, useless impediment to learning and progress you really are. You have no business moderating a science forum, you don't ever respect what a forum is supposed to be. it's not where I agree with you because you have the power to censor or ban me, it is where everyone speaks their mind and shares their own opinions and facts. What you are is a power tripping atheist imposing your own fanatical beliefs on science through censorship. Did I nail it? One must wonder why it is so pervasive in what we call science today to censor anything suggesting an intelligent design of the universe. The idea has been coupled falsely to organized religion because organized religion teaches a God created the universe, and this fact used by atheists to disqualify teaching or even mentioning it in public schools in the USA using the separation of church ans state clause of the bill of rights. The problem of course is the only thing that is left being taught is also a religious doctrine, atheism. In my opinion if we never mention any religious belief when advocating that the universe is an intelligent arrangement, we have not violated the separation of church and state clause any more than an atheist insisting it isn't. I think what needs to be established in everyone's mind and what will ultimately eventually remove this intentional stumbling block that prevents discussing the most important aspect of science is establishing that atheism IS a religious belief. I am absolutely certain that the intent is to inject into the collective conscious the idea that life is without purpose and therefor moral constraints on human behavior are useless. It opens the door to such things as euthanizing people because they are disabled, killing off entire populations because they are in the way of our version of progress, or "aborting" a 5 year old because he misbehaves, and that is where it is leading, make no mistake about it. I guess the point is if you're right you never feel the need to stop the other person from expressing his opinion because you know all he will do is help you prove he is wrong if he is. There is no opposing viewpoint in science among it's true contributors that contradicts the idea that the universe is an intelligent arrangement. The reason why it is suppressed was proved last night, because he atheists cannot win the debate if it exists..

The two basic logical contradictions in conventional theory are the velocity of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference and light can be both a wave and a particle . These are well know paradoxes , at least i though so. The first is a logical contradiction because in all other known examples in physics velocity changes with the frame of reference, call it relative velocity. It is impossible to logically conclude that light emanating from a source moving relative to one frame of reference moves away from that source at the speed of light as measured from the moving source and yet from the stationary reference moves at the speed of light as well. The two cannot be both true at the same time and yet they are. What we would logically expect is the light would move away from the moving source at light speed and from that reference be measured as such, but from the observational stationary frame of reference it should be moving at the velocity of the source plus the velocity it was emitted. Because it is light and light creates a paradox, it doesn't. The APPARENT paradox is if the source was moving in relation to a frame of reference, from that "stationary" position the light should also be moving away from the source at the speed of light, so if the source is itself moving from the observational frame of reference, the velocity of the light it is emitting from the stationary reference should be it's velocity plus the speed of light but it's not, its the speed of light. What this forces us to accept is that two observations which are mutually contradictory are true at the same time in two different frames of reference, a contradiction, a paradox. The speed of light is measured as the same in both frames, which defies logic and that in my estimation is a paradox. What I can and will do is explain why that "paradox" is not a paradox at all.. "My avatar is a photograph of myself and my lady - hardly aimed at concealing anything." I figured that, although it is impossible to ascertain the sex of the person in the photo. The point is you motivated by your emotional involvement to form an opinion in science, a no no. As I recall you insulted me last night in much the same manner, as did a few others. Are you saying the rules apply selectively depending upon your personal opinions and whims?