I simply note where you took an "observation" (redshift) and subjectively claimed (apparently on faith) that the "cause" was something unrelated to anything that has ever seen in labs on Earth. It's a "statement of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab).
Whether it's "good" (correct) faith, or "bad" (incorrect) belief, remains to be seen.
I'm simply noting where your beliefs are rooted in processes and ideas that you can demonstrate in a lab, and where they deviate from empirical laboratory knowledge.
I personally would indeed say that LCDM theory is a form of "bad faith", meaning it's invalid. Faith in the unseen is neither good nor bad by itself IMO, but one's faith can conflict with the empirical evidence, which it does in this case. There's ample evidence of perfectly "natural" explanations for photon redshift.
In this case, I probably did use it in that context, but I'm not suggesting that all forms of "faith" are "weak" or "bad".
But you haven't even technically demonstrated that it's empirically "possible", let alone the most "probable cause" of photon redshift. How did you go from "photon redshift happens", to "space expansion did it"?
We also observe an x-ray background too, and the sources are the same, namely all the stars in the sky. Eddington predicted the background temperature of the universe to within a half of a degree on his first attempt based on nothing but the scattering of starlight on "dust" in space. So what if there's all kinds of wavelengths from sun in space? What does that have to do with demonstrating that it's even physically "possible" for "space" to do magical expansion tricks? How are you physically defining "space", and how does it 'expand'? What "lab experiment" verifies that your explanation is a "possible" cause of photon redshift?
Unfortunately all those collider experiments at LHC blew SUSY theory and WIMP theory out of water, as did LUX, PandaX, etc. Sorry to burst your bubble, but LHC hasn't been kind to LCDM theory, not even a little.
I suspect that you simply haven't studied these topics as much as I have.
How would we get from "possible" to "probable"? It's technically "possible" that space genies are responsible for "photon redshift" too, but how "probable" is that "possibility"?
I can cite several *demonstrated* lab processes that *cause* photon redshift. That might allow us to claim some or all of them are "probable" causes of photon redshift, and empirically preferable to "space genies".
No, I'm simply trying to decide how you determined that "space genies" wasn't a "likely" explanation, whereas "space expansion" seems to work for you.
What good is the claim "space expansion did it" as it relates to the *cause* of volcanoes? I'm not about to require you to recreate each process that you put forth as a "cause" in the lab, but before you introduce *supernatural* constructs, I'd at least expect you to rule out the more likely causes. There are *many demonstrated* actual "causes" of photon redshift, and none of them involve "expanding space".
That probably depends on what you're trying to claim is the "cause". If you expect me to believe "God did it", I'd expect to see some evidence of that assertion. Wouldn't you?
Then you can't logically cite collider experiments as being helpful to your claims related to photon redshift.
Huh? No. Moving objects are "observed in nature" and they cause photon redshift. Ditto for various types of inelastic scattering. These are *empirical verified possible* causes of photon redshift. You haven't even demonstrate that space expansion is a 'possible' cause of photon redshift because you haven't demonstrated the space expansion has any effect on a photon.
No, it's not how Doppler shift works. Doppler shift works by *moving objects*, not "space expansion". Notice the difference?
Oh, but there is a difference. Everything you just talked about is related to *moving objects*, not "space expansion". You're essentially (well astronomers probably mislead you) using an equivocation fallacy in your argument. It basically goes something like "object movement causes photon redshift" and "space expansion" is the "same as" Doppler shift. It's not the same.
No, I'm convinced that Doppler shift will be related to moving objects and moving objects will cause photon redshift (and blueshift). I'm not convinced that "Space expansion" is even a "possible" cause of photon redshift.
True, but one concept can be falsified if not the other.
When did you demonstrate the existence of "space expansion" again?
Yet you failed to demonstrate the existence of "space expansion" or that it has any effect on a single photon before pointing at the sky and claiming "space expansion did it"? How does that double standard work?
Care to explain how your "space expansion" claim isn't an argument from ignorance by your own standards?
I get the feeling you misunderstood my point because I didn't make that claim, but you're essentially (maybe not to your knowledge) making that claim with respect to "space expansion" and what effect you *claim* it has on a photon.
I think you're completely missing my point. I'm not suggesting that science is limited to demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms. I'm simply trying to understand how you decided that "space expansion" was possible explanation for photon redshift, let alone "probable".
In terms of DNA, I was not trying to suggest there is any "default" position.
Yet you never demonstrate the existence of space expansion or that it has any effect on photon before you pointed at the sky and claimed "space expansion did it". You didn't meet your own burden of proof to even claim space expansion is "possible", let alone "probable".
So if you and I stumbled across a piece of technology that was far more advanced than anything humans have ever built, would you more apt to believe it's intelligently designed, or it just randomly appeared where we found it?
I think you just demonstrated my point however. We'd both assume that the technology in question was "intelligently designed". We wouldn't *automatically* assume it's "alien" technology, but we'd both be more apt to accept an "alien" explanation over "God did it". Correct?
"Aliens did it" is a "possible" explanation because we know that intelligence is capable of creating technology, and life exists on Earth in many forms. It "could" exist elsewhere in space. Whether is the most "probable" explanation remains to be seen, but we can't rule it out automatically just because we haven't seen any alien lifeforms.
I didn't make such a comparison and we're getting way off track from my original point. I was simply pointing out the some observations may allow us to know that something was a product of 'intelligent design" simply by looking at it and examining it carefully. That's the only point I was trying to make.
There have been *many* published papers attributing slime molds with "intelligence". I didn't make it up.
Looking for true intelligence, study shows that slime molds can learn - ExtremeTech
I'm going to skip the redundant arguments.
Your "space expansion" claim is ultimately a "supernatural" process that has never been documented on Earth. You're clearly playing by two different standards of "evidence" as it relates to photon redshift, and the topic of God. Since there are many *natural* causes of photon redshift, why do we even need a *supernatural* option in the first place?
There's a great irony in that statement as it relates to your *assumed* cause of photon redshift.