Search results

"Laugh while you can, monkey boy." -- John Lithgow, "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai" MGM, Inc. (1984) Probability and statistics underly the entire study of genetics. Every "real" biologist uses this information routinely. As for uncertainty principle and biological change, there are...

Why would I provide you with a link to such a quote, when in your next paragraph, you dismiss the idea as meaningless to your position (obviously, just in case I were to actually provide you with such a quote -- which I could, but I won't bother -- you wouldn't read it anyway). Uncertainty is...

Mr. Langan is clearly a very brilliant person. I think he may only lack the opportunity to interact with others in his mental league, due to his unconventional background and the prevalence of elitism among the formally educated. There's simply nothing like a good argument to flush out...

You're correct. Fortuitously, however, since Pascal, Bayes, Heisenberg, Bohr, et. al., have already rendered the statement true for me and for every other thinking person on planet Earth, I don't need to add any additional force to my position. You on the other hand, have a somewhat more...

Continuously restating this false premise will not render it true, unless you start wearing a brown shirt and carry a club to enforce your misunderstanding of reality.

(eyes roll back) Here we go again. I don't agree that your definition is accurate, obvious or even agreed upon by a majority of ID advocates/detractors. But, assuming your definition as operative, then the following: A card unseen is a card unseen, whether it is dealt to you or to your...

It would be really great if everyone could agree on the definition of the term "intelligent design," before arguing about it. Some possible definitions for "design:" 1. Absence of chance/absolute determinism. 2. Combination of chance and determinism, weighted in favor of chance. 3...

I agree. Langan does have some interesting views. I wonder if any of you actually read his position paper: http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf. I further wonder if any of you understand it well enough to explain it to another person. I see two problems in Mr. Langan's thinking...

Who is this genius advocate of God to whom you refer?

Concur -- except that in this case, there really is only "one" ID proponent. Schizophrenia uber alles. Zeig Heil.

Your claim is demonstrably false at the subatomic level. You are inventing a definition for uncertainty which is not supported by the science of quantum mechanics. Some things in this universe cannot be predicted in advance with certainty. They can only be approximated by probability. The...

No argument whatsoever. But it still falls to the person want to prove ID is science to confirm it experimentally. Until then, it's just an idea. Z wants to give the idea of ID the same authority weight as the science of evolution. This is a public policy decision. It has nothing to do with...

The quantum forces which Heisenberg identifies affect everything in the universe -- including the roll of dice, which are subjected to all sorts of turbulence at the subatomic level. You are claiming that everything in the universe can be determined according to a pattern. Heisnberg's...

Prove it via a scientific experiment.

I think you're missing the point. Astrology exists but it's not scientific, because when subjected to verification by repeatable experiment, no enhanced predictive capability over random chance is demonstrated. Thus Astrology is an unconfirmed hypothesis -- an unproven idea -- but not science...

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle demonstrates that your assertion of determinism patently false. But even if you were correct, your assertion is meaningless, because though the universe were entirely deteriministic in every way has nothing to do with whether or not ID is scientific. If...

Assert what ID is, and then prove it by experiment. Until you do, it's not science.

You have yet to show what ID "is." So there's nothing for me to try to show it is not.

No, it's not. I assert something and then I show an experiment confirming it. You assert something and say "prove me wrong," rather than conducting an experiment to prove yourself right. So you have just an assertion, which is not science, while I have an experiment which is science...