Search results

Your choice of aligning yourself with the Luddite on this board does your own search for truth a serious disservice. As you find Leonard Susskind the "extreme authority" from which you seek to derive a scientific proof for your believe in a divine creator, I will provide you with an audio...

You are hanging your entire argument on a popular science interview with Prof. Susskind. There is nothing in that article where the Professor states that any scientific experiment proves the existence of God. Nor is there any peer reviewed science supporting that result. You are implying that...

I submit that this is an irrelevant word game. God may be limitless, but so what? Science is limited to verifying local action from the time-space frame of the observer. Any experiment which reports a completely uncertain result is a total failure, because there is nothing to report except...

Pardon me, but you are drawing a conclusion that no one else is making. The cosmological constant forces no conclusion on anyone. The fact the the constant is measured as what it is means nothing more nor less that that it is measured as what it is. If you seek some inference from the...

Whether randomness is truly random, as explained by the Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle, or whether it is ultimately deterministic and therefore only pseudo-random or chaotic, is irrelevant. A deterministic universe does not prove that it was intelligently designed. It...

You're welcome to your "opinion," unscientific as it is.

Well, that's infinitely more than you've got, which is nothing at all.

You're really on to something, Z! Here we are, after 213 posts on this thread, and the ID "scientists" have yet to produce a single post containing any scientific evidence to support ID. That's definitely "funny."

Your answer would be a good place to start.

Since, above, you dismiss faith (i.e., conclusions drawn from unverifiable/unfalsifiable data) as the basis for your leaning towards ID, this means that your evidence must be the product of conclusions drawn from verifiable/falsifiable data. A conclusion drawn from verifiable/falsifiable data...

Who cares about ID? You're playing my song, Nik! Donna Lee

If you didn't believe it was directed at you, then why did you bother telling me that you're not a creationist? No, there's no misconstruing your intent. You thought that I was suggesting that you were a creationist when I was discussing ID being hijacked by the creationists, because...

Nope. Completely legit. You answered a post to Teleologist in the first person, believing that it was directed at you for a response. You volunteered that you are "not a creationist," as a means of defending your suggesting that I ask creationists what they believe, rather than you. Only...

Gee, another insult -- what a surprise, Mr. Teleologist.

The guy could have multiple computers, multiple network links -- but who cares? It's only his word that the IPs are different. And, if a moderator were to confirm it here, how would you know that HE's not the moderator, too? He's obviously very threatened by this little discovery, because he...

Already have. The thread speaks for itself. Prove you're not.

You and Teleologist are the same person. Simple as that.

You responded to my post in the first person -- and my post was directed to Teleologist in the first person. This clearly indicates that you believed you were responding to a post directed to you. But, alas you forgot to change your alias, and now you've been discovered. This being the...

If you don't switch aliases, then why did you respond to my post to Teleologist?

You may not be a creationist, but you apparently "are" Teleologist. LOL. You should be more careful while switching aliases between responses. Anyway, as you and Teleologist are apparently one in the same, I'm no longer interested in discussing this issue with either of you.