Search results

RESPONSES IN CAPS...

I think he probably would like to tell us to go where it's really hot!

Yes, it truly would make a difference to the observations, because part of the observations is the statistical measurement of uncertainty as a means of determining whether or not the events are actually the product of random chance. Scientifically, things are random because they are measured...

I appreciate the poetry of your comments (I don't know how you manage it, frankly). However, I'm too dim to understand most of your contained substantive messages. If you actually want to discuss something with me, you'll have to write plain English.

A "true" scientist will say that there is a limit to our present ability to measure the uncertainty of evolutionary change. However, within the limits of our present ability to measure that change, we have determined no pattern. Furthermore, we have demonstrated, via a simple algorithm, that...

The "ignorant random chance theory" is a scientific fact. You're imputing intelligence to randomness without any scientific proof. Your faith dictates that random chance is not random. Statistical measurements of randomness show that random "is" random. Nothing more is required by the...

The question presupposes that there was a time in the past when only energy existed. No such requirement exists. Given the pre-existence of matter and energy trapped within this universe, energy converts to matter whenever a photon strikes an atom. You will undoubtedly move to the next...

RESPONSE IN CAPS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR BETTER FORMATTING. You are beating a dead horse. There is no scientific evidence in support of an intelligent designer, because there cannot be any such evidence -- it is impossible to nail down God by any scientific methodology. ID advocates...

On your first point, and according to your own statements of required principles of falsification, as logically defined by Karl Popper, God is scientifically untestable, because there is no test that can possibly be constructed that cannot be overcome by the will of an almighty creator --...

There is really nothing incompatible between belief in an almighty creator and acceptance of the scientific fact of evolution. There isn't even anything incompatible in asserting that the literal text of the Bible, re the antediluvian age, is true, but that so is the geological scientific...

State a single experiment that confirms the existence of an intelligent deisigner, or one that statistically weighs in favor of an intelligent designer, as constrained by some stated limits.

OK, I can't help but rebut this nonsense. You have hung your entire belief system upon the premise that science is only that which is described by Karl Popper's obsolete philosophy, i.e., if a hypothesis is not demonstrably falsifiable by at least one verifiable experiment, then the...

Of course, all of my responses are irrelevant, and all of yours are well reasoned. As far as I'm concerned, the conclusion is summed up by Susskind in the audio interview, i.e., the idea of fine tuning and/or an intelligent designer is "silly -- it's crazy!" You believe otherwise...

I'M TYPING IN UPPERCASE, NOT BECAUSE I'M ANNOYED, BUT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE TIME TO APPROPRIATELY FORMAT MY REBUTTAL.

Slightly skewed? I cannot friggin' believe your interpretation of the facts. 1. The title of the book is: "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the 'ILLUSION' of Intelligent Design." If that doesn't clue you in to what Dr. Susskind's thesis is, then I don't know what would. 2. The book...

Let me help you out. The syntax of your respose corresponds almost exactly to that of Z. Either he is prompting you with responses behind the scene, or you are taking lessons in trolling from him. Regardless, the bait's stale, and I've already destroyed your argument in favor of anthropic...

Susskind personally, expressly, and unequivocally rejects the idea that string theory somehow supports either the proposition of a fine tuned universe or that of an intelligent designer. If you heard something else come from Susskind's voice during that interview, then perhaps Satan is...

The proof you seek is simple, and available. There are over 185,000 peer reviewed studies in the National Institute of Health's biological Pub Med database, relating to evolution, and every one of them provides support for the theory. There are also 528 peer reviewed studies relating to...

Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. If you have scientific proof of ID, then provide it.

You are totally off the map. The issue is scientific proof of ID. None exists. There is no philosophical implication connected with evolution proceding via random mutation, except to those, whom like yourself, mistakenly believe that randomness must be equated with godlessness. Nothing...