Search results

May I ask, finite proof is what exactly? I mean, why finite? Why not proof - without attaching an apparent unnecessary and inappropriate adjective to it? Aren't there other descriptions similarly inappropriate such as -absolutely finite- . Why did you stop at ordinary finite? In suggesting...

Quite. Thanks (not) for the further demonstration. Like I said, your argument is crap. There must be an Intelligent Santa (IS) because jem sez Susskind sez some part or other of the Anthropic Principle (AP) must be true should Susskind be wrong and the Intelligent Design (ID) will be hard...

You can hand wave it all away as much as you want it makes no difference. The fact is that the position you try so hard to pointlessly defend has no real substance, as demonstrated by the content, or more precisely the lack of content in the arguments you put forward. This thread is testament...

well ok, but i only left bollocks out because it wasn't one of your own logic mangling posts

"You are now writing as if the Landscape theory is a proven theory. If it were then I agree no design inference. " What!? Is that the point where you actually recognize there to be no God? Are you really saying you would accept ID/Creationism and "God the Creator" was no such thing...

Design is a verb not a noun, design will need a designer. According to your version of ID then, who/what is the designer? ID is not scientific theory, therefore cannot explain evolution past guess or conjecture.

Hi JEM :D thanks for the citation :p Now then. Why did you ask me this question and not Teleologist , who first mentioned empirical data to which I only then referred to.? Nevertheless, what I mean and what I suggest most people would generally mean by empirical, would be the...

It's not true to say most ID 'ers don't argue for a Designer (creator), especially in regards to planet earth. Most certainly do. More reasonable I would suggest might be to say teleologists do not necessarily argue that way. But then why would a teleologist argue for Intelligent Design rather...

Teleologist ....but ID is not necessary. Why curve fit it to the universe? Equal grounds exist for unintelligent designer gnomes. It's easily explained away. As humans we've simply gotten accustomed to recognizing their handiwork that's all. Let's imagine some other universes where the...

So your reason why “the creator” would not need a designer is because the creator created time? Something that could create time without the time to create time, should need a pretty sophisticated designer too surely ? You have "the creator" being "outside of time", so why would the...

....simply begs the question if the universe needs a designer, what designed the designer?

As Darwin never did have anything to say on the origin of life itself , and as you are putting it forward that ID'ers concur with the process of evolution as a fact, why would intelligence not be part of the evolutionary process rather than a cause of it?

1. Front loaded or 2. designed or 3. Both ..... by what exactly ? "Evolution has ..." ! Are you saying ID now accepts evolution as a fact ? I think you will find generally that is not the case. Unless of course some serious ground shifting is taking place and ID proponents have...

jeffries, The suspension of disbelief, through faith or otherwise, makes anything believable.

You shouldn't call stuff crap just because you can't understand a straightforawrd explanation. Getting all nasty because your reasoning picks itself apart, is not my fault. Why not try a little humility it may do you good. I did not say anything about Einstein's meaning, merely the context...

Hi jem:D "I have be faced" What's that? and "Really explaining" what exactly? Time is explained in physics. Were you at all interested in explanations, you would find the actual science yourself, instead of just trying to maintain a daft - science is crap therefore God is not - argument...

OLD PHYSICS !! hilarious - jeez that is hilarious. Einstein is OLD PHYSICS ha ha jem rotflmao. ahem sorry, haha fkin hell ha ha ha ha. scuse me. Right, so seeing as Einstein defined time, he is OLD PHYSICS, so you want to switch over to what? NEW Physics?? erm Quantum Physics...

jem, Your approach to thinking this seems to be by departmentalizing. Our universe here, that one there, another over there. Multiverses, inside, outside, this way, that way. Did you ever imagine where all those things would be? Guess what jem, in the Universe. The description Multiverses...

You are such an arrogant bastard jem, i'm sorry but someone had to tell you. it is quite possible that something did exist prior to the big bang. the "big bang" is a singularity event. Space/time is said to have occurred after that event No-thing exists outside Space/time. No-thing is...

Time before time!? You want to discuss the "first few moments" before time !? Lol But how about a single uncaused quantum space/time singularity event? Apart from that sorry jem, I but don't have the erm.... Supporting your definition of God by biblical verses is like supporting a...