Intelligent Design is not creationism

Reduced to ridicule, ad hominem and fallacy, such are the so called supporters of science...



Quote from 2cents:

thks Nik but zizzz's not trolling... he just lacks the brains to understand what defines a scientific theory, what randomness means and Santa Claus knows what else... but he does understand that science & knowledge represent a threat to his family the bozos out there, cause it blows away their creator-based fairy tales one after the other... bit of a bummer... gotta give 'em that :p :p :p
More...
 
I don't have a need to prove it or disprove it.

I don't know of anyone who thinks or suggests that Santa Claus is the intelligence behind the origin of mankind...

Quote from 2cents:

i see u haven't disproved the santa claus theory zizzzz... no technical difficulties i hope
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I don't have a need to prove it or disprove it.

I don't know of anyone who thinks or suggests that Santa Claus is the intelligence behind the origin of mankind...
More...

Zeleologist, can you prove that Santa Claus is not the intelligence behind the origin of mankind?

Only Santa Claus could be capable of creating all the vast amounts of things we see in the natural world. Any other explanation, such as that these things just appeared, is ridiculous.

Also, do you think it's coincidence that Christmas trees are...evergreens?? I mean really. Do you think that's just a massive coincidence?
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Reduced to ridicule, ad hominem and fallacy, such are the so called supporters of science...
More...

lol.... hmmm, now where have we seen this before. I mean where have we seen Zeleologist make unsupported assertions, get challenged to provide any sort of proof or backup, and resort to his triumvirate of avoidance

'ad hominem, strawman, red herring'.

Oh yeah.... we've seen it in every thread Z starts.

(I'm sorry - I just really want to see if we can get Zeleologist to crack and start bellowing about anal penetration like he did a few months back when a bunch of his assertions were proved to be baseless).
 
More troll gobbledygook...

Quote from traderNik:

lol.... hmmm, now where have we seen this before. I mean where have we seen Z make unsupported assertions, get challenged to provide any sort of proof or backup, and resort to his triumvirate of avoidance

'ad hominem, strawman, red herring'.

Oh yeah.... we've seen it in every thread Z starts.

(I'm sorry - I just really want to see if we can get him to crack and start bellowing about anal penetration like he did a few months back when a bunch of his assertions were proved to be baseless).
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I don't have a need to prove it or disprove it.

I don't know of anyone who thinks or suggests that Santa Claus is the intelligence behind the origin of mankind...
More...
and your ignorance in that matter should be taken as proof that the theory is invalid???

no offense son, seems to me you simply can't disprove it... and why is that do u think? such a straightforward theory...

i think its a pretty robust alterna tive to evolution, and randomness :)
 
Quote from kjkent1:

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 interview with Susskind, from February 17, 2006, wherein he expressly rejects your interpretation of his position on the subject of the anthropic principle.

To quote the good Professor, the "...anthropic principle" states that "...the laws of nature are what they are just so that we can exist. Now that's crazy -- it's silly."

Don't believe me? Listen for yourself.

Susskind Interview
More...

Listen again.

He stated that the anthropic principles states the laws of nature or the laws of the unverse are in part dependant on our own existence. He then sort of rephrases it in a more accurate And then says it is silly.

I agree it is silly if you belive there are an almost infinite amount of landscapes or universes with different laws such as gravity.


But - in now way did he contradict what I had previously quoted for you. In which he said if math or science goes on to show that his speculation about landscapes is incorrect then physicists would be hard pressed to answer the I.Ders and the anthropic principle.
 
This is a reply to 2cents.

I do not know what set you off. Previously you wrote like a reasonable guy who studied physics --- then you start making crap up.

I guess when I explained to you what Susskind was saying even though I only had a few physics classes you became a little emotional and your emotional imbalance manifested later in thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top