Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from stu:

Been where exactly?

Right where the designer was, is, and will always be.

Where exactly is "there" prior to the universe.

Everywhere and nowhere simultaneously.

Your question is absurd of course, as prior to a "big bang" no scientist has any clue what might have been "there."

Oh I know that special " there " where no time and space exists in fact nothing exists, not even existence. But of course your special friend has always been there.

You know of a special "there?"

No surprise. Likely where you and your special fairy friends hang.

"Yeah right, I noticed how you did that you maroon.
You can imagine an eternal unknowable designer, but you can't imagine a knowable eternal universe.
uh, how very one dimensional of you.

It would be nice if there were any dimension at all to your thought process.

I can imagine a universe, we live in it, but to know it...not simply partial values of it from a limited human mind, but actually know it fully...no that is not a reasonable possibility.

No amount of knowing limited parts of a whole value produces knowledge of the whole value.

If you can show me something that had a beginning (scientists firmly talk about the beginning of the universe) that now is eternal, puuuuleeeeze get on with it.

....then no talent in any thinking will obviously be yours.

Nothing but mindless, random, and accidental thinking (how Darwinistic) is all you contribute.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Objectively random, what an absurd concept.

Random is nothing but a concept.

A table of numbers is always a table of numbers.

The human perception that the numbers exists in no discernable or identfiable pattern or sequence yields the human concept of random, but there is no way to rule out that there is in fact a pattern to the numbers beyond our current recognition.

What was once thought as random in many situations previously by scientists has now been concluded to be non random.

Did the situations change objectively?

Nope, only the perception of reality changes relative to a new criteria of analysis.

You and your clan have pitted all of your interpretation of reality on a concpet of random, which is really only understood in relation of a concept of order.

Order is the primary condition, random only the lack of a perception of order.

Same with light vs. darkness. Light is observable, darkness is not. Darkness is not observable, only the lack of light is an observation. There is no "dark" flashlight which emits a ray of darkness.

Which leads to the natural conclusion that you are one extremely dim bulb...

Quote from stu:

Something that is proved objectively random is ..well just not objectively random...because you can imagine it might not be .
Brilliant.
That's what this country needs
Mind numbing Zzidiocy. . And let's make sure it gets into science class. It will put this great nation back where it belongs in no time . Move over Einstein.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Objectively random, what an absurd concept.

Random is nothing but a concept.

A table of numbers is always a table of numbers.

The human perception that the numbers exists in no discernable or identfiable pattern or sequence yields the human concept of random, but there is no way to rule out that there is in fact a pattern to the numbers beyond our current recognition.

What was once thought as random in many situations previously by scientists has now been concluded to be non random.

Did the situations change objectively?

Nope, only the perception of reality changes relative to a new criteria of analysis.

You and your clan have pitted all of your interpretation of reality on a concpet of random, which is really only understood in relation of a concept of order.

Order is the primary condition, random only the lack of a perception of order.

Same with light vs. darkness. Light is observable, darkness is not. Darkness is not observable, only the lack of light is an observation. There is no "dark" flashlight which emits a ray of darkness.

Which leads to the natural conclusion that you are one extremely dim bulb...

Why don't you tell us why a single electron fired at an opaque screen with two pinholes produces an interference pattern on a photographic plate mounted behind the screen?

Also, please explain how we may reliably predict the precise strike point of each electron on the photographic plate?

If you cannot do this, then randomness is a proven "cause" for the "effects" observed in our universe.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Tell me why does the universe exist? Where do the laws of nature come from?

Your silly questions below are just that, silly.

Where there is an answer of "random accidental ignorant chance" you can be sure that there you have found the current limit of science...and the current condition of ignorance masquerading as "scientific assumption."

The concept of random that is spewed so freely like barf at a teenage prom drinking binge is not a proven cause, it is an admission of ignorance of a cause.

There is no measurable, quantifiable, or known force of nature which is the "random force" which acts capriciously as if it had the mind of a wilful spoiled child...

Much is beyond the limit of science, so assumptions are made which cannot be falsified, and then those belief systems are adhered to with the equivalent faith, emotion, and devotion of a theist and their respective religion.

Quote from kjkent1:

Why don't you tell us why a single electron fired at an opaque screen with two pinholes produces an interference pattern on a photographic plate mounted behind the screen?

Also, please explain how we may reliably predict the precise strike point of each electron on the photographic plate?

If you cannot do this, then randomness is a proven "cause" for the "effects" observed in our universe.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Tell me why does the universe exist? Where do the laws of nature come from?

Your silly questions below are just that, silly.

Where there is an answer of "random accidental ignorant chance" you can be sure that there you have found the current limit of science...and the current condition of ignorance masquerading as "scientific assumption."

The concept of random that is spewed so freely like barf at a teenage prom drinking binge is not a proven cause, it is an admission of ignorance of a cause.

There is no measurable, quantifiable, or known force of nature which is the "random force" which acts capriciously as if it had the mind of a wilful spoiled child...

My questions weren't/aren't silly to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Feynman, Weingberg, Hawking, et. al. They all took/take the questions quite seriously. So, I think the evidence reasonably shows the questions profound, and your response rather silly.

So, come on now, Z. Show all the silly physicists why they are wrong in concluding that prediction of the moment of radioactive particle decay is impossible and subject to true randomness.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So you are comparing me to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Feynman, Weingberg, Hawking, et. al.

A profound question asked in the wrong place and the wrong time is just plain silly...

Show your vanity elsewhere, doesn't work here....

"that prediction of the moment of radioactive particle decay is impossible and subject to true randomness."

Again, if you only had a brain.

What the scientists are actually saying is this:

Based on the tools and information we have now, which are continually evolving we have no way to predict the moment of a radioactive particle decay. We can't find a pattern, we are stumped so random did it...

Well, duh...

At every moment in time anyone can say honestly and accurately that based on what they know this would be their best guess...

Amazes me that we have a tradition in science of new information via new technology and new methods of investigation bringing different conclusions than previous ones about the deeper realities of life that the devotees of science are so smug that their current and latest "eureka" is an everlasting truth, rather than some fleeting aha experience...

Quote from kjkent1:

My questions weren't/aren't silly to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Feynman, Weingberg, Hawking, et. al. They all took/take the questions quite seriously. So, I think the evidence reasonably shows the questions profound, and your response rather silly.

So, come on now, Z. Show all the silly physicists why they are wrong in concluding that prediction of the moment of radioactive particle decay is impossible and subject to true randomness.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So you are comparing me to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Feynman, Weingberg, Hawking, et. al.

No, I'm suggesting that there is an array of the most illuminated minds of the last 100 years, all of whom would find your argument without merit.

Z: A profound question asked in the wrong place and the wrong time is just plain silly...

Yes, but this is the right place and the right time, so the question is not silly at all.

Z: Show your vanity elsewhere, doesn't work here....

Ad hominem. Try and stick to the subject, Z.

kjkent1: "that prediction of the moment of radioactive particle decay is impossible and subject to true randomness."

Z: Again, if you only had a brain.

You must be looking in the mirror.

Z: What the scientists are actually saying is this:

Based on the tools and information we have now, which are continually evolving we have no way to predict the moment of a radioactive particle decay. We can't find a pattern, we are stumped so random did it...

That's pretty funny. But, no, it's not what scientists are saying. They are saying that the principle of quantum uncertainty is fundamental to this universe and that no pattern exists, nor will it ever exist.

But, as long as we're on he subject, I'm still waiting for you to provde some evidence to support your conclusion -- rather than merely pontificating what you deem true, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Z: Well, duh...

It's good that you occasionally express your ignorance. You should do it more often.

Z: At every moment in time anyone can say honestly and accurately that based on what they know this would be their best guess...

Except for you, who throughout this dialog, and every other dialog with anyone on ET, has stated unequivocally that only you know universal truth, regardless of whatever evidence may contridict your position.

Z: Amazes me that we have a tradition in science of new information via new technology and new methods of investigation bringing different conclusions than previous ones about the deeper realities of life that the devotees of science are so smug that their current and latest "eureka" is an everlasting truth, rather than some fleeting aha experience...

Pardon, but you aren't looking for a scientific epiphany. You are looking to declare the only truth is that God exists and all is deterministic. That's far from anything approaching a scientific goal -- it's more or less totalitarian.

But, that's your thing, Z. If you can't win an argument on the facts, then you will simply continue to belittle your opponent and ensure that you are the last one to post.

Which, in this case, is hysterically funny. Z vs. every major physicist of the last century. Who will win?

Still waiting for you to provide proof that radioactive decay is non-random. The entire scientific community is prepared to hand out that Nobel Prize to you, as soon as you give us the proof.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

They might resist the argument on a purely tightly woven and safe technically driven rigid foundation of assumption of random behavior on the basis of ignorance or ego driven thinking "we know everything" and if we can't find a pattern then it must be random.

If those in power agree to a set of rules by which to play, and the minions never question these rules...say professional football as an example of something that runs according to a set of agreed upon rules, this set of rules doesn't necessarily represent anything that is ultimately factual or logically and actually known to be true beyond the game being played on a limited field according to an agreed upon set of rules.

On a deeper level which goes beyond the physical measurements, physicists would be forced to deal with ideas out of their comfort zone. They would have to humble their position with a frank admission of unknowns lurking everywhere, as well as their history of revision of "truth."

They are physicists, which means they only with that aspect of life which is within the purvey of physical senses.

Of course they have no idea of the physical property of a thought. No way to measure size, weight, mass, influence of any known physical forces on a thought...yet thoughts exist and are experienced on a different level than the physical.

Concepts exist, what is their physical property? What physical laws are they subject to?

Things that happen within our being, i.e. the thought phenomena is completely ignored, yet all of science is a product of the human mind and conceptual thinking by design, yet the idea of an intelligent design of the universe based on intelligent thought is dismissed summarily.

Completely ridiculous.

Additionally, since they have no way of measuring the mental field, they don't even know if the mental field exists independently on the physical.

So something exists that we have no way to measure, but the scientists claim that some concept of random is at work.

Laughable.

Oh, and it is easy to belittle you, all it requires is illustrating the obvious littleness of your positions...

Quote from kjkent1:

No, I'm suggesting that there is an array of the most illuminated minds of the last 100 years, all of whom would find your argument without merit.

Yes, but this is the right place and the right time, so the question is not silly at all.

Ad hominem. Try and stick to the subject, Z.

You must be looking in the mirror.

That's pretty funny. But, no, it's not what scientists are saying. They are saying that the principle of quantum uncertainty is fundamental to this universe and that no pattern exists, nor will it ever exist.

But, as long as we're on he subject, I'm still waiting for you to provde some evidence to support your conclusion -- rather than merely pontificating what you deem true, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It's good that you occasionally express your ignorance. You should do it more often.

Except for you, who throughout this dialog, and every other dialog with anyone on ET, has stated unequivocally that only you know universal truth, regardless of whatever evidence may contridict your position.

Pardon, but you aren't looking for a scientific epiphany. You are looking to declare the only truth is that God exists and all is deterministic. That's far from anything approaching a scientific goal -- it's more or less totalitarian.

But, that's your thing, Z. If you can't win an argument on the facts, then you will simply continue to belittle your opponent and ensure that you are the last one to post.

Which, in this case, is hysterically funny. Z vs. every major physicist of the last century. Who will win?

Still waiting for you to provide proof that radioactive decay is non-random. The entire scientific community is prepared to hand out that Nobel Prize to you, as soon as you give us the proof.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

They might resist the argument on a purely tightly woven and safe technically driven rigid foundation of assumption of random behavior on the basis of ignorance or ego driven thinking "we know everything" and if we can't find a pattern then it must be random.

If those in power agree to a set of rules by which to play, and the minions never question these rules...say professional football as an example of something that runs according to a set of agreed upon rules, this set of rules doesn't necessarily represent anything that is ultimately factual or logically and actually known to be true beyond the game being played on a limited field according to an agreed upon set of rules.

On a deeper level which goes beyond the physical measurements, physicists would be forced to deal with ideas out of their comfort zone. They would have to humble their position with a frank admission of unknowns lurking everywhere, as well as their history of revision of "truth."

They are physicists, which means they only with that aspect of life which is within the purvey of physical senses.

Of course they have no idea of the physical property of a thought. No way to measure size, weight, mass, influence of any known physical forces on a thought...yet thoughts exist and are experienced on a different level than the physical.

Concepts exist, what is their physical property? What physical laws are they subject to?

Things that happen within our being, i.e. the thought phenomena is completely ignored, yet all of science is a product of the human mind and conceptual thinking by design, yet the idea of an intelligent design of the universe based on intelligent thought is dismissed summarily.

Completely ridiculous.

Additionally, since they have no way of measuring the mental field, they don't even know if the mental field exists independently on the physical.

So something exists that we have no way to measure, but the scientists claim that some concept of random is at work.

Laughable.

Oh, and it is easy to belittle you, all it requires is illustrating the obvious littleness of your positions...

Yes, well, all that blather aside, I'm still waiting for you to refute the uncertainty principle -- because, until you do, randomness is a proven fact in this universe, whether or not you declare otherwise.

 

[overtooled]

"intelligent design".. as opposed to what UN-itelligent design"? how can YOU know the diff? you'd have to be in the mind of the creator as she created LMAO