Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

This is what was posted by me:

"You stoop to the "you are not credible because of the number of posts, blah, blah, blah."

That is pure ad hominem...

The "blah, blah, blah" is just more ad hominem, there is no reason to address the ad hominem beyond blah, blah, blah.

It doesn't matter if everything I previously posted was true or false, if I satisfy your need for some so called admissions, etc. What matters is whether or not the current argument I am making is logically true or false.

Your ad hominem response did not address the message, but rather went to the messenger.

Please, use some logic, okay? You might then "see how it works."

Quote from Thunderdog:

Obviously, you are suffering from an acute case of context deficiency. I hope it clears up soon.

I did not write that you lacked credibility because of your large number of posts. If you read my previous post again (or perhaps for the first time), then you will see that I wrote that you lack credibility because, for all of the many posts you have written, you have never admitted to making a single mistake in any one of them. Do you see how that works?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

We can teach process of biological change, and if you want to call that evolution, or any other word, fine.

Teaching that these observed processes are the consequence of ignorant chance is entirely a different matter.

Truly, if you said that these changes were from ID, would it make any difference in the observations?

Not one bit.

It wouldn't change a thing...but the atheists would go apeshit if we did say change was from ID, so eliminate both from the teaching, both ID and non-ID, as neither one can be ruled out.

Let's take out all the assumptions, and stick with fact...

Quote from kjkent1:

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 information gain is possible, without the introduction of any external influence other than what we currently measure as uncertainty.

Give all of the above, we currently conclude that evolutionary change occurs under suitable conditions, without the introduction of any certain influence (design).

Is it conceivable that an external influence exists? Yes, but it is presently scientifically unmeasurable, THEREFORE, until it can be measured, no external influence exists within the realm of scientific investigation.

The analogy to the above is that the number PI cannot be measured with certainty. No matter how refined the measurement becomes, no pattern of decimal accuracy has yet appeared.

So, the scientist states that PI cannot be scientifically measured with perfect accuracy, but for all conceivable practical purposes, PI is measurable within whatever limits reasonably required.

What the scientist does NOT DO, is say: "Because we cannot yet measure PI with absolute certainty, we will refrain from stating or teaching that circles exist, because it remains merely a theory."

This is exactly what you're doing, Z. You are saying because we can't exclude the possibility of a pattern in evolution with absolute certainty, that we can't teach evolution as a fact -- instead it must remain a science fiction.

In your world, circles apparently cannot exist until the pattern behind PI is absolutely excluded -- and evolution does not exist, for the same reason.

 

[I am...]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

This is what was posted by me:

Who are you?

Jesus

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from I am...:

As you measure, it is measured back to you.

Jesus

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.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

We can teach process of biological change, and if you want to call that evolution, or any other word, fine.

Teaching that these observed processes are the consequence of ignorant chance is entirely a different matter.

Truly, if you said that these changes were from ID, would it make any difference in the observations?

Not one bit.

It wouldn't change a thing...but the atheists would go apeshit if we did say change was from ID, so eliminate both from the teaching, both ID and non-ID, as neither one can be ruled out.

Let's take out all the assumptions, and stick with fact...

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 as being random within the limits of the test criteria.

Statistical expressions such as "goodness to fit," and "degrees of freedom" are statements about how well a statistical measurement fits the subject.

If we say that the statistics measure the result as random within certain limits of measurement, then scientifically, it's random, for all practical purposes.

Same as if PI is computed to 1,000 decimals and is found to be non-repeating.

Calling it ID is scientifically incorrect, because you are inferring the existence of a pattern where none is observed. And calling it unknown is scientifically incorrect, because within the limits of practical measurement, it's random.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from kjkent1:

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 as being random within the limits of the test criteria.

Statistical expressions such as "goodness to fit," and "degrees of freedom" are statements about how well a statistical measurement fits the subject.

If we say that the statistics measure the result as random within certain limits of measurement, then scientifically, it's random, for all practical purposes.

Same as if PI is computed to 1,000 decimals and is found to be non-repeating.

Calling it ID is scientifically incorrect, because you are inferring the existence of a pattern where none is observed. And calling it unknown is scientifically incorrect, because within the limits of practical measurement, it's random.

One important consequence of randomness is temperature. If one denies randomness, then there is no statistical way to define a temperature.

Is z10 trying to tell us that we're not supposed to know how hot it is?

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

This is what was posted by me:

"You stoop to the "you are not credible because of the number of posts, blah, blah, blah."

That is pure ad hominem...

The "blah, blah, blah" is just more ad hominem, there is no reason to address the ad hominem beyond blah, blah, blah.

It doesn't matter if everything I previously posted was true or false, if I satisfy your need for some so called admissions, etc. What matters is whether or not the current argument I am making is logically true or false.

Your ad hominem response did not address the message, but rather went to the messenger.

Please, use some logic, okay? You might then "see how it works."

Bullshit.

Quote from Thunderdog:

Including the mind-numbing quackery of creationism disguised as "Intelligent Design?" So you would assign no more weight to a theory supported by a myriad of facts than you would to a flight of fancy?

Z, you are not very credible. You have more posts than anyone else here at ET and I have not once seen you admit to a mistake. Ever. Frankly, I don't trust people who are never wrong, particularly those who also need not consult any facts in arriving at their conclusions. You may think that you're clever, and equate your exchanges here to a chess master victoriously playing several opponents simultaneously. But make no mistake, that is not how it is coming across. You're not as smart as you think you are.

Above is my post that you referred to. I did not write that you lacked credibility because of your number of posts. You chose to make that connection entirely on your own, even though that was not my intent. It is solely your apparent lack of a single error in judgment in all those posts that I referred to as contributing to your lack of credibility. The association of your credibility and your number of posts with your use of the word "because" is strictly your own doing. If you regard as ad hominem my remark regarding your credibility being compromised because you never admitted to flawed judgment, then so be it. But you never even got that far in your haze of illogic.

Forgive me, but it requires far too much effort to convey even the most simple ideas to you in their simplest form. It is little wonder, then, that the considered arguments offered by kjkent1 and jb3 fail to achieve any traction with you. They put you in your place time and again, and you are not even aware of it. Frankly, I don't see why they bother.

 

[jem]

Quote from kjkent1:

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 are attempting to jump half way to an unreachable wall. With each successive jump you come within half the distance to your goal. But, in the end, your goal is just as far away as it was at the beginning, and you are always at least one half the distance between your present location and the wall of the supernatural.

the links were not the point KJ I was talking about the statement about radiation.


You keep saying there is no evidence to support.

I keep tellling you the conclusions top physicists draw from understanding the ramifications of AP are solid.

You have not engaged on one of the points.

How do you accuont for the cosmological constant?


When you read the wikipedia article your read about possible counters to the anthropic principle. "Possible counters."

I have provided you with one of the creators of string theory, saying that if his theory about landscapes proves to be incorrect than science is hard pressed to explained the fine tunings of the universe and ansewer the IDers.

do you want God to come out of the sky and say he exists. is that the level of proof you seek?

Right now you have physicists debating the Anthropic Principle -- if you were giving a fair shake to boths sides you would stop writing as if the design argument has no merit.

If you wish to write that way then you should provide science that counters the anthropic principle

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

One important consequence of randomness is temperature. If one denies randomness, then there is no statistical way to define a temperature.

Is z10 trying to tell us that we're not supposed to know how hot it is?

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

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Bullshit.

Bullshit response TK9.

Above is my post that you referred to. I did not write that you lacked credibility because of your number of posts. You chose to make that connection entirely on your own, even though that was not my intent. It is solely your apparent lack of a single error in judgment in all those posts that I referred to as contributing to your lack of credibility. The association of your credibility and your number of posts with your use of the word "because" is strictly your own doing. If you regard as ad hominem my remark regarding your credibility being compromised because you never admitted to flawed judgment, then so be it. But you never even got that far in your haze of illogic.

Defending your ad hominem attack?

LOL...

Can't cope with message, attack messenger...

Forgive me, but it requires far too much effort to convey even the most simple ideas to you in their simplest form. It is little wonder, then, that the considered arguments offered by kjkent1 and jb3 fail to achieve any traction with you. They put you in your place time and again, and you are not even aware of it. Frankly, I don't see why they bother.

So you can't do it. So you stay with ad hominem. Okay.

I am not surprised. Probably why you don't even make your own arguments, but rather say "Go watch this guy tell you what I think."



Too funny, too too too funny...