lol... I wish I was artist enough to diagram ZTroll as this goes over his head and he responds by shuffling the words around in order to pretend he's asking a question
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
lol... I wish I was artist enough to diagram ZTroll as this goes over his head and he responds by shuffling the words around in order to pretend he's asking a question
I guess you just do not read what I am writing. Of course Susskind is opposing I.D. He say if there are more than a million landscapes or (multiverses) the anthropic priniciple is sort of an accident of our universe and intelligent design is not a conclusion you can draw.
I agree with that statement. if you have a multiverse then design is not a fair conclusion. However, Susskind did say iif the math is wrong or Science proves there are not millions of universes, science is hard pressed to answer I.Ders.
Quote from 2cents:
the clear context
whats the church's position on dark matter plse? dark galaxies? is it or is it not the creator's poop?
I am beginning to doubt you have a physics degree. I do not give a crap what the churchs position is on dark matter. I not bring the church into this -- you clowns did.
The above conclusion is yours, and not that of Susskind.
Susskind's conclusion is: "somewhere in the megaverse the constant equals this number: somewhere else it is that number. We live in one tiny pocket where the value of the constant is consistent with our kind of life. Thatâs it! Thatâs all. There is no other answer to the question."
And, indeed that "is" it. In Susskind's audio interview, he restates this same conclusion by confirming that it may be that the constant as currently measured, may only be local to where humans inhabit space within this universe. So, even without string theory, this cosmological constant may be variable in our existing universe.
Now, let me take this one step farther, because I really dislike the idea of trying to argue from some editor's opinion of a genius' work. It's like listening to three 15-second excerpts from Stravinsky's "The Right of Spring." You may think you've heard the music, but you ain't heard nothin' yet.
In Susskind's paper, "Disturbing implications of a Cosmological Constant" (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013.pdf), the author discusses what he describes as the very small probability of conditions arising to produce the local cosmic environment hospitable to human life (anthropic). He states that out of the total e10^120 possible microstates of the universe, only e10^10 are likely states where anthropic conditions would prevail -- and then he says that such conditions are "extraordinary unlikely."
Sounds promising for the intelligent design advocate, huh? Except for one not so little tiny detail:
e10^10 possibilities is a number that is SO FRIGGIN' BIG that my Excel spreadsheet generates an error when it attempts to express it. That is, the number of possible states under which anthropic conditions might theoretically arise, even though it is an infinitessimally small part of the total possible unverse, is nevertheless extraordinarily large by any reasonable measure.
To get a sense of just how many possibilities remain, it is the equivalent of buying every one of the 129,000,000 possible Powerball(r) Lotto tickets multiplied by 535,465,974: 69 billion possibilities.
Oh, and I almost forgot -- in order to get that calculation without breaking Excel, I had to take the natural log of the numbers and then multiply them. So, you need to use that 69 billion as a POWER of e (approx. 2.71) in order to get the real number of possibilities.
So, the real number of possibilities for anthropic space in our universe is:
92,537,817,255,877,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That's a lot of places for carbon- based life to develop in. And this doesn't discount the very real possibility that life can be other than carbon based.
Which is one of the reasons why Susskind and other physicists conclude that the anthropic principle is really an illusion.
There is an enormous amount of possible opportunities in our universe for anthropic conditions to arise, without the introduction of any "extrinsic" designer.
Nope. Yours is the argument from ignorance.
Yours is an assumption of random ignorant chance as the foundation to life, with no knowledge that is really the case.
My argument is not based on the existence of a designer at all.
Starting from agnostic position only, I could argue that ID and non-ID are both myths that don't belong in science, because both make assumptions that are lacking proof.
As I am not pushing ID, rather I am wanting to eliminate the non-ID dogma in public schools, nothing more. Since ID is not taught in schools, it is a non issue for me, as long as non-ID is removed. If it is not removed, then in all fairness both sides should be taught with equal emphasis on the nature of both theories lacking proof.
The dogmatic teaching of life springing from nothing, from random ignorant chance is the ignorant argument that is being propagated under the veil of "science" by scientists who have an overwhelming atheistic agenda is the present issue, with the poor kids being led to believe that the opinion of a bunch of scientists is an equivalent of truth. What poppycock! What hubris of the scientific community to force their belief systems on children in the public school systems.
When children have sufficient skills to think for themselves to where they can truly challenge either ID or non-ID dogmatism, then it can be offered up for them to figure out for themselves which they want to believe, or reject them both if that is their want.
This is not about my beliefs, or your beliefs, but about what is the right thing to teach kids in public schools.
I say no to both ID and non-ID dogmatism being forced on the minds of children in the public school systems.
All biological processes can be taught without any myth based legends masquerading themselves as science.
Yours is an assumption of random ignorant chance as the foundation to life, with no knowledge that is really the case.
My argument is not based on the existence of a designer at all.
Starting from agnostic position only, I could argue that ID and non-ID are both myths that don't belong in science, because both make assumptions that are lacking proof.
As I am not pushing ID, rather I am wanting to eliminate the non-ID dogma in public schools, nothing more. Since ID is not taught in schools, it is a non issue for me, as long as non-ID is removed. If it is not removed, then in all fairness both sides should be taught with equal emphasis on the nature of both theories lacking proof.
The dogmatic teaching of life springing from nothing, from random ignorant chance is the ignorant argument that is being propagated under the veil of "science" by scientists who have an overwhelming atheistic agenda is the present issue, with the poor kids being led to believe that the opinion of a bunch of scientists is an equivalent of truth. What poppycock! What hubris of the scientific community to force their belief systems on children in the public school systems.
When children have sufficient skills to think for themselves to where they can truly challenge either ID or non-ID dogmatism, then it can be offered up for them to figure out for themselves which they want to believe, or reject them both if that is their want.
This is not about my beliefs, or your beliefs, but about what is the right thing to teach kids in public schools.
I say no to both ID and non-ID dogmatism being forced on the minds of children in the public school systems.
All biological processes can be taught without any myth based legends masquerading themselves as science.
If ignorance is bliss, then you are one heck of a bliss ninny...
Oh, isn't it scientific and logical, so reasonable to trade barbs...
Oh, isn't it scientific and logical, so reasonable to trade barbs...
Poor Z... clinging to the 'random ignorant chance' argument even though it's been explicitly refuted in this very thread.
It's funny... I'm not totally up on my systems theory, but aren't there literally hundreds of examples of self-organizing systems which are known to operate without any 'intelligent designer'??
------------------------------------------------
Z plugs his ears and says softly, over and over...
"I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you..."
Trying to cover up ignorance with more ignorance?
Just exposing yours.
Do you know anything about chaos theory? Have you ever heard of "self-organization?" Do you know how order arises out of disorder spontaneously? (That is, without any outside influence).
Order arises from order and intelligence, not ignorance and chaos.
The sun doesn't arise out of darkness, the darkness runs away from the sun..
Doh!
Energy doesn't flow from non-energy.
Doh!
Who designed the snow flakes?
The snow flake designer, or course.
Who designed the pattern of bubbles boiling out of your spaghetti pot?
The bubble designer, you silly.
Who designed the great Northeast blackout of 2003?
The engineers who did not make the grid strong enough.
Who designed the Black Monday of 1987?
Program traders and human emotions.
What is common among all these examples? They're all patterns produced by pure accidents, "ignorant chance" in z10's words. Snowflakes are the best illustrations of "ignorant chance:" despite their perfect symmetries, not two snowflakes are alike! They are, however, well understood in terms of nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory.
You claim ignorant chance, but you can't prove it.
You can only claim ignorance of any pattern....
Life, of course, is the mother of all accidents.
Mother nature doesn't make mistakes...