Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU WERE LEAVING 20 PAGES AGO ANYWAY?
More...

Yes, I did. I came back, because I found you typically annoying -- which of course is your great talent in life.

But, since you've now degenerated into infantilism, I no longer need to demonstrate that you have no idea whatsoever about the subject of the thread, because you've just proved it beyond reasonable doubt in your last post.

I did learn a few things from the other posters, though, so I appreciate that interaction...

...except, of course, for the interaction with "Teleolgist," because he's one of your alter egos.

Anyway, you can continue your rant about "random ignorant unguided chance," with the rest of the ET crew.

I'm sure that they will keep you busy repeating the same thing over and over again.

Bye now.
 
Nothing but a personal attack by ID, ignorant design that is...

While you are away, maybe you can work on your logic...

Quote from kjkent1:

Yes, I did. I came back, because I found you typically annoying -- which of course is your great talent in life.

But, since you've now degenerated into infantilism, I no longer need to demonstrate that you have no idea whatsoever about the subject of the thread, because you've just proved it beyond reasonable doubt in your last post.

I did learn a few things from the other posters, though, so I appreciate that interaction...

...except, of course, for the interaction with "Teleolgist," because he's one of your alter egos.

Anyway, you can continue your rant about "random ignorant unguided chance," with the rest of the ET crew.

I'm sure that they will keep you busy repeating the same thing over and over again.

Bye now.
More...
 
Quote from kjkent1:



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.
More...

"As you measure, it is measured back to you".

This means that the measurement takes place first in your mind. Then, you will "see" the "proof" of your prejudice all around you. You literally cannot measure the "external" world any differently than what you have already measured "inside". The external world is literally a measurement being mirrored back to you.

If you measure the universe to be 20 million light years across, you will measure the universe to be 20 million light years across, no more, and no less. If you are uncertain, the universe will be uncertain. If you value random thoughts, the universe will be random. If you measure structure, the universe will reflect structure and design. If you value fear, the universe will be scary. If you measure out "guilt", everyone will be "guilty"...and so will you. Confusion begets confusion, violence begets violence...you get the picture. What you measure is what you value. Value an intelligent Mind, measure an intelligent universe. Value an intelligent mind, accept an intelligent scientist's measurements. Value separation from Mind and go our of your mind.

I learned to value unlimitedness, and it was measured back to me as I measured.

Jesus
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
More...

I'm not going to refute everyone of z10's nonsenses - they're all just permutations of the same random words (did I say "random?"). It gets tiresome after awhile. However, a couple of gems here cannot be ignored.

Bitch, bitch, bitch...

Guess what? Before sun was a star, it was a dark cloud of dust and ice. Since you can't read long stories, here is one short enough for you to read:
http://www.nineplanets.org/origin.html


Guess what, energy is conserved, so the energy of the sun did not arise from non energy.

Doh!

Let me know when you find that negative energy "light" that shines darkness...

Are you suggesting that the engineers intentionally caused the blackout of 2003?

They under engineered the grid, in addition to the nature of equipment to degrade over time. Much of the infrastructure in this country is in need of rejuvenation.

that the "program traders and human emotions" intentionally caused the crash of 1987? Are you some kind of conspiracy theory freak?

You asked what cause it, it was a combination of no trading curbs, and panic. There were those who did predict a crash, given the markets and the bond market decline. The panic selling is a predictable process, and not having controls in place to slow the selling, the program trading took over and we crashed. No accident at all, in hindsight we can all see what happened and why. Just like a chemical reaction is not an accident, the combination of ingredients produced the crash...which is why the exchanges removed one of the ingredients with limits, and we now have a PPT.

Really? Why do people have miscarriages?

Because the fetus is rejected by the woman. People don't have miscarriages...women do.

Doctors can sometimes figure out why, but when stumped scientists don't suddenly cry "evil spirits" or "God did not want that child to be born." Not having a medical explanation doesn't mean there isn't one that is too subtle for current instrumentation. There is a principle of cause and effect, and when we see effect, it follows that there was cause. (What doesn't follow is life from non life, intelligence and design from random ignorant chance, though we have seen designed phenomena appear as chaos to the uneducated observer).

There is a whole host of reasons given by doctors.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html

What about genetic diseases?

What about them?

What do you think of homosexuality among dolphins or birds or beetles (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)?

Natural behavior.

If Mother Nature doesn't make mistakes, what do we need medicines for?

We need medicines to counteract disease.

Mother nature doesn't make mistakes, human beings do.

Only human beings among the entire known species, act in an unnatural manner...
 
Quote from kjkent1:

Where did you get that beautiful post-modernist dialectic sentence? That's incredible!
More...
diabolically accurate though... run a search on non-equilibrium, non-dissipative, free gibbs energy, phase transition, lattices, domain walls, n-body, n-categorical etc etc... and re scale, start from planck time, planck length, planck energy to cosmological type space-type-energy scales... loads of fun...

whats less fun in a way is last we know is our observable universe has a large scale structure made up of huuuuuge voids and fractal-type filaments of galaxies, the biggest known one being the sloan great wall... kinda of like the crack between... 2 or more giant bubbles if u like :p

and then there is the lyman-alpha blob...

but don't worry about all that, we're currently working on swarms of self-organizing nano-robots... once we make them self-replicating, you can guess whats gonna happen :p :p :p

'nite all!
 
Quote from kjkent1:

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. That’s it! That’s 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.
More...

Nice dodge.
I am done wasting my time with you.

You are now writing as if the Landscape theory is a proven theory. If it were then I agree no design inference.

But you are ignore the other side of the coin, --- what if there is only one universe (no landscape).

Susskind tells us then science would be hard pressed to explain the fine tunings of the universe.

You keep ignoring that point. Ye man of faith.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I'm not going to refute everyone of z10's nonsenses - they're all just permutations of the same random words (did I say "random?"). It gets tiresome after awhile. However, a couple of gems here cannot be ignored.

Bitch, bitch, bitch...

Guess what? Before sun was a star, it was a dark cloud of dust and ice. Since you can't read long stories, here is one short enough for you to read:
http://www.nineplanets.org/origin.html


Guess what, energy is conserved, so the energy of the sun did not arise from non energy.

Doh!

Let me know when you find that negative energy "light" that shines darkness...

Are you suggesting that the engineers intentionally caused the blackout of 2003?

They under engineered the grid, in addition to the nature of equipment to degrade over time. Much of the infrastructure in this country is in need of rejuvenation.

that the "program traders and human emotions" intentionally caused the crash of 1987? Are you some kind of conspiracy theory freak?

You asked what cause it, it was a combination of no trading curbs, and panic. There were those who did predict a crash, given the markets and the bond market decline. The panic selling is a predictable process, and not having controls in place to slow the selling, the program trading took over and we crashed. No accident at all, in hindsight we can all see what happened and why. Just like a chemical reaction is not an accident, the combination of ingredients produced the crash...which is why the exchanges removed one of the ingredients with limits, and we now have a PPT.

Really? Why do people have miscarriages?

Because the fetus is rejected by the woman. People don't have miscarriages...women do.

Doctors can sometimes figure out why, but when stumped scientists don't suddenly cry "evil spirits" or "God did not want that child to be born." Not having a medical explanation doesn't mean there isn't one that is too subtle for current instrumentation. There is a principle of cause and effect, and when we see effect, it follows that there was cause. The body's number one instinct is survival, so a reasonable conclusion is that the body rejected the fetus in order to main its survival, or the fetus was not able to survive and the body rejected it. I don't know, but I imagine the fetus died or was not completely healthy before miscarriage, and the elimination of a non viable fetus is completely natural for the body.

What about genetic diseases?

What about them?

What do you think of homosexuality among dolphins or birds or beetles (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)? If Mother Nature doesn't make mistakes, what do we need medicines for?

Mother nature doesn't make mistakes, human beings do.

Only human beings among the entire known species, act in an unnatural manner...
More...

The more you talk, the more you expose your ignorance.

You have no idea where sun gets its energy from. Make your best guess now. We'll see how far you will be off the mark.

If the reasons for blackouts and market crashes were so crystal clear, why do these repeat in history, even after all the policy changes and fixes to the system? Remember when the uptick rule for shorting was imposed? Do you know the reason for that? It was to prevent a market crash! Do you seriously believe that curbs can prevent a panic selling?

Where did you get the idea that miscarriages don't have a medical explanation? From your God? It is well understood in general why people (yes, women are people too) have miscarriages. The particular reason for a given miscarriage is often not known because miscarriages are so common place it's not worth the effort to find out why for each and every one of them. During the first trimester, the most common cause of miscarriage is chromosomal abnormality-meaning that something is not correct with the baby's chromosomes. Most chromosomal abnormalities are the cause of a faulty egg or sperm cell or due to a problem at the time that the zygote went through the division process. In layman's terms, it's because mistakes of Mother Nature.

Genetic diseases are mistakes of Mother Nature.

Only humans make mistakes? What about the zebra that strayed too far from the herd and got eaten by the lions? Was that not a mistake on the part of the zebra?
 
Quote from traderNik:

The troll wins by losing.
More...
Evidently. And who can blame him for sticking with a "winning" formula?

Time and again, when Z begins "contributing" to a thread it marks the beginning of that thread's decline. ET is replete with example after example of threads being hijacked by him in his attempt to hold court. That it happens to be a kangaroo court is a detail that appears to be lost on him. The important thing is that the spotlight and attention are solidly fixed on him. Surprisingly, his latest alias has endured the longest thus far. His other two aliases that I know of have been banned after what I think was a shorter shelf life. Do you think that means he may be...evolving? Regardless, he has not quite yet managed to crawl out of the swamp. Perhaps at the next iteration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top