Intelligent Design is not creationism

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

A basic principle of science is that things are not always as they appear on the surface, and that at deeper levels things appear differently as perspective changes

Yes... and the difference between rationalists and faith-mongers (like you) is that rationalists take it a step further and attempt to find proofs and evidence which would give some hint as to what that underlying structure might be, whereas faith-mongers (like you) read a 2000 year old book and then start proclaiming that all questions are answered, all wisdom is received from the great one above, that 'magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality' (to quote your own worthless words), and that all you need to do is burn incense and mumble.

Don't worry, Z... the rest of us will take care of human progress. And yes, progress involves missteps sometimes, but hey... at least we're trying, as opposed to muttering.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you do not really think that STU took those arguments seriously.

emply a litlle logic.

could I believe there is a God and at the same time believe the universe might look random to science. Yes.

could Susskind or anyone else be wrong about multiple universes and still correct about the anthropic priciple giving the appearance of design. Yes could be.

so none of Stu's arguments really meant anything. He was just looking to get a rise out of someone.

You can hand wave it all away as much as you want it makes no difference. The fact is that the position you try so hard to pointlessly defend has no real substance, as demonstrated by the content, or more precisely the lack of content in the arguments you put forward. This thread is testament yet again to the way in which logic and language you use deteriorates so rapidly when put under any scrutiny.

Basing conclusion on whether anyone could be right or wrong is not the standard of consideration normally found to be expectable when trying to establish certainty, but it is one haven ID creationists like yourself will gladly rush to for shelter from any nasty rationality to do with fact or reason.

If Susskind is right you say there is no design inference. Then no designer God. That is the extent to which you have expressed your religious superstition can be evaluated. One would think you must just hope and pray he is wrong.

But that won't be the case. Were his hypothesis ever firmly established, your religious trip switch would create yet another pitiful weak minded idea, and when that got ripped apart again, as all the others you have come up with so far have, you will hand wave it all away again.

But without really realizing , luddites like you are dragged along screaming and kicking into having to accept hard science over the pathetic make-believe you call "faith", as you start to quote what you consider are certain facts about Big Bangs and Landscapes, which only a little while earlier are subjects themselves you would more willingly mock and dismiss as "scientific faith".

When it boils down to it, really, it sounds as if you simply don't have a clue what the f*k it is you are actually so desparately trying to defend. Finding it easier to ibid with the troll ZZzz than deal with a mess which is the excuse of an argument you own.

 

[2cents]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

A basic principle of science is that things are not always as they appear on the surface, and that at deeper levels things appear differently as perspective changes, the classic example being the view of something as a solid, to finding at a deeper level that it is not solid but particles with lots of empty space, to a field of waves at a deeper level...to who knows what eventually.

When I listen to Darwinists explain away their faith, they constantly use words like "it appears" "it may be" "it is possible" "it could be"...

Then they conclude with all certainty that their ancestors are apes, and they are ultimately the spawn of lifeless ignorance.

Hard to argue with that...

exactly! well said zizi... its funny really that they can't see its all the work of Intelligent Santa... what a bunch of pathetic ignorant monkeys!

 

[john dough]

Quote from jem:

you do not really think that STU took those arguments seriously.

emply a litlle logic.

could I believe there is a God and at the same time believe the universe might look random to science. Yes.

could Susskind or anyone else be wrong about multiple universes and still correct about the anthropic priciple giving the appearance of design. Yes could be.

so none of Stu's arguments really meant anything. He was just looking to get a rise out of someone.

Employ a little logic...ok.

As far as we observe, there is only one universe.

This universe has a cosmological constant.

The cosmological constant appears condusive to human life.

A small change in the cosmological constant appears to disfavor human life.

Q: What is the probability of the cosmological constant being different?

A: 0%. There is only one observable universe, and it has the cosmological constant that it does.

If you have a roulette wheel with only one number, then estimating the probabilty of the ball going in the slot by chance or design becomes a meaningless exercise, because the ball will go into the slot regardless of whether or not it was intended to in advance -- that's the only place the ball can go.

If you have a river that runs to the sea, then that's where the river runs. The probability the the water in the river will not run to the sea is 0% (excluding a dam, diversion, evaporation, etc.).

If any event is absolutely certain to occur, or it has already occured, then any discussion about its likelihood is a waste of brain cells.

The universe is what it is; so, is the cosmological constant; so is the existence of human life. They "is" what they "is."

Could it have been otherwise? No, it could not, because this is the only universe that there is (as far as can be observed).

If God created this universe, then the constant was obviously created with human life in mind. And, if God didn't create the universe, then the cosmological constant is as much what it is because human life exists, as human life exists because the cosmological constant is what it is.

Silly discussion.

 

[2cents]

Quote from john dough:

If God created this universe, then the constant was obviously created with human life in mind. And, if God didn't create the universe, then the cosmological constant is as much what it is because human life exists, as human life exists because the cosmological constant is what it is.

Silly discussion.

life on earth?, clda been an oversight... Santa's pretty busy u know...

by the way, why don't u let us know the value of that 'constant'? shld be easy to google no, if it is indeed a 'constant'... haven't been able to find anything but a wide range of values depending on which theory is used to calculate / predict it plus it seems to vary widely across regions of the observable universe depending on the pixel size we choose... not that i care, i know its just another Santa trick, but...

and if u have evidence that the observable universe is all there is, by all means, call CNN... last we know is the observable universe is 13.5 billion years old and that wld be its radius in light years, while latest estimate as to the size of our universe due to 'expansion' is a 75 billion light-years radius... and thats not even to say there's "nothing" outside of that, just that its kinda out of reach for this semester...

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

You can hand wave it all away as much as you want it makes no difference. The fact is that the position you try so hard to pointlessly defend has no real substance, as demonstrated by the content, or more precisely the lack of content in the arguments you put forward. This thread is testament yet again to the way in which logic and language you use deteriorates so rapidly when put under any scrutiny.

Basing conclusion on whether anyone could be right or wrong is not the standard of consideration normally found to be expectable when trying to establish certainty, but it is one haven ID creationists like yourself will gladly rush to for shelter from any nasty rationality to do with fact or reason.

If Susskind is right you say there is no design inference. Then no designer God. That is the extent to which you have expressed your religious superstition can be evaluated. One would think you must just hope and pray he is wrong.

But that won't be the case. Were his hypothesis ever firmly established, your religious trip switch would create yet another pitiful weak minded idea, and when that got ripped apart again, as all the others you have come up with so far have, you will hand wave it all away again.

But without really realizing , luddites like you are dragged along screaming and kicking into having to accept hard science over the pathetic make-believe you call "faith", as you start to quote what you consider are certain facts about Big Bangs and Landscapes, which only a little while earlier are subjects themselves you would more willingly mock and dismiss as "scientific faith".

When it boils down to it, really, it sounds as if you simply don't have a clue what the f*k it is you are actually so desparately trying to defend. Finding it easier to ibid with the troll ZZzz than deal with a mess which is the excuse of an argument you own.

I did not realize you felt your athiest beliefs were so offended. feel bad that you felt you had to lash out against my belief in God. A belief that I did not bring up on this thread, you anti AP guys did.

I am beginning to realize that the things Susskind was saying were way over your head.

I should tell you something, even if it did turn out the universe is designed that does not necesarily mean God did it. See, I can seperate out faith from fact. Something some atheists like you are too emotional to do.

The funny thing is atheists like you seem to piss their pants when a physicist says something that breaks the party line.

 

[jem]

Quote from john dough:

Employ a little logic...ok.

As far as we observe, there is only one universe.

This universe has a cosmological constant.

The cosmological constant appears condusive to human life.

A small change in the cosmological constant appears to disfavor human life.

Q: What is the probability of the cosmological constant being different?

A: 0%. There is only one observable universe, and it has the cosmological constant that it does.

If you have a roulette wheel with only one number, then estimating the probabilty of the ball going in the slot by chance or design becomes a meaningless exercise, because the ball will go into the slot regardless of whether or not it was intended to in advance -- that's the only place the ball can go.

If you have a river that runs to the sea, then that's where the river runs. The probability the the water in the river will not run to the sea is 0% (excluding a dam, diversion, evaporation, etc.).

If any event is absolutely certain to occur, or it has already occured, then any discussion about its likelihood is a waste of brain cells.

The universe is what it is; so, is the cosmological constant; so is the existence of human life. They "is" what they "is."

Could it have been otherwise? No, it could not, because this is the only universe that there is (as far as can be observed).

If God created this universe, then the constant was obviously created with human life in mind. And, if God didn't create the universe, then the cosmological constant is as much what it is because human life exists, as human life exists because the cosmological constant is what it is.

Silly discussion.

Silly? Why have nobel prize winning physicists writen papers on the subject.

Question, given that anything could have happened during the formation of a universe what are the odds that a universe conducive to human life would form?

Given those odds what is the likelyhood it happend by chance. So would you conclude it must have been designed.

Would you conclude otherwise if there were billions of universes.

--

 

[john dough]

Answers within...

Quote from jem:

Silly? Why have nobel prize winning physicists writen papers on the subject.

Answer: Nobel Prize winning physicists have written papers on the subject because that's what they do. They theorize.

Question, given that anything could have happened during the formation of a universe what are the odds that a universe conducive to human life would form?

Answer: Assuming your premise, then the odds are probably very low. But, your premise is false, because you don't really know that anything could have happened during the formation of the universe, because you don't have any other universes to compare with this one. Maybe only one thing could have happened during the formation of the universe -- and it did (ball went into the only slot available).

Also, you have constrained your premise to human life. If you rephrase the question to include any sort of matter which can advance its own interests, then maybe the odds would improve substantially. Maybe there are only 100 ways that a universe can form, and only 50 ways that some sort of life can form. (even money odds)

Given those odds what is the likelyhood it happend by chance.

Answer: As I said, you have set up a premise that you cannot prove is true, because you only have one universe and nothing as a comparison. If the ways that a universe can develop are unlimited, then you have an interesting argument. If not, your argument gets worse inversely with the number of possible universes.

Example: there are a very limited number of natural elements in the atomic table. The possibilities are far from limitless. We can force other elements into existence for a short period by bombarding them with sub atomic particles, but the new elements vanish rather quickly. Maybe only 100 universes are possible, because all the others vanish rather quickly.

So would you conclude it must have been designed.

Answer: No. I would conclude that there's no way to know from the available facts.

Would you conclude otherwise if there were billions of universes.

No, I would conclude the same, regardless, because even with billions of universes, we can only "observe" one of them (according to Dr. Susskind, all the other universes lie beyond the cosmic "event horizon").

But, assuming that the other universes exist and they are limitless in number, then this would be the inverse of having only one slot in the roulette wheel. If you have a roulette wheel with an infinity of possibilities, all outcomes are equally likely.

Discussion still seems silly to me. No way to prove or disprove intelligent design.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

Silly? Why have nobel prize winning physicists writen papers on the subject.

Question, given that anything could have happened during the formation of a universe what are the odds that a universe conducive to human life would form?

Given those odds what is the likelyhood it happend by chance. So would you conclude it must have been designed.

Would you conclude otherwise if there were billions of universes.

--

Are you trying to tell us that the spiritual universe doesn't exist?

 

[2cents]

Quote from jem:

{huh huh huh} See, I can seperate out faith from fact. {huh huh huh}

says "employ-some-logic" jem WAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrfffffffffffffffff