Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
and even harder to disprove Intelligent Santa! http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1263156&highlight=santa#post1263156
now if they do have anything in common though, IS and ID i mean, its that they don't prove anything at all... just an occupational thing for otherwise hare-brained ppl... but pretty powerful though!
i mean, stupidity's a pretty powerful weapon if u think about it
Quite. Thanks (not) for the further demonstration. Like I said, your argument is crap.
There must be an Intelligent Santa (IS) because jem sez Susskind sez some part or other of the Anthropic Principle (AP) must be true should Susskind be wrong and the Intelligent Design (ID) will be hard to disprove, not that it could be proved anyways means it could not be proved at all, but it need not be an Intelligent God (IG) that could not be proved but an Intelligent Molecule (IM) which means an Intelligent God (IG) is not the "creator" (formerly known as God) anymore, but that would not mean it could be an Intelligent Santa (IS) although it could really.
That is of course the much simplified version of jem argument (ja), anything more involved, like inserting some reasoning rationality or logic into it would cause the thing to go above the heads of everyone jem considers cannot understand such things.
Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap. Like I said, your argument is crap.
Quote from 2cents:
if u can, that is....
An alternative answer to what makes our universe so special might be the anthropic principle. As its supporters note, all it takes is a small change in Newtonâs laws, or to the rules of atomic physics, and life would either be instantly extinguished or would never have formed. In other words, the anthropic principle says that the world is fine-tuned so that we can be here to observe it. Unfortunately, many physicists think the anthropic principle is uncomfortably close to intelligent design.
Nevertheless, no less a person than Nobel laureate and arch-atheist Steven Weinberg believes that one particular constant of nature - Einsteinâs cosmological constant Λ - may be anthropically determined. The size of L has long been an enigma. Theoretically its most natural value would be unity in natural units, but anything bigger than 10-120 would be inconsistent with astronomical data - and a world record for the worst agreement between theory and experiment!
So Weinberg set out to see if any bigger value would prevent life. The answer, it turned out, did not have anything to do with molecular chemistry or the stability of the solar system. Weinberg found that if L were just an order of magnitude bigger than 10-120, no galaxies, stars or planets would have formed. His anthropic arguments not only provided a limit on L, they also give some idea of its expected value. In 1992 he wrote, "Thus if such a cosmological constant is confirmed by observation, it will be reasonable to infer that our own existence plays an important role in explaining why the universe is the way it is." Even sceptics had to take notice, therefore, when recent astrophysical observations indicated that L is, in fact, non-zero and has just about the value Weinberg predicted.
This is from an article written by a professor of theoretical physics. It is from the physicweb cite I have used earlier. http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/18/12/3
Weinberg is a nobel prize winner.
So 2cents maybe you should stop attempting to mock me a learn a little.
When STU just thinks about an alternative to atheism he turns into a clown.
James Bond - I do not see the point of what you are trying to say. Why do I have to be addressing a spritual univese? don't you atheists get it, I am staying within the realm of science here,
I am not asking for you to show faith, you are showing faith when you start asserting the existence of untestable, unverifiable and some physicists say forever unseeable alternative universes.
yo! dumbo's back!
can't see the beginning of a paper by Weinberg here, sorry bud, just a second-hand citation by prof xyz, of a vaguer than vague comment that Weinberg allegedly made in what? 1992?...
ahem... today's what... ah yeah, 2006!... and L is now estimated to be what?...
well "learn-a-little" jem, many orders of magnitude away from what Weinberg came up with in his early calculations, like 1,000 times smaller roughly http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html ... mmmhhh, seems there's a lot of 'room' for anthropic carbon-based life in there innit?
and lets not even talk about non-carbon-based...am not 'attempting' to mock you my friend, its just that you make me laugh, sorry...
aaahhh, "The Shining"... great movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/
what is it again that Jack Torrance had typed over hundreds of pages?
u ok zizzz?
Quote from 2cents:
yo! dumbo's back!
can't see the beginning of a paper by Weinberg here, sorry bud, just a second-hand citation by prof xyz, of a vaguer than vague comment that Weinberg allegedly made in what? 1992?...
ahem... today's what... ah yeah, 2006!... and L is now estimated to be what?...
well "learn-a-little" jem, many orders of magnitude away from what Weinberg came up with in his early calculations, like 1,000 times smaller roughly http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html ... mmmhhh, seems there's a lot of 'room' for anthropic carbon-based life in there innit?
am not 'attempting' to mock you my friend, its just that you make me laugh, sorry...
Listen my "my friend" I was responding to a statement that this was a silly argument. I said why then was it addresed by a Nobel Prize winning physicist.
You said haha give me a cite as if i were making it up. I gave you one. (are you saying Weinberg did not write on this subject?)
You seem to be playing a game of gotcha only you have no ammunition.
and now Mr. Physics major, why don't you explain the importance that a smaller cosmological constant has on the concept of the Anthropic Principle.
Finally, what is wrong with you and your constant ad hominems. if your position is so strong why are you acting like a believer who just had his bible taken away by the mean communists.
u're so farcical bible-boy... thks for the laugh! my answer unchanged, its obvious you're not here to learn anything at all, just preach against IS...where's yr nobel prize winner paper again?
Quote from 2cents:
yo! dumbo's back!
can't see the beginning of a paper by Weinberg here, sorry bud, just a second-hand citation by prof xyz, of a vaguer than vague comment that Weinberg allegedly made in what? 1992?...
ahem... today's what... ah yeah, 2006!... and L is now estimated to be what?...
well "learn-a-little" jem, many orders of magnitude away from what Weinberg came up with in his early calculations, like 1,000 times smaller roughly http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html ... mmmhhh, seems there's a lot of 'room' for anthropic carbon-based life in there innit?
am not 'attempting' to mock you my friend, its just that you make me laugh, sorry...
First of all, I don't know why you're such a fan of Steven Weinberg. Do you know what he did to get his Nobel Prize? It was not about AP or multiverse. I don't see the connection between Weinberg's discussion of cosmological constant and ID. Can you educate us on why there is a connection?
I said in earlier posts that AP, multiverse and string theory are all speculations not yet confirmed. Speculating based on these speculations is certainly entertaining but not likely to prove anything definitive. I am very puzzled why you take these unconfirmed speculations as evidence of ID.
Most of the scientific speculations in the past had been proven wrong.
If you want to speculate, it is certainly equally valid to speculate about a spiritual universe. Too bad you can't see the irony in it.