Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from jem:

I could engage you in this sophistry but instead I will remain steadfast in the science that I have provided and the knowledge that I just cited you to powerful reasons for any open minded person to reconsider his/her position.

One side-

KJ and others here at ET saying no evidence of design or even a reason to investigate because they say so.

Otherside

some nobel prize winning physicists saying the Anthropic Principle should be taken seriously because of scientific observatons and theories.


But what I find especially mystifying is Smolin's tendency to set himself up as an arbiter of good and bad science. Among the people who feel that the anthropic principle deserves to be taken seriously, are some very famous physicists and cosmologists with extraordinary histories of scientific accomplishment. They include Steven Weinberg [2], Joseph Polchinski [3], Andrei Linde [4], and Sir Martin Rees [5]. These people are not fools, nor do they need to be told what constitutes good science.

________________________

[1] Of course you might say that the distance to the sun determines the temperature. But that just replaces the question with another, "Why is our planet at the precise distance that it is?"

[2] Professor of Physics, University of Texas and Nobel Prize winner 1979.

[3] Professor of Physics, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Phyiscs.

[4] Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Winner of many awards and prizes including the Dirac Medal and Franklin Medal.

[5] Astronomer Royal of Great Britain.

Please see the cite I gave a few posts ago.
More...

Talk Talk Talk and appeal to authority (not surprising in someone with deeply held religious faith.

As I have said, if you have a gut feeling that the trees were created by God, by all means go ahead and try to provide us with even ONE SHRED OF PROOF

Until then it will all be talk talk talk.
 
Quote from jem:

"Why is our planet at the precise distance that it is?"
More...

Good luck you guys. You can see by this question the exact nature of the kind of mind you are dealing with. Is there any point in continuing this?
 
Quote from traderNik:

Talk Talk Talk and appeal to authority (not surprising in someone with deeply helad religious faith.

As I have said, if you have a gut feeling that the trees were created by God, by all means go ahead and try to provide us with even ONE SHRED OF PROOF

Until then it will all be talk talk talk.
More...

The two posts by tradernik above are perhaps the most ignorant posts imaginable.

One illustrates the foolish ways of taking something out of context and one illustrates the pride of the anti religious crowd.

At least two of my authorities are athiest.

I feel comfortable citing to authority when there is absence of a controlling statute. You are right I have no problem citing Noble Prize winning physicists on this subject. Howerver this does not come from my deeply held religious convictions.

It comes form my deeply ingrained sense of jurisprudence and academic training.
 
Quote from traderNik:

lol... yes, your jurisprudence. You are apparently very learned. Where'd you get your LL.B, out of a Shreddies box?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Try spell check next time, counsellor.

over and out.. good luck kjkent1, jb, 2c, et. al, if you continue to grace these fanatics with your presence.
More...

now after creating the most embarasing posts in ET history this troll resorts to spell checking arguments.

he jerkoff why dont you do a search and see how many hundreds of times I spelled it correctly. By the way I use firefox and the spell checker and editor do not interface well with ET.
 
Quote from jem:

By the way I use firefox and the spell checker and editor do not interface well with ET.
More...

What the hell are you talking about? I've been using Firefox for 3 years and the interface with ET is seamless.

Wow... that is actually embarrassing. Sorry you felt the need to stoop to this level, trying a bogus lie that half the members here will know is a lie because they too use FF. I just reviewed a bunch of your posts and they are rife with spelling and grammatical errors. Would you like me to post some of them here for everyone to see? No? Right, I didn't think so.

I would suggest that you might want to avoid Hold-Em. You apparently don't know when to fold a losing hand.
 
Quote from jem:

now after creating the most embarasing posts....
More...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I couldn't make this up if I tried.

Remind me not to consider your alma mater (Shreddies U?) for my kids.

Stop for the day, man. Try again tomorrow. You're out of control :)
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

An intelligence higher than human would be magic?

This is what I don't understand about the atheistic materialists, and seems illogical with the basic premise that has been put forth by them.

The odds are for one who supports evolution and chance, that this planet is not the only planet to generate life and sustain such life here in the universe, and that humans are probably not the highest form of life. So it is quite reasonable to think that humans are not top dog, and it is quite possible that life here on earth did not develop spontaneously from nothing, but was placed here. Life as we know it is here by design seem more probable than non design.

However, subscription to a chance development with no design puts human beings at the top of the food chain, which is what this really seems to be about...

In the end, your position is stuck with 2 untenable situations. Life from nothing, and the universe from nothing, both situations left begging questions of causation...

Since the cause is unknown in each case, there is no logical reason to assume either chance or design, yet there is tremendous resistance to assumption of design by the atheists, for obvious reasons...
More...

Doesn't matter what things seem like -- it matters how they are actually measured -- and they don't measure any intelligent designer, other than ourselves. Until this circumstance changes, there's no designer.
 
Doesn't matter what things actually seem like, what matters is we dogmatically accept the limited science that we have at a particular time...

Uhhh, classic...

No designer, just like there were no X-Rays and Gamma rays before the were "discovered..."

Uhhh, classic...

But of course we "should" believe in life springing from nothing with no causation, and the entire universe coming into being from nothing with no knowledge of causation...

Seriously, just applying some common sense, do you realize how stupid that sounds?

Quote from kjkent1:

Doesn't matter what things seem like -- it matters how they are actually measured -- and they don't measure any intelligent designer, other than ourselves. Until this circumstance changes, there's no designer.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top