Intelligent Design is not creationism

[kjkent1]

Responses below...

Quote from jem:

The burden is on you.

Response: You must have learned this from Z. Just because you proclaim something, doesn't make it so. So, I disagree that the burden is on me. It's on you. Show me your math, or shut up with your appeals to authority.

I have shown you that the cofounder of string theory and a nobel prize winner state that confirmation of the earlier prediction is the best support for the anthropic contention that "some features of our own existence determine certain things about the laws of nature."

Response: And, I have provided numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles, as well as presentations from that same person, which explain that you are misunderstanding the argument, by using pop-science articles which quote Susskind, rather than Susskind's own scientific work (which is way over your head, and that's why you can't use it).

(This is an atheists way of saying that we appear designed.)

Response: Another proclamation. Religious zealots do this frequently, so I'm not surprised that you follow suit.

---
That is not saying we have proof that God designed the universe. I am not making that contention. Even though you keep saying I am to set up your strawman argument. (another deception of yours).

Response: If you're not arguing design vs. chance, then what are you arguing? It sure seems like design vs. chance to me and everyone else on my side of the issue.

---

You have the burden of explain this: quote from the founder of string theory:

"But there is one fine-tuning of nature, one accident, one conspiracy we might call it, which is so extraordinary that nobody thinks it's an accident."...

Response: Susskind explains it himself as part of the slide presentation to the NYAS. He also explains it in the Paula Gordon Radio interview. You simply refuse to accept that he is using this quote in a manner that is counter you your personal belief system.

I won't bother explaining it again, because you'll just ignore me, as you have done countless times previously.

(Except Kjkent )

Response: Me and every other well-respected physicist.

It is not a valid counter point to say - this article was writen by a non nobel prize winner.

The issue is whether Susskind made the statement. Yes or no KJ.

Response: I've already explained it -- as has Susskind.

Was he making it up? prove it.

Response: When he said "nobody thinks is an accident," he means that " By all appearances, the cosmological constant looks designed -- but as I will now show, it's just an 'illusion.;"

And as you know jem, Susskind's book is partly titled "the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design." Which proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

[/B][/QUOTE]

PS. As usual, I've addressed and dispensed with all of your ignorant comments. And, as usual, you've rather cowardly avoided dealing with any of the my affirmative proofs.

Which is typical of the religious zealot. You have no proof and no understanding, so you're left with chicanery, sophistry and blisteringly stupid comments about quantum mechanics being used to send spacecraft to other planets.

But I completely understand, because without these artifices, your entire belief system would collapse and the reason for your existence would vanish. After which, you would have to take personal responsibility for your failures, rather than put them in the hands of God.

Not my problem, man.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"Show me your math, or shut up with your appeals to authority."

Amusing, that you appeal to science, which has shown historically to be wrong consistently when new information is brought to light, as your own appeal to authority...

This is because logically, you have no more of a case than jem does without your own appeal to authority...

Classic, absolutely classic, and expected from one who is trained to appeal to authority...

Quote from kjkent1:

Responses below...



The burden is on you.

Response: You must have learned this from Z. Just because you proclaim something, doesn't make it so. So, I disagree that the burden is on me. It's on you. Show me your math, or shut up with your appeals to authority.

I have shown you that the cofounder of string theory and a nobel prize winner state that confirmation of the earlier prediction is the best support for the anthropic contention that "some features of our own existence determine certain things about the laws of nature."

Response: And, I have provided numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles, as well as presentations from that same person, which explain that you are misunderstanding the argument, by using pop-science articles which quote Susskind, rather than Susskind's own scientific work (which is way over your head, and that's why you can't use it).

(This is an atheists way of saying that we appear designed.)

Response: Another proclamation. Religious zealots do this frequently, so I'm not surprised that you follow suit.

---
That is not saying we have proof that God designed the universe. I am not making that contention. Even though you keep saying I am to set up your strawman argument. (another deception of yours).

Response: If you're not arguing design vs. chance, then what are you arguing? It sure seems like design vs. chance to me and everyone else on my side of the issue.

---

You have the burden of explain this: quote from the founder of string theory:

"But there is one fine-tuning of nature, one accident, one conspiracy we might call it, which is so extraordinary that nobody thinks it's an accident."...

Response: Susskind explains it himself as part of the slide presentation to the NYAS. He also explains it in the Paula Gordon Radio interview. You simply refuse to accept that he is using this quote in a manner that is counter you your personal belief system.

I won't bother explaining it again, because you'll just ignore me, as you have done countless times previously.

(Except Kjkent )

Response: Me and every other well-respected physicist.

It is not a valid counter point to say - this article was writen by a non nobel prize winner.

The issue is whether Susskind made the statement. Yes or no KJ.

Response: I've already explained it -- as has Susskind.

Was he making it up? prove it.

Response: When he said "nobody thinks is an accident," he means that " By all appearances, the cosmological constant looks designed -- but as I will now show, it's just an 'illusion.;"

And as you know jem, Susskind's book is partly titled "the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design." Which proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

PS. As usual, I've addressed and dispensed with all of your ignorant comments. And, as usual, you've rather cowardly avoided dealing with any of the my affirmative proofs.

Which is typical of the religious zealot. You have no proof and no understanding, so you're left with chicanery, sophistry and blisteringly stupid comments about quantum mechanics being used to send spacecraft to other planets.

But I completely understand, because without these artifices, your entire belief system would collapse and the reason for your existence would vanish. After which, you would have to take personal responsibility for your failures, rather than put them in the hands of God.

Not my problem, man.

 

[Ether64]

Quote from kjkent1:

Excellent point. Let's try the gedanken:

Suppose that today, Lenny Susskind walks into Fermilab and tells the engineers that he has developed a testable hypothesis for the creation of a new universe, which can be tested in the super collider.

As part of the hypothesis, the collisions can be set up to theoretically determine the cosmological constant of the new universe in advance: if the constant is set too high the universe will expand and no coalescence of matter will take place; if the constant is set too low the universe will collapse back in on itself. But (as the baby bear said to the mommy and daddy bears), if the constant is set "just right," the new universe will evolve galaxies, stars, planets, fundamental elements similar to that of our own universe, and even biological life might eventually evolve under suitable conditions.

There is just one little problem. While we can measure the moment of first existence and expansion of this new universe, we can never measure the interior, nor can anyone or anything on the interior of the new universe, ever measure anything external to it. This is because the new universe is created in a new space-time continuum, such that information from each respective universe can never reach the other.

So, the engineers proceed with the experiment, and from everything that we are able to measure, Dr. Susskind's hypothesis is confirmed -- and so we "infer" that the new universe will evolve somewhat like our own -- and call the experiment a qualified success.

Now, let's switch places and put ourselves INSIDE this new universe. What do we observe:

1. A big bang.

2. The evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, elements, life, us.

3. A cosmological constant which appears consistent with a small range of values which will permit life such as ours to eventually evolve and observe the cosmological constant as we measure it.

4. No evidence of design.

So, in our experiment the universe is actually designed, but we only see evolution, because we simply cannot view what is beyond our universe's event horizon to prove otherwise. Scientifically, all we can observe is the result: an evolving universe which evolves us as a reasonable outcome of existence.

And, here's where, if you're a design advocate, you shout, "EUREKA@! Thank you for proving that design is possible."

My response is as follows:

1. So what? It is still no more nor less likely that what I have just described actually happened, because it is impossible to calculate the probability of this having actually happened, given the lack of knowledge about what actually preceded our own big bang.

2. In this little thought experiment, the "creator" is Dr. Leonard Susskind, not "God," and this begs the question of, "Where did the good doctor come from?"

Are we merely the creation of the scientific experiment of an unknown number of previous mortal creators from other universes, all of whom owe their respective existence to some prime creator who has existed forever? Maybe so, but once again, so what? We can't prove it either way.

Or, are we the product of the occasional increase in entropy which occurs in certain locales as a part of the natural turbulence which exists in any universe? Can't prove this, either.

And, at some point, we may reasonably ask which is the simpler answer: (a) that somewhere and somewhen, there was an original creator who has existed eternally and who started the whole ball rolling from a point of maximum complexity, or (b) that universes have existed forever and the occasional turbulence which is inherent within a universe, occasionally evolves into a thinking being who is capable of observing the universe in which he/she/it exists?

Everyone here gets to answer this question for him/herself. But, no one can prove either answer, scientifically, because we are not capable of conducting a verifiable experiment beyond the confines of our own event horizon.

Should this situation ever change, then we can investigate scientifically. Until then, it's all just speculation. Some of it is very interesting and thoughtful speculation, which hypothesizes quantum field measurements that may (and, I emphasize, may) someday be able to push back the information event horizon to slightly before the moment of the big bang. But today it's just speculation -- not science -- and there is simply no scientific proof favoring any particular answer over another.

This was a well thought-out answer, and you are right. Under the auspices of the examples, as you described them, it would be impossible to prove otherwise, but this still leaves several questions and issues.

In every aspect of what you explained there was a measure of faith involved, whether for one theory of thought or the other. It's not a matter of proof that is necessary concerning any of these issues that were brought up by you or anyone else in these posts. The ideas and so-called proofs being offered are all subjective. It is simply a matter of choice.

The majority of people who question God, are not really questioning His existence, so much as His character. They want to know "why," and have many questions and/or anger surrounding their "why's." They want to use their "why's," or their personal character issues with other people as a reason not to turn their faith towards Him.

Whether you believe in God or not, He is totally willing to be responsible for His creation, even if you, by your faith, or lack thereof, don't accredit responsibility to Him. Whether it is for good, or for evil, He is willing to be accountable for this earth He created.

But the one thing about God that was confirmed for me tonight, is that He likes being mysterious. And it is part of His mystery that has everyone in here tossing forth questions and/or debate on faith and belief from either side of the coin.

He likes being mysterious because He wants us to seek Him out. The things you truely desire are those that you are willing to chase after and seek out entirely with your whole being. If one wants to know the realness of God, one only needs to truly seek Him, unselfishly, to get to know His real character, as opposed to using the "why's" as an excuse to run from Him. He is visible everywhere and in every thing, but looking...you will not see; and listening...you will not hear, unless...you are truly seeking, and He does know everyone's heart and motivations.

However, despite the lack of faith of many, He is willing to accept faith the size of a mustard seed. So small an amount of faith can reap amazing results. That is because God is so willing to be accountable for His creation, and wants to reconcile with everyone so badly for the mess created by Adam; that He said, in essence, "I don't care who's right, or who's wrong, I'll accept the blame." And with that, the penalty was paid...Christ stretched out His arms and died for everyone.

If people truly sought to understand the true nature of God, I don't think faith would be so scattered, and none of this would be in question or debate in this or any other forum.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"Show me your math, or shut up with your appeals to authority."

Amusing, that you appeal to science, which has shown historically to be wrong consistently when new information is brought to light, as your own appeal to authority...

This is because logically, you have no more of a case than jem does without your own appeal to authority...

Classic, absolutely classic, and expected from one who is trained to appeal to authority...

Z to the rescue. Right on cue.

Science is a process of investigation, not an appeal to authority.

jem is appealing to particular scientists as the authority rather than to their respective scientific investigations. He is appealing to authority.

I am appealing to the use of the process ("show me the math") -- a process which jem cannot use, because he doesn't know how. If he did, then he wouldn't need to appeal to scientists as his authority.

The difference should be obvious.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Ether64:

This was a well thought-out answer, and you are right. Under the auspices of the examples, as you described them, it would be impossible to prove otherwise, but this still leaves several questions and issues.

In every aspect of what you explained there was a measure of faith involved, whether for one theory of thought or the other. It's not a matter of proof that is necessary concerning any of these issues that were brought up by you or anyone else in these posts. The ideas and so-called proofs being offered are all subjective. It is simply a matter of choice.

The majority of people who question God, are not really questioning His existence, so much as His character. They want to know "why," and have many questions and/or anger surrounding their "why's." They want to use their "why's," or their personal character issues with other people as a reason not to turn their faith towards Him.

Whether you believe in God or not, He is totally willing to be responsible for His creation, even if you, by your faith, or lack thereof, don't accredit responsibility to Him. Whether it is for good, or for evil, He is willing to be accountable for this earth He created.

But the one thing about God that was confirmed for me tonight, is that He likes being mysterious. And it is part of His mystery that has everyone in here tossing forth questions and/or debate on faith and belief from either side of the coin.

He likes being mysterious because He wants us to seek Him out. The things you truely desire are those that you are willing to chase after and seek out entirely with your whole being. If one wants to know the realness of God, one only needs to truly seek Him, unselfishly, to get to know His real character, as opposed to using the "why's" as an excuse to run from Him. He is visible everywhere and in every thing, but looking...you will not see; and listening...you will not hear, unless...you are truly seeking, and He does know everyone's heart and motivations.

However, despite the lack of faith of many, He is willing to accept faith the size of a mustard seed. So small an amount of faith can reap amazing results. That is because God is so willing to be accountable for His creation, and wants to reconcile with everyone so badly for the mess created by Adam; that He said, in essence, "I don't care who's right, or who's wrong, I'll accept the blame." And with that, the penalty was paid...Christ stretched out His arms and died for everyone.

If people truly sought to understand the true nature of God, I don't think faith would be so scattered, and none of this would be in question or debate in this or any other forum.

I am an agnostic, and a pure materialist. I neither accept or deny the existence of that which cannot be proven by scientific investigation. I simply leave such questions awaiting further evidence. So, for me God's existence is irrelevant. If God exists, and he choses to judge me, then I shall accept his judgment because I have no choise in the matter. And if he does not exist, then he will not judge me -- but, I still have no choice, because he doesn't exist.

Either way, I will live my life identically, according to what I believe is reasonable under the circumstances. And, when my life ends, whatever will be -- will be.

 

[Ether64]

Quote from stu:

... and when you do actually investigate observe, use logic and test, design looks exactly like evolution.

This is an interesting train of thought...more like a train wreck, but nevertheless...a train of thought is involved.

The problem with "logic" as you say, according to wikepedia is this:

Logic, from Classical Greek ëüãïò logos (the word), is the study of patterns found in reasoning. The task of the logician is to set down rules for distinguishing between valid and fallacious inference, between rational and flawed arguments.

Problem #1: From what "logic" does the logician derrive the set of rules he uses for these distinctions? I mean honestly...anyone can create a set of self-centered patterns or rules that they deem should be followed. For instance: I have said on many occassions, when I'm not in the most grace filled nor merciful mood; that if I was God...stupid people would not exist. Who's stupid? Well, anyone who doesn't act, think or feel as I do at any given point in time. How unselfish of me.

However, if I was a logician, I could easily set up a pattern of behaviors that would qualify one, in my personal estimation, of being stupid. As such then, and as God in my imaginary, self-centered world, these people might get the bolt...right off the planet. IF....I were God, and IF...I made the rules...

So in order to hold logic in such high esteem, I'd have to have (yep, I'm back to it...) a high measure of faith, because I don't know the logician who created these patterns, and sets of rules that I'm choosing to follow. So I follow them because I have decided to place my faith in some unknown being somewhere, that no doubt, existed way before my time on this earth...if he existed on this earth at all. For all I know...my trust in this "logician," whoever that may be, is totally blind faith, because I have never seen, nor met this person, and more than likely...I have only the fact that a handful of people have decided to trust in the logician's book of rules, and pass their experiments in life, and/or experiences in written word, on to others seeking higher knowledge. Sound familiar?

Problem #2: Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows.

Oh! So now, we have a guy...the logician...who is not only making up a set of rules for us to follow/live by, but in addition, his rules are based on Inference...on what he already knows. So far, we've proved that we have no idea what this "logician" knows or doesn't know. He's just as much in the dark as you or I. He's just as much of a seeker of God as the next man, but his direction and path is that of the selfish, self-centered man. The one who thinks he is a god in and of himself, and therefore, has sufficient knowledge to tell us what "logic" is. And so many, with blind faith, choose to trust more in "logic"...a simple man's reasoning and self-made parameters based on inference. The only thing one can infer when there is no light...is that they are in darkness.
This brings me to...

Problem #3: A fallacy is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid in whole.

How can one determine what is valid and what is flawed? If we are basing the basis of evaluation on "logic" then it's flawed already, because we are blindly utilizing a set of rules created by a mere man, eons before our time. Just because there are many in the dark trying to utilize the same "logic" does not mean that it is a viable standard. Society dictates many things it calls the norm, and I'm sure that each person here can think of at least one such "norm" that they don't agree with. It's all subjective, and it's all a faith issue.

So the real questions are:
#1: In whom do you trust? Our money says God. I wonder...if you don't trust in Him...how can you utilize currency dedicated to Him...to His character and reputation? Not to say that the power of that currency is not always utilized correctly, but obviously, there is power in it, and it names Him as the trustee. Makes me wonder...if you are not blessed in that particular area...is it because you don't fully trust in the One who's represented on the currency?

#2: Why is your faith so directed? In other words...who are you glorifying as a god, and why? As I said in my previous post, you seek the hardest after that which you desire the most, or love. So for those who love the god of "logic"...what is your reasoning, outside of...such and such a person is a "well-known," or "nationally recognized expert" in such and such a field. If you do not personally know these so-called experts, nor their thoughts, nor their motivations for the rules/inferences and logic they have created...why do you trust in them?

Peace.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You are arguing that science is not authoritative?

As if...

All you repetitively do is put science and scientists up as the authority that should be accepted above intuition and other parts of human life which are beyond the scope of science and measurement via empiricism...

Oh, and I have yet to ever hear Shakespeare speak of love, or art as pure materialism...so your denial of the existence of that which science has no real grasp of is glaring.

Like I said, your training is in appeals to authority, not in logic to find a truth, which is why you can employ the logical fallacy of appealing to authority of science and scientific approach, yet simultaneously continue to argue that you are not appealing to authority.

What a joke...

Here is an easy one for you.

You agree that motive exists?

How is it scientifically to know motive without guessing what motive is?

There is no scientific method of exact measurement of motive, it is just an educated guess, which is often found to be wrong. Any individual could easily be acting to appear to have a particular motive. It simply is impossible to know beyond doubt what real motive is.

So, motive does not exist because science has no real measure of it that it can claim full accuracy? Science cannot possible measure motive, all it can measure is behavior, and then someone guesses.

Too funny....

Quote from kjkent1:

Z to the rescue. Right on cue.

Science is a process of investigation, not an appeal to authority.

jem is appealing to particular scientists as the authority rather than to their respective scientific investigations. He is appealing to authority.

I am appealing to the use of the process ("show me the math") -- a process which jem cannot use, because he doesn't know how. If he did, then he wouldn't need to appeal to scientists as his authority.

The difference should be obvious.

 

[Ether64]

Quote from kjkent1:

I am an agnostic, and a pure materialist. I neither accept or deny the existence of that which cannot be proven by scientific investigation. I simply leave such questions awaiting further evidence. So, for me God's existence is irrelevant. If God exists, and he choses to judge me, then I shall accept his judgment because I have no choise in the matter. And if he does not exist, then he will not judge me -- but, I still have no choice, because he doesn't exist.

Either way, I will live my life identically, according to what I believe is reasonable under the circumstances. And, when my life ends, whatever will be -- will be.

Interesting response...but you clearly state your position in this: "If God exists, and he choses to judge me, then I shall accept his judgment..." Not only do you believe He exists...you believe He will judge you. Not only do you believe He will judge you, but you have given gender application to One you say you don't believe exists. Interesting...

 

[Turok]

Ether:
>...you clearly state your position in this: "If God exists,
>and he choses to judge me, then I shall accept his
>judgment..." Not only do you believe He exists...you
>believe He will judge you.

Wow. Could there be any less truth/logic in the above statement?

Hypothetical:

Me:
If the grocery store is open and if they choose to accept my credit card, I will buy some milk.

Ether:
You clearly state your postition as this: Not only do you believe the grocery store is open...you believe they will accept your credit card.

Have fun KJ

JB

 

[stu]

Quote from kjkent1:

I am an agnostic, and a pure materialist. I neither accept or deny the existence of that which cannot be proven by scientific investigation. I simply leave such questions awaiting further evidence. So, for me God's existence is irrelevant. If God exists, and he choses to judge me, then I shall accept his judgment because I have no choise in the matter. And if he does not exist, then he will not judge me -- but, I still have no choice, because he doesn't exist.

Either way, I will live my life identically, according to what I believe is reasonable under the circumstances. And, when my life ends, whatever will be -- will be.

Only when one bothers to read their stuff does it become apparent how much these religious zealots rely upon a common theme of idiocity to make nonsensical argument .


to get from this...

Quote from kjkent1:

Science is a process of investigation, not an appeal to authority.

to this...

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You are arguing that science is not authoritative?

...by ignoring what is actually said, mutilating words and meaning in order to make yet another dreadfully tedious and contorted post in defense of things invisible and unknowable. Why would anyone want to misconstrue that way? Well maybe to help jem get back on track.
But why anyone would want to be on the ZZzz'ism track beggars belief.


Then there's Jem who will always just deny and deny again, ignore and ignore again, anything that doesn't fit with his own personal selected description and interpretation of what he states scientists say. Even in the face of them haing already confirmed on radio they don't mean what jem says they do, over and over again he will repeat the same fallacious argument blanking out all response which shows he is obviously misrepresenting.

to get from this....

Quote from kjkent1:
If God exists

to this ...

Quote from Ether64:


Not only do you believe He exists...

...Ether64 who first makes an incoherent rambling full of inconsistency about "logic", then in the worst kind of illogicality, arrives at his erroneous conclusions by purposely , ignorantly or conveniently or all three, disregards the conditional 'If'.

In that way Creationism would hold everyone in a state of imbecility by asserting nothing more than the absurd, in denying science (whilst taking everything creationists want from it) , denying knowledge, denying meaning which doesn't meet with their own, denying honesty, denying integrity, just as so long as ID'ers can insist at any cost, there must be a creator God.

Without any compunction they would willingly put absurd and derisory arguments into schools and turn children into idiots too, and for what?. For nothing more than some make-believe ideas and medieval imaginings of God.

The same nonsensical arguments on one hand rely on physics, science and scientific explanation to assertain any facts or information, such as there is actually a cosmological constant , something never known about through any other means, then comes the contortion of that observation, to deny and obscure any physics science and all scientific explanation so as to magically conjure up a tale all about a creator.
By applying the same idiocity, the nonsensical arguments for Creationism and Intelligent Design failing, creationists would take everyone for being a mug under another pseudonym - Teleology.