Intelligent Design is not creationism

[jem]

Quote from 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.

Response

You want math buy the books the articles cite.

You want truth deal with this.

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."


Now you said I made a proclamation and tried to smear me as a religious zealout.

Well you are agnostic without the balls to face up to simple on point english and current science.


Show me your peer reviewed articles that say Weinberg did not say this.

Anybody with a brain realizes that Weinbergs conclusion prior to the muiltiverse deal was that life influences the universe to make it hospitable to life. ( that means designed by life - that is not a made up a proclamation that is english)

And you do not have peer reviewed articles saying a nobel prize winner did not say that. You are so full of shit on this subject. Any time a lawyer tries to pull the I have the proof back in my ofice stunt - I always said your honor I am willing to wait while his office producers the materials.

You are a close minded agnostic who has no desire to comprehend the state of real science right now.

You have no produced a single thing on this thread other than Susskind quotes that do not contradict anything I have quoted only put them in context of a multiverse.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The resident atheist zealot steps up lamely and tries to separate the process from the authoritative conclusions....laughable.

It is for the sake of these authoritative conclusions that the process is performed....doh!

It is the scientists who have reached these conclusions that are held up as authority figures, and therefore the arguments made are from authority, not logic per say. I would dare say that none of the ET atheistic scientist could really reproduce the "math" on their own from scratch, but have learned it and quote it much in the same way theists spout their scriptures in defense of their argument from authority of the Bible.

Quote from stu:

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...



to this...


...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....


to this ...



...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.

 

[I am...]

Quote from jem:


You want truth deal with this.

Your creed makes a distinction between what is "begotten" , and what is "made". Then it goes on to say that the Son "made" all "things".

Think about that one.

Whether it is a uni or a multiverse, it is made up. The Son has real creations. This is not one of them.

Jesus

 

[james_bond_3rd]

jem,
Don't get too hung up on a quote from a "Nobel Prize winner." First, you don't understand what they're talking about. Second, if you do, then you know that they're as likely to be wrong as anyone else.

If you really want to learn about the AP and the cosmology constant, read the peer-reviewed literature. For starter, get this paper and read it:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00097000020201301000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes
" Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 201301 (2006)

Why Anthropic Reasoning Cannot Predict Lambda

Glenn D. Starkman1,2 and Roberto Trotta1
1Astrophysics Department, Oxford University, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom
2Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7079, USA

(Received 17 July 2006; published 16 November 2006)

We revisit anthropic arguments purporting to explain the measured value of the cosmological constant. We argue that different ways of assigning probabilities to candidate universes lead to totally different anthropic predictions. As an explicit example, we show that weighting different universes by the total number of possible observations leads to an extremely small probability for observing a value of Lambda equal to or greater than what we now measure. We conclude that anthropic reasoning within the framework of probability as frequency is ill-defined and that in the absence of a fundamental motivation for selecting one weighting scheme over another the anthropic principle cannot be used to explain the value of Lambda, nor, likely, any other physical parameters."

Follow the thread of discussion by looking at the papers that they cite, and by searching out new papers that cite this one. Then you'll get a full picture of the discussion. Hopefully this way you won't make a fool of yourself again.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from 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....

Snore. As usual, you start proclaiming conclusions about your hypotheses before you define your terms.

Define "motive" before you start to argue what it means, otherwise when I demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about, you will simply move the goalpost and alter your definition.

If you refuse to define your terms, then I won't argue with you, because it is empirically demonstrable from all of the other arguments with you, by me and others, as being a total waste of time.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You don't know what motive is, and you are an attorney?

LOL!

Very funny attempt at dodging a very simple issue...

We can only wonder what your motive is for such a silly response...

Quote from kjkent1:

Snore. As usual, you start proclaiming conclusions about your hypotheses before you define your terms.

Define "motive" before you start to argue what it means, otherwise when I demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about, you will simply move the goalpost and alter your definition.

If you refuse to define your terms, then I won't argue with you, because it is empirically demonstrable from all of the other arguments with you, by me and others, as being a total waste of time.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Ether64:

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...

The fact is, you have no idea what I believe, other than to accept what I say. It may be difficult for you to comprehend that I don't care whether or not a supreme creator exists. But, the fact is that I don't, so you'll just have to get over your disbelief, if you want to have a discussion with me.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from jem:

Response

You want math buy the books the articles cite.

You want truth deal with this.

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."


Now you said I made a proclamation and tried to smear me as a religious zealout.

Well you are agnostic without the balls to face up to simple on point english and current science.


Show me your peer reviewed articles that say Weinberg did not say this.

Anybody with a brain realizes that Weinbergs conclusion prior to the muiltiverse deal was that life influences the universe to make it hospitable to life. ( that means designed by life - that is not a made up a proclamation that is english)

And you do not have peer reviewed articles saying a nobel prize winner did not say that. You are so full of shit on this subject. Any time a lawyer tries to pull the I have the proof back in my ofice stunt - I always said your honor I am willing to wait while his office producers the materials.

You are a close minded agnostic who has no desire to comprehend the state of real science right now.

You have no produced a single thing on this thread other than Susskind quotes that do not contradict anything I have quoted only put them in context of a multiverse.

I'll tell ya what, you define the issue, just like you would in an appellate brief: by stating a single succinct question for the court, and then I'll be happy to argue the facts with you. Otherwise, this is a waste of time.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You don't know what motive is, and you are an attorney?

LOL!

Very funny attempt at dodging a very simple issue...

We can only wonder what your motive is for such a silly response...

I know how I define motive. And, from previous arguments, I know that you will refuse to define anything, so that you can avoid losing your argument by moving the goalpost as soon as I demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.

That's my motive, to avoid wasting my time, arguing with someone who's not actually interested in resolving anything.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

jem,
Don't get too hung up on a quote from a "Nobel Prize winner." First, you don't understand what they're talking about. Second, if you do, then you know that they're as likely to be wrong as anyone else.

If you really want to learn about the AP and the cosmology constant, read the peer-reviewed literature. For starter, get this paper and read it:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00097000020201301000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes
" Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 201301 (2006)

Why Anthropic Reasoning Cannot Predict Lambda

Glenn D. Starkman1,2 and Roberto Trotta1
1Astrophysics Department, Oxford University, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom
2Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7079, USA

(Received 17 July 2006; published 16 November 2006)

We revisit anthropic arguments purporting to explain the measured value of the cosmological constant. We argue that different ways of assigning probabilities to candidate universes lead to totally different anthropic predictions. As an explicit example, we show that weighting different universes by the total number of possible observations leads to an extremely small probability for observing a value of Lambda equal to or greater than what we now measure. We conclude that anthropic reasoning within the framework of probability as frequency is ill-defined and that in the absence of a fundamental motivation for selecting one weighting scheme over another the anthropic principle cannot be used to explain the value of Lambda, nor, likely, any other physical parameters."

Follow the thread of discussion by looking at the papers that they cite, and by searching out new papers that cite this one. Then you'll get a full picture of the discussion. Hopefully this way you won't make a fool of yourself again.

jem is not going to do anything other than parrot out-of-context quotes from pop-science writings, because that way, he doesn't have to define his terms or the issues.

The best way to avoid losing an argument is to refuse to agree on the subject matter. That way, you can just move the goalpost whenever your opponent is about to score a touchdown.