You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Classic Kent response, deflecting away from his own flaws.
Aren't you going to tell us now for the umpteenth time that you are done with this thread?
ROTFLMAO...
Aren't you going to tell us now for the umpteenth time that you are done with this thread?
ROTFLMAO...
Quote from kjkent1:
I can't find a single one of your last 10 posts in this thread that doesn't reek from ad hominems and/or sarcasm clearly intended to provoke a flame war.
I'm just calling the kettle black. There's nothing ad hominem in stating the obvious.
Responses below:
Quote from jem:
You want math buy the books the articles cite.
Response: Show me your math. If you can't, you're a coward.
----
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."
Response: Yes, you've repeated this nonsense throughout the thread. Unfortunately, that same source entitled his book "the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design." Obviously, your opinion of what Susskind means in the quote you keep repeating, is not the same thing as what Susskind actually means. Otherwise, his book would be called "the FACT of Intelligent Design." Now can you deal with that truth?
----
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.
Response: Judging from your writing in this forum, you are incapable of writing simple English. So, work on that, first, and then we can talk about 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)
Response: Your proclamations represent some of the worst examples of English I've ever read. However, what you are apparently saying here is that human life designed the universe -- which is nonsensical, and not at all what Weinberg means when he discusses anthropic principle.
Anthropic Principle is nothing more nor less than the idea that unless the universe were hospitable to our existence, we wouldn't be here to observe it. But, we're here, and so the universe is hospitable.
Read that a few times and try to comprehend it, before the prions eat away the rest of your neurons.
The alternative, of course, is that the universe is hospitable to our existence because someone else made it so. But, there's no evidence to support this except that the cosmological constant happens to be a certain value. However, that value, as I have pointed out at least 20 times previously, is simply a measurement of the state of vacuum energy, and there is no way to prove that were we to rewind the universe to its beginning and allow it to big bang again, that the cosmological constant wouldn't be some other value. Which is why considering the value is a meaningless philosophic exercise.
----
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.
Response: I'm a "close minded agnostic," eh? Is that like "jumbo-shrimp," or "military intelligence?" LOL! You write like you were in elementary school. Did you have a stroke after the Florida Bar, or are you really jem's son or daughter, pretending to be daddy?
----
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.
Response: I have produced one thing in this thread for certain: a clear record of your almost total lack of analytical reasoning abilities and reading comprehension.
Enjoy your vacation from this thread. When you come back, I'm sure that your next round of blithering stupidity will be epic.
----
Quote from jem:
You want math buy the books the articles cite.
Response: Show me your math. If you can't, you're a coward.
----
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."
Response: Yes, you've repeated this nonsense throughout the thread. Unfortunately, that same source entitled his book "the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design." Obviously, your opinion of what Susskind means in the quote you keep repeating, is not the same thing as what Susskind actually means. Otherwise, his book would be called "the FACT of Intelligent Design." Now can you deal with that truth?
----
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.
Response: Judging from your writing in this forum, you are incapable of writing simple English. So, work on that, first, and then we can talk about 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)
Response: Your proclamations represent some of the worst examples of English I've ever read. However, what you are apparently saying here is that human life designed the universe -- which is nonsensical, and not at all what Weinberg means when he discusses anthropic principle.
Anthropic Principle is nothing more nor less than the idea that unless the universe were hospitable to our existence, we wouldn't be here to observe it. But, we're here, and so the universe is hospitable.
Read that a few times and try to comprehend it, before the prions eat away the rest of your neurons.
The alternative, of course, is that the universe is hospitable to our existence because someone else made it so. But, there's no evidence to support this except that the cosmological constant happens to be a certain value. However, that value, as I have pointed out at least 20 times previously, is simply a measurement of the state of vacuum energy, and there is no way to prove that were we to rewind the universe to its beginning and allow it to big bang again, that the cosmological constant wouldn't be some other value. Which is why considering the value is a meaningless philosophic exercise.
----
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.
Response: I'm a "close minded agnostic," eh? Is that like "jumbo-shrimp," or "military intelligence?" LOL! You write like you were in elementary school. Did you have a stroke after the Florida Bar, or are you really jem's son or daughter, pretending to be daddy?
----
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.
Response: I have produced one thing in this thread for certain: a clear record of your almost total lack of analytical reasoning abilities and reading comprehension.
Enjoy your vacation from this thread. When you come back, I'm sure that your next round of blithering stupidity will be epic.
----
Holding scientists up as authority figures only because they have reached conclusions, makes it is easy to see why you would not be able to separate logic from authority. Relying on every one else being wrong so that a special invisible Creator can be right, is nothing more than your own argument from personal authority. Funny how there is no "math" for it, that will be because quite frankly it doesn't add up.Quote from 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 kjkent1:
Anthropic Principle is nothing more nor less than the idea that unless the universe were hospitable to our existence, we wouldn't be here to observe it. But, we're here, and so the universe is hospitable.
A universe in which everything dies is hospitable?
Read that a few times and try to comprehend it, before the prions eat away the rest of your neurons.
Quote from kjkent1:
The alternative, of course, is that the universe is hospitable to our existence because someone else made it so. But, there's no evidence to support this except that the cosmological constant happens to be a certain value.
The alternative, of course, is that the universe is inhospitable to our existence.
The alternative to someone else making this so is that you make this so.
Quote from kjkent1:
However, that value, as I have pointed out at least 20 times previously, is simply a measurement of the state of vacuum energy, and there is no way to prove that were we to rewind the universe to its beginning and allow it to big bang again, that the cosmological constant wouldn't be some other value. Which is why considering the value is a meaningless philosophic exercise
Agreed. How is meaningless until why is understood. At that point, how is still meaningless because that which is built on laws of chaos cannot be understood. The "laws of chaos" are a bit like "military intelligence". When you consider this universe as an attack on Heaven, it begins to make more sense. At that point why becomes meaningless except to inform you of your options.
Jesus
Quote from stu:
Holding scientists up as authority figures only because they have reached conclusions, makes it is easy to see why you would not be able to separate logic from authority. Relying on every one else being wrong so that a special invisible Creator can be right, is nothing more than your own argument from personal authority. Funny how there is no "math" for it, that will be because quite frankly it doesn't add up.
The desire to be special is at the core of the making of this universe. Not surprising that it manifests everywhere in the form of authorities or special invisible Creators. It results in a place where "right" and "rights" are valued more than happiness.
In Heaven, all are equal to each other and to God the Father. In Heaven, all have everything - are everything - in which not even the Father considers Himself special.
This universe under discussion is about having something beyond everything. This is impossible, yet attempted. Each pursues his special idol that stands between him and the truth. This only happens in dreams.
Imagine a place where every *Gilbert* has everything...is everything...EQUALLY. Then imagine each making a grab to be *Gilbert + 1*. Chaos ensues, and each becomes a powerless bag of bones searching for a "special" love relationship that completes him...for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health till death do they part. Such is the death of *Gilbert*, but only in his dreams.
Jesus
A creator God is supposed to be 'at the core of the making of this universe', but It desires to be special. That describes a God full of vainity and conceit.Quote from I am...:
The desire to be special is at the core ofthe making of this universe
Ok so 'why' does a God which is supposed to be equal in Heaven , not desire to be equal - but special.Quote from I am...:
In Heaven, all are equal to each other and to God. In Heaven, all have everything.
.....
How is meaningless until why is understood
.....
You just described a place called Heaven where God has everything - is everything, but wanted to be special. 'Why' is that anything to do with Gilbert?Quote from I am...:
Imagine a place where every *Gilbert* has everything...is everything.
You have your "math" wrong here. Gilbert is God+1. Your "reasoning" leads to the death of God. That might be 'why' for someone who is proposing God, your expressions sound a lot like chaos.Quote from I am...:
Then imagine each making a grab to be *Gilbert + 1*. Chaos ensues, and each becomes a bag of bones searching for a "special" love relationship that completes him...for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health till death do they part. Such is the death of *Gilbert*.
May I suggest you take your own advice and "Read that a few times and try to comprehend it, before the prions eat away the rest of your neurons."
stu
Quote from I am...:
The desire to be special is at the core of the making of this universe. Not surprising that it manifests everywhere in the form of authorities or special invisible Creators. It results in a place where "right" and "rights" are valued more than happiness.
In Heaven, all are equal to each other and to God the Father. In Heaven, all have everything - are everything - in which not even the Father considers Himself special.
This universe under discussion is about having something beyond everything. This is impossible, yet attempted. Each pursues his special idol that stands between him and the truth. This only happens in dreams.
Imagine a place where every *Gilbert* has everything...is everything...EQUALLY. Then imagine each making a grab to be *Gilbert + 1*. Chaos ensues, and each becomes a powerless bag of bones searching for a "special" love relationship that completes him...for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health till death do they part. Such is the death of *Gilbert*, but only in his dreams.
Jesus
Quote from stu:
A creator God is supposed to be 'at the core of the making of this universe', but It desires to be special. That describes a God full of vainity and conceit.
Can you forgive yourself?
Quote from stu:
Ok so 'why' does a God which is supposed to be equal in Heaven , not desire to be equal - but special.
Seriously insane notions like a desire to be special don't have much logic in Heaven. But they can be considered by a powerfully creative and free mind. If not laughed off, and taken seriously, a powerful mind may wander into innumerable if-then scenarios to 'see' how they would play out. In the making of such scenarios a pseudo will is invented to choreograph the possibilities. This is an alternative will that I sometimes call "ego". Alien concepts like perception, belief, and faith were invented to make the masquerade seem possible. The ego asked the first question: "What am I?" and the rest is his story. Denied, innumerable incorrect answers are played out to their sad conclusions in inhospitable worlds where everything dies.
It is impossible that the Son of God have two wills; one to be equal, another to be special. So one must not exist. But as long as there is a belief in two powers, a house divided against itself doesn't stand...it falls. Fear is produced by vacillation between the two. Anything produced in a state of fear is miscreation and does not truly exist. This universe under discussion is built on the thought/energy of fear as a house built on sand.
The Will to be equal has never been changed by a 'wish' to be special. Will creates, wishes make.
This is an appeal not to take this universe too seriously, nor the will that makes it. It has not changed reality one bit. The Son of God is still perfect, innocent, and free. But he is attacked in every way in this world.
Quote from stu:
You just described a place called Heaven where God has everything - is everything, but wanted to be special. 'Why' is that anything to do with Gilbert?
Your desire that Gilbert be God +1 is symptomatic of the foundation of this universe under discussion.
Quote from stu:
You have your "math" wrong here. Gilbert is God+1. Your "reasoning" leads to the death of God. That might be 'why' for someone who is proposing God, your expressions sound a lot like chaos.
It is your logic that leads to the "death" of everything. It can only be played out in a world where laws of chaos rule.
The Son of God can but crucify himself. And this is what you do not know that you do. Brother, there is no death.
Jesus
Forgive myself for something you have expressed. "Why" ?Quote from I am...:
Can you forgive yourself?
First is your desire for God is it not. Then the shoe of desire fits your foot not mine.Quote from I am...:
Your desire that Gilbert be God +1 is symptomatic of the foundation of this universe under discussion.
You obviously haven't taken your own advice. The chaos is in your own "reasoning", here and as previously explained .Quote from I am...:
It is your logic that leads to the "death" of everything. It can only be played out in a world where laws of chaos rule.
I suggest you read your own posts again and put yourself in line of what you direct at me and others. Making your own contradictions your own vanity your own conceits is not soemthing others should forgive themselves for.
You might then start to understand where the plank sits in your own eye.
No formula itself reaches a conclusion. Math is just a tool, it is not self directed to any particular conclusion or opinion.
Scientists reach conclusions, they draw conclusions, they make guesses, they expound their beliefs, they use the tools of math...but they are not math. So what you are doing is not in any way showing math, you are professing the opinions of other who actually did the math in support of their conclusions.
Why you shrink like a baby turtle's head when it comes to the admission that there is in fact an appeal to the authority of scientists demonstrates your duplicity.
Scientists reach conclusions, they draw conclusions, they make guesses, they expound their beliefs, they use the tools of math...but they are not math. So what you are doing is not in any way showing math, you are professing the opinions of other who actually did the math in support of their conclusions.
Why you shrink like a baby turtle's head when it comes to the admission that there is in fact an appeal to the authority of scientists demonstrates your duplicity.
Quote from stu:
Holding scientists up as authority figures only because they have reached conclusions, makes it is easy to see why you would not be able to separate logic from authority. Relying on every one else being wrong so that a special invisible Creator can be right, is nothing more than your own argument from personal authority. Funny how there is no "math" for it, that will be because quite frankly it doesn't add up.