Intelligent Design is not creationism

[jem]

By the way there are other serious scholars who say the evidence of design is overwhelming.

Astronomer Paul Davies has said that the evidence for design is overwhelming.

Astronomer George Greenstein says: AS we survey the evidence, the througt insistently arises that some supernatural ageny or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that sudenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. Was it God who stepped in and so providently create the cosmos for our benefit.

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says that it looks s if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.

And after reviewing these quotes in his book Susskind says "Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one fo the grete scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent desing is undeniable.


No evidence design -- what are you a better scientist than these guys.

Now to hammer the point home.

The reason Susskind is able to say the evidence of design is only an illusion is because he is asking you to put faith in his belief that there are billions and billions of other universes.


To say there is no evidence of design is 19th century thinking.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Oh, I don't doubt that you believe it was on point, but I believe it was a non sequitur.

So barring having a moderated discussion, in which a recognized and accepted expert in logical fallacy is acting as judge, I will view it as another case of opinion from a lawyer, schooled in winning through logical fallacy and non sequitur, not trained in seeking truth through application of logic.

You asserted your opinion, fine by me.

Shit is asserted through the sphincter too...

Quote from kjkent1:

Actually, it was right on point -- demonstrates that you routinely argue from ignorance -- which is what I asserted.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
I did not take my plane trip because there was very little snow. so i have more time to argue with you bastards.

Lol. luv you too.

Quote from jem:

Now let me ask STU these simple questions.

Did Susskind say in his book and in articles on the internet that the Universe looks designed but that the appearance of design is an illusion? Yes or No.


Did I also provide a quote where Susskind said that many of the anthropic arguments are not convincing because we could be very very lucky, but there is one constant that is so unlikely no one is saying the Cosmomlogical Constant could have been achieved by random events.

Yes or No.

Now is the reason why Susskind says there is an illusion of design because he believes that as of now String theory may be used to postulate that there are billions of landscapes (also known as universes) out there where the cosmological constant would be different.

Yes or No.


If you answer the above truthfully you will know who has the f--ked up argument.

D'ya see that nasty twist of contorted meaning you have in there jem?

Yes or No


You confirm Susskind stating , in articles on the Internet and in books and on radio.... the appearance of design is an illusion. That's design as an erroneous mental representation jem.

He does not state "an illusion of design", as if to suggest design is implied. Rather it is an illusion , even were M theory not to be established. What you want him to mean is no M theory then design is somehow more probable or better still is confirmed.

That's why you have that nasty twist. Your argument though remains f*kd.

 

[stu]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Oh, I don't doubt that you believe it was on point, but I believe it was a non sequitur.

So barring having a moderated discussion, in which a recognized and accepted expert in logical fallacy is acting as judge, I will view it as another case of opinion from a lawyer, schooled in winning through logical fallacy and non sequitur, not trained in seeking truth through application of logic.

You asserted your opinion, fine by me.

Shit is asserted through the sphincter too...

Your opinion is that it is an opinion. Brilliant
Your usual standard of garbled wordplay in full flight

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Lol. luv you too.


D'ya see that nasty twist of contorted meaning you have in there jem?

Yes or No


You confirm Susskind stating , in articles on the Internet and in books and on radio.... the appearance of design is an illusion. That's design as an erroneous mental representation jem.

He does not state "an illusion of design", as if to suggest design is implied. Rather it is an illusion , even were M theory not to be established. What you want him to mean is no M theory then design is somehow more probable or better still is confirmed.

That's why you have that nasty twist. Your argument though remains f*kd.

Susskind said:


If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Shit is asserted through the sphincter too...

You're the expert in this area of knowledge.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Teleologist:

Kjkent1 wrote:


What would you count as evidence of design?

Asked and specifically answered by me, previously in this thread. If memory serves, I provided four express examples.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

It is actually a fact that his assertion was an opinion and not assertion of fact, a truth which seems to be lost on so many here.

Still stuck in your autistic style of repetition I see....

Quote from stu:

Your opinion is that it is an opinion. Brilliant
Your usual standard of garbled wordplay in full flight

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from jem:

Susskind said:


If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”

Same shit, different day, jem. Susskind has clearly explained that he views any appearance of ID as illusory, so get over it.

Thus, the title of his book, "...the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design."

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I don't know about expert, but it is relatively easy for one to smell your asserted opinions and find them not resembling facts, and discover that they are the product of indigestible waste material...

Quote from kjkent1:

You're the expert in this area of knowledge.