Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Easily answered from a particular point of view of many of an eastern way of thinking.

A movie is a real movie, but it is not real like the projector is real, or the one who filmed the movie, or the one showing the movie, etc.

Difference between what is on the screen, and what it took to get it on the screen...that which is just a projection is nothing more than a reflected image...just as what appears on the human mind is just a projected thought.

When the electricity goes off, the movie stops, but the projector itself, the screen and the movie director remain unchanged....

It is a real projection of what is on the movie reel, but it is just a projection, not the real thing...

Quote from stu:

You say God is real ok. But the universe is not.
Now if you are not feeling too obstinate or too wordy, can you please kindly answer the question I have already asked of you.

What is it about reality which would make God real but not the Universe.
less than 500 words if possible. thanks

stu

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from jem:

Mr. Bond said:

You're distorting yet another scientist's words to suite your needs.

Here is my original post in this thread (the relevant part):
"Here is a good analogy. Once I asked one of my military friends what he considered as a great general. His answer was that if someone won five major battles in a row then he would be considered a great general. Then I asked what he thought the percentage of great generals were among all the generals in history. He thought about it for awhile, and then answered, "maybe 3%."

I laughed. If you flip coins 5 straight times, the chance of 5 straight heads is 3%! So were these 3% really great generals, or were they just lucky?

As a feeble human, I don't think we will ever know the answer to that question...
-----------------------------
Jem says

I really can not imagine being a scientist and not realizing that battles are not the same as independent coin flips.

Can you imagine applying your same logic to say Bjorn Borg when he won five Wimbledons.

Q:What is the probability of him winning another Wimbledon?

A: Despite the the laws of probability, and despite the fact that Bjorn won 5 Wimbledons in the past -- the probability of his winning another is effectively zero.

Do you see how this relates to the creation of our universe and its corresponding cosmological constant?

We cannot recreate the universe and we can't replay Bjorn Borg at Wimbledon. Probability is meaningless to any understanding of what is already a historical fact, unless you can repeat the same probability experiment in the future.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

Mr. Bond said:

You're distorting yet another scientist's words to suite your needs.

Here is my original post in this thread (the relevant part):
"Here is a good analogy. Once I asked one of my military friends what he considered as a great general. His answer was that if someone won five major battles in a row then he would be considered a great general. Then I asked what he thought the percentage of great generals were among all the generals in history. He thought about it for awhile, and then answered, "maybe 3%."

I laughed. If you flip coins 5 straight times, the chance of 5 straight heads is 3%! So were these 3% really great generals, or were they just lucky?

As a feeble human, I don't think we will ever know the answer to that question...
-----------------------------
Jem says

I really can not imagine being a scientist and not realizing that battles are not the same as independent coin flips.

Can you imagine applying your same logic to say Bjorn Borg when he won five Wimbledons.

This really betrays your ignorance of statistics. Statistical methods can be used to summarize or describe a collection of data; this is called descriptive statistics. In addition, patterns in the data may be modeled in a way that accounts for randomness and uncertainty in the observations, to draw inferences about the process or population being studied; this is called inferential statistics.

Do you know how to draw inferences?

 

[jem]

Quote from kjkent1:

Q:What is the probability of him winning another Wimbledon?

A: Despite the the laws of probability, and despite the fact that Bjorn won 5 Wimbledons in the past -- the probability of his winning another is effectively zero.

Do you see how this relates to the creation of our universe and its corresponding cosmological constant?

We cannot recreate the universe and we can't replay Bjorn Borg at Wimbledon. Probability is meaningless to any understanding of what is already a historical fact, unless you can repeat the same probability experiment in the future.

I am not speaking with you but I did want to ensure this post remains visible.

 

[Ether64]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

I hate to fight this battle all over again with someone who hasn't the decency of reading all the previous posts before joining the discussion. I would simply point out, that the theory of gravity is considered old hat, and the quantum theoy is already accepted norm in science today. The fact that the two cannot be unified in a single theory, does not mean that each one is not valid by itself.

Please, don't expose your ignorance here. If you want to contribute to the science side of the discussion, at least educate yourself of the basic facts.

If you confine your discussion to religion, then I won't object. But don't pretend that you know something about science, like jem and z10 did in this thread, only generating laughable posts such as z10's snowflake self, and jem's quantum rocket.

First of all, you have no reason to "fight a battle with me," because I'm not looking for a fight. I'm simply trying to understand the perspective of the people here. You are right, I didn't read all the 270 + pages of posts...because I don't have the time to. As far as exposing my ignorance is concerned...I readily admitted that I am not an expert on anything, so that means that you too did not read all the posts. Therefore, I'm not pretending to have some knowledge of science. I already stated that science and math are not my strong points, and that I'm here to learn. Peace.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

This really betrays your ignorance of statistics. Statistical methods can be used to summarize or describe a collection of data; this is called descriptive statistics. In addition, patterns in the data may be modeled in a way that accounts for randomness and uncertainty in the observations, to draw inferences about the process or population being studied; this is called inferential statistics.

Do you know how to draw inferences?

Keep going this is getting entertaining.

so the proper inference is, winning 5 battles is as random as coin flips landing as heads-- as long as I use the proper statistical methods.

 

[Ether64]

Quote from traderNik:

Yes, and everything that gives us the quality of life we enjoy is a product of this beautiful ongoing process of discovery, underpinned by the scientific method which actively seeks to disprove its own theories in order that the truth may be discerned a tiny bit more clearly.

Does science sometimes create bad things which hurt people? All the time. But this not a failing of the scientific method. It is a failing of the humans who employ it.

The faith mongers have no need for scientific theory because for them, their 'truth' is received from the Creator God with whom they will have a nice visit when they die. Actively trying to disprove the existence of God is not called progress in the religious community. It is called heresy.

Peace to you too.

Ok...you must know that I can't agree on your last statement, but what I'm wondering is, if the scientific method actively seeks to disprove its own theories in order to get at the truth, then why claim that these theories they seek to disprove are actually "factual," as if by being "factual" they are indeed the truth? How can one state by claiming factuality, that something "is," if they are steadily trying to disprove what they claim "is" for the sake of getting at the truth? It makes no sense. No offense. Peace.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

Keep going this is getting entertaining.

so the proper inference is, winning 5 battles is as random as coin flips landing as heads-- as long as I use the proper statistical methods.

No. Your inability to understand a point is truly amazing.

Do you know what is a "null hypothesis?" How does one infer that a certain hypothesis is valid? (hint: look at how drug companies conduct clinical trials).

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Ether64:

First of all, you have no reason to "fight a battle with me," because I'm not looking for a fight. I'm simply trying to understand the perspective of the people here. You are right, I didn't read all the 270 + pages of posts...because I don't have the time to. As far as exposing my ignorance is concerned...I readily admitted that I am not an expert on anything, so that means that you too did not read all the posts. Therefore, I'm not pretending to have some knowledge of science. I already stated that science and math are not my strong points, and that I'm here to learn. Peace.

If you know that you don't understand science, then don't make false statements about science that you don't understand. You don't overstep your bounds, and I won't object to your posts.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The self appointed "science teacher" raps the knuckles of a "student."

ROTFLMAO...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

If you know that you don't understand science, then don't make false statements about science that you don't understand. You don't overstep your bounds, and I won't object to your posts.