Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from stu:

...and thereby God breaks down as explanation for anything, yet again confined to the gaps that lie between incomplete scientific accounts of nature .
More...

Lol, but you ASSUME that science" just hasn't found the answer" and that "God dose not exist", when the proof of God is everywhere in front of you....... your just to blind to see it.

Science has not and will never find the answer. When a Scientist finally climbs the last rung in the ladder of knowledge, he will find a Theologian sitting there asking "what took you so long"?

Good luck on your quest.
 
Quote from Wallet:

Lol, but you ASSUME that science" just hasn't found the answer" and that "God dose not exist", when the proof of God is everywhere in front of you....... your just to blind to see it.

Science has not and will never find the answer. When a Scientist finally climbs the last rung in the ladder of knowledge, he will find a Theologian sitting there asking "what took you so long"?

Good luck on your quest.
More...

Buddah has the answer??

thanks for headsup, man!
 
Stu, his silly friends and vhehn keep denying science and our top physicists


http://bastardlogic.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/susskind-intelligent-design/

check on the clip

in the end Susskind notes we happen to live in the fraction of the universe that looks intelligently designed.

Note, there is no evidence of an other Universes or parts of the universe to which Susskind speculates.

So there you have - one of the inventors of sting theory - Chair of physics at Stanford telling you our universe looks designed.

By the way, we have nobel prize winners who say the same thing.

you guys pretend to care about science but just ignore it when it does not fit with your world view.


let me see -- speculate that we have trillions and trillions of parallel universes - or the appearance of design
 
Quote from jem:

"Chair of physics at Stanford telling you our universe looks designed."

http://bastardlogic.wordpress.com/2...lligent-design/

So there you have - one of the inventors of sting theory - Chair of physics at Stanford telling you our universe looks designed.
More...


Your link has this banner headline..
"Physicist Leonard Susskind Rejects Intelligent Design"

  • "Stanford University theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind rejects the idea of “intelligent design” as a theory for the origins of the universe."
To a creationist like yourself that means the opposite of what it states.
jem clearly fits the position of unintelligent in all this so called "design" malarky
 
Quote from jem:

Stu, his silly friends and vhehn keep denying science and our top physicists


http://bastardlogic.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/susskind-intelligent-design/

check on the clip

in the end Susskind notes we happen to live in the fraction of the universe that looks intelligently designed.

Note, there is no evidence of an other Universes or parts of the universe to which Susskind speculates.

So there you have - one of the inventors of sting theory - Chair of physics at Stanford telling you our universe looks designed.

By the way, we have nobel prize winners who say the same thing.

you guys pretend to care about science but just ignore it when it does not fit with your world view.


let me see -- speculate that we have trillions and trillions of parallel universes - or the appearance of design
More...
you thumpers are funny. did you even listen to it. he is saying it looks designed but it is not. how does that bolster your case?
 
Lots of us just look around, see that the evidence is ridiculous for evolution, that the evolution people are basically atheists, that the "Science" establishment is basically atheists.. Then we look around some more, apply Occam's razor and see that the universe is not just intelligently designed, but designed by somebody with very, very high intelligence.

To all you devout evolutionists, I salute your faith, it is greater than mine by far. To you I raise the uplifted universal one finger salute... If you had to support your belief system in a debate, and your schools with your own money, you would be barely on the radar. Enjoy your notoriety while you still have it.

Oh, and merry Christmas :D
 
Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

Lots of us just look around, see that the evidence is ridiculous for evolution, that the evolution people are basically atheists, that the "Science" establishment is basically atheists.. Then we look around some more, apply Occam's razor and see that the universe is not just intelligently designed, but designed by somebody with very, very high intelligence.

To all you devout evolutionists, I salute your faith, it is greater than mine by far. To you I raise the uplifted universal one finger salute... If you had to support your belief system in a debate, and your schools with your own money, you would be barely on the radar. Enjoy your notoriety while you still have it.

Oh, and merry Christmas :D
More...
wow you are brilliant to be able to see these things. so brilliant that you disagree with a christian who is called the father of genomics and says there is no doubt that evolution is true.

"Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
 
<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rDgzRIiQ4b8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rDgzRIiQ4b8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>


now I know science is over your heads so I am going to give you a background. Don't believe the headlines, listen to the distinguished professor of string theory. One of the best minds in physics.

Listen to the last part of the video after he does a big sort of misdirection about evolution and randomness. Here how he qualifies his response and then says that is why


"that small fraction in which we live looks intelligently designed".



---

for your edification, when susskind speaks of other fractions, landscapes, environments and universes he admits they are speculation and currently untestable.

Therefore our universe looks intelligently designed to Susskind and many other physicists.

Let me make it very clear. To nobel prize winners and co inventors of string theory, our universe looks designed.

But, they speculate it is not really designed because there are trillions and trillions of other universe which were not fine tuned for our life.

Empiricists should conclude design. To those with faith in infinite other universe you can conclude random chance.
 
For more background click on this interview here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825305.800


the final quote of that article:

Q. If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

A. I doubt that physicists will see it that way. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top