I'd say 'Bingo', but the sad fact is that we have told Z this at least 10 times in this thread. I am telling you, he has no desire to understand what you are saying. He throws words like 'random' and 'causality' around without having the faintest idea about their contextual relevance. It is all pure assertion. Z/leologist/pilier has his faith. His faith is unshakeable. That is the end of it.
John Dough wrote: How do you measure design? One way would be to first measure âchanceâ then take the reciprocal to get the design metric. If you understand that then you understand why the chance hypothesis of evolution is (at the least) not superior to the design hypothesis.
This thread is officially closed. This sentence is gobbledygook which has no meaning. Can anyone other than the multiple alias creature Z/leologist/pilier explain what this sentence means? I defy anyone to post here and tell me what this means.
Yes, maybe you are wrong. You are asserting a creator exists, although there is no more an existence of a creator than there is an existence of Santa. Why should I be mad at the notion of a creator that does not provide any better or more substantial information whatsoever that it exists, than the notion a big fat gnome in a red suit does? Using what is by now a very outworn mean-spirited and rather overbearing argument, you suggest to acknowledge there is no more support for the existence of a creator outside the form of its idea, means someone must be mad, disappointed or rebellious. So how come you do not confirm Santa exists outside the form of its idea? You stated it was a fact a creator exists in some form. I merely pointed out it is no less a fact Santa exists in some form. It is the only description you have attributed to a creator, that it exists in some form, which happens to be the same form as other ideas and is at best therefore, only achieving a similar validity of existence - though some will say not so convincing a one - as Santa. A fact of existence is provable. When an idea cannot be proved to exist, it will require overwhelming supporting evidence that it might. Such information and evidence will need to be substantially more than asserting the existence of a Giant Goblin, which is all you are doing. Should you not need evidence, proof, confirmation, verification, then you do not have a creator as a fact, the fact is, you just simply believe there is one leaving your creator actually no more than an idea. Which is what it always was.
Why would true science be afraid of exploring ID as an explanation of the "why" of the process of evolution? The mechanics of evolution are only part of the equation. The why remains unknown. Real science explores all possibilities until those possibilities are proven invalid. Can someone provide the proof that ID is patently false? Could it be false? Certainly! But that has yet to be proven. The bottom line here is the only reason ID is not accepted by academics is political bias, which has no place in the classroom, or science. Yes, in the real world we live in political bias is rampant in every aspect of our lives, thus we remain ignorant. Ignorant people are predictable and votes are easier to count. Both dominant parties are at fault for all the obvious reasons. Seeking the real truth about anything runs a distant second to maintaining power and control. Organized religion is no better as they continue to look at a spiritual horizon while standing still. Their inability and outright refusal to accept the obvious changes that occur as mankind evolves has blinded them to the realities of spiritual growth. They are stuck in spiritual adolescence. Science is no better as there primary objective is to stay funded. They ride the political winds at the expense of actual research. They have become nothing more than data collectors. Should one really seek the truth they must wade through mountains of bullshit, overcome well ingrained personal bias and look fear square in the eye and say fuck it, whatever it is, it is. The real reason people fear this journey is that the outcome just might require them to acknowledge that they are wrong about damn near everything, and greater still, they might have to makes some radical changes in their lives which will be painful to do. Will the saying, ignorance is bliss, be our only real legacy?
science needs empirical evidence to investigate the truth. how can u prove somethin' that cant be proved? shesssh. no experiment can be conducted to investigate id.
No current experiment. Just because it's difficult does not mean we should stop looking for the answer.