The continued cheap shots on this thread are stunning. I hereby state I do not have to respond to cheap shots and my non response should not be construed as an admission. first off you were the one citing probability theory who compared generals winning major battles to coin flips. as far as my quantum rockets are concerned are you saying quantum theory is not used in the the design of semiconductors. And finally I have never held myself out as an expert. That is why I cite the best minds in physics to support my argument that there is evidence for design. Mind you top astronomers like Davies and Greenstreet are not religious men. (at least according to me research) yet then find the evidence compelling enough to write books and papers on the evidence of design.
I understand your position, but it is an argument from authority, and since no one is really an authority on the beginning of the universe, it is a logical fallacy IMO, because all such arguments pro or con from the perspective of scientists are arguments from ignorance. For each authority you put up, the non design puts up another "authority" and it becomes like a trial process of expert witnesses, not a logic based argumentation process. Look no one even knows if the universe is limited or unlimited, if there is actually a beginning or an end, no one knows of the center of the universe, or if there even is a center of the universe, everything human beings know via empirical measure is limited by limited instrumentation of the human mind and our ability to observe being possibly severely flawed for multiple reasons, firstly because our instrumentation itself is limited, human mind is flawed by nature, and we are within the universe guessing what is the source of the universe itself...it is impossible to obtain anything even resembling objectivity when you are function as a part within a system trying to comment on that system. Science is a history of revision of theories as instrumentation changes or new ideas come forth. There is no way to remove the subjective nature of inhabitants of the universe, as they are under the constraints and forces of the laws of nature of the universe, where the source of the universe may be of an entirely different. We don't even know if the laws of nature existed prior to the so called big bang, or if they were created by a so called big bang, as we would have no way of measuring anything before a so called big bang, and we are bound to use the laws of nature themselves in our observations and calculations. Really, it is people grasping for something to believe in, and those who are atheistic, seek answers that are atheistic, theists take the road of theism. I understand you are trying to counter the non design proponents by suggesting some particular scientists may have a pro design opinion, or think the universe appears designed to human mind, but it is meaningless to me what ignorant scientists and non scientists think about the origin of the universe, it is meaningless what the majority of scientists think or don't think, and logically, it is all based on fallacious thinking and arguments from ignorance anyway. I know it seems impossible, but it is possible for me to think design, and not to think the non design thinkers are wrong necessarily. It is after, just a point of view within the universe, not from outside of the universe, so who can say? My beef is with the dogmatists on either side, and I do see dogmatists on both the theistic and atheistic side of the argument. If you really want to use a spell checker, which of course only works if we remember to use it, download the Google Toolbar for Firefox, it has a good spell checker built into it. It even underlines the words as you type them if they appear misspelled to the spell checker, so there is a reminder to run the spell check program. Anyway, those who focus on spelling or grammar as more important than content, really aren't interested in content, or are using spelling and grammar errors as a way of avoiding the content in a post. The resident grammar checkers and spell checkers know who they are, and if that is the best they can do to add to the discussion....oh well. p.s. Someone can misrepresent your position without actually lying, they could just be confused of your position. It doesn't matter to me if you call someone a liar, I don't care, but apparently some people really get disturbed by it. The only time I got actually perturbed by someone calling me a liar was in the chat room, as they were saying I did not make the trades I said I was making, and I quickly produced a snapshot of the trades I was making and they apologized, and all was forgiven and forgotten.
lol... yes, and we're all born sinners, because of that damn snake and apple thing. Goes directly to content, when the member in question is claiming to have made an exhaustive review of the written material being cited (or sited!!) by others. In this case it was shown that the member did not actually read a text which he was claiming to have read, He simply found a quote on the net and pasted it in. You're just bitter because you're one of those who has been outed as semi-literate here. Once again I say, I do not believe literacy is a necessary prerequisite for trading success. I only believe that you actually trade because others who despise you have admitted it.
Well, I think from your point of view, as I understand it, anything that cannot currently be measured or understood or proved by current science falls into the category of magic, but I wouldn't go so far as to say Divine as the foundation of design necessarily from a purely logical point of view. There are other possible logical explanations that do not depend on something Divine, as Divine is typically defined. Clearly though, if the universe is by design, it is by some property or power we do not have the ability to know or measure at present, and as scientific discovery is not a complete and finished human enterprise having reached full knowledge, my point is that conclusive arguments are therefore arguments from ignorance. I have my personal opinions and beliefs, but logically, there need not be a Divine explanation at all for a universe being by design.
It's either God or Space Aliens, Z. No way around that one. There are no other theories of the origin of life on earth that could involve 'Intelligent Design'. And we know your theory - you believe that life on earth originated when 'Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality'. Or did you recant that one after facing withering pressure to explain it? It's hard to keep track of what you are claiming to believe from week to week.
If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
What the hell are you talking about making claims to have read things I did not read. Show me once where I claimed to have read something I did not. There was no reason for me to make such a claim. I gave numerous links to Susskind's quotes about his book, inter alia, from his interviews, from the introduction to the book (which is on the net in its entirety) and book reviews by professors of physics and well as respected scientific journals. You manifest a reading comprehension problem.