Intelligent Design is not creationism

ZZZzzzzzzz · Nov 13, 2006

Careful and due consideration produce this, from one who worships at the alter of science, reason, and logic?

Too funny TK9...

Quote from Thunderdog:

After due and careful consideration, it appears to me that there is only one logical conclusion to be reached regarding the not-so-intelligent arguments for Intelligent Design. I will try to keep it succinct since the IDers were far too busy and important to take the time to listen to the Miller lecture:

http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs34.wav
More...

ZZZzzzzzzz · Nov 13, 2006

"By the way zzz and I hardly ever agree on anything. He happens to be giving you are hard time on this one with rhetoric and logic."

How dare I try to apply reason and logic to science, eh?

How dare I question the rhetoric and dogma of so called "scientists" and their faithful followers...

Quote from jem:

Now you are calling me a troll. You went from a respected adversary to an intellectual fairy in a very short period of time.

By the way zzz and I hardly ever agree on anything. He happens to be giving you are hard time on this one with rhetoric and logic, I am just giving you scientific information. If you spent a half an hour on the internet you would see that the anthropic princple as proposed by astrophysicist Brandon Carter in 1973 and supported more recently as science has learned more about gravity, lamda and symetry is a very respected argument in the upper echelons of physics.

major sceintific Institutiions even have symposiums on the anthropic principle.

By the way here is Susskind again.

Amanda Gefter:
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

Leonard Susskind:
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.

------
You see if you do not have a multiverse than science does not currently have an answer for natures fine tunings.
More...

kjkent1 · Nov 13, 2006

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Now, please show the mathematic...gn" is presently running a very distant last.
More...

jem · Nov 13, 2006

You can easily conclude that there is design and there is evolution. The anthropic principle and evolution can be two seperate arguments.

However as far as running a distant last you are not taking into account present day science.

kjkent1 · Nov 13, 2006

Quote from jem:

You can easily conclude that there is design and there is evolution. The anthropic principle and evolution can be two seperate arguments.

However as far as running a distant last you are not taking into account present day science.
More...

State a single experiment that confirms the existence of an intelligent deisigner, or one that statistically weighs in favor of an intelligent designer, as constrained by some stated limits.

2cents · Nov 13, 2006

Quote from jem:

I agree string theory is allowing the speculation of an almost infinite amount of universes. Exactly the speculation needed to combat the conclusions drawn from the anthroic principle by an informed intellect.

go ahead keep on having "faith" in your beliefs about science.

let me help you out. If you were really interested in learning. You would define what the best argument for the anthropic principle currently is, and knock it down with some sort of authority.

I find it interesting that the minute you challenge the world view of a man of "rationality" they start taking cheap shots. One guy starts calling me a preacher and one guy tells me I must be hearing satan.

no wonder the markets are not efficient.

Look at the emotions coming out of a physics major and a lawyer when I bring out a concept that challenges their weltanchung.
why not try and have a rational debate and prove that what I have proposed is incorrect.
More...

because it has already been done in that thread and the other one time and again, eg http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...58&perpage=6&highlight=shit all&pagenumber=14 , and you just disappeared for lack of any arguments other than repeating the same baseless mantra over & over as a typical preacher disregarding the inconvenient facts... the emotions are in your mind but you should be used to it by now... but do feel free to continue with that line of action, if only for my amusement

2cents · Nov 13, 2006

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Try this, follow around a human being and predict with accuracy each and every move them make for a period of a year...

Observation will show both random and predictable behavior, but both behaviors are the product of human intelligence, not lifeless ignorant chance...

Random is essentially an argument from the ignorance of "I can't see design, I can't see a pattern, I can't imagine a connectedness or purpose...so none must exist."

Call it the ostrich argument...

The ostrich rules out danger by putting on blinders...
More...

the pattern as established throughout the thread is that you do not understand randomness zizzz http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1262621&highlight=randomness#post1262621 , nor the concepts of proof, scientific theory etc... that makes you the ostrich... but you can't see that

Free Thinker · Nov 13, 2006

Quote from jem:

You can easily conclude that there is design and there is evolution. The anthropic principle and evolution can be two seperate arguments.

However as far as running a distant last you are not taking into account present day science.
More...

Jem even your catholic church is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century:

By The Associated Press Monday, November 13, 2006
VATICAN CITY - Scientists advising Pope Benedict XVI told the pontiff that they will study scientific insights into evolution, reflecting his special interest in the subject.

Nicola Cabibbo, a physics professor at Rome's La Sapienza University and president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said Monday in a speech to the pope that academy members shared the pontiff's view that "faith and reason need to come together in a new way."

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/11/13/ap/religion/d8l9lu480.txt

aus_SPIder · Nov 13, 2006

Quote from Teleologist:

Intelligent design is often equated with creationism.
More...

i can already tell ur a crap trader

2cents · Nov 13, 2006

Quote from vhehn:

Jem even your catholic church is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century:

By The Associated Press Monday, November 13, 2006
VATICAN CITY - Scientists advising Pope Benedict XVI told the pontiff that they will study scientific insights into evolution, reflecting his special interest in the subject.

Nicola Cabibbo, a physics professor at Rome's La Sapienza University and president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said Monday in a speech to the pope that academy members shared the pontiff's view that "faith and reason need to come together in a new way."

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/11/13/ap/religion/d8l9lu480.txt
More...

jeeez... tough choice innit? abandon faith? no way i guess... abandon reason? well thats not much to abandon for the faithful innit... but then so much for "a new way"... mmmhhh... abandon ridicule?