As I have pointed out in this thread once before, this member exhibits complete ignorance of the nature of chaotic systems, probably because he has a pathological loathing and fear of scientific inquiry. Had he bothered to educate himself even a little he would know that chaotic systems actually exhibit underlying order, and that fields like fluid dynamics have been transformed in recent years as a result of fractal theory. Both of the statements above have been proved wrong and the results of those proofs have already been incorporated into both applied and theoretical engineering problems. What these statements show, more than anything else, is that this member uses language without understanding the terminology he employs. This is an established pattern for this member. For him, it is enough to simply state something. His statement of it becomes its proof. His only method of discourse is pure assertion, as we see above, and personal attack when challenged. It is a pity that the member does not or will not understand how foolish statements like these, which are obviously wrong, make him appear.
Nope. Yours is the argument from ignorance. My argument is based on the non-existence of a designer, so if I argue that the universe and its constituent parts appear inadequately designed, this supports my theory that it is the result of random chance. Furthermore, because my argument is based on chance, I don't have to prove the designer's existence. I can simply argue that statistically, all scientific evidence forecloses the possibility of a designer within the limits of current measurability. Your argument is based on the existence of a designer, whose existence you cannot prove. So to argue that I don't know the mind of that which you cannot demonstrate exists, is irrational to the extreme. Furthermore, because your argument is based on the existence of a designer, anything in the universe which subjectively or objectively seems to lack evidence of design, begs that you define the designer's nature sufficient to demonstrate his rationale for things which seem to any reasonable human intellect as unworthy of such a supposedly rational and superior creator. So much for your logical reasoning. Perhaps you should return to the ad hominem jabs followed by pretended apology tactic.
I just read this last page I thought I might add something. Having a wife whose had three children...I happend to have a very good view of the opening because my first son was stuck. And I saw the top of his head being a lot wider than the canal. After a very long labor the doctor suggested she use a machine to suck him out. I asked the risks she said well if it takes more than three pulls the risk goes up dramatically. Something about vessels popping and brain damage. He eventually came out on the 7th pull with a serious cone head. He eventually was fine. But I certainly understand Kjs point. However, I could also argue... I suspect the size of womens pelvis is an intelligently designed compromise between what comes out and what goes in.
sorry, Intelligent Santa i meant... aka the unbreakable and otherwise useless minimal set theory - there is one and only one set / designer / creator / what have you - as anyone with any bit of scientific education wld know... now going back to 21C science, whats negentropy may i ask?
That would be one heck of botched engineering job! Why can't He design what goes in the same size as what comes out?
Kj in response to your earlier response. I am going to try this one more time. http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/18/12/3 Note the power of Weinberg's view on the cosmological constant. And, Susskind's request that his statement "the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable" will not appear out of context. That context being that he believes the anthropic principle is rendered respectable and design an illusion if like him you speculate there are millions of universes. if you really wish to continue to assert the conclusion of design is unfounded let us debate that physicweb post. Note the author is a professor of theoretical physics. Which I suspect you might take more seriously than wikipedia. Here is the graveman of the article... Susskind believes that it is more than dumb luck that the universe is so accommodating to human beings. "Can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence?" he asks. But does this mean that the religious fundamentalists have won? Must we invoke the existence of a god to account for the gaps in our knowledge? Susskindâs answer is "no" on both counts. As you might have guessed from the bookâs subtitle, he argues that while "the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable", science can nevertheless explain it all. Phew! Thank God for that. The key ingredient in Susskindâs thesis is the "landscape... The clear context is-- if we have only one universe dumb luck does not explain the spectacularly well designed universe but if we have an infinite amount of universes than there is the chance one will be just right so there is no reason to conclude design. that leaves you with two choices at the moment. One universe which looks spectacularly designed... or, infinite unprovable unverifiable, unseen, untested universes, megaversses or landscapes.
the mother of zizzz perhaps but other than that its simply an epiphenomenon of space-time quantumness -> energy/matter/information equivalence -> emergence of ever more complex self-replicating / propagating mechanisms / structures as permitted via photon absorption / emission by the spinfoam DNA... in our tiny part of the smallish observable universe, carbon rocks, seemingly, but so what? a more interesting question imo is "what" will replace man?
Leonard Susskind is firmly on the opposing side of ID. Likewise, he is firmly on the supporting side of global warming theory. Take a look at this book: http://edge.org/documents/archive/edge181.html Here is a direct quote from Susskind: "I suspect there is more at stake than biology textbooks in Kansas. As a longtime observer of the science-government-politics triangle, it looks to me as if there is another hidden agenda: to discredit the legitimate scientific community. A well-respected scientific community can be a major inconvenience if one is trying to ignore global warming, or build unworkable missile-defense systems, or construct multibillion-dollar lasers in the unlikely hope of initiating practicable nuclear fusion." I think you're just very confused. But I commend you for respecting scientists, for once.
the clear context whats the church's position on dark matter plse? dark galaxies? is it or is it not the creator's poop?