3. well it looks designed but there are really billions of universes so we have no indicatioin that we have a designer. This does not follow. "Billions" does not rule out a designer any more than billions of cells in your body rule out a design. Perhaps you will be able to contort the contents of a dictionary or thesaurus to insert the word "know" into those sentences of yours. There are more "choices" than the ones given which know at least as much and have substantial evidence of a lot more knowledge than the ones you offered. You simply choose to ignore the parts which don't fit what you "know".
Do you believe in ghosts, Z? I'm not being facetious, this is a serious question. Another outright lie from Z. The theory of ID was is conceived by, endorsed by and in the best interest of Christians. ID is creationism rebranded It is not surprising that Z tries to lie about this, claiming that ID does not imply the existence of God. It just shows that the ID'ers know that they have to distance themselves from their own beliefs. It must be terrible for them (well, all of them but Z) to have to disavow their most cherished beliefs.
The materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck. And that position is as anti-science and anti-intellectual as one can get. Most anti-IDists don't even attempt to understand what ID really is. And when their anti-ID reality is exposed (the sheer-dumb-luck scenario), live in denial and try to divert attention from that fact. According to Monad AND Mayr, even in natural selection, chance plays an important role. Read "What Evolution Is" page 281 comment #22 (Mayr). The Nobel Prize winning Jacques Monad says: "CHANCE ALONE, is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation." You may disagree with me. But if you are going to disagree with them you had better have some pretty solid data that supports your claim. Ya see, as Monad and Mayr point out, chance plays an important role in selection. Which would be obvious to those who have ever studied populations in the field. IOW the materialistic alternative is sheer-dumb-luck through and through- from the origins of the universe and the laws that govern it, to the formation of galaxies and our solar sytem. And finally to the origin of life and then its subsequent diversity. Just as Monad and Mayr told us years ago.
if u understood randomness, u'd see its random... like, totally... yr choice to call that dumb luck... all it shows is how dumb u are
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Read Monod's quote again and show me where he mentions randomness. He invokes chance as the source of every innovation in the biosphere. Chance is not a cause.
congrats on getting the spelling right after so many attempts... doesn't look like you are too familiar with monod and his work hey teleo... so, u've got a quote from monod with the word 'chance' in it... so what? what does that change to what i am saying? let me know if anything u don't understand
Games of chance are for those who don't know the outcome... "God does not play dice with the universe." -- Albert Einstein --
yeah, the old man never quite made his peace with quantum mechanics did he... too bad... but since there is no god... quick question: why shld any hypothetical god have to be construed has having designed the universe, man etc, as opposed to, say, giving man the wisdom, and the strength to find "the way" and rise above all of nature's random obstacles?? not that i want to help much at all at that stage but... seems to me u guys wld be getting much better results supporting this... all the sacred texts and allegories hold... no make or break contradictions... i mean, why the anal problem with randomness? why do u guys need to believe that randomness = no god whatsoever, no possibility of rich spiritual life?? how does it make nature less extraordinary?? in the same vein, what makes the DI dudes think that randomness leads to moral relativism? morality / moral & social norms is not an issue to be decided by science, nor an issue science is attempting to "settle" in any way... honest question iow, why couldn't the universe, evolution, be random by design?? and our purpose, to conquer it, tame it, transcend it with or against other life-forms we may encounter, engineer etc, as we are building the galactic bridges taking us ever closer to ...?