Posted: Jan 22, 2011 11:06 am
by Царь Славян
ID = creationism. You both infer design and purpose because of your religious beliefs, not because it is scientific. So, by being an ID proponent, you are admittedly a creationist.
Based on what belief did I infer design?

Because people cannot fly like Superman! It is even dangerous to try.
How do you know they can't?

Ah, the fine-tuning argument. How many times has this been refuted? And still you push that one? The universe is not fine tuned for life. There is no evidence of fine tuning.
Universe supports life, therefore it's fine tuned for life to exist.

No, it is not a good starting position. Because there is no evidence for design. You do not postulate out of your arse. You postulate because you have some initial evidence, something that made you think of it. If you postulate design, you have to postulate a designer, you have to have some evidence of such an entity, a specific definition. You don't. There is no evidence for design or a designer.
You don't get science much, now do you? A starting point is a hypothesis. You don't need evidence to form a hypothesis. You need evidence to make a hypothesis into a theory. And since we can describe many features of the universe as engineerd, a design hypothesis is a good starting point.

For which you need a designer. Evidence please. As I said, you have absolutely no fucking evidence. Just a failed hypothesis.
No, I don't need a designer. Do you need a designer to infer that the Rosetta stone was designed?

Okay, I don't even know where to start on the above. There is no logical flaw in either one of the interpretations.
Yes there is. I explained it to you. Copenhagen interpretation breaks the law of causality, therefore it's illogical.

Both can explain and predict various phenomena quite well.
My explanation is that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe 5 minutes ago in this very state including all our memories of past events. Can you name one observation that my explanation does not explain? No, you can't. But that explanation is not science, because it's unreasonable. And Copenhagen interpretatin is illogical, thus not science also.

Until we have more data to analyze and understand, both of the above interpretation stand.
None of them stand. One is illogical, the other has no evidence.

You do not understand science. Reading religious books and ID books is not going to help you understand reality.
No, you don't understand science. Reading Origin of species all day every day doesn't make you smart, or know science. Believen you came from a rock doesn't make you know science either.

Science presupposes math and logic to be true. If any hypothesis violates any of those two, it also scientifically invalid. That includes Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

Have you observed your designer, design and create the universe?
We don't need to. We observed what intelligence can do. Therefore, we can invoke intelligence in science as an explanation.

The difference being, that we have evidence for teh multiple worlds interpretation. And, the two books above are written by real scientists, and not ID crackpots.
What evidence?

Really? How do you infer design form the eye? I know that other members more qualified in biology than I am, have already educated you in the above. However you refuse to see it. Oh, and I have read a couple of papers on organisms that have only a photosensitive cell as "eyes".
I just told you. We have no natural laws to account for the eye. The eye can be described as a photo sensitive lense, and it's too improbable to have come about by chance. Thus we can reasonably infer design.

So, if your designer exists, he definitely is an incompetent fool. So, you agree on that point with me.
No, becasue I don't know his intentions.

Yes, when there is evidence for design. So, since humans by your own admission are "badly designed" then your supposed designer is an incompetent fool.
Or he has a good sense of humor.

1. There is no evidence for design, just your belief for it. And I am quoting you here:
There isn't any actual evidence that the whole universe was designed. I would never say that there is, since we have no method to show us that. But there are evidence for design in other places, like the flagellum.

2. If there is a designer, he has badly designed humans, therefore he is an incompetent fool.
Or he is making jokes.

Am I right or am I right?
Could very well be, but I don't know the designer's intent, so I can't say.