Posted: Jan 22, 2011 12:35 pm
by Darkchilde
Царь Славян wrote:
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?

That there is a designer god. ID is hiding the word god behind the word designer, but everyone knows that it is just smokescreen.

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

Well then., why don't you go on a terrace 10 storeys up and jump down and try to fly like Superman. It is a certain bet that you will end up as soup on the pavement... The human body does not have the physical characteristics needed for flight.

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

Wrong. We have made antimatter, in fact an anti-hydrogen atom, and by your logic since people made that then the universe is fine-tuned to have antimatter atoms as well. Can you see the fault in your argument? The fact that the Universe supports life, just means that it has the capability given certain conditions to have life. If the universe was fine-tuned, then life would be everywhere, even on the Sun or on Jupiter, or on Mars. Is there such evidence? No, not at all.

That the universe is fine-tuned for life is another religious belief. In fact, every scientist that believes the fine-tuning argument, is some kind of theist/deist. And it is just belief and nothing more.

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

On the contrary, it is you who does not get science. Even the most strange hypothesis have had a basis in some observed phenomenon or something. Can you think of any hypothesis that is not based on some phenomenon, on some data, on a belief, on something? In order for a new hypothesis to arise, there is always something in the back that made people think of it. Even creationism as a hypothesis, has its basis on the Bible, even though we know that it is a totally failed hypothesis. And by creationism, I include ID.

Царь Славян wrote:
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?

The Rosetta stone, though, has specific writing on it. Hieroglyphics, and a lot more, which could be compared with other writings, ways that it was done, and other similar examples. Do not confuse man-made artifacts with your proposed "design". They are different, in the fact that while the Rosetta stone was man-made, your design hypothesis fails in all its tests.

Царь Славян wrote:

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.

Oh, and are you a physicist? The Copenhagen interpretation does not break the laws of causality. And I showed you superposition in a big object. Now, if you do not want to accept the evidence, I cannot help you. Look up Feynman path integrals as well. True there is still a lot to research, and learn, but not by postulating a designer hypothesis which is not falsifiable. A

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

Well, evidence, paper and go get the Nobel prize then. Since you are smarter than all those physicists like Niels Bohr, Paul Dirac, etc. go and do some proper research and publish your results. I will be waiting for you to get the Nobel prize by showing that the Copenhagen interpretation is illogical, and not science. Go, then, and do not lose time with atheists that "don't get" science. Since you get science, go and do science.

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

Yeah, Czar, you convinced me. I now bow down to your superior intellect. :P

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

Maths and logic are tools of science mostly. Maths is also science, but it is different in that you can see mathematically even things that do not exist. For example, you can model a fairy's wings mathematically. If you would spent a bit more actually learning about the Copenhagen interpretation, you would see that it is not illogical as such. it is where the equations and data has led us. What is your explanation of the double slit experiment then? Both the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation explain what happens very well.

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

When there is evidence of such intelligence. But ID has failed in that, and other people have explained it to you.

Царь Славян wrote:
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?

:what: :whine: :whine: :whine: :whine: :what: :what: :what: :what: :whine: :whine: :whine:

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

Other people have tried to educate you on this point, but it seems that you are set in your beliefs and no matter what the evidence you will not accept it. One question; what would make you accept the fact that ID is not science, and that there is no designer?

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

Well, we do know evolution's intentions if I may call that. Survival of a species. A species to survive, even in a changing environment.

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

I will get to that in point 2.

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

Fucking hell! how many times are people going to show you the evidence that the flagellum and the eye are not designed?

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

If he is making jokes or has a sense of humour, then he is a sadistic bastard, having fun at the expense of other people's pain. Have you ever lost someone to cancer? have you heard them cry out in pain, even with the maximum dose of morphine? Has your heart been broken in a thousand pieces by listening to such cries? And knowing that you fucking can do absolutely nothing to help? Is that your fucking designer? A sadistic bastard? is that whom you worship? Someone who laughs when others are in pain?

Царь Славян wrote:
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.

You don't know his intent because your designer does not exist. You believe in a failed hypothesis, one without a shred of evidence.