Posted: Jan 22, 2011 2:27 pm
by Царь Славян
That there is a designer god. ID is hiding the word god behind the word designer, but everyone knows that it is just smokescreen.
Feel free to demonstrate that. While you're failing, I'll point you to this article, which is the basis for design inference. Please feel free to point out where is GOD mentioned in this particular paper.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... cation.pdf

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.
I'm not claiming that I can fly, but maybe others can.

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?
Actually no, it's correct. If something like anti-matter can exist in this universe, then yes, teh universe is fine-tuned for that to exist.

The fact that the Universe supports life, just means that it has the capability given certain conditions to have life.
Yes, in other words, fine-tuned for life to exist. I never said fine tuned for life to be EVERYWHERE. Just fine tuned for life to exist in the first place.

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.
Exist, not be everywhere. I said exist.

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.
No, what's a religious belief is that people come from rocks.

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.
Observed phenomena are not the same as evidence. Evidence are observations that support a particular hypothesis.

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.
Answer the question please. Do you need to see someone design the Rosetta stone, to actually infer design of the Rosetta stone?

Oh, and are you a physicist?
Does it matter?

The Copenhagen interpretation does not break the laws of causality.
Yes it does. There is no clear line between cause and effect, and events are calculated probabilistically. It is claimed that we can not know the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. It's either one or the other. And that is because it's indeterminate untill we measure it. Thus there is no standard cause and effect as we know it. Thus, it is illogical.

And I showed you superposition in a big object. Now, if you do not want to accept the evidence, I cannot help you.
The link is currently unavailable.

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
How do you know it's unfalsifiable?

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.
I don't have to do that in order to claim that it's not science. Why should I go through all the trouble just to say what I already know?

Maths and logic are tools of science mostly.
Yes, and also they are a higher abstraction tools than science. And science can not violate neither math nor logic.

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?
The equations of QM are fine. I never said that they are false. It's the Copenhagen interpretation that is false, because it claims that there is no clear line between cause and effect. My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.

Both the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation explain what happens very well.
So does my invisible pink unicorn theory.

When there is evidence of such intelligence. But ID has failed in that, and other people have explained it to you.
Intelligence exists. We don't have to find a particular intelligent agent for every designed artefact we find. If we did, then we would also have to find the person who made the Rosetta stone to infer that it was designed.

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?
That it's not science? You would have to show me that ID is not falsifiable.

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.
Yeeeey! Good for you!

Fucking hell! how many times are people going to show you the evidence that the flagellum and the eye are not designed?
Nobody ever did. Would you be the first?

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?
LOL! Now that's funny! :D

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

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN OR FINE-TUNING. JUST BECAUSE LIFE AROSE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FINE TUNED!
I disagree.