Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Frank Apisa,

It's the math. Evolution is not a factor in this discussion, ID could have set that in motion. Now I ask you how that first living microbe came to be. Without the "magic bullet" of natural selection, you have only chance to explain it and the math to support that inexplicable event does not exist.

Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated. Not even close. And please don't trot out that pathetic Miller-Urey experiment that produced some amino acid building blocks. You might as well say that if you find a naturally occurring source of building blocks, New York City would assemble itself given enough time. The simplest living self reproducing organism is way more complicated than that.

0 Replies

Why is Evolution always trotted out in this discussion? Evolution does not explain the origin of life, only how it evolved. RTFB!

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Perhaps you are envisioning yourself (by presenting a CO2 diagram from 1959 to 2005). I don't ignore any data. All the data are taken into consideration. I am showing that because you are falsifying the approximation function by drawing it as a straight line right through the data, without considering weight factors and limit points.

Really? So if I do it exactly the way it is supposed to be done with data from 1959 to 2014 and give directions for everyone else so they can do it then you claim it is wrong.

Care to explain how you do it so we can check your graph?

What weight factors and limit points did I not consider? Please list them.

By the way, you are now referring to it as a polynomial. Does that mean you are admitting you were wrong about your claim it was exponential and increasing 30% per year?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Why your IQ is a 'state secret' - it cannot be that bad?

Look up "red herring." Why is your evidence for your alien/ILF/god-not-g0d thingies such a secret? Real scientists publish their data. You're hiding yours. What physical phenomena are so compelling that you think that's the best explanation for the universe?

4:0

1 Reply

@FBM,

Your tit for tat with Herald will get you nowhere. That's a guarantee.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Really? So if I do it exactly the way it is supposed to be done with data from 1959 to 2014 and give directions for everyone else so they can do it then you claim it is wrong.

O.K. let's put it into another way. You can always find a linear function of approximation of any data, but does there exist any polynomial of higher degree or exponent function with better approximation (minimising better the distance from it to the dots) of the data. If there exist a polynomial of higher degree with better approximation you have to use that, not the straight line that you may like more for the purposes of misrepresentation of the data trend, for example.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your tit for tat with Herald will get you nowhere. That's a guarantee.

I've known that since soon after the beginning. It's cheap entertainment, though. Making wingnuts and denialists and wingnut denialists squirm is kinda fun.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

and wingnut denialists squirm is kinda fun.

squirm ??????????????? You just official made yourself maddening mad, mate!

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

A lot of things in the living matter are too complex and too improbable to have happened by stochastic processes.

What is an example of something too improbable?

Quote:

even the fiercest enemies of the ID of the universe, the so called atheists, cannot deny that they posses intelligence and that their thoughts are not driven by casino mechanics

I bet you will quickly see those that hold an opposing viewpoint denying intelligence of the person with whom an argument is held ;-)
However, when it comes to why we say or do the things that we say or do, the evolutionary model does not stop at the surface of one's skin.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

What is an example of something too improbable?

MACRO EVOLUTION MATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Statistical Impossible

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is statistically impossible (note: improbable would be a more appropriate description as far as the language most statisticians would use when describing odds)? But please, what are the statistical analyses that lead you to this conclusion?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

You're wasting your time. Quahog doesn't believe in anything except the maniacal ravings of David Icke, all science is wrong. Either he's an attention seeker, thick as mince, or both. In any event you'll never be able to dumb down your response sufficiently for him to understand. Life is way too short to waste time on that muppet.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I never heard of David Icke. I quickly found a reference to a person with this name. An excerpt said the following:

Quote:

At the heart of his theories lies the idea that a secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood (including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie) controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian.[2] He further proposes that the Moon is an artificial construct—"probably a hollowed-out planetoid"—from which the reptilians broadcast an "artificial sense of self and the world" that humans mistakenly perceive as reality

Is this the chap?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Oh yes. He's better known over here where he was a leading light in the Green Party until he started claiming to be Jesus and set their electoral ambitions back for another ten years.

What's a real shame is that he's not a bad sports commentator. If he'd stuck to that he'd probably still be working for the BBC.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Has he managed a following? Are there any people that accept him as Jesus?

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

He has got a following, but I don't think his followers think he's Jesus, he's rowed back a bit on that.

The biggest problem is people who come across his videos on youtube who know nothing about him, and believe they've had some sort of epiphany. A2K's Reasoning Logic is a case in point. He got very upset with me when I refused to watch a David Icke video he'd posted.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Faith is an interesting phenomenon. It's also interesting to see when people choose to rely on faith and when they don't.

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Has he managed a following? Are there any people that accept him as Jesus?

To my eternal embarasment, my ex wife became a dedicated follower of Icke and similar hucksters. Had I not seen it myself I would have said no one could be that gullible. But of course many believe I am equally so for believing in a God and I think the same of followers of spectator sports.

Ain't life a kick in the ass...

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It seems perfectly logical (not in the philosophical sense) to develop beliefs about all manner of things. The concept of gullibility doesn't seem terribly useful though. Cowbirds are good at getting cardinals to hatch their eggs. Are cardinals gullible? There have been estimates that more than 2 billion people believe in a god. Are all these people gullible? I think this is just a word used to try and make someone else feel bad. You believe in your God for logical reasons. I just think it can be helpful to occasionally look at the information one uses to know something and see if there might be a better way to determine if what one thinks is true.

Thanks for sharing, Leadfoot.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

thick as mince,

I love it. I shall parade this in future converations.
. Now it must be a good mince. That stuff we see in jars just wont do .

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know