Replies

Thank you for your reply!

What would be the point? Creationism isn't about physics, logic or evidence. It's about faith that runs counter to all those. Debate is thus virtually impossible. All that's left is appropriately directed mockery.

I was speaking of mathematics, physics and the intelligent design hypothesis - not creationism. More specifically, I asserted at post 17:

Because we as yet do not have a full explanation for space/time and energy/matter – it is impossible to say that what we presume is randomness (for instance at the quantum level) is actually random in the system.

If you expect me or most of the Lurkers and posters here to give weight to your declaration that the above is "Freshman-level stoned philosophy major hogwash." then please state your case.

For instance, if you believe that science has a full explanation of space/time and energy/matter then please give sources. Or if you believe that it is nevertheless appropriate to declare a thing random when the system in which it is contained is undetermined, then explain your reasoning.

For Lurkers: an example might be the extension of pi. One could select a string of number from the extension and declare it "random". But if one considers the "system" of the calculation of pi it is apparant that the string is highly determined - it would always contain the same numbers in the same positions - and thus the string is not random in the system.

My point was that the system of physical reality is not yet fully understood - both space/time and matter/energy - and thus "randomness" is a false and misleading term (especially in these debates).

If you don't have specific arguments, I shall ignore your declaration.

If you expect me or most of the Lurkers and posters here to give weight to your declaration that the above is "Freshman-level stoned philosophy major hogwash." then please state your case.

The above quote kinda reminds me of what the psalmist had to say about the "fool" -- or nabal, defined as the man who says in his heart, "There is no God" (Ps 14: 1).

Cicero's word for the "fool" is insipiens, a person who is "guilty" of aspernatio rationalis," or contempt for reason.

Really, Alamo-Girl, to say of you that your well-reasoned, well-sourced, and perceptive analyses are "Freshman-level stoned philosophy major hogwash" betrays the ignorance of the speaker.

Forgive me for being so blunt. But I am sick of polemics like this.

> I was speaking of mathematics, physics and the intelligent design hypothesis - not creationism.

And the difference between ID and Creationism... is?

> if you believe that science has a full explanation of space/time and energy/matter then please give sources.

Irrelevant. The fact that quantum vacuum fluctuaions and the like do not have good explanations does nto give the slightest bit of credence to the notion that randomness is actually the expression of the desire of some super-being.