Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Most recently it's been your mathematical lack of certitude as to whether statues form themselves or not; whether they typically involve any application of intelligence in their formation. Would a picture of a statue assist in giving you a clue? Maybe it is your eloquent system of mathematics that is clueless in identifying intelligence.
Is it a mystery to you whether or not that bridge is a product of human intervention and intelligence?
Good heavens. The guy that built it is standing right in front of it!
Think about the statue scenario very carefully, particularly about the priors and assumptions that you are using. You do not even understand your own argument, so it is unlikely that you will ever understand mine.
Scientists falsify hypotheses and by extension theories, not forces.
In other words, even maggots, leeches, and termites have some positive attributes, which places them ahead of the Democrat leadership.
Your idea that any intelligence in any place at any time demonstrates universal intelligence everywhere at all times is unsupported by any evidence.
Science recognizes gravity is a force. Of course the force itself is unfalsifiable. It is a given. It is not tangible either. That is to say only its effect is manifest to the senses, not its essence. Does that make it by its very nature an "unscientific" object for consideration? No. Science draws inferences from, and describes in much detail, this force by observing its effects.
There is no reason science cannot address or consider the factors or forces that cause matter to become and remain organized while behaving under predictable laws by using a model of intelligent design, for just as the force of gravity cannot be falsified but inferred, so can the operation of an intelligent agent not be falsified but inferred.
Denying intelligent design where matter is organized is like denying the force of gravity when objects are attracted to one another by mass.
"Blah blah blah. You're so smart and I'm so dumb. Blah blah blah. I'm so smart and you're so dumb. Blah blah blah."
That's fairly well been your argument so far. Got anything else?
Since you have not properly expressed my idea I'll have to agree there is no evidence for your idea of my idea other than your idea. Intelligence in one place does not "demonstrate" intelligence everyplace else.
But there is a decent amount of evidence that matter is organized and behaves according to predictable laws, and that intelligence tends to support that kind of activity. There is also decent evidence that everything known to man can be mathematically embraced; that there are constants. This, too, may be understood as evidence of intelligent design, without with no thing would be intelligible in the first place.
Incoherent as ever.
Intelligence in one place does not "demonstrate" intelligence everyplace else.
But there is a decent amount of evidence that matter is organized and behaves according to predictable laws, and that intelligence tends to support that kind of activity.
The incoherence continues. Sometimes intelligence doesn't support "that kind of activity," which may or may not be what you mean, but it's hard to know what you're driving at. Is the activity you're referring to the "behaves" in your sentence?
There is also decent evidence that everything known to man can be mathematically embraced; that there are constants.
She held me in her mathematical embrace. When I tried to balance our equation, she caught me trying to divide by zero. She told me to take a hike. Another constant.
Are you the Fester Chugabrew who's been using his militant ignorance to bludgeon tortoise about mathematical theory?
This, too, may be understood as evidence of intelligent design, without with no thing would be intelligible in the first place.
You understand everything as evidence of intelligent design, which, indeed is why ID is worthless as a scientific theory. And you haven't shown how my summation of your notion is in any way incorrect, to the surprise of no one whatever.
And with this, I think it is time for me to end my long run on FR. It was fun but I have ventures to run, research to finish, classes to teach, and a life to live. More often than not, the time spent posting here is not worth the effort, even if modestly entertaining and occasionally quite enjoyable. I owe beers to many.
As I've updated my profile to reflect, I am moving on. I am a doer rather than a talker, and FR has taken up far too much "doing" time. I'm sure those ever vigilant against atheistic communistic math and science will appreciate the respite as well. I have history to write and an obligation to drag humanity kicking and screaming into the future whether they like it or not.
Cheers!
(lurk mode engaged)
Yes, what you said.
(lurk mode engaged for real now)
Temporarily, I trust. Your input will be missed. Upon what I hope will be your return, try to husband your resources by ignoring trolls.
So then how scientifically strong is the theory of those who understand everything to be evidence of evolution? Besides, there may be some unorganized matter out there that does not behave according to predictable laws, so it is not as if my scientific model is unfalsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified to date. The probabilities are in its favor.
And not to forget that rare transitional "cdesign proponentsists".
;-)
Holy cow! Great job in filling in the play-by-play account. We bandwidth-challenged are forever in your debt.
Really? Then I guess you never heard of "Therapeutic DemocratsTM". You can tie them up and use them as a punching bag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.