Intelligent Design: Scientific FACT

[sourcecodewizard]

I may be misunderstanding the original poster’s analogy, but is he suggesting that the odds of intelligence are so low that it couldn’t happen by chance? Therefore God?

Therefore designed by intelligence, yes.
The exact same way that a person winning 1000 lottos also could not happen by chance but must have had intelligence guiding the outcome even if we have no evidence of how it happened. We do not need to see the intelligence to know that it is involved because of the probability of occurrence.

[Calilasseia]

@sourcecodewizard

Ladies and gentlemen,
If any of you are interested in someone that actually has something legitimate to say then go look at how Calilasseia responded. This Sheldon guy is a complete phony so don’t listen to anything he has to say.

Actually, Sheldon has one of the more substantial reputations here. But somehow several here anticipated this sort of comment from you.

@sourcecodewizard

Our little blue butterfly is what I affectionately refer to as a Atheist fanatic ninja robot lawyer.

In other words, you never bothered to address any of the substance I provided. Quelle surprise.

@sourcecodewizard

Sure there is plenty of expected, knee jerk putdowns but hate the game not the player is what I always say. Besides, I have no problem skipping over a few bits here and there to get to someone who actually has something to say, unlike Sheldon who just blathers nonsense to get attention.

This is going downhill fast …

[quote=“sourcecodewizard, post:19, topic:5846, full:true”]
I have read every reply to my post and the only one that has any value at all is from Calilasseia. Go read the post because that is how the real players play this game. Yes the first paragraph is complete garbage as is the last paragraph. But the two paragraphs in between contain an actual argument that is exactly correct.[/quote]

Oh really? Adding pretension to your list of failings?

@sourcecodewizard

Want more?
Then go read my response to blue butterfly.
And please ignore this complete fake trying to get attention because all it does is lead to nowhere.

Oh this is going to be fun. Let’s see if your output lives up to your hype.

[Kevin_Levites]

@sourcecodewizard

Therefore designed by intelligence, yes.
The exact same way that a person winning 1000 lottos also could not happen by chance but must have had intelligence guiding the outcome even if we have no evidence of how it happened.

I understand the basics of your arguments, and thank you for the clarification.

This idea comes from a misunderstanding of how statistics work.

A simpler way of understanding how stats work, consider the puddle analogy that was suggested by Douglas Adams.

Basically, all puddles in the world have different shapes that are–in their own way–as unique as snowflakes.

So, if the water in a puddle was suddenly able to think, it might believe that its existence is a result of devine providence because it fits its hole so precisely.

Life is like this.

Another way of looking at this is to consider rock candy.

Sugar molecules dissolved in boiling water are oriented any which way at random, yet when we shut off the stove and put a wooden stick in the water, sugar crystalizes into nice, neat, orderly, reapeating rows on the stick. If the molecules were to randomly deposit themselves on the stick, we would have a form of sugar that is more like glass than a crystal.

To expect each sugar molecule to deposit–at random–onto the stick and expect the orderly rows of molecules in a crystaline arrangement would, indeed, be so statistically remote that we can say that rock candy is–in fact–realistically impossible.

So why do we have rock candy?

This has to do with the laws of cemistry and physics, and similar laws dictate biology and intelligence. Intelligence seems unlikely because this argument does not consider physical laws in their proper context.

If your next argument is to say that God must have created these laws, then we have ask what created God?

If God has always existed, then why not save a step and decide that these laws have always existed? To require that God created the laws yet not require that something created God is a double standard . . . or a form of hipocrasy.

[CyberLN]

@sourcecodewizard

This Sheldon guy is a complete phony so don’t listen to anything he has to say.

You are a guest in this house. As such, you are welcome to address what a poster says. You can disagree or say their ideas are crap, however, you are not welcome to cast aspersions on the character of someone.

Consider this a warning.

[Sheldon]

@sourcecodewizard

The proof is complete as it is written.

That’s a lie…

@sourcecodewizard

Historically, when people look back, they will stand in disbelief at how so many intelligent people of science could be so objectively, provably incorrect.

Rhetorical gibberish?

@sourcecodewizard

No offense, but this proof was not written for the lay person to understand.

It’s not a proof, and it was written precisely to deceive people who have no grasp, nor interest in, probability theory.

@sourcecodewizard

It was written for the serious, hard-core players who sit at the grown up table where the only thing that matters is statistics expressed through mathematics related to physical reality through science.

Oh dear, it can’t be healthy for a man my age to laugh this hard.

@sourcecodewizard

Those people will understand exactly what I am saying.

Delusionally biased, and ill-informed people, yes.

@Nyarlathotep

So we just have to take your word on the probabilities, and you think that is a proof?

I am dubious he knows what the word means in this context.

@sourcecodewizard

This Sheldon guy is a complete phony so don’t listen to anything he has to say.

Ad hominem fallacy.

@sourcecodewizard

knee jerk putdowns

@sourcecodewizard

unlike Sheldon who just blathers nonsense to get attention.

Irony overload…

@sourcecodewizard

I may be misunderstanding the original poster’s analogy, but is he suggesting that the odds of intelligence are so low that it couldn’t happen by chance? Therefore God?

Therefore designed by intelligence, yes.

This is record I think, since it uses an argument from personal incredulity fallacy, a false dichotomy fallacy, and an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and all in a single sentence, impressive in its own way I suppose.

@sourcecodewizard

We do not need to see the intelligence to know that it is involved because of the probability of occurrence.

Since you cannot objectively demonstrate any deity is possible, it follows that you can’t make any mathematical predictions about it’s probability…

[sourcecodewizard]

Calilasseia,
Thanks for replying, you are the best one by far and I told Sheldon so. In fact, yours was the only reply indicating any level of understanding of the material and it’s importance. It’s kind of lonely up here in the places that very few people actually understand so it’s great to have some company even if we disagree.

My writing is going longer than expected but I did want to drop a note so everyone would know that I am actively engaged in my reply. With no easy place to chop it at this point, I will have to finish it tomorrow.
I expect it to be worth the wait.

SourceCodeWizard

[Tin-Man]

Ow… Got a couple of paragraphs into the OP and noticed I was starting to lose IQ points at an alarming rate. Had to stop reading before it was too late. With any luck, I will somehow be able to recover a few of those IQ points over time. Meanwhile, anybody got a couple of aspirin to spare?

[Cognostic]

@sourcecodewizard

odds of a specific

How do you calculate odds, with only one universe? So if the probability is 10% or 0.10 , then the odds are 0.1/0.9 or ‘1 to 9’ or 0.111. Divide the odds by one plus the odds to convert from odds to a probability. 1/1 = 1. My math is solid. There is a universe and it does exist.

Probability of God 36,000 / 0 = There is no probability at all for a god to exist. There has never been an instance of a valid and verifiable god.

The probability of intelligent design (from a god thing) creating this universe - 1/0 = 0. I’m fairly certain my math is sound. I don’t need a swimming pool analogy. Are you making things more complex than they need to be? (Just asking.)

[Sheldon]

Still waiting for any scientific fact that remotely evidences “intelligent design”. So far nada…Just checked every major global news network, including the Catholic Herald, they all seem unaware of this paradigm shifting event, whatever can this all mean…

[sourcecodewizard]

In other words, you never bothered to address any of the substance I provided. Quelle surprise.

Oh little blue butterfly and you were doing so well with your original response and now you are circling the drain just like the rest of the crowd. Well, behavior is contagious so it’s hardly surprising.

Just because I have not resounded YET does not mean that I don’t have a response. Yes, yes. I have a response but I am in no hurry because I’m the guy who has the math and as blue butterfly and I both know, whoever has the math wins.

Enjoy it while you can because, yes, I’ve got a response for you.

[sourcecodewizard]

You going in circles using the same knee jerk arguments that do not apply.

You are provably incorrect and might want to go revisit your argument.

[sourcecodewizard]

The actual numeric values are not particularly important the same way the the exact value for the number of atoms in the universe is not typically important. What is important is the size of the numbers. The number of atoms in the Universe is conservatively estimated at a number with less than 100 digits.

Go look at the number of different images possible on a 1080p monitor. It is a number with over 14 million digits calculated as 2^24^(1080x1920) since an individual pixel has 2^24 unique color values and 1080x1920 is the monitor resolution.

In a video, each successive image raises adds another layer of compound exponential growth so you should be able to see that the numbers get really big very fast.

Now do the same thing for all the hydrogen atoms spread out over the universe after the big bang. Each hydrogen atom has a set of quantum states that define it and that is our pixel. The number of atoms in the universe is our screen resolution and each Plank time unit the screen by screen presentation of the video.

I don’t need any actual values because the numbers are so huge. Any other than hydrogen atoms sitting in space not interacting is direct evidence of intelligence and causes the probability to become lower than 1. And any probability lower than 1 anywhere in the layers of compound exponential growth gets amplified by each successive layer of exponential growth as we move through time. Understanding the structure of the numbers is all we need to see how sideways these numbers get.

[sourcecodewizard]

There are plenty of other Atheist websites to choose from so pardon me I’m really not too scared. But to do so would mean getting a new login and password and I don’t feel like doing that so I might just stay here but time will tell.

Hey maybe for the sake of anything remotely called fairness you could go back and look the litany of work of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named since I better not even say the guys name or his buddies will come running to his defense no matter the fact that his posts are orders of magnitude worse than anything I have posted.

Hey don’t worry, once my proof gets out I’m sure there will be plenty of people combing through posts as we play the game called “Who’s the biggest hypocrite?”

You give me your little warning and don’t worry, it’s only history and it’s only your name and reputation sitting exposed for the whole world to see.

So enjoy yourself CyberLN and welcome to human history where everyone you ever know will judge you based upon how you presented yourself here.

[sourcecodewizard]

I read your post.
Totally wrong go back to square 1

[Kevin_Levites]

@sourcecodewizard

You going in circles using the same knee jerk arguments that do not apply.

You are provably incorrect and might want to go revisit your argument.

I am always willing to revisit any of my arguments, as I acknowledge that there have been times and occasions when I have been wrong.

How do you disagree with my points in the prior posts?

[sourcecodewizard]

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between validation and revelation.
I know I am correct so I don’t need nor am I in any way looking for validation.

I’m writing all this here to give Atheists a chance to do the right thing once they realize their error.

I’m not the one who is in any hurry at all because you have no idea how much fun it is being factually correct. My work will stand true and you will fight against it as long as you can while the walls close in around you in the form of everyone around you admitting defeat as they realize the power of logical accuracy. Better get a bigger fallacy book, you’re going to need it.

[Sheldon]

@sourcecodewizard

you never bothered to address any of the substance I provided.

Oh the sheer comedy gold, not only have you offered no substance, but you accusing others of not addressing responses is a rib-tickling irony overload if there ever was one.

1. What deity are you claiming exists?
2. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity exists, or is even possible?
3. What objective evidence can you demonstrate any deity created anything ever?

You have failed to demonstrate that any deity is even possible, let alone how probable it is, if you think vapid hubris and hyperbole will fool anyone here, then that is just one more thing you are very wrong about.

@sourcecodewizard

Just because I have not resounded YET does not mean that I don’t have a response. Yes, yes. I have a response but I am in no hurry because I’m the guy who has the math and as blue butterfly and I both know, whoever has the math wins.

If any deity were evidenced by science or mathematics, then yes a small internet chatroom is obviously where one would expect such news to break first, fucking hilarious fair play.

@sourcecodewizard

The actual numeric values are not particularly important

Not to people who favour beliefs in unevidenced superstition no, facts generally are anathema to such subjective religious beliefs.

@sourcecodewizard

Hey don’t worry, once my proof gets out I’m sure there will be plenty of people combing through posts as we play the game called “Who’s the biggest hypocrite?”

Ad hominem fallacy, also I think we can add the word hypocrite, to the growing list of words you don’t understand. Do we have this guy’s email address, it would be nice to touch base once a year, every year, when year after year, his proof fails to materialise…

@sourcecodewizard

I’m not the one who is in any hurry at all because you have no idea how much fun it is being factually correct.

Well it is funny, I will give you that at least.

@sourcecodewizard

Better get a bigger fallacy book, you’re going to need it.

For once I am inclined to agree, as you seem determined to invoke logical fallacies in every post.

“Still waiting for any scientific fact that remotely evidences “intelligent design”.”

…and we’re still waiting, and I suspect wait we shall.

[Sheldon]

@sourcecodewizard

Intelligent Design: Scientific FACT

When can we expect any facts, as that is just a bare assertion?

@sourcecodewizard

This paper

What paper, has it been peer reviewed? There’s nothing on any news channel? I’d expect a scientific paper evidences a deity to generate a fair amount of attention after all?

@sourcecodewizard

I would hope that those now proven to be mathematically and statistically incorrect will have the common decency, morality and professional integrity to vigorously lobby to require this scientific fact to be taught as such in public schools with the same intensity that they spent in fighting on the losing side.

Based on a bare claim, by an anonymous poster, in an internet chatroom? You are funny, I will give you that.

Now:

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that a deity exists or is even possible?

[MrDawn]

@sourcecodewizard

I’m writing all this here to give Atheists a chance to do the right thing once they realize their error.

As soon as you provide objective evidence for a deity instead of presenting unevidenced assertions for your religious theories, then sure. But all you’ve done is give insults and preach your beliefs. Preaching and lecturing in circles is not debating.

[Cognostic]

@sourcecodewizard

I don’t need any actual values because the numbers are so huge.

Then you don’t have any actual ‘probabilities.’ What you have is a vague guess. You don’t even have a possibility as a possibility would need to be demonstrated. You have a fantasy. We might as well be arguing about which starship captain was better Picard or Kirk.