Like I said, you’re way in over your head here. I have some simple advice, don’t believe everything you think.
MATH GOOD
LOGIC GOOD
There that’s a start.
Oh look, it’s this garbage yet again.
No little butterfly, not this time. This time I don’t need any analogies about snowflakes or mountains or puddles of water. No. This time I got the math so I win. I know that I am correct because I have been playing this game for a long time so I can tell the difference. And that is what makes this so much fun.
BTW, I made an error in my definition of intelligence it should actually be Intelligence = 1 - [rest of it] to be compatible with the description in text. I couldn’t decide either way but the original equation is the correct one.
“Intelligent design” is a fraudulent concoction conjured up iby American corporate creationists, in a failed attempt to push fundamentalist Christian religious mythology into American science classes in violation of the Establishment Clause, and was exposed as such at the Dover Trial. And, as a corollary of that origin, employs all the usual duplicitous elisions and fabrications that I covered in depth in this thread specifically devoted to the duplicity inherent in “design” apologetics, which at bottom, is all that “design” fetishists have to offer – apologetics.
A rose by any other name…Kind of a weak lead but I get how difficult it must be to present any actual argument when all the facts are against you.
Keep on beating that strawman Calilasseia. The strawman that doesn’t know math. Because, as we both well know, having the math is the only thing that matters. And, again I got the math.
For anyone who is interested, being statistically accurate is everything in this little game we play and this has nothing to do with anyone’s opinion, oh no no no. This has everything to do with statistical fact and since I am correct, I get to throw in the face of our little blue butterfly and any of the other similar butterflies any time I want to and all the butterflys get to do is take it. Over and over, any time I want. And BTW William Dembski is indeed a very nice name…for a strawman.
+Poem Start+
I like to name my most important strawmen when they die
No quoting strawmans dying words, I simply say Blue Butterfly
-Poem End-
Indeed, I’ve never encountered a mythology fanboy who understands what steps are required to be taken, and what results are required to be obtained successfully, in order to convert the “design” assertion into something other than a product of the rectal passage. But, even if these steps were successfully undertaken, those steps would not provide any clues whatsoever to the nature of whatever “designer” was responsible - possible the only piece of “intelligent design” propaganda that bears some connection to reality.
But, even if these steps were successfully undertaken…
There we go, now the reality is starting to set in. Blue butterfly is actually acknowledging that it is even possible since now I have the math. Not only that but I’ve shown the math and even a little blue butterfly understands how important it is to have a lot of compound exponential growth at your disposal to drive a tiny probability. Yep, time to jump this sinking ship and go to plan B. Plan B goes like this. “Yes the Universe is provably designed by HHHIIIIIIGGGHHHH intelligence because we now have an actual way to quantify this stuff and the numbers are nuts. But, not your Christian God because we don’t like it. Watch:”
…those steps would not provide any clues whatsoever to the nature of whatever “designer” was responsible
Indeed, no matter how successfully those steps were performed, and “design” was detected in relevant classes of entities and interactions, this still wouldn’t validate the existence of a cartoon magic man from a Bronze Age mythology, because that is a separate issue. Furthermore, this separate issue is again totally devoid of genuine evidence supporting the requisite assertion, and no, “my favorite Bronze Age mythology says so” doesn’t count as “evidence” for anything other than the propensity of the authors thereof to make shit up.
Truth be told, our blue butterfly is actually correct.
The OP proves that high intelligence is required to design the Universe but we do not get any additional information about the designer apart from the structure of the universe itself.
I better not say any more lest I offend anyone in their own house since I do respect rules in spirit and action.
You have to see it for yourself
This is your last chance
After this there is no turning back
You take the blue pill the story ends
I walk away, you walk away and you believe whatever you want to believe
You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland
And I’ll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes
Remember, all I’m offering is the truth, nothing more
This is as serious as crucifixion [Rock Star Preachers, fear wrath of Jesus]
More terrible than you can possibly imagine except for the true and faithful Christians who kept the faith strong in the Holy Spirit
BWT, RA says hi to everyone. You know the guy who’s sons taught the guys who built numbers (or sometimes the other way around SETSZHI:), how to build numbers. Yea, That guy. He’s my buddy.
GOD
RA
PEACE
LOVE
SOURCECODEWIZARD
sourcecodewizard@yahoo.com
if you dare to hear truth
Well i for one cannot wait to see Sourcecodewizard win the Nobel prize for finally proving intelligent design… because after all, he has “the math!”
Is it tragic that i’ve gebuinely seen charlatans like Ken Ham make better arguements?!
Bloody Nora.
But no, rather then seeing this all documented, tested, proven etc… within the cofines of peer review, lets just take his work and email him on his yahoo account to learn the truth!!!
I think id be better off taking house party tips from P Diddy.
1 Like
Indeed, but until you stop making irrational fallacious arguments, your invocation of logic will remain empty rhetoric.
Ffs start using the quote function, all you need to do is highlight the text you want to respond to, and a quote icon appears, click on it, simple as…you’re not even putting the text you’re assigning to others in quotes ffs.
I generally eschew unnecessary metaphors, but when someone is struggling to understand a point they can help, so yes you do need them.
This remains a bare assertion, until you link a peer reviewed paper supporting your assertions, and it is acknowledge by a global scientific consensus, it is a risible claim, the kind of hubris one expects from ill-informed teenagers.
You have not presented a single fact that objectively evidences a deity, all anyone need do is read through this, and your other woeful thread.
Nice try, but it’s the unevidenced superstitious assumption you’re tacking onto these supposed stats that people are challenging. You have also failed to objectively demonstrate that a deity is possible, so any claims about how probable it is are entirely moot, as your claims are naught but subjective hyperbole.
Please start using the quote function properly, and desist from the unnecessary line breaks, it doesn’t add gravitas to your ludicrous vapid claims, it merely makes them appear even more comical.
Now:
You failed to answer these, again, I think we can all see why.
1 Like
The look on the Pope’s face will be priceless, no doubt. 
Ouch, I’d like to say low blow, but since the facts support your assertion…
I know, do you think he realises how comical such unevidenced hubris is? If not I might start to feel a little sad for him.
1 Like
Ham did at least show pictures…
1 Like
I’m guessing it helps him understand, were they in crayon?
1 Like
If intelligent design were true then why do we have so many unintelligent people? Shoddy design, badly written specs, lack of resources/funds?
2 Likes
Sorry, but that is a false dichotomy fallacy. It leaped out like somebody dragging their nails down a blackboard.
This is a better avenue, for example if humans are the reason a deity created “everything”, why are we so poorly designed? However a far better question is why this deity sat idly for 13.7 billion years after causing the big bang? Or why did this deity then sit idly by for 9.1 billion years before forming our solar system? Or why did this deity sit idly by for almost 4.6 billion years, before using evolution to produce one species of ape (humans) just 200k years ago. It gets worse when you examine the creation myths of Abrahamic religions, as they can’t even get the most basic chronological facts right.
Why did it need evolution at all come to that? Why the hundreds of millions of years tinkering with dinosaur DNA? Why if we are the main show, does all the objective evidence demonstrate we are simply one very recent species of evolved great apes? It doesn’t ring true, does it?
The moment you said that, I knew you were talking bollocks!
UK Atheist
6 Likes
I keep hoping you’ll post it like I requested.
Intelligence is dimensionless?
3 Likes
What “math” are you fucking talking about? You can’t prove the existence of a god/gods using numbers, what does that prove?
Which mathematical equation proves that a god exists? Let’s see your work.
2 Likes
@sourcecodewizard, you have asserted several times that you have the math to establish your stance as fact. You have also been requested to provide it on numerous occasions.
You need to pony up. Otherwise, it will appear that you are simply trolling. Trolling is not allowed and results in banishment. Understand?
6 Likes
It’s in the bag mun, are you trying to claim his bag is empty? Prove it… 
No no no…he’s trying to explain how smart he is, and we’re all too “unsmart” to understand mun… 
Fuck me, the maths man, the maths, that’s what he’s talking about, does that clear it up??? 
Does anyone hear that? It’s a creaking sound, like a trap door under too much pressure…or some very thin ice, cracking under someone’s feet… Luckily the empty apologist’s bag isn’t going to weight anything…
1 Like
I believe his “math” comes from his misunderstanding of how probability works.
I used my example with sugar molecules and rock candy to try and illustrate this, but I obviously failed.
Could you guys see the difference between a crystaline form of sugar and an amorphous form of sugar in the example that I gave?
Was I being too esoteric?
1 Like
He needs to grasp what possibility means first.
No, your point made sense, and I am pretty certain he has no interest in understanding how irrational and vapid his claims are, if indeed he doesn’t already know.
No, you were addressing someone whose posts suggest has no interest in objective reality, or honest debate.
2 Likes
Thank you very much for the validation.
I have problems communicating because of my autism, and I sometimes wonder if my communication issues carry over into my writing.
Nothing “Needed evolution to come to that?” Evolution is an animal or plant getting an incidental tweak to a gene that gives it a slight advantage over the others of its kind. If it lives to reproduce it may past that gene along, but it’s equally possible it won’t, flip of the coin area there. If the heirs with that gene survive to reproduce they’ll pass it along if the DNA division is in that item’s favor. Otherwise it’s a dead end for that particular animal and it becomes on of the also-ran.
2 Likes
I just love this argument. “The numbers are too big to matter. So, it is probable.” I’m going to start using this in my own arguments. “There are just too many facts to mention, so I am right.” This is one of the top theistic claims ever!
5 Likes