The watchmaker

[SkepticThinker]

But why do you keep implying that people are ignorant and stupid? It's not about evolution and natural selection. It's not about young earth fundamentalism. It's about contemplation of the complexity of whole universe.

It's about cause, not mechanism. Perhaps you should read that sentence again. And the person who started 'the thread' was Albert Einstein.

Would you say that complex things require a designer?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Everyone's going on about a beach and deliberately wilfully ignoring Einstein's original statement (already posted twice above) which is the origin of the watchmaker debate and makes no mention of a beach.

Have you not read the OP?

 

[ERLOS]

Just one latest argument
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

Another latest argument, it seems cosmologists / astrophysicsts have located about 50% of the missing matter
https://www.theguardian.com/science...nd-half-of-the-missing-matter-in-the-universe

27% of the universe is dark matter, so if they've found half of that, it will help.

69% is still in dark energy: the anti-gravity energy causing the universe to expand, so ...

I hope they do find it, really I do. But they still won't know what ENERGY is?

 

[ChristineM]

'God doesn't play dice with thd universe.'
He didn't say that?

His 'clockmaker' quote is a fake?

'God doesn't play dice with thd universe.'
He didn't say that?

His 'clockmaker' quote is a fake?

Did i say that? Or are you grasping at vacuum?

Einstein is wildly misrepresented over his use of the quote and cleared it up so he would not be misrepresented with his quote
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
http://www.businessinsider.com/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015-11

 

[ChristineM]

27% of the universe is dark matter, so if they've found half of that, it will help.

69% is still in dark energy: the anti-gravity energy causing the universe to expand, so ...

I hope they do find it, really I do. But they still won't know what ENERGY is?

And your problem with not knowing something is what?

 

[ERLOS]

Did i say that? Or are you grasping at vacuum?

Einstein is wildly misrepresented over his use of the quote and cleared it up so he would not be misrepresented with his quote
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
http://www.businessinsider.com/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015-11

I know what he meant by it. He was wrong too, by the way: God does.

I'm not disputing what you've hastily googled up to support your own agenda. I'm looking for the truth here. Sounds like he said a lot of contradictory things?

 

[ERLOS]

And your problem with not knowing something is what?

Nothing, unless someone thinks they can google up all the answers in a few seconds, to make ignorant fools of people like me, lol.

Please read this again:

Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

27% of the universe is dark matter, so if they've found half of that, it will help.

69% is still in dark energy: the anti-gravity energy causing the universe to expand, so ...

I hope they do find it, really I do. But they still won't know what ENERGY is?

Energy is God, of course.

Everything we don't have a good understanding of is "God." Because of this, God is always shrinking, always becoming less relevant.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

[ChristineM]

The first is a paper submitted to Cornell University. No reviews. Doesn't mean a thing. All sorts of people post all sorts of papers. I can submit one. Doesn't mean anything at all.

The second is still out there. Let's wait and see ...

If they have, good, well done.

Like all other hypothesis of how the universe came about it is mathematically sound. But that was not the point, the point was that "latest arguments" are 10 a penny and tomorrow at no longer "latest"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sounds like he said a lot of contradictory things?

And what if he did? People can change their minds over a whole lifetime.

 

[ChristineM]

Energy is God, of course.

Everything we don't have a good understanding of is "God." Because of this, God is always shrinking, always becoming less relevant.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

I dont know so god. Its a common call among those unwilling to admit they dont know

 

[ChristineM]

Nothing, unless someone thinks they can google up all the answers in a few seconds, to make ignorant fools of people like me, lol.

Please read this again:

Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.

People like you??? Oh the ergotism drips.

Once again, misrepresentation. Einstein made his views on god clear, as i showed in one of my earlier posts.

 

[ERLOS]

And what if he did? People can change their minds over a whole lifetime.

Wow! THANK YOU!

 

[ChristineM]

I know what he meant by it. He was wrong too, by the way: God does.

I'm not disputing what you've hastily googled up to support your own agenda. I'm looking for the truth here. Sounds like he said a lot of contradictory things?

How pathetic, how the ad hom flows, you want to insult people then read the forum rules.

As for contradictory things, only if you dont understand Einstein.

 

[ERLOS]

People like you??? Oh the ergotism drips.

Once again, misrepresentation. Einstein made his views on god clear, as i showed in one of my earlier posts.

Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds

Third time, lady. Insulting me won't change it.

 

[ERLOS]

Like all other hypothesis of how the universe came about it is mathematically sound. But that was not the point, the point was that "latest arguments" are 10 a penny and tomorrow at no longer "latest"

M theory is mathematically sound. But no more proveable than is God. Until they confirm supersymetry. And we'll probably have a colony somewhere in Alpha Centauri by the time they admit it's failed.

I'm thinking this is an M Theory paper? Sorry if I'm wrong?

 

[ERLOS]

Energy is God, of course...

Energy is the universe. A neutron star. A blade of grass. So yes, probably energy is God -- or whatever word anyone likes to use: Tao, the Holy Spirit, whatever. Yes. You're right. Energy probably IS God. Or as close as our direct perception of God can come.

 

[ChristineM]

Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds

Third time, lady. Insulting me won't change it.

You started the insults, you dont like the replies then you know the answer dont you.

And cherry picking wont help you understand Einstein any more

 

[ChristineM]

M theory is mathematically sound. But no more proveable than is God. Until they confirm supersymetry. And we'll probably have a colony somewhere in Alpha Centauri by the time they admit it's failed.

I'm thinking this is an M Theory paper? Sorry if I'm wrong?

Yes you are wrong

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm obviously a little late to the party, but the thing that's always stood out to me about ID creationism's watchmaker argument is that at its heart, it's just an analogy. It seems ID creationists can only argue for "design" by appealing to analogies, which is most likely because they cannot point to something in the biological world that they've determined to be "designed" and outline the method they employed to make that determination.

If ID creationists could argue directly they would. The fact that they don't is a good indication that they can't.