Conservationist

Hacker Weev made it into the New York Times for their recent article on trolling. A self-made man, he trolls to bring realism and eugenics to humankind.

7. On your LiveJournal blog, you claim that "[e]verything is clearly algorithmically designed." What is the relation between the mathematical language of a computer and the organization of the universe? What is the role of a hacker in this relation?

If divine creation doesn't appear obvious to you, there's really nothing I can say to convince or show you. It is either truth to you, or it isn't. The role of the hacker archetype is of his own decision, but ideally it is to bring the universe more in line with the goals of the creator. We all have a choice every day of our lives to live morally or live under the shadow of evil.

Weev interview

Could bring a new wrinkle to the Intelligent Design versus Soulless Universe debate.

__________________
Beyond Modern Society / Transcendentalism / Pan-Nationalism

Lachean

I think this should be in the Religion & Philosophy section. Also the "if you don't already agree I cannot convince you" is about the worst, most unconvincing, and most closed minded argument I've ever heard.

There is no such thing as "truth to you" something is either true or it is not, and either you have good convincing reasons for what you beleive or you do not.

Perhaps if he made some kind of algorithmic comparison his argument wouldn't be a blatant baseless assertion. Besides, this guy believes in evolution.

__________________
"Men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality. " - Ayn Rand

DarkWizard12

ITs quit amazing really, to read some of the most extreme, vocal, and rather flamboyant atheists argue against a creator saying "A creator? o rly? Only the unintelligent and illogical believe in that lolz!" Like its logical to think that we human beings arrived at this point of time through, umm what, luck? luck? HaHa! riiight . The idea of a creator, though definitaly not as "intelligently discussed" is much much more appealing and understood than the brainy "luck theory", and definitly not as boring.(For god sakes every documentary I've seen on atheism or evolution makes me want to fall asleep!)

Lachean

1. Evolution by natural selection isn't a matter of luck or chance, a common misconception.
2. Boring /= false, and you've obviously never watched any Carl Sagan or Dawkins.
3. Atheism /= evolution
4. The theory of evolution is as confirmed as the theory that we orbit our sun, do you have ANYTHING to support your logically fallacious and unscientific "creator" argument?

If you claim that natural selection is illogical, then what is the fallacy? How is it wrong? Just how is a "creator" nonexplanation "more appealing and understood?"

DarkWizard12

It isn't? Ok, you have me officially convinced.
Are you suggesting that Sagan and Dawkins are "extreme, vocal, and rather flamboyant atheists" which were the only people I were talking about?
I know that. WHy did you think I used "or"?
So you believe evolution brought the beginnings of the universe? If not, its not the theory I'm talking about as of the moment.

Ok, I need to know this, which theory are we discussing? The "begining of the universe" one or, "the monkey goes ape over pizza instead of bananas?

Lachean

How would you like to be convinced, I can write it out for you, or provide you with videos from more concise biologists; but you'd probably regard all of that as "boring" anyways.

No, I'm suggesting that you haven't watched them since you said that everyone you have watched was boring; and they are most definately not.

Did you or did you not say "Like its logical to think that we human beings arrived at this point of time through, umm what, luck?" and then you referred to a "luck theory."

Are you honestly going to pretend like you weren't talking about evolution?

You made direct references to evolution and human life on this earth, and then you claim you weren't talking about evolution, so why don't you tell me what theory you're talking about, and why you regard it as false.

Evolution or the big bang, either way they're valid and supported theories. Oh and referring to evolution as "the monkey goes ape over pizza instead of bananas" and calling it a luck theory only informs me further that you haven't been properly educated on evolution.

DarkWizard12

*ahem*

The beginning of the universe.

I would however, like to talk about evolution later on, but first, the very very beginnings of the universe come first. The big bang theory or, whatever theory you use.

So, you say its not luck, well....I know a site that begs to differ: Intelligent Design of the Cosmos: A Mathematical Proof accourding to math, the chances of the whole universe being the universe as we know it is 10^92.
If that's not luck...

Lachean

Wow, a website on geocities, I am already underwhelmed.

1. I never said that the big bang wasn't luck, I said that evolution was not luck or random chance. I think the term doesn't even apply to the big bang, nor does "beginning" given that this is when time began, and nothing could have preceded it (chronologically speaking)

2. This is hardly a valid source, and they make the common false dichotomy between "chance" and "design" as if design were the only alternative in explaining how life could come to exist.

Its obviously a biased pro-ID site, since one of its premises is, "while the chance of intelligent design should reasonably be considered to be virtually 100% proven."

Heck one of its sources is, "Reasons to Believe - with Dr. Hugh Ross - Showing how breakthrough discoveries in the sciences confirm Intelligent Design and enhance the scientific case for the God of the Bible. "

What a joke... what else you got?

DarkWizard12

*yawn* guess you want more sites. So, here we go. Although, I will say, I didn't see that it was geocities.

In fact, to be honest, this site defended the theory rather than criticised it. Totten only said 10^92, which, as big as it already is, is a vast underestimation of the true chances.

Here is a site that is more reliable. Creation of the Universe - Harun Yahya and he sites Penrose who is, well, has more credintials as a mathmatician than any scientist I've heard of. Roger Penrose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I suppose, since his calculations goes against the mainstream, he doesn't count and is just a religious fundi.
We are not arguing evolution, yet. I know why you want to though .

So, do you admit the big bang is luck?

admitted, they are not valid(but recited another source so please read above.)

I also don't agree that design isn't the only alternative. But w/e. Its design vs Chance and considering that chance has a 0 improbability of happening in this case, design > chance.

there are other alternatves, by all means share them and see what we have.
I was fine unitll you got to Dr. Hugh Ross. What is not credible about him, because he talks about creationism? "ewww, he supports christianity! He is idiot! Forget the BS in physic and MS and PHD in astronomy form the university of British Colombia and Toronto"!

Whether you like it or not, there are smart people who oppose the veiw of "luck" and their calculations and opinions should be jsut as valid as those of a follower of atheism.

Hugh Ross (creationist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Kernel Sanders

I don't buy those arguments. They basically state that life is so incredible and complex that there is such a low probability of it arising by chance, so there must be a creator. What it fails to address is that an omnipotent, omniscient creator is a much more incredible and complex being than any alive, whose existence is even more difficult to justify. If life is to improbable to naturally arise, what are the chances that a being capable of creating life on a whim naturally arose?