Intelligent Design Done Right

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Atoms are designed. ...”

only if you say that nature can “design” things.
All the chemical elements other than hydrogen were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars.

Evidence of this?

And don't just post a link either, show WHAT from the link is evidence of what you say.

Originally posted by vivify
Evidence of this?

And don't just post a link either, show WHAT from the link is evidence of what you say.

The ultra-short answer is “science”.

Here is just a sample of what science has proved:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_chemical_elements_made_in_stars

http://www.suite101.com/content/origin-of-the-chemical-elements-a23458

if this was false then the whole of nuclear physics is false and nuclear reactors would not work ( not to mention that our sun would not shine! )


"....show WHAT from the link is evidence of what you say..."

I can only point out the scientific facts that science has proven and give you web links that explain what kind of evidence exists that proved those scientific facts

I know what “evidence” is but What would you call “evidence”? Science facts have evidence to prove them but I don't understand what you demand to show that, according to you, would be “evidence” of this. Give me just ONE hypothetical example of what you would say could be evidence for the formation of chemical elements that could be credibly shown on a website if the modern understanding of the scientific facts are correct -any ONE hypothetical example of evidence would do....

Originally posted by vivify
I think you're being intentionally dense. That such order in as the faces on mount Rushmore would ever randomly appear in any Mountain is beyond reasonable logic.

where did I claim that the “faces on mount Rushmore" could credibly “randomly appear” on a Mountain? I challenge you to show where I said/implied this!!!

Originally posted by vivify
Because order of such a high magnitude (like the universe) is completely random if there's no ID, regardless of what some scientists say.

“...Because order of such a high magnitude (like the universe) is completely random if there's no ID, ...”

I have just shown proof that this is false.
Reminder:

“...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

…..Many fractal patterns have INFINITE complexity and structure …..
….
…..
Note that no random element needs to be applied to the fractal equations -so therefore difficulty in predicting the exact structure would not necessarily imply true randomness. ...”

so here we have a clear example of something that has INFINITE complex structure from an iteration that is not itself consciously doing anything but idiomatically does what it does.

Originally posted by vivify
There's never been evidence that laws of physics create any high order.

The evidence that exists mostly consists of the mere fact that none of the current observed order can be explained without the laws of physics!
For example, the only explanation that we have of the observed variation in the density of galaxies in the universe is that which is predicted by quantum physics when applied to the big bang.
And you don't deny the laws of physics -right? I mean, if they were false then your computer would not work etc.

Originally posted by vivify
There's never been evidence that laws of physics create any high order.

It is obvious.
Hold a spoon full of sugar over a table.
Throw the sugar upwards. (disorder)
Due to gravity, and the other laws of physics, the sugar will mostly end up in remarkably ordered plane on the surface of the table.
Unless you mean something else by 'higher order' than I think you do, then I have shown that you are wrong.
If you do mean something else then please explain.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
where did I claim that the “faces on mount Rushmore" could credibly “randomly appear” on a Mountain? I challenge you to show where I said/implied this!!!

I take back what I said about "intentionallly" dense. Seems you're just dense.

I didn't, in any way shape or form, say this is what you said. That statement was to clarify what YOU thought I was saying, which is that because Mt. Rushmore is special, this somehow proves ID.

Wow. I didn't think I'd meet someone who follows a message board conversation this badly.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The ultra-short answer is “science”.

Here is just a sample of what science has proved:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_chemical_elements_made_in_stars

http://www.suite101.com/content/origin-of-the-chemical-elements-a23458

if this was false then the whole of nuclear physics is false and nuclear reactors would not work ( not to mention th ...[text shortened]... ng of the scientific facts are correct -any ONE hypothetical example of evidence would do....

You've just shown that elements are created in stars, and taught me something.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is obvious.
Hold a spoon full of sugar over a table.
Throw the sugar upwards. (disorder)
Due to gravity, and the other laws of physics, the sugar will mostly end up in remarkably ordered plane on the surface of the table.
Unless you mean something else by 'higher order' than I think you do, then I have shown that you are wrong.
If you do mean something else then please explain.

You haven't shown any order. You've only described an event, not order being created.

An explosion is an event. "Order" a repeated series of patterns.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Because order of such a high magnitude (like the universe) is completely random if there's no ID, ...”

I have just shown proof that this is false.
Reminder:

“...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

…..Many fractal patterns have INFINITE complexity and structure …..
….
…..
Note that no random element needs to be applied to t ...[text shortened]... an iteration that is not itself consciously doing anything but idiomatically does what it does.

So what? I never brought up "complexity" even once.

Originally posted by vivify
You haven't shown any order. You've only described an event, not order being created.

An explosion is an event. "Order" a repeated series of patterns.

How is a plane, not more ordered than the sugar when it was up in the air?

Let me try a more complicated example:
Fill a jar with mud and water.
Shake it.
Leave it to stand for a while.
You may be surprised to find that after a while there are layers of sand at the bottom (often with stripes of different sizes and colors) and then water higher up, and then flotsam on the top.
Again, under the influence of gravity, we get order out of apparent randomness.

Since you mention patterns, what about the way the planets orbit the sun? Or if you want to see it up close, hang a weight on a string, pull it to one side and release. You will discover that not only does it swing back and forth in a pattern, but it is remarkably regular. Regular enough, in fact, to set your watch by.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How is a plane, not more ordered than the sugar when it was up in the air?

This question makes no sense. You described an event, not order.



Let me try a more complicated example:
Fill a jar with mud and water.
Shake it.
Leave it to stand for a while.
You may be surprised to find that after a while there are layers of sand at the bottom (often with stripes of different sizes and colors) and then water higher up, and then flotsam on the top.
Again, under the influence of gravity, we get order out of apparent randomness.

So what? I never said order can't come out of randomness. I've said many times now, that it's the degree of order that's limited by randomness. For example, a die roll of six, 100,000 times in a row. Such high order will never happen randomly.

Since you mention patterns, what about the way the planets orbit the sun? Or if you want to see it up close, hang a weight on a string, pull it to one side and release. You will discover that not only does it swing back and forth in a pattern, but it is remarkably regular. Regular enough, in fact, to set your watch by.

So? This wasn't random, since in your example, an intelligent force pulls the string.

Originally posted by vivify
Atoms are designed. Asteroids are not.

You early stated that it was your view that these designers probably evolved, now you've stated that atoms are designed. So it logically follows that the designers can't have evolved from something they designed, so what did the designer evolve from?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You early stated that it was your view that these designers probably evolved, now you've stated that atoms are designed. So it logically follows that the designers can't have evolved from something they designed, so what did the designer evolve from?

Just a few posts ago, someone showed me a link about stars creating elements. There was a flaw in my argument, because there was a flaw in my knowledge. This actually lends even more credibility to ID, since we know have materials that the designer would've evolved from.

Now that my knowledge is updated, I'll update my argument as well. Something that is designed, is planet earth, while asteroids are not designed.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You early stated that it was your view that these designers probably evolved, now you've stated that atoms are designed. So it logically follows that the designers can't have evolved from something they designed, so what did the designer evolve from?

Very clever young man, very clever. But it's turtles all the way down.