Who is qualified.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Have you looked at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TpM98RYrnU

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/antony-flew-reviews-dawkins-the-god-delusion/

From wikipedia article on Antony Flew:

"In late 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government
to teach intelligent design in the state schools."

In 2 ...[text shortened]... in terms of an Intelligent Source." He also restated that
he was not a Christian theist.

I had not, now I have...
What of it?

You are simply sating there are people who are physicists/biologists who believe in god and ID and whatnot...

I don't agree and don't find there arguments or 'evidence' compelling.
Neither does the vast majority of the scientific community.

I was aware that a number of people tried to get ID on the national curriculum a few years ago.
Just as many have tried to get it on the curriculum in the USA.
The difference being the speed and scale of the rejection.

This has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the claims, just an indication of the strength of the
beliefs.

All I can say is they don't fully comprehend Chaos and Emergence.
Which easily explains how complexity arises from simple deterministic rules.

Originally posted by Dasa
This is called the big bluff perpetrated by the dishonest.

only in your tiny little world.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I had not, now I have...
What of it?

You are simply sating there are people who are physicists/biologists who believe in god and ID and whatnot...

I don't agree and don't find there arguments or 'evidence' compelling.
Neither does the vast majority of the scientific community.

I was aware that a number of people tried to get ID on the nationa ...[text shortened]... nd Emergence.
Which easily explains how complexity arises from simple deterministic rules.

So are you saying that you fully comprehend Chaos and Emergence and
how it explains how complexity arises from simple deterministic rules?
I suppose it is too complicated to explain to the rest of us pea brains.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So are you saying that you fully comprehend Chaos and Emergence and
how it explains how complexity arises from simple deterministic rules?
I suppose it is too complicated to explain to the rest of us pea brains.

No it is not too complicated to explain.
It is however time consuming to do it properly.
And I would have to be convinced that it would be worthwhile actually taking
the time to do it, ie. you would actually put the effort in needed to understand it.

I would point you to a nice program on the subject, but unfortunately it was a BBC
program and is only available online in the UK.

For a complete technical understanding you would need some fairly advanced
mathematical knowledge. You don't need it however for a general understanding of
the basic theory behind it. But you would have to take it on trust that some of the
maths does what we say it does if you can't actually do the maths yourself.

For a very basic intro into the principle of emergence I would recommend you look at
langton's ant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton%27s_ant

This is a very simple system with easy to see and completely known deterministic rules
yet it produces complex and unpredictable behaviour.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it is not too complicated to explain.
It is however time consuming to do it properly.
And I would have to be convinced that it would be worthwhile actually taking
the time to do it, ie. you would actually put the effort in needed to understand it.

I would point you to a nice program on the subject, but unfortunately it was a BBC
program and is ...[text shortened]... nd completely known deterministic rules
yet it produces complex and unpredictable behaviour.

I have taken Analytic Geometry and courses in Calculus up through
Elementary Differential Equations in College. Would that be enough
advanced math? However, I might need some refresher exercises
to make sure I can still solve them correctly.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it is not too complicated to explain.
It is however time consuming to do it properly.
And I would have to be convinced that it would be worthwhile actually taking
the time to do it, ie. you would actually put the effort in needed to understand it.

I would point you to a nice program on the subject, but unfortunately it was a BBC
program and is ...[text shortened]... nd completely known deterministic rules
yet it produces complex and unpredictable behaviour.

But there still has to be somebody to determine what the rules are that
the ant will follow to get the desired result.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But there still has to be somebody to determine what the rules are that
the ant will follow to get the desired result.

why does there have to be somebody?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
why does there have to be somebody?

Definition of RULE

1 a: a prescribed guide for conduct or action b: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c: an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1): a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2): a legal precept or doctrine e: a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct

2 a (1): a usually valid generalization (2): a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday — New York Times> b: a standard of judgment : criterion c: a regulating principle d: a determinate method for performing a mathematical operation and obtaining a certain result

3 a: the exercise of authority or control : dominion b: a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control

4 a: a strip of material marked off in units used especially for measuring : ruler 3, tape measure b: a metal strip with a type-high face that prints a linear design; also: a linear design produced by or as if by such a strip

From the on-line Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It should be obvious from the definiton that some authority has to determine
what the rules are for the ant to produce the desired pattern. So it seems a
stupid question to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
2 a (1): a usually valid generalization (2): a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday — New York Times> b: a standard of judgment : criterion c: a regulating principle d: a determinate method for performing a mathematical operation and obtaining a certain result

It should be obvious from the definiton that some ...[text shortened]... the rules are for the ant to produce the desired pattern. So it seems a
stupid question to me.

It is not required in 2 a or c.

What rules does God follow, and who determined them?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Definition of RULE

1 a: a prescribed guide for conduct or action b: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c: an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1): a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2): a legal precept or doctrine e ...[text shortened]... the rules are for the ant to produce the desired pattern. So it seems a
stupid question to me.

if you think that, you haven't read the entire definition.

2 a (1): a usually valid generalization (2): a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday — New York Times> b: a standard of judgment : criterion c: a regulating principle

none of these requires somebody.

so i ask again, why is somebody required?

Originally posted by RJHinds
But there still has to be somebody to determine what the rules are that
the ant will follow to get the desired result.

Well of course, as the langton ant is a imaginary creation by humans, we made the rules...
However it was not to get a 'desired result', the point is that there is nothing in the rules
that says 'make a highway'. yet it seems that making a highway is possibly an inevitable
consequence of the two very simple rules the ant follows.

While the 'rules' that govern the langton ant's universe are made by humans, the physical
laws of nature are not. Nor do they have to be created by any intelligence.
This isn't to say they weren't created by an intelligence, but there is no requirement for them
to be.

The point being that even incredibly simple rules governing a simple universe we know exactly
can have unexpected and complex outcomes.
The more numerous and complicated (yet still simple) rules that govern our much more
complex universe can have literally infinitely complex results.

The equations of Chaos theory can produce both traditional 'chaotic' behaviour with no
pattern at all and pasterns of incredible complexity, beauty and order.

Langton's ant in (as far as I am aware) every black/white universe it has been tested in produces
a highway, with no rule explicitly telling it to do so.
It is an emergent property of the system, ie. there is no way of telling that the system produces
highways without running it and finding out if it does it.

Likewise it is possible for the universe to create incredibly complex things, raging from relatively
simple things like stars and planets, to complex organic chemistry and life forms, only using
the simple rules that govern how things interact.
You don't need a 'now create life' or 'now create stars' rule.


One of the amazing things about the development of complex life happens very early on in the embryo.
When the egg gets fertilised it starts dividing and dividing, each cell identical to the others and all
containing all the code needed to build all the parts of the human body.
When it has a few hundred/thousand cells, all the same, it suddenly starts organising itself to
start differentiating cells by their intended functions. Yet at this stage there is no hierarchy, no command
no brain, guiding development.

For a long time no one knew how it might be possible for this to happen, until Alan Turing developed
the idea that you could use maths to describe biological processes just like you could with simple
physical ones. He showed that it was possible for the cells to self organise without external (or internal)
intelligent guidance, creating what was to become part of Chaos theory to do it.


Now a common (and oft used here) argument against the formation of life from non-life is so astronomically
unlikely that it couldn't have happened yet, that its much more likely that a god created life.
Often accompanied with statements like 'you think life came from a stone' which is of course ridiculous.

However due to a number of well understood physical processes the universe manufactures quite naturally
all the major ingredients for making the complex self replicating molecules that are the basis of life.
The odds are not of creating these molecules from scratch in a pile of base chemicals, they are of creating
them from a soup of complex organic molecules already present due to the organic chemistry that
happens naturally. (in fact it has even been shown that amino acids can be formed in space, in complex
series of reactions in dust/gas clouds)

If you want to look at it that way it could almost seem like the universe was 'designed' to make life forms.
in fact many deists think just that.
However the point is that its not that life formation looks unlikely, it actually looks more and more like its
nearly inevitable that it will form wherever conditions are suitable.




If you are interested in learning the basic mathematical theory of chaos (non-linear dynamics) I would recommend
"Chaotic Dynamics,
an introduction" by G. L. Baker and J. P Gollub.
This is however a university physics text book and is, while well written, not bedside reading materiel.

If you have a more casual interest, then I would recommend going with a more populist book on chaos theory.
I would recommend one if I had a populist book on chaos, but my books unfortunately are all textbooks.
The examples tend to be physical, often talking about the weather, or simple physical systems like a compound pendulum,
but chaos theory gets applied to almost all areas of science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not required in 2 a or c.

What rules does God follow, and who determined them?

It is deterministic rules we are talking about.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
if you think that, you haven't read the entire definition.

2 a (1): a usually valid generalization (2): a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday — New York Times> b: a standard of judgment : criterion c: a regulating principle

none of these requires somebody.

so i ask again, why is somebody required?

You apparently did not read the post by googlefudge.
It is deterministic rules we are talking about.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well of course, as the langton ant is a imaginary creation by humans, we made the rules...
However it was not to get a 'desired result', the point is that there is nothing in the rules
that says 'make a highway'. yet it seems that making a highway is possibly an inevitable
consequence of the two very simple rules the ant follows.

While the 'rules' pendulum,
but chaos theory gets applied to almost all areas of science.

You say it is an emergent property of the system, ie. there is no way of telling
that the system produces highways without running it and finding out if it does it.

This is no different than a lot of things that once we know the desired result,
we can reproduce it over and over with the correct instruction code formula.

You say there is no requirement that the laws of nature be created by
intelligence.

I say they are like the deterministic rules the ant follows so it is possible to
produce a world suitable for life and therfore needs an intelligent being to
determine what those laws should be.

A computer programmer can design a program of instructions for the
computer to follow that can produce different designs on the screen in a
random manner so that even the programmer does not know what will
appear on the screen. He can also program it so it only produces just
four possible outcomes or just one outcome. But the computer still
requires the program before it can create anything on the screen.

God is like the human who made the computer and then can program it
to do work without having to constantly guide the process along. The
process just seems to work on its own, but it is the program instruction
code, like DNA code, that determines what takes place. The DNA code
during reproduction tells the cells what to do in order to produce the
desired creature. God does not need to do anything because He has
already provided the instruction code.

P.S. I have taken Physics for Students of Science and Engineering.
It however was practical Physics and very little on unproven theory.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is deterministic rules we are talking about.

I know. And your point is?

And can you answer the question: who determined the rules that God follows?