A complex case against intelligent design

[rrobs]

Cutsey one-liners are an indication the poster has nothing of substance to say. You've posted a lot of cutsey one-liners.

Well I think you are getting to the crux of the matter. One of the reasons I have reservations about internet forums is that decent people all too easily slip into insulting each other with no regard for the other guy's feelings. As you pointed out, I'm no exception. I should have been more decent to you in my replies. I'm sure you are a fine individual, as are the majority of folks on this forum.

I respect your views. If I had walked in your shoes I'd think exactly like you. But I walked in my shoes and therefore think the way anybody would think who had walked in my shoes. I guess I'm just saying in a round about way that we are all different. That doesn't mean I have to treat you or anybody else with a lack of respect. I apologize for any offense I may have caused you. Let's just leave it at that for now.

 

[gnostic]

I might remind you that at one time science proved the world to be flat. OK, now we know it's round. But that illustrates it would be foolish to think we now know everything that their is to know about the material universe, that we've reached the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. Science is absolutely subject to change. It's a most fundamental tenet of scientific research. In contrast, the God of the scriptures never changes.

Actually it was religions that first thought the world was flat, because actual science didn’t exist at that time.

And you are right, scriptures don’t change...well, don’t change much.

The very idea that the Earth or world is covered by water below and the water above, Genesis 1 (Day 2 in creation), and god separated it with dome called firmament, vault, heaven or sky, is implied indication that the author(s) of Genesis thought the world is flat.

Again, in Day 4, when it say the two great luminaries, hence the sun and moon, as well the stars, moved across the sky, from horizon to horizon, not only indicate the world is flat, but the sun move, not the Earth rotating (hence Earth is stationary), that’s a clear indication of geocentric planetary motion.

The geocentric model is wrong, because we know that the Earth is not only rotating on its axis, but it is orbiting around the sun, not the other way around.

This incorrect notion (geocentric motion) about the Earth and Sun, is repeated in the story of battle, in which Joshua witnessed God stopping the sun and moon from moving until the Israelites won its decisive victory, before the sun and moon started moving again.

Yes, the scriptures doesn’t change these part in Genesis and Joshua, even though they are completely wrong.

If God’s prophets were responsible for these 2 books, then the prophets are wrong, and so is God.

 

[rrobs]

Actually it was religions that first thought the world was flat, because actual science didn’t exist at that time.

And you are right, scriptures don’t change...well, don’t change much.

The very idea that the Earth or world is covered by water below and the water above, Genesis 1 (Day 2 in creation), and god separated it with dome called firmament, vault, heaven or sky, is implied indication that the author(s) of Genesis thought the world is flat.

Again, in Day 4, when it say the two great luminaries, hence the sun and moon, as well the stars, moved across the sky, from horizon to horizon, not only indicate the world is flat, but the sun move, not the Earth rotating (hence Earth is stationary), that’s a clear indication of geocentric planetary motion.

The geocentric model is wrong, because we know that the Earth is not only rotating on its axis, but it is orbiting around the sun, not the other way around.

This incorrect notion (geocentric motion) about the Earth and Sun, is repeated in the story of battle, in which Joshua witnessed God stopping the sun and moon from moving until the Israelites won its decisive victory, before the sun and moon started moving again.

Yes, the scriptures doesn’t change these part in Genesis and Joshua, even though they are completely wrong.

If God’s prophets were responsible for these 2 books, then the prophets are wrong, and so is God.

I think you are reading things into the scriptures that aren't really there. All they say could just as easily fit with a round earth. I have several astronomy books and they speak of the heavenly bodies "moving from east to west." We all know what that means.

The ancient Middle Eastern didn't know about atoms. The logos is not concerned with nor dependent upon a knowledge of atoms or the shape of the earth.

Seems like we've gotten majorly off topic.

 

[Polymath257]

The moment the probability wave of a particle from the sun collapses on my eye, nobody else sees that same particle. Likewise for everybody else. Whoever collapses the wave function of the particle that particle "belongs" to them and them alone. Now I understand that the particles emitted by the sun are so numerous and similar that we all see more or less the same sun. And yet we don't. We each see our own version of the sun. In one sense the world is objective and yet subjective at the same time. In that sense, nature is not purely objective which is more or less what I averred in my original reply

I will admit, it's been some time since I engaged the physical sciences, including calculus. I'm not even sure I could differentiate a simple function, let alone Schrodinger's equation, without some review. It's just not something I do everyday anymore. Anyway, if what I said above about wave collapsing is no longer de rigueur, I'm open to the latest. Thanks in advance.

A couple of things stand out here.

1. None of what you have said in the first paragraph is particularly relevant to quantum mechanics.

2. That you say 'including calculus' as if it was a high achievement is telling. if you were ever really dealing with the Schrodinger equation, calculus wouldn't be listed as a major accomplishment.

 

[rrobs]

A couple of things stand out here.

1. None of what you have said in the first paragraph is particularly relevant to quantum mechanics.

2. That you say 'including calculus' as if it was a high achievement is telling. if you were ever really dealing with the Schrodinger equation, calculus wouldn't be listed as a major accomplishment.

Seriously? Wave collapse has nothing to do with QM? Calculus is not required to solve Schrodinger's equation? Are we even talking about the same thing?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If not ignorant humans, who makes science?

Brilliant, well educated humans. Ignorant humans prefer to make up answers about reality believed by faith.

 

[74x12]

I think my OP is probably a better argument. A better design as opposed to the best possible design. I think the sheer number of blatant flaws seems to indicate a degree of lacking intelligence in the design. I have argued are numerous flaws and blatant design problems and quirks seems to better support the idea of randomly introduce adaptations.

It's all perfectly imperfect.

 

[Axe Elf]

As usual. Illogical, but consistent.

Are you stating that any Christian who disagrees with your assertions is not a real Christian?

Ooh. Deep philosophical insights. Are you trying to prop up the only person who somewhat agrees with you?

Ok, I will excuse you from further participation in rational dialogue as well, having evidenced in these three posts an inability to differentiate between logical and illogical arguments, a lack of reading comprehension, and the confusion of veracity with popularity.

Have a good one...

 

[Axe Elf]

Well, that could be the best strategy for you to win this.

Win? What's to win? You asked me a question, I gave you the answer, and I even explained further the parts you were unclear about. I guess if you benefit from the information, you win, and if you don't, it's your loss--but I don't understand why you would look at a learning opportunity as a competition.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your suspicions are well founded. I thought is was a rather capital attempt at humor. Oh well, humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed. You seemed to be quite incensed at a simple pun on the word "holy". As if you thought it was your duty to defend your silly bible or something. It appears the bible's god is quite impotent to do achieve such things itself.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Ok, I will excuse you from further participation in rational dialogue as well, having evidenced in these three posts an inability to differentiate between logical and illogical arguments, a lack of reading comprehension, and the confusion of veracity with popularity.

Have a good one...

Ooooh.... there goes yet another Irony Meter-- exploding from overload. Good thing I get them in job lots from Amazon.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Win? What's to win? You asked me a question, I gave you the answer, and I even explained further the parts you were unclear about. I guess if you benefit from the information, you win, and if you don't, it's your loss--but I don't understand why you would look at a learning opportunity as a competition.

Correction: you gave what you thought was an answer. In most cases, it was an "answer" that was entirely unsupported by actual observation. A supposition at best. And your "explained further parts" was in the majority of instances, simply repetitious rhetoric, using $64 words, that amounted to the same thing. Why use just 3 words when 30 or 40 will do?

 

[Polymath257]

Seriously? Wave collapse has nothing to do with QM? Calculus is not required to solve Schrodinger's equation? Are we even talking about the same thing?

But the point is that the collapse isn't particularly relevant to the rest of what you said. Any time someone picks up sensory data, it is 'theirs'. So what?

Yes, calculus is used for solving the Schrodinger equation. But so is algebra. But I wouldn't say that I solved it using algebra. Typically, partial differential equations are distinguished from calculus because of the difference of level of the math involved: calculus being, by far, the easier level.

 

[rrobs]

Brilliant, well educated humans. Ignorant humans prefer to make up answers about reality believed by faith.

I was parroting somebody else who intimated all humans are ignorant.

 

[rrobs]

Indeed. You seemed to be quite incensed at a simple pun on the word "holy". As if you thought it was your duty to defend your silly bible or something. It appears the bible's god is quite impotent to do achieve such things itself.

You seem to be the one incensed by someone believing something other than what you believe. Take a deep breath, relax.

 

[rrobs]

But the point is that the collapse isn't particularly relevant to the rest of what you said. Any time someone picks up sensory data, it is 'theirs'. So what?

Yes, calculus is used for solving the Schrodinger equation. But so is algebra. But I wouldn't say that I solved it using algebra. Typically, partial differential equations are distinguished from calculus because of the difference of level of the math involved: calculus being, by far, the easier level.

Do you know what a probability wave collapse is? I just gave an example. It was in answer to something or another you wanted to know.

 

[Bear Wild]

But the point is that the collapse isn't particularly relevant to the rest of what you said. Any time someone picks up sensory data, it is 'theirs'. So what?

Yes, calculus is used for solving the Schrodinger equation. But so is algebra. But I wouldn't say that I solved it using algebra. Typically, partial differential equations are distinguished from calculus because of the difference of level of the math involved: calculus being, by far, the easier level.

Your mention on the complexity of the Schrodinger equation reminds me of how that period in the history of science is such an amazing story. Starting with the feeling at the end of the previous century that most of nature had been explained except for the mystery of the black body radiation in which the two ends of the spectrum could not be connected. The discovery by Max Plank of the number (Planks constant) that would connect the whole spectrum without realizing the true significance of his special number until it was recognized by Einstein with his revolutionary ideas along with Schrodinger's, Heisenberg's Bohr's and others work completely changing how we viewed the world. Amazing how the mathematics predicted an unknown particle, the positron, only to actually be discovered later by another individual. Took a class in quantum mechanics which convinced me I should choose a different field such as biology but left me in awe of the mathematics. Much of science is the hard work of careful studies mixed in with creative thinking that can cause revolutionary changes in the way we view our world. This period of discovery shows what makes science so successful.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You seem to be the one incensed by someone believing something other than what you believe. Take a deep breath, relax.

Oh, I could not possibly care-- except that I had taken the time to write a lengthy post that addressed each of your points, and you stopped at one word, carefully ignoring 100% of the substantive content.

And then had the stones to call me "childish"... ! When in truth, any adult who still believes in invisible friends, is kinda stuck in a childish fantasy.

Being an atheist in a theist-dominated society, is like being the only kid in class who knows there is no Santa Claus, but having to wait for everyone else to grow the fork up already.

 

[John53]

God gave man free will. He did not create robots.

I'm interested to know where it says this in the bible?

I have searched for "free will" in the bible but couldn't find anything that didn't require a great deal of creative interpretation.

 

[ecco]

ecco previously
↑
As usual. Illogical, but consistent.
↑
Are you stating that any Christian who disagrees with your assertions is not a real Christian?
↑
Ooh. Deep philosophical insights. Are you trying to prop up the only person who somewhat agrees with you?

Ok, I will excuse you from further participation in rational dialogue as well, having evidenced in these three posts an inability to differentiate between logical and illogical arguments, a lack of reading comprehension, and the confusion of veracity with popularity.

Have a good one...

Yeah. When ya can't rebut, wave bye bye.