Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out that notions of creationism and intelligent design ignore a fundamental and important problem—the fact that the universe, and most of the things in it, would never have been designed. As Tyson explains:
Star formation is completely inefficient. Most places in the universe will kill life instantly—instantly! People say “Oh, the forces of nature are just right for life.” Excuse me. Just look at the volume of the universe where you can’t live. You will die instantly. That is not what I call the Garden of Eden, alright. … We’re on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy—gone is this beautiful spiral that we have. And of course we’re on a one-way, expanding universe as we wind down to oblivion, as the temperature of the universe approaches absolute zero.
The inner solar system is a shooting gallery. And look how long it took for multicellular life to evolve—3.5 billion years! Obviously not a good design. Then there are the earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and one of Darwin’s favorites, lightning strikes. 99% of all life that ever lived is now extinct. “None of this,” Tyson explains, “is any sign that there is a benevolent anything out there.”
And consider all the natural diseases. Lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and ALS. The list goes on and on. But that’s not all. Our limited human vision system can only perceive a narrow band of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. As Tyson makes clear:
Anyone who has seen the full breadth of the electromagnetic spectrum will recognize how blind we are.
We have to eat constantly because we’re warm-blooded. So we’re always looking for food. And what about carbon monoxide? You can’t smell it or taste, but you breath it in and “your dead.”
The problem, Tyson explains, is that we tend to ignore these obvious problems:
This is all simply stupid design. The problem is, if you look for what is intelligent, and yes you can find some things that are really beautiful, and really—“hey, that’s clever,” such as the ball-socket of the shoulder. There are a lot of things you can point to, but then you stop looking at all the things that confound that revelation. And so, if I came upon a frozen waterfall, and it just struck me for all its beauty, I would then turn over the rock and try to find a millipede, or some kind of deadly newt, and put that in context, and realize, of course, the universe is not here for us.
And so the final verdict: “No engineer would design that, at all. Ever!” As Hume’s character Philo put it more than two centuries ago,
Here, Cleanthes, I find myself at ease in my argument. Here I triumph. Formerly, when we argued concerning the natural attributes of intelligence and design, I needed all my skeptical and metaphysical subtlety to elude your grasp. In many views of the universe and of its parts, particularly the latter, the beauty and fitness of final causes strike us with such irresistible force, that all objections appear (what I believe they really are) mere cavils and sophisms; nor can we then imagine how it was ever possible for us to repose any weight on them. But there is no view of human life, or of the condition of mankind, from which, without the greatest violence, we can infer the moral attributes, or learn that infinite benevolence, conjoined with infinite power and infinite wisdom, which we must discover by the eyes of faith alone. It is your turn now to tug the laboring oar, and to support your philosophical subtleties against the dictates of plain reason and experience.
Tyson has more evidence than Hume ever had, and it confirms that age old message. Complexity and beauty may suggest design, but dysteleology and evil refute it. The world must have evolved. Religion trumps science every time.
That's like saying "This Hyundai Santa Fe sacrifices fuel efficiency for cargo and passenger space. No engineer would EVER have designed this. Ever."
ReplyDeleteChristopher Walker: That's like saying "This Hyundai Santa Fe sacrifices fuel efficiency for cargo and passenger space. No engineer would EVER have designed this. Ever."
DeleteFirst, we can explain why adaptations we observe in human designs exhibit trade-offs. We have yet to create the knowledge of how to build a SUV that is both fuel efficient, has significant cargo space and is reasonably priced. As such, we do not yet have efficient SUVs.
We could build a SUV that is efficient and spacious but it would be extremely expensive and/or exhibit poor performance. Again, this is because we have yet to create the knowledge of how to do all at once.
Second, you're assuming that this is an insolvable problem. However, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from doing so is knowing how. Problems get solved.
At some point, we will create the knowledge of how to build a cost effective, efficient SUV. And when this occurs we will observe SUVs that are both spacious, efficient and reasonably priced. Until then we can explain the trade-offs we observe in that the knowledge of how to build them has yet to be created.
This is hilarious. This is exactly the bill of goods that Ritchie was trying to sell me in the previous blog entry!
ReplyDeleteWhy is this guy famous? HMMMM.
ReplyDeleteAnyways
The universe was made flawed at the fall.
Before the fall it was very different.
The universe is clearly a created thing and most of historic and present mankind have concluded so.
What you religious zombies don't understand is that when you use the 'fine tuned' assertion, and especially the 'fine tuned for humans' assertion, there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out just how stupid an assertion that is.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing you don't understand is that you can't just give your imaginary god credit for the 'good' stuff. If your imaginary, all powerful, all knowledgeable, perfect god, the alleged designer and creator of EVERYTHING, isn't responsible for the 'bad' stuff, who or what is?
Satan you nitwit. We are given free choice who to serve..
DeleteI for one am glad I can't see microwave and the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. Please Mr tyson do not consider engineering for your day job.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, this IS hilarious! Because he is RIGHT!
ReplyDeleteTyson is making perfectly valid points. Nothing he is saying here is untrue at all. The vast majority of the universe IS hostile to life. There ARE a multitude of dangers and afflictions which plague humans. There ARE a great number of inefficiencies and apparent examples of bad design in nature. All of this is absolutely true.
The one point you ARE getting wrong is that Tyson is not putting this across as proof of no God, or of evolution. This is not 'The universe is badly designed; therefore no God; therefore evolution.' He does not say anything like this. This is just pointing out how terrible the 'fine tuning' argument is as evidence for God/creationism. This is a (sound and perfectly valid) REBUTTAL of the 'Life/the universe is perfect; therefore God' argument.
Basically, Cornelius has just posted someone making a very good rebuttal of ID.
Ritchie,
DeleteThis is just pointing out how terrible the 'fine tuning' argument is as evidence for God/creationism.
I have to disagree with you. He never explains the fine tuning at all. This is called a "red herring". He gives no explanation whatsoever as to why the constants in physics are miraculously set to the values that they are and instead complains about most of the Universe being uninhabitable for life.
The fine tuning of physics is a REAL problem for atheism. People in the field like Leonard Susskind and Martin Rees concede that they have no answer to this except to appeal to a vast ensemble of universes where we just happened to have lucked out by existing in the right universe.
As Leonard Susskind says:
To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident.
and
If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.
Scientists have written books dedicated this issue! One book to get started on the topic is Just Six Numbers by atheistic cosmologist Martin Rees, where he concedes at the end of the book that a benevolent designer is one of the few explanations for what we observe.
Regarding Tyson's complaints, they are easy to answer, at least from a Christian perspective. The scriptures tell us that God does not intend for this Universe to last forever. Indeed, it predicts its ultimate destruction and that a new Universe will eventually be created where the righteous will forever live in fellowship with God Himself!
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Revelation 21:1
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...
Just think about this. 2,000 years before modern science predicted the end of the Universe theologians were writing about it!
The decay of the Universe is also written about in Romans 8:
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21thati the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Complaining that the design of the universe is inefficient is only valid if you can establish two things:
1) The Creator of the Universe has limited resources and has to be maximally efficient with His creation.
and
2) The Creator intended for the entire Universe to be colonized and inhabited by humans.
Without establishing either one of these ideas, its a silly argument with the sole intention of having to avoid explaining the fine tuning of the Universe.
wgbutler777
DeleteRitchie: "This is just pointing out how terrible the 'fine tuning' argument is as evidence for God/creationism.
I have to disagree with you. He never explains the fine tuning at all. This is called a "red herring". He gives no explanation whatsoever as to why the constants in physics are miraculously set to the values that they are and instead complains about most of the Universe being uninhabitable for life.
Hey wg, did you know that the water in Lake Michigan fits the Lake Michigan basin to within 1 part in 10^119? It's true! Therefore Lake Michigan was designed!!!
For those slow on the uptake: There is no evidence the parameters of this universe were designed or 'fine tuned' with our type of life in mind. The evidence shows our type of life evolved to fit the existing parameters.
The 'cosmic fine tuning' argument is just another bit of empty rhetoric from the Creationists. Yawn.
Scientists have written books dedicated this issue! One book to get started on the topic is Just Six Numbers by atheistic cosmologist Martin Rees, where he concedes at the end of the book that a benevolent designer is one of the few explanations for what we observe
Of course a 'benevolent designer' can be offered as the one of explanations for any conceivable observation. Such a claim doesn't actually *explain* anything and is 100% completely unfalsifiable, which is why it is not science.
Another day another attempt by the Fundies to distorted science to try and prop up their particular God.
Thorton,
DeleteThere is no evidence the parameters of this universe were designed or 'fine tuned' with our type of life in mind.
There is a ton of evidence that the parameters of this universe were exquisitely fine tuned for advanced life. It seems to me that you really haven't looked into this issue at all. I suggest reading up the research. This is not even being contested by cosmologists. The question is now, "WHY is the Universe fine tuned for life".
The evidence shows our type of life evolved to fit the existing parameters.
This is not a situation of one type of life or another evolving to fit a different universe. If the parameters of physics were slightly different from what they are, no type of any kind of life that we can conceive of would have an opprtunity to evolve.
For example, if the ratio of the mass between neutrons and protons were slightly different we wouldn't even have stars.
If the gravitational constant was slightly larger, the universe would have recollapsed upon itself shortly after the Big bang, if it were slightly smaller, stars, galaxies and planets would never have formed.
If the triple alpha process in stars were different by only a miniscule amount, this universe would be incapable of producing carbon and oxygen. As atheist Fred Hoyle said when he discovered this:
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
Now, Thorton, fair warning before you reply back to me. I will not any waste time responding if you start again with the angry, snide, and insulting comments. My time is valuable and I don't care to waste any of it talking with people who accuse me of stupidity or engaging in beastiality. Feel free to say these things if it helps you sleep better at night (and btw thank you for the blessings because Christ says in Matthew 5 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you but know that I will not waste any time playing that idiotic game.
wg -
DeleteHe gives no explanation whatsoever as to why the constants in physics are miraculously set to the values that they are and instead complains about most of the Universe being uninhabitable for life.
This is not a claim he makes at all. To quote myself from the previous thread (and perhaps we should move the discussion onto this one, since the topics are pretty much the same...?):
"The way I see it, the badger evolved to suit life in the woods. It was not the woods which were pre-emptively designed to suit the badger. The squirrel evolved to suit life in the trees. It was not the trees which were pre-emptively designed to suit the squirrel. And all Earthly life evolved to suit life on this planet, in this universe. It was not the planet, nor the universe which was pre-emptively designed to suit us. To think of it the other way round is to imagine we humans are pre-ordained, pre-destined, inevitable. It is to imagine ourselves as the very reason for the universe to exist - that the universe's entire purpose is to host us humans. Which is a monumentally absurd thing to think.
If we are going to calculate the odds of a universe which can host life (in however miniscule a pocket of it), we need to know two things: the number of possible universes, and the number of universes which could host life OF ANY KIND. No matter how enormously large the first number is, if the second one is, say, two-thirds, then our existence is not at all unlikely and requires no particular explanation.
I agree that if we change the laws of physics even a tiny bit, life as we know it might well be impossible. But that surely just means life would have risen to be NOT as we know it. It would have risen in such a way as to suit the laws of THAT universe instead."
The scriptures tell us that God does not intend for this Universe to last forever.
Many religions have apocalypse myths. Christianity has no monopoly on that.
Complaining that the design of the universe is inefficient is only valid if you can establish two things:
1) The Creator of the Universe has limited resources and has to be maximally efficient with His creation.
and
2) The Creator intended for the entire Universe to be colonized and inhabited by humans.
That still presupposes a Creator. It's like you're insisting we take it as red that a Creator exists and then we argue about how adept/efficient He is.
wgbutler777
DeleteThis is not a situation of one type of life or another evolving to fit a different universe. If the parameters of physics were slightly different from what they are, no type of any kind of life that we can conceive of would have an opprtunity to evolve.
Reality isn't constrained by your inability to conceive it.
You have no idea how many other forms of life *not* as we know it could exist in universes with slightly different constants. You have a sample set of *one* form of life that happens to exist in the universe with our parameters. You keep ignoring the "water fits the hole in the ground, not the other way around" analogy because you have no intelligent response.
Simple fact is, you have no evidence whatsoever - NONE - that the universe was designed to fit life.
Maybe you should try reading something other that Creation sites. The 'fine tuning proves my particular GOD did it" argument was discredited over half a century ago. It holds zero sway with anyone except religious fanatics trying to justify their own religious beliefs.
Now, Thorton, fair warning before you reply back to me. I will not any waste time responding if you start again with the angry, snide, and insulting comments.
If you spent 1/10 as much time actually responding to questions about your claims instead of evading and whining about how you're not going to respond the discussion would get a lot further.
wgbutler777: If the gravitational constant was slightly larger, the universe would have recollapsed upon itself shortly after the Big bang, if it were slightly smaller, stars, galaxies and planets would never have formed.
DeleteYou're presupposing that planets are essential for to the formation of life. How do you know this is indeed the case?
wgbutler777: If the triple alpha process in stars were different by only a miniscule amount, this universe would be incapable of producing carbon and oxygen.
Again, you're assuming that carbon and oxygen is essential for the formation of life. And you know this how? Let me guess, every form of life we've observed live on a planet and is carbon based; therefore planets and carbon are necessary for life?
It really doesn't make any difference how much disorder and chaos there is versus the all the complex, specific systems out there. Pointing out all the things that don't require intelligence is hardly a refutation of the fact that there are things that apparently do need intelligence. You can point out all the spelling mistakes that have ever been written, but that doesn't say anything about whether or not there is intelligence behind books.
ReplyDeleteIf this was supposed to be a refutation of Intelligent designer... then it was an obvious fail. The best this line of argumentation could do, would be to show that the intelligent designer, whoever it was, didn't really care about all the defects, things that produce chaos, death etc.
Which if true could carry some theological implications, but in no way removes the need of an intelligence.
If this was supposed to be a refutation of Intelligent designer... then it was an obvious fail.
DeleteYes, it would have been. But I'm not so sure it was an attempt at refuting ID.
Cornelius also thought so when he wrote:
Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out that notions of creationism and intelligent design ignore a fundamental and important problem—the fact that the universe, and most of the things in it, would never have been designed.
He justifies this because:
“None of this,” Tyson explains, “is any sign that there is a benevolent anything out there.”
It seems more like Tyson is refuting a benevolent designer. There is a difference.
"It seems more like Tyson is refuting a benevolent designer. There is a difference."
DeleteYeah well, several times he emphasized how "stupid" the "design" was.. so I would say it was an attempt at refuting ID too.
Creivi -
ReplyDeleteYou have it the wrong way round. There are no systems which REQUIRE intelligence. A common ID argument is that the universe shows signs of intelligent design simply because it is so perfect and suited for life. So pointing out that the VAST majority of it is, in fact, NOT suited to life obviously does indeed puncture this argument.
"There are no systems which REQUIRE intelligence."
DeleteYou know this to be true, or is this one of your naturalist presuppositions?
"A common ID argument is that the universe shows signs of intelligent design simply because it is so perfect and suited for life."
I think that what you describe here is a malformation of the argument that some ID supporters use, namely the argument of "Fine tuning of the universe", which to my knowledge doesn't include the claim that "universe is perfect".
But even if it did, based on my own worldview of biblical christianity at least, there are reasons why the universe is NOT perfect. (sin) So I wouldn't use such an argument in the first place.
However, don't you think that a more common ID argument would be that some things REQUIRE intelligence?
The point of my message was that in light of this argument, what Tyson said in the video was irrelevant.
Creivi -
DeleteYou know this to be true, or is this one of your naturalist presuppositions?
Well, if you prefer, we do not know of any systems which require intelligence.
I think that what you describe here is a malformation of the argument that some ID supporters use, namely the argument of "Fine tuning of the universe", which to my knowledge doesn't include the claim that "universe is perfect".
You think so? In that case could you give me what you think is the short, pithy version. My understanding of it is:
- The universe as it is is extremely unlikely.
- If the universe were any other way, life in it would be impossible
- Therefore there must have been a creator to design the universe and ensure life.
Put this way, I'm sure the flaws in its logic are clear. But I am sincere that this is the argument as I understand it.
But even if it did, based on my own worldview of biblical christianity at least, there are reasons why the universe is NOT perfect. (sin) So I wouldn't use such an argument in the first place.
Okay. So given that the universe is not perfect, then what about the universe implies a designer?
"Well, if you prefer, we do not know of any systems which require intelligence."
DeleteI'm not sure that this rephrasing helps you. It still begs the question, how do you know that to begin with? Do you actually know those systems didn't require intelligence or do you assume it based on naturalism?
As for the argument that you gave
"- The universe as it is is extremely unlikely.
- If the universe were any other way, life in it would be impossible
- Therefore there must have been a creator to design the universe and ensure life."
I've never seen this kind of argument presented anywhere. And that conclusion certainly doesn't follow from the premises. You're right to think ^that^ argument is wrong.
The "Fine tuning of the universe" argument that I was thinking about goes something like this.
1)The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
2)It is not due to law or chance
3)Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design
William Lane Craig must be the one Christian apologist who has popularized this form of the argument, and has indeed used it in many of his debates. Craig has written much to defend the premises of this argument on his website reasonablefaith.org. If you're unfamiliar with this argument I suggest you look into it.
Creivi -
DeleteI'm not sure that this rephrasing helps you. It still begs the question, how do you know that to begin with? Do you actually know those systems didn't require intelligence or do you assume it based on naturalism?
Not for a fact. But you were the one who assumed that there were systems which were intelligently created. I quote:
"Pointing out all the things that don't require intelligence is hardly a refutation of the fact that there are things that apparently do need intelligence."
Surely this only holds if there ARE systems which require intelligence. Which is something you have to show.
You're right to think ^that^ argument is wrong.
Good. We can agree on that at least thenm.
The "Fine tuning of the universe" argument that I was thinking about goes something like this.
1)The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
2)It is not due to law or chance
3)Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design
In that case, it is proposition 2) which is the problem.
How do you know it wasn't chance?
William Lane Craig must be the one Christian apologist who has popularized this form of the argument, and has indeed used it in many of his debates.
Indeed, though I've never heard him use it to prove what he wants to prove.
Whenever you look retrospectively at ANYTHING AT ALL, the odds against it happening will be astronomical. That alone is no reason to suppose it was the result of conscious, deliberate intervention.
Consider your birth. What are the odds of two humans beings, who just HAPPEN to carry the EXACT genes that your parents carry, just HAPPENING to meet and have sex just at the right time, uniting the right sperm and egg necessary to produce you? The odds against it must be absolutely phenominal. Do you think that all happened by chance?
Because you should. Mathematically, there's no reason to suppose it wasn't.
I'm perfectly aware of my assumptions, they come form my worldview, christianity. When I see something that is irreducibly complex and has an apparent specific function for it's existance, something which looks designed, I assume it is.
DeleteYou look at the same "evidence" and conclude that it wasn't designed. I think this is an assumption based on your worldview. The evidence doesn't really speak for itself. It can't tell us wether it was designed or not. Our worldviews determine how we interpret the evidence. It's unavoidable.
"How do you know it wasn't chance?"
As you might know already. Craig makes his point in this argument specifically concerning the initial conditions of the early universe: There are around 50 constants that need to be so finely tuned (also with respect to each other)in order for life to be permissible that the odds become infinitesimally small, that the universe that we are experiencing should have the life-permitting values that it has.
To give an illustration Dr.Craig mentions that there have been something like 1*10^17 seconds in the history of our universe. But the probabilities that we are talking about are more like 1/ 1*10^100. (concerning just one of the 50 such parameters).
So yes, the argument is probabilistic. It says that since there is no necessity for our universe to be the way it is..(we can easily think how it could be different) and the probability that it is life supporting is infinitesimal --> we are left with the only other option, that it's more probable that there was a designer who intentionally finely tuned the initial conditions of our universe to be life supporting.
And so on.. this discussion leads to mutliverses. I think you get my point.
Creivi -
DeleteThe evidence doesn't really speak for itself. It can't tell us wether it was designed or not. Our worldviews determine how we interpret the evidence. It's unavoidable.
Without wishing to sound disrespectful, not all worldviews have equal scientific merit. The view that there are magic pink unicorns is not scientifically as viable as the view that there aren't.
So yes, the argument is probabilistic. It says that since there is no necessity for our universe to be the way it is..(we can easily think how it could be different) and the probability that it is life supporting is infinitesimal --> we are left with the only other option, that it's more probable that there was a designer who intentionally finely tuned the initial conditions of our universe to be life supporting.
Well, a couple of problems suggest themselves:
1) We don't know how many ways there are for life OF ANY KIND to possibly exist. OUR way of life might be impossible if we tweak a few conditions, but that does not mean ANY form of life would be impossible. There might be a trillion, trillion, trillion different possible universes, but that doesn't say how many of them could possibly host life. It could be 99.9%. It could be 0.00001%. We have no way of knowing. And without this information we have no way of knowing whether the existence of a universe which supports ANY kind of life is unlikely at all. It could, in fact, be very likely indeed.
2) Possibly more problematic for you - no matter how enormously, staggeringly unlikely a naturalistic universe is, the existence of a being capable of designing and creating that universe must always be even LESS likely. By definition, the being capable of conceiving of, designing and creating a thing must therefore be more complex than the thing itself. It is therefore statistically less likely to exist.
Creivi
DeleteR: "How do you know it wasn't chance?"
As you might know already. Craig makes his point in this argument specifically concerning the initial conditions of the early universe: There are around 50 constants that need to be so finely tuned (also with respect to each other)in order for life to be permissible that the odds become infinitesimally small, that the universe that we are experiencing should have the life-permitting values that it has.
The fatal flaw in this reasoning is the unsupported assumption that life as we find it in our universe is the only possible form of life in all possible universes.
As has been pointed out ad nauseum, we have a sample set of *one* form of life with *one* set of parameters. No one has enough information to calculate any probabilities that our way is the only way, or even that life of any form is rare.
It's just another variation of the tired old lottery fallacy:
Tom won the lottery by buying a ticket that had a million to one chance of his number coming up. Since any other number would make Tom winning the lottery impossible, the winning lottery number must have been rigged ('designed') just for Tom to win.
There's a reason this logically flawed argument was dismissed over half a century ago.
"not all worldviews have equal scientific merit."
DeleteI think you miss my point. You can not do science, without a worldview. Your worldview determines the way you interpret all evidence including evidence from empirical science. You can do the tests. But the tests don't explain themselves, you need to look at the results and interpret them. And your worldview affects your interpretation.
You (Ritchie and Thorton) both bring up this idea that if the constants and quantities had had different values, then different forms of life might have evolved.
"OUR way of life might be impossible if we tweak a few conditions, but that does not mean ANY form of life would be impossible."
But in the words of Dr.Craig: "You're underestimating the truly disastrous consequences of a change in the values of these constants and quantities. In the absence of fine-tuning not even matter, not even chemistry, would exist, much less planets where life might evolve."
If you just started to "tweak" these 50 constants, like the strong force or gravity, you'd soon discover that not ANY kind of life would be possible.
Just consider the strong force:
If the strong force constant were 2% stronger, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, no hydrogen containing compounds. This is because the single proton in hydrogen would want to stick to something else so badly that there would be no hydrogen left!
if the strong force constant were 5% weaker, there would be no stable stars, few (if any) elements besides hydrogen. This is because you would be able to build up the nuclei of the heavier elements, which contain more than 1 proton.
So, whether you adjust the strong force up or down, you lose stars than can serve as long-term sources of stable energy, or you lose chemical diversity, which is necessary to make beings that can perform the minimal requirements of living beings.
The vast majority of these possibilities do not support the minimal requirements of life of any kind. Many times the universe would just collapse before it even gets anywhere. The probability of possible life of any kind is itself an infinitesimal probability.
Only way you can solve this (as an atheist) is to assume, believe, hope that there is infinite amount of undetectable universes and we just happen to be the one of those lucky universe with life in it.
Creivi
DeleteBut in the words of Dr.Craig: "You're underestimating the truly disastrous consequences of a change in the values of these constants and quantities. In the absence of fine-tuning not even matter, not even chemistry, would exist, much less planets where life might evolve."
Once again, a change may be disastrous to life as we know it, or chemistry as we know it. There is no evidence it would be disastrous for all possibilities.
The vast majority of these possibilities do not support the minimal requirements of life of any kind.
Completely unsupported assertion. Please demonstrate that you have tested all possible combination and permutations of parameters in order make that blanket declaration.
Like I said, there's a reason this fatally flawed argument has virtually disappeared except among the most ardent Creationists.
Ritchie (and Thorton),
DeleteSince we're basically having parallel discussions, I'd like to jump and say "What Creivi said!".
This is not a matter of different types of life forms evolving in universes with different physical constants.
Ritchie said:
the number of possible universes, and the number of universes which could host life OF ANY KIND. No matter how enormously large the first number is, if the second one is, say, two-thirds, then our existence is not at all unlikely and requires no particular explanation.
The problems with this argument are:
(1) We really don't have any evidence that multiple universes exist. The evidence is starting to point the other way. Measurements from the Large Hadron Collider are contradicting predictions made by String Theory, which was the best hope for atheistic physicists like Leonard Susskind to appeal to a universe ensemble capable of creating the probabilistic resources of generating at least one life permitting universe.
Ironically enough, if the physicists eventually prove that there is an infinite multiverse out there, they will have proven the existence of God since this universe generating multiverse would require an even higher degree of fine tuning than our Universe does, and it would prove the existence of God via the ontological argument!
(2) The odds are far less than 2/3 than the random ordering of constants would lead to a life permitting Universe (no matter what kind of life you can envision). Noted physicist Roger Penrose has attempted to calculate the odds of a life permitting Universe (of any kind) randomly occurring from the laws and constants of physics.
He calculates these odds to be on the order 1 in 10^123. To get an idea of how large this number is, you couldn't write it down even if you were able to write a single digit on every single proton and neutron in the entire universe!
There is simply no sane way to appeal to random chance to explain the fine tuning in physics. And the atheistic cosmologists and physicists aren't trying to do this. They concede that the Universe is miraculously fine tuned and that this demands some type of explanation. The only people who ever argue otherwise are uninformed Internet agnostics/atheists who spend all of their free time on places like pandasthumb or talkorigin and don't keep up with the latest research in physics and cosmology!
ALL of the evidence from physics is overwhelmingly against atheism. With the loss of credibility of string theory and all the evidence pointing to our Universe having a distinct beginning out of nothing, there has never been a better time to be a theist!
wgbutler777
DeleteHe calculates these odds to be on the order 1 in 10^123. To get an idea of how large this number is, you couldn't write it down even if you were able to write a single digit on every single proton and neutron in the entire universe!
Yet I can reach such a big number easily. Take two decks of cards, mix them randomly, then deal them out. The probability that you'll get the order you do is 104! or 10^166.
wg, no one on the planet has enough information to even wag such a probability calculation for "types of life". No one. To calculate an accurate probability for any event anywhere you need 1) knowledge of all possible outcomes and 2) knowledge of all possible 'successful' outcomes. You guys have neither. For the umpteenth time, you have a sample set of *ONE*, and no other knowledge.
Sorry wg, but this is just a variation of the same BS "it's too improbable!!" argument IDCers have been pushing for decades. No one in the scientific community swallows it even for a second. The only handful of people who even mention it anymore are scientifically illiterate internet Creationists trying to find any scientific straw to grasp at to justify their religious beliefs.
Hey goober, you're nuts. Seriously.
DeleteThe whole truth
DeleteHey goober, you're nuts. Seriously.
He's not nuts. He's just a 'born again' Fundy with severe self-esteem issues desperately trying to convince himself he made the right decision.
They're not all that uncommon.
Thorton,
DeleteI wish to correct a typo. The number is not 10^123. That is a tiny number by comparison. The actual number Roger Penrose calculated was (10^10)^123.
Now admittedly much of this stuff is way over my head. I did find this which quotes Roger Penrose as saying:
I want to introduce a hypothesis which I call the 'Weyl Curvature Hypothesis'. This is not an implication of any known theory. As I have said, we do not know what the theory is, because we do not know how to combine the physics of the very large and the very small. When we do discover that theory, it should have as one of its consequences this feature which I have called the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis. Remember that the Weyl curvature is that bit of the Riemann tensor which causes distortions and tidal effects. For some reason we do not yet understand, in the neighbourhood of the Big Bang, the appropriate combination of theories must result in the Weyl tensor being essentially zero, or rather being constrained to be very small indeed.
The Weyl Curvature Hypothesis is time-asymmetrical and it applies only to the past type singularities and not to the future singularities. If the same flexibility of allowing the Weyl tensor to be 'general' that I have applied in the future also applied to the past of the universe, in the closed model, you would end up with a dreadful looking universe with as much mess in the past as in the future. This looks nothing like the universe we live in. What is the probability that, purely by chance, the universe had an initial singularity looking even remotely as it does?
The probability is less than one part in (1010)123. Where does this estimate come from? It is derived from a formula by Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking concerning Black Hole entropy and, if you apply it in this particular context, you obtain this enormous answer. It depends how big the universe is and, if you adopt my own favourite universe, the number is, in fact, infinite.
What does this say about the precision that must be involved in setting up the Big Bang? It is really very, very extraordinary, I have illustrated the probability in a cartoon of the Creator, finding a very tiny point in that phase space which represents the initial conditions from which our universe must have evolved if it is to resemble remotely the one we live in. To find it, the Creator has to locate that point in phase space to an accuracy of one part in (1010)123. If I were to put one zero on each elementary particle in the universe, I still could not write the number down in full. It is a stupendous number.
Roger Penrose is not a Creationist. In fact, he is an atheist who has closely worked with Stephen Hawking on developing theories of the Universe.
What you have to realize, Thorton, is that none of this stuff is being disputed by atheistic physicists. They concede the extraordinary fine tuning of the Universe. This is why they are so anxious to invoke an world ensemble and increase the probabilistic resources. You don't have to take my word for any of this stuff. Buy their books and read their arguments for yourself.
wgbutler
DeleteI have illustrated the probability in a cartoon of the Creator, finding a very tiny point in that phase space which represents the initial conditions from which our universe must have evolved if it is to resemble remotely the one we live in. To find it, the Creator has to locate that point in phase space to an accuracy of one part in (1010)123. If I were to put one zero on each elementary particle in the universe, I still could not write the number down in full. It is a stupendous number.
Roger Penrose is not a Creationist.
I highlighted the important part of the Penrose quote. Why don't you tell me what it means.
Here's a clue. It has nothing to do with other possible combinations of parameters or other forms of life.
We still have a sample set of one. We still have zero information or what else could or could not possibly exist. You seem to be bound and determined to not understand those simple facts.
What you have to realize, Thorton, is that none of this stuff is being disputed by atheistic physicists
None of it is being championed by mainstream science either because they're meaningless numbers with no relevance to anyone except religious philosophers. No one is surprised that the shape of the water fits the hole in the ground so closely. Except maybe you.
wgbutler and Creivi -
DeleteThornton continues the perfectly valid point that we have no idea how many ways there are of life existing, and thus, no idea how many 'possible' universes could host life of any description.
But I notice you both ignored my second point: that the a creator is statistically even LESS likely than a naturalistic universe.
You are both working on the logic of 'Chance or design. Chance is extremely unlikely. Therefore design.' This is fallacious. If you want to see which is more likely then you have to calculate the odds of design as well and then compare them.
Consider; my odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 14 million. Very bad odds. A win through chance alone is therefore enormously improbable. But does that therefore justify an assumption that I have a magic guardian fairy who can alter the very fabric of reality, and affected the lottery so that I would win? No. Just going on probability alone, this is even more improbable. Yet your logic would support it: "Either chance or the magic fairy. Chance is very unlikely, therefore the fairy!"
Your fallacious logic can be summed up as "A or B. A is unlikely, therefore B." The problem is that 'B' is not equal to 'not-A'. You have to calculate the odds for A, the odds for B, and then compare them. And when we do that, the hypothesis of a supernatural designer loses out every time. A designer and creator of the universe must be more complex than the universe, and therefore be less likely to exist.
(Creivi)
I think you miss my point. You can not do science, without a worldview...
When you say 'worldview' it sounds like you mean existing biases and assumptions. Scientists should have as few of those as possible - and certainly not hold ones which are unsupported by evidence. They have a duty to be objective.
Now you can argue that this is, in practice, impossible. You can argue that people cannot ever be truly objective. And you might be right. But that does not mean scientists should give up on striving for objectivity, and it does not justify them holding wildly fanciful and totally unevidenced claims, such as a belief in an almighty being who intervenes in the world through miracles. Such untestable ideas have no place in science.
(wg)
We really don't have any evidence that multiple universes exist...
You've gotten ahead of yourself. Neither I nor Thornton have here advocated the multi-universe theory. Personally, while I think it is perfectly plausible, it is, as you said, highly speculative, and in any case unnecessary for rebutting the fine tuning argument.
It may well be true that the universe is very 'finely tuned', as in, the conditions for a universe which will sustain life AS WE KNOW IT may well be very narrow. Such a universe as this might well be extremely improbable. But it does not follow that it thus requires an explanation. And it certainly does not justify an explanation which is even less likely.
Ritchie and Thorton,
DeleteI highlighted the important part of the Penrose quote. Why don't you tell me what it means.
Penrose explains what it means right here.
The number (1010)^123 is the odds of our universe starting out in a low entropy state. What this means is that it is infinitely more probable that we should be a high entropy Universe, which would be life prohibiting.
Although William Craig argues that high entropy universes can potentially create observers through thermal fluctuations causing a random collision of particles, the probability of which is estimated to be (1:10^10)^60. While this is a highly unlikely number, it is in the words of Penrose, "utter chicken feed by comparison" to the odds of existing in an initially low entropy Universe such as the one we inhabit.
What all this means in laymen's terms is that in a high entropy universe a random collision of particles could potentially result in the sudden appearance of a boltzmann brain in a small pocket (about the size of a solar system) of the universe. This Boltzmann brain might be able to imagine that other observers existed, but that would all just be an illusion in the mind of the Boltzmann brain.
But I guess one could legitimately argue that since the odds are only 1 in (1010)^123 of existing in a low entropy Universe, you could make the case that you are really just a solitary brain floating in a small pocket of space imagining that you are arguing with someone about intelligent design!
No one is surprised that the shape of the water fits the hole in the ground so closely. Except maybe you.
Speaking of water, that is also fine tuned on the quantum level!
And your statement is patently untrue. I've supplied a ton of evidence showing atheistic cosmologists admitting the fine tuning of the universe and appealing to a multi-verse to try explain it. If you want to just ignore all of that and stick your head in the sand and pretend that no one thinks this is a big deal that is up to you.
And you know, I have to say - you really don't sound like any agnostic I've ever talked to. An agnostic would be somewhat open to the possibility of God's existence. You don't sound open to this possibility at all.
Consider; my odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 14 million. Very bad odds. A win through chance alone is therefore enormously improbable. But does that therefore justify an assumption that I have a magic guardian fairy who can alter the very fabric of reality, and affected the lottery so that I would win? No.
This is a pretty bad argument. A more relevant example would be you winning the top cash prize in every single state's lottery for 20 years in a row.
You'd be suspected of fraud and hacking into the system pretty quickly, and if you tried to get around this by arguing that there were potentially 10^500 universes out there, and in one of those universes you won every state's lottery 20 years in a row, you'd probably get life in prison just for contempt of court!
And when we do that, the hypothesis of a supernatural designer loses out every time.
This is just a bald assertion completely unsupported by any evidence. You have no way of knowing how likely or complicated a supernatural Designer would be. Given that we know that we exist, and that matter cannot be eternal in the past, a supernatural reality is not only likely to exist but required.
wg -
DeleteWhat this means is that it is infinitely more probable that we should be a high entropy Universe, which would be life prohibiting.
No, it would be prohibiting to life AS WE KNOW IT. Again, you are merely appealing to how unlikely the universe is. Which I agree is incredibly high. But what we do not know - what no-one knows - is in how many forms it is possible for life to exist. We can work out the conditions required for OUR sort of life, but that does not tell us whether life can exist in other states. We need both sets of probabilities.
I've supplied a ton of evidence showing atheistic cosmologists admitting the fine tuning of the universe and appealing to a multi-verse to try explain it. If you want to just ignore all of that and stick your head in the sand and pretend that no one thinks this is a big deal that is up to you.
Doesn't the fact that these cosmologists ARE atheists trouble you at all? Doesn't it ring an alarm bell that the fine tuning of the universe is not such a smoking gun piece of evidence for a creator after all? You are using the work of scientists and mathematicians to reach a different conclusion to the one they have reached. Doesn't that give you pause?
Again, no-one here doubts how very, very, very unlikely this universe is. But improbable events do not imply conscious design behind them. The odds of your birth - that two people with the EXACT genes your parents carried would meet and have sex and the EXACT right moment to conceive you - must be vanishingly small too. Does that mean your birth was divinely ordained? Were supernatural forces at work to make sure YOU were brought into being?
This is a pretty bad argument.
It is a bad argument, but a good analogy. Your 'fine tuning therefore God' argument is bad for exactly the same reasons.
A more relevant example would be you winning the top cash prize in every single state's lottery for 20 years in a row.
Again, consider the staggering odds against your birth happening just by 'random chance'. I have no idea how to calculate such things, but would not be surprised if they were comparable to winning every state lottery for 20 years.
Practically any event, when seen in retrospect, is staggeringly unlikely. Because any specific event is far more likely to have NOT happened, than to have happened. But this just tells us about our perspective and about probabilities. It does not justify a belief in a supernatural being therefore guiding the universe, and thus making every event inevitable.
This is just a bald assertion completely unsupported by any evidence.
It is supported by simple logic. Any being capable of conceiving of, designing and then creating a thing must therefore be more complex than that thing. And the more complex something is, the less likely it is to exist. Thus a supernatural creator of a universe will always be more complex - and therefore more improbable - than any natural universe.
Given that we know that we exist, and that matter cannot be eternal in the past, a supernatural reality is not only likely to exist but required.
That's just the First Cause argument. Which is just an exercise in special pleading. You avoid the apparently unacceptable conclusion of infinite regress by positing an eternal being.
"No engineer would design that, at all. Ever!"
ReplyDeleteAnother way of saying this is "I know all. I see all. I am all."
Not only religion, but also...
Arrogance trumps science.
Delusion trumps science.
Insanity trumps science.
CH I have to concur.
ReplyDeleteNot A => B (claim 1) iff A + B = 1 (condition 1) .
Since evolutionists are too stupid to understand elementary logic they make this mistake repeatedly, as demonstrated in this video. Nowhere have they proven that evolution as they see it, and creationism as they see it is all the possiblities. Evolution is so plastic that its meaning can change daily. Their version of creationism is completely a strawman argument.
Thanks CH for being a beacon of truth in these murky waters.
.
Since evolutionists are too stupid to understand elementary logic
DeletePeter says hundreds of thousands of scientists including numerous Nobel laureates are too stupid to understand elementary logic.
You might want to develop an argument based on somewhat more plausible premises.
Peter -
ReplyDeleteNowhere have they proven that evolution as they see it, and creationism as they see it is all the possiblities.
That is because it is not the 'evolutionists' who claim "ID/Creation is impossible; therefore evolution." That is merely Cornelius' strawman.
It is in fact the ID-ers who claim "Not evolution, therefore ID/Creationism." As wonderfully demonstrated on this very blog. I have been here a long time and to my mind Cornelius spends every post decrying evolution (and its associated "atheistic agenda") and none providing solid evidence for ID.
Do you imagine this is because he is merely on a crusade to clear out sloppy-thinking from science? If so then you are mistaken. If there was ever any evidence for ID, Cornelius would be all over it like a cheap suit. The fact is that there simply is no positive evidence for ID. Trying to poke holes in evolution and then trying to claim victory by default is all they have.
Crevi: But even if it did, based on my own worldview of biblical christianity at least, there are reasons why the universe is NOT perfect. (sin) So I wouldn't use such an argument in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Crevi is making a metaphysica/theological argument for why the Universe is not perfect. Or is there physical evidence that the Universe was once in a different "perfect" state and because of the transgressions of two people on Planet Earth, the Entire Universe (all 100 billion galaxies or more) has now been put out of whack? (and CH says evolution is unbelievable!).
Interesting to note that CH, who is usually quick to spot a putative metaphysical argument, seems not to want to comment on this one yet.
It would be interesting to know whether CH also accepts this worldview - i.e., that the Fall (sin) is the cause of the imperfections we see all around us.
Peter
ReplyDeleteTheir version of creationism is completely a strawman argument
Why don't you give us the real, non-strawman version of Creation then. Be sure to provide some details (i.e when, where, by what mechanisms) along with your supporting positive evidence.
de Grasse Tyson's comedic presentation deserves prize; a beautiful song
ReplyDeleteOther than that he is talking nonsense. Bad design? Would he do it better?
Tyson doesn't claim to be an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect god, and no one else claims that he is.
DeleteYou god zombies, on the other hand, DO claim that your imaginary god is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect.
It's hilarious watching you godbots trying to make excuses for the massive amount of 'imperfections' in the universe that you allege was designed and created by a 'perfect' god.
It's also hilarious that you thumpers try to use things that science has discovered to support your fairy tale beliefs even though you constantly attack and condemn science.
You constantly rely on the very thing that you want to destroy. You constantly rely on the very thing that, according to you, doesn't work, doesn't have the answers, is corrupt, is blind, is misdirected, is biased, is impotent, is dishonest, and is just plain wrong. You constantly rely on science, in your assertions, your arguments, and your attacks on science.
You also rely on science in all kinds of ways in your daily lives, yet you're the most ungrateful bunch of arrogant, two-faced, fairy tale pushing lunatics on planet Earth.
Eugen
ReplyDeletede Grasse Tyson's comedic presentation deserves prize; a beautiful song
Other than that he is talking nonsense.
What specifically did de Grasse Tyson say that is factually incorrect?
de Grasse Tyson did not argue anywhere in the video that "bad design proves intelligent design is wrong". That is CH's typical dumb strawman, latched onto by the other IDCers here. de Grasse Tyson merely pointed out the huge inconsistencies with the claim "an omnipotent benevolent designer created the universe just for humans" when in fact 99.99%+ of the universe falls into the range from simply detrimental to outright fatal to humans.
I've yet to see any IDCer offer a reasonable counterargument to that point.
Bad design? Would he do it better?
It's quite easy to come up with changes that would be better for humans than the current setup. For example, why did the Omnipotent Benevolent Designer give humans four different blood types (A, B, O, AB) along with differing Rh factors and make it so that having a transfusion of the wrong blood can kill you?
Even having children with someone of the wrong blood comparability is almost a certain death sentence for the fetus in some cases. Does that sound benevolent and human-friendly to you?
CH: Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out that notions of creationism and intelligent design ignore a fundamental and important problem—the fact that the universe, and most of the things in it, would never have been designed.
ReplyDeleteWhat's odd is that Cornelius doesn't actually provide a quote of Tyson saying "No engineer would design that, at all." or "most of the things in the universe would never have been designed."
More odd yet is that Red Reader quotes it in his comment as if Tyson actually said specifically that.
Oh wait. That's not odd, as Cornelius does this sort of thing all the time in hope that his target audience will assume this is the case.
Scott
ReplyDeleteWhat's odd is that Cornelius doesn't actually provide a quote of Tyson saying "No engineer would design that, at all." or "most of the things in the universe would never have been designed."
More odd yet is that Red Reader quotes it in his comment as if Tyson actually said specifically that
Tyson did say that at the very end of the video. However, it was a throwaway comment on the old joke about human males having a single apparatus for both urinating and reproduction - "no one would put an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system". Tyson was merely pointing out that no competent engineer would do such a thing.
It was an out-of-context quote and not a summation of the whole talk as CH dishonestly misrepresented. What's interesting is that not a single of his IDC supporters called him on this dishonesty.
Ritchie said:
ReplyDelete"The view that there are magic pink unicorns is not scientifically as viable as the view that there aren't."
Now hold on there. There's absolutely no doubt that there are pink unicorns, and that they are magic. In fact, this universe and and all the other billions of universes were magically designed and created by Fifi the pink unicorn. World renowned scientists from every field and Fifi-logians not only concede that it's true but regularly proclaim it from the highest hilltops as the only truth!
Your remark is blasphemous, and you're going to suffer eternal hoof stomping and horn poking in the Lord Fifi's extra-cosmic stable if you don't repent and beg Fifi for forgiveness.
May Fifi have mercy on your soul.
Praise Fifi!
;)
Thorton
ReplyDeletedeGrasse Tyson was really funny, it was an entertaining presentation. Even Dawkins had a good chuckle.
He cannot say I would have done it this or that way.
He would like to have separate openings and canals for food intake, breathing and talking. What an engineering nightmare.
Now instead of one he would have three canals. He would have to build separate muscles for each canal, extra nerve controls for them, extra blood supply lines, reinforcement of neck vertebrae, allocation of more brain resources to run independent events, decrease of head mobility...And this is just a very short list.
KISS applies here.
One canal for all the functions, nerves control closing and opening of shared air/food canal at the reflex level, that way it uses very little brain resources. Bob’s your uncle.
I don’t want to have my neck size and stiffness of a lamppost. Hire deGrasse Tyson only as astronomer, not an engineer.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Albert Einstein
Just noticed, Greta Christina is here with her Fifi.
ReplyDeleteHi Greta!
Eugen said...
ReplyDeleteHe cannot say I would have done it this or that way.
He would like to have separate openings and canals for food intake, breathing and talking. What an engineering nightmare.
But your omnipotent benevolent designer gave separate food and breathing passages to cetaceans.
cetacean physiology
"Cetaceans do not breathe through their mouths at all. In fact, the trachea and esophagus are completely separated with the aid of an organ called the goose beak. The goose beak is an evolutionarily modified larynx that bridges the gap between the nasal passages and the trachea, and is designed to keep anything but air out of the lungs. It is a cartilaginous organ that sits unattached, but tightly fit, inside the sporacular channel found in the skull underneath the blowhole."
Must not be that much of an engineering nightmare since it was already done, right?
Now instead of one he would have three canals. He would have to build separate muscles for each canal, extra nerve controls for them, extra blood supply lines, reinforcement of neck vertebrae, allocation of more brain resources to run independent events, decrease of head mobility...And this is just a very short list.
So your omnipotent benevolent designer was incapable of coming up with a design that would greatly increase human safety, like putting the food intake hole in the abdomen next to the stomach. That, or he was on a shoestring budget and had to scrimp on materials. Doesn't sound too intelligent or omnipotent to me.
I notice you had no comment on why the designer gave humans multiple different blood types that can kill both adults and fetuses. Doesn't that shoot down your "make it as simple as possible" idea for the design?
Tyson reminds me of the story about a guy who was told what a beautiful, cloudless, sunny day it was. Upon hearing that, he cocked and strained his neck around and scanned the horizon intently and finally noted that there was a little cloud over there. Forget the fact that it's a beautiful, sunny day, let's have everyone focus on that little cloud and fret about it.
ReplyDeleteHe must be a real joy to be around when you consider that he thinks a good design would have us watching everything from Long wave submarine radio communications to radiation coming from our microwave ovens and smelling carbon monoxide.
But, he's just grasping for stuff to say. If we could smell carbon monoxide, he would just find another gas, if we could see the whole wave spectrum he would just say it was a waste or something. If the universe was filled with planets like the earth, then he would say how easy it was for evolution to have done it.
It is the atheists attempt to push back from the fact that the earth is indeed a privileged planet in a finely tuned universe of precise laws.
While atheists are focused on the "little cloud" they miss the big picture of elegance all around them.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteTyson reminds me of the story about a guy who was told what a beautiful, cloudless, sunny day it was. Upon hearing that, he cocked and strained his neck around and scanned the horizon intently and finally noted that there was a little cloud over there. Forget the fact that it's a beautiful, sunny day, let's have everyone focus on that little cloud and fret about it
Your problem is Tedford - you keep claiming your God created nothing but bright sunny days, and Tyson keeps pointing out the reality of the huge black rainclouds and downpour that is ruining the picnic.
You can't answer his observation of course, but you'll mindlessly belch your "it's nothing but blue skies and sunshine!!" even as the rainwater pours off your fat carcass.
Neal -
ReplyDeleteNo, the case is more like a grey, drizzling, totally overcast day, with Christians claiming what a incredibly perfect and beautiful weather we are having because somewhere, far no the horizon, there is a tiny break in the clouds where a tiny patch of sky can be seen beyond.
The staggering, overwhelming, vastly, enormously, huge majority of the universe is not, in the slightest, hospitable to life. It is only (as far as we know) one, solitary, absolutely miniscule spec which is 'finely tuned' for life.
It's like a planet the size of the sun being completely hostile to life through and through except, for some bizarre reason, on one tiny grain of sand where conditions were just right to allow life. Given such a ratio, the claim that the entire planet must have been 'finely tuned' to allow for life is ridiculous.
The Great Pyramid is a huge structure. It was designed to accommodate the body of Khufu. That doesn't make sense. A huge mass only for one corpse. And the Taj Mahal is a big edifice. And it has nice gardens all around. It was designed as the tomb of one Queen. Why was such a big building designed to accommodate a small object. Maybe the size of an object doesn't necessari;y correlate with its function. So why can't a big universe have been designed to accommodate life?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it can't. I'm not saying the fact that life is reserved to such a miniscule spec in such a truly epic universe is evidence that it was not designed.
DeleteBut it does undercut the assertion that the universe seems 'purpose built' to host life. Because if that was indeed the case, then it would appear that it wasn't done very well. Which leaves a bit of explaining to be done for those who claim this is evidence of an omnipotent, omnicognisant being (and believe me there are plenty out there).
natchuster: The Great Pyramid is a huge structure. It was designed to accommodate the body of Khufu. That doesn't make sense.
DeleteSure it does. We can explain The Great Pyramid in that individual human beings can be egotistical and hold irrational ideas in that how they were buried effected their fate in the afterlife. They can also oppress, delude and exploit other human beings.
How do you explain the "just good enough" designs we observe in the biosphere? That's just what God must have wanted?
Your trolling gets a little more stupid each time you post nat.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what your point is. Is it that the Great Pyramid was not designed to hold the corps of Khufu? Is it that things are never too big for the purpose for which they where designed? Is it that we can't learn about designed things by studying designed things like the Pyramid or the Taj Mahal? What did I say wrong? Please, the suspense is killing me. Please show me my error.
Deletenatschuster
DeleteI'm not sure what your point is.
Yes you do nat. Being a lying little troll just isn't as fun for you when people catch on, now is it? Too bad.
Sorry, I'm still in the dark. I don't know where I lied in my post, or where my error is. PLease show me the error.
Deletenatschuster: Is it that we can't learn about designed things by studying designed things like the Pyramid or the Taj Mahal?
DeleteAre you suggesting we can Nat? If so, how was the knowledge of how to build the pyramids created? Can we learn this by studying the particular adaptations that make up The Great Pyramid?
If not, it would seem your claiming "we can't learn about designed things by studying designed things like the Pyramid or the Taj Mahal"
Ritchie said, "No, the case is more like a grey, drizzling, totally overcast day, with Christians claiming what a incredibly perfect and beautiful weather we are having because somewhere, far no the horizon, there is a tiny break in the clouds where a tiny patch of sky can be seen beyond."
ReplyDelete--
Do you really see life as that bad? Have you forgotton how to see beauty and love and comfort and color? God wants to give you joy if you open up your heart to Him.
--
Whose claiming that everything in life is incredibly perfect and beautiful? No Christians I know do. The Bible doesn't. Christ doesn't. So you have a strawman argument going on.
My point wasn't that bad things do not ever happen, my point was you just can't make a logical or sound argument out of bad while ignoring the good. That Tyson and you guys are using such weak deductive argument is glaringly obvious.
Without the rain, there are no flowers. Atheists always hold to a very narrow, neurotic fixation with hypotheized efficiencies.
As an example, this is how an atheist thinks... plug Shakspeare and Lincoln's Gettysburg address into Microsoft Word and grammar check it to the max to eliminate supposed inefficiencies and issues with the text. The result would be the atheists dream literature? No? Why not?
Why bother with a beautiful sunset? Just click off... much more efficient. Sunsets exists and they are inefficient, therefore there is no God. That makes as much sense as any of the arguments here against a designer.
Tedford the idiot said
ReplyDeleteSunsets exists and they are inefficient, therefore there is no God.
Neither Tyson nor Ritchie nor I nor anyone here ever made that argument Tedford. That is your own idiot spin on things.
God wants to give you joy if you open up your heart to Him.
He also wants his believers to not bear false witness, but you and CH violate that commandment with almost every post.
Neal -
ReplyDeleteDo you really see life as that bad? Have you forgotton how to see beauty and love and comfort and color? God wants to give you joy if you open up your heart to Him.
No, not at all. My metaphor was meant to invoke disorder and hostility to life, not ugliness and a lack of wonder. I think the universe has plenty of beauty and wonder in it - but this is no way implies there must have been a creative mind behind it. There is great beauty to be found in chaos. Just look up at the stars to see that.
Whose claiming that everything in life is incredibly perfect and beautiful? No Christians I know do. The Bible doesn't. Christ doesn't. So you have a strawman argument going on.
You misunderstand me. You are claiming that it is very, very, precisely balanced - 'finely tuned' if you will.
My point wasn't that bad things do not ever happen, my point was you just can't make a logical or sound argument out of bad while ignoring the good.
But you and other fine-tuning advocates are making an argument out of the 'good', while ignoring the 'bad' - which, incidentally, massively outweighs the good! That is my point.
As an example, this is how an atheist thinks... plug Shakspeare and Lincoln's Gettysburg address into Microsoft Word and grammar check it to the max to eliminate supposed inefficiencies and issues with the text. The result would be the atheists dream literature? No? Why not?
You have done nothing but present an ugly strawman of an atheist.
Atheists certainly revel in the wonders of life. We appreciate beauty and art, culture and music, the funny, the irreverant, the spices of life. We are here to enjoy life's treasures and appreciate the world around us just as much as you are.
The leap in logic you make that I don't is "The world is beautiful; THEREFORE IT WAS DESIGNED". That is the error. I just think it is beautiful.
Life is all the more beautiful for being finite, all the more precious for being brief. How can you ever truly appreciate the life around you if you are constantly dreaming of a greater one to come after this life is over?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeal: It is the atheists attempt to push back from the fact that the earth is indeed a privileged planet in a finely tuned universe of precise laws.
ReplyDeleteExcept it's not. The following video clearly refutes this parochial view.
Our Place in the Cosmos
The current crop of ID is highly parochial, in that it only takes into account a narrow scope of the issue.
Of course, most ID proponents are justificationalists who are only concerned about who or what source said what, rather than good arguments and explanations. And they assume this is the only way to approach knowledge. The Bible is the word of God. Therefore, they are justified in assuming it's true. This is yet another parochial view.
To quote from the talk…
So in fact, intergalactic space does contain all the prerequisites for the open-ended creation of knowledge. Any such cube, anywhere in the universe, could become the same kind of hub that we are, if the knowledge of how to do so were present there. So we're not in a uniquely hospitable place. If intergalactic space is capable of creating an open-ended stream of explanations, then so is almost every other environment. So is the Earth. So is a polluted Earth. And the limiting factor, there and here, is not resources, because they're plentiful, but knowledge, which is scarce.
Now this cosmic knowledge-based view may -- and I think ought to -- make us feel very special. But it should also make us feel vulnerable, because it means that without the specific knowledge that's needed to survive the ongoing challenges of the universe, we won't survive them. All it takes is for a supernova to go off a few light years away, and we'll all be dead! Martin Rees has recently written a book about our vulnerability to all sorts of things, from astrophysics, to scientific experiments gone wrong, and most importantly to terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. And he thinks that civilization has only a 50 percent chance of surviving this century. I think he's going to talk about that later in the conference.
Now I don't think that probability is the right category to discuss this issue in. But I do agree with him about this. We can survive, and we can fail to survive. But it depends not on chance, but on whether we create the relevant knowledge in time. The danger is not at all unprecedented. Species go extinct all the time. Civilizations end. The overwhelming majority of all species and all civilizations that have ever existed are now history. And if we want to be the exception to that, then logically our only hope is to make use of the one feature that distinguishes our species, and our civilization, from all the others -- namely, our special relationship with the laws of physics, our ability to create new explanations, new knowledge -- to be a hub of existence.
As an example, the majority of the places people live in today were originally hostile to human life. However, these places are hospitable today because we've adopted them to our needs. And we've done so by creating the knowledge of how to make them hospitable.
The problem is that theism makes several assumptions that are highly detrimental to our survival.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, it assumes that all knowledge (or some specific key subset) is not created, but has always existed. This is highly detrimental as it leads people to conclude that…
01. Answers should be exhaustively complete.
If we do not know everything, then we know nothing. It should leave no open ended questions, etc.
02. Answers are either completely true or completely false.
If some being, "just was", complete with all knowledge already present, this would prevent gaps that would result in fallibility.
03. True knowledge does not change.
If knowledge is created over time, we must adjust out knowledge to account for the appearance of new knowledge. Assuming it is not created is hostile to correcting errors and the very process of conjecture and refutation.
Arguments against evolution are essentially arguments against knowledge being created as it's the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory.
The funny thing is, ID proponents do not deny holding this assumption. Nor do they have any criticism of conjecture and refutation or a better explanation for how we create knowledge.
Apparently, that's just what God must have wanted.
Thorton
ReplyDelete“..cetacean physiology..”
Yes separate food, air canals work for dolphins. Why would that be optimal for humans?
We don’t have water buoyancy to help support massive inflexible necks. We wouldn’t be able to turn heads to look for danger. Our eyes would be positioned on sides of the head, near ears. Our dexterity would suffer because of eye positioning. Depth perception would be a problem. We would be top heavy. etc
I still think it’s silly to say combined air/food canal is bad design. I think it’s optimal design for humans. Regardless of who or what did it.
“..like putting the food intake hole in the abdomen next to the stomach..”
That’s creepy. I’ve seen too many space alien movies.
Blood types? Good question.
Ritchie said, "The world is beautiful; THEREFORE IT WAS DESIGNED". That is the error. I just think it is beautiful."
ReplyDelete--
Well, at least we can agree that the world is beautiful.
The design inference is not based on physical beauty but on the precise and finite range in which the physical specs of the universe exist. A slight variation and our universe would not exist.
Our star generates a constant source of steady heat and light for millions of years without external maintenance. You're doing good if you can get through a couple of years without maintenance on your house furnance or light blub. Yet your house furnace was designed, but the laws and properties of the sun weren't?
Neal -
DeleteThe design inference is not based on physical beauty but on the precise and finite range in which the physical specs of the universe exist. A slight variation and our universe would not exist.
Right. A different universe would exist. A universe which, for all we know, might well have given rise to another form of life - a form of life which was suited to that universe.
Eugen
ReplyDeleteThorton
“..cetacean physiology..”
Yes separate food, air canals work for dolphins. Why would that be optimal for humans?
No one said it would be optimal, but it would certainly be safer than the arrangement we have now.
We don’t have water buoyancy to help support massive inflexible necks. We wouldn’t be able to turn heads to look for danger. Our eyes would be positioned on sides of the head, near ears. Our dexterity would suffer because of eye positioning. Depth perception would be a problem. We would be top heavy. etc
Why would both passages have to be on the head and run down the neck? Why couldn't the mouth be down by the stomach, or the air hole on the middle of the back?
The whole point of this silly thought exercise is that an omnipotent designer would have no constraints on his design. Evolution on the other hand is severely constrained - it can only work by modifying what is already present. That's why the human body is full of barely "good enough" designs that look like they were kluged together from whatever was handy - because in many cases they were.
For example, the human spine with its easily crushable disks is an atrociously poor design for an animal that walks upright. But we're stuck with the layout because our early ancestors who walked on all fours had it. If we were designed from scratch by Mr.All-Powerful there's no reason for such a crappy mechanism.
I still think it’s silly to say combined air/food canal is bad design. I think it’s optimal design for humans. Regardless of who or what did it.
By what do you judge it to be an optimal design, just because you're used to it? It may be a "good enough to get by" design, but that's what evolution produces. Not optimal, but good enough.
“..like putting the food intake hole in the abdomen next to the stomach..”
That’s creepy. I’ve seen too many space alien movies.
Could be worse. The Designer could have saved even more material and had us remove waste via the same hole that we use for food intake. ;)
Blood types? Good question.
I open the floor to all reading this for a good answer.
The Fall
DeleteThis may need some explanation. The universe was obviously perfect before the fall. However, due to free will, eating an apple caused the perfectly constructed masterpiece to fly off its axis and, among other effects, the tower-of-babylon-ification of blood types. It's all perfectly explained by time cube theory.
DeleteBlood types? Good question.
DeleteI open the floor to all reading this for a good answer.
I believe, in brief, different blood types hold slightly different resistances to certain diseases and infections, though exactly why this should be the case is uncertain. In a world of numerous diseases, it is therefore reasonable that a number of disease-resistant blood types should thrive:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-people-have-differ
Here's an interesting article exploring the specific hypothesis that type O blood arose as a response to malaria:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18504473
For the more technically minded, here is a good paper outlining the genetic changes and estimated timeline for the evolution of the A, B, O alleles of the human blood group locus
DeleteEvolution of Primate ABO Blood Group Genes and Their Homologous Genes
Here is another article on the relative geographic distribution of different blood types
Distribution of Blood Types
Interesting that not a single IDCer offered an explanation for why the Designer created different types of blood and different Rh factors that can sometimes kill us.
Thorton
ReplyDelete"The whole point of this silly thought exercise is that an omnipotent designer would have no constraints on his design"
It's OK to have silly thought exercise sometimes. I think our food/air canal is optimal generally speaking.
OTOH, this setup is all we know so anything else seems silly. It also seems good enough. Anything could be over engineered.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteT.Cook,
ReplyDeletePlease continue. It is just getting good.
And don't leave out the pink unicorns. :)
DeleteThorton Jan 30, 2012 01:05 PM
ReplyDelete“No one said it would be optimal, but it would certainly be safer than the arrangement we have now.”
Then Why the Blindwatchmaker did it only once with cetaceans? Cetaceans came from a pig like mammal, if he could do it with that mammal why with no other?
“Why would both passages have to be on the head and run down the neck? Why couldn't the mouth be down by the stomach, or the air hole on the middle of the back?”
If having the the holes in the head is a disadvantage why Natural Selection chosed the Jiraffe, or long neck birds, or long neck dinousaurs?
“The whole point of this silly thought exercise is that an omnipotent designer would have no constraints on his design. Evolution on the other hand is severely constrained - it can only work by modifying what is already present. That's why the human body is full of barely "good enough" designs that look like they were kluged together from whatever was handy - because in many cases they were.”
God is omnipotent, but creation is limited, both by definition. God cannot change the limitations of the creation, if He does it will created another perfect beeing, another God that it is a nonsense because a God cannot be created. Then as any engineer he has to balance the different performances of his devices based on the limitation of the creation.
“For example, the human spine with its easily crushable disks is an atrociously poor design for an animal that walks upright. “
Can you describe the better design for the spine for animals that walks upright?
“By what do you judge it to be an optimal design, just because you're used to it? It may be a "good enough to get by" design, but that's what evolution produces. Not optimal, but good enough.”
Try to define optimal design, good enough design and bad design. But please a definition based on phisical evidence not your interpretation of what the definition should be.
blas -
ReplyDeleteIf having the the holes in the head is a disadvantage why Natural Selection chosed the Jiraffe, or long neck birds, or long neck dinousaurs?
No-one said it was a disadvantage. Just not optimal. It works, therefore it is good enough.
God is omnipotent, but creation is limited... God cannot change the limitations of the creation
If He cannot, then He is not omnipotent.
Can you describe the better design for the spine for animals that walks upright?
An interlaced four-column structure is always far more sturdy than a single column.
Blas
ReplyDeleteThen Why the Blindwatchmaker did it only once with cetaceans? Cetaceans came from a pig like mammal, if he could do it with that mammal why with no other?
Because selection pressures drove the evolution. Not all species have the same selection pressures. An omnipotent designer starting from scratch doesn't face selection pressure.
If having the the holes in the head is a disadvantage why Natural Selection chosed the Jiraffe, or long neck birds, or long neck dinousaurs?
Because evolution is constrained by having to modify what already exists. An omnipotent designer starting from scratch has no such constraints.
God is omnipotent, but creation is limited, both by definition.
Then your God is not omnipotent. In fact, he appears to be a rather incompetent bumbler.
God cannot change the limitations of the creation, if He does it will created another perfect beeing, another God that it is a nonsense because a God cannot be created. Then as any engineer he has to balance the different performances of his devices based on the limitation of the creation.
That's one of the dumber things that's been said here in a while. How would giving humans a separate food passage and air passage make them into a second perfect God-like entity?
Can you describe the better design for the spine for animals that walks upright?
Easily. A series of vertically connected ball and socket joints, a design already present in the body, would give the same mobility and load bearing capability with none of the agony of a herniated disk.
Try to define optimal design, good enough design and bad design. But please a definition based on phisical evidence not your interpretation of what the definition should be.
In this context the terms are with reference to how they affect evolutionary reproductive fitness. An optimal design would have no room for improvement, a good enough design would have some room for improvement, a bad design would have lots of room for improvement.
Ritchie
ReplyDeleteJan 31, 2012 05:29 AM
"If He cannot, then He is not omnipotent."
Thorton
Jan 31, 2012 05:35 AM
"Then your God is not omnipotent. In fact, he appears to be a rather incompetent bumbler."
Sorry, I forgot basic logic is outside the reach of darwinist.
Then perhaps you'd like to explain precisely how an omnipotent being is incapable of doing something.
DeleteOmnipotent means you can do ANYTHING. If there are things God cannot do (which is exactly what you just said), then He is not omnipotent.
God cannot be not God.
DeleteGod cannot create another God
God cannot create things with the atribution of God.
God cannot be illogical, cannot be wrong, cannot be bad.
God cannot create things perfects, because perfect is God.
God cannot do a square circle.
Basic logic.
... therefore God is not omnipotent.
DeleteYes, for darwinists a syllogysm is the same of a sophism.
DeleteBlas
DeleteYes, for darwinists a syllogysm is the same of a sophism.
...and for Creationists a lie told for Jesus is as good as the truth.
Blas
ReplyDeleteRitchie
Jan 31, 2012 05:29 AM
"If He cannot, then He is not omnipotent."
Thorton
Jan 31, 2012 05:35 AM
"Then your God is not omnipotent. In fact, he appears to be a rather incompetent bumbler."
Sorry, I forgot basic logic is outside the reach of darwinist.
You're the boob who claimed his God is omnipotent, but then says the same God can't even create two separate passages for food and air in humans. Not us.
velikovskys,
ReplyDelete"Please continue. It is just getting good."
The Whole Truth,
"And don't leave out the pink unicorns. :)"
Gladly. Thank you for your interest. Having a ninth grade education, I am a lot smarter than everybody else here since I learned these things on my own. Fifi is a creation of the devil. She is just a pony with a phallus on her head. She pushes the homesexual aggenda, trying to get men to give into their deepest desires to be whith other men, stop rerpoducing, and thus steal armageddon from god. All men want this, because of the fall, but we have to stay strong and resist the urge to seek the comfort of strong hairy arms, holding us close, melting us with the heat of their muscles. WHat tipped me off to the FiFi agenda is that Bronies listen to heavy metal. Heavy metal is the music of the devil.
Probability is the tool of the devil. Nothings ever completely true with probability, there is always room for doubt. The devil wants us to doubt. Evolution relies on probability. Evolution is false. Geometry is always true. Time cube has research. Time cube uses geometry. TIME CUBE!!!!
Ritchie
ReplyDeleteJan 31, 2012 05:29 AM
"No-one said it was a disadvantage. Just not optimal. It works, therefore it is good enough."
No, Thorton said that it would be better design, and long necks "evolved" from short necks, so the Blindwatchmaker selected the bad design.
Can you prove it or is your opinion?
Thorton
Jan 31, 2012 05:35 AM
"Because selection pressures drove the evolution. Not all species have the same selection pressures. An omnipotent designer starting from scratch doesn't face selection pressure."
So what is bad for ones is good for others?
"If having the the holes in the head is a disadvantage why Natural Selection chosed the Jiraffe, or long neck birds, or long neck dinousaurs?
Because evolution is constrained by having to modify what already exists. An omnipotent designer starting from scratch has no such constraints."
Wich constraints? Just keep the better design of short necks.
“Easily. A series of vertically connected ball and socket joints, a design already present in the body, would give the same mobility and load bearing capability with none of the agony of a herniated disk.”
Can you prove it or it is your opinion?
“In this context the terms are with reference to how they affect evolutionary reproductive fitness. An optimal design would have no room for improvement, a good enough design would have some room for improvement, a bad design would have lots of room for improvement.”
Then wich designs has lots of room for improvement and wich has no room for improvement?
Blas
DeleteNo, Thorton said that it would be better design, and long necks "evolved" from short necks, so the Blindwatchmaker selected the bad design.
The length of the neck and the location of the food/air passages are two completely different issues.
Thorton: "Because selection pressures drove the evolution. Not all species have the same selection pressures. An omnipotent designer starting from scratch doesn't face selection pressure."
So what is bad for ones is good for others?
.., and the 5W bulb in Blas's noggin finally starts to dimly glow.
Wich constraints? Just keep the better design of short necks.
The length of the neck and the location of the food/air passages are two completely different issues.
Sorry, I forgot basic scientific understanding is outside the reach of ignorant Creationists.
“Easily. A series of vertically connected ball and socket joints, a design already present in the body, would give the same mobility and load bearing capability with none of the agony of a herniated disk.”
Can you prove it or it is your opinion?
Easily demonstrable in any mechanical engineering class.
Then wich designs has lots of room for improvement and wich has no room for improvement?
As already mentioned, the human spine is a terrible design for an animal that walks upright. Lots of room for improvement there.
T. CookJan 31, 2012 06:34 AM
ReplyDeletevelikovskys,
"Please continue. It is just getting good."
The Whole Truth,
"And don't leave out the pink unicorns. :)"
Gladly. Thank you for your interest.
[notworthy] [notworthy] [notworthy]
Somewhere Nathan Poe is laughing his ass off. :)
Wgbutler
ReplyDeletePenrose’s book “The Road to Reality” is very good. Some sections are too heavy with math. Our atheist friends don’t like the kind of science and logic Penrose is presenting there.
I’m sure they prefer their hero Krauss who says in his latest book “everything came from nothing”. Dawkins chimes in at the end of the book and agrees. There you go, simple. Screw the science; things just pop out of nowhere. I would love for few million bucks to pop out of nowhere right now. Close to me, hopefully.
----
Velikovsky
“I for one wish he had given the design of human knees a little more thought.”
It’s good enough. Loose some weight.
----
T.Cook
Fifi is a phallus-head? I used to like Fifi.
Hi Eugen!
DeleteHow are you coming with that explanation for why the Designer created different types of blood and different Rh factors that can sometimes kill both us and our unborn children?
Maybe you can show us the kind of science and logic you smart Creationists use. ;}
It's not coming good Thorton. I have no ambition.
ReplyDeleteEugen
DeleteIt's not coming good Thorton. I have no ambition.
No worries. I didn't expect an answer from any IDCer anyway.
Oh yeah? My Engineer is better than yours!
ReplyDeleteT.Cook,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info,perhaps I'm am outside of norm but the thought of being embraced by muscular hairy arms doesn't do it for me. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Any more thoughts on the time cube? Is it possible the designer uses that technology to "tweak" his designs? Or do you feel that the designer is a hyper dimensional being?
Eugen,
ReplyDelete"it's good enough.Loose some weight."
Nice, maybe the designer shouldn't have designed all the tastiest things with the most calories. You arbeing inning to sound like Thorton, things are "good enough". You would think that the creator of the unverse would have a little more pride in his craftsmanship . Maybe man was created after a long weekend.
Stupid spellcheck, are beginning to sound like Thorton
ReplyDeleteEugen
ReplyDeleteOh yeah? My Engineer is better than yours!
Yeah, he's sure done some wonderful
work.
That God of yours, what a kidder!
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteA bridge too far
Way too far.
ReplyDeletevelikovskys
ReplyDeleteA bridge too far
Eugen
Way too far.
Why? It's all God's handiwork, right? At least that what you guys keep telling me.
I know those are some shocking pictures, and I have nothing but sympathy for those poor souls but hey - if you're going give your Big Guy credit for the good stuff then He has to to take credit for all the stuff. Unless you want to look like flaming hypocrites.
Your call.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is a little kid,there are plenty of other examples. And I am not in true believer camp
ReplyDeletevelikovskysJan 31, 2012 08:22 PM
ReplyDeleteIt is a little kid,there are plenty of other examples. And I am not in true believer camp
What are you saying, that God doesn't create little kids? Both of those cases and photos were widely reported in the popular press and widely discussed in the medical literature. Believe me, I could have picked things a lot worse - harlequin babies for example.
I will give you thanks though - the immediate knee-jerk reaction by you and Eugen made my point beautifully.
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteAs far as I remember from sex ed, children are created by sperm and egg. There is a big difference between medical discussions and making points on a blog.It was gratuitous and unnecessary to link that picture.Yes,you could have been in worse taste,thanks for your consideration.
You still don't get it, I agree with you,mostly. My " knee jerk reaction" is that an all loving God seems to have less compassion towards children than mere mortals.There are million ways to make that point without exploiting a child's suffering ,in my opinion.
Velikovskys
DeleteAs far as I remember from sex ed, children are created by sperm and egg.
So God doesn't create the source of the sperm and egg, and doesn't control their contents? Blas just got done lecturing us about how God is omnipotent and controls everything. Maybe you guys should get your story straight.
There is a big difference between medical discussions and making points on a blog.
It depends on the point being made.
It was gratuitous and unnecessary to link that picture.
I don't agree, I think they made the point quite nicely. But you're entitled to your opinion.
You still don't get it, I agree with you,mostly. My " knee jerk reaction" is that an all loving God seems to have less compassion towards children than mere mortals.
Now children aren't mortals??? You're losing it here V.
There are million ways to make that point without exploiting a child's suffering ,in my opinion.
No one exploited a child's suffering. I merely brought the suffering to your attention and reiterated what I was told, that GOD was the cause of everything. Don't blame the messenger.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA person will four legs is Man's work, not God's.
ReplyDeleteIf thumpin' Thorton had an ounce of humility, he could conceivably connect those dots.
But then, Thorton's Mom neglected to get him his Spyrogyra set for Christmas.
So he's got issues he can't resolve just yet.
Little does Thorton know the depth of God's patience is the reason he gets to see another Christmas and another chance for that Spyrogyra set.
But you can make the dots only so big.
Steve -
DeleteA person will four legs is Man's work, not God's.
Interesting. So NOT all of creation is God's work then...?
Ritchie
DeleteSteve: "A person will four legs is Man's work, not God's."
Interesting. So NOT all of creation is God's work then...?
Of course not. Steve's GOD is the happy, benevolent God. He only makes blue skies and rainbows and pretty roses and fuzzy little kittens. Maybe Tim Tebow too. But some other guy's GOD makes the bad stuff - HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, syphilis, birth defects, etc.
Steve is one of those clowns who gets on the news after a plane crash where only one person survived and screams "GOD created a miracle, HE was so kind and caring and let that person live!!", conveniently ignoring the other 299 people who his God sent to a horrible fiery death.
SteveFeb 1, 2012 02:52 AM
DeleteA person will four legs is Man's work, not God's.
Steve, since you seem to be an expert on the subject, why don't you lay out for us the objective method for determining what is GOD's work and what isn't.
Steve said:
Delete"A person will four legs is Man's work, not God's."
WHAT?
Let me guess; "the fall", eh?
Some guy and gal who never existed (adam and eve) did something bad and ever since then billions of people, animals, and plants have had to pay the price, no matter how innocent they are. Golly gee whiz, can I worship your loving, merciful, perfect, forgiving god too?
Isn't the argument from bad design a sort of "evolution of the gaps argument?" We don't understand why a designer made something a certain way, so it must be evolution. But maybe tomorrow, we will discover a reason why it is really a good design. This is what happened with the retina. It was considered poorly designed because it is wired backwards. But it seems there is some benefit to the way it is made.
ReplyDeletenatschuster: Isn't the argument from bad design a sort of "evolution of the gaps argument?"
DeleteWell, no, because evolution explains the observed patterns to be the result of inheritance and an unconscious cobbling or tinkering process. As usual, you really need to start with Common Descent. Humans, for instance, are what they are primarily because they are descended from more primitive apes. The differences are small compared to the similarities, and the differences are explained by various processes of variation and selection.
natschuster
DeleteIsn't the argument from bad design a sort of "evolution of the gaps argument?" We don't understand why a designer made something a certain way, so it must be evolution
No one in science has ever made that 'false dichotomy' argument. You're late to the party little troll, that bogus strawman has already been burned.
Natschuster: Isn't the argument from bad design a sort of "evolution of the gaps argument?" We don't understand why a designer made something a certain way, so it must be evolution.
DeleteThe argument from bad design? You seem to be confused. A designer could choose to design things poorly on purpose. A perfectly good God and his perfectly evil twin brother could end up with bad designs. Observations cannot prove or disprove the current crop of ID.
Rather, Tyson is criticizing the argument that "good" design proves Intelligent Design. What we observe instead is good enough designs. While we cannot prove the biosphere wasn't designed by observations, we can point out that any argument based on good design is falsified because we do not actually observe good designs.
Nor do ID proponents provide an explanation as to why the same designer that supposedly designed proteins ended up with "good enough" designs.
On one hand, Cornelius keeps telling us that it's extremely unlikely that proteins to have evolved since it would require searching though an astronomically large protein sequence space. However, if such a designer was capable of doing this incredible feat, then why would this same designer end up creating just good enough designs?
This is yet another parochial view.
Of course, I don't want to put words into your mouth. Did the designer perform this astronomical search or not? How do you explain both of those observations?
Or did the designer have no need to search though the entire protein sequence space because the designer already "knew" the correct sequence? If so, this would again indicate an assumption that a designer "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present.
Which is it?
But sometimes we see really good designs. There is an entire field of research called biomimickry. Engineers study organism to get ideas for really good designs. There is even talk about DNA computing, since DNA seems to be a really good information processing machine. And saying something is just good enough may not be entirely accurate. We might discover tomorrow that a certain design is really optimal. I understand that people used to think that the Gothic Cathedrals where not optimally designed. Then they did some analysis, and discovered that they where close to optimal.
Deletenatschuster
DeleteBut sometimes we see really good designs. There is an entire field of research called biomimickry. Engineers study organism to get ideas for really good designs.
Key word there is sometimes. Evolution has had hundreds of millions of years to optimize some things. The streamlined shape of fish is pretty optimum for moving through water with the least expenditure of energy for example. But for every case like that there is another case of a kludged together, just limping by design. Problem is according to Creationists the Designer is omnipotent and infallible. We should see nothing but excellent, optimized designs but we don't. Instead we get some real stinkers. What happened in those cases nat? Did the Designer subcontract out to the "B" team, or even the "C" team of bunglers?
And saying something is just good enough may not be entirely accurate. We might discover tomorrow that a certain design is really optimal.
How about the human spine nat? For load bearing in animals that walk on all fours the spine acts like a cantilevered bridge. With the weight hung below the spine in that fashion it works pretty well. But when you take the bridge and turn it on end so all the weight is compressing down the vertical axis, it sucks. According to the AMA over 80% of all humans have mild to severe lower back problems in the course of their lives. Lost time from back pain costs the economy over $50 billion a year.
Go ahead nat, provide your evidence that the design of the human spine with its crushable disks is really optimal. I'll wait.
Its not just things like streamlining fish. Its things like the feet of the gecko, the self cleaning lotus petals, the bumps on a humpback whale. Natural selection doesn't have to make things that good, just good enough.
DeleteAnd how would you design a human so he could walk upright? Maybe it is optimal for its purpose, allowing a human to walk upright. I'm not an engineer. I really don't know, but it does seem to be a pretty neat trick. We can walk upright.We can turn. We can bend. And how did we evolve upright walking, if it causes so many problems? What's the evolutionary explanation?
And how would you design a human so he could walk upright?
DeleteAn interlaced four-column structure is far more sturdy for bearing weight than a single column.
And how did we evolve upright walking, if it causes so many problems? What's the evolutionary explanation?
We evolved upright walking from our four-legged ancestors. Our spine is perfectly fine for tetrapods because it is not expected to bear any weight.
Then our four-legged ancestors took to the trees. This acclimatised their bodies to a vertical posture. They were still getting around 'on all fours', but holding themselves vertically. Now the spine has to carry weight, though using your arms to swing about still eases the pressure.
Finally our ancestors stood up. And it was for this that the spine was then a poor construction. But what could we do? Evolution just has to work with what we have, and what we had was a spine. It wasn't good, but it was good enough.
natschuster asked:
Delete"Isn't the argument from bad design a sort of "evolution of the gaps argument?""
Actually, it's a realistic, evidential response to the asinine 'fine tuned and designed by the omnipotent, omniscient, perfect god' assertion.
Natchuster: But sometimes we see really good designs.
DeleteAs compared to what? Designs by human beings? If so, why is this your criteria?
First, unless a particular design is forbidden by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent a designer from implementing it is knowing how. Right? If not, this would imply a belief that some things are simply magic in that they are inexplicable and incomprehensible.
Second, you seem to assume that "optimal designs" are something we can mechanically induce from our environment based on observations alone. Therefore, optimal designs should be obvious to human beings, which makes us a criteria for good designs. However, this isn't the case.
Human beings create knowledge via conjecture and refutation. We make educated guesses, then use observations to test them for errors. This is how we create knowledge. So, rather than designs being something obvious and optimal form the start, our designs start out crude and inefficient - only making gradual improvements over time though an iterative process. As such, it's unclear why you'd expect human designs to be a good measuring stick for optimal designs.
If the designer of the biosphere "just was", complete with all of the knowledge to build the biosphere, it would not need to create knowledge over time. No iterative process would be necessary. It could create optimal design not forbidden by the laws of physics from the start. And if this same designer also designed the laws of physics, then it could have "tuned" them with optimal designs in mind.
Assuming the designer couldn't do any better because he is limited by laws of physics, while also assuming the same designer intentionally and intelligently fine-tuned these same laws of physics is yet another parochial view. Designing both would allow the designer to make optimizations that would not be possible had they been designed separately.
Natschuster: Engineers study organism to get ideas for really good designs.
DeleteEngineers are human beings. Why are human designs a good criteria? See above.
Natschuster: There is even talk about DNA computing, since DNA seems to be a really good information processing machine.
What features of DNA make it good information processing machine? It exhibits universality.
The first number systems designed by human beings could only represent relatively small numbers. These were "good enough designs" because the people how designed them only needed to work with a small number of items. It was only until what we now call Arabic numerals were designed in India that we created a number system that exhibited universality, in that could represent any number.
The Arabic number system is much better at representing numbers, compared to earlier number systems, because it exhibits universality. So, the criteria isn't that it's optimal but that it's universal.
Information processing systems designed by human beings also started out primitive, only to eventually gain universality. At which point they were known as Universal Turning Machines. Computers we've designed are good at information processing not because they are optimal but because they are universal.
We can say the same in regards to DNA. it's universal, not optimal. For example, there are only a limited number of computational problems that can be solved using DNA faster than computers we have today. These are usually parallel in nature. However, other computational problems can be computed faster than DNA using modern day computers.
From the Wikipedia entry on Turning Completeness.
DeleteTuring completeness is significant in that every real-world design for a computing device can be simulated by a universal Turing machine. The Church–Turing thesis states that this is a law of mathematics—that a universal Turing machine can, in principle, perform any calculation that any other programmable computer can. Obviously, this says nothing about the effort needed to write the program, or the time it may take for the machine to perform the calculation, or any abilities the machine may possess that have nothing to do with computation.
Universality isn't the same as optimally efficient and performant at performing calculations or that it's optimal to operate and program.
Charles Babbage's analytical engine (1830s) would have been the first Turing-complete machine if it had been built at the time it was designed. Babbage appreciated that the machine was capable of great feats of calculation, including primitive logical reasoning, but he did not appreciate that no other machine could do better. From the 1830s until the 1940s, mechanical calculating machines such as adders and multipliers were built and improved, but they could not perform an "if/goto" and therefore are not true computers.
Modern day computers are not optimal, but they would be significantly faster than Babbage's analytical engine. Both, however, represent the jump to universality, in that they are universal turning machines.
In the same way, the means used to store knowledge of how to build organisms in primitive cells eventually evolved to make the jump to universality (DNA). It's not optimal, but it's universal. This is why it was widely adopted and has remained essentially unchanged since then.
Ritchie:
DeleteOur spine has to do more than support our weight. It has to allow us to move, bend etc. Would a four column support allow us to do all that as well as our spine? I don't know.
Scott:
Did I say optimal? I thought I said really good. The reason I picked that terminology is because people on this thread are talking about bad design. They say it implies no designer, or at best a bad one. So what does really good design imply?
natschuster: Did I say optimal? I thought I said really good. The reason I picked that terminology is because people on this thread are talking about bad design. They say it implies no designer, or at best a bad one.
DeleteAgain, you seem to be confused.
A designer could intentionally create bad or inefficient designs. For example if I wanted to increase my sales, I might create design my product in such a way that it would break a year earlier, which means people would end up buying them more often. Or I might just enjoy making things, yet not have the knowledge of how to design something "good". So, we cannot disprove ID via "bad design".
However, Tyson isn't doing this. Rather, he is criticizing the argument make by ID proponents that good design proves ID. What he's illustrated is that the argument contains an error. Specifically, we do not universally observe good designs.
In other words, it's logically possible that the biosphere could have been designed, but we shouldn't assume this is the case based on the argument of very good design because one of the assumptions of the argument - very good designs - isn't universally observed. As such we can discard it before we bother asking the question "how do very good designs imply intelligent designer was involved."
To use an example, say I claimed we live in a virtual reality simulation because the sky is green. While it's logically possible that we do live in a virtual reality simulation, we shouldn't assume this is the cause based on an argument that includes the sky being green because we do not observe green skies. My argument has been shown to be in error by observation. This is before we even bother asking how the sky being greed implies we live in a virtual reality simulation.
Second, whether a design is "good" depends on your measurement criteria, which in your case, appears to be human designs. But, again, its unclear why good designs should be compared to human designs.
natschuster: So what does really good design imply?
Again, we do not universally observe really good designs. Nor have you provided an explanation as to why human designs ought to our criteria for what is a really good design. That's like asking why the sky is free means we live in a virtual reality simulation, despite not observing the sky being green.
Perhaps, what you meant to ask was, what are the implications of sometimes observing designs that are very good in comparison to human designs?
Correction: Again, we do not universally observe really good designs. Nor have you provided an explanation as to why human designs ought to our criteria for what is a really good design. That's like asking how the sky being green implies we live in a virtual reality simulation, despite not observing the sky being green.
DeleteNat,
DeleteWhy don't you start out by explaining why human designs ought to be the criteria for determining if something is a "very good design"?
Things like the recursive laryngial nerve are sited as examples of bad design because no good designer would do it that way, so it looks like the criterion is human design.
Deletelaugh out loud: Things like the recursive laryngial nerve are sited as examples of bad design because no good designer would do it that way, so it looks like the criterion is human design.
DeleteRegardless if this is true or not, I'm criticizing the suggestion that human beings should be the criteria for "very good design"
Merely pointing to someone who assumes human designers are the criteria is not the same as explaining why human designer should be should be the criteria.
Here's a hint. Your response should include an explanation as to the origin of the knowledge human beings use to design things, as the accuracy of this knowledge would have an impact on the resulting designs.
Wow, Thorton. At one point, it seemed your arguments were meant for enlightenment. Now it seems they're made to make you feel better about yourself. Such a pity.
ReplyDeletevelikovskys: Thanks for the info,perhaps I'm am outside of norm but the thought of being embraced by muscular hairy arms doesn't do it for me.
ReplyDeleteGood. Don't give into your wanton man lust. i.e. athiesm.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
So untrue. Please refere here for undisputable proof that it is wrong.
Any more thoughts on the time cube? Is it possible the designer uses that technology to "tweak" his designs? Or do you feel that the designer is a hyper dimensional being
The designer uses geometry in his perfect creation. I can't believe you deny geometry. Geometry is perfect, therefore geometry is god (Thanks Blas). Beg geometry for forgiveness. Hopefully this will show you the way.
Thank you for your thought provoking reply. I was hesitant to follow the links,( one never knows ) but luckily I did. You see usually I have very delicate sensibilities,so much so that I avoid reality like the national news media.In fact I try to construct my own fantasy world where I don't have to face mean,nasty stuff.I see now that Fifi is a false god and Corny is the True Prophet( Thanks Blas) and in any right triangle the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the remaining sides is the word of the Lord
Deletevelikovskys said:
Delete"I see now that Fifi is a false god..."
BLASPHEMER! You are in a lot of trouble! Fifi and her many daughters are having their hooves and horns sharpened by the royal pink farrier as I speak. Repent now and save yourself from an eternity of hoof stomping and horn poking!
Praise Fifi!
HEY. Those weren't my links!!! Curse FIFI. She changed my links. At least this disproves naturalism.
DeleteI renounce my renoucement of Fifi, Corny is the False Prophet( praise Blas)
DeleteBeginning with Darwin, evolutionists have eagerly brought up one example after another of so called examples of a supposed bad design. Then later their argument based on pure ignorance is trumpted by scientific discovery and evidence.
ReplyDeleteSince their examples are blown away by scientific discovery they are on a continual search to make up new bad design arguments based on pure ignorance.
The idea of "cobbling or tinkering process" as Zachriel says is not based on scientific evidence, but on complete ignorance and false assumptions of evolutionary theory. Zachriel is parroting an old evolutionary adage that completely misrepresents systems biology.
Even a crude animation of a few cellular processes gives no hint of tinkering and cobbling. While the structures in a living cell look visibly different in real life the processes depicted in the video are accurate and instructional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3HVVi2k2No
Thorton
ReplyDeleteI hate explaining jokes.
(inhale) “Oh, yeah?” was supposed to be childish. Next, I was “trying” to belittle your “natural engineer “. Picture and caption were selected to supposedly do that. "Unintentionally" picture and caption poke at some of us theists who believe the Engineer sculpts absolutely everything. At the end, because I used the “wrong” example, ironically fun was on me, an incompetent joker. Needles to say, very visually pleasing scene was chosen to cheer up everyone. (exhale)
I really hate explaining jokes.
…and then you dropped the bomb on the thread.
Relax , don’t be The Whole Truth, walking around with broomstick up her * bleep *.
Eugen
DeleteThorton
I hate explaining jokes.
..and I hate explaining that I got the joke (it was funny too :) ) but saw an opportunity to make a salient point that ties in with the thread OP.
What I did wasn't a 'bomb'. It was a valid point in response to the "GOD is all sweetness and light" vomit inducing posts we've been getting from Creationists around here.
That you and other theists responded the way you did is very telling IMHO. Part of the problem many people have with religion is the blatant hypocrisy - triumph all the good things GOD did, but just ignore all the bad things GOD also did.
Instead of shooting the messenger, you guys need to take a critical look at how you present your omnipotent God in such a heavily biased 'can do nothing wrong' manner. If you can't credit responsibility for the bad along with the good then maybe you need to find another Deity to worship.
For the record, not a theist and the messenger choose the manner of conveying the message. Not objecting to the message which is valid but the means
DeleteIndeed. You attempted to make a point, Thorton. You did so very poorly by using the weak and innocent as your weapon of choice. It will be difficult to take any of your responses as useful from now on.
DeleteNo, Thorton's point was made well, and it's you IDCs who need to come up with a point that is actually worth making. Hiding yourselves from the realities of life and evolution, and giving your imaginary god credit only for the 'good' stuff just shows how cloistered and in denial you are.
DeleteWhat a strange tactic, TWT. Because one points out another's inappropriate use of subject matter, you assume they are your enemy or opponent? It could be that velikovskys was simply trying to help Thorton improve his argument. That was my goal. You certainly don't help him by tacking on needless barbs that misrepresent the statements of others. Seems you've blamed others of that previously.
Delete"The whole truthJan 30, 2012 09:46 AM
tedford, you really are an IDiot. Erroneously twisting what Ritchie said into some sort of doom and gloom view of life just shows how desperate and stupid you are.
I understood his points instantly. You're obviously way too ignorant to understand them."
If you would like to be taken seriously, rise above the petty and vapid approach.
Smith
DeleteIndeed. You attempted to make a point, Thorton. You did so very poorly by using the weak and innocent as your weapon of choice.
Actually the examples made my point very well, as did your over-the-top reaction. If you're another one of those delicate flowers who can't handle reality then I suggest you lock yourself in your room and draw the blinds. The rest of us will be out here in the real world, warts and all, dealing with its problems.
It will be difficult to take any of your responses as useful from now on.
I'll take my chances. Feel free to stay hidden under your rock if that's where you feel the safest.
You seem quite hostile not just to those who agree with you, but to those who are trying to help you. There have been several attempts by both parties to understand your statements, yet you wave them all away as being at fault for not correctly interpreting the perceived salience of your post.
DeleteIsn’t this the precise hypocrisy that you accuse others of? Is it that you don’t want the help or that you believe you don’t need it?
Smith
DeleteYou seem quite hostile not just to those who agree with you, but to those who are trying to help you.
Except 1) no help is needed and 2) you aren't trying to help, you're just trying to troll.
Please give me a good reason why I should feel guilt or shame for posting a photo from a story that was widely published in the international news.
Go ahead Mr. holier-than-thou troll, I'm listening.
Good news, priests prayed for her and now she should be able to walk like a normal girl.
DeleteHere's the happy ending; two years later Lakshmi Tatma is walking to school. In all seriousness, it was an acceptance of naturalism which led to the surgery which helped this girl. By looking for the mechanisms (i.e. causal, naturalistic) of reality we have cured sicknesses and enabled life giving technologies. We have to take responsibility for our own collective well being. Prayer is ineffective.
DeleteAgain, Thorton, nobody was arguing your attempt to make a point. They were simply suggesting how it could have been done in a different manner and to greater effect.
DeleteClearly, my impression (and that of others) is that children should not have been exploited. You, though, feel that exploiting children is ok. You then clarified your feelings even more by implying that someone who may disagree with you on certain methods is a “holier-than-though troll.”
That seems a bit (to quote Mr. Hitchens) “capricious,” and, to me, unstable.
And thank you T. Cook for the link to the happy ending. That was nice to see.
Smith
DeleteClearly, my impression (and that of others) is that children should not have been exploited. You, though, feel that exploiting children is ok.
No children were exploited anywhere. But keep up the lying and trolling if it makes you feel better about yourself.
T. Cook
DeleteHere's the happy ending; two years later Lakshmi Tatma is walking to school. In all seriousness, it was an acceptance of naturalism which led to the surgery which helped this girl. By looking for the mechanisms (i.e. causal, naturalistic) of reality we have cured sicknesses and enabled life giving technologies. We have to take responsibility for our own collective well being. Prayer is ineffective.
That's great to hear.
Now we need our self-appointed board conscience Smith here to start screaming about how the DailyMail is exploiting children just to sell more newspapers.
Wouldn't want to seem like just another mouthy hypocrite, would you Smith?
Tedford the idiot
ReplyDeleteThe idea of "cobbling or tinkering process" as Zachriel says is not based on scientific evidence, but on complete ignorance and false assumptions of evolutionary theory. Zachriel is parroting an old evolutionary adage that completely misrepresents systems biology.
As usual, Tedford the idiot belches forth his complete ignorance of evolutionary biology. That evolution reuses and modifies existing structures is one of the most well known and well supported facts in all of science.
A classic example is in the modification of mammal hands for flight in bats. In bats the fingers of the hand has been modified by genetic mutations to be greatly elongated. The elongated fingers and membranes between them compose the wing. This is different than birds, which use their entire forelimb for the flight surface.
bat wing morphology
The genetic mutations for this this change in bat hand morphology have also been identified.
Development of bat flight: Morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits
So not only do we know it happened, we know exactly how it happened.
Tedford is an illiterate idiot who revels in staying ignorant. He seems to think stupidity is a virtue.
ThortonFeb 1, 2012 10:04 AM
ReplyDelete"The genetic mutations for this this change in bat hand morphology have also been identified.
Development of bat flight: Morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits
So not only do we know it happened, we know exactly how it happened."
LOL, the bats embryos start with short digits and then enlarge then. So that is how they evolved from rats, starting with short digits and then evolve to long digits! Cristal clear.
OK Blas, I see you want to convince us that you're just another Tedford style willfully ignorant Creationist idiot not worthy of any serious discussion.
DeleteMission accomplished.
Thorton
ReplyDeleteIt is fair to use an opportunity to make a point. It was the choice of pictures that shocked (I think) everybody. If you want to do it again at least post a warning for the readers.
Occasional accidents happen: car, train, boat, genetic etc. Looking back through history, most humans lived OK most of the time. They didn’t whine too much like us today.
As for design complainers, I didn't hear any whining about the arrow of time. Why didn't Master Engineer design the Universe with reversible time?
With reversible time, you could go back and slap yourself for not buying Microsoft shares when they were $1. Of course, you could do much more.
Eugen, you are right,it is better than nothing,but hardly something God would want to put on His resume.
DeleteEugen
DeleteThorton
It is fair to use an opportunity to make a point. It was the choice of pictures that shocked (I think) everybody. If you want to do it again at least post a warning for the readers.
Sorry Eugen but it's not my job to be a nursemaid to those poor delicate religious folks who can't handle reality. Those pictures weren't particularly shocking or gruesome - both were widely published in the national news media.
One of the reason the Fundies are so despised is because they can't handle reality. Their whole game is to build a fantasy world where they don't have to deal with the mean nasty stuff that contradicts their beliefs. That includes all the scientific evidence that supports evolution as well as instances where their kind loving God wasn't so kind and loving.
Most of them would be a lot better off if they were forced to view more reality every day.
Occasional accidents happen: car, train, boat, genetic etc. Looking back through history, most humans lived OK most of the time. They didn’t whine too much like us today.
Sure they did. They just didn't have modern technology to record the whining and broadcast it worldwide.
Thorton
ReplyDeleteFeb 1, 2012 08:34 PM
"One of the reason the Fundies are so despised is because they can't handle reality. Their whole game is to build a fantasy world where they don't have to deal with the mean nasty stuff that contradicts their beliefs. That includes all the scientific evidence that supports evolution as well as instances where their kind loving God wasn't so kind and loving.
Most of them would be a lot better off if they were forced to view more reality every day."
Who is taking care of the sick people?
Who is taking care of the handicapped people?
Who is taking care of the poorest people in the world?
Since the fall of the roman empire that tasks were and are done by religious people Thorton, we know very well how this world is. We do not live in a lab reading papers. We do not make travels around the world and invent a story to explain diversity.
Who is taking care of the sick people?
DeleteWho is taking care of the handicapped people?
Who is taking care of the poorest people in the world?
That is absolutely outrageous! There are plenty of secular aid organisations in the world! Religion has absolutely no monopoly at all on charity and aid work. Plenty of atheists give their time to help others - and they do it for charity's sake alone, not because they really want to convert a load of people.
RitchieFeb 2, 2012 04:52 AM
DeleteDid I said that "only" religion people help others? What I said that religious people know better that Thorton how is the "real" world.
What we can discuss is who started and teached to help the poor, the handiccaped and the sick.
Blas
DeleteThorton: "One of the reason the Fundies are so despised is because they can't handle reality. Their whole game is to build a fantasy world where they don't have to deal with the mean nasty stuff that contradicts their beliefs. That includes all the scientific evidence that supports evolution as well as instances where their kind loving God wasn't so kind and loving.
Most of them would be a lot better off if they were forced to view more reality every day."
Who is taking care of the sick people?
Who is taking care of the handicapped people?
Who is taking care of the poorest people in the world?
Caring altruistic people of all different beliefs, from avowed atheists to hard-over Fundies.
But thanks for one again proving my point. You live in a fantasy world where only your side can do good and the bad stuff is always done by someone else.
Who was responsible for the slaughter of countless numbers during the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades?
Woo was responsible for the extermination of over 95% on the native American population in the 1400's -1500's?
Who was responsible for the centuries of killings in Northern Ireland?
Who was responsible for the genocides in Armenia, Rwanda and Sudan?
Why, it's those always friendly never-do-wrong religious folks!
We do not live in a lab reading papers. We do not make travels around the world and invent a story to explain diversity.
We know. You sit in your church pews and invent fantasy stories. None of that hard work and research for you when the Bible gives you all the science you need!
"But thanks for one again proving my point. You live in a fantasy world where only your side can do good and the bad stuff is always done by someone else."
DeleteDarwinist should restrain his immagination where I said that?
"We know."
Off course, how can I do not understand!
"None of that hard work and research for you when the Bible gives you all the science you need!"
Well meanwhile Darwin were traveling around the world a monk at Brno were scientifically demostrating the hereditary laws.
Blas
DeleteWell meanwhile Darwin were traveling around the world a monk at Brno were scientifically demostrating the hereditary laws.
LOL! Except you forget that
1. Mendel's work had absolutely ZERO to do with his religion, and
2. Mendel's work in genetics went on to become one of the cornerstones of modern evolutionary theory.
Nice own goal there Blas!
blas asked:
ReplyDelete"Can you prove it or is your opinion?"
Let's see you "prove" anything about your imaginary god.
"Who is taking care of the sick people?
Who is taking care of the handicapped people?
Who is taking care of the poorest people in the world?"
Anyone with compassion for others, whether they're religious or not. You obviously believe that all atheists are evil monsters and that all religious people are angels of mercy. Have you spent your whole life living under a rock?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNeal Tedford: The idea of "cobbling or tinkering process" as Zachriel says is not based on scientific evidence, but on complete ignorance and false assumptions of evolutionary theory.
ReplyDeleteIt comes from an examination of the evidence. Tinkering doesn't mean a structure can't be optimized. A tinker works with what he has and makes incremental improvements. A tinker can give a good edge to a knife.
The whole truth
ReplyDeleteFeb 2, 2012 05:25 AM
You obviously believe that all atheists are evil monsters and that all religious people are angels of mercy.
Your immagination to read between lines is spectacular, other capacity very comun in darwinists.
Blas,
DeleteDon't complain about being stereotyped if you do the same thing.
Stereotype or being stereotyped has no problem when you do not forget that always there are many exceptions. I do not forget that.
DeleteThen what is the point? If you have to figure out if someone is an exemption then the whole advantage of stereotyping (judging the whole of a person from one fact.) is lost.
DeleteThis guy is one of the most irrational clowns I have ever heard.
ReplyDeleteIts simply astonishing how bad his arguments are..its like the same tripe a heroin addict or pron mogul would use.
How does a human being with high intelligence allow himself to become this confused?
Premise
1 Tyson would create a universe where people could breathe in space
2 You cant breathe in space
Conclusion
3 Tyson is Not God
You can apply this childish reasoning to everything he said...Tyson is not God...
This is what he uses to back up his belief?
God created humans "out of love" to fulfill "His eternal plan" that we live our lives "with all our heart, soul and strength". At its core, it can only be concluded, God's creation has moral purpose.
ReplyDeleteIt begs the question, therefore, what MORAL PURPOSE meteors serve by pulverizing themselves on distant moons. What MORAL PURPOSE do pulsars, gravity and the speed of light serve? And what, therefore, of our bodies, made in his image? Why does a moral entity require nutrition? What MORAL PURPOSE do mucus, body odor and flatulence serve? What MORAL PURPOSE does the diversity in our flora and fauna serve? Why fish we cannot eat or see or plants that are toxic only to some of us?
Why Australian flora and fauna? Does that SEEM like a god's creation, or something more like evolution in isolation?
Ah, so much bullshit. So many incoherent rationalizations of folklore.
It is you that have developed the new folk lore.... just because you can't comprehend reasons why is a very shallow argument indeed. And as far as stuff out in space that is killer - how often has Man had to worry about such things? The argument that kills me is the Sun is inefficient!!! FOR WHOM is it inefficient... The heavens declare the glory of God. Not the heavens declare doom and gloom - it is you that revive this pagan religion.
Delete"Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out that ... the universe, and most of the things in it would never have been designed." The very statement assumes that they were. Most argue that the universe and its contents are evidence against a benevolent god. OK, then, live with a malevolent one, if you prefer. In fact, that is what the philosophical materialist assumes in attributing godlike foresight to nature in the self-production of a universe that works.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that!
Ever notice how evolutionary thinkers mock the creation. JUNK DNA, Degenerate DNA (all now found to have incredible purpose no matter how they try and play it down), They constantly take an aggressive stance against good design. For them to sit back in a comfortable chair and ridicule how things are designed, they show their ignorance and small-mindedness. How arrogant to make such claims, that their was no creator because they don't like it - its Darwinism of the Gaps, yeah there is design, but its no perfect - and after time we find out it is the way it is for a purpose beyond our puny little minds to fathom. I cringe at how these high priest of scientism are rubbing their ugly ideas about nature and the magnificence of it all on our young people. It is said that he will bring them strong delusion, and he sure has.. Even their so-called refutations are angry and just as passionate as a southern Baptist preacher on a Sunday morning - yet they don't get it.. MIND is primary, the mind of God, and for us, made in his image, not made GOD, to sit back and trash all the gifts we have been given, is the reason we see all the pain and suffering - its our fault, not GOD's!!!! How many miracles do you need? How many wonders and beautiful things, and optimized systems does it require to satisfy these folks - they would say that to have a God would mean we were robots, with no free will, that live forever, that know no suffering - they simply can't grasp that their are reasons beyond understanding - they won't admit it because their very relevance is at stake. If you don't want GOD you better have a multiverse - the choice is purely philosophical, So Neil DT (such a foolish man) can dream of unicorns and rivers that flow with chocolate, and I will believe in a creator beyond time and space that has a reason for everything he does, and yet lets us make our own decisions..... how hard is that to accept?
ReplyDelete