|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And yet, curiously, you don't get those "good building blocks" without starting with hydrogen according to the standard model. When we speak about hydrogen forming other elements in suns, we are talking about just protons. At the beginning of creation, electrons were moving too fast to really stick to the protons, so perhaps we might say that quarks and protons were the ultimate building blocks. Even after atomic hydrogen formed, we can find that hydrogen does not exist in that form in the sun. I think you are correct to say that the melted down legos are not right. Protons were not broken down into quarks to form heavier elements. That process does not happen to any significant degree even within suns. In any event, whatever the difference is, even if we take into account the primordial helium that may have been fused into larger elements, it would be a simple matter to cast your proposition correctly. As for whether or not fusion produces something more complex, not sure I'd make that argument. Surely the atoms have more protons, and their properties are more complex to analyze, but the atoms themselves and their properties are just combinations of three particles and their physics obeys laws that can be summarized on a single page of college ruled notebook paper. On the other hand chemistry is about combinations of 90 or so elements whose relationships and interactions are much more complex. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Sorry, you're not getting it. What is the causal force making Picasso choose blue at that moment? Can that be replicated so that another artist is forced to paint a face that specific blue? Yeah, I do get it. Perhaps you meant to ask that question, but I don't see that you did. Some things are deterministic and some are not. That means that phenomena are amenable to different kinds of scientific examination. But even if we cannot make a deterministic evaluation, we can still do what we can. That is for example what we do when we analyze the properties of gases using statistical analysis, or when we study atoms using quantum mechanics. To say that we cannot investigate why Picasso did what we did because we cannot do so in the same way we predict Mercury's position in the sky is wrong. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar? I'm calling BS on this line of argument. Of course there are some non scientific question using the word why. The point here is whether you actually asked one. If you ask why Picasso shaped a persons nose as he did, a perfectly good answer to that question would be wanted to provoke reaction X. If you want to ask a question that science cannot answer, simply using a why does not cut it. You cannot demonstrate that one why question is not scientific by asking different ones as you do here. As for why sugar exists, who says there is a reason. Why is not "sugar exists because plants evolved to produce it as a means of storing energy" (accompanied by some biology re: evolution and natural selection) a suitable answer? Is it because your really meant to ask something else? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If the struture of the atom is not derived from design, then where did it derive? Random mutation? Natural selection? Show me some science that out of the big bang nature should chaotically settle on these beautiful things called atoms that (inert gases questioned) are a very slick building blocks toolkit for a lot of interesting stuff. Seriously bro. You are making a complete fool of yourself. Atoms are very simply put together. You would be utterly surprised at how little is required to specify completely the operation of an atom. What the heck is "inert gases questioned" supposed to mean anyway? Inert gases do form compounds and some very important chemistry is built on that fact. I'm not saying that you don't actually have a position that can be defended. But when you post rot like this, you are not convincing anyone. Given the mere presence of quarks, electrons, and a low enough energy level, it turns out to be impossible that atoms do not exist. No designing necessary. Don't like that answer? Or more likely you've never even considered it. After the Big Bang, only the very simplest of nuclei existed. Those nuclei consisted of only three different elementary particles. Where is the complexity in that? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So why did he (hypothetically) want to provoke that reaction? You did not ask that question did you? And even that question might well be answerable by asking Picasso why he chose to do so. If instead you want to have a physics based answer based on stimulus, reaction of molecules, and brain chemistry, you are going to have to ask that question. And even that answer could be accused of being merely how? In the case of why sugar exists, the question may well have no answer other than the answer I gave. Your classification of questions into how and why is nonsense. I suspect that all answers to why questions can be recast as mere hows to a different question. Even if we could establish that God did it for reason X, that would just be a how answer to some other question.
Why is the sky blue? Here is a why answer for you. The sky on planets through ought the universe is of various color, but the particular molecules within our atmosphere refract light and produce a blue color. And you could only evolve on a planet with a similar atmosphere. So your sky is blue. Alien X's sky is purple. Or another answer. The sky is not blue. In fact all of the major gasses in our atmosphere are transparent to light. What you see and call blue is scattered light, and is just an optical illusion. Or why does atom #12323433 in a sample of U-238 decay at time t? There is no reason why it does that. Here is the silly game you are playing: "The sky is blue because God wanted it to match his living room?" RAZD - No, that's a how answer. Why did God want to match his living room? That's what I really meant to ask. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Atoms are very simply put together. I am listening. A hydrogen atom is composed of a region of positive charge made up of a single proton, and a single lepton (electron). Its chemical properties can be easily predicted with a quantum physics statement that takes up one line of college ruled paper using very little additional information. No other details about the structure of the charges are necessary to explain the chemistry of hydrogen or any of the other elements. In fact, the lepton has no structure. It has no physical size. Do you want more details? Or is that enough to outline the folly of just marveling at beautiful atoms.
I don't assume it has any meaning to anyone who has not followed the conversation. It is actually irrelevant to what you posted, Dr Adequate's questioning not withstanding. For one thing Krypton, for example is a building block of Krypton di-flouride. For another thing, it does not change the fact that nucleii do not "evolve" from other nucleii and that the process of forming larger atoms from smaller requires no intelligence whatsoever. The process happens when suns give off energy and when they explode. What intelligence are you supposing to happen in an explosion? Protons in turn are formed of quarks. That and a few more lines of equations is enough to predict the nuclear behavior of atoms although the inferences are more difficult to draw. And we know the behavior of quarks well enough to describe the formation of protons and neutrons without requiring any intelligence. None is required. If you want to make a "it's so complex it must be designed argument" you should best take it a level of above atoms and simple molecules at least. That's other voo-doo artists do. Maybe then it won't be seen through. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I will even be interested to read how evolution has formed new, mutated atoms through time You don't know how this question would be answered? The phenomena of forming one atomic nuclei from another through both assembly and breaking apart is observed happening constantly. You aren't even trying. How much time should I spend with someone who wants to talk about atoms mutating through time. I would not even want to discuss biology with such a person, let alone physics.
where did the natural laws upon which quarks, electrons, and low energy react come from Well, no. Your claim was that we could look at atoms and tell they had to be designed. I noted the goal post shifting. Natural laws are not commands they are descriptions. They describe what happens when a given particle interacts with another particle or the results of the presence of a field. When you say that there are commands, then you are actually just asserting there is a designer (commander) rather than logically demonstrating that one must exist. And of course your ultimate claim is that you came by your position logically. So far, you cannot demonstrate that. You are just waving your hands. The root of your argument is complexity, but you are using it in a situation where very little complexity exists. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
No, I want to make the natural laws is design argument You haven't done so. In fact, I don't even see that you even brought it up until I tried to chase you off of your "beautiful atoms" argument. So if you have an argument make it.
You failed to mention the negative charge of the lepton, but that is ok, I got it. Was it necessary for me to do so?
Why protons, leptons and energy? You would be doing exactly what RAZD is doing. Begging the question. You are asking 'have you stopped beating your wife, yet questions. Perhaps there is no answer other than that is how time/space/matter/energy work. Perhaps the only answer is that a property of the pre-cursor to the universe is bound to create energy in the form of quarks and leptons without any intervention. What you are missing is that I am not trying to prove to you that the universe has no why answer or no ultimate creator. All I am suggesting is that you cannot infer any such designer from the simple fact that the universe can be described in either simple or complex terms. Accordingly, your claim to have reached that conclusion logically can be shown to be a farce. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That is not to say I believe it impossible to come closer to the truth through logic and reasonable deduction and, yes science. It just hasn't been done. I appreciate your honesty, and I apologize for the rather pointed nature of my inquiries. The majority of the people who come here and claim that the universe or conch shells must be designed pretend to have it all sorted.
RAZD is much more qualified to discuss the question of why with you. Perhaps, but RAZD and I seem to be nitpicking each other with the dictionary for want of something better to do. Nothing will come from that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The discovery of the Higgs was one of the most amazing achievments but it seems to have only opened the door to more questions, more but why? Perhaps this notion that the laws of science 'operate' is simply flawed. Which laws do you think it makes sense to think of in this way?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Well yes one can infer that. Millions and billions of people have and have (do) make that inference. Do they make an inference or have the formed their opinion in some way that really does not constitute a logical inference? Some example logic from one person rather than a claim to billions would be pretty persuasive.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
All that said, I am not sure it negates my conclusion of a large population of observers gathering evidence. We only need one or two. Does not matter what everyone else does. So where are the one or two? What is the logic behind citing large numbers of people who accept a proposition vs one or two pieces of evidence? You've already acknowledged that the bulk of those people are not looking at evidence,Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Here is what you said.
In my opinion, the closer truth is the vast majority of people are too intellectually lazy to make an inference on their own. So even if they saw the evidence, such evidence is not the source of their opinion. They are not looking at the evidence when they form their opinion. Here is the characterization you are complaining about:
I never said those people are not looking at evidence I doubt you could slide an oiled playing card between the words you chose and my characterization.
"does not matter" is a broad brush I think, but agree it does not matter for our conversation here. Why even pick silly nits like this? Do you have support for your position or don't you? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My conclusion is that the definition of vegetarian in Merrian-Webster is flawed. If truth is that vegetarians do not eat the flesh of animals, then that is what the authoritative source should have said. The definition they gave is misleading. Meat is by definition not only the flesh of animals. The word meat has, in addition to the meaning you are using to make this ridiculous argument, another meaning, namely "the flesh of an animal used as food". The dictionary is just fine. Its limitation are that it does not have infinite prevention against deliberate misuse. Of course no reference is proof against this kind of foolishness. Perhaps you can use a more meaty argument? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Any time a relevant issue is raised, if you cannot respond logically, you "crawl under the tank" using intellectually dishonest debate tactic to avoid the question, blow smoke up my ass, and pretend that it is me causing the problem. Seriously dude. Every time I questioned your position, you wilted under the least bit of heat. I'm really not sure what you expected. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024