|
Author
|
Topic: A Study of Intelligent Design Debate
|
PhiGuy
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 20 of 210 (1425)
01-01-2002 1:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
12-31-2001 3:03 PM
|
|
Hi Percy, I'd like to commend you for analyzing the planetary relationships presented at solargeometry.com, and help you
to better understand what you have mistakenly stated to be typographical errors or "fiddling" with the data. The relationship shown as "Distance of Mars = Period of Earth * Diameter of Venus' Orbit"
(see Page not found - Solar Geometry) is as follows:
3.936458 = 2.037661 * 1.931852 When you represented it as "4.1521*2*1.866 which equals 15.4956, not 3.9365," you did not take into account the square root of either term. The square root of 4.1521... is indeed 2.0376... and the square root of (2 x 1.866) is 1.9318.... The results are exact if you use the full decimal representations of each planet's orbital parameters. It would appear that you missed the meaning of the square root symbols shown as . I'm not the author of this information, only the developer of the web site, and I can assure you that none of the data was "fiddled with." Before deciding to do the site from material shown to me by Mr. Bennett, I audited all the data and, to add credibility, I chose to clearly show the variances between Mr. Bennett's Solar Geometry measurements and those presented by NASA. There is a difference, as you noted, between the two values as it relates to Jupiter, with the Solar Geometry distance in relation to Mercury being 13.4399 while that shown by NASA is 13.4403. These and other variances are shown at Page not found - Solar Geometry. The ratio of the two Jupiter values is only 0.99997, a difference of .00003. NASA's published values for Mercury and Jupiter only go to 4 and 5 significant digits, so any calculations done with their numbers cannot be assumed to give any more accuracy than 4, or possibly 5, digits. The distances per Bennett and NASA could be the same for all we know. You've made an interesting application of the Bennett formulas to other planets, but I disagree with your conclusion that there is no significance in these relationships just because they do not apply universally to all planets. As an example, the proportion known as the golden section (1.6180339887...) is found again and again in the human body, the dimensions of DNA, the spirals of sea shells, etc. but yet there are certainly other proportions in life and the universe that do not embody the golden section. Would you say, by analogy, that all the golden section relationships have absolutely no significance just because not everything in the universe is constructed with them? Thanks for the discussion!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Percy, posted 12-31-2001 3:03 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-01-2002 9:51 AM | | PhiGuy has not replied |
|
PhiGuy
Inactive Member
|
You're not giving yourself enough credit, RetroCrono. As it's said, "genius is the ability to reduce the complicated to the simple." Your insight into the rules that both define and illustrate design is the key.Consider the words of Stephen Hawking:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
Stephen Wolfram, regarded by some as the next Isaac Newton, is using his theory of cellular automata to redefine science as we know it with an underlying structure of rules, and has shown Gould's work on evolution to be in error. (Wolfram article in Forbes) (Recap) Life is not a mere assemblage of the right compounds or proteins. It's a dynamic system, with unparalleled precision in design, of interdependent systems (circulation, locomotion, respiration, ingestion, reproduction, MORE)and even the best Miller-Urey experiments produce nothing like DNA or even the molecules that hold DNA's more complex amino acids together. You could put a frog in a blender and have not only all the essential proteins for life, but complete cells that surpass any dreamed of by abiogenesis theory. What you won't have, however, is life. I now agree with your comments about design being obvious, but, in my own experience, it's only obvious once you have an awareness of the Designer. I was an agnostic who was highly cynical towards anything religious or spiritual, until I had experiences that I could only rationally explain by God's existence. This opened the door to putting all my preconceptions aside and studying everything from scripture to science with an open heart and mind. While I'm only the developer of the Solar Geometry site, I am the author of several other sites which I hope will challenge people to deeper pursuits and understandings of life's origins and purpose. You mentioned two of my sites on ID above (Evolution of Truth and The Phi Nest), but in the end it's not who has the best theory or logic that unveils the truth. It's having an experience that gives you a personal awareness, understanding and appreciation of your Creator. That's a transaction that can only take place between each of us and God, but I've tried to share my personal insights and experiences in a site called "Snapshots of God." It goes beyond the question of ID, but why debate whether there's evidence of design when you may be able to meet the Designer Himself?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by RetroCrono, posted 01-01-2002 5:21 AM | | RetroCrono has not replied |
|
PhiGuy
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 36 of 210 (1473)
01-02-2002 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
01-01-2002 1:22 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Percipient: There's little to argue with here, but how do you progress from the subjective impression of design to objective evidence for design? --Percy
IMHO, there's an abundance of objective evidence for both design and the Designer. If I show you a silk flower, you would undoubtedly conclude it was the result of intelligence and design, right? Stop there, however, and ask yourself, "How and why did I come to that conclusion?" Now suppose I show you a real flower, with all the same characteristics of the silk flower, but with all the incredible added systems and technologies that we describe as "life." The real question then is why anyone would accept the silk flower as having been designed, but not the real flower. The answer isn't in the characteristics of the flower itself, but rather in one's ability, or willingness, to recognize the designer. Let's take it a step further. Suppose with advances in genetic research that we are one day able to produce a real living flower, identical to the one found in nature, from nothing but the raw elements of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc. Would you still then declare this manufactured flower to be a product of intelligence and design and nature's flower to be the product of chance? The answer, again, is not found in the object itself but in your underlying beliefs about the designer. To illustrate, suppose again I showed you a real flower today and said I had created it myself from hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc. You would not believe that the designer and creator was in fact me because you do not believe that I have the capability to accomplish such a feat. If you do not believe in a God who the capability to accomplish such a feat, neither will you believe that life is the result of His intelligence and design. If you conclude that life is not the result of intelligent design, is it then because of the lack of evidence of design in life or is it because of the lack of belief in the Designer of life? If it is in fact your subjective beliefs about God that influence your objectivity in judging design and intelligence in the world around you, seeing silk flowers as designed but real flowers as not, then the real issue at the heart of this debate becomes finding a way to eliminate all of the naturalistic or atheistic preconceptions and teachings that influence us. In my experience, once you can accept that God could be our creator, and seek to grow in that understanding rather than to reject it or rationalize it away, you will find all kinds of evidence of design and the Designer that you would readily accept as "objective" in any other pursuit. To keep the discussion here short, here are a few links to illustrate my point: On Objectivity and Evidence: Seeing God in a Bubble Chamber Not a Shred of Evidence for God On Design: Technology in nature "Unnatural selection" On Faith: Mind over Matter Contact
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by Percy, posted 01-01-2002 1:22 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by Percy, posted 01-04-2002 12:30 PM | | PhiGuy has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2