Is there a legitimate argument for design?

This is interesting RAZD. I have some ideas and am going to take the science side on this one. I am a hobby artist, which is no particular qualification. But also as part of being a hobby artist, I have an avid interest in art history and development.I hope to come up with some things you find interesting. Will take a bit of time, so will have to get back to you later on this.

Thanks RAZD. I haven't forgotten this one. I am answering stuff as time is available and I am guilty of answering the ones that can be done quick and dirty first. Thanks for the patience and all the help.

Food for thought.If a designer were to be tasked to produce a design for the simplest example of buidling block for matter (please don't quibble subatomic building blocks... I use them as material in this argument)........... could a designer come up with a better design than ...... danger here...... what is the apparent design...( to me.).. of the hydrogen atom?Edited by taiji2, : No reason given.

Legos?Perhaps you could explain, if atoms were designed to be building blocks what are the inert gasses for?

Dr. Adequate.
Before we get off too far into the wild blue yonder, let me qualify my statement.I am a non-science person. My degrees are in Business Administration and Accountancy. I am also an individual with a world-view that presumes intelligent design. I chose to enter a forum where intelligent design is being discussed and debated.The non-design side of the debate seems to be mostly science oriented. To move forward in the discussion, I am forced to do so using science analogy and terminology to the best of my ability. I will most surely commit faux pas along the way. I would hope to be granted some leeway for making not exactly correct scientific references unless the references I make violate the point being made in the discussion.Elemental atoms as building blocks is a concept I took away from school. Simplistically, I understand the concept of combining two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom to yield water. I did not pursue scientific education to a higher level where reference to elemental atoms as building blocks would be considered silly and require further lecture.If referencing atoms as building blocks is an error, I retract that reference.Let me restate then. Could anyone propose a better design for a hydrogen atom. If the argument then becomes semantics over using the word design when referencing the structure of the hydrogen atom, then let's consider changing the name of the debate to Intelligent Structure. I really don't see the difference.All that said, I love science. I love reading science. If legos wishes to present some interesting reading on inert gases, I would be pleased to read it. Edited by taiji2, : I misspelled Legos

I dunno, what do you want to use it for? I mean, if you want to open bottles with it it should be a lot bigger and shaped like a corkscrew.

Let me explain about the inert gasses.Hydrogen atoms on their own are useless as building blocks. All you can make out of them are hydrogen molecules, H₂. Boring. To make anything interesting you really need lots of sorts of atoms. We would have to postulate that the whole periodic table is a sort of construction kit.Except that we have all these elements knocking about like helium and radon and argon and neon and xenon which you can't connect to anything. They're like a bunch of screwheads without shanks, you can't do anything with them.So we have to think that if the periodic table was designed as a set of building blocks, it was designed badly, since it's got lots of "building blocks" that you can't build anything out of.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I would like to begin with an apology. My previous response must have sounded like a quip. It was not intended that way.I presumed Logos (Legos) was the member name of another forum member you were calling forward to give (to me) information on inert gases for my benefit and enlightenment. I was expecting a reply from Logos.I even had initially responded on the post with Logos in my comments, so that was in my mind. After post, I noticed you had said Legos, not Logos so I posted a correction. It still had not occurred to me you were refencing the childs toy. Check my post and you will see that I edited the message giving the reason mispelled Legos.It was only after going back and rereading the message again that the lightbulb came on and I realized you were speaking of Legos, the childs' toy. I feel pretty redfaced about the whole thing. I am not as quick on my feet as I should be and apologize.So, if you will believe me that I meant no sarcasm, I will respond as I would have had I "gotten it" when I first read the note.Not knowing much about inert gases, I consulted Wiki. I understand what you are asking. Inert gases are highly UNreactive because their electron shells are full? Therefore inert gases are not good building blocks for much of anything because it is difficult to have them react with other atoms?A good question. My answer is I don't know. Perhaps inert substances coming into play would be useful in some scenarios for higher construct, but I have no knowledge on that one way or the other.Perhaps some designs require no further engineering to be useful. In my reading it did say Helium was substituted for Hydrogen in dirigibles since the inert gas is less flammable? In this case at least, the building block meets the need without further construct.Does the existence of less useful elements in the building blocks toolkit destroy my original question?I was simply making comment that, to me, the structure of an atom is a pretty incredible piece of design. I was inviting comments on that, nothing more.Sorry again. I really appreciate you being willing to engage me in conversation and hope my stupidity in this instance doesn't change that.And, by the way, thanks for forcing me into a quick science lesson. I recalled inert gases vaguely from the distant past, but had forgotten all details. I now feel more better informed having needed to look.

The whole periodic table as a construction kit is the idea I remember from my science classes. I didn't want to overcomplicate my original post by bringing in all the elements. Maybe I should have But they are sometimes useful on their own right? No more building required to fulfill a useful purpose? Also, are there any occasions where inert gases are useful in a process which "makes something interesting" with other elements? If that's not clear, I'm asking if they have utility as part of a process, even though their own atoms do not survive into the end result? See my above. This is interesting stuff. My layperson guess is that the very fact that there are unreactive parts (or tools) in the parts (or tool) box might make it a more interesting kit to use overall. Kinda makes me wish I had become a chemist rather than an accountant.

Re: front end loading -- all the way back to the beginning RAZD,
Something about this has been bumping around in my head...... what I could have said but didn't think of at the time.You asked if the natural laws, everything that makes the universe work, etc. are in the original design.I responded yes, but didn't anchor it in the belief system. It could be construed as "that is just the way he looks at it'I wish to clarify. The Taoist idea is in the beginning, there was only the Tao and the Tao was an "awareness"This awareness was alone in Wu Chi, nothingnessThe Tao created from the Wu Chi (nothingness).....the Tai Chi (somethingness, a simple duality.......... positive, negative.....etc.From the Tai Chi was created all elseNow, if the supposition is that creation began from nothingness, then all of creation, natural laws, the relationships which can be expressed mathematically.... everything is part of that creation.The all-inclusiveness of this is not just allowed in the belief, it is demanded. Whatever is outside of nothingness was brought about in creation.......design. To me, that explains why the natural laws and the math and other science associated with them are so beautiful. There is nothing out of chaos there.The natural laws upon which science is built is the design. The natural laws are the evidence of the design. Natural laws were not something that was hanging around outside of nothingness for creation to fall into and start using.Edited by taiji2, : added some stuff

Well, that's just another set of stories about why there's something rather than nothing - there's no reason at all to accept that particular myth over any of the other creation myths that humanity has littered history with. But there's every reason to ask the boring question of who or what created the creator? Sooner or later you have to address the problem of the uncaused cause.

Curiously, I have to disagree. The first stars were pure hydrogen according to the standard model, and all the other elements have been formed by fusion within stars, so accordingly all matter is formed from hydrogen atoms in one way or another.Inert gases do not interact in chemical reactions (why they are called inert), but they have uses -- my new windows have argon between the panes to prevent moisture condensing on the inside and so they stay clean inside.Enjoy

Well no, if I take some useless lego bricks, melt them down, and use the plastic to make more useful lego bricks, that doesn't mean that the original bricks were good building blocks. It means that they were wasting raw material that could have been made into good building blocks. Well, that was worth making an element for.

And yet, curiously, you don't get those "good building blocks" without starting with hydrogen according to the standard model.Rather than melting lego block I would use the analogy of construction, where you start with wood, then from the wood you make trusses. Further development lets you laminate wood into stronger members. From just wood you can build simple structures but with the refined materials built from wood you can build larger and more intricate structures.Or in abiogenesis, you start with self-replicating molecules that then build structures and become cells.It is simply a progression from simple to complex. A single lego block is not much to look at, but when you combine them you have a more complex structure. You can even model DNA activity with legoshttp://video.mit.edu/watch/dna-replication-with-legos-10133/Enjoy

Picasso is dead. Were he alive you could ask him why he did what he did. You might also look at his other works and see if his answer holds true. You might talk to artists whose work inspired Picasso and you could look at their work as well.Of course not all artists are dead.There is no guarantee that your investigation will be successful, of course. But that does not make the investigation non-scientific.