A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

I'm 100% natural. My atoms are held together by electromagnetic fields. The nuclei of my atoms are held together with strong and weak nuclear forces. Gravity has little to do with keeping me together.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Any credibility you may once have had is gone. There is no relationship between gravity and electromagnetism this side of inflation.I have a mass of 79 Kg. Were I spherical my radius would be ~ 0.27 m. My escape velocity, therefore, is ~ 1/5 of a mm/sec. If I exhale my head should blast off. Nope; that didn't happen.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

You mean the theory where he didn't mention gravity was about gravity? I must have missed that? Fair enough. Your point was that since science doesn't know everything random notions are equally valid. If you can't untangle gravity from electromagnetism when the rest of the world of physics is trying so hard to join them, how do you think it is you can sort out the properties of God. He leaves behind no evidence of competence as an engineer, astronomer, geologist, biologist, mathematician, physicist or moralist, but because we don't know "His" plan we can't judge. one must admire your dedication to that end.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

the invariance of the space-time interval as the revelation that holds it all together but I rushed my post and dropped the ball. Tanks.Edited by lyx2no, : left out "interval"

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Worse still, for the designer to be consistent with the evidence it is necessary for it to be incompetent as an engineer. I can't imagine how this could be news so I'll only tire you with one example: People can't breath while swallowing. This is not a difficult problem to resolve. Especially since there are models for its resolution in many other creatures. If a mere human can recognize this why couldn't the creator? It's either incompetent, unconcerned or has a mystical plan that involves rock stars drowning in their own vomit. Firstly, this presupposes there is a creator. Secondly, it's hyperbole. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't think the surface of the Sun a harsher environment then the surface of the Earth. Off topic stuff.

It's also good not to judge. I don't judge God, and I don't judge you.

This is pabulum. Do you drive with your eyes closed or let child molesters baby sit your kids? I'm betting you don't. You've likely judged that to be a dangerous thing to do. Is that not a judgment, or do you have your own meaning for the word?

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This certainly isn't my argument. I only require something to be engineered to meet its function. A thimble need only keep me from pricking my finger while not interfering with my making a stitch. I do not require it to protect me from 50Mt nuclear blasts. I categorize extinguishment in a 50Mt nuclear blasts as a bad thing yet still give the thimble a pass. I don't see drowning in ones own vomit as a function of human existence, yet we are well designed for it. Far from perfect.Now, I know that this example is over the top, but you have made that necessary by your continual confusion of the subject in an analogy with the subject of the analogy. Actually, the rock star was fictitious, so the likelihood of his being on drugs is low. I used that example because it's pointed. I thought you'd be able to see through the particulars and grasp the concept, but no; so, let me rephrase my statement: So, tell me, what was the evil, little infant doing to deserve its fate? In the same way I presuppose that there are intergers, "p" and "q", such that (p/q)² = 2, yes. But you're using your presupposition as a necessary element in a syllogism without first establishing its truth. I've hidden a line of argument here because I miss read your post and unwittingly constructed a straw man. I don't agree with the point you made, but you've got enough on your plate. Currently, I do not enjoy the abilities to soar through the clouds or to taste lava. I do not consider these as short comings of human design. A propensity toward aortic dissection is another matter.The god consistent with the physical evidence is a god who hasn't or can't remedy a number of questionable designs. You choose to believe he hasn't remedied them. That our questions are impertinent. That our free will would somehow be diminished if we weren't free to drown in our own vomit. That we couldn't understand good without evil. These excuses you make for him don't impress me as showing him in a good light.I choose to believe he can't. That our questions are rhetorical. Only a deceptive, disinterested, or nonexistent god is consistent with the evidence. The only reasonable conclusion is that he doesn't exist or that he wants me to believe that he doesn't exist.
Who am I to question?Sorry for this being such a jumble. It's been hectic of late yes, I know kid hectic does not compare to grown-up hectic, and I hate using it as an excuse, but I've not the time to make a proper thesis of it.Edited by lyx2no, : Correct errors made in haste.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

I’ve little onus to define what our function is within the scope of the argument I’m making. I may need to support my argument that drowning in vomit is not part of our function if push comes to shove, but I can’t see it going that far. Actually, I’ve got the easier argument here. Personally, I believe my function is to be a propagator of genetic material. Under a design scenario, the contradictions inherent in that theory would be that I’m 4.72 feet tall, 176 lbs., having coke bottle glasses, facial vitiligo (It’s hard enough on me that I act white, but I’m turning white as well. Joy!) and tonsure. I will disperse genetic material, to be sure, but the chance of my ever doing so under conditions suitable to propagation are next to nil. Without the presumption of design I don’t have to explain away these apparent design flaws: it’s just the luck of the draw. Your argument pertaining to the rock star was an (nonjudgmental) appeal to personal responsibility. I happen to believe that people are autotelic. The infant’s death is bad because it’s not likely the course it would have selected give its druthers. Then why do you defy Him? Accept the teachings of The Lord and deny His existence.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Let me gather the relevant parts of this string into a single piece: lyx: [The creator is] either incompetent, unconcerned or has a mystical plan that involves rock stars drowning in their own vomit.riV: Rock stars drowning on their own vomit is a poor example, because the Rock star was probably overdosing on drugs, and the designer gave us enough info to know that we shouldn't be overdosing on drugs.lyx: [L]et me rephrase my statement:

[The creator] is either incompetent, unconcerned or has a mystical plan that involves infants drowning in their own vomit.

So, tell me, what was the evil, little infant doing to deserve its fate?riV: Why is the infant evil? That is a prejudice statement right there.lyx: Your argument pertaining to the rock star was an (nonjudgmental) appeal to personal responsibility.riV: Um, no. I just never heard of a rock star drowning in his/her own vomit unless they were drugged out. You tend to assume to much, judge motives, and over analyze things, don't you? I mean that in a good way.It's beginning to dawn on me that the thing I improperly assume is that words aren't puffy, little things; like clouds that everyone gets to see their favorite figures in.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

To say that life resembles a machine is like saying the Mona Lisa resembles a painting seen at an art exhibit of your local high school. One would only say it to denigrate that great work of art. Many machines resemble the gross mechanical solutions that life has employed to propagate itself. But that's not the scale at which life emerges. That occurs at the sub-cellular level where it looks nothing like a machine. It looks like chemistry. That's because it is. No magic just physics.Life is not an illusion. Neither is the solidity of objects. The only illusion is your too high expectation of understanding without an effort greater then you own musings.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

No, Tony; now we are saying "Here is the physical evidence we have on hand: trees and flowers and chirping bird and basket weavers and crib death"; and asking "What must a designer be like if we have all these things?" We are assuming a designer is real: we've giving his quantity a pass so that we can get on about his quality. Well, doesn't that show the value of your skepticism. It's in full force when you're subject to one cogent argument after another, but completely disappears when you've "heard some things along [those] lines". You've got two separate gropes of folks speaking here. The group who knows what they're talking about when they use the term "space-time" and the group who doesn't know what they're talking about when they use the term "space-time". Guess which group the "It is said" folks belong to. What is the worth of their testimony if don't mind not knowing what they're talking about?What would "Crib Death Jesus Do?"Edited by lyx2no, : GrammarEdited by lyx2no, : Change "God" to "a designer" per onifre. Couldn't fix "Jesus", and anyway, we all know that's who "they" mean.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

I think we're looking for a designer consistent with the evidence rather then evidence consistent with a designer.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

I'm with you, NanoGecko is throwing a dart and is amazed by the miraculous spot that it hit: it's the only spot that has a dart stuck in it after all. It's all old wine in a new skin, it' all off-topic too. No, sorry, but this is just plain wrong. It doesn't change the point your trying to make, but it certainly doesn't help.AbE: Dick.Edited by lyx2no, : To save a post.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

r=(GM_⊙/a_♁)^1/2. M_♁ cancels out. If it's mass increases so does the force required to accelerate it. I am charter member of the Bourne Dick Association.AbE: My left pinky finger nail is the only place in the known to me world with a spot of red paint on it. Not too convincing.Edited by lyx2no, : Supply evidence for the 2^nd paragraph.Edited by lyx2no, : Missed taking the root.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Opps! I didn't notice this post before I edited my failure to take the root. I don't see why it would. The Earth's particular orbit is the mean result of the chaotic velocities of all bits and pieces that preceded it.We can also get there rewriting Kepler's 3^rd law. r=(t/2π)^2/3(GM_⊙)^1/3. This has the advantage that the mass of the orbiting body was not considered from the jump; meaning, the orbit's radius is not reliant on the orbiter's mass. I live in the town of Bourne. It's not so great. But I'm thinking it's better than where you live.Sorry about off-topic, but I can't help it.AbE: A note for the following post: Agreed. For our Earth (♁) - Sun (⊙) case F_g=GM_⊙M_♁ R^-2 gives the force between the two bodies. As acceleration equals force over mass then multiplying both sides by M_♁^-1 will give the acceleration induced upon ♁. This gravitational acceleration has to be equal to the the centripetal acceleration, v²/r, for ♁ to be in ⊙ orbit. Once again, M_♁ is out or the game. This is applies to the center of mass weather it is dispersed in a cloud of debris or condensed into a body.Edited by lyx2no, : Penultimate paragraph. The last paragraph's just came along for the ride.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.Edited by lyx2no, : Disable Smilies.Edited by lyx2no, : Save another OT post.Edited by lyx2no, : M_♁ is out of the game, not mass. Stupid Smiles.Edited by lyx2no, : Multiply by M_♁^-1

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

You offer arguments and analogy when evidence is the order of the day. Tony, what is required is to eliminate as a possibility that a system could have occurred naturally. Showing that it isn't known how it occurred is not enough. Ignorance of X is not knowledge of Y. You are out of your cotton picking mind. Voyager will look better in fifty-thousand years than your '94 Yugo does now. If you're going to use an analogy you might want to try one that didn't originate inside of your butt. You mean those chemical systems that aren't being used by biological system because they're, like, way too slow are too slow to be used by biological systems. Go figure; wonder why that is?Is this the "scientific" method Creationists intend to abuse for the foreseeable future: when on set of misconstrued cut-n-pastes from science papers are, at a great waste of valuable time and resources, shown not to support IC a new set of misconstrued cut-n-pastes from science papers advance like the teeth of a shark? IC has yet to offer anything more. The details have gotten more sophisticated: harder for the layman to see through: more expensive for scientists to rebut; but they haven't gotten one bit more scientific.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.