Intelligent Design explains many follies

inkorreckt No the chance of them self assemblying is unlikely in the extreme but not impossible. It is less improbable than the likelyhood of a designer self assembling is it not?

John 10:10 How did ID come to be then?I know I know OFF TOOPIC! Do not answer.This message has been edited by sidelined, Sun, 2006-03-19 03:34 PM

John 10:10Intelligent design holds that the world is too complex to have come about naturally in the first place. Therefore the intelligent design hypothesis holds that such complexity could not have come about by chance {which is a faulty understanding of how chance generates the world we see} but necessitates that an intelligence of greater complexity than the design {as is exemplefied in the many references to machinery or computer programs that could not have just happened} itself must exist.The difficulty then comes when you apply the principle of the hypothesis to the intelligent designer you used to explain the complexity of the world. Since the intelligent designer is more complex than the world before us{as per your arguement} we need to invoke the ID hypothesis to explain where that intelligent designer came from since we cannot say that such complexity simply happened. {because that is the naturalistic stance}You therefore run afoul of the fallacy of ad infinitum.This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2006-03-20 10:35 AM

John 10:10 I am sure now that you missed my post to you back a ways but since you made this statement I felt it necessary to bring back the post that you may have a chance to respond to the critique therein. This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2006-03-20 12:37 PM

John10:10 Really? When an electron emits a photon where does the photon come from?

Crashfrog Gee, Froggy, another one bites the dust. I suppose it is just as well since his arguements were going nowhere anyway. Good thing he has electrical engineering to fall back on.

John 10:10My error and my apologies for the error.However you have failed to answer me on a question I asked about your statement here. I then asked you a question concerning the nature of atoms here I ask this to determine where your degree of certainty lays since you imply that your knowledge of atoms and nuclear physics allows you to observe and prove things. This is a result of the statement you earlier made here. I would ask you to give us an answer however you have bid us adieu a second time and thus need not back up your claims. Sorry to here about that but you are an adult and the choice to respond or fade away is yours.This message has been edited by sidelined, Fri, 2006-03-24 12:30 PM

---

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.Richard Feynman

John 10:10 {sigh} Ok, then, let us rephrase to fit the shift in goalposts.How can you observe and prove that a photon is not within the electron before the electron emits a photon? How can you observe and prove an electron emits a photon?How can you observe and prove that the elementary particles came from your ID creator?

---

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.Richard Feynman

John 10:10Now that the Ad Hominem part of the debate is past could you please
respond to the questions I asked pertaining to your statements? I asked a question of you concerning this with this post To which you replied. I then adjusted the question here as well as added others. Now that the questions have been asked can you answer them so that you may maintain the validity of your assertion to Chiroptera in post # 138 {italics mine}I await your reply.

---

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.Richard Feynman

John 10:10 How do the two hydrogen atoms in water know how to form a bond angle between themselves of 104.5 degrees relative to the oxygen atom?How is it that 2 elements that are each individually able to form liquid only at very low temperature {Oxygen from 54 kelvin to 90 kelvin and Hydrogen from 14 kelvin to 20 kelvin} are when bonded together form a substance requiring substantially greater temperatures to form a liquid {273 kelvin to 373 kelvin}.How does water know how to expand when freezing? How is it that snow is white but water is not?Perhaps the answers to those questions about water are not so different from those that are asked about organic matter?Then we have carbon. In its solid form we can have both graphite and diamond. How extraordinary that something soft and brittle like graphite is exactly the same type of atom as diamond yet they are so vastly different in their color texture and hardness.
Carbon has the ability to bond with itself and together with other atoms form nearly 10 million known compounds{ Carbon - Wikipedia}In these three atomic elements are the chemistry of organic matter and all follow rules of chemistry and, even though the rules are complex, they are no different than those that govern the formation of water or the structure of carbon.Life and the chemistry of it are are based on the reactions of elements forming compounds ,compounds chemically reacting with other compounds to form new substances, to complex clusters of substances obey a further wealth of interaction forming cells from which tissues can develop to organs of specific purpose to organisms utilizing the array of organs that comprise their unique bodies all dependant upon and adhering to the laws of physics that underlie the chemistry that forms life.Now we can always ask how can the hydrogen or oxygen do that but I believe those are questions that have been worked out as well.

---

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.Richard Feynman

John 10:10 Since the number of nuclear reactors in the world is less than 500 this is almost a safe level of odds providing they are of the same deisgn. Now if there were a million nuclear power plants in the world then the 1/1,000,000 odds are now become almost a certainty for error.A misunderstanding of the ideas of odds was prevalent at NASA and resulted in the launch of Challenger in 1986 and the disaster that came from that. One member of the management pegged the odds of a catastrophic failure on a given launch at 1/100,000. This translates into more than 1 launch every day of the year for 300 years without expectation of a malfunction. If atoms did not design themselves but occured naturally without design then how do you justify applying odds of design to them? Let us set that aside though and you show us just how you arrive at what the odds are eh? Do you think that just because Isaac Newton stated this that the arguement somehow holds sway? The force of gravity, a consequence of the presence of mass{which Isaac was not aware of}, is all that is needed to explain the motions of all the objets in the universe. He was also ignorant of many things such a the non-fixed location of the stars{and that they were not neceesarily the centers of other systems} though in his time this was the best conclusion observation allowed him to determine.
A persons stature or esteem do not make an arguement valid or invalid since they have nothing at all to do with the arguements merits.

---

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.Richard Feynman

John 10:10 This is empty of any information content until such time as you explain what the intelligent designer is. I can substitute the words leprechauns for intelligent designer and have as much content to my sentence as yours does.that leprechauns designed " the red shift and accelerating expansion." It also means leprechauns designed fully formed creatures to begin with, with ready made ability to reproduce other creatures after their own kind, according to the DNA within them.Man can study how the red shift is proportional to distance, but the full explanation of why is in the mind of the leprechauns.Man can study how creatures reproduce and function, but those who believe in leprechauns do not believe the leprechauns caused gradual changes in the DNA in organisms over time to cause speciation. Those who believe in leprechauns simply believe every life creature was a special creative act to begin with.So I have as good a proposition as you do. If you cannot see this it is because you do not wish to see leprechauns.

John 10:10 Or perhaps there is a designer and the designer is of any number of levels of intelligence.Since the only criteria necessary is that the designer be a minimum level of intelligence and no less the number of possible designers is staggeringly large and approaches infinite if you allow up to an unlimited intelligence. Therefore, the odds significantly increase as a result of this and cannot be considered as 50/50.This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2006-04-18 12:17 AM

John 10:10 Not to throws stones your way but some would also disagree with you. So in regards to ID can you provide confirmation in any amount? Do you have an experiment that can be falsified? As Albert implied experimentation is the key to the validity of any hypothesis.Do you have anything to offer except opinion to show that ID is more than merely conjecture? Do you know of research that has confirmed even one prediction that is based on the principle of intelligent design?Hell, are you aware of even one prediction ever made in ID to which experimentation can be applied?

---

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.Richard Feynman