Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#121  Postby amused » Jul 30, 2010 9:13 pm

Tbickle wrote:
amused wrote:I don't know if it's design, but don't you think it's really odd to be standing on a ball of rock slinging itself around a ball of fire that is flying around a bunch of other fireballs that are all moving through an enormous and cold mostly empty space?


You know, we use specific words because they have specific meanings. Design implies that a conscious person or thing specifically made made something according to a plan. Unless we have some reason to think that our universe was a consequence of this, why would you possibly even suggest that it's a possibility?


Because there's an enormous amount of energy being expended to maintain a system.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#122  Postby DaveD » Jul 30, 2010 9:22 pm

amused wrote:
Tbickle wrote:
amused wrote:I don't know if it's design, but don't you think it's really odd to be standing on a ball of rock slinging itself around a ball of fire that is flying around a bunch of other fireballs that are all moving through an enormous and cold mostly empty space?


You know, we use specific words because they have specific meanings. Design implies that a conscious person or thing specifically made made something according to a plan. Unless we have some reason to think that our universe was a consequence of this, why would you possibly even suggest that it's a possibility?


Because there's an enormous amount of energy being expended to maintain a system.

What makes you think its being maintained?
Image
User avatar
DaveD
 
Name: Dave Davis
Posts: 3022
Age: 62
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#123  Postby amused » Jul 30, 2010 10:14 pm

DaveD wrote:
amused wrote:
Tbickle wrote:
amused wrote:I don't know if it's design, but don't you think it's really odd to be standing on a ball of rock slinging itself around a ball of fire that is flying around a bunch of other fireballs that are all moving through an enormous and cold mostly empty space?


You know, we use specific words because they have specific meanings. Design implies that a conscious person or thing specifically made made something according to a plan. Unless we have some reason to think that our universe was a consequence of this, why would you possibly even suggest that it's a possibility?


Because there's an enormous amount of energy being expended to maintain a system.

What makes you think its being maintained?


Because it is here.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#124  Postby hackenslash » Jul 30, 2010 10:17 pm

Unless, of course, the recent postulate about the net energy of the universe being zero is accurate. ;)
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21431
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#125  Postby amused » Jul 30, 2010 10:24 pm

hackenslash wrote:Unless, of course, the recent postulate about the net energy of the universe being zero is accurate. ;)


Yup.

"Consistency is not a human trait." - Maude
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#126  Postby hackenslash » Jul 30, 2010 10:35 pm

Meaning what? :what:
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21431
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post


Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#128  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 30, 2010 10:42 pm

More excrement is flowing ...

Robert Byers wrote:one last time about this rock thing.


Let's see what more drivel is going to be erected here shall we?

Robert Byers wrote:Cali was trying to say that real rocks and man made rocks looking the same means intelligence can't be observed in nature.


No, Byers, I did NOT say that, and I'll thank you NOT to put words in my mouth.

What I was actually saying, if you bothered to pay attention thereto, was that detection of instances of "design" is a FAR FROM TRIVIAL EXERCISE. It requires painstaking attention to detail and careful analysis, as opposed to blithely asserting that something is "designed" because retarded Bronze Age mythology says so. Those rocks illustrate this principle in action, in case you hadn't worked this out. Do pay attention when people are trying to teach you important lessons about REALITY, Byers.

Robert Byers wrote:The rock thing fails.


No it doesn't Byers, because I have more than amply demonstrated that people who erect fatuous assertions about "design", on the basis of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of retarded mythological bullshit, are unable to provide proper substantive reasons for their assertions when challenged. You were unable to pick out of that pile of rocks the one rock that has been shaped by human hand, which makes a mockery of any assertion you care to erect that so-called "design" is "obvious". The only failure on display here, Byers, is yours.

Robert Byers wrote:A person making the rock shape is using processes of insight. Intelligence.


And once again, what RIGOROUS means do you have of detecting this, Byers? Here's a clue: blind assertions that an entity is "designed" because of wishful thinking about an imaginary magic man in the sky don't count as a rigorous means of detection.

Robert Byers wrote:The rock made naturally is also from intelligent processes.


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

This is a joke, Byers. What "intelligence" does fucking wind have?

Robert Byers wrote:Its not a natural thing in space but a unique thing on earth or where forces are at work.


Scientifically illiterate gibberish.

Byers, forces are at work all over the universe. Gravity being one of them. Indeed, one of the reasons we are able to tell the difference between Moon rocks and rocks from Earth, is because rocks on the Moon are subject to space weathering, which involves cosmic ray spallation within the rock matrix, and results in the production of, amongst other materials, nanophase iron, which is almost never found naturally on Earth, but which can be produced in the laboratory by replicating lunar conditions. There are forces at work on the surfaces of the Jovian moons that shape those surfaces, in the case of Io, these forces involve tidal heating from Jupiter's gravitational pull, which is the reason why Io's interior is hot enough to be liquid, and the reason why Io has active volcanoes.

Try learning some basic science before posting nonsense of the above sort in the future.

Robert Byers wrote:Its from intelligent ideas.


BOLLOCKS. What "intelligence" is present in wind, Byers, when it erodes rocks?

What "intelligence" is present in water, Byers, when it erodes rocks?

What "intelligence" is present in molten lava when it flows out of a volcano?

Learn to distinguish between natural processes and our understanding of those processes, which are two different entities.

:picard:

Robert Byers wrote:Its not chance.


Byers, you have been TOLD REPEATEDLY that scientists do NOT postulate that entities observed in the real world are the product of "chance", but the product of TESTABLE NATURAL PROCESSES. Learn this lesson quickly, and don't post the "chance" canard ever again.

Robert Byers wrote:Its not evolution.


Nobody here claimed that biological evolution produced rocks, Byers. This is another of your duplicitous apologetic fabrications. What people here DO say, Byers, if you pay attention to them, is that TESTABLE NATURAL PROCESSES THAT ARE COMPREHENSIBLE BY HUMAN MINDS are responsible. Learn this lesson.

Robert Byers wrote:If the processes are at work the rocks could only look this way.


Someone obviously knows nothing about the Navier-Stokes Equations or chaotic dynamic processes. And since I studied both of these at university, Byers, it isn't me.

Robert Byers wrote:Nature looks intelligent as opposed to what things look like without laws etc.


No, Byers, it looks ordered, which is something different. Crystals don't require any "intelligence" to form them, all they require is electrostatic forces operating on atoms precipitating out of solution, but they produce regular geometric shapes when they precipitate out of solution under the influence of those electrostatic forces.

Robert Byers wrote:All things in nature are intelligent where processes are at work.


Bullshit, Byers, bullshit.

Once again ...

What "intelligence" is present in wind, Byers, when it erodes rocks?

What "intelligence" is present in water, Byers, when it erodes rocks?

What "intelligence" is present in molten lava when it flows out of a volcano?

Robert Byers wrote:so the rock thing fails because it presumes natures rock shaping is chance or evolutionish.


Bollocks, Byers. This is another of those LIES you keep posting.

Once again, what part of "scientists postulate that TESTABLE NATURAL PROCESSES are responsible" do you not understand?

And what part of "no one postulates that biological evolution produced rocks" do you ALSO not understand?

Learn some real science, Byers, and stop posting palsied, droolingly encephalitic apologetic excrement.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#129  Postby PhiloKGB » Jul 30, 2010 10:48 pm

amused wrote:
Tbickle wrote:Design implies that a conscious person or thing specifically made made something according to a plan. Unless we have some reason to think that our universe was a consequence of this, why would you possibly even suggest that it's a possibility?


Because there's an enormous amount of energy being expended to maintain a system.

Compared to an iPod. What other universal configurations of matter are possible and what are their energy requirements?
PhiloKGB
 
Posts: 679

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#130  Postby Sityl » Jul 30, 2010 10:51 pm

Calilasseia wrote:BOLLOCKS. What "intelligence" is present in wind, Byers, when it erodes rocks?

What "intelligence" is present in water, Byers, when it erodes rocks?

What "intelligence" is present in molten lava when it flows out of a volcano?

Learn to distinguish between natural processes and our understanding of those processes, which are two different entities.

:picard:


Maybe Byers watched too many cartoons. By your powers combined, I am Captain Planet!
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'


Image
User avatar
Sityl
 
Name: Ser Sityllan Payne
Posts: 5131
Age: 38
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#131  Postby amused » Jul 30, 2010 10:52 pm

PhiloKGB wrote:
amused wrote:
Tbickle wrote:Design implies that a conscious person or thing specifically made made something according to a plan. Unless we have some reason to think that our universe was a consequence of this, why would you possibly even suggest that it's a possibility?


Because there's an enormous amount of energy being expended to maintain a system.

Compared to an iPod. What other universal configurations of matter are possible and what are their energy requirements?


The fact that I can't possibly answer such a question, proves....what?
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#132  Postby PhiloKGB » Jul 30, 2010 10:59 pm

amused wrote:
PhiloKGB wrote:
amused wrote:
Tbickle wrote:Design implies that a conscious person or thing specifically made made something according to a plan. Unless we have some reason to think that our universe was a consequence of this, why would you possibly even suggest that it's a possibility?


Because there's an enormous amount of energy being expended to maintain a system.

Compared to an iPod. What other universal configurations of matter are possible and what are their energy requirements?


The fact that I can't possibly answer such a question, proves....what?

That you don't really have any idea what the energy requirements of various parts of the universe tell us.
PhiloKGB
 
Posts: 679

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#133  Postby amused » Jul 30, 2010 11:01 pm

PhiloKGB wrote:
amused wrote:
PhiloKGB wrote:
amused wrote:
Tbickle wrote:Design implies that a conscious person or thing specifically made made something according to a plan. Unless we have some reason to think that our universe was a consequence of this, why would you possibly even suggest that it's a possibility?


Because there's an enormous amount of energy being expended to maintain a system.

Compared to an iPod. What other universal configurations of matter are possible and what are their energy requirements?


The fact that I can't possibly answer such a question, proves....what?

That you don't really have any idea what the energy requirements of various parts of the universe tell us.


Okay, stipulated.

And?
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#134  Postby PhiloKGB » Jul 31, 2010 12:05 am

amused wrote:
PhiloKGB wrote:
amused wrote:
PhiloKGB wrote:
Compared to an iPod. What other universal configurations of matter are possible and what are their energy requirements?


The fact that I can't possibly answer such a question, proves....what?

That you don't really have any idea what the energy requirements of various parts of the universe tell us.


Okay, stipulated.

And?

And the amount of energy tied up in various parts of the universe is of little help in determining whether intent is responsible.
PhiloKGB
 
Posts: 679

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#135  Postby amused » Jul 31, 2010 12:30 am

PhiloKGB wrote:
amused wrote:
PhiloKGB wrote:
amused wrote:
PhiloKGB wrote:
Compared to an iPod. What other universal configurations of matter are possible and what are their energy requirements?


The fact that I can't possibly answer such a question, proves....what?

That you don't really have any idea what the energy requirements of various parts of the universe tell us.


Okay, stipulated.

And?

And the amount of energy tied up in various parts of the universe is of little help in determining whether intent is responsible.


Agreed.

But just to keep this ball rolling.... Isn't it odd that different parts of the universe do have different amounts of energy?
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#136  Postby xrayzed » Jul 31, 2010 12:55 am

amused wrote:
PhiloKGB wrote:
And the amount of energy tied up in various parts of the universe is of little help in determining whether intent is responsible.


Agreed.

But just to keep this ball rolling.... Isn't it odd that different parts of the universe do have different amounts of energy?

Not really.

Why would you expect it to be different?
A thinking creationist is an oxymoron. A non-thinking creationist is just a moron.
(Source: johannessiig, here)
User avatar
xrayzed
 
Posts: 1053
Age: 61
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#137  Postby amused » Jul 31, 2010 1:43 am

xrayzed wrote:
amused wrote:
PhiloKGB wrote:
And the amount of energy tied up in various parts of the universe is of little help in determining whether intent is responsible.


Agreed.

But just to keep this ball rolling.... Isn't it odd that different parts of the universe do have different amounts of energy?

Not really.

Why would you expect it to be different?


Because a uniform stasis requires no energy to maintain. Pushing energy into a localization requires work.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#138  Postby PhiloKGB » Jul 31, 2010 3:47 am

amused wrote:Because a uniform stasis requires no energy to maintain. Pushing energy into a localization requires work.

A "uniform stasis" of what? What's the true uniform configuration that the universe could take? Equidistant quarks?
PhiloKGB
 
Posts: 679

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#139  Postby amused » Jul 31, 2010 3:54 am

PhiloKGB wrote:
amused wrote:Because a uniform stasis requires no energy to maintain. Pushing energy into a localization requires work.

A "uniform stasis" of what? What's the true uniform configuration that the universe could take? Equidistant quarks?


:dunno:
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#140  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 31, 2010 12:20 pm

Oh, whilst entertaining this derail for a moment, even the heat-death of the universe won't result in uniformly spread energy. According to the current scientific consensus, once 101000 years has elapsed, and the universe is nothing but a sea of photons, it will be a realm in which quantum entanglement, and the uncertainty arising therefrom, will be in effect a macroscopic phenomenon. Which means that there will still be inhomogeneities in the distribution of energy. Plus, of course, those photons will themselves constitute local inhomogeneities.

Now returning you to your scheduled thread ...
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest