So then are you saying that atoms are the "creator?" How did atoms get so smart??

Perhaps the first universe began not with a big bang but with a low moan, building into a roar that gave way to a deafening hiss. And those sounds gave birth to the first stars.

when i die my atom will move in with eve.

and of course that means you think it has more weight.

There's nothing wrong with considering it, we object to elevating it to beyond that without evidence for it.

You certainly act like we should accept it as one.
We consider these things too but that's it. There's no reason to take it further so we don't have any reason to inform people of other possibilities.

And it's often personal. Would you criticize someone for not getting naked on command?

Now maybe you don't mean any harm but a lot of times when I have told people what I imagine they turn it against me and say all of the things I have said are ridiculous because of it. I'm not totally scared by that or anything but what I imagine is rarely relevant to the conversation so I leave it out when reasonable.

If not then why keep telling us we're closed minded and such?

Why do you keep answering the questions with "designer"?

It's not random but it's stochastic. If you drop a single molecule of poison (that messes up DNA,) into a cell it's very hard to say which molecule it will interact with. Maybe it will bump around and touch on one strand of DNA or maybe it will touch down somewhere else. Same with high energy photons of light.

If you're standing in exactly a certain position and we shot a particular beam of light absolutely perfectly at a certain spot then sure, we could say what mutation would happen, but because the Sun is what's shooting most of those at us an we don't know exactly where it's going to shoot them and because we don't know exactly where all the molecules in anything you eat or otherwise put in your body and because we don't know the absolute exact position of your body there's so much going on that we're nowhere near close to working out cause and effect down to the level of atoms and photons.

We flat out know how most of those things interact that we can say how they will if we know exactly what they're all doing at any particular moment but we don't know exactly how things are at any moment in life. Generally sure but it's hard enough to just count how many hairs are on your head much less where all your cells are and how the stuff inside them is sitting.

So we call that random instead.

It wouldn't and it doesn't know to change. Know how computers sometimes freeze? They wouldn't if they did everything exactly the way they are programmed to but sometimes they don't follow the program. Maybe an electron jumped into the wrong place or some magnetic field threw it off. There's no way I could tell you exactly why it happened on a forum like this and even if I was there I probably wouldn't even be able to figure out what exactly happened unless I was lucky and watched it happen.

But programs are different than life so what freezes a program might make some stretch of DNA into something useful.


Well to fair I think there's a problem there. You're telling her to just accept it, and I think everyone has been.

I know it would be completely impractical to make everyone learn about the depths of chemistry and physics before they clear up misconceptions like these but I wish people would add a tool to their toolbox: The "I'm not good enough at this science to explain it well enough" tool. There are a lot of things that fall outside my range of expertise; even though I've seen the fantastic reasoning and evidence that lead up to the conclusions I don't every last piece of it and it's completely unreasonable to think that other people should see how right something is just from me recalling bits and pieces of what lead me to it.

So she doesn't need to accept it to know how evolution works, she needs to understand it to start understanding evolution.

I guess to put it another way:
imagine a pool table where the balls have just been split and are bumping around wildly. You know that bounce off of each other in certain ways and that it's all very mechanical but if you first hit that cue ball at a very slightly different angle or with very slightly different force the balls might end up in a very different position.

If you want you can see why illustrated here: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/Bunimovich/Bunimovich.html

Just a tiny change and things start to bounce differently and as you add those up it very quickly becomes too much to handle. Now imagine if the balls never slowed to a halt and if there were hundreds, thousands, or millions of them. If you know how they interact when there are just two hitting each other you can technically work out exactly what they should all do but even just figuring out where they all are before they've moved some more is an impossible task.

Hell, why not say that all cases of disorder must have been the direct result of intention and purpose by a designer as well and that we just do not recognize the order in them?

But with that or without that the fallacy that renders that invalid is called begging the question. You do understand why fallacies are not valid, right?


When you say things like this it's hard to see how you can say that you're not telling us how things are. What you just did is called a statement. If you first tell us to imagine something or you insert words like "maybe" into that it could be less that a declaration of how things are.

Well what really matters is how many interactions any single part can make and how many parts you have.

But if size doesn't matter why didn't we start small?

But if we're the first then our crude computers would be the best computers, would they not?

Why should I imagine that? Just to be distracted from this conversation?

Having failed they would have fallen back in on themselves into basically nothingness.

But I thought you didn't understand math (I can grab the quote of you saying so if you want.) How could you think the universe had such a small chance when you don't understand any of the math people used to argue that?

You've accepted that idea, if only to use against people, because you liked it but you didn't corral any of the reasons for it to show to us.

-trying to catch up in this thread is quite the task. I fear I need yet another break.

Are we dancing the dance of an abstract thinker and an organized thinker?

Some people seem to look for order in everything in their lives. Then there are those who accept that order or reason is not a necessity to live.

don't read that he said atoms are the creator. read that there is no design.

Sorry but if there were no design then there really would be Chaos.
I just don't agree that 'patterns' and 'programs' are NOT designs.

our science is improving and theories that use to be unfounded just guesses are becoming fact. the deeper and farther we look..personaly i think the proof that all life giving marerial ...carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc.. are all condensed in stars just adds further evidence of the big bang "theory" which they are now mapping btw.

Shoku;
I have not once accused anyone of being 'closed minded.'

I said:
I find no objection to that consideration. I am not claiming that I know this for a fact.



You have no reason. I do.

You asked:


Because I have not been convinced of anything more logical and I am not convinced this world is an accident.

And because I am a designer, and I exist.

I am not looking for a single "God" or "creator" or "designer" like so many of you seem to have the impression.

I believe we are the designers.

And you are right... I don't NEED TO ACCEPT anything.

I will accept it when the evidence is clear that I am wrong. Not one single scrap of reasoning or logic has lead me to believe that yet.



************************************

Again, accident implies purpose. Its a poor usage unless you have already accepted that an intelligence guides this universe and makes mistakes.

Nature is not accidental. Evolution is not accidental. Its not driven by purpose, but interaction and sustenance.

This is true even before evolution started. Organic molecules continue on to interact longer if they are more stable. If less stable they unravel, or are hijacked by other processes. Even at the atomic level we have resonance which can allow for the furtherance of atomic fusion inside stars, but is this guided by anything other then interaction and structure? Can we really say that the fundamental particles must be designed with life as a purpose? The real answer is no. We cannot know if the fundamental particles have to be this way, or can be variable and are themselves based in the way universes begin, or . . or . . . or .. . many possibilities yet imagined.

One of the main flaws of any of these discussions is that the English language is littered with great words that are anthropomorphic. If you wish to see regardless of evidence that there must be purpose and choose to use semantic fallacious logic, you will always have something to pick out in any scientists presentation. Accident is such a word.

My main point in this discussion, and in the topic as a whole is that if we presume a design then we throw out all those other possibilities and blind ourselves to the potential mechanics of cosmology, or evolution, or . . .

Its really intellectually bankrupt. Many fallacies are involved, and have been pointed out.

Well for life like we know it you need temperatures that allow for liquid water (our solar system actually almost has three planets like that n_n) and common elements with around this amount of gravity. Basically there should be thousands or maybe millions of planets like that in our galaxy- the trouble has only been that our telescopes couldn't find planets much smaller than Jupiter. Now we're starting to.

All this after you said you only had questions... you've just lost some of my trust.

Well no, it matters that you said scientists proved it. If they proved it that means somebody did research and published it. Show us that or admit you were lying.

I've said quite a bit by this point. Do you think none of it answers your questions?


Ok, here's the big problem with that.
1. They don't say they know what started out universe.
2. They are making judgments about how likely it is.

That's bad. Let's say you don't know how many sides a dice has or if it starts at the number 1 but you do know that it came up six. What were the odds of that?

If you can even begin to think of a way to say what the odds of a dice you know nothing about coming up six... well I'm not sure you have a functional understanding of reality.
The odds might be one in six or they might be one in two (thing a coin with rounded edges,) or they might be one in a billion. If you don't know how many numbers there are you shouldn't be able to say how likely any number is.

Now what they are saying is that they DO know this dice. They say this dice is infinity and that all numbers are equally possible- except that they don't. They only imply it while saying that they don't know because they have to to pass this lie off.

It's like saying "The chances of a grilled cheese sandwich are virtually impossible! There must be countless failed grilled cheese sandwiches out there!"
Chances how? Are we talking about the chances of someone who is an ok cook putting cheese and bread together and then grilling it or are we talking about the chances of a tornado doing that? There might be a robot-cook involved, what then? Do you think a chimp might ever make a grilled cheese sandwich given the tools and ingredients?


But there's also a problem in your objections. "Nobody has ever shown these failed universes!" Well by definition they should be outside of our universe and nobody has ever been able to look there, at least not yet. To me this sounds kind of like saying "if the world was round there must be whole other continents out there and nobody has ever seen those" to Columbus.
*I know that's a bit inaccurate but the point should be obvious.

So without having found a 'failed' universe the idea is wrong but after we get a chance to look if we find one will it be right?


So murder and stealing from babies are ok, or least nobody can prove they're not.
Wow, this opens up so many possibilities!

._.;



It's very hard to tell when you change your story about what you are saying so much :\

I know those weren't your exact words but it's the closest phrase I could think of to describe what you have been doing.

And you've said that you DO know. Which is it?

So what your reason for reminding us all of these specific possibilities?

Why must it be an accident if there is no designer?

Are you the original designer of the universe?


Of course not, just awhile ago you said you already knew it.

We aren't talking about if there are designers now. Nobody in this thread would argue that you do not design things.

We are talking about origins. Did everything around us come from a designer or did it happen naturally? Do you think it couldn't have happened naturally?

But what about before there was anything alive on Earth and before there was anything alive on any planet in our universe?


Well I can't say that you are definitely wrong but you seem definitely inconsistent. Since you keep saying you're not saying certain things and then turning around and saying them I can't say what it is that you're saying so I don't have anything to show is wrong.

It does fill the requirements for both.

Generalizations, yes, False, no.

Where there is disorder in artistic designs, the cause is always unknown. So this argument does not apply to either of my statements because they both explicitly refer to “known cause”. Strawman.

No, it’s true.

As with the strawman “art” example above, the cause of the design is not known.

No, your statement is a strawman.

No, it is you who are attempting to base your conclusion about my argument on faulty reasoning.

No, I am not presupposing that, I am observing that.

Nope. Neither of them depend on that in any way. They depend on nothing but my own observation and evaluation.

Shoku I am glad you are here, its hard to continue being so wonderfully specific in the face of such outrageous fallacious specious arguments. Dont get tired of it too soon, I know there are more lurkers out there that need to read it, I think you do the reasonable scientific skeptics justice.

Because as far as I’m concerned, there is no known cause for any disorder, so the same inductive reasoning would not apply.

But then, I guess we’d have to have an agreement at to what actually constitutes disorder before that argument could get anywhere.

So let me just say that I don’t see any disorder anywhere and leave it at that.

To me “disorder” simply means “lacking a point of reference”. So all one has to do to see order is to pick a point of reference.

Good observation, although I would call it the dance of inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

some of us just understand

What I see here is that if you have it in your mind that there is intelligent design to the universe, you see it, without any tangible proof.

If you see the chance that it is all a "happening" at a molucular level, then that is what you see, without any tangible proof.

Until someone can tell we who the intelligent designer or designers are and who made them and who made their designers.... etc... I will have to see the chances for the latter as more likely.