The Universe comes from an eternal source, This source Has Designed and logically created this Universe using complex Laws and Systems fine tuned in order for Sentient Beings to `Observe and Experience' it.
The Universe Comes from an Eternal Source most call God.
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
The Evidence is in Mathematics.
The first step in evaluating the possibility of intelligent design is to examine closely the characteristics (or artifacts) of the natural world in order to assess whether all external "appearances" of design are merely "designoids," or whether they are, in fact, true examples of design by an intelligent Creator. Let us begin by considering the essential elements of intelligent design by human beings.
How Does An Engineer Design Consumer Products?
Design engineers using their understanding of natural laws, as described by mathematics, and their capacity to prescribe the conditions under which these natural laws function locally to produce a purposeful outcome. Let me illustrate. Suppose I wanted to throw a water balloon from the leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy to hit a friend walking on the plaza below. Solving the differential equation that Newton discovered for motion in a gravitational field, I would obtain a solution in the form of a simple, algebraic equation that describes the descent of the water balloon to its target below.
H(t) = h0 - (Gm /r2) t2 /2 - v0t
(1)
Here "H(t)" represents the height of the balloon as a function of time ("t"); "G" is a universal constant signifying the strength of the gravitational force of attraction; "m" and "r" are the mass of the Earth and the radius of the Earth, respectively; and "h0" and "v0" are the height of the tower from which I shall throw the balloon, and the vertical velocity with which I shall throw the balloon, respectively. By entering the numerical values for "G," "m," and "r," I obtain Gm/r2 = 32.2 ft/s2 , usually designated "g." Now Equation 1 can be simplified to:
H(t) = ho - g t2 / 2 - vo t = ho - 32.2 t2 / 2 - vo t
(2)
Moderator note: Remainder of plagiarised article has been deleted. Please see the original source at the following website:
Source: leaderu.com
The first step in evaluating the possibility of intelligent design is to examine closely the characteristics (or artifacts) of the natural world in order to assess whether all external "appearances" of design are merely "designoids," or whether they are, in fact, true examples of design by an intelligent Creator. Let us begin by considering the essential elements of intelligent design by human beings.
How Does An Engineer Design Consumer Products?
Design engineers using their understanding of natural laws, as described by mathematics, and their capacity to prescribe the conditions under which these natural laws function locally to produce a purposeful outcome. Let me illustrate. Suppose I wanted to throw a water balloon from the leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy to hit a friend walking on the plaza below. Solving the differential equation that Newton discovered for motion in a gravitational field, I would obtain a solution in the form of a simple, algebraic equation that describes the descent of the water balloon to its target below.
H(t) = h0 - (Gm /r2) t2 /2 - v0t
(1)
Here "H(t)" represents the height of the balloon as a function of time ("t"); "G" is a universal constant signifying the strength of the gravitational force of attraction; "m" and "r" are the mass of the Earth and the radius of the Earth, respectively; and "h0" and "v0" are the height of the tower from which I shall throw the balloon, and the vertical velocity with which I shall throw the balloon, respectively. By entering the numerical values for "G," "m," and "r," I obtain Gm/r2 = 32.2 ft/s2 , usually designated "g." Now Equation 1 can be simplified to:
H(t) = ho - g t2 / 2 - vo t = ho - 32.2 t2 / 2 - vo t
(2)
Moderator note: Remainder of plagiarised article has been deleted. Please see the original source at the following website:
Source: leaderu.com
Last edited by a moderator:
Is mathematics and probability not the only evidence we can use to understand the true root of all in existence?. In Science we go by our best methods availible to produce a model and Hypothesis to present.
Mathematics and Probability is Observational and can be studied in controled enviroments on computers to gain test results.
In these reuslts if you gather all known information about every fine tuned detail of the mechanical working universe it is clear to see that it is in favour of a designed creator.
Compare it the design of a "watch" you assume the watch was created because of how finely tuned it is, you also are aware that people craft such things.
Now follow that "consequence" back to its root source and what do you get?.
If you read the `Entire post presented you would see the sources.
Have you any "Direct Refutes" to present in a Rebuttle in opposition to my Sourced mathematical probability evidence?
It's from
www.breadoflifebiblestudy.com/Lessons/.../Articles/IntelligentDesign01.pdf
There are numerous internet sites refuting these arguments, and I don't intend to rehash them.
If you intend to actually debate the issue, you should be using your own arguments, not cut and pasting from creationist sites.
However, in the same manner as you presented, here is the refutation of your plagerized article.
www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm
www.breadoflifebiblestudy.com/Lessons/.../Articles/IntelligentDesign01.pdf
There are numerous internet sites refuting these arguments, and I don't intend to rehash them.
If you intend to actually debate the issue, you should be using your own arguments, not cut and pasting from creationist sites.
However, in the same manner as you presented, here is the refutation of your plagerized article.
www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm
but even if we were to use your example, it would be faulty. a watch is created from materials that man did not make and the watch was created for the purpose of tracking time which man is not responsible for either.
so, if there is a creator of the universe, it may not be a creator of the 'root' of anything. it would be a manipulator at best. but this is all ridiculous hypothetical anyways. there is no indication that the universal 'system' especially was created at all. even intuitively, it seems more of an accident similar to what happens after a reaction (big bang). now, one could hypothesize that what makes the "root" of life tick could be this source or god but we know nothing about that at all. we are most aware of our physical state we find ourselves in. the "system" that you believe was created.
The following text is quoited from your rebuttle "Link". I would like to give a noted mention to one of the particular paraphraphs that caught my eye upon reading its quite repetitive and quite frankly Un-statistical Introduction/Rant.
""I am not naive enough to expect that many creationists will actually read all of these chapters. My experience with them (from many emails) is that they have no interest in learning about science. Their only interests are in defending their own beliefs at all cost and heaping abuse on anything or anyone that challenges their beliefs. I am usually polite to such people so long as they are. But while they usually begin politely enough, sooner or later they become abusive and start quoting verses from the Bible, praying for me, or damning me to hell. Then I terminate the exchange, for it is clearly not productive. The psychology and personalities of these people is very much like that of pseudoscientists, zealots and cranks of all stripes: flat earthers, hollow earthers, perpetual motionists, and defenders of ether theories.""
There are various forms of fake science, bad science, and perverted science. History has seen many come, and decline, but none ever seem to die. The ideas of flat earth, hollow earth, astrology, alchemy and perpetual motion have supporters even today. These are interesting examples of the human ability to hold to an idea even without supportive evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence. They, however, pose little threat to science, which simply ignores them and goes about its work.
A newer pseudoscience arose, first called "creationism" or "creation science", which tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and into the schools. This movement had considerable public support amongst fundamentalist Christians. Scientists generally ignored it as irrelevant to their work. In recent years a movement called "intelligent design" (ID) has been promoted by a handful of people who write books aimed at non-scientists. These authors claim that intelligent design is not a religious idea, but the public speeches of some of them reveal that their goal is to get "God back into science and into school classrooms". Creationists, having largely failed in their efforts, lend their support to intelligent design, as perhaps the best they can get—for now.
Creationism and intelligent design are not the same. Creationism arose from clearly religious motivations. For political reasons, its advocates found they could "sell" it better to non-fundamentalists if they downplayed the religious content and renamed it "creation-science". But its essential content and goals were the same. Most creationists held that the earth was no more than about 10,000 years old, that the fossil record was laid down during the Genesis flood, and that natural laws were vastly different before mankind's "fall" in the Garden of Eden. To further their campaign to get some of this into schools, the Biblical content was stripped away even more, and what was left was primarily an attack on evolution. Evolution of all kinds, whether cosmic or biological, is anathema to creationists.
Intelligent design strips away even more of the religious context, concentrating on the notion of an "intelligent designer" who supposedly created the universe, and perhaps intervenes in natural processes from time to time to create new species of plants and animals. ID claims that the evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer is found in the universe itself, and specifically in instances where natural laws "could not possibly" have brought about certain biological modifications through natural processes alone. Unlike creationism, intelligent design does not insist on an absurdly short age of the earth.
Scientists recognize that the so-called ID "theory" is not a scientific theory at all, and that its claims of supportive evidence from nature are contrived and easily shown to be invalid. But scientists now also realize they must not ignore this threat to scientific integrity, for it is part of an organized campaign with social and political goals and widespread grass roots support.
More details can be found in the bibliography below. With so many good books and websites refuting creationism and ID, you may wonder why I take the time to write these web documents. I felt there was a need to reduce the intelligent design argument to its bare bones, to strip away irrelevant issues, and show that the whole idea is not science, but is a counterfeit of science—a pseudoscience. Too many critics of ID have fallen into the trap of addressing each and all of the claims that ID advocates use to support their arguments. Someone should do this, of course, but the downside is that it suggests to the general public that the ID claims are a serious challenge to science. They are not. Most of the "scientific" claims of ID are simply irrelevant, for the fatal flaws of ID are much more fundamental. The elaborate arguments of ID only serve to hide the fact that the intelligent design hypothesis is completely devoid of scientific content. Intelligent design is a philosophical assertion without the slightest logical or scientific support.
For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false. —H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
So my primary purpose here is to show that the intelligent design idea is empty both philosophically and scientifically. That task would require but a few chapters. But I also felt another obligation. The reason that the intelligent design idea appeals to so many non-scientists is that they have little or no understanding of what science is all about, how scientific investigation is done, and how scientific results are tested. Even science students receive little or no exposure to systematic instruction in science methodology. They learn science "by osmosis"—by doing science side by side with experienced scientists and exposing their work to peer criticism.
One thing I wanted to avoid was to get bogged down in technical details. I hoped to address the issues of creationism and intelligent design using only concepts and examples that non-scientists might understand and appreciate. I wanted to minimize use of technical terms of science and philosophy. When this is done, the emptiness and scientific irrelevance of the ID argument is more clearly exposed for all to see.
I have resisted the temptation to refute all of the various "scientific" claims of creationists. Others, more qualified than I, have already done this quite thoroughly. Details may be found in the sources listed below. It would have been a thankless task anyway. Non-scientist readers' eyes glaze over and it's like talking to the wind. Scientist readers become impatient with what they consider "obvious".
I am not naive enough to expect that many creationists will actually read all of these chapters. My experience with them (from many emails) is that they have no interest in learning about science. Their only interests are in defending their own beliefs at all cost and heaping abuse on anything or anyone that challenges their beliefs. I am usually polite to such people so long as they are. But while they usually begin politely enough, sooner or later they become abusive and start quoting verses from the Bible, praying for me, or damning me to hell. Then I terminate the exchange, for it is clearly not productive. The psychology and personalities of these people is very much like that of pseudoscientists, zealots and cranks of all stripes: flat earthers, hollow earthers, perpetual motionists, and defenders of ether theories.
The contents page below lists these essays in a natural order, but they are essentially separate documents, and each can stand alone. They were written at different times, and not in this order. Because of this, they contain repetition and redundancy. But any attempt to remove that might do harm to the structure of each.
—Donald E. Simanek, February, 2006.
Contents.
The Evolution Deniers.
Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty.
Order from Disorder. Creation in Everyday Life.
Order and Disorder in Nature.
Is The Real World Really Real?
Uses and Misuses of Logic.
The Scientific Method.
Proofs of Unknowables. The Proof is Pudding.
Theory or Process?
Is Intelligent Design an Interesting Philosophical Idea?
Why not Angels?
What's bugging the creationists?
Summary and Conclusions. ""
A manipulator would be one who does not bring anything into existence like a human who only uses what is already in existence to reform and use things.
Existence and The Universe are here for observation, The source of them is found using Mathematics and using logical paradox removals from Hypothesis.
Is mathematics and probability not the only evidence we can use to understand the true root of all in existence?. In Science we go by our best methods availible to produce a model and Hypothesis to present.
Mathematics and Probability is Observational and can be studied in controled enviroments on computers to gain test results.
In these reuslts if you gather all known information about every fine tuned detail of the mechanical working universe it is clear to see that it is in favour of a designed creator.
Given the limitations of Observing the known and documented universe how would you better suggest we further debate the evidence?. If not computer generated simulations of Mathematical Probability.
For What reason Must we or the universe in its physical state/s, live for ever simply because it was created to observe?. Does a Person Sketch a Doodle In His school book with the intention of it being eternal and forever to be enjoyed by his eyes?. Most likely not he does it for a brief 10 second enjoyment to look at.
MAthematics is a language, A Language is for Communication this is true. Does it have any point in refuting My Claim that mathematics Can be used as a tool to go beyond Observational studies of the known Universe?
Peace.