Evidence of intelligent design (MEGA THREAD)

[MrCat22]

The purpose of this thread it to bring forward all the arguments and evidence that we humans and the world around us is designed/created rather than the result of a process.


DNA is likely designed
Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves.  These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals.  These things are well-understood and we experience them every day. Codes, however, do not occur without a designer from what the evidence suggest so far. We know of millions of examples of intelligence producing codes, yet non that dont include intelligence. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA.  The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code.  Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols.  Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone.  Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy. (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.  (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.  (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

Similarly, the word “Evolution” in the English language always refers to an intelligent process (in business, society, technology etc.) and the only usage in which it allegedly doesn’t is naturalistic Darwinian evolution. Why this exception?

All natural complex processes are irreversible - Entropy
This phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system – which really means any system of sufficient complexity – of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable.

During transformation, there will be a certain amount of heat energy loss or dissipation due to inter molecular friction and collisions. A certain amount of “transformation energy” S will be expended as the molecules of the “working body” do work on each other when they change from one state to another.  Should the process be reversed, that energy S will typically NOT be recoverable. Theoretically-speaking, a reversible process, or reversible cycle, can be “reversed” by means of applying infinitesimal changes to some property of the system, as long as this process can occur without entropy production – that is to say, without any dissipation of energy in the system.

Due to these infinitesimal changes, the system remains in thermodynamic equilibrium throughout the entire process.  BUT… and it’s a big but…

Since it would take an infinite amount of time for the reversible process to finish, perfectly reversible processes are impossible. A system that undergoes an irreversible process may still be capable of returning to its initial state.  However, the impossibility occurs in restoring the environment to its own initial conditions because an irreversible process increases the entropy of the Universe. But, because entropy is a state function, the change in entropy of a system is the same whether the process is reversible or irreversible.  The second law of thermodynamics can be used to determine whether a process is reversible or not.

Defining Entropy
Broadly speaking, entropy is then a measure of ‘disorder’. Classic examples for depicting entropy include:

a dropped cup or egg: it will smash into pieces upon reaching the floor, but those pieces will never spontaneously recombine back into a cup or an unbroken egg. a hot cup of coffee: it will always cool down if left untouched, but it will never draw warmth from a room to heat itself back up.

what does this has to do with our subject?

According to Darwinian evolution, the necessities of the environment, random mutation and natural selection working together caused the antelope to grow a longer neck and become a giraffe.  Natural Selection is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again.
But most people will be very surprised to discover that no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. In communication systems, Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it similar to entropy.
A Snowy TV In communication systems is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as thermodynamic entropy.  Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. In a similar sense, random mutations will act the same way, thus random mutation is probably not the source of biodiversity. Not only that, but as mentioned previously, random mutation hasn't demonstrated the ability to create new information in a lab.

Fruit Fly
This observation is also confirmed biologically by Theodosius Dobzhansky’s fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt’s gypsy moth experiments, and others.  Decades of research were conducted in the early 20 th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures.  These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.  Giraffes may have evolved from antelopes – that is not the argument, and I remain open to the possibility that it did. But it certainly wasn’t because of Random Mutation!

In defense
Technically there are some ways "new information" can be created with Gene Duplication yet during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated. Also perhaps in some cases mutations can “undo” anything they “can do but the proponents of intelligent design aren’t asking how complex structures can degrade, but rather how complex structures can be built in the first place.

In 2004, Michael Behe co-published a study in Protein Science with physicist David Snoke showing that if multiple mutations were required to produce a functional bond between two proteins, then “the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.” In 2008, Behe and Snoke’s critics tried to refute them in the journal Genetics, but failed. The critics found that, in a human population, to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution “would take > 100 million years,” which they admitted was “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.” It’s becoming increasingly clear that many such “multi-mutation features,” which would require multiple mutations before providing any benefit, are likely to exist in biology.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the inability of Darwinian evolution to produce multi-mutation features in a 2010 peer-reviewed study. Axe calculated that when a “multi-mutation feature” requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth.4 He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds. That implies that protein folds in general are multi-mutation features, requiring many amino acids to be fixed before the assembly provides any functional advantage.

Another study by Axe and Ann Gauger found that merely converting one enzyme into a closely related enzyme — the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen — would require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes, exceeding the probabilistic resources available for evolution over the Earth’s history. This data implies that many biochemical features are so complex that they would require many mutations before providing any advantage to an organism, and would thus be beyond the “edge” of what Darwinian evolution can do.

An empirical study by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke similarly found that when merely two mutations along a stepwise pathway were required to restore function to a bacterial gene, even then the Darwinian mechanism failed. The reason the gene could not be fixed was because it got stuck on a local fitness maxima, where it was more advantageous to delete a weakly functional gene than to continue to express it in the hope that it would “find” the mutations that fixed the gene.

This corroborates a 2010 review paper by Michael Behe in Quarterly Review of Biology which found that when bacteria and viruses undergo adaptations at the molecular level, they tend to lose or diminish molecular functions.

The problem here, again, is that sometimes mutations can’t “do” what they can “undo”: sometimes it’s more advantageous in the short term to take a path that leads away from a complex structure, even if that structure would lead to a significant advantage.

The take-home message here is that the Intelligent design movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the entire history of the Earth. There are good reasons to expect that random mutations cannot build many complex features we see in biology. Some non-random process that can “look ahead” and find complex advantageous features is necessary.

Order versus Disorder.
There are some things that we know happen constantly. Things tend to go from order to disorder.. Order can create order easily, (humans giving birth to other humans or creating codes as mentioned previously, music, structures like the pyramids of Giza..etc). Disorder can sometimes create order as well, but the probability for disorder to create order is very very very small.. Considering an intelligent being as orderly (or maybe order itself?), wouldn't the natural path to human existence and life itself (something orderly) come easier from something with orderly characteristics similar to its creation rather than disorder? (chance?)

Evidence in science and scientific theories
In science the primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof... and evidence has many forms. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists have to prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.

There is no better theory?
So its puzzling to put is nicely as to why the currently accepted theory for our creation and everything around us is a process that starts from disorder and ends to order. It almost seems as if science goes backwards here. To believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but blind faith!

To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, “Firm Foundation” calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase “Why not creation?”  If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys (26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key) and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years and this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form.

Furthermore, he says, “The burden on chance does not just occur at the point of the origin of life.  It reoccurs at every point in the evolutionary concept that demands the emergence of an entire new protein molecule.  The genetic material, and the proteins that it codes for the production of, is the point where we have to place unmerited faith in chance.”  Not only this, but the necessity of chance in the evolution of the plant world is also often overlooked.

Order points to a designer everywhere
If you find a deck of cards, the odds of it being in any particular order are 1 in 10^68. So if it is a Jack of Spades, followed by a Queen of Hearts, followed by a 1 of Diamonds, the chances are not good enough to claim that someone did it. however, if you find it in order, we can safely say that we have more evidence that it was arranged by someone with the intent of ordering the cards numerically than saying it is there by chance. This is exactly how detectives solve crimes. They are looking for patterns of order and repetition to come to a conclusion and follow a path that will lead them to finding the murderer. Lets add another example. When you see the ancient pyramid, a structure with order. Do you assume it was randomly formed that way or do you assume that it is made by an intelligent civilization? So how come with evolution we conclude the opposite?

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

Someone might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible with the knowledge have so far!

Alien life
Its also important to point out how unlikely it is we are the first ever life form created in the whole universe if life is something that is created by chance or some unknown law. Even worst, if we assume that our universe is infinite not only our chances that we are the first is unlikely but impossible. Why do i mention life on earth being the first? Because if we are not the first life form in existence then it would be more likely even if an Alien civilization (a orderly being) designed our DNA or a version of it than our DNA being created directly from chance alone.

To go back to the original argument of this point. Why is it, that a theory like that of intelligent design is not supported more than the theory of chance by scientists considering the fact that the evidence show order is more likely to come from order and not disorder and everything mentioned previously?

Consciousness (the philosophically colloquial 'type' of consciousness)
Even if we can come up with a theory about the origin of life outside of intelligent design, it is impossible to come up with a theory on consciousness and the reason of its evolution from chance. Explaining how something as complex as consciousness can emerge from a grey, jelly-like lump of tissue in the head is arguably the greatest scientific challenge of our time. The brain is an extraordinarily complex organ, consisting of almost 100 billion cells – known as neurons – each connected to 10,000 others, yielding some ten trillion nerve connections.

We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. How does the passing around of electrical and chemical signals between neurons result in a feeling of pain or an experience of red? One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can’t look inside someone’s head and see their feelings and experiences. If we were just going off what we can observe from a third-person perspective, we would have no grounds for postulating consciousness at all. We know that consciousness exists not through experiments but through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences. The argument here is that not only consciousness is not needed for evolution to occur (Google Philosophical zombie), but there is ultimately no reason for consciousness to evolve if we assume life is not designed but rather its the result of a process based on chance. If we on the other hand assume that life was designed, consciousness then can be explained as being an intentional piece of the creation by the designer and thus part of the creation. Lastly, If we assume that consciousness was always a part of the universe or matter (something scientific materialism and scientist who support this idea like to assume) then that would mean the universe is conscious since consciousness is part of the universe. If the universe is conscious then this again suggests intelligent design.

[Atla]

DNA is likely designed
Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day. Codes, however, do not occur without a designer from what the evidence suggest so far. We know of millions of examples of intelligence producing codes, yet non that dont include intelligence. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy. (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

"Information" is just a new popular abstraction or abstract object, not a separate entity on par with matter and energy. DNA is merely a molecule with a pattern. But it's an extremely complicated molecule in an extremely complicated world.

There is no better theory?
So its puzzling to put is nicely as to why the currently accepted theory for our creation and everything around us is a process that starts from disorder and ends to order. It almost seems as if science goes backwards here. To believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but blind faith!

To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, “Firm Foundation” calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase “Why not creation?” If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys (26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key) and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years and this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form.

Furthermore, he says, “The burden on chance does not just occur at the point of the origin of life. It reoccurs at every point in the evolutionary concept that demands the emergence of an entire new protein molecule. The genetic material, and the proteins that it codes for the production of, is the point where we have to place unmerited faith in chance.” Not only this, but the necessity of chance in the evolution of the plant world is also often overlooked.

Order points to a designer everywhere
If you find a deck of cards, the odds of it being in any particular order are 1 in 10^68. So if it is a Jack of Spades, followed by a Queen of Hearts, followed by a 1 of Diamonds, the chances are not good enough to claim that someone did it. however, if you find it in order, we can safely say that we have more evidence that it was arranged by someone with the intent of ordering the cards numerically than saying it is there by chance. This is exactly how detectives solve crimes. They are looking for patterns of order and repetition to come to a conclusion and follow a path that will lead them to finding the murderer. Lets add another example. When you see the ancient pyramid, a structure with order. Do you assume it was randomly formed that way or do you assume that it is made by an intelligent civilization? So how come with evolution we conclude the opposite?

So we live in an extremely large and complex, highly ordered world, and it has extremely complicated DNA molecules. We live in an unfathomably improbable world, which is like the exact opposite of random, blind chance. So the main argument for Intelligent design is that all this must imply a designer.

Which is (in my opinion) one of the most hilariously self-destroying arguments in philosophy, if we pursue it further. Because then this designer should have abilities that even go far beyond the capabilities of our world. Now how is that possible?

So we probably invented something even more complex, even more ordered, situated in an even bigger world, which is even more unlikely. This argument spirals out into infinity.

[Drino De Beer]

I discovered something related to the Great Pyramid of Giza while playing with my calculator a few days ago (Yes, I know. I am one weird nerd!), and found something that REALLY blew my mind.
I love 'magic squares' and find them facinating.
There are many types of magic squares, but to me, those are like playing Sudoku where you have to think and decide where to place certain numbers in a square, then by adding them up, they all get to the same number every which way you add them up. Those are just fun and games.
But, as I was saying, I played with my calculator, and found this formulae that makes me wonder, are we living in a simulation, a matrix if you will, where the universe is built on numbers, and we live in a grid simulation? Pythagoras believed God built the Universe with numbers, why shouldn't we?
Now don't get me wrong, the following formulae I am going to discuss, is most probably known by mathematicians, but I belief these formulae was used by the ancients to convey a mathematical message to us.
I also make no claims of extra-terrestrial interventions, or anything related to the Atlantis theory, but rather a theory that an ancient civilization who were responsible for these structures, had a much better understanding of the Universe than what we give them credit for.
To explain my discovery, take your calculator so we can use the keypad for a 3×3 grid with 9 blocks square, and calculate the following:

1+2+3=6.
6÷2(middle digit)=3

4+5+6=15.
15÷5(middle digit)=3

7+8+9=24.
24÷8(middle digit)=3

1+4+7=12.
12÷4(middle digit)=3

2+5+8=15.
15÷5(middle digit)=3

3+6+9=18.
18÷6(middle digit)=3

1+5+9=15.
15÷5(middle digit)=3

3+5+7=15.
15÷5(middle digit)=3

I tried this with other sequential numbers on the same above formula, and replaced 1, 2, 3, ...,9 with let's say 10, 11, 12, ...,18, or even decimal numbers, or even into the millions, if you do the same, you will always end up by the answer 3, no matter which sequential numbers you use!

Even when you replace all the numbers with one same number, any number, you will always get the answer 3 with the same formula!

I then tried the following:

1+2+3+3+2+1=12.
12÷2(middle digit)=6

4+5+6+6+5+4=30.
30÷5(middle digit)=6

7+8+9+9+8+7=48.
48÷8(middle digit)=6

1+4+7+7+4+1=24.
24÷4(middle digit)=6

2+5+8+8+5+2=30.
30÷5(middle digit)=6

3+6+9+9+6+3=36.
36÷6(middle digit)=6

1+5+9+9+5+1=30.
30÷5(middle digit)=6

3+5+7+7+5+3=30.
30÷5(middle digit)=6

Again, you may use any other sequential numbers, and you will always end up with the answer 6 by using this method!

I then added all the numbers together in my 3×3 square:

1+2+3+...+9=45.
45÷5(middle digit)=9

Again, you may use any other sequential numbers and by using this method, will always give you the answer 9.

I then went further and tried something different:

123+321=444.
444÷2(middle digit)=222

456+654=1110.
1110÷5(middle digit)=222

789+987=1776.
1776÷8(middle digit)=222

147+741=888.
888÷4(middle digit)=222

258+852=1110.
1110÷5(middle digit)=222

369+963=1332.
1332÷6(middle digit)=222

159+951=1110.
1110÷5(middle digit)=222

357+753=1110.
1110÷5(middle digit)=222

For the sake of interest:
2+2+2=6.
6÷2(middle digit)=3

I don't know how much you know about numerology, an occult or esoteric approach to mathematics, but 222 is according to this tradition an angelic, or numerology number that promises good things to come.
Bare that in mind, because I will come back to this esoteric meaning later, after I made my hypothesis on the meaning of the message that the builders of the Pyramids of Giza try to convey to us (Ofcourse, this is only a pet theory of mine).

One British Air Force pilot flew over the Great Pyramid of Giza on the morning of the first Equinox of 1940, and discovered by chance that the Khufu Pyramid does not have 4 sides, but actually 8 sides.

When viewed from above, the 8 lines that cross each other at the apex, follows the same trajectories as how my formulae is calculated, and therefore it inspired my theory.

The four 'hidden' indentations on the four sides of the pyramid can only be seen clearly during an equinox, and barely visible by the naked eye when viewed up close.

The indentations could be a symbolic message that the total values should be divided by the middle value, and carry the total 'weight' in a symbolic way of the calculated totals, as I have done in my above calculations.

If that is so, the values of the middle digits through which the totals are divided into, will become the same totals, for example, let us take my first equation into consideration:

If 1+2+3=6, then the number 2 will carry the weight of its total when divided, and become a 6.

Let us test the calculation, starting with the circumference of the square:

1+2+3=6
6÷2=3
Therefore: 1+6+3=10

1+4+7=12
12÷4=3
Therefore: 1+12+7=20

3+6+9=18
18÷6=3
Therefore: 3+18+9=30

7+8+9=24
24÷8=3
Therefore: 7+24+9=40

When the total of the circumference values are calculated:
10+20+30+40=100

Now let us calculate the cross trajectory formulae inside the 3×3 square:

4+5+6=15
15÷5=3
Therefore: 4+15+6=25

2+5+8=15
15÷5=3
Therefore: 2+15+8=25

1+5+9=15
15÷5=3
Therefore: 1+15+9=25

3+5+7=15
15÷5=3
Therefore: 3+15+7=25

When the total of the cross trajectories were calculated to represent the pyramid's apex (or the centre of the square), we get the same total as its circumference value:

25+25+25+25=100

In the abovementioned calculations, 100 is a constant, and a complete number, therefore it can be interpreted for the purpose of my argument to represent Completion, but also the beginning of a new cycle of numbers, because all natural sequential numbers in the square were calculated and the complete square were taken into consideration as the whole.

If I make a hypothesis and say the builders of the pyramids built a scale model of our Universe and they wish to send us a message, then such a message will be embedded in a mathematical equation easy enough so that everyone will understand such a message.

It appears that the pyramid builders are trying to draw our attention to number 3 for some reason. Our reality also exist in 3 dimensions.

Three pyramids were built next to each other, and an architect discovered one day that the three pyramids aligns with the constellation of Orion, which can be seen as three stars in the sky.

On the Eastern side of the Pyramid of Khufu, three smaller pyramids were built, and it's significance remains under speculation.

The volume of a pyramid is calculated by V=(1/3)Bh, where 'B' represents the base, and 'h' represents it's height.
A true pyramid's volume is a 1/3 of the volume of a true cube.

Then the following calculations makes a further point on my theory how the architects of the pyramids draw our attention to the number 3 by simplifying the first three models, and multiply the master numbers by its 8 sides:

3 (Master number for the first model) ×8 (sides) =24
6 (Master number for the second model) ×8 (sides) =48
9 (Master number for the third model) ×8 (sides) =72

24+48+72=144.
144÷48 (The middle digit) =3

The first three examples I used in the beginning, has a single digit for its master numbers, eg. 3, 6 and 9, and as I have demonstrated by my calculation by multiplying those numbers with the Khufu Pyramid's 8 sides, the result is 24+48+72=144. 144÷48 (The middle digit) =3, therefore by simplifying all three models share the same master number 3.

The fourth model I used represents 222 as its master number, a three digit number, and thusfar I could not calculate any other reoccurring number with my method, and therefore the model remains unique.

When I further bare in mind that the models that represents 3, 6 and 9 were all simplified to have Number 3 a common master number, then it could symbolize the world of Mankind.

The second model that has 222 its master number is unique, and therefore it could symbolize the world of gods.

If the one world represent the world of Mankind, and the other the world of gods, then we would discuss two different worlds that interact with each other, and therefore the calculation 3×222=666 would be fair to assume.
Revelations 13:18 says: "Let him who hath understanding, reckon the number of the Beast, because it is a HUMAN number, and his number is 666."

I highlighted 'HUMAN' to emphasize that the verse doesn't say it is the devil's number, or the number of the Anti-Christ. It is a Human number, just like the scripture says.

The Great Pyramid is indeed a Beast that puzzled scholars for centuries, and was known throughout antiquity.
Its face is also scarred, just like how the Beast was described in the scripture, since its facial stone blocks were plundered throughout the centuries.
Replace the word 'Beast' with 'Pyramid', and my calculations as well as the scripture would then make sense.

To proceed further with my hypothesis, I point out that 6+6+6=18. 18÷6(Middle digit)=3.
If the total I calculated is 18, I would further argue that 1+8=9, and therefore 3, 6 and 9 show up in this equation as well!
Also, 3+6+9=18, while the total of 6+6+6=18, and therefore it finds balance between the two worlds.

Let us take a look what the numbers 3, 6 and 9 signifies in Egyptian numerology:

Number 3: The number symbolizes Birth, Life and Death. It could draw our attention to Creation, our Existence and the End of a cycle.

Number 6: The number symbolizes a life path or journey. It may represent Time and Centuries to follow after Creation.

Number 9: The number symbolizes completion and new beginnings. This number could convey a message that an End will come to one cycle of our existence, but also promises a new chapter.

Number 222: The number tells you to seek balance, and is also associated with hope and promises good things to come. It could mean that Mankind will experience a time of turmoil, when a battle will be fought between Good and Evil, and such battle will eventually find balance, meaning Peace will come. The number also promise spiritual enlightenment and hope to Mankind.

All above grids has 9 blocks square. If the first three grids can be simplified to correspond with a master number of 3, and the last model has 222 it's master number and is unique, then I make a hypothesis and say that the two different models represents two separate worlds.
I would argue then that it would be fair to add the total value of its bases (1+2+3+...+9=45) and multiply their total with each other, because they interact, eg:

45×45=2025.

We are currently in the year 2022 (Anyone see the angelic number 222 in it?) and 2025 (Anyone see 2+0+2+5=9, the last number at the end of all sequential string of numbers, before a new cycle begins?), which is only three years from now.

Can it be possible that the builders convey a message that that the two worlds (or alternate realities) will merge into one, and therefore predict that Mankind will become like gods in 2025, in a sense that a new technology will be revealed to us, or a promise of spiritual enlightenment?

If I am right about a prophecy for things to come in 2025, I do not think the message is a doomsday prophecy, and there is certainly no need to build a bunker, gather enough food, convert your religion or to do something stupid like joining a cult.

The message is of hope to Mankind, and is certainly something to look forward to.

On the other side of the coin, I might be wrong about my theory of a prophecy relevant to the year 2025, but one thing is certain, this proofs atleast that the universe is from an intelligent design.

Nikola Tesla himself had an obsession, just like me, with the numbers 3, 6 and 9, as well as a shared fascination with the Great Pyramids of Giza.
He had a different approach than mine, however I do agree with him; there is something in common with the numbers and the pyramids.

We already live in interesting times, and world governments already discuss the feasibility of a 'One World Order' system, which is quite a controversial concept, to say the least, however I remain neutral to the subject and reserve my own judgement on the idea.

Maybe we do exist in a Simulation Multiverse after all, and we are nothing more than artificially intelligent codes designed for the purpose to learn by experience and become a reflection of our Creators.

Alternatively, whether you call the Creator God, Jaweh, Allah, Amun-Ra or whatever name suits you best, the fact remains that our existence is a result from an intelligent design.
Mathematics was invented, we just discovered it.

Thank you for entertaining my madness, and I wish you all Light, Love and Peace.

[Astro Cat]

Broadly defining entropy as a measure of disorder is a major mistake. Physicists often throw up their hands and say this sort of thing (so I understand why it's become such an entrenched idea in popular science), but once you actually delve into stat mech and thermo, it becomes more and more obvious that the "entropy as disorder" idea makes for nice pop sci when you're talking about a hot gas in a box, but it doesn't give a complete or even on-track conceptual picture.

Entropy is more about a count of microstates. A good way to get away from the generalization that "entropy = disorder" is to get away from a conceptual picture of hot gases in boxes.

I might be biased by astrophysics, but I think a good way to do this is to look at something like black holes, which obey the same laws of thermodynamics we're all used to but in a much less "hot gas in a box" way (for obvious reasons).

For instance, the black hole equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics comes from the fact that the area of a black hole's event horizon can't diminish classically (with assumptions that black holes can't bifurcate and given a positive energy condition, but none of that matters right now). The reason this area is thermodynamic at all is because addition of entropy to a black hole corresponds to an increase in the area of the event horizon. Dump a hot gas in and the event horizon's going to get bigger, not smaller: hopefully the analogy to the everyday hot gas in a box we're familiar with is clear here (dump heat into a box and it's going to get hotter, not colder).

But obviously the size of an event horizon doesn't have anything to do with "order" or "disorder." Yet it is still entropic all the same. Black holes aren't the only examples where the "entropy = disorder" conceptualization breaks down, it's just the one I'm most familiar with.

Anyway, my point was that a lot of arguments based on "well, because entropy = disorder and because of the Second Law..." are conceptually doomed from the start.

[Atla]

Broadly defining entropy as a measure of disorder is a major mistake. Physicists often throw up their hands and say this sort of thing (so I understand why it's become such an entrenched idea in popular science), but once you actually delve into stat mech and thermo, it becomes more and more obvious that the "entropy as disorder" idea makes for nice pop sci when you're talking about a hot gas in a box, but it doesn't give a complete or even on-track conceptual picture.

Entropy is more about a count of microstates. A good way to get away from the generalization that "entropy = disorder" is to get away from a conceptual picture of hot gases in boxes.

I might be biased by astrophysics, but I think a good way to do this is to look at something like black holes, which obey the same laws of thermodynamics we're all used to but in a much less "hot gas in a box" way (for obvious reasons).

For instance, the black hole equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics comes from the fact that the area of a black hole's event horizon can't diminish classically (with assumptions that black holes can't bifurcate and given a positive energy condition, but none of that matters right now). The reason this area is thermodynamic at all is because addition of entropy to a black hole corresponds to an increase in the area of the event horizon. Dump a hot gas in and the event horizon's going to get bigger, not smaller: hopefully the analogy to the everyday hot gas in a box we're familiar with is clear here (dump heat into a box and it's going to get hotter, not colder).

But obviously the size of an event horizon doesn't have anything to do with "order" or "disorder." Yet it is still entropic all the same. Black holes aren't the only examples where the "entropy = disorder" conceptualization breaks down, it's just the one I'm most familiar with.

Anyway, my point was that a lot of arguments based on "well, because entropy = disorder and because of the Second Law..." are conceptually doomed from the start.

That's one of the major contentions I have with contemporary physics. Why should the event horizon be entropic?

It would be logical to think that the Second law is no law at all, just a local feature. If we have entropy incerasing here, then entropy should be decreasing elsewhere.

[art48]

After accepting intelligent design, the most pressing question is: Why is the Designer so malevolent? Why did the Designer create childhood cancer, the Black Death, earthquakes, intestinal worms (google "the worm project" for details), and a million other things so detrimental to human life?

[Sy Borg]

After accepting intelligent design, the most pressing question is: Why is the Designer so malevolent? Why did the Designer create childhood cancer, the Black Death, earthquakes, intestinal worms (google "the worm project" for details), and a million other things so detrimental to human life?

Apologists would probably say that the designed has to break eggs to make an omelette, so to speak. Either that or the "mysterious ways" line, which is often followed up by 'How can people be so arrogant as to assume that they can presume the mind of God?'. Of course, theists presume the mind of God in many other ways, but these are the kinds of lines I have noticed in my online travels.

[3017Metaphysician]

The purpose of this thread it to bring forward all the arguments and evidence that we humans and the world around us is designed/created rather than the result of a process.


DNA is likely designed
Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves.  These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals.  These things are well-understood and we experience them every day. Codes, however, do not occur without a designer from what the evidence suggest so far. We know of millions of examples of intelligence producing codes, yet non that dont include intelligence. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA.  The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code.  Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols.  Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone.  Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy. (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.  (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.  (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

Similarly, the word “Evolution” in the English language always refers to an intelligent process (in business, society, technology etc.) and the only usage in which it allegedly doesn’t is naturalistic Darwinian evolution. Why this exception?

All natural complex processes are irreversible - Entropy
This phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system – which really means any system of sufficient complexity – of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable.

During transformation, there will be a certain amount of heat energy loss or dissipation due to inter molecular friction and collisions. A certain amount of “transformation energy” S will be expended as the molecules of the “working body” do work on each other when they change from one state to another.  Should the process be reversed, that energy S will typically NOT be recoverable. Theoretically-speaking, a reversible process, or reversible cycle, can be “reversed” by means of applying infinitesimal changes to some property of the system, as long as this process can occur without entropy production – that is to say, without any dissipation of energy in the system.

Due to these infinitesimal changes, the system remains in thermodynamic equilibrium throughout the entire process.  BUT… and it’s a big but…

Since it would take an infinite amount of time for the reversible process to finish, perfectly reversible processes are impossible. A system that undergoes an irreversible process may still be capable of returning to its initial state.  However, the impossibility occurs in restoring the environment to its own initial conditions because an irreversible process increases the entropy of the Universe. But, because entropy is a state function, the change in entropy of a system is the same whether the process is reversible or irreversible.  The second law of thermodynamics can be used to determine whether a process is reversible or not.

Defining Entropy
Broadly speaking, entropy is then a measure of ‘disorder’. Classic examples for depicting entropy include:

a dropped cup or egg: it will smash into pieces upon reaching the floor, but those pieces will never spontaneously recombine back into a cup or an unbroken egg. a hot cup of coffee: it will always cool down if left untouched, but it will never draw warmth from a room to heat itself back up.

what does this has to do with our subject?

According to Darwinian evolution, the necessities of the environment, random mutation and natural selection working together caused the antelope to grow a longer neck and become a giraffe.  Natural Selection is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again.
But most people will be very surprised to discover that no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. In communication systems, Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it similar to entropy.
A Snowy TV In communication systems is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as thermodynamic entropy.  Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. In a similar sense, random mutations will act the same way, thus random mutation is probably not the source of biodiversity. Not only that, but as mentioned previously, random mutation hasn't demonstrated the ability to create new information in a lab.

Fruit Fly
This observation is also confirmed biologically by Theodosius Dobzhansky’s fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt’s gypsy moth experiments, and others.  Decades of research were conducted in the early 20 th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures.  These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.  Giraffes may have evolved from antelopes – that is not the argument, and I remain open to the possibility that it did. But it certainly wasn’t because of Random Mutation!

In defense
Technically there are some ways "new information" can be created with Gene Duplication yet during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated. Also perhaps in some cases mutations can “undo” anything they “can do but the proponents of intelligent design aren’t asking how complex structures can degrade, but rather how complex structures can be built in the first place.

In 2004, Michael Behe co-published a study in Protein Science with physicist David Snoke showing that if multiple mutations were required to produce a functional bond between two proteins, then “the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.” In 2008, Behe and Snoke’s critics tried to refute them in the journal Genetics, but failed. The critics found that, in a human population, to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution “would take > 100 million years,” which they admitted was “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.” It’s becoming increasingly clear that many such “multi-mutation features,” which would require multiple mutations before providing any benefit, are likely to exist in biology.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the inability of Darwinian evolution to produce multi-mutation features in a 2010 peer-reviewed study. Axe calculated that when a “multi-mutation feature” requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth.4 He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds. That implies that protein folds in general are multi-mutation features, requiring many amino acids to be fixed before the assembly provides any functional advantage.

Another study by Axe and Ann Gauger found that merely converting one enzyme into a closely related enzyme — the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen — would require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes, exceeding the probabilistic resources available for evolution over the Earth’s history. This data implies that many biochemical features are so complex that they would require many mutations before providing any advantage to an organism, and would thus be beyond the “edge” of what Darwinian evolution can do.

An empirical study by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke similarly found that when merely two mutations along a stepwise pathway were required to restore function to a bacterial gene, even then the Darwinian mechanism failed. The reason the gene could not be fixed was because it got stuck on a local fitness maxima, where it was more advantageous to delete a weakly functional gene than to continue to express it in the hope that it would “find” the mutations that fixed the gene.

This corroborates a 2010 review paper by Michael Behe in Quarterly Review of Biology which found that when bacteria and viruses undergo adaptations at the molecular level, they tend to lose or diminish molecular functions.

The problem here, again, is that sometimes mutations can’t “do” what they can “undo”: sometimes it’s more advantageous in the short term to take a path that leads away from a complex structure, even if that structure would lead to a significant advantage.

The take-home message here is that the Intelligent design movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the entire history of the Earth. There are good reasons to expect that random mutations cannot build many complex features we see in biology. Some non-random process that can “look ahead” and find complex advantageous features is necessary.

Order versus Disorder.
There are some things that we know happen constantly. Things tend to go from order to disorder.. Order can create order easily, (humans giving birth to other humans or creating codes as mentioned previously, music, structures like the pyramids of Giza..etc). Disorder can sometimes create order as well, but the probability for disorder to create order is very very very small.. Considering an intelligent being as orderly (or maybe order itself?), wouldn't the natural path to human existence and life itself (something orderly) come easier from something with orderly characteristics similar to its creation rather than disorder? (chance?)

Evidence in science and scientific theories
In science the primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof... and evidence has many forms. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists have to prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.

There is no better theory?
So its puzzling to put is nicely as to why the currently accepted theory for our creation and everything around us is a process that starts from disorder and ends to order. It almost seems as if science goes backwards here. To believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but blind faith!

To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, “Firm Foundation” calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase “Why not creation?”  If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys (26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key) and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years and this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form.

Furthermore, he says, “The burden on chance does not just occur at the point of the origin of life.  It reoccurs at every point in the evolutionary concept that demands the emergence of an entire new protein molecule.  The genetic material, and the proteins that it codes for the production of, is the point where we have to place unmerited faith in chance.”  Not only this, but the necessity of chance in the evolution of the plant world is also often overlooked.

Order points to a designer everywhere
If you find a deck of cards, the odds of it being in any particular order are 1 in 10^68. So if it is a Jack of Spades, followed by a Queen of Hearts, followed by a 1 of Diamonds, the chances are not good enough to claim that someone did it. however, if you find it in order, we can safely say that we have more evidence that it was arranged by someone with the intent of ordering the cards numerically than saying it is there by chance. This is exactly how detectives solve crimes. They are looking for patterns of order and repetition to come to a conclusion and follow a path that will lead them to finding the murderer. Lets add another example. When you see the ancient pyramid, a structure with order. Do you assume it was randomly formed that way or do you assume that it is made by an intelligent civilization? So how come with evolution we conclude the opposite?

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

Someone might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible with the knowledge have so far!

Alien life
Its also important to point out how unlikely it is we are the first ever life form created in the whole universe if life is something that is created by chance or some unknown law. Even worst, if we assume that our universe is infinite not only our chances that we are the first is unlikely but impossible. Why do i mention life on earth being the first? Because if we are not the first life form in existence then it would be more likely even if an Alien civilization (a orderly being) designed our DNA or a version of it than our DNA being created directly from chance alone.

To go back to the original argument of this point. Why is it, that a theory like that of intelligent design is not supported more than the theory of chance by scientists considering the fact that the evidence show order is more likely to come from order and not disorder and everything mentioned previously?

Consciousness (the philosophically colloquial 'type' of consciousness)
Even if we can come up with a theory about the origin of life outside of intelligent design, it is impossible to come up with a theory on consciousness and the reason of its evolution from chance. Explaining how something as complex as consciousness can emerge from a grey, jelly-like lump of tissue in the head is arguably the greatest scientific challenge of our time. The brain is an extraordinarily complex organ, consisting of almost 100 billion cells – known as neurons – each connected to 10,000 others, yielding some ten trillion nerve connections.

We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. How does the passing around of electrical and chemical signals between neurons result in a feeling of pain or an experience of red? One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can’t look inside someone’s head and see their feelings and experiences. If we were just going off what we can observe from a third-person perspective, we would have no grounds for postulating consciousness at all. We know that consciousness exists not through experiments but through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences. The argument here is that not only consciousness is not needed for evolution to occur (Google Philosophical zombie), but there is ultimately no reason for consciousness to evolve if we assume life is not designed but rather its the result of a process based on chance. If we on the other hand assume that life was designed, consciousness then can be explained as being an intentional piece of the creation by the designer and thus part of the creation. Lastly, If we assume that consciousness was always a part of the universe or matter (something scientific materialism and scientist who support this idea like to assume) then that would mean the universe is conscious since consciousness is part of the universe. If the universe is conscious then this again suggests intelligent design.

Mr. C!

Like in most physical science, scientist prefer to cling to the notion that we 'emerge' from matter. The problem is that it's not absolute. No one has figured out how biologically self-organized organisms emerged from matter, other than some 'vacuous' idea of primordial soup. The question has always been, how does information emerge from matter, and where are those instructions in that piece of dirt. When grandma bakes a cake, she needs both information/instructions and material matter. Or, the architect/engineer uses information (mathematics) to create a building design. They both use a conscious thinking mind that creates something from existing materials. But where did the origin of those materials come from?

Remember, Darwin only hypothesized with an already existing ensemble of creatures; not the first one ex nihilo. And likewise, no one knows where those 'materials' come from, since Singularity is a mystery...

[Sy Borg]

The notion is ultimately ridiculous.

Hmm,. lets see. Did nature come about by the usual natural means that things happen, or did some universe-sized grey-bearded man magick it all up? There is no magic man. It is all in you head. It's always been in people's heads. God is not ontic, as such, and positing that God created everything is basically a category error.

How does order come about? If there are enough iterations, patterns emerge via probability. Some pattern dissipate immediately, but others persist. In time, there will be a population of the most solid and persistent patterns, as patterns emerge that last longer and complexify more than any that preceded it.

There is no need to bring a deity in the explain what is already known. The other day I saw an article in the news where the writer claimed it was impossible for the human eye to evolve, which is hilarious given that there's massive evidence that eyes, not just human eyes, evolved many times. Theists keep on ignoring scientific explanations and trotting out the same old lines, again and again.

[3017Metaphysician]

The notion is ultimately ridiculous.

Hmm,. lets see. Did nature come about by the usual natural means that things happen, or did some universe-sized grey-bearded man magick it all up? There is no magic man. It is all in you head. It's always been in people's heads. God is not ontic, as such, and positing that God created everything is basically a category error.

How does order come about? If there are enough iterations, patterns emerge via probability. Some pattern dissipate immediately, but others persist. In time, there will be a population of the most solid and persistent patterns, as patterns emerge that last longer and complexify more than any that preceded it.

There is no need to bring a deity in the explain what is already known. The other day I saw an article in the news where the writer claimed it was impossible for the human eye to evolve, which is hilarious given that there's massive evidence that eyes, not just human eyes, evolved many times. Theists keep on ignoring scientific explanations and trotting out the same old lines, again and again.

I'm not following your logic there. You seem to be upset over "grey-bearded" men for some reason. Surely, you're not a man hater, are you?

Seriously, SB, are you suggesting you know the mind of God, much less 'his' physical/aesthetic attributes? In other words, do you believe/disbelieve in a God who is a "grey-bearded man"? Please share your logic there if you are able.

We're confused about your position on patterns, probability and "iterations". Let's first parse your notion of order in the universe. Can you explain how "order" evolved or emerged in the universe?

[EricPH]

Hmm,. lets see. Did nature come about by the usual natural means that things happen.
How does order come about? If there are enough iterations, patterns emerge via probability.

The skeletal system has little to do with patterns. There are individually shaped bones, tendons, muscles and ligaments all linked together to create movement. Our best engineers can't make a robotic version of our bodies that can replicate the range of movement we have.

There is no need to bring a deity in the explain what is already known. The other day I saw an article in the news where the writer claimed it was impossible for the human eye to evolve, which is hilarious given that there's massive evidence that eyes, not just human eyes, evolved many times.

Fossil evidence shows evidence of a vast variation in eyes, and that is not disputed. What is disputed is how such a complex design could evolve from single cell life billions of years ago, and only by natural causes.

Theists keep on ignoring scientific explanations and trotting out the same old lines, again and again.

You want us to accept your explanation, even though it relies on beliefs, assumptions and a lack of convincing evidence. We have our own beliefs, so why exchange one set of beliefs with another?

[Sy Borg]

Hmm,. lets see. Did nature come about by the usual natural means that things happen.
How does order come about? If there are enough iterations, patterns emerge via probability.

The skeletal system has little to do with patterns. There are individually shaped bones, tendons, muscles and ligaments all linked together to create movement. Our best engineers can't make a robotic version of our bodies that can replicate the range of movement we have.

Every single aspect of your body, and everything else's, are patterns. If they were not based on patterns, then they would be purely amorphous goop.

As things stand, skeletal patterns are famous, with a similar schemas appearing again and again, just with alterations. Why?

God did not create us from the dust and Adam's rib. We evolved.

There is no need to bring a deity in the explain what is already known. The other day I saw an article in the news where the writer claimed it was impossible for the human eye to evolve, which is hilarious given that there's massive evidence that eyes, not just human eyes, evolved many times.

Fossil evidence shows evidence of a vast variation in eyes, and that is not disputed. What is disputed is how such a complex design could evolve from single cell life billions of years ago, and only by natural causes.

It doesn't happen immediately. There is an enormous amount of information online detailing the gradual evolution of eyes.

That you have not read any of it and yet still hold a strong enough opinion about it to debate on a forum, shows that you are not interested at all in how eyes came about, only in justifying your theistic beliefs.

Theists keep on ignoring scientific explanations and trotting out the same old lines, again and again.

You want us to accept your explanation, even though it relies on beliefs, assumptions and a lack of convincing evidence. We have our own beliefs, so why exchange one set of beliefs with another?

See above re: eyes. This happens over and over. If you search for "evolution of eyes" you will see how it happens in stages, starting with simply detecting light and dark and gradually refining focus from there.

Evolution happens over deep time, something that Young Earth creationists not only do not comprehend, but do not accept as real.

Eric, if your belief prompts you to go out and help the disadvantaged, you have my respect, but don't try to pretend that the myths refer to ontic reality. Accept that the matters of theism are all subjective and that it's a category error to try to apply theistic themes to the physical world. That will only give you ungrounded myths like creationism, flat Earth, hollow Earth, the geocentric universe and alien abductions.

[EricPH]

It doesn't happen immediately. There is an enormous amount of information online detailing the gradual evolution of eyes.

That you have not read any of it and yet still hold a strong enough opinion about it to debate on a forum, shows that you are not interested at all in how eyes came about, only in justifying your theistic beliefs.

I have read many papers on the evolution of the eye, including Nilsson and Pelger which goes against the basic premise of the ToE. It states very clearly, that in order for the eye to evolve, they have to work towards 7 goals. As we know, evolution has no goals. The only way Nilsson and Pelger could make this work is to programme seven known sets of parameters into a computer, and let the computer plot a path between these parameters. But evolution has no pre programmed goals. N+P said if the eye improved just 0.005 percent each generation, it would take 364,000 years for eyes to evolve from a patch of light sensitive cells to the complex eyes we have today. I would like to know how natural selection could continuously detect a miniscule 0.005% improvement amongst a population. The improvement is so small, you would need scientific instruments to detect 0.005% improvement.

If you programmed a computer to start from a light sensitive cell, then asked it to randomly produce 1829 random mutations, it would not end up with the design of an eye lens.

Nilsson and Pelger say the eye lens may have evolved as they. which means the eye may Not have evolved in this manner. They say the eye may have evolved through continuous small improvements of design, but it may Not have.

What is the point of eyes evolving if there is no brain to direct limbs? What is the point of limbs evolving if there are no eyes and the limbs blindly don't not know where to go? These are genuine questions that lead me to believe that life needs a creator. You have no evidence for the natural creation of the universe, you have no evidence for the beginning of life from no life. If you are truthful, your evidence amounts to no more than beliefs and possible theories.

You are giving blind evolution the power of God, instead of saying God did it, you say evolution did it blindly.

[Sy Borg]

Nilsson and Pelger's paper was 28 years ago. More has been found since then. Unlike theists, scientists are not satisfied with a dogma but keep on digging. Here is some updated information: https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226

There is extensive work that shows that the eye not only evolved, but it evolved multiple times. The human eye did not suddenly arrive, with all these presumed "goals". Eyes started with small photosensitive indents and things progressed from there.

God is not ontic, it is subjective, and it is a category error to posit that subjective dynamics created objective reality. Rather, lucid subjectivism evolved and deities emerged to give people a sense of agency over overwhelming natural phenomena. One means of gaining control over "gods" is with sacrifice. Once, virgins were sacrificed to the volcano god. If it didn't work, they clearly needed more virgins, or more virtuous virgins. Later on, Yahweh demanded the sacrifice of goats and other animals before finally demanding the blood sacrifice of a superman-like character of mythology named Jesus.

It's all very primitive stuff that modern people should have gotten over by now.

[Charlemagne]

This is my favorite quote by Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein, Physics Nobel Prize

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” And again, on a later occasion, Einstein said “… everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

If this is not a blueprint for Intelligent Design, what is it?