New Evidence Against the Existence of God: Antarctica, Arizona, Atlantic Ocean

Hugh Ross and the fine tuning of Adam. https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/when-was-adam-created/mw

January 12, 2017

January

01

Jan

12

12

2017

06:11 AM

6

06

11

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Eric: here is another reference:

A Stable Atmosphere: Another Reason Our Planet Is Special - Daniel Bakken - January 20, 2015 Excerpt: There are many processes that keep Earth's environment habitable, "which [in] the Earth's case may be special rather than universal."3 The evolution of an atmosphere through gas loss to outer space is one. This is primarily dependent on the planet's gravity holding the gasses in the atmosphere, and the temperature at the outer edge, where gasses can escape if they have enough kinetic energy. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/a_stable_atmosp092851.html On the probability of habitable planets.- 2013 Excerpt section 4: Staying in the habitable zone is obviously not sufficient for a planet to continuously maintain liquid water on its surface: it must have an atmosphere which keeps the surface pressure and the surface temperature (through its greenhouse effect) in the right range, for billions of years. However, the processes which controls the atmospheric evolution on a planet are still poorly known. This is the major source of uncertainty regarding the probability of habitable planets. Below I briefly discuss two examples of processes (among many others) for which the Earth’s case may be special rather than universal. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0113.pdf

Of related interest: It should be noted that there are a wide variety of atmospheres possible for Planets even though their masses may be similar. For instance, Venus, although being fairly close to earth in terms of mass, radius and density,,,

Venus - Earth Mass 4.87 x 1024 kg - 5.98 x 1024 kg Radius 6052 km - 6378 km Density 5250 kg/m3 - 5520 kg/m3 http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Venus_compared_to_Earth

Venus, although being fairly close to earth in terms of mass, radius and density, has a drastically different atmosphere:

Venus’ Atmosphere: Surface observations of Venus have been difficult in the past, due to its extremely dense atmosphere, which is composed primarily of carbon dioxide with a small amount of nitrogen. At 92 bar (9.2 MPa), the atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth’s atmosphere and the pressure at the planet’s surface is about 92 times that at Earth’s surface. Venus is also the hottest planet in our Solar System, with a mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C/863.6 °F). This is due to the CO²-rich atmosphere which, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System. Above the dense CO² layer, thick clouds consisting mainly of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid droplets scatter about 90% of the sunlight back into space. Another common phenomena is Venus’ strong winds, which reach speeds of up to 85 m/s (300 km/h; 186.4 mph) at the cloud tops and circle the planet every four to five Earth days. At this speed, these winds move up to 60 times the speed of the planet’s rotation, whereas Earth’s fastest winds are only 10-20% of the planet’s rotational speed. http://www.universetoday.com/35796/atmosphere-of-the-planets/

And indeed, a wider variety of atmospheres and chemical compositions for other planets are being found than was originally expected:

Rains On Different Worlds - info graphic (sulfuric acid rain, glass rain, diamond rain, iron rain, methane rain) http://tehgeektive.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/rain-on-different-planets.jpg Molten glass files: Blue alien planet is NOT like Earth – Nov. 3, 2016 Excerpt: And then there’s the weather. The winds on HD 189733b (which lies about 63 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Vulpecula) blow at up to 5,400 mph (8,700 km/h) — about seven times the speed of sound. And if that’s not crazy enough for you, scientists think the rain on this world is made not of water, but of molten glass. per - Uncommon Descent Compositions of Extrasolar Planets - July 2010 Excerpt: ,,,the presumption that extrasolar terrestrial planets will consistently manifest Earth-like chemical compositions is incorrect. Instead, the simulations revealed “a wide variety of resulting planetary compositions. http://www.reasons.org/compositions-extrasolar-planets

Our 'translucent' life permitting atmosphere truly is remarkable. I would even go so far to say that our life permitting atmosphere is 'miraculous'. Visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist on earth. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the "most permitted" portion of the sun's spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the magnetic belt and the earth's atmosphere. The tiny amount of harmful UV radiation, which is not visible light, allowed to filter through the atmosphere is needed to keep various populations of single cell bacteria from over-populating the world (Ross; reasons.org). The size of light's wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, also seem to be tailor-made for each other. This "tailor-made fit" allows photosynthesis, the miracle of sight, and many other things that are necessary for human life. These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe's entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Like water, visible light also strongly appears to be designed to be of optimal biological utility (Denton; Nature's Destiny).

Fine tuning of Light, Atmosphere, and Water to Photosynthesis (etc..) - video (2016) https://youtu.be/NIwZqDkrj9I The " just right " relationship of the light spectrum and photosynthesis Excerpt: The American astronomer George Greenstein discusses this in The Symbiotic Universe, p 96: Chlorophyll is the molecule that accomplishes photosynthesis... The mechanism of photosynthesis is initiated by the absorption of sunlight by a chlorophyll molecule. But in order for this to occur, the light must be of the right color. Light of the wrong color won't do the trick. A good analogy is that of a television set. In order for the set to receive a given channel it must be tuned to that channel; tune it differently and the reception will not occur. It is the same with photosynthesis, the Sun functioning as the transmitter in the analogy and the chlorophyll molecule as the receiving TV set. If the molecule and the Sun are not tuned to each other-tuned in the sense of colour- photosynthesis will not occur. As it turns out, the sun's color is just right. One might think that a certain adaptation has been at work here: the adaptation of plant life to the properties of sunlight. After all, if the Sun were a different temperature could not some other molecule, tuned to absorb light of a different colour, take the place of chlorophyll? Remarkably enough the answer is no, for within broad limits all molecules absorb light of similar colours. The absorption of light is accomplished by the excitation of electrons in molecules to higher energy states, and (are) the same no matter what molecule you are discussing. Furthermore, light is composed of photons, packets of energy and photons of the wrong energy simply can not be absorbed… As things stand in reality, there is a good fit between the physics of stars and that of molecules. Failing this fit, however, life would have been impossible. The harmony between stellar and molecular physics that Greenstein refers to is a harmony too extraordinary ever to be explained by chance. There was only one chance in 10^25 of the Sun's providing just the right kind of light necessary for us and that there should be molecules in our world that are capable of using that light. This perfect harmony is unquestionably proof of Intelligent Design. http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1927-the-just-right-relationship-of-the-light-spectrum-and-photosynthesis William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined - March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html

Hope that helped clarify the subject a bit Eric.bornagain77

January 12, 2017

January

01

Jan

12

12

2017

04:21 AM

4

04

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Rvb8: “Space is big, I mean really big. Now maybe God does have a reason for making it so fantastically inconceivably big, but none spring to mind.” ________________________________________________________________ Hello rvb8. You or I really have no idea how big space is, you seem to have put a limit to something we do not fully understand. It would seem to me, space and time are aspects of the essence of God, eternal, existing from all eternity in some form, related to our time-space, but in eternal time and space. Does not the essence of God exist in an infinite space and eternal time? To my understanding, there are not two types of space. Space is space. In our case, from the beginning, a created encapsulated space from out of a timeless space which God cast into the vaults of heaven. Until we can answer those fundamentals, including how God can exist in a timeless zone, and intercede in our time zone, we will not understand that mystery of God; but then we have no need to. That “none springs to your mind,” is because you/we do not have the real power and mind of God. You say: “I’m sure you will reply as above, ‘no one can know the mind of God’, “could you do better rvb8?’, a particularly absurd red haring (sic), ‘No! I couldn’t!’ ‘The design will be revealed’, etc.” A red herring? Or just an “absurd” excuse not even to attempt to answer such a question? Well, be a sport, have a theoretical go at creating a very good creation. Time no object, either long age order short, but your earthly creation may centre on humanity and your heavenly creation may allow for higher intelligence. Your creation may include free will to choose. To save your creation you must be ready to be rejected and trampled on. You can include hell or not. And you may need to create a space for eternal reprobates’. In your mind, is seems, God has done a poor job, therefore “bad design” is better and above God. Wait a minute, bad design is a god, for you did not ‘evolve’ yourself; but now theoretically stuck forever in a bad accidental purposeless evolution, and at the end a date with a purposeless meaningless death. Happy days, God has failed. The Big Bang and Darwinism has eclipsed God. No judgement. Better on our own. At least you do not sit on the fence, rvb8, in that case, perhaps God may do something about it (Rev 3:16): heaven forbid!mw

January 12, 2017

January

01

Jan

12

12

2017

04:14 AM

4

04

14

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Eric Anderson, Metaxas referenced Hugh Ross. Hugh Ross has (at least) these two papers (with references at the end of the papers): Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth - 2004 June Update by Hugh Ross Excerpt: surface gravity (escape velocity) if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water http://www.meaningfulscience.com/FineTuningForLifeOnEarthHughRoss.pdf And here: Linked from "Appendix C" in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is Part 3. Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms Excerpt: surface gravity (escape velocity) .001 http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf Sorry Eric, don't have time to dig out the specific references out of the hundreds of references at the end of the paper.bornagain77

January 12, 2017

January

01

Jan

12

12

2017

02:27 AM

2

02

27

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ba77, quoting from Eric Metaxas:

If the earth were slightly larger, it of course would have slightly larger gravity, which has interesting implications. It’s not just that a person who weighs 150 pounds would weigh more. It’s that if the earth had slightly more gravity than it now has, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen, respectfully, would remain close to our surface. Since we cannot breathe methane and ammonia, which are toxic, we would die. More to the point, we would have never come into existence in the first place.,,, On the other hand, if earth were just a tiny bit smaller and had a bit less gravity, water vapor, which has a molecular weight of 18, would not stay down here close to the planet’s surface but would instead dissipate into the planets atmosphere. Obviously, without water we could not exist.

There is a little bit of unclarity in this quote, but I think I understand his point. The issue presumably isn't so much about size as about mass and distance -- specifically, about the force of gravity at the surface, regardless of the size of the planet. In any event, do you happen to have handy more specific information about the required range of gravity at the surface that could (a) hold water vapor, while (b) allowing ammonia and methane to dissipate? Also, if the range is sufficiently narrow, what implications might this have for some of the futuristic human colonization plans, such as terraforming Mars? I'd be surprised if the terraforming plans haven't taken into account the required gravity for a particular atmosphere, but who knows? Anyway, interesting idea. Just wanting to pursue it a bit . . .Eric Anderson

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

10:53 PM

10

10

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Wow, that's a lot of refutation for a short post. Paraphrasing: 'If we don't understand the design it does not mean bad design.' The appendix evolved to digest plant and seed material we no longer can digest; useless! Oh, and the, 'it is a repository for good bacteria should an infection wipe out our stomach's good bacteria', doesn't work as that is not its evolved function that is ancillary. What about the absurd, hurricane in a junkyard ID argument against evolution. Might I point out that there are no redundent parts on planes and that planes also went through a trial and error form of manmade evolution themselves. Man has removed the redundent parts and no part of a modern plane has no purpose. I can not refute all that was written here, but others have done a far better job than me; by a long long way. Suffice to say if the ocean is necessary to calibrate the climate (and it is), then perhaps God should have made the earth 80% ocean so it too could do a better job. All those extreme weather events point to a lack of enough regulating ocean, perhaps. Space is big, I mean really big. Now maybe God does have a reason for making it so fantastically inconceivably big, but none spring to mind. In Carl Sagan's book on his Gifford lectures there is a series of photos in Chapter 1, look them up. They show the incomprehensible (to humnans) scale of the universe. I often think IDers hate these kinds of photographs produced by various worldwide space agencies, as they point to one, and only one rather unnerving conclusion; 'Boy that's big, what the hell for?' I'm sure you will reply as above, 'no one can know the mind of God', ''could you do better rvb8?', a particularly absurd red haring, 'No! I couldn't!' 'The design will be revealed', etc. To me all this may be true, but the evidence we have todate doesn't in the slightest support that assertion. Todate the evidence supports the notion that if there is a supreme being, S/He, It, has done a poor job on our bodies, the planet, and the universe. The Bad Design argument, as more evidence is uncovered will only strengthen, as the purposelessness of Nature is revealed. All of this in no way argues against my Humanist credentials. I love life and believe justice, education, and good health care should be mandatory on this planet. I strongly support Free Speech, and believe the privacy of the home, and what you do there (legally) are sacrosanct. I also believe modern western culture has succeeded best at achieving these goals, and Theocracies around the planet fail, because they are theocracies.rvb8

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

06:08 PM

6

06

08

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Thanks for your post JAD. Even our best technology is incredibly primitive when compared to what we see in biology. No one refers to it with that oft-repeated word "kluge", which is always meaningless and cheap when used to deny that living components are designed systems. I would like to see a crowd of scientists cheer in amazement, like they did in the DARPA video over a robot climbing a few stairs, when they watch a toddler get on his feet and walk to mommy for the first time and see the mother grab, hold and even lift the toddler with the perfect combination of firm strength, enough to lift the shifting weight, and softness, so as not to damage the child. As a hobbyist, I've built a few robots and realize how incredibly difficult it is to imitate even the most basic of biological movement that we take for granted. Especially autonomously.bb

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

10:36 AM

10

10

36

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

john_a_designer @19 Excellent points John. We seem to be on the same wave link -- see my remarks @4ayearningforpublius

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

09:49 AM

9

09

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Here I something I wrote a few weeks ago that I think fits very well with the discussion we are having on this thread.

One of the arguments that Darwinist’s often give in favor of their world view is that an intelligent designer, if he really existed, wouldn’t have designed it that way. (It= us, animals, the whole world etc.) Then they’ll give an example like the eye’s so called backwards wiring. As a real life (now retired) designer I have given a lot of thought how I would reverse engineer some of the designs we find in nature. To be honest with you the complexity is staggering, if not mind numbing. But if you think you can do better than original designer tell me how. I’m all ears. However, if all you have is the empty assertion, “well he somehow could have done it better,” as an explanation, save your breath. Scientific and technological explanations try to answer the how questions. If you can’t answer those you don’t know anything-- nobody does. For one example, consider that complexity of walking and manual dexterity; something that is essential to human survival and flourishing. In 2015 The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) sponsored a robot challenge, where teams of engineers introduced their android robots into competition with each other. Here is a brief video about the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P9geWwi9e0 One of the advantages of developing even a semi-autonomous android robot is that much of damage of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster* could have been mitigated if we had a robot capable of walking like a human technician into a highly radioactive and unsafe environment and carrying out simple manual tasks such as turning valve. The video makes it clear we are no way close to that capability. Last year (2015) I ran across a wonderful version of the Nutcracker on Youtube. It’s a video from a Dec. 2012 performance of the ballet at the Mariinsky Theatre (yes that’s the correct spelling) in St. Petersburg, Russia. This is the very same theater, which has been very lovingly preserved, where the Nutcracker made its original debut in 1892. Please take a look at it. It is absolutely beautiful. The videography is stunning! The costumes, sets and performances are as perfect as is humanly possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtLoaMfinbU Think of the technical challenges that would be required to recreate this ballet using only android robots-- or even designing and making android robots to play the parts of the android robots, which are part of the story. Again, it is staggers the mind…

Isn’t it silly, if not arrogant, for humans to claim that the designs we find in nature are poorly designed or suboptimal, when we have no clue how to imitate and replicate the designs we find in nature? Oh sure we can build a motorcycle that can outperform (beat) Usain Bolt in the 100 meters. But can the motorcycle play soccer? Climb a ladder or a sheer cliff? Go swimming or scuba diving… etc. In other words, we have no clue how to design a machine that is capable of multitasking the way a human can multitask. Furthermore, no one knows how to design a machine that can actually think for itself or experience having fun or a sense of accomplishment. But that’s a whole other discussion. *Footnote: In March 2011 damage from an earth quake and tsunami caused the core of one of Japan’s nuclear reactors to begin to melt down.john_a_designer

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

08:04 AM

8

08

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

A better way to phrase my last line in 17 is: "Let the one that claims 'bad design' create something better to demonstrate it is indeed so."bb

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

07:58 AM

7

07

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

“Bad design” is nothing more than a baseless narrative atheists use as comforting reinforcement.

I might even add that it is a baseless accusation against God. IOW: "If God exists, there is bad design, so He's evil and I don't want anything to do with Him. But He doesn't, because there is bad design and He wouldn't do such a thing." Am I wrong to call this circular?

2 “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.” [...] 7 “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. 8 Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right? 9 Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?

-Job 40 Let the one that claims "bad design" create something better to demonstrate his superiority.bb

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

07:26 AM

7

07

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

rvb8: God’s wonderful design is a nightmare of waste: 70% water The ocean currents are a very complex system that very effectively regulates the climate, while providing an environment for many and varied life forms. http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/climate.html I'm wondering if rvb8 could design something better.mike1962

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

07:06 AM

7

07

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Querius @11, I like how the writer character in Hemo presents a "magic screen", then goes into a defense of science and mockery of a belief in magic. The scientist then later points to the "mystical origins of life." Is this how so many come to accept contradictions without blinking?bb

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

06:32 AM

6

06

32

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

In order to assess whether or not any particular design is good or bad, one must know all of the parameters and goals involved. "Bad design" is nothing more than a baseless narrative atheists use as comforting reinforcement.William J Murray

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

04:01 AM

4

04

01

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I suggest the people who make these bad design arguments first make and implement then demonstrate that they can do a superior example. Designs normally embrace priorities, compromises [aka "trade-offs"], and subtle balances leading to a delicate interconnexion of even seemingly unrelated things, so before dismissing something as bad design, demonstrate superior design. Also, badness and goodness are teleological, so kindly document the intent of the allegedly incompetent designer, that led him to a bad compromise. KFkairosfocus

January 11, 2017

January

01

Jan

11

11

2017

03:15 AM

3

03

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Querius @11:

Any engineer will tell you that any design is a network of compromises and tradeoffs.

Exactly. And not once has any materialist Darwinist proponent ever offered anything even close to an engineering-quality analysis of those compromises and tradeoffs. Not once have they ever offered any sound engineering basis for why an alleged bad design in biology is in fact bad design. Never have they proposed an alternative design that is objectively better. All we get are sophomoric assumptions and vague complaints -- like a child stomping her foot and pouting, "Well, I just don't like it!"Eric Anderson

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

10:51 PM

10

10

51

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

OldArmy94 @7, Any engineer will tell you that any design is a network of compromises and tradeoffs. Bornagain77 @10, The myth that our blood composition (musta) matched that of ancient seawater was perpetuated by the 1957 evolution cartoon, Hemo the Magnificent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFlTrYasFTw at 28:00. By the way, "seawater" is a single word, not two words. ;-) -QQuerius

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

08:37 PM

8

08

37

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

trivia: The average adult human body is 50-65% water, averaging around 57-60%. The percentage of water in infants is much higher, typically around 75-78% water, dropping to 65% by one year of age. Body composition varies according to gender and fitness level, because fatty tissue contains less water than lean tissue. About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, There was a 2015 Super Bowl commercial quoting John F Kennedy saying that it is a 'fact' we came from the sea because the salt content of our blood exactly matched the salt content of the sea.

Carnival Corporation - Come Back To The Sea - Super Bowl XLIX Commercial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOzZNLW7r78

Well, that Darwinian belief turns out to be a 'hoary old myth' with no connection to reality:

(Debunking) The myth that the concentration of salts in our blood plasma matches that of sea water - February 12, 2015 Excerpt: (Debunking) the hoary old myth that the ionic composition of blood plasma matches that of seawater, which is supposed to “prove” that our ancestors came from the sea.,,, The percentage of the human body which is made up of water actually varies from 50 to 78%, being about 75-78% in infants, 60% in men and 55% in women, so Vice-President Al Gore’s figure of 71% is in the right ball park. But his assertion that our blood “contains roughly the same percentage of salt as the ocean” is flat-out false.,,, it was shown to be false as far back as 1926.,,, Here are the concentrations of Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+ and Cl- ions, measured in mM, in fresh water (average for N. America): 0.39, 0.04, 0.52, 0.21 and 0.23, respectively. Here are the concentrations in a terrestrial vertebrate (Homo): 142, 4, 5, 2 and 104. Here are the concentrations in average sea water: 470, 10, 10, 54 and 548. (Source: Harris, L. 1996. Concepts in zoology, 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins, p. 276.) Not much of a correlation, is there? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-demolishes-an-icon-of-evolution/

bornagain77

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

07:42 PM

7

07

42

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dionisio @ 8: Excellent comment. Thank you!Truth Will Set You Free

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

07:19 PM

7

07

19

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Had we remained in Eden, none of this would have been an issue at all. But we wanted to do it the way Frank Sinatra did it. Too late now. However, deep within us there is a strong longing for being there. Because we were made in Imago Dei. Fortunately, God Himself has provided the Way for us to get back to where we once belonged. Don't miss it. Run to it now, while it's available in this age of Grace. Tomorrow it might be too late. Think about it. Seriously. God loves you.Dionisio

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

04:46 PM

4

04

46

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

From Wikipedia: The Christmas Bullet, aka Cantilever Aero Bullet, is commonly believed by many to be the worst airplane ever. The only two flying prototypes crashed on their first flights, killing both test pilots. I quote from the article, "The design had a serious flaw in that it lacked any kind of struts or braces for the wings, with Christmas' insisting that they should be flexible. Control of the aircraft was meant to be achieved by wing warping to its flying surfaces." That second word in the sentence above tells the story. It's completely uncontroversial to say this flying deathtrap was designed, yet, why do atheists have such a hard time admitting the human body was designed, supposed flaws and all?OldArmy94

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

04:12 PM

4

04

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Excellent point, J-Mac! -QQuerius

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

03:55 PM

3

03

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The "bad design argument" as proof that God/ID doesn't exist is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person or even a child believes that "bad design" = no designer. If anything it is proof for existence of a designer who for unknown reasons allowed something to appear to be imperfect, or deteriorate into an imperfect state. Just because you don't know WHY something was design in certain way or was allowed to happen by the designer doesn't prove that there was no thought or mind behind it...J-Mac

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

03:34 PM

3

03

34

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

My remarks here contain comments I’ve made on a book written and promoted for use by school teachers that mocks features of the human body that the author considers to be proof-examples of  why Darwinian evolution proves life arose through a long series of Natural Selection of random mutations. The book is "Not-so-Intelligent Designer" _________________ I must beg to differ on Dr. Hafers and the Glenn Branch (of NCSE) view of this so called “Not-so-Intelligent Designer.”  What she sees as “quirks and kinks, the makeshift solutions and haywire failures, of human biology,” many see as an elegant and quite magnificent design with an amazing and far ranging menu of capabilities. Let me suggest an exercise that the doctor, Mr. Branch, and others can easily accomplish, and I believe you may see my point. Take an evening out and partake in one of those wonderful choral and orchestra performances taking place all around the world at any given time – I would recommend Handel’s Messiah for this exercise. As you are watching and listing to this amazing musical performance I would like you to notice and watch a number of things very carefully. First the hands – the hands and body motions of the conductor, as well as his facial expressions and body movements as he leads the choir and orchestra through this magnificent musical piece. Continuing with the hands — watch the hands, and in particular the fingers of the orchestra members as they travel across the various instruments – the sting section, the brass section, the woodwinds — the piano. Watch carefully as their hands precisely match the direction given by the conductor. Watch as the fingers subtly, and at times strongly tease the music from their instruments. And note the various musical instruments — envisioned, designed and created by many beautifully designed and created hands and fingers. Next the choral voices – listen as these beautiful voices blend together perfectly with the orchestra, and watch the faces and mouths as they blend perfectly with the hands of the conductor and with the orchestra. Next listen and pay attention to your own reaction as message of the words and music bring excitement and inspiration into your heart and soul. As you leave the concert hall, take time to look at the building and its architecture and artistry. Again, the hands, arms, legs and mind of those artisans designed those arches, paintings and sculptures you admire so much. And when you get back home in bed, ponder over the creation of the musical score of the “Messiah.” Imagine Handel hovering over his desk and the paper taking on lines and musical symbols – and words. Imagine him going back and forth over that manuscript as he goes to and from the scriptures that are inspiring him. Imagine the music that is building inside his head as he creates this masterpiece. No – the human body is not the “quirks and kinks, the makeshift solutions and haywire failures, of human biology,” but is something far more splendid and wonderful.   _________________ Next I would suggest a couple of sporting events for Dr. Hafers and Glenn Branch. First to a major league baseball game where they can witness the flawless execution of a double play. Beginning with the pitcher placing the ball across home plate at 90+ mph. We then see the batter follow that fast moving and curving baseball with his eyes, calculating where it will be as it passes into the strike zone where he can then attempt to hit it with his well hand/eye coordinated swing. Then we see the shortstop field the fast moving ball after anticipating and calculating where it will enter his glove. He then shovels it off to the second baseman who tags the runner out while leaping over the runner, and then a quick and precise throw to the first baseman who steps on first base for the second out of the double play. Next we go to an NBA basketball game where we witness the continual back and forth of finely tuned, trained and coordinated athletes showcasing example after example of what these well designed machines are capable of. Next we are off to an NFL football game where we witness precision in the well designed human body of a quarterback throwing the football with precise accuracy to a fast moving and maneuvering receiver who stretches his body out to execute a fingertip catch as he passes the goal line for a touchdown. No – the human body is not the “quirks and kinks, the makeshift solutions and haywire failures, of human biology,” but is something far more splendid and wonderful. Next we travel into the applied biological science of medicine and medical research and invite teachers and Mr. Branch to read and study the extensive articles that a Dr. Howard Glicksman has compiled on the intricacies and design of many aspects of the human body. We see this compilation of science reporting at -- http://www.evolutionnews.org/continuing_seri/the_designed_bo/ This series contains at least a half dozen articles on blood pressure alone, and how it is controlled within the human body. Note that this science reporting by Dr. Glicksman is seen in the Discovery Institute web site http://www.evolutionnews.org – an ID site – and not on the pages of the National Center for Science Education. I have been following the NCSE site as well as the Discovery site and others for years now, and what I find is that good science reporting like I describe above is found often and on a regular basis there, whereas seldom – approaching never – is an any science reported by NCSE. I find that very interesting and troubling, and thus would offer a caution to teachers to view NCSE with a great deal of skepticism, and especially this book which is little more than a hit piece on those of us who differ with the Atheistic stance and mission of NCSE. No – the human body is not the “quirks and kinks, the makeshift solutions and haywire failures, of human biology,” but is something far more splendid and wonderful.ayearningforpublius

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

01:59 PM

1

01

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

@rvb8: You went full retard, man. Never go full retard.Sebestyen

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

01:09 PM

1

01

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Supplemental notes:

"If the earth were slightly larger, it of course would have slightly larger gravity, which has interesting implications. It's not just that a person who weighs 150 pounds would weigh more. It's that if the earth had slightly more gravity than it now has, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen, respectfully, would remain close to our surface. Since we cannot breathe methane and ammonia, which are toxic, we would die. More to the point, we would have never come into existence in the first place.,,, On the other hand, if earth were just a tiny bit smaller and had a bit less gravity, water vapor, which has a molecular weight of 18, would not stay down here close to the planet's surface but would instead dissipate into the planets atmosphere. Obviously, without water we could not exist." Eric Metaxas - Miracles - pages 38-39 The Cold Trap: How It Works - Michael Denton - May 10, 2014 Excerpt: As water vapor ascends in the atmosphere, it cools and condenses out, forming clouds and rain and snow and falling back to the Earth. This process becomes very intense at the so-called tropopause (17-10 km above sea level) where air temperatures reach -80°C and all remaining water in the atmosphere is frozen out. The air in the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere in the stratosphere (extending up to 50 km above mean sea level) is absolutely dry, containing oxygen, nitrogen, some CO and the other atmospheric gases, but virtually no H2O molecules.,,, ,,,above 80-100 km, atoms and molecules are subject to intense ionizing radiation. If water ascended to this level it would be photo-dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen and, the hydrogen being very light, lost into space. Over a relatively short geological period all the water and oceans would be evaporated and the world uninhabitable.,,, Oxygen, having a boiling point of -183°C, has no such problems ascending through the tropopause cold trap into the stratosphere. As it does, it becomes subject to more and more intense ionizing radiation. However this leads,, to the formation of ozone (O3). This forms a protective layer in the atmosphere above the tropopause, perfectly placed just above the cold trap and preventing any ionizing radiation in the far UV region from reaching the H2O molecules at the tropopause and in the troposphere below. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/the_cold_trap_h085441.html

Verse:

Job 36:27-28 “He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.

bornagain77

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

11:16 AM

11

11

16

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

When I was looking at water specifically years ago, I was quite amazed by the many brilliant design features that water revealed. When we look at water, the most common substance on earth and in our bodies, water, we find many odd characteristics which clearly appear to be designed. These oddities are absolutely essential for life on earth. Some simple life can exist without the direct energy of sunlight, some simple life can exist without oxygen; but no life can exist without water. Water is called a universal solvent because it has the unique ability to dissolve a far wider range of substances than any other solvent. This 'universal solvent' ability of water is essential for the cells of living organisms to process the wide range of substances necessary for life. Another oddity is water expands as it becomes ice, by an increase of about 9% in volume. Thus, water floats when it becomes a solid instead of sinking. This is an exceedingly rare ability. Water is the only non-metallic substance on Earth with this property. Yet if it were not for this fact, lakes and oceans would freeze from the bottom up. The earth would be a frozen wasteland, and human life would not be possible. Water also has the unusual ability to pull itself into very fine tubes and small spaces, defying gravity. This is called capillary action. This action is essential for the breakup of mineral bearing rocks into soil. Water pulls itself into tiny spaces on the surface of a rock and freezes; it expands and breaks the rock into tinier pieces, thus producing soil. Capillary action is also essential for the movement of water through soil to the roots of plants. It is also essential for the movement of water from the roots to the tops of the plants, even to the tops of the mighty redwood trees,,,

Towering Giants Of Teleological Beauty - October 2010 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/towering-giants-of-teleological-beauty/ Prometheus Unbound: The Fitness of Nature for Large Trees - Michael Denton - March 27, 2015 Excerpt: Many conditions must be met if large woody trees are to be possible.,,, (evaporative cooling, slow breakdown of lignin, and viscosity of water, are discussed),,, Concluding paragraph: Without the ensemble of unique fitness that raises water in trees there would be no wood, fire, metallurgy, or modern technology. Nor would you be reading these paragraphs; nature would not be properly fit for mankind to utilize his cognitive powers to understand the world. It is wonderfully fitting that this unique and stunningly elegant mechanism is intimately related to our role as explorers and manipulators of the world, providing a further indicator supportive of the anthropocentric notion of a world order focused on our being. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/prometheus_unbo094751.html

,,,Capillary action is also essential for the circulation of the blood in our very own capillary blood vessels. As well, water's melting and boiling point are not where common sense would indicate they should be when we look at its molecular weight. The three sister compounds of water all behave as would be predicted by their molecular weight. Oddly, water just happens to have melting and boiling points that are of optimal biological utility. Some other properties of water we measure, like its specific slipperiness (viscosity) and its ability to absorb and release more heat than any other natural substance, have to be as they are in order for life to be possible on earth. Even the oceans, contrary to what rvb8 believes, have to be the size they are in order to stabilize the temperature of the earth so that human life may be possible.

Oceans vital for possibility for alien life - July 20, 2014 Excerpt: "Oceans have an immense capacity to control climate. They are beneficial because they cause the surface temperature to respond very slowly to seasonal changes in solar heating. And they help ensure that temperature swings across a planet are kept to tolerable levels. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140720203459.htm Water-Land Ratio of Habitable Planets - 2015 Excerpt: In addition, recent studies on habitability of planets suggest that the water-land ratio must be similar to the Earth. That is, the water mass fraction should not be far from that of the Earth’s (~0.01wt%): planets with too much water (> 1 wt%)-“ocean planets”-lead to an unstable climate and lack of nutrient supply; and water-poor planets like Venus -“dune planets”-become too arid for inhabiting. https://uncommondescent.com/extraterrestrial-life/water-land-ratio-of-habitable-planets/

On and on through each characteristic we can possibly measure water with, that characteristic turns out to be required to be exactly, or almost exactly, as it is for complex life on this earth to be possible. No other liquid in the universe comes anywhere near matching water in its fitness for life (Denton: Nature's Destiny). Here is a more complete list of the many 'anomalous' life enabling properties of water:

Multiple ‘anomalous’ life enabling properties of water http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html Water's remarkable capabilities - December 2010 - Peer Reviewed Excerpt: All these traits are contained in a simple molecule of only three atoms. One of the most difficult tasks for an engineer is to design for multiple criteria at once. ... Satisfying all these criteria in one simple design is an engineering marvel. Also, the design process goes very deep since many characteristics would necessarily be changed if one were to alter fundamental physical properties such as the strong nuclear force or the size of the electron. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/pro-intelligent_design_peer_re042211.html

In fact, when looking at the 'quantum forces' of water, researchers found that 'WATER'S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge'.

Water's quantum weirdness makes life possible - October 2011 Excerpt: WATER'S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces.,,, They found that the hydrogen-oxygen bonds were slightly longer than the deuterium-oxygen ones, which is what you would expect if quantum uncertainty was affecting water’s structure. “No one has ever really measured that before,” says Benmore. We are used to the idea that the cosmos’s physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.900-waters-quantum-weirdness-makes-life-possible.html

In fact, water clearly appears to be brilliantly designed, on a 'knife's edge' with protein folding in mind. In other words, water clearly appears to be designed on a 'knife's edge' with biological life in mind in particular

Water Is 'Designer Fluid' That Helps Proteins Change Shape - 2008 Excerpt: "When bound to proteins, water molecules participate in a carefully choreographed ballet that permits the proteins to fold into their functional, native states. This delicate dance is essential to life." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806113314.htm Scientists glimpse why life can't happen without water - June 20, 2016 Water molecules control protein motion, study finds Excerpt: Water molecules typically flow around each other at picosecond speeds, while proteins fold at nanosecond speeds--1,000 times slower. Previously, Zhong's group demonstrated that water molecules slow down when they encounter a protein. Water molecules are still moving 100 times faster than a protein when they connect with it, however. In the new study, the researchers were able to determine that the water molecules directly touched the protein's "side chains," the portions of the protein molecule that bind and unbind with each other to enable folding and function. The researchers were also able to note the timing of movement in the molecules. Computer simulations at the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC) helped the researchers visualize what was going on: where the water moved a certain way, the protein folded nanoseconds later, as if the water molecules were nudging the protein into shape. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160620160214.htm

bornagain77

January 10, 2017

January

01

Jan

10

10

2017

11:16 AM

11

11

16

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link