11 Replies to “The Ultimate Rube Goldberg Machine

  1. 1
    Collin says:

    A beautiful machine. Thanks for sharing.

    I still don’t understand how the lead weight keeps it going for 24 hours (or for 1 hour for that matter).

  2. 2
    HouseStreetRoom says:

    Extraordinary.

  3. 3
    Berceuse says:

    Ok the “anti-gravity hill” is where I got confused.

  4. 4
    Tim says:

    Above all, please remember that the marble machine only appears to be designed. There is absolutely no evidence in this video that it was designed. After all, any visual evidence that it was designed is only that: the visual, the apparition, the appearance. . . no way past it. . . no underlying meaning, nothing but a phenomenom whose ultimate being can be explained only by those precursors which survived and explain all that we see, they explain everything. . . oops, that is, er . . . oh, nevermind.

  5. 5
    Clive Hayden says:

    I like your humor Tim. I’ll try my hand at it.

    No irreducible complexity here, I mean, obviously the marble could be used as a small little round ball, and the wood could be used as smaller pieces of wood, such as firewood, toothpicks, or trash. Not to mention that you could take any one piece, large enough, of that machine and use it for a whittling stick. So obviously all pieces were used in one of those ways, and the firewood, toothpicks, trash, and whittling sticks got together with the ball and decided to self-assemble themselves into a one “self-assembled” self, by accident, of course, of some whittling sticks being more useful than others, some trash more trashy than others, some firewood more firey than others, and toothpicks more picky than others.

    How does trash, toothpicks, firewood and whittling become relevant to a complex marble machine, you ask? Well, I don’t have to explain, because it’s enough to show that the individual pieces served other functions, how those functions have any purchase on the current function is only a question that an ID person would ask, we evolutionists don’t bother ourselves with such inanity. It is enough to show that a mousetrap could be reduced to a tie clip, and the question of efficacy and relevance of catching mice by holding ties in place need not bother us evolutionists. πŸ˜‰

  6. 6
  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    I believe the answer to your question Dr. Dembski is Irreducible Complexity:

    such as the biological design here:

    Molecular Machine – Nuclear Pore Complex – Stephen C. Meyer
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....n_c_meyer/

  8. 8
    wombatty says:

    What immediately occurred to me is the necessity of an intelligently designed mechanism to forestall the otherwise immediate and inevitable ‘triumph’ of a force of nature over matter (not sure if that was the best way to phrase that).

    In this case, the natural force is gravity. Left to itself, the ball would, depending on where it was placed, would just sit there or roll down hill. An intelligently designed mechanism is necessary to enable to ball to overcome the force of gravity and roll up hill (several times, no less) in a controlled manner.

    An analogy to nature would be the natural outcome of energy applied to matter. If, for instance, solar energy is introduced into an environment, the inevitable result, over time, is decay. If a mechanism capable of capturing, harnessing and directing that energy to a specified purpose is introduced (e.g. photosynthesis), plant life blooms (pun intended ;-))

    Gravity = Solar Energy

    Marble = Plant Matter

    Marble Machine = Photosynthetic Mechanism

    Rolling Up Hill = Plant Life

    The same logic would apply to any metabolic process.

  9. 9
    Mung says:

    It’s obvious that a mechanism somewhat like this must have led to the evolution of flight.

  10. 10
    Cable says:

    @8 wombatty

    Excellent observation.

  11. 11
    tribune7 says:

    @8 wombatty

    dittos

Leave a Reply