Design, Teleology and Omega Watches

_{DonaldM
April 24, 2013

Cosmology, Design inference, Engineering, Intelligent Design, Philosophy

2}_{Categories
Cosmology
Design inference
Engineering
Intelligent Design
Philosophy}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The Omega watch company’s co-axial chronometer is billed as the most precise mechanical device in the world. In their video ad featured here, the images associate the intricate design of the cosmos with the design of the watch…a classic teleological argument. The implication seems to be that the intricate, superb design of the watch is equal to that of the Cosmos itself. But if you’re a philosophical naturalist, as nearly every ID critic is, then you accept that the watch requires an intelligent design, the forces of matter and energy interacting over eons of time through chance and/or necessity not being adequate to explain a watch. However, that same ID critic accepts that the Cosmos, and everything in it, which is far more intricate in its design, is, in fact, the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy interacting over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. So why does the one require a designer and the other does not…scientifically speaking? Put another way, how do we know scientifically that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle? Philosophical, metaphysical and/or theological speculations need not apply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctj-RDbTBMU

Comments

Gregory, I don't care how many people have made a study of human-social sciences. The number of people who believe foolish things does not make it less foolish, it just means there are more fools. Just apply some simple logic. 1. A rational universe means that effects have causes. The effect may be due to random activity, but each effect must have a cause. 2. The only exception to this is the prime mover, the causeless cause. 3. Random activity cannot create non-random activity, all it can create are fluctuations from an equilibrium. 4. Human intelligence exists. 5. Human intelligence creates non-random effects that are not simply fluctuations from an equilibrium ( intelligent design lowercase id). 6. Being rather late to the scene, human intelligence can not be the prime mover. 7. Human intelligence must have an intelligent ( non-random) cause. 8. There must be an Intelligent (uppercase I) for human intelligence ( lowercase i ). 9. The absolutely incredible way that humans exercise human intelligence shows design. 10. Therefore the only acceptable cause for human intelligence is the Intelligent Designer. 10. Therefore ( lowercase id) => ( uppercase ID ) . QED. Its time Gregory to separate yourself from the fools, and stop being a fool.JDH_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PST}

JDH, Your point is well understood. I've studied these things for a decade. I'm not a layman, but a practitioner.
"The point is that ( lowercase id) can not exist without ( uppercase ID)."
Let me guess: you are a theist. Right? You are most likely a Protestant (Evangelical) American theist. Right? Atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and others disagree that "lowercase id cannot exist without uppercase ID." They don't believe in an uppercase D. It's therefore a culturally 'relative' claim that you've made based on worldview, not on 'natural science.' But of course you know or should that uppercase ID theory is (read: claims to be) based on 'natural science-only.' uppercase ID has been denied as being properly called a 'science, philosophy, theology/worldview' theory, as I've suggested here at UD (and as others have claimed elsewhere). What you overlook, JDH, is that lowercase id need not depend on or require "RM+NS or any other neo-scheme based on random events." People untrained in or unaware of (i.e. most IDM leaders) other 'sciences' take a particularly dehumanising approach to 'design,' such that they overlook the vast array of 'design theory' that already exists, instead to promote their religiously apologetic (but insistently denied as such) uppercase ID theory. The human-social sciences have been studying teleological change, plan, purpose, goal, aim, etc. for many decades, without the slightest need for IDism from the IDM. They (IDM leaders) ignore this to their peril.
"There exist objects in this world that were obviously designed by intelligence." - JDH
Yes, of course. That is too obvious to deny. But where is the rub? Is it lowercase 'intelligence'(human, mundane) or uppercase 'Intelligence' (non-human, transcendental), JDH? Human beings are not 'gods,' or are we? Or are you thinking more eastern (bogochilovechestvo) than the vast majority of IDM leaders? Do you now see how important making the upper/lower distinction is or was it just frivolous for you? The final sentence in #15 is incoherent. Uppercase ID (Big-D Designer) is a uniquely theological project. It is not the province of natural scientific theory. Most thoughtful theists who have carefully looked at IDism have wisely concluded this. I doubt that the Vatican will make the same mistake in favour of 'IDism' twice. Is it worth the time to alert you to these (non-fanatical) realities, JDH?Gregory_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PST}

Gregory, I hate to disappoint you but you misunderstood my point completely. The point is that ( lowercase id) can not exist without ( uppercase ID). Why? Because I believe that it is logically and rationally impossible for RM+NS or any other neo-scheme based on random events + large time to generate ( lowercase id). I believe this so firmly that, I am completely convinced that anyone ( no matter what his area of expertise or credential ) who witnesses just two observables: 1. Empirical observation that we live in a rational universe where the activity of science can be practiced with success. 2. There exist objects in this world that were obviously designed by intelligence. And after admitting the truth of #1 and #2 does not accept (uppercase ID ) is a fool.JDH_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PST}

"What I had in mind were the vocal ID critics, the ones writing the books and on the blogs and commenting here." - DonaldM
I suggest that you elevate in your mind the critics who hold the same worldview as yourself instead of focussing on people that it is easy to disagree with simply because of the worldview they hold. Alistair McGrath, Stephen Barr, Owen Gingerich, Ted Davis, Edward Feser, Francis Beckwith, Robin Collins, Steve Fuller, etc. These people – all theists – pose critical challenges to the IDM leadership's 'scientific ID theory' that are much more profound than 'new atheists' or 'vocal ID critics' on blogs. The former are worth taking seriously and engaging with, especially given that they've read ID publications and a couple of them even used to work at the DI, before ultimately rejecting ID theory as far less 'revolutionary' than most people at UD still think it is. I've made the same point as theirs already and also documented UD's flip-flopping.
"they are not making the same point as Gregory" - self-appointed 'philosopher and communicator'
JDH and DonaldM are making and accepting (#1 & #2 in this thread) the distinction between uppercase ID and lowercase id (and also uppercase D, but presumably also lowercase d). That is the same point/distinction I have made, along with others. It is a crucial and important distinction to make and acknowledge. Not that it will do any good to bring facts up to StephenB’s ‘philosophism,’ but I've read "A Meaningful World". Published by InterVarsity Press, marketed to and almost exclusively read by Christians. It was given at the DI's Summer Program and is on my shelf here. Chapter 6 is at first provocative (and distortive), then once again boring and repetitive. Actually, I met Jonathan Witt. Nice guy. No argument there. But no 'revolutionary' and much repetition; most of that has been said before in different clothes. His Big-D 'Design' and 'Designer' is theological, not natural scientific. His lowercase id is misleading and distortive (e.g. IV Press 2006: p. 64) of what IDism has come to represent. A typical American Protestant Evangelical IDist. God bless them too...and correct them! Fr. Thomas Dubay’s “The Evidential Power of Beauty” I have not read, but highly doubt that 1) it offers support for ‘natural scientific ID theory,’ since 2) Fr. Dubay was not a ‘natural scientist,’ and 3) this shows StephenB’s personal Catholicism more than it does anything to refute that ID-naturalism is a dead-end ideology or to overturn the fact that most thoughtful Catholics reject IDism’s claims to natural scientific ‘proof/inference’ of Big-D ‘Design.’ StephenB (and IDist brethren) will likely respond as usual that I simply *must* be stupid, awkward, angry, unkind, deceptive, etc.; typical false accusations of anyone who rejects his IDism. But here he simply refuses repeatedly to face legitimate challenges to the IDist ideology he has come to invest so much of himself in. He is being subjective, not just objective. This is demonstrated by his signature of approval on the ID definitions page, where both he and KF willfully (or ignorantly) equate the distinct signifiers ‘Intelligent Design’ and ‘intelligent design,’ which JDH made special care (and for very good reasons!!) to distinguish and that DonaldM affirmed with “Exactly my point! Well put!” If SB and KF are not ‘flip-flopping’ without any given explanation at UD for exactly, explicitly *WHY* they (choose to) use both uppercase ID and lowercase id seemingly interchangeably, then neither does a teeter-totter shift on a fulcrum! StephenB and KF apparently *want* people to equivocate uppercase ID (Intelligent Design) and lowercase id (intelligent design). Why is that? Recognising this as their unspoken motive is the only conclusion that makes sense of their persistent resistance to the facts. Why they haven’t yet admitted to flip-flopping when that is obvious to anyone who can read English typeface? Is it unintentional (purposeless, goal-less, ateleological) small d 'design'?! Will anyone at UD scold JDH and DonaldM for making this legitimate distinction? Tribal studies suggest hardcore UDist activists won't bring themselves to do this. Truth, in this case, is sacrificed to the tribal impulse. Yet perhaps there are some who see through this ideological mirage and would like to expore better options?
“I do agree with you that the “Who, when, where, why and how” questions are valid points of scientific inquiry.” – DonaldM
O.k., thanks for the agreement. Could you tell me then why IDM leaders reject this as part of their IDist ideology of trying to study uppercase ID scientifically? In the history of the Abrahamic faiths, a divine uppercase 'D' Designer is the proper province of (natural) theology to explore, not natural science.
“That makes the premise entirely philosophical and it should be argued as such.” – DonaldM
Yes, I agree that is obvious. HPSS explores this in-depth and in various sciences, including natural and non-natural ones. My training and current work is significantly in HPSS. That makes is easy to perceive that there *is* philosophy and theology/worldview in the ‘conceptualisation’ of uppercase ID theory qua theory as it was ‘coined’ by IDM leaders (Thaxton, Meyer, Dembski, Behe, et al.). That is altogether inescapable and they have spoken about this publically (while my memories of Thaxton are private). But for the sake of detachment and neutrality, trying to appear natural scientific (because they falsely call ‘Darwinism’ a ‘scientific theory’), IDM leaders have been deluded by a particularly narrow HPSS that doesn’t do nearly enough to face the bigger challenges they claim to be able and successful at facing. In my view, they have failed. Dembski and Meyer, Wells and Nelson, have even become their own worst enemies by insisting on proclaiming a ‘Revolution!’ (in the name of Science) as they have repeatedly done. By acknowledging lowercase id, as JDH has done in this thread, it serves to smart-bomb the simple ‘Wedge’ that IDM-Father P. Johnson propagated. It therefore makes the ‘scientificity’ claims of uppercase ID impossible, only a mirage that thirsty lay IDists would like to believe can quench their mouths and digestive systems. It shows how theology/worldview *is* invested in uppercase ID theory, just as many thoughtful and faithful people have come to realise...and thus to reject the ‘natural science-only’ hyper-claims of IDism. And that folks is why I target the splitting of uppercase ID and lowercase id. It makes sense to most people (both theists and non-theists) and it also works as a post-Wedge strategy, which is why some lay activists at UD ‘fight’ (struggle for survival) as hard and cynically and insultingly as they can muster against it. To deny any difference to those two significations (as SB & KF do) is the logical and predictable response of IDists. It doesn’t, nevertheless, change the facts of the reasoning behind their faulty resistance. They then proceed to cry foul (or Expelled Syndrome) that anti-IDists and posts-IDists, including both thoughtful theists and critical non-theists, agree on having seen through the IDM’s attempted ‘wedge’ maneuver. JDH and DonaldM – with your uppercase ID / lowercase id distinction: I see you. = ) Gregory p.s. if any would conclude that I have come out of retirement at UD, let that be put to rest now. More important things than IDism are waiting...be welcome to join me and a growing number of others on that quest.Gregory_{April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PST}

“Intelligent Design ( uppercase ID ) is the belief that the universe was created by a Designer (uppercase D ). intelligent design ( lowercase id ) is the belief that some things in the universe ( like the Omega watch ) were created by a designer.” – JDH Gregory:
Yes, this is the same point that O. Gingerich made in “God’s Universe” (Belnap Press, 2006). I was chastisted, mocked and dismissed at UD for making the same point.
On the contrary, Gregory was chastised for making the nitwittish claim that those two paradigms must be set against each other, and that anyone who supports the narrower version is "flip-flopping" when he also alludes to broader version. If he had done the requisite reading, Gregory would know that books about uppercase ID (The Evidential Power of Beauty, A Meaningful World, etc) often refer to lowercase ID as further evidence for the validity of their arguments. Rather than become informed on the matter, Gregory cites Owen Gingerich, who himself, appears not to have done the requisite reading.
Will IDists chastise, mock and dismiss DonaldM and JDH for making the same point as I did? Not likely.
Obviously, they are not making the same point as Gregory, who cannot reason very well and has no point to make.StephenB_{April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PST}

Gregory in #10 writes:
Not sure how many ID critics you’ve actually met, but I’ve met intelligent, thoughtful, careful ID critics, people of faith, i.e. Abrahamic religious believers who reject ID without accepting philosophical naturalism.
And so have I. What I had in mind were the vocal ID critics, the ones writing the books and on the blogs and commenting here. Most of that crowd are philosophical naturalists. Gregory
The uppercase ID game would already be over, in such an impossibly hypothetical case. The explicit desire for natural scientificity on Cosmological origins to prove/infer an uppercase Designer makes uppercase ID a ‘wedge’ against its own credibility.
Not sure why you think its an impossibly hypothetical case. The point of my question, "how do we know scientifically that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle", is to point out that there is NO scientific answer to the question, even with science defined according to naturalism. That makes the premise entirely philosophical and it should be argued as such. Instead, those who come at science from that worldview try to claim that it is all "just science". I don't see what hypothetical about any of that. But perhaps I'm not understanding your point properly. I do agree with you that the "Who, when, where, why and how" questions are valid points of scientific inquiry. (at least I think that's what you meant. Joe in #11
To me ID would be a framework, ie a given, from which scientific inquiry flows. Newton understood that this was a designed universe and conducted science accordingly.
That's an interesting a valid point. If we take a step back to gain a bigger view picture, it could be argued that demanding that ID meet all the usual requirements of what makes something "scientific" (on the naturalistic view) might be misplaced as it would largely depend on where in the conceptual hierarchy of science ID rightly falls. One notion I've had for a while now is that Design itself might be on the same level or perhaps one step above the Uniformity Principle. Saying Nature is designed is of the same cloth as saying Nature is uniform. Perhaps there are two principles that Science requires, the Uniformity Principle being one, and perhaps the Design Principle being the other. Indeed, it might be the case that nature is uniform because nature is designed. The interesting thing about the uniformity principle (UP) is that while it is a significant foundational principle of science, by itself, it is not amendable to scientific testing. There is no way to apply the scientific method to test the UP. Indeed, one has to assume the UP to even have a scientific method by which to conduct a test. What scientific results might mean are completely dependent on the UP being true, but the UP itself, detached from any specific hypothesis, theory or law is not testable, falsifiable, is non-predictive...all the things that are often said to exclude ID from being science. But what if Design were on the same level as the UP. If Design is as foundational a principle of science as the UP (or perhaps one level deeper than the UP), then demanding that it meet some of these other criteria might be wholly unjustified. Saying "Nature is Designed" would be merely stating a first principle of science. (which I think is actually the case, and what I think Joe is saying).DonaldM_{April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PST}

So is the design of living organisms ID or id? To me ID would be a framework, ie a given, from which scientific inquiry flows. Newton understood that this was a designed universe and conducted science accordingly.
Who, when, where, why and how questions immediately apply.
So what? That proves the design inference is not a scientific dead-end as obvioulsy it opens up new questions that we will try to answer. AND it just so happens that the way to those questions is through the design- that is until we get the designer or an eyewitness. So first you determine design and then you try to answer questions about it by studying it and all relevant evidence. Anything else I can help you with?Joe_{April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PST}

"Intelligent Design ( uppercase ID ) is the belief that the universe was created by a Designer (uppercase D ). intelligent design ( lowercase id ) is the belief that some things in the universe ( like the Omega watch ) were created by a designer." - JDH

"JDH – Exactly my point! Well put!" - DonaldM
Yes, this is the same point that O. Gingerich made in "God's Universe" (Belnap Press, 2006). I was chastisted, mocked and dismissed at UD for making the same point. Of course, UD does not represent IDM leadership, just the (sometimes fanatical) laity. Will IDists chastise, mock and dismiss DonaldM and JDH for making the same point as I did? Not likely. UD-IDists asking people to trust them as if there are *no hypocrites* in the IDM. ;) Just keep silent faced with your double-standards, folks!
"if you’re a philosophical naturalist, as nearly every ID critic is..." - DonaldM
Not sure how many ID critics you've actually met, but I've met intelligent, thoughtful, careful ID critics, people of faith, i.e. Abrahamic religious believers who reject ID without accepting philosophical naturalism. Abrahamists accept lowercase id, which is what JDH means by uppercase ID, but they use mainly a different name than uppercase D 'Designer.' The claim that "some things in the universe were created by (a) designer(s)" is entirely unproblematic and calling it lowercase id is explantorily weak. Who, when, where, why and how questions immediately apply.
"Philosophical, metaphysical and/or theological speculations need not apply." - DonaldM
The uppercase ID game would already be over, in such an impossibly hypothetical case. The explicit desire for natural scientificity on Cosmological origins to prove/infer an uppercase Designer makes uppercase ID a 'wedge' against its own credibility.
"Evolution ( uppercase E ) is the belief that everything in the world evolved by blind chance." - JDH
*OR* it is what 'theistic evolution' signifies, i.e. Evolution guided by the uppercase C Creator (but not scientifically provable), which is what 'nearly every IDist rejects.' They want, no, demand the mantle of 'scientific' legitimacy for their uppercase ID quasi-theology/metaphysics. It's an unrealistic dream, folks.Gregory_{April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PST}

Light bursts out of a flying mirror - April 24, 2013 Excerpt: the physicists managed to carry out a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) formulated in 1905 by Albert Einstein stating that the reflection from a mirror moving close to the speed of light could in principle result in bright light pulses in the short wavelength range.,,, In stark contrast to a mirror at rest, light reflected from a mirror that is moving is changed in its colour (that is in its wavelength) as the reflected photons gain momentum from the mirror. This process is very similar to a ball that bounces off a racket and thereby accelerates to higher speed. However, instead of moving faster (photons already travel at the speed of light), the reflected light is shifted in its frequency. This phenomenon is very similar to the Dopplereffect observed from an ambulance siren, which sounds higher (louder) or deeper (quieter) depending on whether the ambulance is moving towards or away from the observer. In the experiment, the incredibly high velocity of the electron mirror gave rise to a change in frequency upon reflection from the near infrared to the extreme ultraviolet up to a wavelength of 60 to 80 nanometres. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-mirror.htmlbornagain77_{April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PST}

Tim Wetherell's Clockwork universe sculpture features, as a centerpiece, the moon as she goes through her phases,,
Tim Wetherell's Clockwork universe sculpture 1/10 scale - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ9ID97MdDw
The sculpture represents the concept of,,
the clockwork universe compares the universe to a mechanical clock. It continues ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics, making every aspect of the machine predictable. This idea was very popular among deists[1] during the Enlightenment, when Isaac Newton derived his laws of motion, and showed that alongside the law of universal gravitation, they could explain the behaviour of both terrestrial objects and the solar system. per wikipedia
Of course the clockwork universe is now overthrown by quantum mechanics with the uncertainty principle:
Why Quantum Physics (Uncertainty) Ends the Free Will Debate - Michio Kaku - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw
In fact quantum mechanics has gone much further than 'uncertainty' as to undermining a deterministic, clockwork, view of the universe: Einstein, a 'determinist', was asked (by a philosopher):
"Can physics demonstrate the existence of 'the now' in order to make the notion of 'now' into a scientifically valid term?"
Einstein's answer was categorical, he said:
"The experience of 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics."
Quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video: Stanley L. Jaki: "The Mind and Its Now" https://vimeo.com/10588094 The preceding statement was an interesting statement for Einstein to make since 'the now of the mind' has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, undermined Einstein's General Relativity as to being the absolute frame of reference for reality. Here is one on my favorites. in the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past? i.e. 'the now of the mind', contrary to what Einstein had thought possible for experimental physics, according to advances in quantum mechanics, takes precedence over past events in time. Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to phrase Einstein's answer to the philosopher in this way:
"It is impossible for the experience of 'the now' to be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics."
I would like to draw one more think out of 'the clockwork universe' sculpture. The moon, which is the centerpiece of the sculpture, is very fitting in its center place in the sculpture since the moon was instrumental in many scientific discoveries. The most notable scientific discovery the moon was instrumental in helping confirm was the confirmation of Einstein's general theory of relativity,,
Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431 The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole. - Jay Richards The Privileged Planet - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw
But I would like to go even further back than the establishment of 4-D space-time of General Relativity by the moon. ,, It turns out that the moon was the centerpiece of time keeping in many ancient cultures. Particularly, the Hebrews used a lunar calender to celebrate the Old Testament Jewish Holy days,,. But it may surprise some to learn that the biblical ‘prophetic’ calender is more accurate than our modern day 'scientific' calender. The Gregorian calender uses a fairly complex system of leap days to keep accuracy with the sun, whereas, on a whole consideration, the prophetic calender uses a simpler system of leap months to keep accuracy to the sun. When these two systems are compared against each other, side by side, the prophetic calender equals the Gregorian in accuracy at first approximation, and on in-depth analysis for extremely long periods of time (even to the limits for how precisely we can measure time altogether) the prophetic calender exceeds the Gregorian calender. i.e. God's measure of time exceeds the best efforts of Man to scientifically measure time accurately.,, But why am I surprised about this? :) For those who don't think this is true, here is a site where the math is laid out:
Bible Prophecy Year of 360 Days Excerpt: Is the Biblical 'prophetic' calender more accurate than our modern calender? Surprisingly yes! Excerpt: The first series of articles will show the 360-day (Prophetic) calendar to be at least as simple and as accurate as is our modern (Gregorian) calendar. In the second part of our discussion we will demonstrate how that the 360-day calendar is perfectly exact (as far as our 'scientific' measurements will allow). http://www.360calendar.com/ Trust in God's Perfect Timing - photo http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s320x320/154716_433469916682215_100000576310394_1504581_1340154442_n.jpg
Verse and music:
Psalm 104:19 He made the moon to mark the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down. Carrie Underwood with Vince Gill How Great thou Art – Standing Ovation! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLMzr3PFgk
bornagain77_{April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PST}

It seems the primary objection they could make is they are talking about a chemical process to produce DNA cells, etc where your example is a mechanical device. They probably both need a designer, but the mechanisms are different to get from a pile of atoms or metal to a cell or a watch.DenJSmith_{April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PST}

Axel in #3
Nurturing a spirit of enquiry in the young didn’t seem to be a pressing priority of his. Naturalists however, would simply stop at, ‘Because’, for want of any idea as to how to answer the question.
Especially if it must be answered scientifically. Rule out the philosophical/metaphysical/theological speculations and they can't answer the question. I'm not even sure that an hypothesis can be formulated to allow for scientific testing. Is "the cosmos is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect" even a scientific hypothesis?DonaldM_{April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PST}

excuse me, I posted the wrong link for establishing a 'true cosmological constant', this is the correct link for the finding of a 'true cosmological constant':
Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room – January 9, 2013 Excerpt: Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters. If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants, (a 'true cosmological constant'), and that is exactly where Einstein stands.” http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dark-energy-alternatives-einstein-room.html
bornagain77_{April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PST}

notes of interest: The precision of the expansion of 4-D space-time itself is found to be to at least 1 in 10^120:
Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (Expansion Of The Universe) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/ That number (1 in 10^120) is so precise that it made some atheists remark,,, Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant - Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) - 2002 Excerpt: "Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,," "A external agent [external to time and space] intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own.,,," Page 21 "The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't live in a universe with a true cosmological constant". http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf
But of course the atheists were shown to be wrong, and we now know that we are indeed dealing with a 'true cosmological constant':
Time Asymmetry: Time's Quantum Arrow Has a Preferred Direction, New Analysis Shows - (Nov. 19, 2012) — Excerpt: Time marches relentlessly forward for you and me; watch a movie in reverse, and you'll quickly see something is amiss. But from the point of view of a single, isolated particle, the passage of time looks the same in either direction. For instance, a movie of two particles scattering off of each other would look just as sensible in reverse -- a concept known as time reversal symmetry.Digging through nearly 10 years of data from billions of particle collisions, researchers found that certain particle types change into one another much more often in one way than they do in the other, a violation of time reversal symmetry and confirmation that some subatomic processes have a preferred direction of time. Now the BaBar experiment at the Department of Energy's (DOE) SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory has made the first direct observation of a long-theorized exception to this rule. Reported this week in the journal Physical Review Letters, the results are impressively robust, with a 1 in 10 tredecillion (10^43) or 14-sigma level of certainty -- far more than needed to declare a discovery. "It was exciting to design an experimental analysis that enabled us to observe, directly and unambiguously, the asymmetrical nature of time," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121119094627.htm
Here are the verses in the Bible that Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the 4-D space-time of the universe by 'Dark Energy', that speak of God 'Stretching out the Heavens'; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of those group of verses:
Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.
Moreover our best man-made precision for keeping time is:
Precision measurement of an atomic transition - December 6, 2012 Excerpt: Today's global positioning system (GPS) relies on rubidium and cesium atomic clocks aboard satellites. These clocks (are) precise to about one second per 30,000 years,,,. Currently, the most accurate clock in the world is located at NIST in the lab of 2012 Nobel Prize recipient David Wineland. He uses quantum logic and an atomic ion to make a clock that is off by only one second over about 4 billion years.,,, (or 1 in 10^17) http://phys.org/news/2012-12-precision-atomic-transition.html
Of note: the most precise man-made machine is the 1 in 10^22 - gravity wave detector (per Hugh Ross). Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/
supplemental notes:
Surreal Animation Of Time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDnt-JnatxY Baja California Timelapses - video (speaks a tension between time and timelessness that brings a holiness to mind and eye) http://vimeo.com/11892211
Verse and music:
Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. Chicago - Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBuUUBrC9eQ
bornagain77_{April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PST}

I suspect that, like an uncle of mine, when I asked him questions, they would answer: 'Because'...... Nurturing a spirit of enquiry in the young didn't seem to be a pressing priority of his. Naturalists however, would simply stop at, 'Because', for want of any idea as to how to answer the question.Axel_{April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PST}

JDH - Exactly my point! Well put!DonaldM_{April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PST}

I would state the argument slightly differently. We know the Omega watch exists. Anyone who admits that the Omega watch needs any intelligent design at all should be a believer in Intelligent Design. I like to put it this way. Evolution ( uppercase E ) is the belief that everything in the world evolved by blind chance. evolution ( lowercase e ) is the belief that some things evolve over time by blind chance. Intelligent Design ( uppercase ID ) is the belief that the universe was created by a Designer (uppercase D ). intelligent design ( lowercase id ) is the belief that some things in the universe ( like the Omega watch ) were created by a designer. The interesting thing is that if you are truly honest. ID being true allows both e, and id to take place. E being true disallows id and only allows e. So if E is true, the Omega watch was made by pure chance.JDH_{April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply