MATHEMATICS IN NATURE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN

[Radrook]

Only takes one to evade.

Yikes! Just nicked myself while shaving with my blade!

 

[Radrook]

This will be entertaining.

Why! Thank you for not flaming!

 

[bhsmte]

Why! Thank you for not flaming!

Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[Radrook]

Thanks for the entertainment.

Better entertained than have your arguments proven lame.

 

[bhsmte]

Better entertained than have your arguments proven lame.

Arguments people refuse to support, can be highly entertaining.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The way we see it is that the laws of physics were established by the designer and he knew that such laws were going to produce microscopic works of art.

BTW
At 3:39 of the following video

it says that a lot of factors which scientist don't even understand are involved.

So we take the following view:

-_- art is a human construct, and it's entirely subjective what people find attractive and unattractive. Crystalline structures are a matter of basic chemistry, if they spelled out words, perhaps you could infer purpose to them, but they don't do so naturally.

Also, how crystals form is very well understood, so that video has no business trying to claim a bunch of factors are involve that aren't understood. We understand it down to the molecules.

 

[Radrook]

-_- art is a human construct, and it's entirely subjective what people find attractive and unattractive. Crystalline structures are a matter of basic chemistry, if they spelled out words, perhaps you could infer purpose to them, but they don't do so naturally.

Also, how crystals form is very well understood, so that video has no business trying to claim a bunch of factors are involve that aren't understood. We understand it down to the molecules.

I don't see how understanding things nullifies the evidence of an intelligent designer unless you are ignorantly imagining that we are suggesting that the designer must be involved in every single snowflake and was incapable of setting things to work automatically. If that is what you imagine then you are arguing against your own idea and your attempted rebuttal is straw man.

BTW
We keep explaining this same thing over and over to you and you still keep coming back with the same straw man argument over and over. Why?

 

[PsychoSarah]

But unlike you who prefer to see just blind chance arrangement of laws which just so happen to produce these works of art, I prefer to see the hand of a designer who made nature to behave in that particular manner in order to produce works of art if you done mind.

-_- it's only art to you because you view it as such personally, it's not an objective quality to anything.

 

[Radrook]

-_- it's only art to you because you view it as such personally, it's not an objective quality to anything.

I never claimed that appreciation of art is objective.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I never claimed that appreciation of art is objective.

I'm not just saying that the appreciation of art is subjective, I am stating that what is considered art in the first place is subjective, and never an inherent quality anything has.

 

[lesliedellow]

The relationship of mathematics to the natural world is an interesting philosophical question. One thing we must realize is that mathematics is a human invention.

Most mathematicians are Platonists. In the light of Godel's theorem, you either have to say that there are some true propositions in mathematics. which can't be proven to be true, or you have to say that there are some propositions in mathematics which are neither true nor false. Most mathematicians would go for the former, which implies that mathematical propositions must refer to things which have some kind of concrete existence.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't see how understanding things nullifies the evidence of an intelligent designer unless you are ignorantly imagining that we are suggesting that the designer must be involved in every single snowflake and was incapable of setting things to work automatically.

The latter part of you post seems to be saying that you think the 'designer' is capable of letting things happen according to the laws 'it' has put in place without the need to tinker.

Seems compatible with theistic evolution.

 

[Radrook]

The latter part of you post seems to be saying that you think the 'designer' is capable of letting things happen according to the laws 'it' has put in place without the need to tinker.

Seems compatible with theistic evolution.

It is compatible unless we begin introducng all kinds of probabilities where the designer is cunningly nullified and becomes no designer at all. Also, I am not saying that I accept or am proposing this interpretation. I am only saying that it is compatible with an intelligent designer perspective.

 

[Radrook]

I'm not just saying that the appreciation of art is subjective, I am stating that what is considered art in the first place is subjective, and never an inherent quality anything has.

Our entire perceived universe or reality is subjective in that way. Sweetness, loudness, roughness, aromas, stenches, brightness, darkness, height, depth, wideness, length, broadness, hotness, coldness, whiteness, blackness, and all other concepts which we call reality are all subjectively dependent on our conceptual evaluation. Apart from that they are merely interpretational possibilities totally dependent on who or what might chance to encounter them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is compatible unless we begin introducng all kinds of probabilities where the designer is cunningly nullified and becomes no designer at all. Also, I am not saying that I accept or am proposing this interpretation. I am only saying that it is compatible with an intelligent designer perspective.

It seems to me that following everything you've said about this subject till now... EVERYTHING is compatible with a "designer".

Because whenever any type of dificulty or what-have-you is encountered, you just shrug your shoulders and say "that's just how the designer made it".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Our entire perceived universe or reality is subjective in that way. Sweetness, loudness, roughness, aromas, stenches, brightness, darkness, height, depth, wideness, length, broadness, hotness, coldness, whiteness, blackness, and all other concepts which we call reality are all subjectively dependent on our conceptual evaluation. Apart from that they are merely interpretational possibilities totally dependent on who or what might chance to encounter them.

The length represented by 3.54 centimeters isn't exactly a subjective thingy.

 

[Jimmy D]

Also, I am not saying that I accept or am proposing this interpretation.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Radrook]

I'm not surprised.

I am trying to clarify my position in order to prevent misunderstanding. What exactly is it that you find perplexing now?

 

[Jimmy D]

I am trying to clarify my position in order to prevent misunderstanding. What exactly is it that you find perplexing now?

Sorry, I probably sounded a bit rude there.

I'm not perplexed though, as has been mentioned it seems as if you go out of your way to avoid clarifying your position, that was another example.

unless you are ignorantly imagining that we are suggesting that the designer must be involved in every single snowflake and was incapable of setting things to work automatically.

This post suggests that you believe a designer sets things up to work automatically and has no need to constantly tinker. Great, but then you go on to say this...

Also, I am not saying that I accept or am proposing this interpretation. I am only saying that it is compatible with an intelligent designer perspective.

But you did propose (albeit indirectly) and it seems like an approach that would be consistent with science and theology, to me at least.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is compatible unless we begin introducng all kinds of probabilities where the designer is cunningly nullified and becomes no designer at all. Also, I am not saying that I accept or am proposing this interpretation. I am only saying that it is compatible with an intelligent designer perspective.

What wouldn't be compatible with a designer?

If we found that the bacterial flagellum did evolve through a step wise process through the natural processes of random mutations and natural selection, would that falsify a designer?