Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, September 07, 2006

The materialistic alternative to Intelligent Design?

The materialistic alternative to ID is no more than "sheer-dumb-luck" through-n-through. One of the best examples of this is none other than our Earth/ Moon system.

The way the anti-ID scenario has that forming is by a collision of two planetary bodies- the proto-Earth and a "Mars-sized" body not yet locked into a nice orbit (as the planets in our solar system are now). IOW this is "sheer-dumb-luck" at its finest.

And even starting out- the laws that govern nature AND the constants they contain had to have formed/ arisen via "sheer-dumb-luck".

Now the honest thing to do is present this fact to the students. I personally would love to see their faces after they are told that and then informed of the following:

“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”


However students will never learn this because of the dishonest deceptive tactics used by anti-IDists...

19 Comments:

  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    That's possibly the weakest argument I've ever heard.

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another RH who can't face reality? Oh well...

     
  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Perhaps Rich Hughes doesn't like the fact that the anti-ID psoition has been exposed for what it really is- "sheer-dumb-luck". Or is it that he doesn't want the students to find out?

     
  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger C.Loach said…

    who, exactly, is stopping the "students" finding out these amazing facts?

     
  • At 6:25 PM, Blogger biomimetic said…

    Are you saying that the mechanism of ID is not materialistic in nature? If it is not materialistic, then what can it be? Do you mean that the mechanism of ID is magical or supernatural?

    "The way the anti-ID scenario has that forming is by a collision of two planetary bodies- the proto-Earth and a "Mars-sized" body not yet locked into a nice orbit (as the planets in our solar system are now). IOW this is "sheer-dumb-luck" at its finest."

    What do you consider 'lucky' about it? Is Mars 'lucky' to have captured two small asteroids as moons? Is Jupiter much more 'lucky' to have over a dozen moons? Maybe Saturn is extra 'lucky' because it has a pretty system of rings?

    If the processes that formed the planets and moons wasn't materialistic, then what other kind of mechanism do you propose? Would it be magical or supernatural?

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    C.Loach:
    who, exactly, is stopping the "students" finding out these amazing facts?

    Teachers, by not telling them.

     
  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    biomimetic:
    Are you saying that the mechanism of ID is not materialistic in nature? If it is not materialistic, then what can it be? Do you mean that the mechanism of ID is magical or supernatural?

    Design is a mechanism and "supernatural" is irrelevant because all scenarios "turtle down" to something beyond nature.

    "The way the anti-ID scenario has that forming is by a collision of two planetary bodies- the proto-Earth and a "Mars-sized" body not yet locked into a nice orbit (as the planets in our solar system are now). IOW this is "sheer-dumb-luck" at its finest."

    biomimetic:
    What do you consider 'lucky' about it?

    I take you do noy=t know anything about the alleged materialistic scenario. For if you had you would realize the "sheer-dumb-luck" involved.

    biomimetic:
    If the processes that formed the planets and moons wasn't materialistic, then what other kind of mechanism do you propose?

    Design. BTW when I say materialistic that means via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.

     
  • At 4:07 PM, Blogger biomimetic said…

    Design is a mechanism and "supernatural" is irrelevant because all scenarios "turtle down" to something beyond nature.

    Forgive me for my ignorance of the term "turtle down." I tried looking it up but I can't find a good definition. If you mean that every scenario (I read phenomenon) boils down to something outside of nature, I've never seen any rigorous explanation as to why this may be correct.

    I guess that you are saying that the mechanism of the formation of the Earth and moon, nay all stars and planets, is magical or supernatural. Well, I've never seen any evidence of this, but I have seen plenty of plausible models regarding the formation of stars and planetery systems backed up by observational evidence.


    I take you do noy=t know anything about the alleged materialistic scenario. For if you had you would realize the "sheer-dumb-luck" involved.


    No, I know the impactor theory of the formation of the moon. I don't see how a collision of bodies in space constitutes "luck" since collisions happen often and in the physical models of planet formation, they happened very often in the early solar system. It is hypothesized that Uranus is tilted 90 deg on its axis as a result of a collision. Does this make Uranus lucky?


    |If the processes that formed the planets and moons wasn't materialistic, then what other kind of mechanism do you propose?|

    Design. BTW when I say materialistic that means via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.


    I guess I was looking for some detail. But when you say 'non-materialistic' you don't necessarily mean that natural processes weren't involved, just that they have a purpose? Is it possible to you that the naturalistic/materialistic mechanism of planet and moon formation is indeed as the scientific models purport, but that there may be some underlying purpose to it all? I submit that it is highly unlikely to determine the purpose or goal of the existence of planets through scientific means, but the actual mechanism of their formation can be determined this way.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Design is a mechanism and "supernatural" is irrelevant because all scenarios "turtle down" to something beyond nature.

    biomimetic:
    Forgive me for my ignorance of the term "turtle down." I tried looking it up but I can't find a good definition. If you mean that every scenario (I read phenomenon) boils down to something outside of nature, I've never seen any rigorous explanation as to why this may be correct.

    "Boils down to" or "comes down to" would be correct. Scienec has told us, and this is what is being taught in high schools, that the universe, ie nature, had a beginning. Scientists have called this beginning "the big bang". So if the universe had a beginning the cause had to be outside of the universe, ie outside of nature.

    bio:
    I take you do noy=t know anything about the alleged materialistic scenario. For if you had you would realize the "sheer-dumb-luck" involved.

    No, I know the impactor theory of the formation of the moon. I don't see how a collision of bodies in space constitutes "luck" since collisions happen often and in the physical models of planet formation, they happened very often in the early solar system. It is hypothesized that Uranus is tilted 90 deg on its axis as a result of a collision. Does this make Uranus lucky?


    Collisions are accidents. And relying on accidents is nothing more than "sheer-dumb-luck".

    And just think of the accident which is proposed to have caused the earth/ moon system. The Earth had to be in a specific position and at a specific stage of development. The colliding body had to be of a specific mass, not too big, not too small. The collision had to have occurred at just the right angle- a straight on blow wouldn't do it. It had to be a glancing blow, but not too shallow.

    The resulting collision had the throw off enough debris past the Roche limit but not too far as to keep going to the Sun.

    And on top of that the moon had to have had all/ most of its metals stripped away during that episode.

    That makes sense in a design scenario- that being an almost metal-free moon. A moon laiden with metal would not only disrupt our magnetic field it would also give the moon more mass, which would effect its gravitational pull on the Earth.

    And to top it off it just so happens that without the Moon there wouldn't be any life on Earth!

    bio:
    I submit that it is highly unlikely to determine the purpose or goal of the existence of planets through scientific means, but the actual mechanism of their formation can be determined this way.

    Read "The Privileged Planet". The authors have proposed what you just stated was "highly unlikely".

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "So if the universe had a beginning the cause had to be outside of the universe, ie outside of nature."

    You are making an unfounded deduction from very limited data.

    As pointed out previously, there are a variety of valid cosmological models that do not have an absolute notion of beginning. They span from theories that the Big Bang is an event in a larger natural universe to Hawking's boundary-less Big Bang.

    joe g: "And to top it off it just so happens that without the Moon there wouldn't be any life on Earth!"

    Most planetologists do not support that claim. It is an interesting idea, but not universally accepted. The evidence is rather tenuous. That you attempt to draw strong conclusions from such limited data indicates you are attempting to make the data fit your preconceptions. Consequently, you conflate metaphysics with physics.

     
  • At 12:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "So if the universe had a beginning the cause had to be outside of the universe, ie outside of nature."

    Zachriel:
    You are making an unfounded deduction from very limited data.

    Funny that is exactly what I say about you and evolutionism.

    Zachriel:
    As pointed out previously, there are a variety of valid cosmological models that do not have an absolute notion of beginning. They span from theories that the Big Bang is an event in a larger natural universe to Hawking's boundary-less Big Bang.

    Valid? What is your definition of valid? And how do these other ideas not violate the metaphysical boundary?

    joe g: "And to top it off it just so happens that without the Moon there wouldn't be any life on Earth!"

    Zachriel:
    Most planetologists do not support that claim. It is an interesting idea, but not universally accepted.

    Let's look at reality. The physics tell us that without the Moon and our current rate of rotation we would wobble.

    Also in the anti-ID scenario the Earth wouldn't even have a rotation (or very slight rotation) without that alleged glancing blow from the giant impact hypothsis.

    No or slow rotation = no magnetic field, exposure rates (one side facing the Sun the other facing away), etc.

    Ya see Zach, I draw my conclusions from reality. And that is what you have difficulty with.

     
  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g "Funny that is exactly what I say about you and evolutionism."

    That is not an argument. You are claiming the universe *necessarily* had a beginning caused by something outside nature. There is no scientific evidence of this. Though science has made great strides in understanding the Big Bang, it currently stops at the singularity.

    joe g: "Valid? What is your definition of valid?"

    As I had cited Stephen Hawking, one of the world's foremost cosmologists, I would have thought you might have at least attempted to take a look at his theory concerning a boundary-less time condition at the singularity due to quantum fluctuations in the primordial universe. It is consistent with the known evidence, but is still hypothetical as there is yet no way to distinguish this theory from several others, including variations of string theory.

    joe g: "No or slow rotation = no magnetic field, exposure rates (one side facing the Sun the other facing away), etc."

    As nearly all planets have significant rotations, this would be unlikely.

    joe g: "Ya see Zach, I draw my conclusions from reality."

    With all due respect, you seem to have drawn your conclusions then look for evidence to support them.

     
  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawkings' idea is metaphysical. Like it or not. There are other cosmologists who posit a finite universe.

    Zavchriel:
    As nearly all planets have significant rotations, this would be unlikely.

    According to science the Earth owes its rotation to the alleged collision that formed the moon. No collision no rotation. Period end of story.

    Again I will go with reality. And then look at the other rocky planets. Venus, very slow and backwards. Mercury very slow. Mars fast enough but it also has a large obliquity 25-45 degrees.

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Hawkings' idea is metaphysical."

    Hawkings proposed a physical theory. The purpose of proposing such a model is to derive empirical predictions, but those are not yet available.

    joe g: "Like it or not. There are other cosmologists who posit a finite universe."

    Nor did I deny it. There are a variety of Big Bang models with no way to distinguish between them. It is quite possible the natural universe is bigger than the Big Bang. In addition, even if the Big Bang had a beginning in time, causation and time itself are problematic in the singularity.

    joe g: "And then look at the other rocky planets. Venus, very slow and backwards. Mercury very slow. Mars fast enough but it also has a large obliquity 25-45 degrees."

    Let's see. Four rocky planets, all with rotations. Two close to the Sun rotate slowly. Two further away rotate rapidly. It is not known if the Earth had a rotation before the Moon's formation. Rotation is contingent on all the various collisions that made up the planet, and the subsequent history of gravitational interactions, though there would tend to be a net spin in the direction of the primordial nebula.

    Ultimately, you are trying to assert that the Earth is uniquely designed for life. Current understanding is that life will form if there is liquid water available on geological time scales, even if the water is not liquid for significant periods. But the data is still very limited.

    However, there is increasing evidence that Earthlike planets may be common. There is a selection effect of perceiving the universe from the vantage point of a place where life is possible, and a natural tendency to see whatever circumstances the observer finds himself in to be unique. "The universe revolves around me" syndrome, a.k.a. Puddle-logic.

    "It's rather like a puddle waking up one morning. A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: 'This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn't it?... It must have been made to have me in it.'" — Douglas Adams

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Hawkings' idea is metaphysical."

    Zachriel:
    Hawkings proposed a physical theory. The purpose of proposing such a model is to derive empirical predictions, but those are not yet available.

    It cannot be tested. He formed the idea to try to get around an abrupt beginning, which he and others find trouble-some. He is welcome to his ideas. Just don't try to force them on others.

    Zachriel:
    In addition, even if the Big Bang had a beginning in time, causation and time itself are problematic in the singularity.

    I know that. But it is only a problem for anti-IDists.



    joe g: "And then look at the other rocky planets. Venus, very slow and backwards. Mercury very slow. Mars fast enough but it also has a large obliquity 25-45 degrees."

    Let's see. Four rocky planets, all with rotations. Two close to the Sun rotate slowly. Two further away rotate rapidly. It is not known if the Earth had a rotation before the Moon's formation. Rotation is contingent on all the various collisions that made up the planet, and the subsequent history of gravitational interactions, though there would tend to be a net spin in the direction of the primordial nebula.

    If the Earth's rotation were similar to Mecury or Venus there would be no chance for life. If Earth had the obliquity of Mars- same outcome.

    ALL computer "simulations" of the Earth-Moon formation has the proto-Earth with no rotation. There is a reason for that. Actually two reasons. One being with the Earth rotating the sim produces results that aren't liked- no Moon. And if both bodies are rotating forgetaboutit.

    Zachriel:
    Ultimately, you are trying to assert that the Earth is uniquely designed for life. Current understanding is that life will form if there is liquid water available on geological time scales, even if the water is not liquid for significant periods. But the data is still very limited.

    Any truly educated person knows that life is much more than "just add water".

    Zachriel:
    However, there is increasing evidence that Earthlike planets may be common.

    In the design scenario, yes. In the anti-ID scenario, no. That is because of all the factors that are required to be in one place at the same time.

    And when puddles can think Doug Adams may have a point.

    Real people can compare. And right now two books full of scientific data, "Rare Earth" and "The Privileged Planet" demonstrate scientifically how difficult it would be to get Earth-like planets.

    The planet has to form in the galactic habitable zone. It has to form in the circumstellar habitable zone. It needs to be of the right mass. It needs liquid water. It needs plate tectonic recycling. It needs a liquid iron core. That core has to be moving fast enough to generate a magnetic field. It needs a large stabilizing Moon. A stable near-circular orbit. And more:

    Factors required for complex life

     
  • At 5:54 AM, Blogger biomimetic said…

    In addition, even if the Big Bang had a beginning in time, causation and time itself are problematic in the singularity.

    I know that. But it is only a problem for anti-IDists.


    Could you please explain the ID position on the singularity before the big bang?

    I'd also like to note that it is disputed whether there was indeed a singlarity or, as string theorists have posited mathematically, an unstable "brane." In this scenario, from what I understand, there was some sort of (lucky?) collision between branes.

    Scientists have called this beginning "the big bang". So if the universe had a beginning the cause had to be outside of the universe, ie outside of nature.

    Scientists never claimed that the cause of the Big Bang was outside of nature. They just admitted that they didn't know the cause, if there was one. Also, I don't think that they would claim that something outside our universe would necessarily be outside of nature, if there is such a thing. I guess this would all boil down to a semantic argument then.

    Collisions are accidents. And relying on accidents is nothing more than "sheer-dumb-luck".

    Maybe this is more semantics. I guess that when water strikes a rock after falling from a higher rock (waterfall) and smooths it out over time, this is the result of a series of many accidents? Or maybe when flowers are pollinated by bees, this too is an accident, and therefore plants must rely on accidents to reproduce? Unless you propose that these events were set up ahead of time to occur the way they did, much like a bowling ball or a dart being aimed at a target. Perhaps you would propose that the collision that led to the formation of the current Earth/Moon system was aimed like this. I mean, we can measure the recession of the moon's orbit away from the Earth and extrapolate what it's distance would be at points in the past and in the future. The Earth's rotation is also slowing over time and we can extrapolate the length of the day in the past and in the future. Based on this evidence, would an ID hypothesis be that all this was the result of an aimed collision?

    The resulting collision had the throw off enough debris past the Roche limit but not too far as to keep going to the Sun.

    Don't you think that there was a lot of debris, some within the limit that crashed to Earth, some at distances that would lead them to the sun or elsewhere, and the rest congealed into the Moon?

    Now, a really really accurate shot would have given the Earth a pretty permanent ring.

    And on top of that the moon had to have had all/ most of its metals stripped away during that episode.

    If the two colliding bodies had most of their metal at their cores, as the Earth does today, don't you think that most of the debris would be devoid of metal?

    That makes sense in a design scenario- that being an almost metal-free moon. A moon laiden with metal would not only disrupt our magnetic field it would also give the moon more mass, which would effect its gravitational pull on the Earth.

    So what? The tides would be higher?
    And please tell me exactly how the magnetic field would be disrupted and how those disruptions would affect life.

    And to top it off it just so happens that without the Moon there wouldn't be any life on Earth!

    Well, to say there'd be no life at all is strething it. That's not something you have evidence for.

    Also, it would be saying something like the Douglas Adams quote. I pasted it in here, but I see someone beat me to it so I took it out.

    Read "The Privileged Planet". The authors have proposed what you just stated was "highly unlikely".

    Ugh. I've seen the movie at least. They make some sweeping claims that aren't shared by the large majority of scientist. But I knew that's where you got all this.


    The planet has to form in the galactic habitable zone. It has to form in the circumstellar habitable zone. It needs to be of the right mass. It needs liquid water. It needs plate tectonic recycling. It needs a liquid iron core. That core has to be moving fast enough to generate a magnetic field. It needs a large stabilizing Moon. A stable near-circular orbit. And more:

    Have you heard about the hypothesis of small planets orbiting red dwarf stars, not rotating, with one side icy cold and the other, well, habitable? Actually, flares would cause problems (or help with mutations) for the day side, but if there were enough carbon dioxide, the night side would be warm enough to have liquid water. Organisms could thrive on chemosynthesis, much like some do on Earth.

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Again the Doug Adams quote will be relevant when puddles can wake up. Until then using that quote just exposes one's ignorance or justification via fantasy.

    biomimetic:
    Scientists never claimed that the cause of the Big Bang was outside of nature. They just admitted that they didn't know the cause, if there was one. Also, I don't think that they would claim that something outside our universe would necessarily be outside of nature, if there is such a thing. I guess this would all boil down to a semantic argument then.

    That is the point. By trying to define ID out of science by stating it appeals to something outside of nature, is mere semantics.

    Anything outside of this universe would also be outside of this physical realm. Therefore metaphysical.

    Orbitting a Red Dwarf- no rotation no magnetic field, no life.

    On the Moon's metal content affecting the Earth- metals in the presence of magnetic fields disturb that field- that is the basis for metal detectors. The effect on Earth would depend on the amount of metal. The more metal the more mass. More mass more tugging.

    As for "The Privileged Planet" their claims are well supported by the data. And a good researcher follows the data regardless of what others "think". However a good researcher does care about what others can demonstrate.

    Right now we know our solar system is NOT typical. Right now we don't know of any earth-like planets, but we do know what it takes to get one.

     
  • At 7:47 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Earthlike planets may be common

    I would expect that in an ID scenario but NOT in a sheer-dumb-luck scenario.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home