Intelligent Design

[djswan]

Thanks Mother's are the stonger species. I picked up a cold at the birthing center. snivel snivel.

If God exist he's a she. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature, I've been told since I was knee high to a grasshopper.

Karly is the first name. still working on the middle

I could use a good compagnon, if there is one available in France, willing to come to Montana.

still tire and now sick

Derek

[usarender]

Now that is Intelligent Design for ya, at it's best.

[usarender]

Michael Turner, from the University of Chicago, says the significance of this discovery cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology. As to how holy of a grail we're talking about, George Smoot, who led the team of 30 American astrophysicists who made the discovery said, “What we have found is evidence of the birth of the Universe. It's like looking at God.”

Conclusive proof that the universe was created.

Exotic Matter

-The delicate balance of vast forces in the universe,
necessary for life to exist.

-Why planet earth is so extremely special in its ability
to support life.

-The very measurement of the entire universe in all its
magnificence, made possible only within the last 15 years."[/i]

http://www.CosmicFingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

The Day They Found 90% of the Universe

Now, what exactly was it that these astronomers discovered? They found 90% of the universe. Any day that you find 90% of the universe is a red-letter day. What they essentially found was a new kind of matter.

[djswan]

[Antisthenes]

"The New York Times has up a story about a paper published in 1955 by Homer Jacobson, a chemistry professor at Brooklyn College. The paper, entitled 'Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life', speculated on the chemical qualities of earth in the Hadean time, billions of years ago when the planet was beginning to cool down to the point where, as Dr. Jacobson put it, 'one could imagine a few hardy compounds could survive.' Nobody paid much attention to the paper at the time, but today it is winning Dr. Jacobson acclaim that he does not want — from creationists who cite it as proof that life could not have emerged on earth without divine intervention. So after 52 years, he has retracted the paper. 'Dr. Jacobson's retraction is in "the noblest tradition of science," Rosalind Reid, editor of American Scientist, wrote in its November-December issue, which has Dr. Jacobson's letter. His letter shows, Ms. Reid wrote, "the distinction between a scientist who cannot let error stand, no matter the embarrassment of public correction," and people who "cling to dogma."'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25jacobson.html

[P.C.]

It's just strange that as an artist and designer who took up the challance and delivered something better than zero thickness domes and silli polymesh shells , then it is the "claver" engineers who can not get into their concrete heads, that new must come and the computer easily can generate a genuine 3dh for allmost anything, --- from that side I met all the stupid claims, all the yellow responses, even had a few dirty mails in my mailbox for, for happily sharing a great idear.......

Those who shuld stand for objectivity are among the vorse yellow ; robbing and stealing intelectural property while pictures show their architect partners robbing a great idear and winning contests but to stupid to make use of it and ruining the vision by building without knowleage and inspiration, ----- tell me who acted most honest and allowed the credit here in this fora `?

[Antisthenes]

me?

[usarender]

Science as we see it today is inevitably involved in a dual sided arrangement of arguments that at times seek to maintain the established ingrained ideas of Darwinistic origin, considered at times more politically correct to some and at other times defends a new vision of the origin of the universe. This new vision, growing in awareness and acceptance, projects a growing amount of information that at times can seen troublesome to some, and even when it makes reference to more opposite end advocates, can at times provoke some to a sense of embarrassment. Thus, ones pre established view on in the scientific arena brings about a disposition to either defend or eliminate the evidence that can prove to the contrary. It becomes at these times convenient to brush of the data as a mistake, as a mis statement or as an non politically correct view, thus creating the need to resolve the tension. At times, it can lead to drastic reformulations, as illustrated in the case of Einsteins original postulations and his later admission of the insertion of a " fudge factor". At the start his reluctance to admit to the possibility of a creator led to this mistake. Later in life, as shown, he admited to the same and changed his position strongly in favor of ID. So this is no surprise that some scientists should attempt to reverse their theories either in favor or against ideas they do not wish to admit to or that may not seem politically correct.

As shown in the link posted above earlier today -->>

" We can do the same thing with the galaxies in the universe. We can measure their positions and their velocities and calculate the moment that the “pin” was pulled on the entire universe.
As Einstein pointed out, the significance is that the universe has this moment of pin pulling. It has a beginning. Through the principle of positive fact, if the universe has a beginning, it must have a beginner, hence the existence of God.
To his dying day, Einstein held to his belief that as the result of the verification of his theory of General Relativity, God exists. God created the universe and God is intelligent."

[P.C.]

Yes it is very fine , Einstein's humble attitude is most apriciated and I think a pointer to how much further knowleage was brought and yet only a small step before we would understand it all, if one an ever would be.
But it was method that brought him there, now what is it that shuld be wrong with that method, I still don't see it.

[Antisthenes]

usa you are so full of shit who beat this into you?

[usarender]

As can be seen, some are so full of this particular interpretation of Darwin and their mind is so made up, that they not willing to examine the evidence to prove otherwise. Now, Darwin's theories need not be interpreted or applied in the same way as many have done.

[P.C.]

What is it about "this Darvin stuff" -- Darvin was deeply religious so was a lot of scientists even Einstein, science is data and not belive how can religious interfere there, belive is no enemy of science it just make bad science as science is not about beliving but proving.

[usarender]

Scientific Evidence for ID

What we’ve discovered in measuring the universe is that the third assumption of Emanuel Kant; that we have infinite time, the universe is static and that we have an infinite supply of building blocks for life isn’t true.

We proved that the universe isn’t static, that time isn’t infinite. It’s finite. The age of the universe is only 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds (10 to the 18th power).

We also discovered that we do not have an infinite supply of building blocks. In fact, we discovered that it takes exquisite design to get any building blocks at all. Molecules, without which, life is impossible.
Atoms must be able to assemble in the molecules in order to gain sufficient complexity for life chemistry to proceed. That applies to any conceivable kind of life.

Unless the force electromagnetism takes on a particular value, molecules won’t happen. Take the nucleus of an atom. There’s an electron orbiting that nucleus. If the force electromagnetism is too weak, the electron will not orbit the nucleus.
There won’t be sufficient electromagnetic pull to keep that electron orbiting the nucleus. If electrons cannot orbit nuclei, then electrons cannot be shared so that nuclei can come together to form molecules. Without molecules, we have no life.

If the force electromagnetism is too strong, the nuclei will hang onto their electrons with such strength that the electrons will not be shared with adjoining nuclei and again, molecules will never form. Unless the force electromagnetism is fine-tuned to a particular value, the universe will have no molecules and no life.

We also have a problem in getting the right atoms. Now take a neutron and a proton. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which is the strongest of the four forces of physics.

If the nuclear force is too strong, the protons and neutrons in the universe will find themselves stuck to other protons and neutrons, which means we have a universe devoid of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the element composed of the bachelor proton. Without Hydrogen, there’s no life chemistry. It’s impossible to conceive of life chemistry without Hydrogen.

On the other hand, if we make the nuclear force slightly weaker, none of the protons and neutrons will stick together. All of the protons and neutrons will be bachelors, in which case the only element that would exist in the universe would be Hydrogen, and it’s impossible to make life if all we’ve got is Hydrogen.

How sensitive must this strong nuclear force be designed for life to exist? It’s so sensitive that if we were to make this force 3/10 of 1% stronger or 2% weaker, life would be impossible at any time in the universe.

We also have a problem with the protons and the neutrons themselves. The neutron is 0.138% more massive than the proton. Because of this, it takes a little more energy for the universe to make neutrons, as compared to protons. That’s why in the universe of today we have seven times as many protons as neutrons.

If the neutron were 1/10th of 1% less massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so many neutrons that all of the matter in the universe would very quickly collapse into neutron stars and black holes, and life would be impossible.

If we made the neutron 1/10th of 1% more massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so few neutrons, that there wouldn’t be enough neutrons to make Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, etc. These are the elements that are essential for life. So, we must delicately balance that mass to within 1/10th of 1%, or life is impossible.

With electrons we see an even more sense of the balance. In order for life to exist in the universe, the force of gravity must be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It’s essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics.

Yet planets, stars and galaxies will not form unless gravity is dominant in the universe, so the universe must be set up in such a way that the other forces of physics cancel out and leave gravity, the weakest of the forces, dominant.

It’s necessary for the universe to be electrically neutral. The numbers of the positively charged particles must be equivalent to the numbers of negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will never form. If they don’t form, then clearly life is impossible.

The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37th power). That number is so large that it’s difficult for laymen to get a handle on it. So I compare that number with another very large number - the national debt.

The national debt stands at $5,000,000,000,000. One way to visualize this is to imagine we cover one square mile of land with dimes piles 17 inches high. We can pay off the entire national debt with a pile of dimes 17 inches high in one square mile.

That’s truly a lot of dimes. Out national debt problem is serious. But to get 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, we would have to cover the entire North American continent with dimes, but 17 inches high won’t do.

We’d have to cover the entire North American continent from here all the way to the moon. That’s a 250,000-mile high pile of dimes covering 10,000,000 square miles, and you’d have to do that with a billion North American continents from here all the way to the moon. That is one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37th power).

To give you an idea, imagine that in those piles of billions of dimes, there’s one dime colored red. If you were to randomly shuffle your way through those billions of dimes blindfolded, and you choose one dime, the odds that you would pick up that one red dime is one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Another way of looking at this incredible fine-tuning of the universe in this one characteristic is to compare it with the very best that we humans have achieved. It’s not built yet, but towards the end of this year, a machine will come online at Cal Tech. This machine will have the capacity to make measurements to within one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 23rd power). The best machine man has ever designed.

But the very best machine that man has ever designed, with all of our money, technology and education, falls one hundred trillion times short of the level of fine-tuning that we see in just this one characteristic of the universe.

Astronomers have discovered that the total mass of the universe acts as a catalyst for nuclear fusion and the more massive the universe is, the more efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. If the universe is too massive, the mass density too great, then very quickly all the matter in the universe is converted from Hydrogen into elements heavier than iron, which would render life impossible because the universe would be devoid of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.

If the universe has too little mass, then fusion would work so inefficiently that all that the universe would ever produce would be Hydrogen, or Hydrogen plus a small amount of Helium. But there again, the Carbon and Oxygen we need for life would be missing.

If the universe is too old or too young, life is impossible. Only spiral galaxies produce stars late enough in their history that they can take advantage of the elements that are essential for life history, and only 6% of the galaxies in our universe are spiral galaxies. Of those 6%, you must go with galaxies that produce all of the elements that are essential for life. It’s not that easy.

..............

What does location have to do with it? Life is impossible in the center of our galaxy, or in the heel of our galaxy. It’s only possible at a distance 2/3 from the center of our galaxy. "

http://www.CosmicFingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

This fine tuning of the universe is so incredible.

The bottom line to all of this is that we have 41 characteristics of the solar system that must be fine-tuned for life to exist. But even if the universe contains as many planets as it does stars, which is a gross overestimate in my opinion, that still leaves us with less than one chance in a billion trillion that you’d find even one planet in the entire universe with the capacity for supporting life.

So with 41 characteristics necessary for life so fine tuned to such an extreme degree of precision, where even the minutest altering of one figure of precision would mean chaos, that shows and proves ID in our existence on planet earth and in the existence of the cosmos. If we were to develop a mathematical model to calculate the probability of all these 41 figures to align themselves spontaneously by chance with that degree of precision, we would end up with a mind boggling number of improbability so large that there is no reason anyone can conceive it would occur simply by chance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[P.C.]

But what to use it for --- say you can prove these things, then what ; please understand my question what is the results to reach, what shal the children learn in school, are they going to learn all the arguments against Darvinism or is there an agenda to replace science with religion ?

[usarender]

Some still do not get it. Scientific data on the universe pointing to the existence of ID and religion are two separate elements. Now if there is scientific evidence to prove the universe had a beginning, and that it was designed by an intelligence, this is not religion. It is science. Some still confuse religion with science. The universal designer does not want us to pursue religion, but to believe in the evidence that points to the facts. Darwinism as we interpret it today is flawed and neither man nor the universe could simply appear spontaneously by chance. As demonstrated above, the data and the mathematics of the system we live in point undeniably to the existence of ID. Just as the media, society and many do, an attempt is made to confuse the data, present an evolutionary view that is dubbed as true science, while all the data to prove man and the universe could not just have appeared spontaneously is banned from classrooms and people dub this as "religious" . This is one of the greatest errors of current times, and children as well as students continue to be blinded by a system that allows the spreading of false information while the alternate scientific data to prove otherwise is not being allowed to be shown to children. This is a brain washing of entire generations, teaching the ultimate dogma of "Darwinism", as the fascist governments have done and continue to do, ignoring our rights to know the truth. Our very constitution reads

" That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Now, our very constitution teaches the existence of a creator. This is not preaching a religion, it is based on scientific fact. And now they are trying to take away our constitutional right, as a nation, to believe in this creator and do so in public places, the very places that should uphold the constitutionally established views whereupon this country was founded. The right to believe what one believes and not banish this from public opinion or public places as is being done today. Each state, each city should be allowed to decide what they wish to believe and what can be teached wherever they wish it teached. It is not for society or a government to banish our constitutionally established beliefs and rights as citizens of a free country, who have a right to believe what they wish and these rights cannot simply be taken away in favor of an atheist, god devoid man centered theory of evolution.

Those who accuse others of being "brain washed" by believing in ID, are the ones truly "brained washed" by the media, by the government, by the institutions, by other scientists, by public opinion, by peer pressure, by their own refusal to analyze the facts and by their spiritual incapacity to accept anything beyond their own sensory experience.

============================================================================================

The Development of a System of AI for Design Practice

Now, in the development of this system of AI, we can come nowhere even close to this level of precision, but the need for ID in this system to be developed has been established. Now only remains for us to program the system to allow this AI to interact with the creative process of our minds in the new language we program into this new creative design tool.