DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

This was a scientific thread with religious implications.  Then I was asked religious questions which is understandable.

lol

That badge would make him grossly overqualified to be a creation "scientist"

LOL

---

I wonder how many geneticists, biologists, engineers, archaeologists, and theologians are in this thread.  I wonder how many have PhDs in their field.  You guys make it as if you do not hold one of these credentials then your opinion doesn't matter which is not true.

---

What are your credentials?

Physics engineer with a PhD on fusion plasma diagnostics, here!  
Your turn.

Very nice.  Great work.  I'm a mechanical engineer with a BSME.  I have 15 years experience as a design engineer, team leader, and systems engineer for the US government as a civilian.

---

That badge would make him grossly overqualified to be a creation "scientist"

You do realize you just insulted yourself and your nutty friends.

It was funny.  I don't have a problem with a little banter being that I am in a atheist forum.

---

My point was things are either designed or not.  Those are the only two options.  Anything not designed, I consider a blind un-directed process.

Well, considering them such is your first mistake.  I've already granted that it was either designed or it wasn't.  That takes no effort to come to that conclusion.  The question is what evidence do you have that it couldn't have resulted from similarly natural processes.  Your previous complaint was that because they are undirected -- they're not -- that they couldn't produce the functional information in DNA.  I pointed out that such processes do create functional information, so that reason alone doesn't justify believing that such processes cannot produce DNA or functional information.  So you still haven't provided reasons or evidence that shows that such processes could not produce the functional information in DNA.  Until you provide something that does show this, your belief that it cannot do so rests on nothing, and your belief that it cannot do so is irrational.  If that belief is irrational, and your argument for God rests on that, then your argument for God is irrational.  You have given us no reason to believe God exists and every reason to dismiss your belief that DNA proves that he exists.  You're going to have to do better than that.

This is about the umpteenth time I've asked you and so far you've provided squat.  Do you have evidence or reasons which show that DNA could not have been produced by natural processes?

Yes, DNA is a functional code that programs an assembly line construction of amino acids to parts which are then formed into proteins by a barrel shaped machine.  The protein construct is then transported to the cell to perform its function.  This is manufacturing engineering 101 at a nano-scale.  This did not come about by chance alone which is all natural causes are.

[pocaracas]

Physics engineer with a PhD on fusion plasma diagnostics, here!  
Your turn.

Very nice.  Great work.  I'm a mechanical engineer with a BSME.  I have 15 years experience as a design engineer, team leader, and systems engineer for the US government as a civilian.

Oh... experience... well, I finished my PhD in 2010, having worked in 2 different European fusion devices, W7-X and ISTTOK, and have since worked on the development of a local data acquisition system for ITER, but have mainly been working for JET's infrared, reflectometer and bolometer diagnostics.
You now have 2 minutes to discover my real name... let google be your friend.

[CDF47]

My point was things are either designed or not.  Those are the only two options.  Anything not designed, I consider a blind un-directed process.

To bad for you, your position is well-known to science to be false. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Order arises spontaneously in this universe.

There is order in this universe that is beyond the random chance it should be.  There is far far too much order.  The universe should be mostly chaotic with just small appearances of order but that is not what is found.  Instead, order in magnitudes beyond comprehension is found everywhere, clearly pointing to a designer.  Please open your eyes.

---

Sorry for my tardy response!  The holidays were a blur, as I'm sure you can relate! So, I'm hoping that you don't mind if I critique some of the logic you've laid out in your response above.  Please understand, I am not criticizing you as a person, nor your emotions as they relate to this experience with your dad.  I don't find pleasure in putting others down, but I do think that it is fair to critique an idea or a belief, which is what I will do here. Though you did not explicitly state as such, you seem to be suggesting that because your father recovered after the doctors began praying for him, this would indicate that the cause of his subsequent recovery was the prayer itself.  I'm not sure if you are familiar with logical fallacies, but there is one here.  In plain language, this is a, 'after it, therefore because of it', fallacy.  In other words, just because event B follows event A, this does not necessarily mean that event A caused event B.  You would need some supporting evidence for this proposition, and/or be able to demonstrate that you have ruled out other possible causes for your father's recovery; for example, a currently unknown, yet natural cause. This point circle's us back to my original question to you: how can we determine what point is the "point of no return", as you put it? Since we both agree that rare, naturally caused medical phenomena do occur, by what method can we reach the conclusion that an affliction is 'beyond the point of a rare, yet naturally caused healing, and requires a miracle?'  If we have no method by which to make this distinction, than we can never reasonably conclude that a miracle had to be the cause. We can’t even conclude that was most likely the cause. Does that make sense?  Would you agree with me when I say that a reliable methodology is crucial to reaching conclusions that are highly likely to be true?


Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly: you're saying that these experiences and interventions by god, don't necessarily lead people to a specific religion, but rather, to the more general notion that things happen to us for a reason that is important to our own individual experience with god. Would that be a correct summation of what you said above?  Please correct me if I've misunderstood.  I think that, as you said, if we assume for the sake of the argument that a personal god does exist, and does intervene in the lives of humans, than your point is a reasonable one, yes. 

Feel free to respond at your leisure, and I hope you had a nice Christmas!


Well, I'm married with two young boys.  I'm a dietitian, but currently a stay-at-home mom for the kids until everyone is in school.  I was raised Christian (Episcopalian), but Christianity fell apart for me in my late teens.  I was in sort of the, "I'm not sure what's out there, but I'm not really interested in thinking about it too hard" camp until about a year after the birth of my first son.  For some reason I started spending many nights awake perseverating on that very question, and I came to the conclusion that I didn't have any reasons or evidence to hold onto a belief in god, and it just sort of fell away.  I grieved that loss for a long time, but this community has helped me process that grief, and has been personally fulfilling on a number of levels.  The people here have become an important part of my life.  Hope that helps you understand me a little better!  What about you? Any kids?  What do you do?  Do you identify as a member of a specific religion?

Sorry for the late response. This thread seems to grow rather quickly and I didn't realize there was a response, the I had to go back and find it when you mentioned it.

- I would have to sorta agree and disagree with your initial statement.  I agree that it wasn't conclusive, but I had also mentioned that it was part of a piece of a larger puzzle.  That's how life is and some things we believe or make decisions are the culmination of past events.  It wasn't even at that time when it led me to be more decisive about the whole matter.  Logical fallacies focus on an individual comment or point, and assert that they aren't sufficient on their own.  That doesn't mean the overall idea if false.  As such, I wasn't saying it was meant to be conclusive.  It also wouldn't have been feasible for me to drop everything into one post.  Thanks for sharing this though, and I understand where you are coming from.

- I would agree with your description about what I was suggesting.  I don't believe God asserts less value to someone based on if they are a Christian, an atheist, or hold to any other ideology or belief system.  People often use the term "relationship" because that's the underlying idea.  At face value, a lot of people tend to focus on the idea of sin, morality, and laws.  If I had to describe what is meant by Christianity, my initial thought would be to describe "community."  A church can be a building, but "the Church" is the people under God.  Things like "sin" are more about disinterest.  It doesn't have to be there, but unfortunately it is.  If you swapped the word "sin" with "rebellion" then I think that would be an accurate representation.  We have things we should follow, but we don't always follow them.  It could be for various reasons, but regardless we created a gap that doesn't need to exist.  Reconciliation is how that gap is eliminated.  Not only it is eliminated, but it is said to be forgotten.  The Bible describes it as being cast "as far as the east as from the west" and it's literally forgotten by God.  So overall, the idea is to not have those gaps and to function as a community.  If we follow the same rules, then we have a more functional community.

- I understand where you are coming from.  It's important to ask ourselves what we believe and why we believe it.  I personally believe that it's important to assess personal responsibility. If there is a God, what does that require of me?"  It doesn't necessarily mean I'll get the right answer, but it gives me something to ponder. Equally, I have to ask myself "What is God's responsibility to me if He exists?" I don't believe it's just me seeking, but God seeks us as well.  In all of it, we meet Him somewhere in the middle.  That is relationship.

- So what about me?  Short version, I'm a U.S. Army veteran.  Was married way back during my Army days.  The woman I was married to got pregnant once, but she was on BC, so the baby ended up being stillborn.  I grieved over it because I knew a decision "we" made contributed to what had happened.  The relationship also gradually dissolved due to Army life, conflict with her family, and I was stationed overseas.  I was working long hours, she was bored, and when I got out it all fell apart.  So after that, I went back to college, got a dual degree in the social sciences.  Almost finished a triple, but I was sick of school and just wanted to focus on career.  Worked mostly in severe mental health, mental retardation, and family stabilization.  Had a health issue of my own so I had to take time to recover, but at the same time I didn't want to be stagnant, so I became an independent publisher, and not only began publishing my own work, but maybe 50 or so other authors/writers.  Have been doing that since.  Although I probably sound like I'm a loud mouth here, I'm actually not so much when working with people.  I like to be in the background and helping others shine.  Currently I live in a community with a decent population of military folk and contractors, so I also enjoy helping out neighbors when they're deployed somewhere.  And I can't forget, two hound doggies and two Siamese cats.  They're like kids and follow me around everywhere.

Thanks for your service!  Nice background!

---

Very nice.  Great work.  I'm a mechanical engineer with a BSME.  I have 15 years experience as a design engineer, team leader, and systems engineer for the US government as a civilian.

Oh... experience... well, I finished my PhD in 2010, having worked in 2 different European fusion devices, W7-X and ISTTOK, and have since worked on the development of a local data acquisition system for ITER, but have mainly been working for JET's infrared, reflectometer and bolometer diagnostics.
You now have 2 minutes to discover my real name... let google be your friend.

Impressive.  Sounds like some interesting work.  I did work on combat tanks (future tank and Abrams tank).  I also did facilities engineering.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Very nice.  Great work.  I'm a mechanical engineer with a BSME.  I have 15 years experience as a design engineer, team leader, and systems engineer for the US government as a civilian.

Oh... experience... well, I finished my PhD in 2010, having worked in 2 different European fusion devices, W7-X and ISTTOK, and have since worked on the development of a local data acquisition system for ITER, but have mainly been working for JET's infrared, reflectometer and bolometer diagnostics.
You now have 2 minutes to discover my real name... let google be your friend.

Awesome.  You both seem pretty brilliant.  Guess that goes without saying for most engineers.

---

To bad for you, your position is well-known to science to be false. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Order arises spontaneously in this universe.

There is order in this universe that is beyond the random chance it should be.  There is far far too much order.  The universe should be mostly chaotic with just small appearances of order but that is not what is found.  Instead, order in magnitudes beyond comprehension is found everywhere, clearly pointing to a designer.  Please open your eyes.

---

Sorry for the late response. This thread seems to grow rather quickly and I didn't realize there was a response, the I had to go back and find it when you mentioned it.

- I would have to sorta agree and disagree with your initial statement.  I agree that it wasn't conclusive, but I had also mentioned that it was part of a piece of a larger puzzle.  That's how life is and some things we believe or make decisions are the culmination of past events.  It wasn't even at that time when it led me to be more decisive about the whole matter.  Logical fallacies focus on an individual comment or point, and assert that they aren't sufficient on their own.  That doesn't mean the overall idea if false.  As such, I wasn't saying it was meant to be conclusive.  It also wouldn't have been feasible for me to drop everything into one post.  Thanks for sharing this though, and I understand where you are coming from.

- I would agree with your description about what I was suggesting.  I don't believe God asserts less value to someone based on if they are a Christian, an atheist, or hold to any other ideology or belief system.  People often use the term "relationship" because that's the underlying idea.  At face value, a lot of people tend to focus on the idea of sin, morality, and laws.  If I had to describe what is meant by Christianity, my initial thought would be to describe "community."  A church can be a building, but "the Church" is the people under God.  Things like "sin" are more about disinterest.  It doesn't have to be there, but unfortunately it is.  If you swapped the word "sin" with "rebellion" then I think that would be an accurate representation.  We have things we should follow, but we don't always follow them.  It could be for various reasons, but regardless we created a gap that doesn't need to exist.  Reconciliation is how that gap is eliminated.  Not only it is eliminated, but it is said to be forgotten.  The Bible describes it as being cast "as far as the east as from the west" and it's literally forgotten by God.  So overall, the idea is to not have those gaps and to function as a community.  If we follow the same rules, then we have a more functional community.

- I understand where you are coming from.  It's important to ask ourselves what we believe and why we believe it.  I personally believe that it's important to assess personal responsibility. If there is a God, what does that require of me?"  It doesn't necessarily mean I'll get the right answer, but it gives me something to ponder. Equally, I have to ask myself "What is God's responsibility to me if He exists?" I don't believe it's just me seeking, but God seeks us as well.  In all of it, we meet Him somewhere in the middle.  That is relationship.

- So what about me?  Short version, I'm a U.S. Army veteran.  Was married way back during my Army days.  The woman I was married to got pregnant once, but she was on BC, so the baby ended up being stillborn.  I grieved over it because I knew a decision "we" made contributed to what had happened.  The relationship also gradually dissolved due to Army life, conflict with her family, and I was stationed overseas.  I was working long hours, she was bored, and when I got out it all fell apart.  So after that, I went back to college, got a dual degree in the social sciences.  Almost finished a triple, but I was sick of school and just wanted to focus on career.  Worked mostly in severe mental health, mental retardation, and family stabilization.  Had a health issue of my own so I had to take time to recover, but at the same time I didn't want to be stagnant, so I became an independent publisher, and not only began publishing my own work, but maybe 50 or so other authors/writers.  Have been doing that since.  Although I probably sound like I'm a loud mouth here, I'm actually not so much when working with people.  I like to be in the background and helping others shine.  Currently I live in a community with a decent population of military folk and contractors, so I also enjoy helping out neighbors when they're deployed somewhere.  And I can't forget, two hound doggies and two Siamese cats.  They're like kids and follow me around everywhere.

Thanks for your service!  Nice background!

---

Oh... experience... well, I finished my PhD in 2010, having worked in 2 different European fusion devices, W7-X and ISTTOK, and have since worked on the development of a local data acquisition system for ITER, but have mainly been working for JET's infrared, reflectometer and bolometer diagnostics.
You now have 2 minutes to discover my real name... let google be your friend.

Impressive.  Sounds like some interesting work.  I did work on combat tanks (future tank and Abrams tank).  I also did facilities engineering.

Thanks. When I was in the Army, I was 1st AD, which is armor, so plenty of M1A1's.  We also had a decent amount of mortar carriers.  Favorite thing about the M1 was standing behind one of them in winter.  It's like a super heater on tank steroids.  15 below zero?  No prob!  Stand behind a tank and you'll be warm and toasty.

[Bucky Ball]

To bad for you, your position is well-known to science to be false. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Order arises spontaneously in this universe.

A. You can't tell scientists what they must think.  No one was telling anyone what they must do ... lie, strawman.
B. His position isn't "well-known to science to be false". Actually it is. You didn't read the link. It's also called the fallacy of the excluded middle. How is it YOU didn't recognize a common fallacy ?
C. Order rarely arises spontaneously.  Usually we observe the opposite.  It's called "entropy."  Good word for you to learn so I'll post the definition. Don't bother.

Merriam Webster

Entropy 2b - a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder 

Also, here's a simple explanation from Real Clear Science from their 10 Greatest Ideas in the History of Science


Put simply, entropy is a measure of disorder, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all closed systems tend to maximize entropy. Reversing this ever increasing tendency toward disorder requires the input of energy. That's why housekeeping is so tiresome. Left on its own, your house would get dusty, spiders would move in, and eventually, it would fall apart. However, the energy put into preventing disorder in one place simultaneously increases it somewhere else. Overall, the entropy of the universe always increases.

Too bad for you, (and your stupid dictionaries) the link I posted demonstrates your nonsense to be false.


[/url]
A plot of the Lorenz attractor for values r = 28, σ = 10, b = 8/3


A double-rod pendulum animation showing chaotic behavior. Starting the pendulum from a slightly different initial condition would result in a completely different trajectory. The double-rod pendulum is one of the simplest dynamical systems with chaotic solutions.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. "Chaos" is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, anthropology, sociology, physics,[13] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, and self-assembly processes.

When you grow up, and get all big, and start actually reading some real books, besides your dictionaries, you will find out a lot.

Especially : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly

"Self-assembly is a process in which a disordered system of pre-existing components forms an organized structure or pattern as a consequence of specific, local interactions among the components themselves, without external direction. When the constitutive components are molecules, the process is termed molecular self-assembly.


NC-AFM imaging of the molecular self-assembly process of 2-aminoterephthalic acid molecules on calcite(104).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly#cite_note-3][3]
Self-assembly can be classified as either static or dynamic. In static self-assembly, the ordered state forms as a system approaches equilibrium, reducing its free energy. However, in dynamic self-assembly, patterns of pre-existing components organized by specific local interactions are not commonly described as "self-assembled" by scientists in the associated disciplines. These structures are better described as "self-organized", although these terms are often used interchangeably.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

A. You can't tell scientists what they must think.  No one was telling anyone what they must do ... lie, strawman.
B. His position isn't "well-known to science to be false". Actually it is. You didn't read the link. It's also called the fallacy of the excluded middle. How is it YOU didn't recognize a common fallacy ?
C. Order rarely arises spontaneously.  Usually we observe the opposite.  It's called "entropy."  Good word for you to learn so I'll post the definition. Don't bother.

Merriam Webster

Entropy 2b - a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder 

Also, here's a simple explanation from Real Clear Science from their 10 Greatest Ideas in the History of Science


Put simply, entropy is a measure of disorder, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all closed systems tend to maximize entropy. Reversing this ever increasing tendency toward disorder requires the input of energy. That's why housekeeping is so tiresome. Left on its own, your house would get dusty, spiders would move in, and eventually, it would fall apart. However, the energy put into preventing disorder in one place simultaneously increases it somewhere else. Overall, the entropy of the universe always increases.

Too bad for you, (and your stupid dictionaries) the link I posted demonstrates your nonsense to be false.


[/url]
A plot of the Lorenz attractor for values r = 28, σ = 10, b = 8/3


A double-rod pendulum animation showing chaotic behavior. Starting the pendulum from a slightly different initial condition would result in a completely different trajectory. The double-rod pendulum is one of the simplest dynamical systems with chaotic solutions.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. "Chaos" is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, anthropology, sociology, physics,[13] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, and self-assembly processes.

When you grow up, and get all big, and start actually reading some real books, besides your dictionaries, you will find out a lot.

Especially : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly

"Self-assembly is a process in which a disordered system of pre-existing components forms an organized structure or pattern as a consequence of specific, local interactions among the components themselves, without external direction. When the constitutive components are molecules, the process is termed molecular self-assembly.


NC-AFM imaging of the molecular self-assembly process of 2-aminoterephthalic acid molecules on calcite(104).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly#cite_note-3][3]
Self-assembly can be classified as either static or dynamic. In static self-assembly, the ordered state forms as a system approaches equilibrium, reducing its free energy. However, in dynamic self-assembly, patterns of pre-existing components organized by specific local interactions are not commonly described as "self-assembled" by scientists in the associated disciplines. These structures are better described as "self-organized", although these terms are often used interchangeably.

- No strawman here. You asserted something as being a "well-known belief" in science with something that isn't universally agreed upon by scientists.  You can't assert it as being "well-known" universally when it isn't or you would be telling scientists what they must think.  We think for ourselves based on observations.  For one who claims to be a scientist, you should know that.

- There was no fallacy. He said either something is (designed) or it isn't (not designed).  The second part of his statement was subjective, as indicted by "I consider."

- Chaos theory is one of many theories that attempt to explain things.  In and of itself, it's nothing more than what it claims to be.  For someone who was garbling about "no complexity" it would seem as if you would be someone who would stray away from the idea of chaos theory.

- Nothing you posted that was factual indicated anything I said (actually the dictionary and a science site) refuted anything I said.  You're just looking at a completely different category which focuses more on cause and effect.  Entropy focuses more on how those things change.  You can actually apply the two together without any problem whatsoever.

If the ripple causes a system to weaken in its usefulness, then it has experienced entropy.  Yet, we still have the butterfly effect that set it in motion.  You can also have that ripple cause something to increase kinetically, but once that cause is removed, entropy affects that system.

Example: A man (or woman) plugs in a treadmill.  Entropy occurs at the source of the energy, since it has to be sent to the treadmill to make it run.  The energy causes the treadmill's belt to move, but as soon as you turn it off or unplug it, or even while you're using it, the energy is experiencing entropy.  Which is why to keep that treadmill running, you need a continuous flow of it.  During this whole process, your electric meter is running, and the collection of data will at some point trigger a person or computer in another system, which of course requires energy so as to send that bill to you.  The postman exerts energy to walk to your door and drop off that bill. At some point they will need to replenish that energy by eating as to have more usable energy. That person will also have to rest at some point, during which time the body will go into a "repair mode" that is optimal to that when they are awake. On and on and on and on...

[Abaddon_ire]

Yes, DNA is a functional code that programs an assembly line construction of amino acids to parts which are then formed into proteins by a barrel shaped machine. 

Again with the abject lies.

The protein construct is then transported to the cell to perform its function. 

LIE.

This is manufacturing engineering 101 at a nano-scale.

Lie.

  This did not come about by chance alone which is all natural causes are.

Lie.

As long as you insist on telling whopping porkies, I will point them out. Go <bleep> yourself and the talking unicorn you rode in on. You get no leeway when you obviously lie.

[Bucky Ball]

Too bad for you, (and your stupid dictionaries) the link I posted demonstrates your nonsense to be false.


[/url]
A plot of the Lorenz attractor for values r = 28, σ = 10, b = 8/3


A double-rod pendulum animation showing chaotic behavior. Starting the pendulum from a slightly different initial condition would result in a completely different trajectory. The double-rod pendulum is one of the simplest dynamical systems with chaotic solutions.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. "Chaos" is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:



Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, anthropology, sociology, physics,[13] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, and self-assembly processes.

When you grow up, and get all big, and start actually reading some real books, besides your dictionaries, you will find out a lot.

Especially : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly

"Self-assembly is a process in which a disordered system of pre-existing components forms an organized structure or pattern as a consequence of specific, local interactions among the components themselves, without external direction. When the constitutive components are molecules, the process is termed molecular self-assembly.


NC-AFM imaging of the molecular self-assembly process of 2-aminoterephthalic acid molecules on calcite(104).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly#cite_note-3][3]
Self-assembly can be classified as either static or dynamic. In static self-assembly, the ordered state forms as a system approaches equilibrium, reducing its free energy. However, in dynamic self-assembly, patterns of pre-existing components organized by specific local interactions are not commonly described as "self-assembled" by scientists in the associated disciplines. These structures are better described as "self-organized", although these terms are often used interchangeably.

- No strawman here. You asserted something as being a "well-known belief" in science with something that isn't universally agreed upon by scientists.  You can't assert it as being "well-known" universally when it isn't or you would be telling scientists what they must think.  We think for ourselves based on observations.  For one who claims to be a scientist, you should know that.

- There was no fallacy. He said either something is (designed) or it isn't (not designed).  The second part of his statement was subjective, as indicted by "I consider."

- Chaos theory is one of many theories that attempt to explain things.  In and of itself, it's nothing more than what it claims to be.  For someone who was garbling about "no complexity" it would seem as if you would be someone who would stray away from the idea of chaos theory.

- Nothing you posted that was factual indicated anything I said (actually the dictionary and a science site) refuted anything I said.  You're just looking at a completely different category which focuses more on cause and effect.  Entropy focuses more on how those things change.  You can actually apply the two together without any problem whatsoever.

If the ripple causes a system to weaken in its usefulness, then it has experienced entropy.  Yet, we still have the butterfly effect that set it in motion.  You can also have that ripple cause something to increase kinetically,  but once that cause is removed, entropy affects that system.

Example: A man (or woman) plugs in a treadmill.  Entropy occurs at the source of the energy, since it has to be sent to the treadmill to make it run.  The energy causes the treadmill's belt to move, but as soon as you turn it off or unplug it, or even while you're using it, the energy is experiencing entropy.  Which is why to keep that treadmill running, you need a continuous flow of it.  During this whole process, your electric meter is running, and the collection of data will at some point trigger a person or computer in another system, which of course requires energy so as to send that bill to you.  The postman exerts energy to walk to your door and drop off that bill. At some point they will need to replenish that energy by eating as to have more usable energy. That person will also have to rest at some point, during which time the body will go into a "repair mode" that is optimal to that when they are awake. On and on and on and on...

Chaos Theory is well-known. You obviously are no scientist, as you never even heard of it.
I never said there was "no complexity" ... liar. I said in THIS context it is undefined.
You really should learn to read, some day.

You are in no position to teach anyone anything.
Being a pompous windbag in no way compensates for your obvious ignorance.
As usual, you actually do not address ANY of what is presented.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

- No strawman here. You asserted something as being a "well-known belief" in science with something that isn't universally agreed upon by scientists.  You can't assert it as being "well-known" universally when it isn't or you would be telling scientists what they must think.  We think for ourselves based on observations.  For one who claims to be a scientist, you should know that.

- There was no fallacy. He said either something is (designed) or it isn't (not designed).  The second part of his statement was subjective, as indicted by "I consider."

- Chaos theory is one of many theories that attempt to explain things.  In and of itself, it's nothing more than what it claims to be.  For someone who was garbling about "no complexity" it would seem as if you would be someone who would stray away from the idea of chaos theory.

- Nothing you posted that was factual indicated anything I said (actually the dictionary and a science site) refuted anything I said.  You're just looking at a completely different category which focuses more on cause and effect.  Entropy focuses more on how those things change.  You can actually apply the two together without any problem whatsoever.

If the ripple causes a system to weaken in its usefulness, then it has experienced entropy.  Yet, we still have the butterfly effect that set it in motion.  You can also have that ripple cause something to increase kinetically,  but once that cause is removed, entropy affects that system.

Example: A man (or woman) plugs in a treadmill.  Entropy occurs at the source of the energy, since it has to be sent to the treadmill to make it run.  The energy causes the treadmill's belt to move, but as soon as you turn it off or unplug it, or even while you're using it, the energy is experiencing entropy.  Which is why to keep that treadmill running, you need a continuous flow of it.  During this whole process, your electric meter is running, and the collection of data will at some point trigger a person or computer in another system, which of course requires energy so as to send that bill to you.  The postman exerts energy to walk to your door and drop off that bill. At some point they will need to replenish that energy by eating as to have more usable energy. That person will also have to rest at some point, during which time the body will go into a "repair mode" that is optimal to that when they are awake. On and on and on and on...

Chaos Theory is well-known. You obviously are no scientist, as you never even heard of it.
I never said there was "no complexity" ... liar. I said in THIS context it is undefined.
You really should learn to read, some day.

You are in no position to teach anyone anything.
Being a pompous windbag in no way compensates for your obvious ignorance.
As usual, you actually do not address ANY of what is presented.

Whatever you say champ.

I've known about chaos theory for many years, but not to the extent that I sit in a chair foaming at the mouth over it.  Sometimes you can confuse yourself by adding too many variables to things.  As humans, we act based on what we know, which doesn't require knowledge of everything, and we are all ignorant in certain areas.  I couldn't tell you the first thing about sewing, and once could say I'm ignorant, but life doesn't require me to know the ins-and-outs of it.  At some point you have to move from knowledge to action.  If not, there would be no productivity, then we would exist in a true state of chaos.

The first time I got a flat tire, I didn't know how to change one.  I took the jack and lug wrench out of the trunk of my car, and rather than coming to a rational conclusion as to how to go from A to Z,  I just started applying what I did know, and figured out B-Y.  Analyzed how the jack functioned based on the parts I could manipulate.  I looked at the shape of the bolts on the wheels and matched it up with the shape on the end of the lug wrench.  I even remember making a mistake by jacking up the car first, but it was because I was focusing on the jack in the beginning.  So I backed up and did it right.  Within 10 minutes I had a spare on and was on my way.  The thing is if I sat there indefinitely and never acted, I would've accomplished nothing.

Anyway, the point of this is that I don't know all there is to know about every facet of science, but if I need to know something, I know how to get there, just as I didn't need to be a mechanic to change the tire and move on.

Seems like you're more interested in trying to invalidate me than actually address things.  If I do address something, you disregard it.  So instead of working on it as scientists, we work against it as opponents.  That is your choice.

[Bucky Ball]

Still waiting for the boundaries of complexity (what requires a designer and what doesn't) and a coherent definition of a "god".

BTW, what did you do all day before you discovered AF ?