Some friends just sent me this link to a fantastic Java applet put together by the University of Florida at Tallahassee. It should start running automatically for you as soon as you go to the site.
It starts out showing our galaxy as a small object in metagalactic space, then zooms in logarithmically by powers of ten, showing the Milky Way Galaxy close up, then showing the location in the galaxy where we are, then closing in further, and futher, until you see the sun, the solar system, the inner solar system, then it zooms in earth, the western hemisphere, the United States, then western Florida, an aerial view of the University of Florida, then it zooms in further on some vegetation on campus, zooms in so you see an oak leaf, then zooms in until you see microscopic views of increasing powers of the oak leaf, down to the nucleus of a cell, then down to the chromatin in the nucleus, then down to the DNA in the chromatin, on down to a carbon atom, a couple more steps down to the nucleus of the carbon atom, down to the neutron level, and even further down to the quark level. (They may be guessing what the quark level looks like.)
Those individuals who wish to believe that the universe just created itself by chance, could especially benefit from this reality check.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, cool! I always loved the Powers of Ten video. Thanks for the link. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
*watches video*
*checks his reality*
Open your mouth. Say, "Ahhhh"... hmm... hmmm... very interesting.
Well, Bob the Lawyer's reality, I have to say that there does not appear to be a God anywhere inside you.
But thanks for the video anyway Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
That's an awesome video. Thanks for the link.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote:the University of Florida at Tallahassee
Erm?
What is this fictional university?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
THe power of ten is a great book... incidentally, having nothing to do with whether or not god exists.
*Takes reality check, decides Ron needs one of his own*
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
We're like...so far out, man. It's like cool and neato and stuff.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Yeah, that would be The Florida State University. Many Seminoles would be unhappy with your mixup.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Not sure if that reality check convinced me of the existence of a God, but it reminded me of a great Simpsons quote:
"Of course! It's so simple!
No, wait. It's needlessly complicated."
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*is transfixed by video for hours*
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I too am wondering why I'm supposed to believe in God because of that video.
It was cool though.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
How cool is that. I saw something similar at an IMAX.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote: Those individuals who wish to believe that the universe just created itself by chance, could especially benefit from this reality check.
Funny. I don't see how a human-constructed piece of art could convince me that there is any divine "design" behind any of it. That statement was a little presumtious.
People will tend to see their own cosmology defined by such a demonstration.
However I did enjoy the animation. Thanks!
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Wow...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thanks Frisco and Megachirops, it was indeed Florida State University at Tallahassee, not the University of Florida.
The incredible intricacy and complexity of design exhibited by the universe from the cosmic to the sub-quantum level constitutes a powerful argument in favor of the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The stubborn and defiant denials of this by some who claim that it does not impress them that way does not diminish the reasonable power of the argument to anyone who is really willing to be reasonable; it only witnesses to the state of mind of the deniers.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Sorry Ron, that sounds like transferrence to me. Stubborn adhearance to the latter could be considered just the flip side of what you are suggesting. I am more open minded than that. You are jumping to conclusions, and generalizing.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Eslaine, you're just hiding behind psychobabble and unjustified denunciation. My argument is reasonable, and compellingly so. If you wish to dispute it, provide a counter-argument, but don't pretend my argument does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I find your view to be too anthropomorphic. And all people that do not hold your view do not necessarily hold the view as you state it.
When it comes down to it, the question remains just another matter of faith. It is an insoluable problem.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ron, Yyou're argument is only compelling to those who already believe it.
I study physics, so I'm well aware of exactly how intricate the universe is, and it doesn't convince me one iota that we must have a designer. In fact, the more I study, the LESS complex the universe seems.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:"In fact, the more I study, the LESS complex the universe seems."
Paul, that has to be about the most egotistical statement I have ever seen anyone make.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And how, pray tell, is it egotistical?
A LOT of people who study physics feel the same way.
Plus, I think your remark is hypocritical, given your statements on this thread concerning your own argument.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Really, Ron. Paul is mearly using reason to sort out the problem. To deny that reason would not make sense to him.
I am willing to take your view as a possibility, but I am not ready to accept it as absolute, which you seem to do.
[ October 18, 2003, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Paul, you are saying in effect that the universe is simple to you. How smart you must be! How can anyone pretend that is not an inexcusably egotistical boast?
It is irrelevant how many students of physics or astrophysics feel the same way. Self-serving notions that stroke the ego are very enticing to people who have not learned the wisdom of humility, and this can be seen in all disciplines.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I just don't see how learning about the universe to make it seem less complex is egotistical, Ron.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, you are saying in effect that the universe is simple to you. How smart you must be! How can anyone pretend that is not an inexcusably egotistical boast?"
Because this is in fact NOT what I'm saying. I am saying that the more I learn about physics, the less COMPLEX the universe seems. The further you go in understanding the universe, the more you realize that there aren't very many different underlying factors. Physics SIMPLIFIES things. I am not saying the universe is simple to ME. I am saying that the universe is not governed by a complex web of laws that is indeciperhable to anyone but god. It is governed by a few rules, that have some very interesting and complex results.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Perhaps you mean to say "demystify," rather than "simplify." Until you study physics and learn the natural laws that are seen to operate, everything seems like magic.
But there is a bit of self-deception even there. We humans say something is a natural law, when all that means is that is what we have observed seems to occur with repeated regularity. No one knows why it occurs. No one knows what enforces these so-called "natural laws." We just observe that things seem to work this way in a predictable manner, and we feel that we have to some extent "demystified" the universe.
But have we really?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No, I mean simplify. Its a mathematical term.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I take comfort in knowing that Ron won't be giving me orders when the meek inherit the Earth.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
That's very good, Frisco! If I were among the meek, then I wouldn't be giving orders anyway, would I? Or are you suggesting I wouldn't even be there....
Just because I have the nerve to answer back to the secularists and agnostics doesn't mean I'm not meek. Meekness isn't weakness.
Meek as Moses was, he still challenged Pharoah!
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Funny that someone mentioned that Simpson's quote, because i was thinking the same thing. If there was a divine, intelligent being who created it all... why did he make it so complex, exactly?
I bet your God really likes the Rubik's Cube.
edit: you are being fairly caustic Ron, and unecessarily so. There are a good number of "secularists and agnostics" on this board, and atheists as well, and we're not radicals with no logical thought processes. Comparing those disagreeing with you in this thread to the Biblical Pharoah is a bit much, don't you think? If you argue reasonably with us, without snide insults, we'll do the same for you. Your argument is compelling, but you've yet to give me a reason to accept it as fact. But I'm listening.
[ October 18, 2003, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You're not exactly a slave.
You're just trying to insist that a complex universe would somehow be more proof of the existence of a God than a more simple one.
Maybe finding some sort of anomaly in the universe, rather than more that follows the same natural laws, would be a little to work with...but showing the scales on which very similar forces act makes the universe seem more self-made, to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Simplify, as in, reduce the number of variables. Greater scientific understanding certainly does do this, as we grasp more and more how everything in the universe is governed by the same laws.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Leonide, I am not Moses, nor am I calling down plagues on anyone. But Pharoah said: "Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice...? I do not know the Lord...." (Ex. 5:2) That is pretty much what anyone is saying who objects to taking seriously the possibility of the existence of an Intelligent Designer. But it is at least reasonable to consider this possibility, since it is the most reasonable possibility, given the obvious and exceedingly abundantly overwhelming evidence of Intelligent Design in the universe from the cosmic to the infinitesimal.
[ October 18, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
There is no real proof either way. Mearly faith.
Isn't that what Christianity is based on anyway?
But without acknowleging this fact, aren't you lying to yourself? I mean no offense, but really it boils down to whether you believe one way or the other.
The animation is a great example of this. A Creationist may see it as confirmation, when, in fact, it was made by a couple of guys in a computer animation studio. Humans. It could have resolved into tiny angels dancing on the head of a pin, but that wouldn't mean that the animation itself wasn't a work of art, created by men (generic implied, sorry ladies [generic not implied]). We carry all our subconscious ideas into the realm of our art whether intend to or not.
Instead of art, or text, created by men, even if the men have divine inspiration, Physicists observe the universe as objectively as possible. They get some ideas to try and explain their observations, and see that these ideas are consistant with those observations. They are using logic. The problem here comes with interpretation. These Scientists are still men, after all, prone to error, and, in few cases, corruption.
This is the problem of not being able to trust either side of this argument completely.
But my faith feels like it leans toward randomness.
[ October 18, 2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes, there are seeming simplifications. Like, DNA consisting of four bases, adenine, cytosine, guarine and thymine. Yet these are built into genetic codes of immense informational density, equivalent to libraries full of books, and every living thing has its form determined by this extravagantly simple yet incomprehensibly complex code.
As for randomness, the Second Law of Thermodynamics could be expressed as the idea that all things tend toward randomness. But the question is how do we explain the existence of order, on an immense scale of complexity? The pseudo-logic of the mechanistic materialist would have us believe that randomness is responsbile for the creation of non-randomness, that disorder creates order, that nothingness created everything.
I say again, it is time for a reality check.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To use your logic, for there to be something so miraculous as to create the universe, there must be something more miraculous to create it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ron- You aren't convincing anyone of anything. When I look at the universe, I don't see "Randomness." I see a system of laws that work together to weave a beautiful tapestry. They don't explain how the universe came into being, at least, not that we know of yet. But our understanding of the universe around us is growing every day, and we already have hints of possible ways the universe came into existance.
You look at the universe and see this incredible complexity, which is fair. The results of the physical laws around us weave some amazingly complex results. But that doesn't make the universe itself complex. I can program a computer, with only a couple lines, to iterate the same pattern over and over again at increasingly small scales, and get something ridiculously, in fact, infinetely, complex. But the computer is only following amazingly simple instructions.
You look at those infinetely complex results, and imagine the complexity that must have weaved them. I imagine the simplicity of the patterns that are behind them.
I'm sorry, but looking at this from your direction does not a proof make.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm still curious as to why you think the opposite of having a creator would be randomness, Ron.
It must be on faith that you believe this, so trying to convince others using science...well, I don't think it's going to work.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
We actually only have data about this universe, so if it seems complex to you, that's okay because there may be others. Infinitely many others. If you believe in quantum physics and probability, it is possible that every possible event that could have happened did happen, it just resulted in a reality different than the one you currently happen to be inhabiting. So there may be universes where absolutely nothing happens, where there is no life, no simple laws of governance that make everything work. And there may be universes where things are waaaaaaaaaaaay more complex than they are now, and it would take someone Godlike to begin to understand them. All we know is that our universe, with all its rules, seems to work well enough to support our ecosystem and continued existence. Complexity is relative and to say we know how complex a universe has to be to need a god to create it seems very fantastic, and assumes a lot about god(s).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fugu13, I think the most miraculous thing of all would be for nothing to create the universe.
Paul, when you say that I am not "convincing anyone of anything," perhaps you should limit yourself to speaking for yourself.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
See, for me, the biggest miracle would be for nothingness to produce an omnipotent being.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Fractals. This makes me think of fractals. Beautiful, superficially complex. Simple rules.
Divinely created? It's really not clear.
What would God create, if he created the universe? Perfection? Unlikely. I don't even know how you could have perfection and true free will simultaneously. So that leaves us with imperfection. Which is what we'd have, with or without God.
Really, on a biological level, there are countless examples of imperfection. For me, this doesn't indicate a God. Neither does it indicate there isn't a God. It's just, well, how things are. It does lend itself towards the theory of evolution versus strict creationism, however. We can spout out biology examples at each other, but that probably wouldn't get us very far.
So what, DNA uses four bases. If it used six bases, you'd say, "Look! It uses just six bases!" The amino acid encoding pattern doesn't use one codon for each amino acid. It's repetitive. Doesn't that make it less incredible? This is where the anthropic principle comes in. If you don't know of the anthropic principle, I'd rather not mess up the explanation. Here's a definition from a website:
quote:Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so
The Universe had to be made somehow, in order for us to see it. Our dumbfounded awe at its existence would have happened no matter what the Universe ended up looking like.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, I'm afraid the argument you're making just isn't compelling. Your insistence that any intelligent person must agree with you, provided they're being intellectually honest, is very similar to your brother's approach to political issues, but it doesn't necessarily make either of you RIGHT. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, when you say that I am not "convincing anyone of anything," perhaps you should limit yourself to speaking for yourself."
I haven't noticed anyone ELSE who's posted on this thread who started with a position of agnosticism or atheism, and is now convinced.
The argument you are using is elementary. Anyone who is an agnostic or atheist has already encountered it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm still waiting to know why something so amazing as the universe must be created, but an even more amazing omniscient omnipotent atemporal (well, that's the typical view) being doesn't have to be.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
First and foremost, that was a nifty little applet.
Now...
>> Those individuals who wish to believe that the universe just created itself by chance, could especially benefit from this reality check. <<
How many times does "irriducible complexity" have to be reduced? The weak anthropic principle alone is enough to dispense with it as any semblance of a "proof." If things hadn't happened the way they did, we wouldn't be here to observe them. No God required.
>> The incredible intricacy and complexity of design exhibited by the universe from the cosmic to the sub-quantum level constitutes a powerful argument in favor of the existence of an Intelligent Designer. <<
Puh-leeze. Would a random "design" result in a less complex universe? I think not.
>> ...Second Law of Thermodynamics could be expressed as the idea that all things tend toward randomness... <<
"For a closed system, dS/dt >= 0."
That is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Unfortunately, it does absolutely nothing to support your argument.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)