Friday, June 05, 2009

Biomechanics


[a masterpiece of engineering]

One fascinating field of science is biomechanics.

Obviously biomechanics proves that there exists a Supreme Mechanic.

48 comments:

Abe said...

Wrong!
There is no evidence to suggest anything of the kind, other than the inventions of your fertile imagination that demands supernatural justification for everything that your weak and insignifacnt mind can't explain.

Shalmo said...

Jp did you that Fred Hoyle, a secular scientist calculated that the chances of the universe coming into existence by chance are 10 to the 10 to the 120th power?

That number is so huge that if you had any object and multiplied it by that number you would not be able to fit it in the entire universe

And since impossibility in statistics begins at 10 to the -40th or 10 to the +40 power, well I'd say the argument of this universe having an intelligent designer is absolutely irrefutable

But I am also just as certain that this God is not Yahweh or whatever it was Jews called him till they forgot his name.

BlackEyedP said...

obvious? absolutely not.

jewish philosopher said...

"for everything that your weak and insignifacnt mind can't explain"

I can and am explaining it.


"obvious? absolutely not"

Any better ideas? And don't tell me evolution did it. That's just an imaginary atheistic god who has no intelligence and therefore cannot demand anything.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

DrJ said...

As remarkable as the heart seems, it is far from a masterpiece. It is subject to anatomic anomolies, failures, valvular leaks, infections and most of all, interruptions in its blood supply. Coronary Artery Diease is the leading cause of death. (even before half of Americans were fat)

A good designer would do a much better job. In the human world a designer building such an item would be fired. There is no backup system. If its fuel supply is interrupted it fails catastrophically and irreversibly in a few minutes.

But meanwhile it is the best that evolution could come up with, so I can live with that.

jewish philosopher said...

"In the human world a designer building such an item would be fired."

Well, actually, in the human world a designer building such an item would be world famous and very wealthy. It has not yet been done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_heart

I would invite everyone to soberly (completely soberly - not influenced by sex, drugs or alcohol) contemplate the facts for a few moments. Nothing is more obvious than God.

Anonymous said...

Here's an interesting account about physicists being intrigued by the perfection they see in nature:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar50112a001

DrJ said...

"Well, actually, in the human world a designer building such an item would be world famous and very wealthy. It has not yet been done."

Nor has God/evolution produced a transitor radio or an xray machine. It is incapable of producing such a device.

jewish philosopher said...

Nor has God/evolution produced a machine for vaporizing anonymous atheists who post on my blog.

Anyway, the point is that a pump needs a pump maker and therefore obviously an Intelligent Designer made us. The concept that an unintelligent force of a nature created us is just a convenient excuse to get away with murder.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/07/atheists-in-their-own-words.html

Joshua said...

Quite complicated objects can arise naturally. For example, a nuclear reactor is much more complicated than most pumps. Surely a nuclear reactor would should imply a nuclear reactor maker by the same logic. And yet, there are natural nuclear reactors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Simply pointing at something and saying "look! That's pretty gosh-darn complicated!" Is not a good argument.

jewish philosopher said...

No, actually what I am saying is that we never witness a complex mechanism with many parts all working efficiently for a certain purpose form spontaneously. There is always a designer.

Anonymous said...

Joshua

Actually, that natural fission reactor was pretty simple. It just needed unranium ore and groundwater. That heart is a lot more complicated. Now, a man made reactor, that produces usable energy, can only be made by an intelligent designer. If I said I saw something as complex as a nuclear reactor, e.g. a cell, that came about through a purely naturalistic process, you would say that I was crazy.

Joshua said...

Arguments from incredulity aren't valid. And that's precisely what we are seeing here.

If someone claims a complicated object arose naturally and they have an explanation for it then one wouldn't say they were crazy.

Moreover, a heart is moreover a particularly bad example to use. We have many examples of heart variants and have a pretty good understanding of how the heart evolved. Compare for example the classic fish, amphibian and mammalian hearts.

jewish philosopher said...

No, what I'm offering here is not an argument from incredulity. I am not asserting that a proposition must be wrong because I am unwilling to consider that it might be true. I am asserting that a proposition must be wrong because it cannot be true. Unintelligent, natural processes cannot create machines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

As I have explained elsewhere, evolution is clearly a false theory.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

Anonymous said...

I understand that the avain lung presents problems for evolutionists because it is completely different in structure, function and development than reptilian lungs.

Joshua said...

JP, that's identically the same thing. Simply saying "no. it can't happen because I said so" is precisely an argument for incredulity when the justification is that you personally don't understand evolution.

Anonymous, the topic in question is the heart, yes? Don't try to the change the subject please. It gets hard enough to deal with ignorance on one topic without throwing in a lots of others.
(I presume you incidentally that you are referring to the issue of a bellows system as a opposed to an airsack system. The transition of systems in not understood in great detail since lungs don't fossilize well. However, it isn't hard to see how a hybrid system would form or function and in fact many birds do have a system midway allowing specific airsacks or sections of airsacks to correspond to either ingoing or outgoing flow.)

Kirk Cameron Jr. said...

"Arguments from incredulity aren't valid. And that's precisely what we are seeing here. "

In that case maybe JP should change his wording from

"Obviously biomechanics proves that there exists a Supreme Mechanic."

to

"Obviously biomechanics proves that those who insist that these machines are /ultimately/ one cosmic accident have a lot of cognitive dissonance to overcome."

DrJ said...

I just read about how biologists figured out the mechanism whereby the slithering of snakes propels them forward. It's the scales, which have different levels of friction with the ground, depending upon their angle of movement. Thus the side to side movement "pushes" them forward, not unlike ice skating or cross country skiing.

This gave me an insight into the "design" problem. Biological mechanisms seem to "know" the complex laws of physics, chemistry, etc. The body's organs use "knowledge" of fluid dynamics and chemistry in order to fullfill their function. We thus conclude that some being, who "knows" these laws, must have designed them, otherwise how could they have come into being.

But this argument is flawed, because the biological system is no different than any other earthly entity that "knows" the laws of nature. For example, the riverbed "knows" the laws of erosion, gravity, the chemistry of rocks and water, and fluid dynamics. The earth's crust "knows" about plate tectonics, geology etc, otherwise how could it work? A rock sitting on the ground is also a complex machine.

These are all "complex machines" (by JPs definitions) (athough not biological) yet they clearly don't need a designer to occur-- they simply naturally follow the universal laws of physics. So do biological systems. So if you can accept that the laws of nature created and modified volcanos, rivers, and earthquakes, than there's no problem seeing that nature also creates (or at least modifies) life forms.

So yes, nature creates complex machines!! (Just not the artificial man made ones that you specify)

jewish philosopher said...

Let’s say a prosecutor argues “Witnesses saw the defendant at the crime scene and the murder weapon was subsequently found in the trunk of his car with this fingerprints on it. Obviously, he is guilty.”

The defendant argues “The prosecutor is simply arguing from ignorance. He is merely saying ‘no. the defendant cannot be innocent because I said so’”

Clearly, in any court case, no jury would be impressed by this. It is so absurd, it sounds insane. However, in regard to God, this type of argument seems to impress some people. The difference is that in regard to God, we are dealing with people who suffer from addictions, to sex for example, and who therefore are deeply in denial and cannot think rationally. Any nonsense makes sense to them if it permits their bad habit.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/07/jewish-skeptics-and-sex.html

"So yes, nature creates complex machines!!"

A riverbed is a complex mechanism with many parts all working efficiently for a certain purpose? It's just water in a ditch.

DrJ said...

"A riverbed is a complex mechanism with many parts all working efficiently for a certain purpose? It's just water in a ditch."

Who says life has a "purpose"?
What purpose does any living thing have?

From a scientific point of view it has no purpose, it just happens. You are mixing up the "how?" with "why".

Just because you think that a riverbed has no purpose but a living thing does, make you attribute "complexity". A living things is "just a bag of chemicals reacting".

A single molecule of water is infinitely complex with many parts working together. I can ask "what does the electron do?", and similar questions of mechanism, but not "why does the atom exist?". How much more so complex is a riverbed. A living being is just a bit more so, on the continuum.

The watchmaker analogy presupposes a "purpose" because that we know that a watch has a purpose and somebody made it for that reason. But no such condition exists for atoms, volcanoes, trees, or living beings.

Anonymous said...

Joshua:

I confess my ignorance. But my ignorance doesn't make the probelm go away. The problem is that the airsacs don't work without the tubes, and the tubes don't work without the airsacs. That measn that thye both had to evolve simultaniously.

Abe said...

>No, what I'm offering here is not an argument from incredulity. I am not asserting that a proposition must be wrong because I am unwilling to consider that it might be true. I am asserting that a proposition must be wrong because it cannot be true. Unintelligent, natural processes cannot create machines.<

You still have not demonstrated that the proposition must be wrong because it cannot be true.
Essentialy, all you have done is created a circular and artificial tautology based solely on your incredulity. You havn't offered a shred of evidence that a natural process over millions of years, could not have produced an organ as complicated as the human heart.
And you have offered no direct evidence that human organs were created supernaturaly.

Anonymous said...

>However, in regard to God, this type of argument seems to impress some people. The difference is that in regard to God, we are dealing with people who suffer from addictions, to sex for example, and who therefore are deeply in denial and cannot think rationally. Any nonsense makes sense to them if it permits their bad habit<

However, in regard to belief in God, this type of argument seems to impress some people. The difference is that in regard to belief in God, we are dealing with people who suffer from addictions, to torah for example, and who therefore are deeply in denial and cannot think rationally. Any nonsense makes sense to them if it permits their bad habit.

jewish philosopher said...

"Who says life has a "purpose"?"

If your heart has no purpose, would you mind if I remove yours?

"You havn't offered a shred of evidence that a natural process over millions of years, could not have produced an organ as complicated as the human heart."

Sure I have.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

"people who suffer from addictions, to torah"

Which psychologist has found an addiction to religion?

Abe said...

>Sure I have.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html<

The only thing that you have is prodigious capacity to quote yourself. You have offered no scientific evidence.

jewish philosopher said...

There is no known natural mechanism which could create the heart and the fossils prove that it didn't evolve.

Abe said...

Quite the contrary, the fossil records demonstrate prodigious plausibility that the organs evolved to their present complexity.
With respect to supernatural involvement, there is no scientific proof that god had a hand in anything. To entertain that notion, you must prove that god exists, attempts at which, you have failed miserably so far.
I suggest that you stick to your hobby of scrutinizing pornographic websites, the better with which to bash atheists. As anti-rational agenda it surely serves as justification to feed your pornographic addiction.

jewish philosopher said...

Abe, if you knew anything about paleontology you would know that it proves that we did not evolve.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/11/evolution-refuted-again.html

DrJ said...

"If your heart has no purpose, would you mind if I remove yours?"

It has a function. It answers "how", not "why". It has no purpose, any more than the nucleus has a purpose in the atom.

"Purpose" presupposes design and will, which you haven't demonstrated.

jewish philosopher said...

function

the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/function

purpose

something set up as an object or end to be attained

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose

Same thing. The hearts function and purpose is to pump blood.

Abe said...

>Abe, if you knew anything about paleontology you would know that it proves that we did not evolve.<

Clearly, your knowledge of paleontology is as parsimoneous as your understanding of Judaism.

"...The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years..."
" ...paleontologists have clarified in recent years a great many mysteries about the origins and interrelationships of major groups of vertebrates, including birds, dinosaurs and their relatives, lizards and snakes..."
From The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. http://www.vertpaleo.org/education/index.cfm

So what and whom am I going to believe? Your crackpot lies about paleontology or paleontologists themselves?

jewish philosopher said...

If you read a little further, you'll notice that they explain "fossil distributions in the world make no sense without the underlying process of change through time".

I agree, however in fact the fossils prove that evolution did not happen. Repeated special creations did.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

Abe said...

So how do you explain the variety of human races? Caucasian, blacks, various races of asians -- chinese, japanese, thai, mongolian, -- all with distinct pigment, facial and hair diferences. How did they all arise from adam and eve, supposedly the only man and woman created by god? How did the various races originate?

jewish philosopher said...

Race is actually a myth.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-08.htm

DrJ said...

"Same thing. The hearts function and purpose is to pump blood."

JP, you may have a high IQ but you have no wisdom. Function and purpose are completely different, and that's why people like you invent stories of flying spaghetti monsters.

gravity functions to hold the planets together in orbit around the sun, but it has no purpose/designer/will. clouds function to hold rain but they need no purpose, no designer, just an accident of astrophysics.

Unless you want to call the rules of physics a designer. I have no problem with a naturalistic definition of god.

jewish philosopher said...

We never witness a complex mechanism with many parts all working efficiently to perform a certain function form spontaneously. There is always a designer. Unintelligent, natural processes cannot create machines.

Happy now?

Of course, probably you're not!

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/buzzkill.html

jewish philosopher said...

Main Entry: purpose
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: intention, meaning, aim
Synonyms: ambition, animus, aspiration, big idea, bourn, calculation, design, desire, destination, determination, direction, dream, drift, end, expectation, function, goal, hope, idea, intendment, intent, mecca, mission, object, objective, plan, point, premeditation, principle, project, proposal, proposition, prospect, reason, resolve, scheme, scope, target, ulterior motive, view, whatfor, where one's headed, whole idea, why and wherefore, whyfor, will, wish

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/purpose

Abe said...

>Race is actually a myth.<

I read the material on that website. You clearly misrepresent what the author asserts regarding the variety of races.

In fact he seems to promote evolution in explaining small differences among certain populations.
"...And what Boas determined by studying immigrants to Ellis Island, from two different populations that were known for having different shaped skulls, is that after they were living in the United States for a considerable number of years, their skull shapes changed. In other words, the fact of immigration and growing up in a different place changed the shape of your skull."
This isn't a radical proposition. We know that the body is sensitive to the conditions of life, and to the conditions of development..."
Conditions of life ! Sure sounds Darwinian to me.

You have deliberately evaded the evolutionary race question by quoting yet another website. You won't directly respond. That is because the existance of separate black and white humans is clearly such a great challenge to your fundamentalist creed that it is impossible to overcome and it serves your unscientific purpose to evade the question instead.
So keep on citing more websites. I suppose its a lot easier than productive thought.

jewish philosopher said...

Blacks are not a problem.

Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth]. and Ham was smitten in his skin.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_108.html

Joshua said...

That's fascinating. So JP, do you think the Talmud in that section is correct when it claims that male ravens ejaculate their semen into the mouths of female ravens? Also, do you believe that same section of the Talmud where it talks about phoenixes as real birds?

jewish philosopher said...

I don't know what the story is with ravens, however apparently some people are black.

Joshua said...

JP, so you are now picking and choosing which sections of the Gemarrah you believe and which you don't?

Joshua said...

And phoenixes? Is the Talmud correct about them? If you don't trust part of the Talmud's explanation why do you trust the rest?

jewish philosopher said...

Like rabbis today rely on today's science, I suppose Talmudic rabbis relied on the science of that time.

http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_method.html

Abe said...

You still havn't explained the origin of the asian races, i.e Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Mongolian, etc. with their distinct facial characteristics. Niether have you have explained the origin of Native Americans with their reddish complexion and distinct facial features. Or Inca or Mayan etc, etc.

jewish philosopher said...

I think 6,000 is enough time for some diversity.

This article may be helpful.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2007

InternetFred said...

Neither the heart nor the eye, nor the brain, is the greatest puzzle, nor are they the decisive answer.

The key to everything is that which is between the eyes and the brain; The Sinuses.

These miserable structures have no useful purpose, shorten life, and create pain. No God would have created them, but neither could they evolve; They are useless killers.

The sinuses disprove both theories.

jewish philosopher said...

They do have functions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranasal_sinuses#Biological_function