Teeth are evidence for a creator!

[ChristineM]

What is the source of this picture? Is this a computer generation of what we would at + 1 billion years or an actual picture.

...

Their LQG-based model, schematically illustrated in Fig. 1, is thus consistent with the predictions of inflationary theory and extends it in a continuous way to the Planck era.

Yes there are several hypothesis, the thing that separates them from theories is that they are, as yet, just ideas

The planck epoch was something less than 10e-43 of a second following the bb. The universe has been in motion, both by inflation and gravity ever since.

Until gravity began to take hold the universe is assumed to be a smooth, orderly quantum soup if that's what you want to call it. Over time, (A ripple here, a ripple there caused matter to clump forming spots of more intense gravity, there was nothing orderly about the location of these gravitational spots.

They disturbed surrounding matter and the effect spread. So within a few hundred million years the first stars formed and within billion years (a little more than the Planck era by the way) galaxies were forming. Each star and galaxy exerting a gravitational force on every other (in motion) star and galaxy.

I have often heard those who make the claim god dun it say the universe is ordered. Yet i have never heard a cosmologist say such. On the contrary. The gravity of a couple of hundred million stars in a galaxy, each exerting a force one every other star. And 2 trillion galaxies each exerting a force on every other galaxy indicates that far from being ordered. The interactions between masses are truly random in nature. As the universe expands and the entropy increases the randomness will continue to increase

BTW, simply because I don't have the technical speak in no way i am arguing from ignorance.

 

[Spiderman]

Yes there are several hypothesis, the thing that separates them from theories is that they are, as yet, just ideas

The planck epoch was something less than 10e-43 of a second following the bb. The universe has been in motion, both by inflation and gravity ever since.

Until gravity began to take hold the universe is assumed to be a smooth, orderly quantum soup if that's what you want to call it. Over time, (A ripple here, a ripple there caused matter to clump forming spots of more intense gravity, there was nothing orderly about the location of these gravitational spots.

They disturbed surrounding matter and the effect spread. So within a few hundred million years the first stars formed and within billion years (a little more than the Planck era by the way) galaxies were forming. Each star and galaxy exerting a gravitational force on every other (in motion) star and galaxy.

I have often heard those who make the claim god dun it say the universe is ordered. Yet i have never heard a cosmologist say such. On the contrary. The gravity of a couple of hundred million stars in a galaxy, each exerting a force one every other star. And 2 trillion galaxies each exerting a force on every other galaxy indicates that far from being ordered. The interactions between masses are truly random in nature. As the universe expands and the entropy increases the randomness will continue to increase

BTW, simply because I don't have the technical speak in no way i am arguing from ignorance.

What is the basis they have, behind giving a number , after determining how many galaxies there are?

 

[ChristineM]

What is the basis they have, behind giving a number , after determining how many galaxies there are?

Estimation. One way is to extrapolate from the Hubble deep field image

 

[stvdv]

Why would an "intelligent designer" design a mouth too small to house all the teeth?

To provide customers for dentists

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes there are several hypothesis, the thing that separates them from theories is that they are, as yet, just ideas

The planck epoch was something less than 10e-43 of a second following the bb. The universe has been in motion, both by inflation and gravity ever since.

Until gravity began to take hold the universe is assumed to be a smooth, orderly quantum soup if that's what you want to call it. Over time, (A ripple here, a ripple there caused matter to clump forming spots of more intense gravity, there was nothing orderly about the location of these gravitational spots.

They disturbed surrounding matter and the effect spread. So within a few hundred million years the first stars formed and within billion years (a little more than the Planck era by the way) galaxies were forming. Each star and galaxy exerting a gravitational force on every other (in motion) star and galaxy.

Regardless I do not believe you responded to my post well enough. Your use of 'random' brings to question how you apply the science you know.

Again where did you get the illustration in the previous post?

More to follow.

I have often heard those who make the claim god dun it say the universe is ordered. Yet i have never heard a cosmologist say such. On the contrary. The gravity of a couple of hundred million stars in a galaxy, each exerting a force one every other star. And 2 trillion galaxies each exerting a force on every other galaxy indicates that far from being ordered. The interactions between masses are truly random in nature. As the universe expands and the entropy increases the randomness will continue to increase

BTW, simply because I don't have the technical speak in no way i am arguing from ignorance.

I have the background in the science here, and provide the references to explain my view.

Regardless I do not believe you responded to my post well enough. Your use of 'random' and 'being ordered(?)' brings to question how you apply the science you know.

Again where did you get the illustration in the previous post? I believe it is a simulation of our universe ~about one billion years old. It does reflect our knowledge in Physics and Quantum Mechanics. concerning the early history of our universe. What is illustrated is not random.

More to follow.

 

[ChristineM]

I have the background in the science here, and provide the references to explain my view.

Regardless I do not believe you responded to my post well enough. Your use of 'random' brings to question how you apply the science you know.

Again where did you get the illustration in the previous post?

More to follow.

I don't really care what your background is or how you think i responded, elitism is not really relevant. What is relevant is understanding that 13 billion years of gravity acting on moving objects makes motion unordered. Add entropy into the mix and you have one mess of movement.

Oh, you want references?

A weakly random Universe?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2236177_Some_Properties_of_the_Random_Universe

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't really care what your background is or how you think i responded, elitism is not really relevant. What is relevant is understanding that 13 billion years of gravity acting on moving objects makes motion unordered. Add entropy into the mix and you have one mess of movement.

Oh, you want references?

A weakly random Universe?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2236177_Some_Properties_of_the_Random_Universe

I am a stickly in math terminology even though some scientists mix things up. The following citation from your reference can be explained as I said 'not truly random,'

"We introduce a method developed originally by Kolmogorov, that quantifies a degree of randomness (chaos) in a set of numbers, such as measurements of the CMB temperature in some region. Considering CMB as a composition of random and regular signals, we solve the inverse problem of recovering of their mutual fractions from the temperature sky maps. Deriving the empirical Kolmogorov's function in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe's maps, we obtain the fraction of the random signal to be about 20 per cent, i.e. the cosmological sky is a weakly random one. The paper is dedicated to the memory of Vladimir Arnold (1937-2010)."

The reference mixes terms the bold describes the fractal (chaos theory), which is 'not truly random.'

I am convinced your illustration is a simulation based on the current research described in your referenced using fractal math (chaos) to create the image of the universe at ~1 billion years old.

In reality the only thing at times considered 'random' is the outcome of individual events in a chain of events such as the timing of decay of an individual atom in radio active mineral sample. The over all chain of radioactive decay of the sample is not random, but the nature of even the individual event and the overall chain of events is predictable. By the way the chain of such events follows a predictable fractal pattern as with the chain of events of rolls of dice,

More to follow. . .

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because teeth seem like they are there for a reason, a purpose, in the right place, which increases my faith and hope in supernatural entities.

Well if teeth weren't in the right place one would probably starve to death.

 

[shunyadragon]

In the past I have authored at least one maybe two threads on the issue of randomness versus fractal mat to describe chains of events and the' timing' and outcome of individual events.

 

[Bird123]

1. argument from awe

2. you could not have picked a worse example. Do you know why people often need their wisdom teeth pulled? Because through evolution, our brain grew bigger which made our mouth smaller.
Too small to house all the teeth that are growing. But while having tooth aches is a bother, the impact it has on survival and reproduction is smaller then the impact of a larger brain had. Evolution is oftenly a tradeoff. There is often a cost for new / altered traits.

Why would an "intelligent designer" design a mouth too small to house all the teeth?
An amateur designer would though. Blind processes like evolution would too.
And we have evidence that evolution occurs. We don't have any evidence of any designers - stupid or otherwise.

Hmmm?? I went to the dentist and asked. What do you think I should do with my wisdom teeth? He said: Go out and eat a steak!!! My dentist said the reason most people lose their wisdom teeth is that they are farther back and people do not brush them. I do still have all my wisdom teeth. They work Great!!

I question your theory of having a mouth too small to house the teeth.

That's what I see!! It's very clear!!

 

[firedragon]

The intelligent sentient creator came up with a fairly ordinary design.

What is a perfect design?

 

[John53]

What is a perfect design?

I don't think I've ever encountered perfection so no idea.

I have to add that I've been asked many pointless questions over the years but this one is right up there, probably in the top 5.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think I've ever encountered perfection so no idea.

I have to add that I've been asked many pointless questions over the years but this one is right up there, probably in the top 5.

Thanks for appealing to ridicule.

But see, simple logic. In order to think of "ordinary design", you should have an idea of a perfect design or at least a good design. Otherwise you are just begging the question.

What is a good design, or a perfect design (what ever you choose)_ in your mind for you to make a claim of "ordinary design"?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is a perfect design?

It is best to omit Design, because it projects an anthropomorphic image of nature.plain Natural that is objectively predictable concerning Laws of Nature and natural processes is objectively predicted and falsified by Methodological Naturalism.

Perfection is an illusion of delusions of those that make subjective extraordinary claims concerning the nature of our existence, beyond human capability such as the claim of Intelligent Design..

 

[John53]

Thanks for appealing to ridicule.

Glad you appreciated it.

But see, simple logic. In order to think of "ordinary design", you should have an idea of a perfect design or at least a good design. Otherwise you are just begging the question.

Maybe if you hadn't chopped the link I included.

What is a good design, or a perfect design (what ever you choose)_ in your mind for you to make a claim of "ordinary design"?

The wheel is pretty good, simple, efficient and useful, and the basic design hasn't changed. I'm a fan of the flushable toilet. The tooth brush is a good design and although they try to improve it the original still works fine. My personal favourite design is the 1973 LJ Holden Torana GTR/XU-1, fell in love with them as a teenager but unfortunately have never had the opportunity to own one. Hopefully that's enough for your purpose.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe if you hadn't chopped the link I included.

Your link is speaking about bad breath and how it affects some health issues. That does not answer my question on your benchmark of a perfect design for you to measure a bad design.

The wheel is pretty good, simple, efficient and useful

Human being. Not wheel.

What is a perfect design of a human being that you measure your "bad design" against?

Without a measuring standard, you are speaking of "ought to have been". Its theology. Its a wish. A prayer.

So what is your measure?

 

[John53]

Your link is speaking about bad breath and how it affects some health issues. That does not answer my question on your benchmark of a perfect design for you to measure a bad design.

Well kind of, I'm sure bad breath is also a side effect of some of the health issues that teeth can cause.

Human being. Not wheel.

What is a perfect design of a human being that you measure your "bad design" against?

Nothing of the human body is perfect, it's almost as if it evolved without a designer being involved. In fact in my opinion it did.

Without a measuring standard, you are speaking of "ought to have been". Its theology. Its a wish. A prayer.

So what is your measure?

Common sense. Not so long ago before dental hygiene became popular teeth were a major health problem and probably still are for poorer people who can't afford a visit to the dentist. I came across this while researching one of my ancestors who had "rotten teeth" as the cause of death on his death certificate.

 

[Spiderman]

The wheel is pretty good,

Interesting you said that. Today our community got an "emotional wheel" pillow to pass around in group to identify feelings, and part of group was coloring in emotional wheels on paper

, and explaining which ones we felt

 

[firedragon]

Well kind of, I'm sure bad breath is also a side effect of some of the health issues that teeth can cause.

Great.

Yet you didnt address the issue I raised in your philosophical argument of ordinary or bad design. How do you judge what is bad or ordinary without knowing a benchmark? What is perfect or great or good design?

What you should understand is that you are making a wish for yourself and bad breath not being one of your wishes for yourself, you think its bad design and you are showing some link that speaks of bad breath etc. That link does not address your dilemma. What is your bench mark?

I know that this bad design is an evangelical apologetic used by some atheists. Its not a complete argument.

Anyway, I dont think this dilemma can be answered by the proponents of this argument so that's why you avoided it twice.

You can leave it. Cheers.

 

[John53]

Great.

Yet you didnt address the issue I raised in your philosophical argument of ordinary or bad design. How do you judge what is bad or ordinary without knowing a benchmark? What is perfect or great or good design?

I have never encountered perfection as I pointed out in my first response so can't measure it. In my last response I stated I judge it by common sense.

What you should understand is that you are making a wish for yourself and bad breath not being one of your wishes for yourself, you think its bad design and you are showing some link that speaks of bad breath etc. That link does not address your dilemma. What is your bench mark?

Heart disease, cancer and alheimer's are a bit more serious than bad breath. And as far as I know there is no bench mark for perfection.

I know that this bad design is an evangelical apologetic used by some atheists. Its not a complete argument.

Is this the point? It was never meant to be a complete argument, it was a response to a claim that teeth are evidence for a creator. I don't believe they were and gave a short link explaining some of the problems with teeth, there are far more detailed links on the subject. I chose that one because it was short and to the point.

Anyway, I dont think this dilemma can be answered by the proponents of this argument so that's why you avoided it twice.

Maybe if you made your point in your first post instead of trying to show your superior intellect. If it's a battle of wits you want I concede, I'm a poorly educated old fat bald Australian. If you want to discuss something in a friendly adult way then fine.

You can leave it. Cheers.

Thanks.