An Observation about Intelligent Design

[Dov]

I am admittedly not highly trained in these things, but I do have a question about what seems to me to be a piece of evidence which would contradict the idea of intelligent design.

It is my understanding that c, the speed of light, is the highest possible velocity that a physical particle can attain.

It is also my understanding that the common unit of long distances in astronomy is the light year.

Doesn't it seem like an extraordinary 'design flaw' that in something the size of our physical universe the highest possible speed is the speed of light?

Sorry if this is just an ignorant question, but if it is, hopefully there is a simple answer.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

[snowden719]

this is retarded

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't it seem like an extraordinary 'design flaw' that in something the size of our physical universe the highest possible speed is the speed of light?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Can you explain more why it seems a flaw? What constitutes a "flaw" and what is good design?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Can you explain more why it seems a flaw? What constitutes a "flaw" and what is good design?

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes hundreds or thousands of years to cross the universe at the highest possible speed. This seems like it would be a design flaw considering our own life spans, if the universe were really created for us (humans).

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
this is retarded

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your interest.

Any chance you could explain your logic, or are you just trying to bump up your post count?

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? Can you explain more why it seems a flaw? What constitutes a "flaw" and what is good design?

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes hundreds or thousands of years to cross the universe at the highest possible speed. This seems like it would be a design flaw considering our own life spans, if the universe were really created for us (humans).

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think the universe is created for us?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think the universe is created for us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. That is the postition that was explained to me by a religious practitioner.

They think that intelligent design is obvious, I'm sure you've heard the arguments.

I suppose you are implying that who it was designed for is not important. It is an interesting thought, but I'm not sure I follow.

After all, if it was designed, then it must have been for someone. If not us, then who?

Oh yes, and before we get sidetracked, what do you think of my original question?

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]

Doesn't it seem like an extraordinary 'design flaw' that in something the size of our physical universe the highest possible speed is the speed of light?


[/ QUOTE ]

The universe is, as you have noticed, large.

Whatever the maximum speed you're dealing with is, if you build something large enough, it takes awhile to get across it.

I think it's unwise to conclude that because something is a different size that you think it should be, whoever designed it much have made a mistake. Sometimes Michelangelo painted a cameo in an afternoon, sometimes he spent years painting the whole inside of a building, floor to ceiling and on across the roof. "In the beginning" God was in the mood to create the heavens and the earth. A few days later he was in the mood to create algae and plankton and minnows. A few days after that he was in the mood for lions and tigers and bears.

Humans are limited to projects that take from a few seconds to a few hundred years to accomplish. If you have more time on your hands than that ... why limit yourself to little stuff like the Great Wall of China?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's unwise to conclude that because something is a different size that you think it should be, whoever designed it much have made a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase the question.

What would be the advantage in designing a universe of this size with such a low possible maximum speed?

I think the disadvantages are obvious. The advantages elude me...

[The Gift Of Gab]

I don't think intelligent design argues that the universe was created specifically for us, (though many of its proponents probably believe that), but just that it's too complex to have ended up this way without someone pulling the strings.

[goofball]

I didn't read every post here but all the ones i did read (excepting the one by the OP) are made by morons.

That's a pretty astute observation and, simple as it may be, something I've never thought of.

It makes no apparent sense for a god who created us (in his own image) to design a universe that takes several hundred lifetimes to go interesting places.

Maybe he didn't but so far as we know...

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
I am admittedly not highly trained in these things, but I do have a question about what seems to me to be a piece of evidence which would contradict the idea of intelligent design.

It is my understanding that c, the speed of light, is the highest possible velocity that a physical particle can attain.

It is also my understanding that the common unit of long distances in astronomy is the light year.

Doesn't it seem like an extraordinary 'design flaw' that in something the size of our physical universe the highest possible speed is the speed of light?

Sorry if this is just an ignorant question, but if it is, hopefully there is a simple answer.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wormholes and extraspatial dimensions would be an efficient way of keeping humans out of places they shouldn't be poking their nose, while at the same time providing interstellar conduits for whatever uses necessary.

Go ahead and sentence me, because I am guilty of participating in metaphysical uttering! /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
A few days after that he was in the mood for lions and tigers and bears.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh my /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
a piece of evidence which would contradict the idea of intelligent design.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the human eyeball. Do a search on 2+2 I've discussed this more than I care to ever talk about it again.

[Cooker]

I am surprised no one else pointed out that even though the maximum speed a particle can travel in any inertial frame is the speed of light, it is in fact possible to travel to any location in the universe in whatever proper time (the time you actually experience) you wish (some acceleration conditions will of course apply since you don't really want to be ripped to shreds by shear forces).

Since you don't have a working knowledge of space-time I will simply say in layman's terms that you can go anywhere you wish in as short a time as you wish to experience, but when you return the world would have aged much more than you expect assuming you travel quite far and quite fast (fast meaning some sensible fraction of c). This is why the end of Contact is retarded. The Earth should have aged faster than Jodie Foster, but she experienced more time.

[Dov]

Thanks cooker.

I don't completely understand your response yet, but it has certainly given me a direction to look in.

[The Dude]

Dov, I think it's possible that if God created the entire universe for man, not all of it was necessarily meant for us to visit. Afterall, couldn't he have made it in order for us to appreciate its beauty, not to travel to every corner of?

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think the universe is created for us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. That is the postition that was explained to me by a religious practitioner.

They think that intelligent design is obvious, I'm sure you've heard the arguments.

I suppose you are implying that who it was designed for is not important. It is an interesting thought, but I'm not sure I follow.

After all, if it was designed, then it must have been for someone. If not us, then who?

Oh yes, and before we get sidetracked, what do you think of my original question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Informed religious practitioners would argue that the earth was created for human life, not the entire universe. We don't need that much space. I think that answers your question.

[PairTheBoard]

I agree with goofball that this is a truely novel idea that I've never heard of nor thought of before. Also, cooker is right, and I think just 1g acceleration is adequate for pretty long trips within a human lifespan. It would require a really good mass to propulsive energy converter though.

Maybe one way trips are an "intelligent" way to go.

Also, it might not be such a bad thing for us to be stuck close to home for quite a while. You don't want toddlers wandering around the city until they've grown up a little do you?

PairTheBoard

[bronzepiglet]

Great post. I do believe it's absolutely correct that we can't go making conclusions of much weight based on our poor understanding of space and time and how to manipulate these things.

I wouldn't criticize the poster for asking the questions, though. It was an interesting observation.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
Dov, I think it's possible that if God created the entire universe for man, not all of it was necessarily meant for us to visit. Afterall, couldn't he have made it in order for us to appreciate its beauty, not to travel to every corner of?

[/ QUOTE ]

We certainly would be able to greater appreciate it's beauty if we could.

I mean, there's so much going on in the universe that we can't see. Think about the number of beautiful phenomena we can see in the universe with telescopes as opposed to the naked eye. While a telescope artifically gets us clsoer to objects, it is only logical that if we could actually travel around the sheer number of phenomena to appreciate would be immense.

[Triumph36]

Maybe the Universe is that big to show us that we don't have all the answers, and how insignifcant we truly are compared to our Creator.

It's an interesting flaw in intelligent design, but once you begin speculating about the possible flaws in what was God's will, counter-arguments are easy and inevitable.

[Cooker]

You would need to understand special relativity to really understand my point. A fairly good elementary text is Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler. The problem with most reasoning like this is that it blends Newtonian ideas with the special relativistic concept that the speed of light is constant in all frames and the maximum observable speed. Time and space actually transform into each other in SR such that the faster you travel, the shorter distances seem, thus you can reach places much quicker the closer to the speed of light you travel. In fact at the speed of light, you could instantly (as far as you are concerned) reach any place you like (but those you leave behind will see you move at the speed of light and take a long time to get there and return).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Doesn't it seem like an extraordinary 'design flaw' that in something the size of our physical universe the highest possible speed is the speed of light?


[/ QUOTE ]

God just can't please you, can he? 200 years ago you would have complained that the earth is too big, 200 years from now you would be complaining that it's too small. The so-called speed limitation is also just a theory. Again, 200 years ago you would have said heavier than air flight is impossible.

And finally, why can't God create something for no other reason than it's beautiful, even sublime? Why do we have to go there for it to have a purpose?

[[censored]]

Wacki, didn't you link to something awhile ago concerning teleportation at the atomic level. where basically the travel of something was instantanous?

[BZ_Zorro]

Intellient design aside, did you ever consider that maybe electromagnetism *has* to be this way for the universe to function/exist at all?

[David Sklansky]

"And finally, why can't God create something for no other reason than it's beautiful, even sublime? Why do we have to go there for it to have a purpose?"

Most of the universe is beyond the reach of any telescope. There are quadrillions of stars. Trillions should be plenty if you merely want to admire beauty. But the real point here is that the alternative explanation is so much less farfetched. The stars were destined to be created once the big bang happened and the laws of physics was set. Same with advanced life forms.

"The so-called speed limitation is also just a theory. Again, 200 years ago you would have said heavier than air flight is impossible."

This statement is beneath you. Heavier than air flight didn't violate Newton's laws. Your statement implies you fully expect, or at least would not be surprised, if we find a way to move mass faster than the speed of light.

[Dov]

Thanks,

I will try to check out a copy this week.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it might not be such a bad thing for us to be stuck close to home for quite a while. You don't want toddlers wandering around the city until they've grown up a little do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're toddlers, what does the adult look like?

BTW, why not just create adults?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Dov, I think it's possible that if God created the entire universe for man, not all of it was necessarily meant for us to visit. Afterall, couldn't he have made it in order for us to appreciate its beauty, not to travel to every corner of?

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems a little bit too weak to me. If this were actually stated in the bible, don't you think there would be quite a bit of discussion about this concept?

Creating an entire universe as 'Art' seems like overkill to me.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Informed religious practitioners would argue that the earth was created for human life, not the entire universe. We don't need that much space. I think that answers your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are the other galaxies and solar systems for?

Were they created for other species that inhabit those places?

If they were, are we not supposed to co-exist in the same space?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Great post. I do believe it's absolutely correct that we can't go making conclusions of much weight based on our poor understanding of space and time and how to manipulate these things.

I wouldn't criticize the poster for asking the questions, though. It was an interesting observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, our conclusions improve as our understanding improves.

As for my own personal limited understanding, I was trying to broaden my horizons when this idea hit me.

Unfortunately, (or fortunately, I suppose) I soon realized that I was not equipped to answer this question on my own.

Back to the books for a while for me, I guess. I am confident that our conclusions will improve in this field just as they have in others.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the Universe is that big to show us that we don't have all the answers, and how insignifcant we truly are compared to our Creator.

It's an interesting flaw in intelligent design, but once you begin speculating about the possible flaws in what was God's will, counter-arguments are easy and inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it important to God to show us how insignificant we are? I'm told that we can't comprehend God anyway, so what's the point? There are plenty of examples close to home that could achieve the same effect.

We already know that we don't have all the answers yet. Why not just use this as the primary reason for something like AIDS and stop trying to cure it because we can't 'know all the answers' anyway?

It seems to me from your post that you are somewhat resigned to not learning anymore. Kind of like you've already learned enough, and you can't get it all, so why bother?

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Have you decided to leave the counter arguments to other people or did you have one of your easy ones handy?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
God just can't please you, can he?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a big contadiction, isn't it? /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[ QUOTE ]
200 years ago you would have complained that the earth is too big, 200 years from now you would be complaining that it's too small. The so-called speed limitation is also just a theory. Again, 200 years ago you would have said heavier than air flight is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 points.

First of all, who said I was complaining?

Second, 200 years from now, someone may say "200 years ago you would have attributes XYZ to the existence of God."

You have no way of knowing what will happen over the next 200 years, even by looking at the past 200.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
And finally, why can't God create something for no other reason than it's beautiful, even sublime? Why do we have to go there for it to have a purpose?

[/ QUOTE ]

He can.

Are you saying that you believe that this is the purpose for the rest of the universe?

If not, then why would you bring up this postition?

If yes, then doesn't that seem like it could have been done 'better' or more efficiently?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Intellient design aside, did you ever consider that maybe electromagnetism *has* to be this way for the universe to function/exist at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you mean that if we could see stars from their current times, nothing would work properly?

Why should it matter if we see stars as they were 100,000 years ago or as they were yesterday?

Electromagnetic forces seem to do just fine in the tiny constraints of the Earth, even when they are isolated.

Maybe I just don't understand you're suggestion.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, it might not be such a bad thing for us to be stuck close to home for quite a while. You don't want toddlers wandering around the city until they've grown up a little do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're toddlers, what does the adult look like?

BTW, why not just create adults?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe a more mature human race will be able to get along a little better?

I sort of like having grown into adulthood myself. I don't know what it would be like to be created an adult, but I'm not sure it would be any better. Maybe not as good.

PairTheBoard

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
I sort of like having grown into adulthood myself. I don't know what it would be like to be created an adult, but I'm not sure it would be any better. Maybe not as good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, maybe we'll grow up to be God. He is our father, after all.

Maybe you are right about the toddler thing. Funny thing is that it's kind of evolutionary in its nature.

Still, as far as being protected from the rest of the universe, that doesn't seem too likely. After all, how protected are we really other than by the atmosphere?

The distance to the far side of the universe doesn't really protect us.

It's kind of like drowning. Once the water can cover your face, what's the difference how deep it is?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

There are quadrillions of stars. Trillions should be plenty if you merely want to admire beauty


[/ QUOTE ]

The king in Amadeus told Mozart his opera had too many notes. What a tin ear he had.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Doesn't it seem like an extraordinary 'design flaw' that in something the size of our physical universe the highest possible speed is the speed of light?


[/ QUOTE ]

God just can't please you, can he? 200 years ago you would have complained that the earth is too big, 200 years from now you would be complaining that it's too small. The so-called speed limitation is also just a theory. Again, 200 years ago you would have said heavier than air flight is impossible.

And finally, why can't God create something for no other reason than it's beautiful, even sublime? Why do we have to go there for it to have a purpose?

[/ QUOTE ]


You clearly speak as someone who knows nothing about special relativity or modern physics.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that you believe that this is the purpose for the rest of the universe?

If not, then why would you bring up this postition?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why God created the universe the way He did. I think it's just fine, though, and I don't see why making it smaller would improve it.

We do indeed come from a small(minded) planet.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You clearly speak as someone who knows nothing about special relativity or modern physics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[PairTheBoard]

Dov -
"Still, as far as being protected from the rest of the universe, that doesn't seem too likely. After all, how protected are we really other than by the atmosphere?"

Maybe it's to protect the rest of the Universe from us.

PairTheBoard

[BZ_Zorro]

The speed of light is not a property of light, it's a property of space-time. You're thinking in terms of absolute time and everyday experience. Let me give you an example of how this doesn't apply:

The nearest star is about 4 light years away. That means, travelling at close to the speed of light, it would take about 4 years to get there...right?

Well, no. To an observer on Earth it would take 4 years, but to you in the spaceship,it would take far less - a day, a minute, a second, a millisecond, depending on how close to the speed of light you travelled. Time and distance are relative, not absolute. You could travel to the the andromeda galaxy, 2 million light years away, in a single day if you could suddenly accelerate to near the speed of light.

If you rode on a beam of light the age of the universe would pass in the blink of an eye. It's because we're in a different frame of reference that the speed of light seems to be limited. In fact the limitation is on time. The time dimension is stretched out in our world which limits the speed at which light appears to travel.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You could travel to the the andromeda galaxy, 2 million light years away, in a single day if you could suddenly accelerate to near the speed of light.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe Peter knew what he was talking about:

[ QUOTE ]

with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Triumph36]

I don't have to leave them to others.

The interesting thing about intelligent design is that it is should be claimed by its proponents to find a unifying factor last; the thinking process should not be 'there is God and therefore there is Life', it is 'there is such complexity in Life, and therefore God." You are saying, well, wouldn't God want us to see the entire universe? How could you ascribe such qualities to this 'God'? All the theory states (or so I would hope, I'm arguing more from Kant than 'intelligent design theory') is that there must be a unifying factor or force to the universe. Human consciousness would therefore be no more important than the respiratory system of an ant.

I never said I was confined to not learning anymore. I'm not sure where you're reading that. Science has discovered reasonable explanations for many of the universe's interactions. It will continue to do so.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
You could travel to the the andromeda galaxy, 2 million light years away, in a single day if you could suddenly accelerate to near the speed of light.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why does light have a measurable speed?

Why does the light that comes from distant stars not reflect their current state of being?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why God created the universe the way He did. I think it's just fine, though, and I don't see why making it smaller would improve it.

We do indeed come from a small(minded) planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't suggesting that the universe is too big or that shrinking it would improve it.

I was suggesting that if an intelligent design were created it would not be likely to include a limitation as glaring as such a low maximum velocity.

Think of it like this.

If you were going to build a dream house, would you make it so big that you could never see the whole thing no matter what you did?

If you say yes, then why?

[spoohunter]

[ QUOTE ]

If you were going to build a dream house, would you make it so big that you could never see the whole thing no matter what you did?

If you say yes, then why?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because you don't want all the tenants that you rent it out to get in eachothers way and fight interstellar wars.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I was suggesting that if an intelligent design were created it would not be likely to include a limitation as glaring as such a low maximum velocity.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this is the maximum velocity? How do you know this is the only way to move across space? Why can't God create a universe too big for man? How do you know He doesn't have another use for it? How do you know He doesn't take pleasure in creating even if it doesn't please you?

[ QUOTE ]

If you were going to build a dream house, would you make it so big that you could never see the whole thing no matter what you did?


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe God built something more than just a house. How do you know we'll never see the whole thing? Why do you think man has to see the whole thing?

After each act of creation the Bible says that God saw it was good. After finishing everything it says:

[ QUOTE ]

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.


[/ QUOTE ]

Period.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this is just an ignorant question, but if it is, hopefully there is a simple answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe God created the universe bigger than it "needs" to be because he wanted to give people who don't want to believe in him another excuse to doubt that he made it.

maybe making a big universe is just as easy for God as making a tiny one, so he said "what the hell, i'd rather make it huge."

if theres something "big" enough to be creating something as huge and complicated as the universe it's pretty pointless for us to expect that it be designed "like we would do it."

[gumpzilla]

Your relativistic argument doesn't really address the OPs question. The rest of the universe aging tremendously while you travel can just as easily be considered a "design flaw."

[Cooker]

The OP said the design flaw was the size and the fact that humans can't go everywhere due to a maximum velocity which is the speed of light. This type of statement underlies a misunderstaning of special relativity that I was attempting to inform him about. According to special relativity, in principle we can get anywhere in the universe in as short a time as we like by traveling closer to the speed of light.

If the fact that we can't get anywhere at anytime is a flaw, then my living room has the same flaw.