Water and its very unique properties, a case for Intelligent Design?

Science • May 2008 • Views: 448

What are the physical and chemical properties of water that make it so unique and necessary for living things? When you look at water, taste and smell it - well, what could be more boring? Pure water is virtually colorless and has no taste or smell. But the hidden qualities of water make it a most interesting subject.

Water is unique in that it is the only natural substance that is found in all three states — liquid, solid (ice), and gas (steam) — at the temperatures normally found on Earth. Earth’s water is constantly interacting, changing, and in movement.

Recent Pages by DownRightMeanAmerican:
The son’s of John McCain NASA’s Phoenix lander is really just an over priced claw vending machine! Alberta Pastor Fined $7000 and Ordered to Publicly Apologize and Remain Silent on Homosexuality Phoenix can analyze dirt, but only if they could only get it in there! Bursting the Self-Esteem Bubble

CyanSnowHawk May 28, 2008 11:41:19am

Water’s properties are all explicable with our current knowledge of chemistry, no supernatural intervention required.

You may use it’s uniqueness to bolster your faith if you wish, but once again, a seeming coincidence does not imply a creator.

Salem May 28, 2008 11:48:16am

Water is so miraculous because Neptune is our creator. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Salem May 28, 2008 11:49:52am

ALL PRAISE LORD NEPTUNE!

DownRightMeanAmerican May 28, 2008 12:00:10pm

re: #1 CyanSnowHawk

Like this one?

“By the way, there is a theory that much of Earth’s water came from comets hitting the planet over billions of years.”

That’s a great theory!

Salem May 28, 2008 12:28:46pm

re: #4 DownRightMeanAmerican

One of the great things about that “coincidence” is that you don’t need a mystical cosmology to explain it.

The_Vig May 28, 2008 12:35:20pm

God created water so that you may drown in it. All hail the great drowned god. All Hail Cthulu.

Salem May 28, 2008 12:40:18pm

LOL! What a joke! “If conditions for the formation of water were on earth all along, it’s a miracle! If comets brought the water, it’s a miracle!”

The fact that none of this is detailed in Genesis is irrelevant, of course. After all, the Bible was written for a primative people who couldn’t grasp the natural worl- Oops! I mean-the miracle of our creation.

DownRightMeanAmerican May 28, 2008 1:25:32pm

re: #1 CyanSnowHawk

I am not using this to “bolster” my faith, its just a conclusion based on my limited reasoning.

When water freezes it floats because it expands unlike most other substances, if this was not the case life could not exist. Lakes would freeze from the bottom up, thus fish or anything else in the lake couldn’t survive. All life requires water to survive whether it be plant or animal, the chances of just those two things happening by happenstance is mathematically insurmountable.

The water molecule is not simple to say the least, yet it’s the basis of all life, who decided that? Happenstance or an intelligent designer?

The chances it was happenstance are slim and none and slim just left.

DownRightMeanAmerican May 28, 2008 1:55:16pm

re: #5 Salem

One of the great things about that “coincidence” is that you don’t need a mystical cosmology to explain it.

Ironic that both ideas are based on faith in something, be it materialism or an intelligent designer.

But only one of them is fair game for non-scientific ad hominem ridicule, based on the comments here, can you guess which one?

Pretty typical for “liberals” today though, tolerant of their own opinions only.

Salem May 28, 2008 2:06:15pm

Y’know, the gnostic sects did a lot of yapping about the evils of “materialism”, before the early Chri$tians neatly did away with them. I guess that makes ID proponents somewhat of a throwback cult.

DownRightMeanAmerican May 28, 2008 2:50:07pm

re: #10 Salem

Please show proof of where I say or infer materialism was evil or are those your own unfounded assumptions, for straw man arguments that you can easily knock down?

For the record: I am not talking about materialism as in: a pretty dumb blonde with enormous breasts driving an Aston Martin.

Is it not possible to disagree with scientific materialism based on one’s own reasoning without having to declare scientific materialism as “evil”, or do proponents of scientific materialism feel that guilty?

[deleted] May 28, 2008 2:54:09pm

Salem May 28, 2008 3:06:30pm

re: #11 DownRightMeanAmerican

For the record: I am not talking about materialism as in: a pretty dumb blonde with enormous breasts driving an Aston Martin.

Um. Neither was I. Sheesh…

It’s kinda sad when people who know nothing about the origins of their own religion deign to explain the origins of the Universe to the rest of us.

The Gnostics believed the material world was a lie constructed by a false god and assumptions made from observing it were no different. Unfortunately for them, this meant that Christ couldn’t have been here in physical form. That presented kind of an issue for the business of forming church doctrine, where God sent Christ to physically die for our sins, so the various gnostics traditions were suppressed and it’s adherents branded heretics.

DownRightMeanAmerican May 28, 2008 4:12:23pm

re: #13 Salem

Liberal debate rules 101:

# 1. Make lots of straw man arguments.

#2. When those blow away like chaff in a light breeze, never answer any question or remark and change the topic, then make lots more straw man arguments, repeat as necessary.

You follow that to a “T” my friend.

I am not dictating the origins of the anything to anyone, you can and need to draw your own conclusions.

Great info about those Gnostic folks, but WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Are you suggesting that if I don’t accept your idea that Christianity and thus Judaism are based upon a cult somewhere in time, I don’t understand the origins of my religion?

DownRightMeanAmerican May 28, 2008 4:49:17pm

re: #13 Salem

One thing I think you are doing is unfairly attributing to me all these ID/Creaionism arguments you have come across here or somewhere else and arguing against such, perhaps that is why I can not make hardly any sense of what you say and that is why you are doing nothing but setting up these straw men.

muman May 28, 2008 5:02:14pm

This discussion is hysterical. Those who hate the idea that they are judged for their actions are doing all they can do attempt to disprove his existence. This is just great, as the more they try to prove it, the more they will come to believe it. The holy one, blessed be he, wanted it to be just like this. There will never be a proof that he exists, his existence is intended to be hidden {as the entirety of existence is just a facade}. Keep up the futile work, you are doing wondered to strengthen my emmuna.

Thank you,
Muman

FoolsMate May 28, 2008 5:45:16pm

re: #16 muman

It’s more hysterical than you realize.

Salem May 28, 2008 11:09:34pm

What’s a straw man when your argument is that water is proof that the Universe is intelligently designed because it’s so keen? I just didn’t realize that I was expected to pose a serious counter-argument. If I did, it would have to be at the level of the theocratic and scientifically unsupportable. A counter-argument to “God did it” would have to be “the universe is an egg laid by the great Rainbow Snake”.

Salem May 28, 2008 11:51:18pm

In the Ancient Roman Empire Christians were persecuted and had to worship in subterranean hideouts. They were united by their devotion to Christ, but their ideas—and scriptures—were diverse. Due to their circumstances, they weren’t availed the opportunity to organize a canon or hash out the doctrine in any way. When Christianity was finally allowed to emerge from the underground, it was determined that for Christian order to be established, these formally underground cults from across the vast Empire were going to have to abide by a relatively narrow, state-enforced religious structure. In order to do that, it had to be determined exactly what scriptures must be followed and, in many cases, how those scriptures were interpreted. A lot had been added by these often mystical cults, and a lot would have to be rejected if order was to be maintained in this new governing body. Indeed, Christian history would certainly have been drastically changed if the Acts of Peter or Gospel of Judas had been let in.

Many of these cults were Gnostic. So you see, they weren’t just a “cult in time”. Christianity was profoundly influenced by them. And a lot of the unhealthy, body-hating and asceticism of Christianity is rooted in these weird mystic cults. And they’re spirit is still very much alive in modern Christianity, as evidenced by all this talk about “materialism”.

DownRightMeanAmerican May 29, 2008 2:27:04am

re: #19 Salem

What was that: The Obama’s version of history?

Bunkum history 101.

The_Vig May 29, 2008 6:35:07am

re: #20 DownRightMeanAmerican

Actually Salem has it correct. The church body, decided the structure of the bible. They decided which gospels to include and which to exclude. Even if Christianity was inspired by God it was molded by man. This is the reason that many people have a problem with Christians taking the Bible literally. You may believe that it is the direct word of God, I’m a little skeptical.

But hey, your the expert, what is incorrect about Salems recount of history?

The Albatross May 29, 2008 7:12:05am

Ron Saykally’s publication in Science proved the power of water to energize DNA to express its resonant energies and frequencies.

DownRightMeanAmerican, if you are interested in further reading, I recommend Walking on Water by David Horowitz. A review is here:
drlenhorowitz.com

Horowitz’s colleague, Dr. Masaru Emoto has scientifically and theologically heralded, Love is received and transmitted as a vibration mainly in and through water. The 528Hz frequency of sound, which equates to 518nm of light, is the sound and color of Love. 528Hz is also the third note, or “MI” tone, in the original Solfeggio musical scale. 518nm of light is the center of the green color at the center of the rainbow. It is also the color of your heart charka or energy center influencing the spiritual dynamics of your heart and heart beat. Thus, Walk on Water proves your heart is energetically connected to the core of the universe and the creative energy of its Source.

“By integrating recent revelations from the fields of mathematics, physics, and water science, and comparing these with Bible code determinations of the original musical scale, we have proof that nature crystallizes using sound, water, and sacred geometry,” Dr. Horowitz says. These forms operate mathematically akin to following the path of least resistance in a Divine plan or universal law. That plan, or law, is the reverberating ‘Perfect Circle of Sound™,’ impacting water and precipitating everything.”
Link: tetrahedron.org

The Albatross May 29, 2008 7:14:02am

The third paragraph of my post should be in quotes. It is interesting to note that Dr. Leonard Horowitz claims that his work is divinely inspired.

The Albatross May 29, 2008 7:36:17am

P.S. I’m likely to take a beating on this because Dr. Leonard Horowitz specializes in metaphysics and also because wiki paints him in a rather unflattering light most notably his position on HIV/AIDS. Which I don’t subscribe to.

None the less, among holistic circles the theory is out there, so I’m putting it here.

The Albatross May 29, 2008 7:41:04am

Wiki is much kinder to Masaru Emoto… and apparently a bounty has been put on his studys by the James Randi Foundation:

“Emoto’s water crystal experiments consist of exposing water in glasses to different words, pictures, or music, and then freezing and examining the aesthetics of the resulting crystals with microscopic photography. [2]

Emoto’s work does adhere to the long established practices and procedures of the scientific method, such as double blind controls, which have been developed to reduce the effect of statistical anomalies and experimenter bias. Emoto states, “Our efforts include the use of blinds to remove the possibility of change from the researchers’ thoughts. We do this because we don’t want the thought that the water being told “Thank you” will produce a more beautiful crystal than that being told “You fool” to have an impact on the results. We label the sample dishes with letters of the alphabet, and don’t reveal which water is which until after the results have been seen.” [3]

Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls,[4] and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. [5] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings. [6]

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto.[7] Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,[8] and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.[9]

In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin and others in the peer-reviewed Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, in which they claim to have proven in a double blind test that approximately 2000 people in Tokyo could increase the aesthetic appeal of water stored in a room in California, compared to water in another room, solely through their positive intentions.[10]

James Randi, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation, has publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.[11] Randi has also stated that he does not expect to ever have to pay the million dollars.”
en.wikipedia.org

The Albatross May 29, 2008 7:47:08am

The Water Crystals of Masaru Emoto can be viewed here:

unitedearth.com.au

The Albatross May 29, 2008 8:01:09am

Also interesting to note, other than being a skeptic, James Randi has no discernable creedence in the scientific community and other than being a magician and escape artist.

The Albatross May 29, 2008 8:49:35am

re: #13 Salem

I believe I have presented something more substantial than “God did it”.

Dan G. May 29, 2008 9:15:25am

re: #22 The Albatross

<quote>Ron Saykally’s publication in Science proved the power of water to energize DNA to express its resonant energies and frequencies.</quote>

Huh? Would you care to elaborate? Or even provide a citation? Expressing resonant energies? I’m not familiar with that verb… The hydrogen bonding networks that seem to be this gent’s focus can be modeled as a system of interconnected springs. The addition of DNA to pure water would change this interconnectedness and therefore change the resonant frequency of the system.

Sounds like scientism on your part (or scientific illiteracy), what I’ve been able to find so far (by Sakally) just talks about hydrogen bonding networks. And yes, DNA must be solvated before it can do anything (if this is what is meant by energize)… So what? So what if water can communicate energy to DNA, both are masses, both can collide. Both have regions of ionic (partial in water) charge that are repulsive of one another…

Also, about James Randi not having creds with the “scientific community”, which community is that? You sound like an environmentalist trying to hawk global warming. Unlike your church, science doesn’t have a heirarchy of authority… it has individuals who are highly esteemed, but no dictators… You are proving once again that the theocrats are no different that the leftists.

The Albatross May 29, 2008 1:07:54pm

Throw rocks all you want, but the blind and double blind study on this has been done, it’s been peer reviewed, and though criticized it’s on the table in the scientific community.

Prattling away about dishonesty, agendas, socialists, global warming theorists, leftists, and the matter of my personal conviction doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

About the only gong you didn’t bang here is about how a magician and escape artist has more scientific cred than two Drs. of Metaphysics and a chemist.

Dan G. May 29, 2008 2:10:00pm

re: #30 The Albatross

Huh? Still no citation? Which paper did the phrase “energize DNA” or “express its resonant energies and frequencies” appear? No expanding on your claims? Still dodging questions and appealing to authority instead of providing reasoned arguments…

Are you blind or illiterate? I didn’t prattle about any of the things you mention.

DownRightMeanAmerican May 30, 2008 1:33:14am

re: #21 The_Vig

But hey, your the expert, what is incorrect about Salems recount of history?

I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination.

This is where I think its wrong.

In the Ancient Roman Empire Christians were persecuted and had to worship in subterranean hideouts. They were united by their devotion to Christ, but their ideas—and scriptures—were diverse. Due to their circumstances, they weren’t availed the opportunity to organize a canon or hash out the doctrine in any way.

There is no need to hash out doctrine, it was all “hashed out” in the Old Testament.
The New Testament hints that the Apostles while still living and under their supervision had copies of their collections made available to the churches packaged with the Old Testament as the word of God.

The New Testament canon existed in the first century A.D. Some of the best evidence for New Testament authority is the early church fathers who wrote thousands of quotations, some 32,000 quotations before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D., it is claimed that the entire New Testament can be re-constructed just from these except for 7 verses.

Christianity has about 24,000 manuscripts that corroborate the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgate, 5,300 Greek and 9,300 other, the earliest dated to 60-70 A.D.

Pretty amazing in light of 300 years of persecution and the vastness of the Roman empire, but also the reasons the earliest New Testament collections are incomplete with them being written in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome all without copy machines, internet access, rapid transit and all.

….for Christian order to be established, these formally underground cults from across the vast Empire were going to have to abide by a relatively narrow, state-enforced religious structure.

Emperor Constantine (306-377 A.D.) Became a Christian and issued an Edict granting everybody the right to choose his own religion.

Emperor Theodosius (378-398 A.D.) Made Christianity the State Religion and church membership mandatory, which was the worst thing to do, the church became nothing but a tool of the State, it went from being persecuted to being the persecutor. Now granted the church has struggled with heathen philosophies from the 2nd to the 6th centuries A.D. and many different sects have arose. But they have not had any effect of New Testament scripture.

Polycarp (about 110 A.D.) in his letter the Philippians quotes Philippians and 9 other of Paul’s Epistles.

Ignatius (about 110 A.D.) in his seven letters quotes from the books of Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John and cites 9 of Paul’s Epistles.

Didache (written between 80-120 A.D.) makes 22 quotations from Matthew with reference made to Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Thessalonians, 1 Peter and speaks of “The Gospel” as a written document.

Tatian (about 160 A.D.) made a “Harmony of the Four Gospels” called the “Diatessaron”, evidence that only 4 gospels were generally recognized among the churches.

Basilides, a Gnostic heretic (117-138 A.D.) in his efforts to distort accepted Christian teachings quotes from Matthew, Luke, John, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians as accepted Christian teachings.

Marcion, a heretic (about 140 A.D.) Made a canon of his own consisting of Luke, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

claire May 30, 2008 8:18:46am

re: #30 The Albatross

Here’s another one of Emotu’s “double-blind”, “scientific” experiments:

After seeing water react to different environmental conditions, pollution and music, Mr. Emoto and colleagues decided to see how thoughts and words affected the formation of untreated, distilled, water crystals, using words typed onto paper by a word processor and taped on glass bottles overnight. The same procedure was performed using the names of deceased persons. The waters were then frozen and photographed.

He reached the same conclusions on this stuff. Picked out pretty x-stals to “prove” the good thoughts and picked out deformed crystals to “prove” the bad thoughts. Unreal.

Oh my goodness- Are you actually gullible enough to fall for this new-age garbagio?

(But let me guess, I’m the close-minded one!)

Is there just no common sense anymore?

nikis-knight May 30, 2008 3:17:58pm

re: #18 Salem

What’s a straw man when your argument is that water is proof that the Universe is intelligently designed because it’s so keen? I just didn’t realize that I was expected to pose a serious counter-argument. If I did, it would have to be at the level of the theocratic and scientifically unsupportable. A counter-argument to “God did it” would have to be “the universe is an egg laid by the great Rainbow Snake”.

Please show me where he said “proof” “proves” “proven” or any variation thereof.
Then come back and tell us you aren’t argueing with strawmen.

Claire May 30, 2008 9:23:38pm

re: #34 nikis-knight

The title of the post is “Water and its very unique properties, a case for intelligent design?”

Why make a “case” if you are not indeed attempting to prove something?

Salem May 30, 2008 9:52:01pm

re: #12 buzzsawmonkey

Which Poseidon are you on?

The one with Gene Hackman and Ernest Borgnine!

(how’s that for a late comeback?)

Salem May 30, 2008 9:57:19pm

re: #32 DownRightMeanAmerican

Wow! Well, nice cites. I’ll have to study up on the subject again.

Salem May 30, 2008 10:06:16pm

re: #35 Claire

The title of the post is “Water and its very unique properties, a case for intelligent design?”

Why make a “case” if you are not indeed attempting to prove something?

As far as that goes, they can kick around any evangelical airy-fairy theory they want, as long as they don’t plan on subjecting public schoolchildren to it or giving it equal time with testable hypothesis.

nikis-knight Jun 2, 2008 3:58:23pm

re: #35 Claire

The title of the post is “Water and its very unique properties, a case for intelligent design?”

Why make a “case” if you are not indeed attempting to prove something?

Well, I guess that’s fair. If it were my post, I would might have said something like, “Water is often taken for granted, but it has many unusual propties that make life possible. I see this as evidence for supra-natural intelligence.”

Still, I very much doubt that DRMAmerican would say that this one “case” has sufficiently proven “the” case for intelligence, and arguing that he has is either being obtuse or intentionally constructing a strawman.

As far as that goes, they can kick around any evangelical airy-fairy theory they want, as long as they don’t plan on subjecting public schoolchildren to it or giving it equal time with testable hypothesis

I don’t think LGF spin-off links are yet required reading in any classroom, so that’s really another strawman, or really a red herring. Starting a discussion on LGF=/=indoctrinating children.

DownRightMeanAmerican Jun 2, 2008 9:05:28pm

re: #39 nikis-knight