It is true that the question in the OP either leaves the door wide-open for any potential views, or it assumes a whole lot of missing assumptions.



Which has already been shown based on the evidence and 'logic' within this universe.

Using the 'logic' and mathematics that we have constructed within this universe it is clear that 100 elements chosen at random would have an extremely low probability of coming together by happenstance to form molecules that automatically program themselves to become highly sophisticated sentient beings.

So by using the 'logic' and mathematics of this very universe, we see evidence that this universe is not happenstance, and therefore we have no choice but to conclude that it's illogical to believe that it happened by happenstance, thus is must have been by design.

But he doesn't like that answer, for some reason. Even though it is the 'logical' conclusion that must be drawn when using the 'logic' that we have constructed from our experiences within this universe.

The problem with the whole thing, is that the OP is demanding "logical" evidence of something that supposedly exists aprior to this universe, and thus outside of the restrictions of the 'logic' that seems to make sense within this universe.

Even from "inside" this universe we see evidence of 'illogical' behavior in the quantum field, which cannot be explained via 'logic'. So as ironic as this may seem, we have blatant evidence to believe that 'illogical' events do indeed occur, and can indeed affect the physicality of this universe.

So we already have "evidence" of why a designer of this universe that exists "outside" this universe and "aprior" to it, does not need to have a 'logical' explanation that conforms to the ideas that we consider to be 'logical' within this universe.

Of course, all of that is for naught anyway, since I had already shown that even by apply the 'logic' of this universe to the observations of the universe, we arrive at the firm conclusion that it is extremely 'illogical' to assume that this universe is mere happenstance. Therefore by the logic we obtain from within this universe, we have no choice but to conclude that the universe must be by design.

~~~

Of course, all of the above assumes and approach that assumes that the universe was 'statically designed' at some fixed point (i.e. at the big bang or prior to it).

If we now allow that the 'designer' is dynamic, then we must conclude that Jesus and Jeanniebean are right. We are gods. We are the creators now. Because we now have the ability to consciously choose what to create. So the obvious answer to the question in this scenario is, YES, of course we have evidence of designers of the universe! We're it! What more do you need?

And that's a valid approach because no one ever place a restriction on the idea that the universe had to have been created statically. (albeit that restriction implies design too)

Even the atheists are claiming that 'natural processes' created this universe. Well if natural random selection is what 'created' this universe, and we our now conscious and able to start selecting our own actions, then we have become the Intelligent Designers of this universe at this point in time.

So that's a valid point of view as well.

~~~

Why should we restrict ourselves to a static creation theory? Proponents of a 'process of natural evolution' completely ignore the starting materials and just look at the dynamic picture alone and say, "See, we can explain it in terms of what it does".

Precisely why they can't see the circularity of that explanation of 'creation' is beyond me. They haven't explained a thing other than to say, "Look! It's doing what it does!"

That's no explanation.

Yeh, me and Jesus... we know the score.

"Yee are Gods!"




"Natural processes" hmmmmm.... I find that a a very vague term.

I have also heard the term "Life" used as if it were an intelligent entity or 'natural process."

Who is deciding what is "natural?" And what dictates process?

What causes movement and vibration?

If the universe is static and dead why would anything move?

I have also heard the term "Life force"

"Chi"

"The force"

"Spirit"

but these things are said NOT to be "intelligent" or "conscious" simply a natural process.

That is just illogical.

A molecular biologists defined life as "that which moves." He also observed that cells received signals from the brain (which were a result of a perception of the environment) and then these cells proceeded to act on these signals and alter DNA.

And yet they are not 'intelligent.'

Oh, that's simple.

If the universe does it, then it's a "natural process".

Basically yes, and that's why "there isn't _____" can't shoulder the burden of proof.

I quite agree. Do you think the designer of our universe has any observable qualities?

Does the explanation get to be "an invisible unicorn did it" or do we need to observe some indication of it before we can claim it as the cause of things?

Ya, happenstance is a f___ing mongoloid explanation for things. Only an brain dead idiot would say it was happenstance.

Luckily the naturalistic explanation is nearly as different from happenstance as the designer explanation.

NO. NOT random.

Describe it then.

I fully understand the point and I don't agree with it one iota. Don't kid yourself.

Scarecrow argument. I might as well say the questions is whether the universe is by ghost elves in the spiritual north pole or naturalism. It wouldn't be any further off than what you keep insisting, though since it makes the other side sound stupid I'm sure you'll react much stronger to it.

*"Program itself" might have some problems depending on how you define life.

*If you've heard much about LHC you'll have heard that we might actually start doing that. We're not certain that that stuff works in a way that that will happen but it's a possibility.

I still don't get why you think natural processes are interchangeable with coincidence.

You're right but that's mainly because I've been trying to teach JB about genetics.

Working on it but it's esoteric work so average people don't ever hear about it in a way that they can understand why anyone bothers.

Basic chemistry will tell you about that. The try and sum it up quickly because of strong and weak nuclear forces.

Your question is flawed though as there are not only 100 types. Any combination of protons and neutrons can exist but most of them are very radioactive and shoot off parts or split them until they get to the more stable ones we are familiar with (but even those eventually undergo radioactive decay, just on much longer timescales.)

At the smallest elements you only need maybe one neutron but as you move up soon there's so much positive charge all clustered up that you need more neutrons to glue it together so you need two per proton and then three and eventually you get to where there aren't enough places to grab on to to hold things together.

http://www.ptable.com/
If you look closely you'll notice that the "natural" elements only go up to 92 anyway. The rest we made in labs and only had tiny tiny fractions of seconds to figure out how they behave and such before they decayed.

Particle physics is one of those points where I reach the limits of things I know well enough to describe to normal folk but if you want to know more detail about why different isotypes of elements are more stable than others that is what you will have to educate yourself about.


If you were familiar with big bang instead of that watered down version they start teaching kids in first grade you'd-
well, I'll just try to describe it a bit (but I admit I'm leaving out some important things to keep it from getting much much longer than this.)

Picture that moment after the very start. There was a whole lot of energy uniformly spread everywhere in the universe but things were very compact then so you had so much energy at any particular point that it was just too hot for atoms.

-but as the whole universe stretched there was more room and less dense energy means lower temperatures so in a fashion a little bit like raindrops forming from a cloud of water vapor you had protons, electrons, and neutrons form from a cooling cloud of energy. As I'm sure you know when you put these together they form atoms. One proton can grab one electron (sometimes more or less but it easily gives them away or grabs another one,) so with just one proton you get hydrogen. Things were still pretty hot though so about one in four atoms had two protons stuck together and those are hydrogen. A small number even had three which means lithium but with the temperatures changing the way they did that's as high as things went from this particular trend.

So what about all the others? Well, with enough energy you can fuse these atoms together and if it's a more stable it will even give off more energy that can fuse others and so on.
And where do we find high temperatures after the background cooled off? Well obviously those funky spots where gravity pulled a lot of those gasses together into one of those big balls we call stars.

It's easiest to fuse hydrogen but helium is heavier so after long enough it moves to the middle (down) and takes up all the hottest areas. If the star was big enough it will eventually push down with enough pressure that it will be hot enough to fuse helium. Next element builds up and so on until iron. Iron is a bit tricky as it has the lowest energy configuration- it just sucks up even more heat to be fused without giving any off. This means this whole "star" trend ends at that element.

But there's a way to get enough energy to keep going. If a star is really freaking huge and gets to the iron point of fusion there's something else that can happen. Heat is the main thing that pushes out from inside of a star but because iron just keeps sucking it up pretty soon you've only got gravity pushing things down. With small stars they hold their weight but the big ones are so heavy that the forces of the atoms themselves can't hold it up and the star collapses in on itself until things are so compact that everything turns into neutrons. It turns out at that heat it's actually smaller than the space neutrons take up and they have enough force to hold everything up so it bounces back to a bigger shape and there is so much energy involved in that that we see the star explode as a supernova. These explosions give us all of the elements up to tricky 92.
*Realistically I'd expect a lot of them make heavier stuff but since those elements decay so quickly and already take the most energy to make meaning there are fewer of those atoms anyway they all decay really quickly and we just see 1 through 92.

Miller Urey experiment gets you halfway through that question. To get through the other half you need amino acid chains and RNA chains. These two molecules are able to make duplicates of other such chains- that's not very good though because that's like having no babies while everyone else has lots and you know that's no good at higher scales thanks to that well known survival of the fittest idea.
But if you stick them inside of a bubble they can find a copy of themselves much more easily so inside of a bubble it's like they make lots of babies while others don't make so many.

Right here is an easy piece of evidence to understand: guess what the wall between the inside and outside of cells is? A bubble.
No, I don't mean it just looks like a bubble, I mean it's actually made out of bubble molecules. This is a big part of why just drying off a counter top will kill 99.9% of the microorganisms on it- if you touch a bubble with a wet finger your finger goes in and it stretches over your finger no problem but try that with a dry finger and you rip the layer of water away from it and the bubble molecules go from a wall to more of a powder without a layer (or more) of water sitting on them and a powder can't hold that shape together so it pops.

Well turns out proteins can help to make those bubbles a little bit resistant to water loss so it's good to have them. Chains that make copies of themselves, a membrane, and a reason to make copies of things to keep the membrane around- sounds like all you need for some selection doesn't it?

Obviously more to this story just like big bang elements stuff but that's the general idea and judging by the questions you're asking no, you didn't know about that and I'm not kidding myself explaining it.

Brains took billions of years bucko. That's not quick at all.
And no, I'm not just talking about our brains. It took microscopic life 3 billion years to evolve to the point where they worked out a good enough energy reaction to turn into big complex things like us and you had little more than pond scum before that.

FOR F_CK SAKE NO. I don't call that happenstance. I don't call that random. I call that naturalistic. A naturalistic process happens for a reason and with such defined interactions between things it can happen quickly. Of course we didn't just up and randomly get life on Earth for no reason, much less in a rapid fashion.

Oh good, you were just mocking me. I thought you were dense for a minute there.

Close enough.

Check out string theory if you want to know about that. I think I've typed enough long explanations for one post.
Look at the other people advocating design in here and you'll see people who don't think so.

Why does making more copies of yourself than others eventually make you into a majority? This is a hard question to approach because you are basically asking why is five more than three.

Do you think five being more than three is evidence that our universe was designed?

Keep in mind that what we are discussing is "evidence" for a designer. We're not attempting to describe the designer itself.

Have I given any descriptions of any designer? I don't think so.

All I gave is 'evidence' for design.



Why not? This is what scientists do all the time.

They can't explain the gravitational behavior of the universe, so they postulate the existence of "an invisible Dark Matter"

They can't explain the accelerated expansion of the universe, so they postulate the existence of "an invisible Dark Energy".

They can't meld together General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, so they postulate the existence of "invisible hidden dimensions and vibrating strings".

How is what I'm doing any different?

We can't explain how this universe can have the obvious order that it has so I postulate the existence of "an invisible designer"

How is this any different from postulating invisible Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Hidden Dimensions, and Strings that are so small that the current mathematics of Quantum Mechanics that totally forbids them to even exist much less be observed.

Stings need to be far smaller than Planck's Constant. But Quantum Mechanics is founded on the very idea that Planck's Constant is the smallest that anything can be. If we can detect anything smaller than Planck's Constant we will have successfully proven that Quantum Mechanics is WRONG.

Yet, here scientists are, postulating the existence of "invisible things" that their own theory of Quantum Mechanics forbids.

So how is my postulate of the existence of an "invisible designer" because we observe design in the universe, any different from their many postulates of "invisible things" to explain the observed behavior that they can't explain otherwise?

Wouldn't that be rather hypocritical of a scientist to suggest that I shouldn't do what mainstream science does on a regular basis?



No, and I haven't described any either.

However, compare this with String Theory! Which is mainstream science!

They have not only hypotheses the existence of strings to explain what they can't explain, but they have describe 7 additional hidden dimensions required for these string to wiggle in. They are assigning properties to the stings such as size and vibrations attributes etc. So they not only postulate these invisible things, but they are claiming to described precisely what they must be like.

I haven't gone anywhere near that far.

All I've done is conclude that there must be a designer. I haven't even attempted to say anything about what the designer might be like. Wux thinks the designer whistles through his nose and has smelly feet. But, in truth, I think that's just because wux isn't pleased with the design.

I don't say anything about the designer at all.

So I'm nowhere near as bad as the scientists who have spent all our TAX MONEY on designing invisible strings just because they can't figure out how to get their mathematics of General Relativity to match up with their mathematics of Quantum Mechanics.

And you accuse me of doing silly things?



Well, again, this is just a rehash of what was already said.

Have scientists observed Dark Matter?

Have scientists observed Dark Energy?

Have scientists observed Strings?

Have scientists observed "hidden invisible dimensions"?

If not, then why are you jumping on me?

Jump on the scientists for a while!

In fact, they still haven't observed a lone quark. And according to that theory they never will because it's impossible for a lone quark to even exist by itself according to the theory. Yet they still believe in quarks. Because believing in their existence "explains something".




Well if it wasn't happenstance then what else would it be?



What are you talking about now. The process of biological evolution on Earth? After the fact that atoms had already been designed?

What "naturalistic explanation"? What's natural? A universe filled with atoms that can combine to build themselves into self-programming biological robots?

What makes that a "natural process" other than the observation that this universe can do it with ease? It's only "natural" with respect to the fact that this universe is already equipped with precisely the correct 100 atoms that accomplish this miraculous feat!

So what does "natural" even mean in this context?

You're already long past the "Creation" of this universe! That happened way back at the Big Bang, remember? If there's an intelligent designer, the design was already a done deal way back then. So anything that's unfolding now, only appears to be a "natural process" because it's already following a design!



Well, I can only describe it based on what is known. First let me address what we don't yet know.

We don't know what it takes to get DNA off and running. We don't know what the "boot-strap" nucleotide sequence is that is required to get DNA to become a self-programming molecule. All we know at this point is that it clearly has the ability to do this.

How does it do it after the "boot-strap" sequence begins?

Well, that's pretty simple. Even human programmers could potentially write self-programming programs. I wrote one myself at one time. I confess that it wasn't very good and it ended up crashing.

In fact, that even begs the question of a designer even more. Not only was the boot-strap DNA sequence good enough to start a self-programming program, but it was a good enough program to not end up crashing!

Based on our current knowledge, only ONE DNA program has survived. The people at the Human Genome Project believe that all life came from a single boot-strap event. They conclude this because all living beings on planet Earth share a large quantity of DNA which implies that they all came from the same original "program".

That may or may not be true. It could be that there is only ONE possible boot-strap sequence that can get DNA off and running. And that single boot-strap sequence forces the program to start out in a particular direction. This would force every DNA program to unfold in the same way at the beginning of the program. Thus resulting in any thing that starts off using DNA to have identical DNA up to a certain point before it can begin to diverge from the boot-strap program.

Moreover, if the boot-strap sequence truly is happenstance, and there are more than one possible boot-strap sequence, then we'd expect to see "crashed DNA programs". In other words, we'd expect to see life that had died out yet had entirely different DNA sequences from all other life on Earth. But according to the Human Genome Project we don't see that. There is only one DNA sequence that worked. Either it all came from one instance of a single happenstance boot-strap program. Or it came from many happenstance events of the same boot-strap sequence that basically produces the same program even if it start independently.

In any case, getting back to you're question. Once this boot-strap program is up and running, then the process of what you call "natural selection" can take over. But not before.

So to look at more advance living creatures and say, "Look! It's a process of natural selection of survival of the fittest", totally misses the original point of how unnatural the original boot-strap event of creating such a self-programming organism was to start with!

You're already passed the real miracle! Any so-called "explanation of creation" at that point is just a description of how the program runs after it's already up and running. It's meaningless at that point.

That's not an "explanation" at all. That's just an observation of what happens after the miracle has already occurred!

At that point it's only a "natural process" because you've already assumed a self-programming molecule as a "natural event".

You're already past the actual "Creation of Life". All you're doing at that point is describing what life does.

That's no explanation!

That's like telling God, "You get life started, and I'll explain how it works".

No, that doesn't work. You need to explain how life could get started! And why the atoms in this universe allow for such an "unnatural event".

And I'm allowed to call that an "unnatural event" because the only thing that makes it "natural" is the simple observation that this universe does it!

That's the only justification for calling it a "natural event".

So burden of proof on "this book is the book of God" but not burden of proof on "this dirt is the dirt of God"?


I thought I already said this :P

Again, I'm not against the idea, it just only works as a baseless belief. We keep the default at it's simplest while still explaining everything we have observed so if anyone wants to believe something they can insert it into the default. If you switch from the "against God" definition of atheism to the "without God" definition then sure it's atheistic but that just gives everyone a chance to think whatever they want, aside from when it clearly conflicts with those things we've seen.
The lines between some of these things get a bit fuzzy at times but I hope you get the gist of it.


That's awfully closed minded. Maybe they just seem unintelligent because you've already accepts all the little ifs a certain way that makes them so. Maybe there are damn good reasons for blood sacrifices that you just won't accept as possibilities.

...you don't need to agree with that but I hope you see the similarity between it and what you've said.

What problems exactly did blood sacrifices solve for those gods?

So in other words you are saying it's wrong because it's ridiculous? I really don't like those religions either and I'm certainly not saying they are right but your arguments before them are grossly flawed. I hope that is only due to you not being thorough because you didn't think anyone here would disagree and not because you're incapable of forming a real argument against that.

So what other guiding factor(s) has lead you to "design"?

Alright, point me at some evidence to pursue if you can.

I'm wondering what this concept of "default" means. After looking in dictionary.com, the closest definition I can find that seems to fit the topic under discussion is a computer term that means: "... a course of action that a program or operating system will take, when the user or programmer specifies no overriding value or action"

So in any case, there must be some presupposition involved. Someone somewhere decided that "if there is no other direction indicated by some external factor, we'll always head in the dirction of _____".

It's like it's based on inertia - once started in a given direction, we'll always continue in that given direction until some external event causes us to change direction.

And the whole track of this debate seesm to always revolve around a disagreement on what the default should be.

So I'd like to ask any and all of the proponents of the "no designer" view, what is your default?

Personally, my default is "me". That is the most basic, fundamental, irreducible foundation for all my evaluations of everything. To me that is Occam's Razor at it's finest.

But it seems that the "scientific default" is "others".

It just seems kind weird to me. It's as if "I" is purposefully excluded from any evaluation of anything.

This is an interesting subject that has been just recently been recognized as a bit of a flaw in the currently accepted, mainstream "scientific method".

As far as I'm concerned, it amounts to, quite simply, ignoring relevant evidence.

From my point of view, it amounts to proponent of 'no designer' attempting to use science and logic, in utterly hypocritical ways.

They demand that 'evidence' is not 'proof'. Even though evidence was all that was originally asked for in the thread.

Moreover, when I point out the fact that the numbers don't add up to support "happenstance" as an explantion for the creation of this universe, thus allow me the right to hypothesis "Intelligent Design", they bulk and say that this is neither logical, nor scientific.

Yet science does precisely the same thing all the time!

Scientists observe that the numbers for gravity don't add up, so they hypothesize the existence of "Dark Matter" to explain why the numbers don't add up.

But no one has ever seen or detected "Dark Matter". Yet no one seems to be complaining about that.

Scientists observe that the numbers for the expansion of the universe don't add up, so they hypothesize the existence of "Dark Energy" to explain why the numbers don't add up.

But no one has ever seen or detected "Dark Energy". Yet no one seems to be complaining about that.

Scientists observe that the mathematic of General Relativity don't match up with the mathematics for Quantum Physics, so they hypothesize the existence of "Hidden Dimenions" and "Strings" to explain why the numbers don't add up.

But no one had ever seen or detected "hidden dimensions or strings". Yet no one seems to be complaining about that.

In fact, the very existence of "Strings" flies in the face of the very postulates of Quantum Mechanics that says that nothing smaller than Planck's Constant makes any sense.

Yet no one seems to be complaining about that.

So what up with complaining so loudly about a hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" to explain why this universe can't be explained by pure happenstance?

It's all hypocrisy of the highest order.

Science doesn't even refrain from doing what these people are objecting to!

So it's utter nonsense.

They need to go jump on the scientific community first and get things squared away there before they start claiming that there is no scientific basis that justifies a hypothesis of "Intelligent Design".

It's just utter hypocrisy.

You didn't say it all at once.
You've said that a butterfly wing is design with the implication that all the patterns of life around us are also design.
You've said that we are continuations of the original creator.
You've said that we are all connected to a universal consciousness that is the designer.

So our bodies are the designs and we are the creator. The creator is the creation.


Not so much religion. Having a mismatched set of chromosomes produces someone with downs syndrome. Physical trauma to the brain produces people with various other mental impairments. Ever seen the shift in behavior someone has after having had a major stroke?

Whether we are our bodies or a larger entity just expresses itself through them the condition of the bodies drastically affects that expression; it alters our very personality. As such the design and the designer are at least linked sufficiently that the designer is indeed the design.

It's not that I'm choosing to not understand. It's that I am choosing not to force my personality into your understanding.

I do intend to understand it but that requires you to describe a great many things so that I don't assume you meant otherwise. I am very much building up a picture of what you have been saying but there are still some questions about it that I can't answer for you.

Well I meant the parts that are hard to convey.

No, you just insist that people who disagree do not understand.

You'll convey enough if I don't frustrate you so much that you leave. If you'd like to speed it up you can tell me about the most varied reasons so I can fill out the range of the spectrum your reasons lie on. I've had a lot of exposure to people on both sides of these kinds of topics so there's a pretty small chance that you'll have many reasons I haven't heard before, I just need to work out which ones (and if you do have anything I haven't seen before that would be neat too.)

Well we can continue with my "here's something reasonably objective I've picked up in my experiences that seems to pose a problem for that reason" format and see if you can throw me any stumpers. It won't very likely change your mind but if you're a genuinely honest person and you can't defend a reason against that you won't be able to call it "a problem" to anyone else's face and with the objective tone I aim for in describing processes maybe you'll even find something useful to share with other people, if only to show that you understand biology.

That would be your opinion and opinions aren't right or wrong so you would be safe from criticism but the problem is that this thread was asking about evidence. Evidence isn't an opinion- it is objective.

You opinion isn't any worse than any other without evidence. It's fine to just believe but sharing it when other people didn't ask is, well, preaching.
You understand why people wouldn't be very welcoming of someone preaching to them when they were asking for arguments, right?

And I give reasons so that people can decide if they agree or do not on something beyond the limit of their own experiences. I don't run into a lot of people that disagree after having taken up that offer but I don't run into many of them who stick around long enough to learn that I was doing that instead of sharing my opinion as they were sharing theirs.

I'm just giving it some visibility among people not aligned against it so much as myself. It is the reason I look for these topics but because you aren't a young Earth creationist of the fundamentalist variety (I think that is probably redundant,) I've stayed for other reasons.


Thin about it this way: If someone asks "why can't we just take what we want? I know how to consider others and moderate myself." you basically say "sure but there are people out there that don't."
That's all I was saying there.

He's heard about science but he hasn't learned or been involved with it.

Or at the very least he sure as hell wasn't a chemistry or physics teacher.

He would argue that point, but I would agree with you. We have been around and around again about methods, and rigor, it seems to fall on deaf ears.

I guess its not impossible for a scientists to be so sloppy . . .

Well, that's the easy out. When you can't keep up with the conversation just discredit your opponent with ad hominem slander.

With only 149 posts under your belt, I suppose we can forgive you. Even though your tactics are uncouth and rude.

It's funny how you conveniently skipped right over the following:



You slander other people with no justification, yet you ignore the facts.

Besides, precisely what did I ever say that was scientifically incorrect?

Some of the things that you brought up before were nothing more than your own misunderstandings.

For example, I asked why there are only 100 elements in this entire unviverse that could randomly, by chance, be designed in such a way as to produce the grand feat of evolving into conscious sentient beings.

All you do is try to describe the scientific observations of how that occurs. I already know how it occurs. That wasn't the question.

The question is why THOSE FEW elements exist in the FIRST PLACE.

I can assure you this much with absolute certainty.

Science has no clue!

And if you claim they do, you're totally misunderstanding the question.

That's all I can say.

But for you to make rude comments about other people's knowledge of science just because you can't understand a question, is totally uncalled for.

Shoku ,







I don't use the term "creator" because it assumes "something from nothing." I use the term "designer" because it assumes taking what is there and forming it into something else.

As an artist sculpting a clay figure, I don't create the figure, I take the clay and transform it into the figure. That is a design.

The tendency to design happens sometimes in an unconscious manner. Children savants are a good example. A child that cannot function or communicate with others and who seems to be in a trance, creates a work of art that resembles a work of a master artist. Not only that, she is not even looking at what she is doing, and she is creating it upside down... in relation to her.

There are many cases of children with some sort of learning disability that have incredible talent or ability that is freakish by normal standards. Children who at a very young age step up to a piano and play like a master composer. Children who can compute better than a calculator... etc.

These are examples of a creative knowledge and intelligence being channeled through a living creature (in this case human) who seems to have no conscious awareness of what they are doing or how.

Countless creative designs are created by animals who do it 'naturally' and unconsciously. My conclusion is that they are channeling this intelligence. In the case of an animal you could say it is "instinct" which is pre-programed in their genes or DNA.. but I don't think this is the case given the example of a child playing piano or doing a work of art that is far in advance of his or her actual age and awareness.

What I see is evidence of an intelligence that flows through living creatures and uses them for the "natural" design process. I don't think "instinct" could cause a child to draw and paint like a master far in advance of their own ability.

I don't think "instinct" directs the design or 'painting' of eyes on the back of a butterfly's wings. That is done while the Caterpillar is encased inside of a cocoon. Some of these designs are the result of evolution over time, and the programming is probably passed on from generation to generation with some variations, but originally, how the design formed is the intelligent designer at work.

More utterly empty ad hominem coming from someone who has never been able to refute anything I've ever posted.

When you can't make a decent point, just try to discredit the person you disagree with.

None of you have even touched the FACTS that I had stated about how science is always postulating things it can't prove exists.

Have any of you ever seen any of those "hidden dimensions" in string theory?

Have any of you ever seen a 'string' that String theory postulates exists?

Until you can come up with those "objects", you can take your empty "Ad Hominem" attacks and shove them where the sun don't shine.

You guys are just sore losers is all.

You don't even know what an argument is either, I made no argument, so I made no ad homs.

You make such bold absolute statements about what science says and NEVER back it up with research. THAT is why I said what I said.

BTW that is called supporting my opinion, no argument made, no logic needed, no fallacies, so try again.

No. What it's called is totally unwarranted personal slander.



I suppose you're right. It was just a totally uncalled for outright personal attack.



Most of the things I say should be common knowledge, or be very easily searchable on the Internet for anyone who cares to verify them.

I state that there are only about 100 different chemical elements in this entire universe. I think most people learn that in High School. I shouldn't need to cite any research papers for that one.

In case you weren't paying attention in high school:

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

I state that there are approximately 70 sextillion stars in the observable unvierse. Again, that is easy to verify on Google,

Here:

All I did was type into Google "Number of stars in the universe"

And it gave me this web page right off the bat:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970115.html

But you don't need to trust that site. It's common information that can be found anywhere.

This site says there are about 10^21 stars in the unvierse. It fails to qualify that this is only in the observable part.

I also had given a more refined number of 70 Sextillion. Which is 70 thousand billion, billion, billion. (about 10^21 stars)

So I shouldn't need to cite research to use those commonly known numbers.

The only point I was making is that in a universe that has such a vast abundance of atoms, why such a very small number of different kinds?

This isn't even a scientific question. It can't be answered by science. Science has no clue why this is the case. It just is.

Science can observe it. But can they "explain it"? No.

And that's my point.

Does happenstance explain it? No. From pure happenstance in a universe this big with over 70 sextillion stars and basically infinitely many atoms for all practical purposes, would we expect to only find 100 different kinds of atoms if they were being created by pure random chance?

That's my question, and I my answer is, no, happenstance doesn't not explain that.

I'm not claiming that science holds this view. But I do claim that mathematically it is not what we should expect if atoms are indeed happenstance. (This should be obvious to anyone!)

What can I say about that? To think that infinitely many atoms just blew into existence from happenstance on only 100 different kinds appear is not what could be called a 'happenstance' event, IMHO.

Especially in terms of any attempt to claim that happenstance "explains" this! It doesn't "explain" it at all. On the contary it would be a truly freak happenstance event if it is indeed happenstance. So happenstance most certainly does not quality as an "explanation".

~~~

That's merely the first part of the observation.

~~~

Now we look at what these extremely few atoms just happen to be able to do.

They come together to form stars that burn for very long periods of time in a stable arrangement. (Surely I don't need to cite the fact that stars burn stably for billions of years. That's common knowledge)

The form plants that happen to circle these stars in nice neat orbits provising long-lasting stable enviroments. (again, do I need to cite the formation of solar systems and planets? Most people already know this stuff)

Then these atoms also form Molecules that can self-program themselves to become highly sophisticated sentient beings. (again, do I need to cite DNA and evolution? I think everyone is already aware of this, even if they don't necessarily accept it. It's common knowlege).

Then I ask, from a personal perspective again, "Is happenstance a reaonable explanation for a universe that just happens to be made up of only 100 different kinds of elements, that just happen to be able to produce the environment and molecules that can self-program themselves into conscious thinking beings.

I give my own personal conclusion which is, "No, happenstance does not explain this at all. This is definitely not what we would expect from a mere happenstance event.

You're millage may vary. Dragoness doesn't see anything wrong with happenstance explaining this event.

Maybe you don't either.

But to claim that I've misrepresented science in any way is baloney.

Most everything that I've used for this presentation is common High School knowlege.

I shouldn't need to cite any papers for this. It's not even cutting edge information. We've known these facts for quite some time. I knew most of this stuff when I was in highschool back in the 50's. Maybe not the 70 sextillion stars, but most everything else. Plus I new there were a lot of stars even if I didn't have a sexy number to assign them.

Oh - I see, and you are so right and I definately share your enthusiasm. I think the "INTERNATIONAL" is what has made the Human Genome Project so productive. I hope this has opened the door for many other scientific ventures it may well be the greatest device we currently have to maintian peaceful and productive interactions on a global level.

And if the genome project progresses and expands we will certainly required some way to maintain peaceful coexistence - expecially since this project will no doubt translate into healthier fetuses and births and add to the quality and quantity of life in general.

That's a lot more people and that will require a lot more cooperation between all societies.

Well, we already know that part of our DNA contains viral information, maybe that was one way to accomplish the task or something similar. But I hope all the research continues to be shared internationally it might prevent any single power from corrupting the findings or the release of data from those findings.

Yes, and I FULLY SUPPORT the Human Genome Project. I personally feel that it's the single most important project that humans are currently undertaking.

Not for the fun stuff like discovering the "boot-strap" code either. I mean that will be fascinating in its own right. But like you point out, it will bring humanity together and be extremely beneficial and productive in terms of curing desease and other health issues.

But along with that will come extremely heated debates about "genetic enginneering" and how far we should go. That's ineviable and rightfully so. Getting too free about playing with genetic engineering could backfire. Especially if we start playing with it before we fully understand it (and we're already starting to do that! That could be dangerous)

In this course I recently took on the Human Genome Project, it was also mentioned that via genetic enginneering we could potentially save the planet's biosphere by designing really huge fast-growing trees to replenish rain forests. That's kind of exciting too. But even that will meet with the people who are against "genetic engineering"

Although, this is what the lecturer predicted would be the most likely use of genetic enginneering on a grand scale. He also suggested that if we take on projects in the plant kingdom on a major scale like that we will learn a lot about genetic engineering before we turn to the task of improving the human condition.

In any case, I'm all for it and it's so exciting I wish I could be involved, but I'm at the far end of life right now, hardly in a position to be starting a new career.

But if you can head in that direction I would strongly recommend it. It sounds to me like that'd be right up your alley. You're a smart cookie and you have a lot to contribute.

We might discover that we're just nothing more than overblown viruses with big egos.

I thing the question posed is a valid one.

evidence can only be regarded as proof when there has been a pre-existing agreement between the parties involved as to the means of validation for the kind of evidence that would constitute proof.