Abra wrote:



Could you explain to me exactly what "abundances" you are referring to?

This question is ill-defined. What are you calling extremely few atoms? The periodic table?

He briefly described why it was so, giving a basic enough explanation to follow. What do you mean by abundances? He also described why they are as they are, and why that was the case. All of those answers were given in Shoku's brief history of a star.

You are attempting once again to delve into QM.

Just as hydrogen is to water, a quark is to an electron. You cannot know everything about an atom through QM alone. There are such a thing as emergent properties which exist as a result of the whole, but do not exist within the individual elements which constitute that whole.

Why would you think that QM could solve anything having to do with this thread's OP?

They are not looking outside of the box. (I.E. the universe)

Hell, yea I demand proof especially about things of this calibre. Just as religious folks had to provide me with proof of their belief, noone is exempt from the proving what they insist to impose on others.

lol, well you are stuck without the proof, evidence or backing for your intelligent design suggestion then.

No, I am not. In my opinion I have sufficient evidence and proof. The only reason you don't think so is because you will only accept "meeting them in person" as your proof. Even if that could be arranged, I am betting that you would not believe them anyway.

All I saw was evidence which did not necessitate the conclusion of a designer. From my point of view the evidence presented thus far required that because we seem to see order, there must be a design, and therefore where there is a design, there must also be a designer.

I have clearly shown on several occasions where order does not equate to design, and vice-versa.

Where you find elephant dung, you find evidence of elephants.

Again, you dismiss your proof as if I would not believe it.

This keeps telling me that all of this talk from you is you trying to convince you of what you are telling us instead of trying to convince us.

I have a different belief but I don't impose or even try to convince others of it because a. I do not need validation of the belief because it is mine and mine alone b. I truly do believe my belief so I don't need to convince others or myself of it. c. what belief works for me may not work for others, I do not assume to have the answers for all, just me.

Personal experience is not evidence. How do you know you're not experiencing a delusion? I wouldn't take meeting the designer of the Universe as evidence of his/her/its existence, either. How do I know it really happened? Our senses are not immutable and concrete. Schizophrenics believe a number of things, but do you believe one when he tells you God made him drown his children? Think about it.

Before you leap to conclusions, no, I'm not implying that you're crazy. Just that you, like everyone else, are human.

I am not implying that I have ever met them. I was only answering her demand for proof of a designer or designers. She said that is the only proof she would accept. But I don't believe she would even accept it even then.

You may have to read this thread if you want to catch up on the conversations going on here. That could take a while.

Your analogy doesn't really fit. Appearance of design does not equate to evidence of design. We know that elephants exist, and that they produce dung, therefore their dung is evidence that they exist.

What you've done here is begin with a conclusion and search for evidence to support it. This is not how science works.

Yeah, no. Not happening. I'll try and piece it together as I go.

Well good for you. I don't need to convince anyone of my belief either. I am not "imposing" my believe on you or anyone. You are the one who has been demanding "proof" of my claims or of my belief.

That is the whole subject of this thread. You can either accept my evidence or ignore it. I don't really care.

There are many kinds of science.

The word “science” derives from a Latin verb, scire, meaning to know or to understand; it could thus properly apply to any process of comprehension of any topic or form of experience. But in contemporary usage the term has taken on an array of more specific implications, depending on the context, the user, or the audience. In some instances it connotes bodies of established technical knowledge, such as biology, chemistry, geology, or physics, or the technological applications thereof. In other situations it conveys more dynamic images of visionary, portentous research into new and exciting natural or cultural phenomena. In yet another variant, it refers to the communities of scholars and practitioners of such topics, or to the social authority they exert. Or finally, the term science can imply a methodology, or standard, or ethic of intellectual exploration that distinguishes its process from other less rigorous forms of human reasoning and creativity, regardless of the particular

You've got to be kidding, right?

You ask if there is any evidence for a designer of this universe.

Then you ask why I would think that QM would have anything to do with that question?

Surely you jest?

This one, aka the Scientific Method. This is what I mean when I say science. Now stop being silly.

Edit: Seriously? CopyPasta from the Book of Thoth? And you mean for me to take you seriously?

Yes, surely. You can't ignore QM in this discussion. There you have reached the "bottom" or "foundation" of the universe, which is the very thing we are talking about.

Silly? I am dead serious. I am not being 'silly.'

Why on earth should I be forced to play by your rules or definitions of "science?"

No, actually it is a copy paste from "Science of the Subjective"
By:
Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory
School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University

Because if you don't read my statements in the context of my definition you can't really address my points and the debate goes nowhere. I don't make the rules; I just pick a set and go with it, so to speak.

Google has led me astray. *shakes fist at the internet*

Either way, you seem to be stalling. You know what I mean when I speak of science. I couldn't possibly make it any more obvious.