What I find to be extremely ironic is that the very person who posed the origion question refuses to even consider it, yet that same person is always claiming to know what constitutes "philosophy".



If we're going to ask questions, we need to be open to hearing out the potential answers. Othewise, there isn't much sense in asking the questions in the first place.

Especially in philosophy. Philosophers never rule out anything merely because there's no 'evidence' to support it. All they ask, is whether or not is it plausible, or can it be ruled out?

If it can't be ruled out, and it's just as plausible as any other guess, then it must be considered as a possibility.

Well, intelligent design cannot be ruled out, and it's just as plausible as any other guess, so why suggest that it should be ruled out?

To even call that approach "philosophy" is a disgrace to the very discipline itself.

Yes, its like a nanite, packed with information and programming that has the ability to program and build things and even replicate itself.

It may eventually be possible to create an artificial person from the atoms up by using nanites.

If there is any truth to that, wow, we will surly be designers of future worlds. We are the designers.

I beg to differ with you on this point.

We do know what elements exist in other galaxies. We can tell precisely what every visible star is made of by the spectrum of its light.

No matter where we look in the unvierse, or how far back in time we look, we see basically same chemisty. So nothing is being assumed about that. That's already an astronomically observed fact.

I didn't make that up. I don't make things up about science.

You can check it out, if you like, but I'm totally confident that this is correct. I've taken several astrophysics courses, and they have all confirmed this with no hint of uncertainty.

I'll stand by this as a scientifically well-established fact.

They use the doppler-shift of the spectral lines of stars to measure the expansion rates, and the distances to far off galaxies. If those spectra were suddenly revealing a different chemistry that would be very interesting and well-documented science.

No such observations have ever been made, insofar as I'm aware.

All the stars and galaxies that have ever been measured are well within the basic chemsitry of the periodic table. So we have confirmed that this universe is both homogeneous (same elements) and isotopic (same in all directions) in terms of chemistry.

So this is already a well-established piece of data.

Yes "Sir Abra" - I know you are not making up that stuff and I do know it and understand it - (ok, so I'm not completely up to par with all the math) all the stars and nebulas and the some 200 planets that have been verified do contain the same elements, I stand corrected.

Let me ask you a question though, becasue I really don't know the answer. Occasionally I get interested in something and a couple weeks ago I was surfing through some atronomical findings which were reporting some oddities. I didn't write it all down I was just curious so I may have some of the facts wrong but I think you'll understand my question anyway.

In one example a star or it may have been a nebula was found to contain a never before seen over abundance of lithium and no hydrogen. And in another example there was an unusual amount of iron found which was confusing to the scientists and they explained why, but no real explanation could be found - they just decided it needed further study.

So my question - If the abundances of a nebula are extemely lacking in what we consider to be the common nebular elements, and has rather rare ones in place of them, could that nebula become a sun? Obviously I don't know chemistry or even if fission or fusion could take place with/without certain elements. But if it can is it possible that new elements could be formed?

Don't laugh - I'm trying to learn....

NOW - a question related to this thread.

Thinking about "happenstance". It seems clear that while all the elements are the same, they don't come together in the same manner in solar systems or even in nebulas - would you consider that a planned/designed event. Or do just think that randomness can occur as long as the outcome produces the specified design (ie. sun, planet, solar system)?

There's no question at all that it's possible. We're living proof that it's possible.

The only question is whether or not we are smart enough to actually design something as sophisticated as oursleves.

Currently, the answer is clearly no. We can't even build a decent robot yet.

Although, I shouldn't say that. I believe that I could build an android if I had the funding and command over a large collections of engineers. The only thing that's stopping me is money.

Well, I'm not exactly foaming at the mouth to do it either. What would happen if I succeeded in building such an android? The government would just take the design, and mass produce it to use as "disposable soliders anyway. So there isn't much incentive for me to even get involved with such a project anyway.

I understood it Creative - and I liked your post about Spinoza too.

This thread is really disappointing for me on a personal level. There are those who argue that there is evidence for design, and those who argue that there is not. That is to be expected. It is not at all surprising to me what has been shown regarding the style of arguing going on.

Hell, I have only made a few very valid points, none of which have even been addressed directly by the other side in this with one exception, Sky. The number of fallacious misinterpretation of what I wrote outnumbered my actual claims by something like 6 to 1.

An intelligent argument requires listening.

Sky, I personally want to thank you for your mannerism here. You clearly do not agree with my view, and that is more than ok. My sincerest gratitude goes out to you not so much because of the viewpoint which you hold, but moreso for the method in which you communicate with me on this topic.

That is all I have.

Be well everyone. Interesting thread in many ways, thanks to those who added material along with honor and integrity.

I can't speak to the precise examples your referring to since I didn't read the papers you're referring to. I'm sure there are places where the 'abundances' of elements are not what might normally be expected. And those studies would indeed be interesting to follow.

However, in regard to your question:



Not likely. It is possible that different 'abundances of concentrations would be produced' but not likely that new elements could be formed.



I would never laugh at such question. I highly respect you, and I'm well aware that you are indeed extremely intelligent. There's no question of that in my mind whatsoever.

Besides, there's a huge difference between being intelligent and being educated on specific things. If you haven't been taking a lot of courses on chemistry and astronomy then no one should expect you to know these things off the top of your head.



Well, I've always tried to explain it as follows:

This universe is indeed a toss of the dice. In that sense it is indeed a 'random' event.

But the atoms are like the faces on the dice. The dice have been 'predesigned'.

When you roll dice, you have no clue what numbers will come up precisely. (that part is indeed random)

However, having designed the dice, you know that you'll never see less than 2 more then 12 or anything other than whole numbers between 2 and 12. You know you'll never roll a zero, or a 13, or a 3.75, for example.

So in that sense, as the designer, you have decided what can and can't "come up". Even though it's still a random 'toss'.

This is the way I view the design of the universe. The atoms are the 'faces of the dice' the big bang was the roll.

Only in that sense was this universe 'designed'.

Did the designer(s) know that the number "Human" could come up? That's an interesting question.

I don't know.

Where the designer(s) expecing to 'roll' Humans in this particular toss?

I don't know.

When DNA is tossed randomly how many times will "Humans" come up?

I don't know.

This is one reason why I'd like to know more about the "bootstrap" program of DNA. What does the "bootstrap" DNA sequence have to say about these questions?

Just how diverse can life be from DNA?

Just looking around at life on planet Earth we see quite a bit of diversity. However, one thing we notice in almost every living things is "symmetry". This suggests to me that "symmetry" may very well be a key factor in the program.

Although some lifeforms don't appear to have much "symmetry". But the living things that don't appear to have much symmetry appear to make up for it by having a lot of 'fractal' nature to them.

So these are all interesing questions. But look at most living animals. The vast majority of living animals on earth are symmetric right-to-left, and most have 2 eyes, a nose, and mouth. Two arms, wings, or forelegs, and two hind legs.

Is that because we are all so closely related, or is this inherent in DNA itself. Of course, when we get into the insect species we see a lot of diversion from that too. So it's hard to say.

DNA is without a doubt an interesting molecule.

Sorry for the ramble, I hope I addressed your question somewhere in all that blabber.

Creative wroteYou expected somthing else?

No sarcasm intended there. Really and truly.

It's just the way this (designed or happenstance) universe works.

One does the best one can with what one has to work with. No more could be reasonably asked of anyone.

The real difficulty is, and always has been, correct interpretation - of anything perceived.

And you stated a perfect example of that.

Peace.

Well I certainly hope that I'm included with those who have added material with honor and integrity.

You state the following:



I only go by how you respond to my posts. I've taken the time to write very detailed descriptions of my ideas in an attempt to clarify them as best I can.

I've actualy received acknowledgements from other people that my posts have been quite enlightening.

But when you respond to my posts, you suggest that it's all just poetic drivel and that I haven't said anything meaningful at all.

You call that honor and integrity?

As far as I'm concerned I've given clear evidence that this universe cannot be happenstance in terms of the atoms that it is made of.

The mere fact that there exists only 100 different kinds of atoms in a universe that requires infintely many atoms to exist mathematically flies in the face of happenstance.

The fact that even those 100 different atoms are directly related to each other in very precise ways which has also been discovered by science through Mendeleeve and the periodic chart of chemistry is further proof that even this small group of 100 atoms aren't even happenstance realtive to each other!

Taking it even further these same small group of clearly not happenstance atoms just happen to be able to interact with each other in such a way as to build sophisticated molecules that can become a storage system of instruction code that can open and close itself up as needed, and become it's own CPU, to excute it's own code to construct cells that can divide and continue to program themselves to grow sensors, manipulators, and brains capable of becoming self-aware sentient beings.

If that's not "evidence" for design, then what would consitute evidence for design?

What exactly would you expect to see that you would consider to be "evidence" for design if what I just described doesn't satisfy that criteria?

You dismiss my entire case as "poetic drivel" and call that an honorable conversation of integrity?

You've never even addressed any of this. All you do is dismiss it as "poetic drivel" and you call that being honorable with integrity.

Then when I ask for your evidence of "happenstance" you act like you shouldn't be required to give any. You claim that happenstance should just stand on its own without evidence at all as some sort of "scientific default".

Give me a break.

I am bending over backwards to give you a break, Abracadabra. It is disappointing that it goes unrecognized. Nothing you say matches my words or thoughts...

That is too bad.

I am not in a position to know what is inside of another's head, therefore, I cannot say exactly who has maintained their own brand of honor and integrity. I simply thanked those who have.

Truly. I don't think Creative has contributed much of anything to this thread in the way of evidence for anything. I open myself up with all the honesty and imagination possible to illustrate why I see intelligent design and give examples and all I get in return is "I see no evidence." That is simply rude and dismissive.

And for you, Creative, to single out one person and thank them for their style of input excludes everyone else and dismisses all of their input. A person with true class would have thanked everyone for their input. But it seems as if he was excluding people purposely and dismissively which smacks of an expression of a lack of respect for the time and effort others put into this thread.

I enjoyed and appreciated your input Abra and I find it very ordered and logical. It makes perfect sense to me.

But I am disappointed in this thread also because it has a hostile and rude flavor to it. I don't think I will be posting much in these kinds of threads anymore.

I feel my posts have been dismissed and ignored and it has been suggested that I should not voice an opinion about anything unless I am asked. Now I feel insulted, and that my contribution to this thread is not appreciated in the least. Well excuse me, and so be it.

I knew this was going to be a long one. I didn't read but 2 of the THIRTY SIX pages... but I noticed the convo that lead to this thread, and the discussion had the flavor or.. "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" ...before this thread was even started.

Hmmm.... I really want to add something about accepting other people's beliefs... but I got nothing.

Be well.

It is the way the human perceptual faculty works, so in that sense, it is not surprising to me. That is not to say that I would agree to the universal claim though. I do not see non-living pieces of matter as having the ability to misunderstand perception. I think that I know what you meant though!



It is when one is given more yet cannot recognize that to be the case that is disappointing to me. To use a tired analogy, the same path taken will always lead to the same destination.

Again Sky, I personally thank you for our continued improvement regarding the content of our communication.

Massagetrade wrote:



I call that something.

Well that's certainly comforting to know.

Thank you very much and I'm glad I asked becuase through your explanation I have a much better understanding of your thoughts on design as well.

In your previous post you mentioned the programability of DNA and in depth progamming of cells. Actually, I'm not so sure I agree with all of that, particularly regarding the cell. If you break down all the compentents of a differentiated cell, and really look at how it functions then it's clear that each component only has a rather limited program. In fact the cell can not serve it's purpose if the parts are not all there, or do not all meet the requirements of their function. In other words there are a whole lot of little programs that simply run in responce to a command to do so.

If DNA is the CPU and the ALU is the CNS & PNS then I think the ALU is of much more interst in terms of higher programing. The reason I say that is because if we ever attempted to create an intelligent "robot/organism" (Ray Bradbury "I sing the body electric) - it would be ALU that would be the most difficult to assemble. The cells would be easier because (if we understood all the programming)we could use undifferntiated stem cells and enhance them in any way we choose but the ALU would may have to undergo some serious redesign.

It sure would be cool to get to that stage though (of course they would definately need some good psychologists)

>> be happy"

massagetrade

thanks

JB wrote:



I singled out Sky in a conscious attempt to show that I have recognized an improvement between our communication. His input in this and other threads has helped with that. It did not mean that I was purposefully excluding everyone else, just thanking him.

I thanked anyone and everyone who added material with honor and integrity. So, if this includes you then I thanked you as well.

If a single person in a thread is the only source of rudeness, it will be apparent to everyone. I have been part of this thread, I am part of 'everyone' and I have not seen any 'single' source of rudeness - I have seen several and those who appear to be the most offended, by said rudness, have not been remiss in becoming a source of it themselves.

Di,

Thanks for the compliment to my Spinozan-based summary of the topic a few pages back.

That is where I stand in my understanding of all ontological claims. Undoubtedly Kantian and Taoist influence as well.