I'm in 100% agreement with that. When I said CPU I meant everything that goes with that. Most CPU's contain an ALU. Although they can indeed be seperate.

But you're right it's the ALU that is important to the programming capabilities. Of course an ALU with out a CPU would be useless because it couldn't do anything but just sit there. So to become a functioning computer it needs all of these aspects.

And of course, as I'm sure you're well aware, I'm using these terms ALU and CPU are just "metaphors" for the functions required. The ALU and CPU of DNA would not be anything at all like they are in manmade computers. None the less, those functions need to be performed in some fashion.

DNA isn't "Binary" anyway, it's based on 4 bits rather than 2, and that allows the DNA "ALU processes" to be far more complex than binary.

If I would have realized these things earlier in life I might have gotten in on studying DNA instead of quanutm physics. Well, I would have still studied both I'm sure, but I would have focused more on DNA.

They often say that the most important thing in science is to ask the right questions. :bismile:

Well, my question on DNA would be, "Let's figure out it's boot sequence" Then we can go wild from there. Although surely I'm not alone in that curiosity. I'm sure that many geneticists must be asking precisely that same question.

I wrote a post way back and everyone trampled right over it like it didn't exist.

But it is okay! I am laughing about it.

Nevertheless it is interesting to see different perspectives of what clinges to be true for that individual.

What is important is that each individual is happy with their own conclusions and who knows perhaps a few have raised an eyebrow and gave a new alternative a thought that a different poster gave.


The way I see it there are many possiblities. Each has its own truth to it that could be possible of a designer or not.

_______________However_______________
Getting back to the topic of this thread,
* * * I have a question for our distinquished member, Abra -- which he overlooked somehow (as I posted it earlier):

premise: A designed substance remains static, i.e. IT DOES NOT EVOLVE!!!

(unless it's been designed as a self-improving system -- in which case the designers must've introduced a bug in the system, if it's taken at least 2000 years [almost] for the designed substance to finally enter the route of the ultimate self-discovery, i.e. space exploration)...

But even before that, you seem to be discarding Millions of years of trial and error, i.e. Evolution -- Natural selection, Survival of the fittest, etc...!

*** Although, I admit, without an outside (supreme?) influence, no reasonable creature would be possible...

P.S. Though, I comprehend, our self-discovery is just OUR WAY OF COMPREHENDING THE ULTIMATE DESIGN!!!

Of course I understand "metaphore" usage, I was going with it because it made sense when discussing the "bootstrap" - but actually it really does have good metaphorical components.

Actually, I think base four might be incorrect, more like base 5 - Example being - RNA has a stop code, which we would equate to zero (off)or stop. A-G-T-C-0

I agree - so go for it, find yourself an grant underwriter and get going....I'll be watching.

Now I can really confirm it has been trampled on

Well the things that I'm suggesting have been designed are the atoms. To the best of our knowledge they have never changed.

When we look out into the universe, we are also looking back in time. Everything we observe suggests that the atoms have always been the same from the beginning of time, or more correctly, the fundamental constituents that make up the atoms have always been the same. (i.e. the laws of the quantum field are consistent and apparently not happenstance.)



Well, I pass no judgements on how great the design is. All I'm doing is addressing the question of whether or not there is evidence for design. I say, yes, there is.

Is it necessarily a "good" design? I don't know. You'll have to find the actual designers and ask them if it produced what they had in mind or not.

If you have any complaints I'm not the person to see. I didn't design it. I'm just offering evidence for why I feel that it was indeed designed. For good or bad.

Frankly, I am disappointed:

I was hopping you could give me the designers' Telephone (or, at least, a web-site! LOL

___________________WOW____________________
Marvelous graphics!!!

Is that a direct line? ? ? (or 1-800-number)

Thank you for admitting that throwing a designer into a mix doesn't make the origin of life in our universe any less of a random chance to you. I can't understand for the life of me why you care less about the infinitely improbable spontaneous origin of some god than you do about the apparently moderately probably origin of our universe and life within it.

Your argument has been that this is all too complex to have been the results of chance but some God that sets up such a complicated universe would be even more complex than that.
And if you don't think so you shoot yourself in the foot because you're admitting simple things can lead to complex things and an admission like that dispels any notion that you would need design for our universe to turn out like this.

Should I talk about more space polar bears trying to control our bladders or are you just never going to get that some guesses hold a lot less merit than others?


Personally my brain chemistry is just wonky enough that I've experienced those things without drugs.

Luckily it's also stable enough that I can tell them apart from reality. Tripping out doesn't seem to really give me experiences that seem remotely spiritual in the first place though so it might be easier because of that.


Actually that's one of the first things people hear when they look at these topics. The idea was basically dropped when we realized that time didn't stretch eternally backwards and that our universe had a point where there couldn't have even been planets for life to be on.

Player Skyhook
+3 exp

Level up!
mysticism: +1: 6
unrelent +1: 9
hibidyjibidies: +3: 13
logic fallacies +2: 16

Class up! Junior Disciple of the Cloud Technomage

If you are speaking only of the physical universe you are probably correct.

But this is probably a multi-dimensional infinite universe.

This particular Universe is not infinite, by any current theory. Either your terminology or your logic is flawed.

I said you are correct. This particular "physical" universe may not be "infinite." Don't be so quick to judge my logic when I am in agreement with you.

However, this is not the only universe.

I plead guilty as charged.

Your response here still shows that you haven't understood a word I said, nor have you understood the question of the thread.

The question of the thread was simply: "Is there evidence for design?"

The question was not "Does assuming a designer explain anything?"

You seem to be stuck in the mode of addressing the second question which I'm not addressing. I'm addressing the question that had actually been asked. "Is there evidence for design?"

Period Amen.

Now, your objection here seems to be that I totally confess that the idea of "stupid stuff" just popping into existence from nowhere and creating intellignet life is just as illogical as some eternal designers existing from 'nowhere'.

I most certainly DO confess that BOTH of these ideas are equally absurd. In addition to that, I flatly refuse your notion that happenstance should be consider to be a "less complicated explanation".

In fact, far more on spot, is that neither of these guesses explain anything! They are both totally absurd notions, equally!

And therefore, since neither guess explains anything then Occam's Razor can't even be applied. Because before we can apply Occam's Razor we need to have a workable explanation. But neither of these guesses explain anything. They are both equally absurd in terms of what we consider to be "logical".

So the question wasn't, "Which of these two guesses do you think is more reasonable?"

The question was simply, "Is there evidence for design?"

That was the question.

I gave an argument of why I feel that there is evidence for design.

Where we go from there is anyone's guess.

You keep objecting to the wrong questions.

I'm in total agreement with anyone who wants to confess that the very existence of this universe it utterly illogical whether it came to be by design or by happenstance.

Either case just as utterly illogical as the other.

And that brings us to the point that our honorable and depenable contributor Skyhook has been making all along.

It is obvious that to try to explain this 'box' (this universe) in terms of the logic we have developed from within this box isn't going to work. If we want to understand something about this box, we're going to need to step "outside" of the box in some way or other. And that may very well include abandoning our notions of what we deem to be "logical"

That's an absolute must.

It's just as utterly "illogical" to think that some 'stupid stuff' popped into existence from nowhere for no reason and accidently created intelligent conscious sentient beings as it is to imagine that some eternal intelligent mind dreamed it all up.

It's machs nix.

Neither idea is an "explanation", because they are both equally absurd. You can't apply Occam's Razor to absurdities and say, "Well this absurd idea seems less absurd to me than the other absurd idea". That's just a matter of personal subjective opinion.

There are no "logical grounds" at all that suggest that either of these absurdies, and totally illogical ideas, should hold any more merit than the other. They are both equally absurd notions (to our way of thinking)

So the only question that I'm addressing here is the question of the thread, "Is there evidence of design". I hold out that based on what we already consider to be logical (i.e. mathematics and physics), then what we observe, points to purposeful design more so than it does to happenstance. Based on the numbers.

That's all I'm saying. It is my assessment, based on what we know, that things point more to design than they do to happenstance.

That was the question, and I gave my answer.

Now you are objecting that my conclusion doesn't explain anything.

But I never claimed to be explaining anything. All I'm doing is answering the question of whether or not there is evidence for design.

"Is this univesre absurd?" Yes, I would say that it most certainly is absurd whether it came to be by happenstance or by design, it's utterly absurd either way, as far as I'm concerned.

But that wasn't the question. The question was, "Is there evidence for design". I say that based on what we know about mathematics, physics, and logic, the evidence points to design rather than happenstance.

But I totally confess that, as Sky points out, our mathematics, physics, and logic may be utterly meaningless when applied "outside of the box".

Where's our justification for demaning that our logic should apply to things that are clearly illogical by our way of thinking?

We can't even logically explain our observations of quantum physics.

When are we finally going to confess that this universe isn't logical, and quit demanding that we need to find a 'logical' explanation for it?

I've already confessed that this universe is illogical as you've pointed out.

But that doesn't change my reasoning for the evidence for design, because all of my 'evidence' was indeed given using mathematics, logic, and physics from "inside the box". So I hold that from "inside the box" we have evidence that points to design rather than happenstance.

The only way we can reject that evidence is to shrug our shoulders and say, "So what? Maybe our logic, mathematics, and physics within this universe is meaningless.

Otherwise, we have no choice but to accept that our logic, mathematics, and physics points to design.

That was the question wasn't it? "Is there evidence for design?"

I make no apologies for this long-winded repetitive ramble. It was fun to write and I'm bored.

The problem of course is that proper and conclusive arguments do further knowledge, and are useful.

That is the dip stick by which the intelligently designed universe argument falls apart. One step simpler is that the components of nature always was and needed no creator.

The teleological argument is flacid and extends attributes of nature past where the evidence goes, this makes it non-scientific, this has been rigorously explained.


At the end of the day we can take a teleological argument and fill the role of creator with any imaginary being and it still works . . . that is a very telling weakness.

Essentially this is why anyone schooled in logic, with a cognitively honest and objective view point will reserve the trite statements that design is obvious.

Its not obvious, in fact everything we learn about nature points away from purpose and design, to form and interaction.

Simpler?

How so?

All I see you suggesting is that an absurity that you seem to have no problem with should somehow be 'simpler' than some other absurity.

Absurdity = Absurdity, as far as I'm concerned.

It's silly to suggest that one absurdity is any 'simpler' than another absurdity.

What's so 'simple' about the idea of a bunch of 'stupid stuff' existing for no apparent reason and accidently creating intelligent sentient life forms?

That doesn't sound so 'simple' to me.

Instead of teaching people that "opinion" why don't we teach them the truth and just say, "We have no frigg'in clue how the universe came to be?"

What's wrong with a little bit of honesty?

And besides, aren't you also totally avoiding the origin question in favor of addresing a totally different question?

The original question was simply, "Is there evidence for design.

There was nothing in that question at all that asksed whether design or happenstance is 'simpler'.

As scientists shouldn't we look at the evidence and go from there?

When did scientists decide to start rejecting evidence in favor of hoping for a simpler explanation? If indeed happenstance could even be said to be a 'simpler' explanation.

Aren't scientists supposed to just follow the evidence wherever it might lead without any preconceived bias?

You seem to be suggesting that we should choose "happenstance" as an explanation over "design" simply because, in your opinion that scenerio seems "simpler" (in spite of what the evidence for design might suggest)

When did that become the "Scientific Method" pray tell?

If we wanted to argue for simplistic answers all the time, we'd still be arguing for Classical Newtonian physics.

Absolute space, absolute time, and a clockwork billiard-ball universe is pretty darn simple.

That was a simple explanation of reality.

We had to drop that simple explanation in favor of more complex explanations because of the evidence.

We had to give up our cherished simple notions of absolute space and time for General Relativity and Black holes and Time warps.

We had to give up our cherished simple notions of a clockwork "cause and effect" universe in favor of a very strange quantum world were are simple notions of straight-forward "cause and effect" no longer hold.

In the face of all these things why do we even cling to something like "Occam's Razor"?

Well, in truth, I stand behind Occam's Razor. Because when used properly it does make sense. The simplest explanation should be preferred.

But that doesn't apply to non-explanations. And the idea of "stupid stuff" accidently creating intelligent sentient lifeforms is not an explanation because there's no reason to believe that "stupid stuff" should exist in the first place, nor is there any reason why it would accidently create intelligent sentient lifeforms.

So it doesn't even qualify as an explanation to begin with.

It's just as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that some intelligent consciousness brought the universe into being. It holds no more merit.