OT: A Designed World

[MG]

Greetings, longtime lurker here. This question I have is off-topic, but I figured if anyone could give me some insight, it would be the fine posters of talk.origins.

I am working on a story, a fantasy-based tale about a world populated by uplifted animal forms. The creatures are based on Earth animals. The protagonists consist of a group of anthropomorphic otters, rabbits, foxes, and wolves, the world itself populated by all manner of sentient animal life forms.

Where the story intersects with TO is here. The world they live on was designed, a super-continent on an earth-sized planet (think Pangea) containing near every known climate zone and habitable environment. A central plot line is the eventual discovery that the world and it's inhabitants were created.

My question is this: what clues could the protagonists find to lead them to the conclusion that their world was created by an intelligent designer(s)? Their technological level spans roughly from prehistoric to Renaissance (so no DNA analysis, no travel outside their atmosphere, etc.) There are no overt signs that their world is an artificial structure, and it was designed to run smoothly without constant tinkering from the Designers.

Anyway, thanks in advance for any feedback, I hope this can serve as a little distraction from the normal TO feedback loops.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Although this will sound like a response to an ID poster here, I would think that the evidence they would find that their world was created by an intelligent designer would depend entirely on who the designer was, how he worked, whether he deliberately left messages for his designed lifeforms to find, where the designer lives now, what techniques he used, whether he left trash behind, or other artifacts. All the sorts of questions one asks an ID advocate are entirely relevant to your story.

[Roger Shrubber]

It's your story so, how were they created? Who did the creating?
You need to have some backstory to frame your narrative. You will
have to invent and maintain a reason why they were created.

If they are discovering that they are created, did they have some
alternative natural history as a base mythology that they are
discarding? How did that arise? Did whatever/whoever created
that world want to leave clues? Have they been dropping hints?
Any hidden speakers behind burning bushes? Are they being monitored?

If they are sentient beings they will have stories that they
tell to inquisitive children. You'll have decide if those myths
were homegrown or were "given" to them. Or did they grown out
of some partially remembered/understood past?

You need reasons to pick certain solutions to your plot needs.
Perhaps they can discover fossils indicating a prior biota
that was sudden and nearly instantaneously replaced. But they
need some science for that.

A proper story needs all that backstory to enable you to say
whatever it is you actually wanted to say. Presumably that's
more than just some quirky plot with a few twists.

[Burkhard]

Well, difficult. Most of the more obvious ways a designer could be
identified you have ruled out, in particular any unambiguous disclosure
on his/her/them side. (so the mountains don't form one big copyright
notice in the language of the otters., e.g.)

Possibly discovering massive discontinuity? If they discover in the
fossil record that over bilennia, life on their planet had evolved from
very simple organisms into very large fish-like beings, but no mammals
whatsoever - They then suddenly disappear, to be replaced
instantaneously by their own kind - large mammals that were using from
the word go tools and other technology, and nothing that even remotely
looks like a precursor.

That might give the the idea that the beings that had originally evolved
on that planet had been replaced, in one fell swoop, by them - and as
they don't have the tech to do it by themselves might indicate that some
third party was involved,

[TomS]

"On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:07:46 +0000, in article <mdad16$vi2$1...@dont-email.me>,
Burkhard stated..."

"bilennia"? That is a new word for me, so I looked it up on the web, and
it seems to mean: billennium: "the year 2000"; or is it "a period of 2000
years".
"protagonist" I guess I have to give up on that in the face of a literate
person's usage.

But more substantively, I have a problem with a discontinuity being a
signature of a designer. Isn't that more like something without reason?


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[Burkhard]

Not any discontinuity, but one that lends itself to an explanation like
the one I indicated - natural evolution, interrupted by a "bioforming"
event that killed the native population and flew in a new one, ready
made, from elsewhere.

[A Nony Mouse]

In article <mdal1j$vh0$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Once the creators have done their creating, evidence of the planetary
history following that creation should accumulate naturally and be
detectable, but would the creators have necessarily included in their
design evidences of a prior-to-that-creation-event but fictional
history like some creationists claim their god did with Earth?

[wpih...@gmail.com]

Well, I would not say the post is OT as questions of whether and how
a designer could be detected lie pretty much dead centre in the
evolution/non-evolution debate (your motivation for asking the question
is a bit unusual) . I agree with Burkhard, you need
some sort of discontinuity, in fossil record, in rock formations,
in complexity of artifacts etc. Note that in relation to Renaissance
technology, geo-engineering is certain to be "sufficiently advanced"
that your characters could not distinguish it from "magic" [1].
So any evidence for a created planet could (and probably would ?)
be seen as evidence for a creator God.
Note that most of the evidence will be rather "global" in nature,
e.g. you need a good fossil record before you can claim that
complex forms only appear very recently or not at all, (it is possible
that the theory that fossils are organic in origin is a minority
theory),

One possibility might be to notice that there is evidence of great
age (e.g. stalactite growth in caves) combined with features
(e.g. quasi stable rock formations) that are inconsistent.
However this might not be compelling enough (your theory of
stalactite growth must be wrong).

Another possibility is the discovery that their single continent is
made up from several large pieces that appear to be patched
together with huge masses of gravel. (again this would require
"global" knowledge.

The discovery of an artifact or artifacts would seem to be ruled
out by your conditions or the discovery of a watch (a replica of
an antique but made from modern alloys) would have a certain
irony.

william Hughes

[1] Arthur C Clarke of course. You want a reference.
Google is your friend.

[Roger Shrubber]

Upon further consideration: Geology. Have you read the Riverworld books?
Very regular geological structures would not be recognized until
an age of discovery.

Let's place your mega continent in the Norther Hemisphere. There's a
dominant monsoon from the West. There's a gentle rise over some coastal
foothills and a modest mountain range to an elevated valley backed by
a higher range. Behind that is a higher range still. But that first
valley collects a river that flows South then cuts East in a gap to
then flow North. The river repeats in this North, turn East, South,
East pattern. And it's an amazingly regular pattern. That's
your signature for design. It also almost works to supply you with
different ecosystems plus a nice river to exploit. You can always
spice it up with an inland swamp and perhaps a further rain trap
set of mountains behind it.

[jillery]

You're not clear what you mean by "overt" structures. IIUC your world
would contain a mix of what us Earthians would call natural and
artificial objects and processes. I'm not sure that intelligent
organisms raised on such a world would recognize that difference. For
example, recall the movie "Forbidden Planet". A sentient native of
Altair IV would have no reason to make that distinction between
evolved flora and fauna from the self-repairing Krell machinery.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[passer...@gmail.com]

If there is any other intelligent life in the Galaxy (and nearby ones), they are already here for an absolute certainty.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

"absolute certainty" Nope. If we make a bunch of assumptions
about how intelligent life can and will behave then
probably (perhaps). [We can also define "True Intelligent Life"
that behaves according to our assumptions.]

-William Hughes

[Barba]

passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> If there is any other intelligent life in the Galaxy (and nearby ones), they
> are already here for an absolute certainty.
>

I suppose that means that you do not consider us "intelligent life" as we
haven't visited any other star system...

B

[Robert Carnegie]

If you stretch the technology, they could perhaps
spectrographically analyse stars and other planets
and find some element that is either common or rare
in the universe and the reverse on their planet.
Meteorites may be available too. There's an
argument that Earth is rather odd in having heavier
metals available at or near the surface. Supposedly
due to the encounter with Theia that also gave us
a relatively large moon.

In biology, a big giveaway of design would be
similar biology without common heredity... although
there is "convergent evolution". And horizontal
gene transfer.

Or, in deep mines, the foundations of the world are
suspiciously regular.

Or, what the heck, they find the designer's underground
laboratory and library.

Or, somewhere, on or in every animal's body, maybe
not easily seen, a corporate logo that happens also
to be drawn on the Moon; unmistakeable. Also maybe
in a wavelength of light that they don't see...

IIRC, amongst mammals, only primates have human-type
full-colour vision? But there is a sort of crabby
thing with an incredible variety of vision.

[Bill]

I suggest that there would be no way to tell. You're looking
at the world -with- the world; you can only see it from
within. This is the same problem we have in this (the real)
world. The only possible objective evidence will have to
come from outside - from the Designer(s).

If this Designer(s) reveals the secret to just a few,
everyone else will just have to believe them; they won't
have the objective evidence. This is the same situation
we're in, here and now. One of your fictional creatures will
have to have a revelation (vision, etc.) and no one will
believe him (her).

Bill

[RonO]

The designers could have left clues not just on purpose, but because
they didn't care if they were leaving them or not. If the point of the
experiment was to determine what these sentient species would do on
their own without interference then the ones that designed the
experiment would have likely taken pains to not reveal any pre history.

This world wouldn't know what fossils were. There would be no dragon
bones found in the earth nor evidence of past lifeforms. If the planet
was earth-like and previous lifeforms had inhabited it, but were removed
due to incompatibility with the earth life there may be a fossil record
that makes no sense. A fossil record where no extant lifeforms are
related to the fossils. Once these sentient species develop
biochemistry they would likely find that the most recent unexplainable
fossils have a totally different biochemistry in terms of what amino
acids they may have used to make proteins, and even their nucleic acids.

My guess is that all the sentient species would have a very similar
creation mythos. They may have all started in the environment at the
same time with no technology, just habitats suited to them, but with the
ability to remember and communicate history to future generations.

I doubt that many of the species would survive. You just have to
imagine giving a wolf pack or lion pride human intelligence and the
ability to kill at a distance and pretty soon you have nothing left.
How much intellect would it take to stop a primative society from
destroying their ecosystem. We just have to look at our own history to
see what would happen on one single continent with no place to run.
Soon the surviving carnivore would be eating each other.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 04:08:48 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:

We also need to do a bit of work on the practicality of
interstellar (and intergalactic) travel. Based on current
knowledge it doesn't look too hopeful for even interstellar;
intergalactic is Right Out.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 2:00:00 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:

> it doesn't look too hopeful for even interstellar;
> intergalactic is Right Out.

Maybe not. Even a fairly slow probe could cover
the distance from Andromeda
in a few hundred million years.

Can a machine be constructed that would last
that long. Perhaps.

-William Hughes

My favourite resolution of the Fermi Paradox

http://xkcd.com/962/

[Dale]

the obvious hypothesis leading to design is that life forms design


--
(my whereabouts below)
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:46:30 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:

>On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 2:00:00 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> it doesn't look too hopeful for even interstellar;
>> intergalactic is Right Out.
>
>Maybe not. Even a fairly slow probe could cover
>the distance from Andromeda
>in a few hundred million years.

Maybe I shouldn't have assumed you would understand that
"practical" belonged in there...

>Can a machine be constructed that would last
>that long. Perhaps.

If by "machine" you mean "something with no function and no
moving parts, constructed of a completely inert substance",
maybe. Otherwise, almost certainly not; we can barely make a
machine which lasts the average human lifespan without
maintenance.

>My favourite resolution of the Fermi Paradox
>
>http://xkcd.com/962/

Yeah, good one. ;-)

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 3:59:56 PM UTC-3, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:46:30 -0800 (PST), the following

> >Can a machine be constructed that would last

> >that long [hundreds of millions of years].

> >Perhaps.
>
> If by "machine" you mean "something with no function and no
> moving parts, constructed of a completely inert substance",
> maybe. Otherwise, almost certainly not; we can barely make a
> machine which lasts the average human lifespan without
> maintenance.

Do not conflate "what we can presently do" with what may
be possible. Otherwise you are in danger or saying things
like, "it is impractical to build a computer".
I see no theoretical reason why a machine with self
maintenance capability and sufficient redundancy could
not operate over multi-hundred million year intervals.

-William Hughes

[Robert Carnegie]

Make your starship out of a mass of little self-reproducing
robots, and evolution takes care of it! Yes!

[wpih...@gmail.com]

The problem is that they may start out as a mass of robots
whose purpose is to detect life, and end up as a mass of robots
whose purpose is to destroy life.

-William Hughes

[Robert Carnegie]

Hmm - Nomad is an island, as they say in Star Trek.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:

Possibly. Alternatively, I see no theoretical reason why a
way around Einstein's limit of velocity in vacuo can't be
found at some time in the future when we know much more than
we do currently about the structure of spacetime. But that
doesn't mean I'd propose that getting to the Andromeda
galaxy between breakfast and lunch is something we "can do".

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

Well, until the point when the occasional defective
reproduction leads to the usual, and they go off on their
own to do "robot things"... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:21:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:

Paging Mr. Saberhagen! Please pick up line pi!

[Sneaky O. Possum]

wpih...@gmail.com wrote in news:ecf3023e-e0ff-4901-b1e1-9aaef85a2605
@googlegroups.com:

Detect life? If they're a mass of little self-reproducing robots, they
*are* life. Mission accomplished!

The real problem is that evolution will have no effect on them unless
their ability to reproduce includes a means for introducing random
changes into the process, and those random changes occasionally result in
a new feature that gives robots who possess it a measurable reproductive
advantage over other robots, and that new feature can be transferred to
new robots through the reproductive process.

The people who designed and built the first batch of robots would
presumably have taken pains to avoid putting a mechanism for random
change into the reproductive cycle, since such changes might be
detrimental to the continued existence of the spacecraft.
--
S.O.P.

[Bill]

Necessary to the theory of cosmic expansion alleged to have
occurred immediately after the Big Bang, is the notion of
superluminal expansion. The universe poofed into existence
and then, mere nano-seconds later, it expanded exponentially
for some few nano-seconds. This faster-than-light expansion
eliminates various problems of a Big Bang without expansion.

The point is that the speed of light only has a limit when
it does and that will vary as theory requires. Fortunately,
theory is the only way to know anything about the origin of
the universe so verification isn't really required.

Bill

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
news:sumrfapjm4vukj20j...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>
>>On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 3:59:56 PM UTC-3, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:46:30 -0800 (PST), the following
>>
>>> >Can a machine be constructed that would last
>>> >that long [hundreds of millions of years].
>>> >Perhaps.
>>>
>>> If by "machine" you mean "something with no function and no
>>> moving parts, constructed of a completely inert substance",
>>> maybe. Otherwise, almost certainly not; we can barely make a
>>> machine which lasts the average human lifespan without
>>> maintenance.
>
>>Do not conflate "what we can presently do" with what may
>>be possible. Otherwise you are in danger or saying things
>>like, "it is impractical to build a computer".
>>I see no theoretical reason why a machine with self
>>maintenance capability and sufficient redundancy could
>>not operate over multi-hundred million year intervals.
>
> Possibly. Alternatively, I see no theoretical reason why a
> way around Einstein's limit of velocity in vacuo can't be
> found at some time in the future when we know much more than
> we do currently about the structure of spacetime. But that
> doesn't mean I'd propose that getting to the Andromeda
> galaxy between breakfast and lunch is something we "can do".

Wouldn't that depend on the frame of reference of the person observing
the meals? A spacecraft capable of exceeding the present limit on
velocity could leave Earth after a man in New York eats breakfast this
morning and arrive at the Andromeda galaxy before he eats lunch
yesterday afternoon.
--
S.O.P.

[Burkhard]

Even worse if that is the pig that is going to become the lunch, and
sees itself getting eaten.

[broger...@gmail.com]

The speed of light was constant even during the supraluminal expansion.

[testmai...@gmail.com]

This is Bullshit

she...@gmail.com

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El jueves, 5 de marzo de 2015, 21:24:44 (UTC), TomS escribió:
> "On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:07:46 +0000, in article <mdad16$vi2$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Burkhard stated..."

> >Well, difficult. Most of the more obvious ways a designer could be
> >identified you have ruled out, in particular any unambiguous disclosure
> >on his/her/them side. (so the mountains don't form one big copyright
> >notice in the language of the otters., e.g.)
> >
> >Possibly discovering massive discontinuity? If they discover in the
> >fossil record that over bilennia, life on their planet had evolved from
> >very simple organisms into very large fish-like beings, but no mammals
> >whatsoever - They then suddenly disappear, to be replaced
> >instantaneously by their own kind - large mammals that were using from
> >the word go tools and other technology, and nothing that even remotely
> >looks like a precursor.
> >
> >That might give the the idea that the beings that had originally evolved
> >on that planet had been replaced, in one fell swoop, by them - and as
> >they don't have the tech to do it by themselves might indicate that some
> >third party was involved,
>
>
> "bilennia"? That is a new word for me, so I looked it up on the web, and
> it seems to mean: billennium: "the year 2000"; or is it "a period of 2000
> years".
> "protagonist" I guess I have to give up on that in the face of a literate
> person's usage.
>
> But more substantively, I have a problem with a discontinuity being a
> signature of a designer. Isn't that more like something without reason?
>
>
> --
> God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
> ---Tom S.

is suppose that the word designer popped up as a consequence of the
theory of evolution. Before that, the word do not existed. God had
created the heavens and the earth, but do not designed them. They
were created. Being almighty, god had not any problem of creating
all living beings, just by shouting like in the case "let be the light"
as told in the genesis. Then, the god called Yahweh "created" but
do not designed. To design is a minor feat of doing; it requires more
intelligence and perseverance than power. To design implies errors,
hesitations, ameliorations; it demands also corrections, and some
evolution of the procedure of making thing we are doing. To design is
human, but the gods do not design; they make things; for they have
superpowers like the children heroes of the cartoons.
But, in the case of ancient Greeks, the gods were so closely made at
the image of humans, that they made nothing. The cosmos made everything.
Even it made the gods, etc. But they spoke about the cosmos as some
inner order around the earth and the heavens, not about some space so
far away as our modern cosmos. Even, the behavior of the gods were
decreed or permitted by cosmos. So the gods were not almighty and
had to comply with some unknown rules of the cosmos. The gods were
capricious and malicious, but a little like humans can be also
capricious and malicious. For the gods in general gave us an outlook
of our kings and leaders. Even Yahweh looks also like a capricious
human king that can get furious and kill us in an attack of wrath.
I suppose that Yahweh have all the attributes of a chief priest that
was watching how the people were abandoning the true faith on Yahweh
and went out to give money to the priest of other gods nearby.
This of course had to be an abomination. Thou shall give the moneys
to the priests of Yahweh and not to priests of other gods.
There is not any need to explain that to give money to the priests of
other gods is an abomination.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El viernes, 6 de marzo de 2015, 1:19:43 (UTC), wpih...@gmail.com escribió:

> On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 2:29:44 PM UTC-4, MG wrote:
> > Greetings, longtime lurker here. This question I have is off-topic, but I figured if anyone could give me some insight, it would be the fine posters of talk.origins.
> >
> > I am working on a story, a fantasy-based tale about a world populated by uplifted animal forms. The creatures are based on Earth animals. The protagonists consist of a group of anthropomorphic otters, rabbits, foxes, and wolves, the world itself populated by all manner of sentient animal life forms.
> >
> > Where the story intersects with TO is here. The world they live on was designed, a super-continent on an earth-sized planet (think Pangea) containing near every known climate zone and habitable environment. A central plot line is the eventual discovery that the world and it's inhabitants were created.
> >
> > My question is this: what clues could the protagonists find to lead them to the conclusion that their world was created by an intelligent designer(s)? Their technological level spans roughly from prehistoric to Renaissance (so no DNA analysis, no travel outside their atmosphere, etc.) There are no overt signs that their world is an artificial structure, and it was designed to run smoothly without constant tinkering from the Designers.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks in advance for any feedback, I hope this can serve as a little distraction from the normal TO feedback loops.
>
>
>

> Well, I would not say the post is OT as questions of whether and how
> a designer could be detected lie pretty much dead centre in the
> evolution/non-evolution debate (your motivation for asking the question
> is a bit unusual) . I agree with Burkhard, you need
> some sort of discontinuity, in fossil record, in rock formations,
> in complexity of artifacts etc. Note that in relation to Renaissance
> technology, geo-engineering is certain to be "sufficiently advanced"
> that your characters could not distinguish it from "magic" [1].
> So any evidence for a created planet could (and probably would ?)
> be seen as evidence for a creator God.
> Note that most of the evidence will be rather "global" in nature,
> e.g. you need a good fossil record before you can claim that
> complex forms only appear very recently or not at all, (it is possible
> that the theory that fossils are organic in origin is a minority
> theory),

Watching fossils would prove the existence of giants of the bible.
The ancient Greeks had some fossils or what looked like bones of
some mythological creature. But as the remains of the creature were
sort of holy, or sacred, they were not permitted to be examined at
plain daylight, etc. Mostly those bones should be permitted to be
watched in almost total darkness, to avoid anyone would see those
bones as those of old whale or a male sea-cow. This most had to be
an abomination.
Eri




> One possibility might be to notice that there is evidence of great
> age (e.g. stalactite growth in caves) combined with features
> (e.g. quasi stable rock formations) that are inconsistent.
> However this might not be compelling enough (your theory of
> stalactite growth must be wrong).
>
> Another possibility is the discovery that their single continent is
> made up from several large pieces that appear to be patched
> together with huge masses of gravel. (again this would require
> "global" knowledge.
>
> The discovery of an artifact or artifacts would seem to be ruled
> out by your conditions or the discovery of a watch (a replica of
> an antique but made from modern alloys) would have a certain
> irony.
>
> william Hughes
>
> [1] Arthur C Clarke of course. You want a reference.
> Google is your friend.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El viernes, 6 de marzo de 2015, 6:49:42 (UTC), passer...@gmail.com escribió:
> If there is any other intelligent life in the Galaxy (and nearby ones), they are already here for an absolute certainty.

"Assuming we are intelligent". For there are people that doubt of the
existence of any intelligence in this galaxy. For those damn doubters,
the intelligence must exist elsewhere; not here.

Eri

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 3:09:54 PM UTC-3, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
<snip>

> The people who designed and built the first batch of robots would
> presumably have taken pains to avoid putting a mechanism for random
> change into the reproductive cycle,

Indeed, but can their "pains" be sufficient. We are talking
about a multiple 100 million year period. Can exact reproduction
be maintained over such a period.

-William Hughes

[deadrat]

The universe didn't "poof" into existence. You're thinking of the
explanation of origins from Genesis.

> and then, mere nano-seconds later, it expanded exponentially
> for some few nano-seconds. This faster-than-light expansion
> eliminates various problems of a Big Bang without expansion.
>
> The point is that the speed of light only has a limit when
> it does and that will vary as theory requires.

The "speed of light" is its speed through space. Our current best
theory says this limit is fixed. This limit doesn't change because of a
postulated expansion of space itself. There are theories that require
that the speed of light vary. These theories, like all scientific
theories, require verification by observations

> Fortunately,
> theory is the only way to know anything about the origin of
> the universe so verification isn't really required.

You're thinking of Biblical origin myths.

Various models of the earliest times of the universe cannot be verified
by experiment. Their correctness must be inferred from current
observations.

> Bill
>
>

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in news:mdkppv$r3c$1...@dont-email.me:

Even worse than even worse if that pig sees itself getting eaten when it
has already become the lunch, and is now an undead pig capable of
recognizing its own cooked flesh.
--
S.O.P.

[Bill]

Well, the constant, "c" has the same value forever. In that
sense we can't include it in equations requiring other
values. We can also argue that 186000 miles can vary if the
measure of distance changes. Since the universe began 13
billion 425 thousand, and 22 years ago, the measure of
distance has changed.

The universe started as a one dimensional point to really
big in mere fractions of a second. Distance went from zero
to a mile instantly and, since the universe is expanding, a
mile keeps getting longer in relation to what it was a
minute ago.

Since everything changes at the same rate, there is no way
to see or measure or quantify change; everything always
looks the same. Even so, the theory of cosmic expansion
requires an almost instantaneous expansion which has to be
greater than the speed of light to make any difference. So
what is doing the expanding, from what, to what. How can the
expansion be measured?

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/7/15 10:46 AM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 2:00:00 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> it doesn't look too hopeful for even interstellar;
>> intergalactic is Right Out.
>
> Maybe not. Even a fairly slow probe could cover
> the distance from Andromeda
> in a few hundred million years.
>
> Can a machine be constructed that would last
> that long. Perhaps.

I want the contract for the beta testing.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[broger...@gmail.com]

The singularity at the Big Bang is NOT a one dimensional point, or even a very small three dimensional volume. The singularity is a moment in time; density was extremely high, but nothing in Big Bang cosmology suggests that the universe was not infinite at the start of the Big Bang. It was a lot denser than it is now, but it was infinitely large then and infinitely large now.

>
> Since everything changes at the same rate, there is no way
> to see or measure or quantify change; everything always
> looks the same. Even so, the theory of cosmic expansion
> requires an almost instantaneous expansion which has to be
> greater than the speed of light to make any difference. So
> what is doing the expanding, from what, to what. How can the
> expansion be measured?

There are actually answers to those questions, if you want to read about them, or take an online astronomy or cosmology course.

>
> Bill

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 9 March 2015 19:29:53 UTC, testmai...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is Bullshit
>
> she...@gmail.com

"Ecce homo."

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:39:40 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:

Only if the velocity was in "normal" space, which is
impossible by current knowledge. And I believe that such
questions as "What happens if c is exceeded in normal space?
Does time flow backward for the traveler?" are interesting
from a conversational perspective (especially after a few
beers), but essentially meaningless.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:25:07 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

testmai...@gmail.com:

>This is Bullshit

Congratulations on correctly characterizing your post.

Er, that *is* what you meant, right? No context and all...

>she...@gmail.com

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:37:35 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Unfortunately for your conjecture, it was the expansion of
space which occurred, not a change in c.

Oh, and the phrase "poofed into existence" is rather
telling.

Just sayin'...

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in

news:nodufal8st9bsp46c...@4ax.com:

Well, sure. And achieving any kind of velocity in 'non-normal' space is
impossible by current knowledge. That was kind of the whole context of
the discussion, wasn't it?

> And I believe that such questions as "What happens if c is exceeded in
> normal space? Does time flow backward for the traveler?" are
> interesting from a conversational perspective (especially after a few
> beers), but essentially meaningless.

Your second question is a bit worse than meaningless. Time obviously
doesn't flow backward for the *traveler* - that's why I stated that the
breakfast and lunch were those of a guy in New York. The frame of
reference for the traveler (her name is Ida) is the interior of the
vehicle, which isn't moving at all relative to her: as far as she's
concerned, time is ticking along the same as it always has. You might as
well ask whether a pilot can hear his own voice after his vehicle
exceeds Mach 1.

Perhaps you also believe that such questions as 'How would an observer's
frame of reference affect his ability to perceive an FTL spacecraft?'
are essentially meaningless. I'd agree that such questions have no more
meaning than speculation about the possibility that future knowledge
about the structure of spacetime might hold the key to exceeding the
current limit on velocity in vacuo, even though we can't even imagine
what that knowledge might be. If one finds such speculation interesting,
why should one care whether it's meaningful?
--
S.O.P.

[Bill]

A fact I acknowledged. c is constant and therefore doesn't
change. But it is not dimensionless; it uses a unit of
distance and another of time. the relationship between the
parameters is constant even if either of them changes.

We know that the universe is expanding and that means all
units of distance must also change. Since the apparent
distance traveled always takes the same amount of time, the
units used to measure time must also be changing. Everything
looks the same even while changing. Since the changes are
all of equal value, we don't see them.

>
> Oh, and the phrase "poofed into existence" is rather
> telling.
>
> Just sayin'...

What explanation do you prefer? Poofing is exactly what the
current models require regardless of the terms they use.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

That is an easy mistake to make when thinking about cosmic expansion. It is not the case that all distances are expanding. Distances within gravitationally bound objects, like galaxies, are not expanding with the Hubble flow. Galaxies are moving farther apart from one another, but the stars within a single galaxy are not. If, as you say, all distances were expanding by the same scale factor, the change would be undetectable.

[William Morse]

On 03/05/2015 02:05 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> MG wrote:
>> Greetings, longtime lurker here. This question I have is off-topic,
>> but I figured if anyone could give me some insight, it would be the
>> fine posters of talk.origins.
>>
>> I am working on a story, a fantasy-based tale about a world populated
>> by uplifted animal forms. The creatures are based on Earth animals.
>> The protagonists consist of a group of anthropomorphic otters,
>> rabbits, foxes, and wolves, the world itself populated by all manner
>> of sentient animal life forms.
>>
>> Where the story intersects with TO is here. The world they live on
>> was designed, a super-continent on an earth-sized planet (think
>> Pangea) containing near every known climate zone and habitable
>> environment. A central plot line is the eventual discovery that the
>> world and it's inhabitants were created.
>>
>> My question is this: what clues could the protagonists find to lead
>> them to the conclusion that their world was created by an intelligent
>> designer(s)? Their technological level spans roughly from prehistoric
>> to Renaissance (so no DNA analysis, no travel outside their
>> atmosphere, etc.) There are no overt signs that their world is an
>> artificial structure, and it was designed to run smoothly without
>> constant tinkering from the Designers.
>>
>> Anyway, thanks in advance for any feedback, I hope this can serve as
>> a little distraction from the normal TO feedback loops.
>

> It's your story so, how were they created? Who did the creating?
> You need to have some backstory to frame your narrative. You will
> have to invent and maintain a reason why they were created.
>
> If they are discovering that they are created, did they have some
> alternative natural history as a base mythology that they are
> discarding? How did that arise? Did whatever/whoever created
> that world want to leave clues? Have they been dropping hints?
> Any hidden speakers behind burning bushes? Are they being monitored?

Thanks for bringing that up. I was trying to come up with specific
differences between designs that are mediated by intelligence and
designs that are just brute force trial and error (such as evolution).
But in order to recognize those differences, the protagonists would have
to initially assume they were created by evolution or some other
non-intelligent designer. What would make them do that? In all of the
human cultures with which I am familiar (and let me make it clear that I
am no expert on this), there is some story of creation, and none of them
are based on evolution or a similar mechanical agency. So in order to
answer MG's question we will need a starting point for what they believe
as a creation story that is other than intelligent design.

> If they are sentient beings they will have stories that they
> tell to inquisitive children. You'll have decide if those myths
> were homegrown or were "given" to them. Or did they grown out
> of some partially remembered/understood past?
>
> You need reasons to pick certain solutions to your plot needs.
> Perhaps they can discover fossils indicating a prior biota
> that was sudden and nearly instantaneously replaced. But they
> need some science for that.
>
> A proper story needs all that backstory to enable you to say
> whatever it is you actually wanted to say. Presumably that's
> more than just some quirky plot with a few twists.
>

[passer...@gmail.com]

If we don't destroy ourselves we will populate the entire Galaxy in 100k years. The Galaxy is 10,000,000k years old. A blink of an eye to the Galaxy.

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 9:39:42 AM UTC-5, Barba wrote:

> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If there is any other intelligent life in the Galaxy (and nearby ones), they
> > are already here for an absolute certainty.
> >
>

> I suppose that means that you do not consider us "intelligent life" as we
> haven't visited any other star system...
>
> B

[jillery]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:59:56 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>If we don't destroy ourselves we will populate the entire Galaxy in 100k years. The Galaxy is 10,000,000k years old. A blink of an eye to the Galaxy.

Existence is a necessary but insufficient condition for interstellar
travel. Your statement is a facile corruption of the Fermi paradox.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:42:29 +0000 (UTC), the following

I consider that "impossible by current knowledge" means that
current knowledge forbids it. Is it your contention that
something in current knowledge of physics actually forbids
an as-yet-unknown method of travel, or that physics is
simply silent on the subject? (And no, I'm not suggesting
"wormhole travel"; I'm simply saying that we're ignorant of
any possibilities we haven't thought of.)

>> And I believe that such questions as "What happens if c is exceeded in
>> normal space? Does time flow backward for the traveler?" are
>> interesting from a conversational perspective (especially after a few
>> beers), but essentially meaningless.
>
>Your second question is a bit worse than meaningless. Time obviously
>doesn't flow backward for the *traveler* - that's why I stated that the
>breakfast and lunch were those of a guy in New York. The frame of
>reference for the traveler (her name is Ida) is the interior of the
>vehicle, which isn't moving at all relative to her: as far as she's
>concerned, time is ticking along the same as it always has. You might as
>well ask whether a pilot can hear his own voice after his vehicle
>exceeds Mach 1.

I was unclear; what I referred to was the time outside the
vehicle - the traveler leaving in 2015, for instance, and
arriving in 2014. What she experienced during the travel
would be irrelevant, but I assume would be the "normal" flow
of time.

>Perhaps you also believe that such questions as 'How would an observer's
>frame of reference affect his ability to perceive an FTL spacecraft?'
>are essentially meaningless. I'd agree that such questions have no more
>meaning than speculation about the possibility that future knowledge
>about the structure of spacetime might hold the key to exceeding the
>current limit on velocity in vacuo, even though we can't even imagine
>what that knowledge might be. If one finds such speculation interesting,
>why should one care whether it's meaningful?

Meaningless in the sense of having immediate application,
not in the sense of being entertaining.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:59:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>If we don't destroy ourselves we will populate the entire Galaxy in 100k years.

Is that also an "absolute certainty"?

> The Galaxy is 10,000,000k years old. A blink of an eye to the Galaxy.
>
>On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 9:39:42 AM UTC-5, Barba wrote:
>> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > If there is any other intelligent life in the Galaxy (and nearby ones), they
>> > are already here for an absolute certainty.
>> >
>>
>> I suppose that means that you do not consider us "intelligent life" as we
>> haven't visited any other star system...
>>
>> B

[Nick Roberts]

In message <hlv0gah53vbt8ot50...@4ax.com>

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:59:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
> > If we don't destroy ourselves we will populate the entire Galaxy in
> > 100k years.
>
> Is that also an "absolute certainty"?

It's an interesting computation. Given that the Milky Way is 100-120K
LY across, and we've about 27K LY from the centre, that means that to
get to the opposite edge of the galazy we have to travel 77K-87K LY
in 100K years. i.e. we have to maintain an average speed of better than
0.75 C for the next 3,000 generations.

Unless passerby is claiming certain knowledge that FTL travel is
possible, that leaves precious little time for stopping off on the way.

> > The Galaxy is 10,000,000k years old. A blink of an eye to the
> > Galaxy.
> >
> > On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 9:39:42 AM UTC-5, Barba wrote:
> > > passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > If there is any other intelligent life in the Galaxy (and
> > > > nearby ones), they are already here for an absolute certainty.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suppose that means that you do not consider us "intelligent
> > > life" as we haven't visited any other star system...

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:34:30 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Nick Roberts
<tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>:

>In message <hlv0gah53vbt8ot50...@4ax.com>
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:59:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>> > If we don't destroy ourselves we will populate the entire Galaxy in
>> > 100k years.

>> Is that also an "absolute certainty"?

>It's an interesting computation. Given that the Milky Way is 100-120K
>LY across, and we've about 27K LY from the centre, that means that to
>get to the opposite edge of the galazy we have to travel 77K-87K LY
>in 100K years. i.e. we have to maintain an average speed of better than
>0.75 C for the next 3,000 generations.

So, since it's an "absolute certainty" it will happen
(premise being met), we'd best start ASAP. Shall I bring the
deck of cards?

>Unless passerby is claiming certain knowledge that FTL travel is
>possible, that leaves precious little time for stopping off on the way.

Well, there may be drive-throughs...

>> > The Galaxy is 10,000,000k years old. A blink of an eye to the
>> > Galaxy.
>> >
>> > On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 9:39:42 AM UTC-5, Barba wrote:
>> > > passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > If there is any other intelligent life in the Galaxy (and
>> > > > nearby ones), they are already here for an absolute certainty.

>> > > I suppose that means that you do not consider us "intelligent
>> > > life" as we haven't visited any other star system...

The silence from the normally-loquacious driveby (excuse me;
*passerby*) is rather telling...

[Walter Bushell]

In article <f9nrfaljs29ahec1t...@4ax.com>,
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> Well, until the point when the occasional defective
> reproduction leads to the usual, and they go off on their
> own to do "robot things"... ;-)
> --

A common trope in science fiction. Even done with squid.
First squid is totally dedicated to humanity's well being,
and is sent off to conquer Jupiter or such. A few generations
and the squid start working for themselves and eventually
take over Earth.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:55:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <f9nrfaljs29ahec1t...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> Well, until the point when the occasional defective
>> reproduction leads to the usual, and they go off on their
>> own to do "robot things"... ;-)

>A common trope in science fiction.

Yeah; I was thinking specifically of Hogan's _Code of the
Lifemaker_.

A bit behind in our followups, are we? ;-)

> Even done with squid.
>First squid is totally dedicated to humanity's well being,
>and is sent off to conquer Jupiter or such. A few generations
>and the squid start working for themselves and eventually
>take over Earth.
--

[Walter Bushell]

In article <v95bhap1uarsh6tep...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:55:22 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <f9nrfaljs29ahec1t...@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> Well, until the point when the occasional defective
> >> reproduction leads to the usual, and they go off on their
> >> own to do "robot things"... ;-)
>
> >A common trope in science fiction.
>
> Yeah; I was thinking specifically of Hogan's _Code of the
> Lifemaker_.
>
> A bit behind in our followups, are we? ;-)

Not even an instant in historical time, much less evolutionary time.

>
> > Even done with squid.
> >First squid is totally dedicated to humanity's well being,
> >and is sent off to conquer Jupiter or such. A few generations
> >and the squid start working for themselves and eventually
> >take over Earth.

--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:11:15 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <v95bhap1uarsh6tep...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:55:22 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >In article <f9nrfaljs29ahec1t...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, until the point when the occasional defective
>> >> reproduction leads to the usual, and they go off on their
>> >> own to do "robot things"... ;-)
>>
>> >A common trope in science fiction.
>>
>> Yeah; I was thinking specifically of Hogan's _Code of the
>> Lifemaker_.
>>
>> A bit behind in our followups, are we? ;-)
>
>Not even an instant in historical time, much less evolutionary time.

True. Maybe that will work the next time I'm late for an
appointment...

>> > Even done with squid.
>> >First squid is totally dedicated to humanity's well being,
>> >and is sent off to conquer Jupiter or such. A few generations
>> >and the squid start working for themselves and eventually
>> >take over Earth.
--

[Tim Norfolk]

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:29:44 PM UTC-5, MG wrote:
> Greetings, longtime lurker here. This question I have is off-topic, but I figured if anyone could give me some insight, it would be the fine posters of talk.origins.
>
> I am working on a story, a fantasy-based tale about a world populated by uplifted animal forms. The creatures are based on Earth animals. The protagonists consist of a group of anthropomorphic otters, rabbits, foxes, and wolves, the world itself populated by all manner of sentient animal life forms.
>
> Where the story intersects with TO is here. The world they live on was designed, a super-continent on an earth-sized planet (think Pangea) containing near every known climate zone and habitable environment. A central plot line is the eventual discovery that the world and it's inhabitants were created.
>
> My question is this: what clues could the protagonists find to lead them to the conclusion that their world was created by an intelligent designer(s)? Their technological level spans roughly from prehistoric to Renaissance (so no DNA analysis, no travel outside their atmosphere, etc.) There are no overt signs that their world is an artificial structure, and it was designed to run smoothly without constant tinkering from the Designers.
>
> Anyway, thanks in advance for any feedback, I hope this can serve as a little distraction from the normal TO feedback loops.

Start with Terry Pratchett's 'Strata'

[Tim Norfolk]

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 1:59:53 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:21:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
>
> >On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:14:57 AM UTC-3, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> >> On Sunday, 8 March 2015 20:04:56 UTC, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 3:59:56 PM UTC-3, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> > > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:46:30 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> >
> >> > > >Can a machine be constructed that would last
> >> > > >that long [hundreds of millions of years].
> >> > > >Perhaps.
> >> > >
> >> > > If by "machine" you mean "something with no function and no
> >> > > moving parts, constructed of a completely inert substance",
> >> > > maybe. Otherwise, almost certainly not; we can barely make a
> >> > > machine which lasts the average human lifespan without
> >> > > maintenance.
> >> >
> >> > Do not conflate "what we can presently do" with what may
> >> > be possible. Otherwise you are in danger or saying things
> >> > like, "it is impractical to build a computer".
> >> > I see no theoretical reason why a machine with self
> >> > maintenance capability and sufficient redundancy could
> >> > not operate over multi-hundred million year intervals.
> >>

> >> Make your starship out of a mass of little self-reproducing
> >> robots, and evolution takes care of it! Yes!
> >
> >
> >The problem is that they may start out as a mass of robots
> >whose purpose is to detect life, and end up as a mass of robots
> >whose purpose is to destroy life.
>
> Paging Mr. Saberhagen! Please pick up line pi!

> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

Weren't the Berserkers designed to kill all life, for some interstellar war?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <XnsA45875B5CE166sn...@213.239.209.88>,

"Sneaky O. Possum" <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
> news:sumrfapjm4vukj20j...@4ax.com:
>

> > On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT), the following

> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:
> >

> >>On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 3:59:56 PM UTC-3, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:46:30 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>
> >>> >Can a machine be constructed that would last
> >>> >that long [hundreds of millions of years].
> >>> >Perhaps.
> >>>
> >>> If by "machine" you mean "something with no function and no
> >>> moving parts, constructed of a completely inert substance",
> >>> maybe. Otherwise, almost certainly not; we can barely make a
> >>> machine which lasts the average human lifespan without
> >>> maintenance.
> >
> >>Do not conflate "what we can presently do" with what may
> >>be possible. Otherwise you are in danger or saying things
> >>like, "it is impractical to build a computer".
> >>I see no theoretical reason why a machine with self
> >>maintenance capability and sufficient redundancy could
> >>not operate over multi-hundred million year intervals.
> >

> > Possibly. Alternatively, I see no theoretical reason why a
> > way around Einstein's limit of velocity in vacuo can't be
> > found at some time in the future when we know much more than
> > we do currently about the structure of spacetime. But that
> > doesn't mean I'd propose that getting to the Andromeda
> > galaxy between breakfast and lunch is something we "can do".
>
> Wouldn't that depend on the frame of reference of the person observing
> the meals? A spacecraft capable of exceeding the present limit on
> velocity could leave Earth after a man in New York eats breakfast this
> morning and arrive at the Andromeda galaxy before he eats lunch
> yesterday afternoon.

You mean he could spend a fortnight in Andromeda and return to NYC
before he had eaten lunch the previous month. Great for quickie
vacations when you're way behind at work.

[Tim Johnson]

On 3/9/2015 5:43 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/7/15 10:46 AM, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 2:00:00 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>> it doesn't look too hopeful for even interstellar;
>>> intergalactic is Right Out.
>>
>> Maybe not. Even a fairly slow probe could cover
>> the distance from Andromeda
>> in a few hundred million years.
>>
>> Can a machine be constructed that would last
>> that long. Perhaps.
>
> I want the contract for the beta testing.
>

He should get Ron Dean interested in this " A Designed World".
BTW what happened to him anyway? Is he gone? Will he be back? I worked
with him at one time for for many years, He was an eccentric person.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[jonathan]

Design implies the lack of free-will.

The only way to have a 'design' which is
self-sustaining is if it's a naturally
evolved system.

However, a naturally evolved ecosystem
would produce the kind of beauty and wonder
that would be expected from an 'intelligent'
or god-like design.

If it appears designed by a loving hand
it must be naturally evolved.

As the two go hand-in-hand.

The Big Clue is if they...can't tell
if there's a designer or not, no matter
how hard they try.

That's how you know, that's the
proof of God.



"In the name of the Bee
And of the Butterfly
And of the Breeze -- Amen!"




s

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in news:proto-
A7BB17.201...@news.panix.com:

Spacecraft don't eat lunch.
--
S.O.P.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:23:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Norfolk
<tims...@aol.com>:

>Weren't the Berserkers designed to kill all life, for some interstellar war?

Yep. But the point was that design isn't the only way
berserkers could come to exist, assuming the potential for
evolution exists in the von Neumann devices ("little
self-reproducing robots") via defective copying.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:35:00 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>:

>On 3/5/2015 1:25 PM, MG wrote:
>> Greetings, longtime lurker here. This question I have is off-topic, but I figured if anyone could give me some insight, it would be the fine posters of talk.origins.
>>
>> I am working on a story, a fantasy-based tale about a world populated by uplifted animal forms. The creatures are based on Earth animals. The protagonists consist of a group of anthropomorphic otters, rabbits, foxes, and wolves, the world itself populated by all manner of sentient animal life forms.
>>
>> Where the story intersects with TO is here. The world they live on was designed, a super-continent on an earth-sized planet (think Pangea) containing near every known climate zone and habitable environment. A central plot line is the eventual discovery that the world and it's inhabitants were created.
>>
>> My question is this: what clues could the protagonists find to lead them to the conclusion that their world was created by an intelligent designer(s)? Their technological level spans roughly from prehistoric to Renaissance (so no DNA analysis, no travel outside their atmosphere, etc.) There are no overt signs that their world is an artificial structure, and it was designed to run smoothly without constant tinkering from the Designers.
>>
>> Anyway, thanks in advance for any feedback, I hope this can serve as a little distraction from the normal TO feedback loops.

>Design implies the lack of free-will.

The two are not related.

>The only way to have a 'design' which is
>self-sustaining is if it's a naturally
>evolved system.
>
>However, a naturally evolved ecosystem
>would produce the kind of beauty and wonder
>that would be expected from an 'intelligent'
>or god-like design.
>
>If it appears designed by a loving hand
>it must be naturally evolved.
>
>As the two go hand-in-hand.
>
>The Big Clue is if they...can't tell
>if there's a designer or not, no matter
>how hard they try.
>
>That's how you know, that's the
>proof of God.
>
>
>
>"In the name of the Bee
>And of the Butterfly
>And of the Breeze -- Amen!"
>
>
>
>
>s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[J. J. Lodder]

Who cares about lunch?
What did they do on the previous night?

Jan

[jonathan]

On 3/30/2015 1:41 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:35:00 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>:
>
>> On 3/5/2015 1:25 PM, MG wrote:
>>> Greetings, longtime lurker here. This question I have is off-topic, but I figured if anyone could give me some insight, it would be the fine posters of talk.origins.
>>>
>>> I am working on a story, a fantasy-based tale about a world populated by uplifted animal forms. The creatures are based on Earth animals. The protagonists consist of a group of anthropomorphic otters, rabbits, foxes, and wolves, the world itself populated by all manner of sentient animal life forms.
>>>
>>> Where the story intersects with TO is here. The world they live on was designed, a super-continent on an earth-sized planet (think Pangea) containing near every known climate zone and habitable environment. A central plot line is the eventual discovery that the world and it's inhabitants were created.
>>>
>>> My question is this: what clues could the protagonists find to lead them to the conclusion that their world was created by an intelligent designer(s)? Their technological level spans roughly from prehistoric to Renaissance (so no DNA analysis, no travel outside their atmosphere, etc.) There are no overt signs that their world is an artificial structure, and it was designed to run smoothly without constant tinkering from the Designers.
>>>
>>> Anyway, thanks in advance for any feedback, I hope this can serve as a little distraction from the normal TO feedback loops.
>
>> Design implies the lack of free-will.
>
> The two are not related.
>

It seems to me that free will, or a high
level of random interactions would defy
any attempts to plan and implement some
design?

How can the final product be conceived in
advance if each step along the way has
a high level of unpredictability?



s

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/30/15 6:40 PM, jonathan wrote:
> On 3/30/2015 1:41 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:35:00 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>:

>> [...]

>>> Design implies the lack of free-will.
>>
>> The two are not related.
>
> It seems to me that free will, or a high
> level of random interactions would defy
> any attempts to plan and implement some
> design?
>
> How can the final product be conceived in
> advance if each step along the way has
> a high level of unpredictability?

Designers generally do not conceive the final product in advance. They
conceive a general idea of the final product and then put in a lot of
effort, usually trial-and-error, working out all the details. And even
the general idea is probably adapted from previous designs, and the
"final" product may itself give rise to other products based upon it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Nick Roberts]

In message <1d284c60-5cc4-460b...@googlegroups.com>

ISTR that they were designed to destroy a specific race alien to, and
at war with, the Berseker's creators. The desire to destroy all life
came about as a "mutation" in the programming of later-generation
Berserkers (i.e. those built by Berserkers).

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:40:15 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>:

>On 3/30/2015 1:41 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:35:00 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>:
>>
>>> On 3/5/2015 1:25 PM, MG wrote:
>>>> Greetings, longtime lurker here. This question I have is off-topic, but I figured if anyone could give me some insight, it would be the fine posters of talk.origins.
>>>>
>>>> I am working on a story, a fantasy-based tale about a world populated by uplifted animal forms. The creatures are based on Earth animals. The protagonists consist of a group of anthropomorphic otters, rabbits, foxes, and wolves, the world itself populated by all manner of sentient animal life forms.
>>>>
>>>> Where the story intersects with TO is here. The world they live on was designed, a super-continent on an earth-sized planet (think Pangea) containing near every known climate zone and habitable environment. A central plot line is the eventual discovery that the world and it's inhabitants were created.
>>>>
>>>> My question is this: what clues could the protagonists find to lead them to the conclusion that their world was created by an intelligent designer(s)? Their technological level spans roughly from prehistoric to Renaissance (so no DNA analysis, no travel outside their atmosphere, etc.) There are no overt signs that their world is an artificial structure, and it was designed to run smoothly without constant tinkering from the Designers.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, thanks in advance for any feedback, I hope this can serve as a little distraction from the normal TO feedback loops.
>>
>>> Design implies the lack of free-will.

>> The two are not related.

>It seems to me that free will, or a high
>level of random interactions would defy
>any attempts to plan and implement some
>design?

Thanks. The world will breathe a little easier now that
you've conclusively demonstrated that nuclear weapons, which
are designed using materials with high levels of random
interactions, and which in fact *rely* on those random
interactions to function, can't actually be designed.

>How can the final product be conceived in
>advance if each step along the way has
>a high level of unpredictability?

Who said anything about "each step along the way"? I merely
noted that producing something *designed* to have free will
isn't an oxymoron.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Thursday, 5 March 2015 18:29:44 UTC, MG wrote:
> Greetings, longtime lurker here. This question I have is off-topic, but I figured if anyone could give me some insight, it would be the fine posters of talk.origins.
>
> I am working on a story, a fantasy-based tale about a world populated by uplifted animal forms. The creatures are based on Earth animals. The protagonists consist of a group of anthropomorphic otters, rabbits, foxes, and wolves, the world itself populated by all manner of sentient animal life forms.
>
> Where the story intersects with TO is here. The world they live on was designed, a super-continent on an earth-sized planet (think Pangea) containing near every known climate zone and habitable environment. A central plot line is the eventual discovery that the world and it's inhabitants were created.
>
> My question is this: what clues could the protagonists find to lead them to the conclusion that their world was created by an intelligent designer(s)? Their technological level spans roughly from prehistoric to Renaissance (so no DNA analysis, no travel outside their atmosphere, etc.) There are no overt signs that their world is an artificial structure, and it was designed to run smoothly without constant tinkering from the Designers.
>
> Anyway, thanks in advance for any feedback, I hope this can serve as a little distraction from the normal TO feedback loops.

First of all, if it was designed to;

> run smoothly without constant tinkering from the Designers.

A 'G-Type' star like ours is no use, as it would kill everything designed when it explodes like ours will in in about 4 billion years.

A smarter designer would have a tidally locked planet orbiting a "K-M Type" red dwarf, giving it's inhabitant's about 10 Trillion years to live.

A Genius designer, would have his/her planet orbit a "Super Massive Black Hole", in the middle of void space, with the planet, being warmed by Hawking radiation. This would give it's inhabitants 2*10^106 years to live.

But the bigger question is this!

Do any;

>sentient animal life forms.

People/Animals *DIE* on this "perfectly designed planet"?

If they don't. He's obviously gonna place them on the black hole. A BENEVOLENT designer, would do this for his creation. Naturally.

If they do *DIE*, he/she is a *MALEVOLENT* designer? But how malevolent?

Well a generally uncaring designer would probably pick the Red Dwarf, and let people live a 10 trillion years, A sadistic designer would pick our Sun, and only let you live 8 Billion years.

A Sick Bastard would place us on the Sun like star and max your life-span to a century.

A*TRULY, TRULY, MOTHER FUCKER, "DON'T MESS WITH MY WRATH" ABHORANT MALEVOLENT SICK BASTARD*, would kill old people with cancer, young kids with lukemia, babies with Spina bifida, and on top of that he would make *EVERY* living thing that ever lived on his would VIOLENTLY KILL everything that ever lived.

So as I was saying; the true question, the people on your planet should be asking is; "Dare we find out"?.

This Mother Fucker might send us all to Hell, for all eternity. Just for "Questioning".

[Earle Jones27]

*
That's the proof of God??

"If 'they' can't tell if there's a designer or not..."

Who is 'they', by the way?

earle
*

[jonathan]

On 3/31/2015 11:17 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/30/15 6:40 PM, jonathan wrote:
>> On 3/30/2015 1:41 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:35:00 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>:
>>> [...]
>>>> Design implies the lack of free-will.
>>>
>>> The two are not related.
>>
>> It seems to me that free will, or a high
>> level of random interactions would defy
>> any attempts to plan and implement some
>> design?
>>
>> How can the final product be conceived in
>> advance if each step along the way has
>> a high level of unpredictability?
>
> Designers generally do not conceive the final product in advance. They
> conceive a general idea of the final product and then put in a lot of
> effort, usually trial-and-error, working out all the details. And even
> the general idea is probably adapted from previous designs, and the
> "final" product may itself give rise to other products based upon it.
>

Wouldn't that mean 'god' has to constantly
be involved?


s

[Mark Isaak]

What do you mean by 'god'?

[jonathan]

"...an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power"


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


s

[Mark Isaak]

Then no.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:55:30 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]