Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 9:16 PM
342 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,877 Year: 25,483/21,208 Month: 1,110/2,338 Week: 231/450 Day: 51/52 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 287 of 373 (647189)
01-08-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
All things we have observed come into existence thus far in our human experience have come from something else.

Apart from virtual particles, obviously.

Did you not know about virtual particles?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM Larni has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1683
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 288 of 373 (647198)
01-08-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Just being real
01-08-2012 5:46 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Based on what we have observed 1/9 planets have life on them. Based on your proposed 500 billion planets 55.6 billion (give or take few) should have life on them, is that the point you're tying to make? Cause it doesn't fit with your previous one.

edited to add: rereading your original example I see that it was 500 billion dump trucks of marbles, not 500 billion marbles. The math still carries over, 55.6 billion dumptrucks of marbles would have life.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 5:46 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM DrJones* has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 289 of 373 (647201)
01-08-2012 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Just being real
01-08-2012 6:33 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Let's have a look at this taking into account only what has actually been observed, and leaving out speculation. After all if JBR tells us that we cannot even consider that speculation MIGHT be true, so if he were relying on speculation, he would be using a double standard indeed.

I also wish to make a point about specification, If the assumption of an intelligent source is based on intent then intent must be established. Arguing for intent from an intent-free notion of specification would be necessarily make that notion of specification sufficient to argue for an intelligent source. So is the question of intent relevant or redundant ?

quote:

Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing one case of something coming from nothing.)

I think that we can only call this an "observation" if there is a "nothing" that has been properly observed and seen to never produce anything. If "nothings" have not been observed, we cannot conclude what they might or might not be capable of (that would be speculation). So do we have such observations ? What does "nothing" mean in the context of this argument ?

quote:

Scientific observation B: the universe "began." (Can be falsified by observations which show it has always existed.)

Scientific "observation" B' we have never observed the universe failing to exist.
But apparently this is not taken as a reason to conclude that the universe has always existed. Which illustrates the problem of using a simple failure to observe something as an argument for it's impossibility.

However, we have observed that the universe is expanding for as far back as we can see. If we use well-accepted theory to run further backwards we get to a point where the universe is so small that well-accepted theory can no longer accurately describe it (this is not observation, but is it speculation or are we entitled to rely on well-established theories ?). To go beyond this point surely counts as speculation, since we do not even have well-established theory as a guide.

THere is no "Observation C"

quote:

Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources. (Can be falsified by one observed case of something with this kind of specificity being formed by unguided natural processes.)

Let us note that Subbie's antenna seems to falsify that since it was not designed by an intelligent source. If however, the argument is supposed to refer to manufacture rather than design, we must note that neither the universe, nor the Earth nor living things show any evidence of intentional manufacture - which would be the usual way of identifying the presence of intent for artifacts.

quote:

Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes. (Can be falsified by just one case to the contrary)

Actual observation indicates a significant degree of redundancy in the DNA code, and that large amounts of DNA appear to lack any function - and almost certainly lack any function that depends on the sequence. The idea of DNA being "highly specified" is questionable to say the least. Speculating that these parts of DNA do have sequence dependent function would be speculating against the evidence.

Moreover that objection rules out DNA being highly specified in a simple way that does not include the issue of intent. We have never observed any non-human engineering DNA with intent, nor have we observed any non-human capable of it. In short, the idea of intent with regard to DNA is based on speculation rather than observation.

On the other hand we have observed that evolution-like processes can be quite effective at producing functional designs, without having any intent at all. So if all we have is functional designs obviously we should go with the process which is observed to be operating and capable of producing functional designs rather than speculate about unobserved designers.

quote:

Scientific observation F: The 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems. (Can be falsified by observing one other case of another planetary system with the existence of native life)

First it needs to be established that these parameters actually are highly specified. Without doing so this is speculation, not observation. And - in the case of the atmosphere - we must point out that the atmosphere has been radically altered by the presence of life. Which rather indicates that that is not highly specified.

Further, since our observations of other planetary systems are still very limited by the available technology, we cannot reasonably say that we have observed even a tiny fraction of those in our galaxy, let alone the many other galaxies which have been observed to exist. Any ideas about what we would find if we observed even 1% of existing planetary systems are speculative.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 6:33 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM PaulK has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 290 of 373 (647203)
01-08-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
JBReal writes:

Yes it is true by definition. But why do we know it is true? Because of observation.

No. By definition.

JBReal writes:

Therefore I meant exactly what I said. We seem to be in agreement that intended objects by nature require an intelligent source.

By definition.

JBReal writes:

The problem is when anyone tries to nail down just what constitutes a fair means by which one can accurately detect and asses "intent." This is where there seems to be a gross double standard on the part of atheists and agnostics. As I have already pointed out, no one seems to have any problem using the specificity of the information in a dolphins communication, to detect and determine levels of intelligence.

It's not at all clear what you mean by "specificity". Both unintelligent and intelligent organisms communicate. A sign of intelligence in communication might be flexibility. The ability of organisms to invent new signals and improvise. The automated chemical codes of unintelligent organisms like ants and bacteria are far more similar to D.N.A than what we and the dolphins do.

JBR writes:

And no on has trouble with an archaeologist using patterns of specific information that he foreknows from completely independent sources to determine if an object he is examining is man made or naturally formed.

Archaelogists make a combination of observations to determine if something is an artifact. They do not have a formula that they can apply universally. Their methods are useless to SETI, and SETI's methods are useless to them. So there is no universal formula for you to apply to something else completely different, like chemical self-replicators.

JBR writes:

Actually I can not think of a single case in which "intent" is detected apart from the use of specificity as I have already defined here. However Katy bar the door and all hell brakes loose the moment someone points out that this same specificity is observed in something that implies the involvement of a Supreme Being.

What "same specificity"? What does a macro-molecule have in common with a with a broken clay pot?

JBR writes:

I fully understand that patterns can be produced by unintelligent sources, but you seem to be using pattern and "code" as if they were synonymous. I would like to see an example of a "code" that was observed having formed by unintelligent sources.

Well if you would like that, why don't you look at unintelligent animals, rather than us and the dolphins?

JBR writes:

bluegenes writes:

The "parameters" of any planet will always be exactly right for everything that is part of the planet. What else would you expect?

Think about what you are saying. That's like saying that out of 500 billion dump-trucks full of marbles you find only one marble with a perfect biosphere and intelligent organisms living on it, and saying "Oh well there is nothing really all that unique about it."

I had thought about what I was saying. If you identify a "whole" which is made up of "parts", the whole will always be exactly right for all the parts. I didn't say anything about whether or not this planet is unique. I'd assume that they all are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 11:35 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 291 of 373 (647218)
01-08-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2012 12:58 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
But this is nonsense which we have already kicked to pieces.

Real scientists do not, and indeed could not, detect design with reference to your vague waffle about specificity. I have told you how they do it ...

Here I think I was confusing Jbr with SavageD, and so overestimating the degree to which Jbr has been exposed to reality. My impatience with him was therefore not entirely warranted, and I apologize if I was unnecessarily testy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 12:58 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 11:35 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 292 of 373 (647221)
01-08-2012 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
You constantly accuse me of trying to 'trip you up'. But I am simply asking you to justify how someting that "infinitely exists" is in any way observationally superior to your much maligned notion of "something from nothing". Will you at least accept that your "infinitely exists" isn't observationally supported?

JBR writes:

Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.
Scientific observation B: the universe "began."

A + B = C - "C" being something else that must infinitely exist from which the universe sprang.

Straggler writes:

Unless something that "infinitely exists" has been observed your C would seem to be in the same category as your A here. No?

JBR writes:

This is only a trick question of course. Since we are only finite beings how would we ever observer the infinity of something? Let's suppose I were to look at some object that did in fact exist infinitely. How would I know that it did? Since I have not existed infinitely, I couldn't state for sure the object did or didn't.

Straggler writes:

Well likewise we can't observe something coming from literally a state of nothing because if we are there to observe it something must already exist. So - again - your A and C are by the terms of your argument in the same category.

Straggler writes:

Can you give an example of "something coming from nothing" that it would be possible for us to observe?

JBR writes:

I think though you were trying to trip me up in my words, you inadvertently supported my point. My point again is that we have never observed something come from nothing.

Have we ever observed anything that infinitely exists?

Is it possible to drectly observe someting that "infinitely exsts"? Is it possible to directly observe "something from nothng" as you have defined it to be?

If the answer to both these questions is "No" then your A and your C are in the same category by the terms of your very own argument are they not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 11:35 PM Straggler has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 293 of 373 (647272)
01-08-2012 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by DWIII
01-08-2012 8:56 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
It's not apparent what is meant by "nothing" in this context. Does empty space qualify as nothing? Quantum mechanics postulates a seething foam of virtual particles continually popping into and out of existence, and has been indirectly verified with such experiments as the Casimir effect.
You might want to back read a little, we've already substantially discussed the Casimir effect on this thread. Please note my comments on it in message 161.

If, instead, "nothingness" is some state of affairs which cannot by definition be experienced, then the notion of no thing "coming from nothing" is inherently unfalsifiable.
This response kind of makes me think of two toddlers in a play-pen, and the one telling the other that because they don't have the ability to get out and see if fire breathing dragons exist, that his argument that they have no observable reason to believe they do... is invalid.

No thing has ever been observed in the act of being created from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing just one case of somebody creating something else out of nothing in violation of the conservation of mass-energy; conjuring tricks or Genesis 1:1 notwithstanding.)
Again this is neither the time nor the place to discuss the teachings of the Bible, but I will retort with the fact that the text doesn't say a word about "conjuring tricks." Again the text only says "that" He did, nothing about the "HOW" is mentioned. I'm only speculating, but perhaps an infinite, all powerful being, possesses infinite mass and energy within Him. But again this is all purely speculatory. We do not have to know everything about the "how" or the "why" just to detect the "who."

I doubt that the general concept of intelligent design would be in any way falsified by a successful detection of alien life; on the contrary, it could conceivably bolster it. All it would really falsify is your presumed arrogance that life on this one planet must be the Pinnacle of All Creation.
I usually try to say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. And I said nothing about the "concept of ID" being falsified by alien life. I said the notion that the Earth parameters are "specifically designed" to support life would be falsified. The existence of life elsewhere would also validate the claims that in a lot of ways the creationists are painting the bull's eye around the bullet whole. We would then need to re-evaluate our stand on some of these issues.

As far as being arrogant, I haven't said life here is the "pinnacle" of anything. I have only said that the parameters of Earth appear to be designed specifically to support life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by DWIII, posted 01-08-2012 8:56 AM DWIII has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 294 of 373 (647273)
01-08-2012 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Percy
01-08-2012 9:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
You're interpreting the lack of evidence of this other life as evidence that it can't exist.
No, your argument was that there is nothing special about the parameters of this universe and this planet, and that had it developed differently that life could have developed differently. I'm saying that at present we have no evidence to suggest other kinds of life is possible, so how can you base your argument in something there is not even any evidence for?

Just as we don't know if or how life might be based upon other chemistries and physics, neither do we know what element or elements might take the place of carbon were such life possible.
But what we do know is what would happen to all the forms of life that we HAVE observed so far, if the elements were not precisely as they are now. You can't base a scientific argument in what you "imagine" could happen. You have to base it on what you observe at present HAS happened.

The important point to take away is that you're drawing conclusions in an area of great ignorance, and the usual good advice is that of what one does not know one must remain silent.
Suppose 3rd century BC Hellenistic astronomers would have remained "silent" about their observations that led them to conclude the earth was a sphere? I mean they had no ability to actually physically observe that the earth was a sphere. But they did have observations that flew in the face of most conventional beliefs of the time that it was flat.

Right now, conventional thinking is that life is possible everywhere under a plethora of conditions. Yet observation so far reveals no such a thing.

Since you define nothing as the era "before" the existence of anything,
Now your just playing with words. My point of course is that there never was an "era before the existence of anything." Else that era would still exist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 01-08-2012 9:01 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Percy, posted 01-09-2012 8:40 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 295 of 373 (647274)
01-08-2012 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by subbie
01-08-2012 11:10 AM


It was an intelligently designed computer running an intelligently programmed algorithm. The algorithm began with a random set of wire arrangements. The algorithm determined which of that set functioned best then randomly combined those together to get a new set. This process repeated. Please show me at what point in that algorithm intelligence was a factor.
That would be at the point that that randomly arranged set of wires was used as for the purpose of an antenna. I own an old Ford Explorer that the hood spring is worn out on. The other day I wanted to check my oil. What did I do? I promptly walked my butt over to the nearby woods and found me a tree twig that had been randomly designed by an "algorithm" which fit perfectly as a prop to hold my hood up. At that moment that twig became intelligently designed as a hood prop.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by subbie, posted 01-08-2012 11:10 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by subbie, posted 01-09-2012 12:55 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 296 of 373 (647275)
01-08-2012 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Larni
01-08-2012 11:45 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Apart from virtual particles, obviously. Did you not know about virtual particles?
Actually we discussed that topic awhile back. You don't back read before jumping in?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 01-08-2012 11:45 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Larni, posted 01-09-2012 5:17 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 297 of 373 (647276)
01-08-2012 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by DrJones*
01-08-2012 1:44 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Based on what we have observed 1/9 planets have life on them.
You can't read stats like that when you have only observed 9. Can you imagine if that checked the poles that way. If after checking 90 planets we find ten have life on them, then come talk to me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by DrJones*, posted 01-08-2012 1:44 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by DrJones*, posted 01-08-2012 10:45 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 298 of 373 (647277)
01-08-2012 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by PaulK
01-08-2012 2:08 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
If the assumption of an intelligent source is based on intent then intent must be established.
Don't twist my words. I said that things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern (specificity), are the product only of an intelligent source. I clearly defined how such specificity is commonly detected in science.

The rest of your comments I seem to have discussed substantially in other replies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 2:08 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by PaulK, posted 01-09-2012 1:19 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 305 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2012 2:11 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1683
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 299 of 373 (647278)
01-08-2012 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Just being real
01-08-2012 10:24 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
You can't read stats like that when you have only observed 9

So are you now saying that your original "500 billion dump trucks" analogy is invalid? Cause it looks like you're agreeing that the sample size is too small to come to the conclusion that the earth is unique.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 300 of 373 (647280)
01-08-2012 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by bluegenes
01-08-2012 2:37 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
It's not at all clear what you mean by "specificity". Both unintelligent and intelligent organisms communicate.
Are you able to give an example of an unintelligent organism "creating" communication code? Or do they communicate through pre-programmed responses? And if the later is the case, where did that program originate? With a combination lock, when the correct combination is entered into the lock it produces a specific function response. In a very real sense a communication has occurred. In this case the lock does not require intelligence to understand the information, but an observer can still recognize the design by his independent understanding of how locks function. The key to recognizing specificity is the independent patter already existing within the observer or the function of the object.

Archaeologists infer intelligent design by looking for specific design clues which are already independently present in them and they in turn recognize in the object.

The automated chemical codes of unintelligent organisms like ants and bacteria are far more similar to D.N.A than what we and the dolphins do.
I'm so glad you referred to it as automated. That makes my point. Where did the programming originate. We have zero observation that supports the notion that such automation program can form by unguided processes. All observation is that such specificity requires an original intelligent source.

Archaelogists make a combination of observations to determine if something is an artifact. They do not have a formula that they can apply universally. Their methods are useless to SETI, and SETI's methods are useless to them. So there is no universal formula for you to apply to something else completely different, like chemical self-replicators.
I didn't say it was written down in their little journals as a "formula." The point though is that it does work out as a formula nonetheless. They are looking for intelligence in different things and using different methods... this is true. But it all boils down to specificity like it or not.

What does a macro-molecule have in common with a with a broken clay pot?
The observer recognizes the predetermined pattern or function independently.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by bluegenes, posted 01-08-2012 2:37 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by bluegenes, posted 01-09-2012 7:56 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 301 of 373 (647281)
01-08-2012 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2012 5:35 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Here I think I was confusing Jbr with SavageD, and so overestimating the degree to which Jbr has been exposed to reality. My impatience with him was therefore not entirely warranted, and I apologize if I was unnecessarily testy.
Thank you. This means a lot. It really does. I appreciate you saying so.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 5:35 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017