Proofs of Design with Witnesses - Final Proof Cannot be Argued

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

Childish, facetious, what ever.

the point being that if all organized matter and thought must come from organized matter and thought, you are following an endless string of creators that goes...where? this also suggests that we ourselves will one day become gods...and then our own creations will become gods in their turn...and so on and so forth. so where is OUR worship, eh?

It's a good point. But it doesn't show why the information you seek
should be there. In fact it doesn't even show that it isn't in the
code.

where? i dont see anything about god's creator

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: Barcs

Invariant symmetry is a pattern of perfection, ideally suited to life. It's the foundation of the strong unclear force. Without it, there could be no elements, matter or unity of information. It's like saying a computer screen doesn't need a computer to run the Sims. I won't define invariant symmetry. The Wiki and many other websites do it nicely.

in·var·i·ant
1.
never changing.

sym·me·try
noun
the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis.

So all it means is the something lines up perfectly on both sides and that does not change.

Please explain how it's the foundation of the strong nuclear force.

Which parts of the strong nuclear force line up exactly similar and face each other?

Why do you think DNA cannot change when it clearly has over the years?

Please explain how any of that proves a designer.

Invariance is symmetry under transformation,

No, invariance means never changing, not symmetry under transformation. If it is never changing, then it cannot be under transformation.

which is translational symmetries and the changing states of matter.

Nope. Again, if something is never changing, it cannot change (ie states of matter). Translational symmetry is mathematical function, it has nothing to do with DNA or a creator.

With DNA, you have the same in the form of transcription. What is being transcribed? The original image. It was already there. You cannot argue this. It is a principle set in stone from our current understanding of the universe.

How does that prove it was created? What was already there? There are plenty of set in stone principals of the universe that you deny on a daily basis, but in this case it suddenly matters?

What changes is part of something unchanged.

Pure nonsense.

God just happened to say this about Himself from the beginning.

And you know this, how?

The will of nature is to give.

What does this even mean? Nature has no will. It does not give, it competes.

This is the very proof we need to then know that the Father of nature is the Aleph Bet and Word created from letters.

Except for the fact that it DOES NOT prove any of that. It's wishful thinking on your part.

It's all right there, staring you in the face. It's all around you in nature.

Same with evolution, but you deny that.

Invariance and symmetry are images of an archetype that is preexistent.

Lets break this statement down.

The state of unchanging, and things that line up properly are pictures of a typical example that existed before.

Your statements are barely intelligible. It's complete babble that means nothing. There is no proof, there is no picture. You need to explain HOW any of that proves what you are suggesting with intelligent design. Use English instead of techno babble.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Because you don't see it, means it isn't there?
Well that's arrogant. I don't see it either but it may
yet be there. Code? Perhaps it would be good to
tap a different source. Do you know of any Tzar?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

Because you don't see it, means it isn't there?
Well that's arrogant. I don't see it either but it may
yet be there. Code? Perhaps it would be good to
tap a different source. Do you know of any Tzar?

a source for the code that designed the code that designed us? no im afraid i dont. no idea where to find the grand architect that built our grand architect. no idea if one even exists. but one does not argue that DNA is by design, then turn around and claim that the designer of said DNA does NOT require design. i mean, one could...but you'd look awfully foolish. and then you'd have to trace all those designers back to the prime designer and explain how that designer spawned from nothing.

a reply to: Barcs

So all it means is the something lines up perfectly on both sides and that does not change.

Please explain how it's the foundation of the strong nuclear force.

Which parts of the strong nuclear force line up exactly similar and face each other?

Up quarks are mirrored by down quarks. A Neutron has two down quarks and one up. A Proton has one up and two down. Antimatter is yin to matter's yang. Physical equations are balanced. Quote from my thread on Guage Symmetries:

"Physical systems possess local symmetry. This little statement is an impossibility apart from one mathematical certainty: Gauge symmetries cannot naturally occur unless random changes in one aspect of a system are compensated for precisely by changes in another aspect. Unless this happens, quantity related to both would not be conserved. Compensation cannot take place unless there is an intervening force. The suggestion of this force then implies an originating symmetry.

The above is a paraphrased version from the book, The Second Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Twentieth-century Physics
By Robert P. Crease, Page 191. "

A Book that Might Interest You

a reply to: AlephBet

Gauge symmetries cannot naturally occur unless random changes in one aspect of a system are compensated for precisely by changes in another aspect.

which is why we have field theory. fields interact with each other in various ways and particles are a product of matter behaving within these fields. do you feel these fields bear characteristics of intelligent origin? is that the whole point here?

a reply to: TzarChasm

So which do you prefer? The impossibility of infinite retro
generations, or the fact that at some point, there must be
a causeless cause? The Bible is another source for questions
about God. It says he is the Alpha and the Omega. He is the
beginning and the end.
You can't explain ever, with any kind of science where
intelligent precise information could come from to be deposited
in a book, or on a disc, or a computer program, if you had no
knowledge of man. So it stands to reason that science will
never be able to explain, where the information in our DNA
came from, as it had to have had an intelligent source.
Simply because science limits it's possibilities and the possibilities
of the minds, of those who engage it. Man sets his own limitations
and science enforces them.

a reply to: randyvs

So which do you prefer? The impossibility of infinite retro
generations, or the fact that at some point, there must be
a causeless cause?

not sure which universe you live in yet, but in mine, thats not a fact. and my preference is beside the point. science doesnt operate on preferences.

The Bible is another source for questions
about God. It says he is the Alpha and the Omega. He is the
beginning and the end.
You can't explain ever, with any kind of science where
intelligent precise information could come from to be deposited
in a book, or on a disc, or a computer program, if you had no
knowledge of man.

youve never left earth so you cant really tell me that.

So it stands to reason that science will
never be able to explain, where the information in our DNA
came from, as it had to have had an intelligent source.
Simply because science limits it's possibilities and the possibilities
of the minds, of those who engage it. Man sets his own limitations
and science enforces them.

"so it stands to reason that science will never be able to explain..." first of all, how many times have we heard that phrase? it barely has meaning anymore. second, science doesnt explain. science yields data that we use to explain, so its us doing the explaining which is why it takes so long sometimes.

as for limiting...heh heh. it sounds to me like you are alluding to the scientific aversion to inflating negligible possibility to overwhelming probability. its consistently suggested that matter is conscious and therefore capable of breaking its own laws particularly in favor of our tiny speck of existence. i dont know why DNA appears to have an intelligent origin. but im not willing to jump to conclusions based on etymological riddles based in parables, like AlephBet is giving us. and the first year physics student BS. "i have google let me tell you everything i know (just read) about physics!"

i would like to get an actual physics expert in here.

I'm glad that your so happy with your religious beliefs.

However, that's just what they are.... beliefs

They may be proof to you but they are not to me

I'm glad that your so happy with your religious beliefs.

However, that's just what they are.... beliefs

They may be proof to you but they are not to me

a reply to: TzarChasm

not sure which universe you live in yet,

Alright Tzar, when you and science have that squared away get
back to me.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

not sure which universe you live in yet,

Alright Tzar, when you and science have that squared away get
back to me.

science is too busy with the universe i live in right now. which happens to be the only confirmed universe to date. but lets get back to the actual topic at hand. in fact it almost feels like you avoided the majority of my post. you answered a mere fraction of my response. what gives?

originally posted by: AlephBet
Up quarks are mirrored by down quarks. A Neutron has two down quarks and one up. A Proton has one up and two down. Antimatter is yin to matter's yang. Physical equations are balanced.

That isn't symmetry. It is similarity. What about the other quarks? Positive and negative charge are not symmetrical, just as matter and anti-matter are not symmetrical. Having an equal and opposite force or reaction is NOT symmetry. Symmetry is an exact mirror image based on GEOMETRY. Even up and down quarks are not an exact mirror image, just because the up & down quarks balance out You need to do a better job using proper terminology. None of this is proof of anything.

"Physical systems possess local symmetry. This little statement is an impossibility apart from one mathematical certainty: Gauge symmetries cannot naturally occur unless random changes in one aspect of a system are compensated for precisely by changes in another aspect. Unless this happens, quantity related to both would not be conserved. Compensation cannot take place unless there is an intervening force. The suggestion of this force then implies an originating symmetry.

Guage symmetry is a mathematical term. Physical systems cannot always be explained mathematically. Not only are you using poor terminology that shows you don't even understand the words that you use, you are also equating mathematics to physical systems when they don't apply the same way. This is not undeniable proof of anything. It's you taking big guesses on reality based on things that aren't related. Symmetry is essentially a measurement to determine if something is balanced geometrically, it's not a physical property of matter, or something that requires a creator to set up.

a reply to: Barcs

Aleph is implying that an intelligence is required to ensure such pervasive geometric balance on such a minute level.

a reply to: AlephBet

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

I can't really fault you for that perspective because I used to have a similar one, more or less. However, I no longer hold those views because the more I learned about things, the less likely it seemed. No offense but from what I've seen from your threads I've read (and I haven't read them all) you put the conclusion before the research. Much like that Gerald Schroeder fellow. I'm not saying everything you say is bologna but a lot of it is. Don't worry I've said and no doubt will again, some pretty stupid things. I'm not trying to sound like I think I'm any better or more knowledgeable than you because I don't feel that way. Many things I think you would be wise to further research to gain a better understanding of though. And research your sources, and those sources as well! You will be doing yourself a favor if you do so with an objective mind set. It's easy to feel attacked when people disagree with you and point out your errors but don't let that get you down. Consider what they say. It's good for ones beliefs to be challenged.

You may be surprised what you find with an open mind.

Much of what I have found in the Bible comes from examining the shards of truth left in other texts. Overall, there is one story being told.

I would be interested in a thread about that, if you don't have one already.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

Aleph is implying that an intelligence is required to ensure such pervasive geometric balance on such a minute level.

Yes, and unfortunately there is no evidence or "proof that cannot be argued" for that. It is god of the gaps again, except this time it's obscured by metaphors and terminology being used out of context in a cryptic way. If he explained it in easy terms that made sense, everyone would know that it's a guess or appeal to ignorance, rather than proof of anything. Don't think for a second that any of that is by accident.

Symmetry in nature happens, and it happens naturally. I remember a picture being posted not too long ago that showed steps that appeared to be man made, but when closely examined it was a result of erosion and weather patterns. Relying strictly on appearance without objective examination is worthless and that's essentially what the OP is doing. Science doesn't know how DNA originated, or how the double helix emerged. One day we might, but to give up looking for the answer, saying that "god did it" and calling it a day is downright lazy and doesn't help us learn anything. People can guess all they want about how DNA originated, but claiming it was created simply because it is somewhat symmetrical is still a guess, not "proof of design with witnesses".

a reply to: Barcs

Well said.

Keep dropping those knowledge bombs.

a reply to: TzarChasm

science is too busy with the universe i live in right now. which happens to be the only confirmed universe to date.

Then why do you contradict yourself and suggest more than one?

not sure which universe you live in yet,

I don't see any reason to continue the topic at hand if I'm
residing in an unconfirmed universe that isn't yours. I don't
see any point in that.

a reply to: randyvs

i never said which universe you're living in. but since you just want to continue this game i'll assume you have nothing more to add.

originally posted by: Barcs


If he explained it in easy terms that made sense, everyone would know that it's a guess or appeal to ignorance, rather than proof of anything. Don't think for a second that any of that is by accident.


Relying strictly on appearance without objective examination is worthless and that's essentially what the OP is doing. Science doesn't know how DNA originated, or how the double helix emerged. One day we might, but to give up looking for the answer, saying that "god did it" and calling it a day is downright lazy and doesn't help us learn anything. People can guess all they want about how DNA originated, but claiming it was created simply because it is somewhat symmetrical is still a guess, not "proof of design with witnesses".

The part in bold is possibly one of the truest statements I've ever come across either on ATS or the real world.
The whole post was completely spot on as well, the only thing I could really add is that all the threads authored by the OP that I've read through in his/her various guises, seem to be text book cases of confirmation bias.

They begin with their preconceived notion, come up with a semi plausible plot line and then fill in the blanks with words from a thesaurus and then rearrange some of the text to make it appear just ever so slightly esoteric while using words with just enough syllables to make it appear to those who would already agree, that there is actual scientific validity behind the erroneous notions. Its almost as if the posts and threads are a dress rehearsal for some new fangled ministry because the only people buying in are those with similar beliefs and their own confirmation biases.