Encoded information is evidence of Intelligent Design

a reply to: Terpene

You said:

If there is a designer i can guarantee you it's not God

This is the hubris of a carnal mind. You can't guarantee anything because you can't even perceive time correctly. Einstein said:


The Bible told us this years ago when it said God is outside of our perception of time.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Think about that. Everything we do is based on the distinctions between past, present and future. When we're born, when we die, when you go to work or eat lunch. Yet, this is a stubbornly persistent illusion. Why? It's because we only have access to 1 dimension of time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------->

That's it. One line of time that moves in one direction for us. So there has to be a before and after because you can only move along this timeline. You can't move in any direction off of this 1 dimension of time.

Einstein also showed there's time outside of our 1 dimension of time he called 4 dimensional spacetime. We have quantum entanglement in space and time so you have to look at all of time like you look at all of space.

The Bible tells us there's other worlds, heavens and everlastings outside of our limited perception of time.

Jesus said:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Paul went to the 3rd heaven:

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

The Bible says there's multiple heavens:

Deuteronomy 10:14 “Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.”

The Bible says there's more than one everlasting:

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

So there's all of this existence outside of our 3D of space and 1D of time that you know nothing about but God Created and has access to all of this information. You have no idea how these other worlds or heavens are connected to our world because your perception is stuck within 1 dimension of time. So everything you say is grounded in arguments from a carnal mind that's limited and has been on earth 20-30-40 years.

Atheists think their limited minds are superior to an Eternal God.

This is why the Bible says you have to be Born Again and you have to crucify the flesh. The carnal mind isn't subject to God's laws therefore the carnal mind doesn't want a God superior to their limited minds. So again, you can't guarantee anything.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton
The Archaeopteryx show a combination of features from different species as does Eohippus as it evolved in the Horse we know today and the others metioned above!

Where's the empirical evidence for that? I'm sick of just hearing mythos, show me the facts

Evolution is based on facts and not on the belief in the supernatural world. If you want to dismiss the evidence and the facts it's up to you but you will be living in a state of perpetual denial of reality for the rest of your life.

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2
a reply to: Terpene

You said:

If there is a designer i can guarantee you it's not God

This is the hubris of a carnal mind. You can't guarantee anything because you can't even perceive time correctly. Einstein said:

The Bible told us this years ago when it said God is outside of our perception of time.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Think about that. Everything we do is based on the distinctions between past, present and future. When we're born, when we die, when you go to work or eat lunch. Yet, this is a stubbornly persistent illusion. Why? It's because we only have access to 1 dimension of time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------->

That's it. One line of time that moves in one direction for us. So there has to be a before and after because you can only move along this timeline. You can't move in any direction off of this 1 dimension of time.

Einstein also showed there's time outside of our 1 dimension of time he called 4 dimensional spacetime. We have quantum entanglement in space and time so you have to look at all of time like you look at all of space.

The Bible tells us there's other worlds, heavens and everlastings outside of our limited perception of time.

Jesus said:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Paul went to the 3rd heaven:

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

The Bible says there's multiple heavens:

Deuteronomy 10:14 “Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.”

The Bible says there's more than one everlasting:

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

So there's all of this existence outside of our 3D of space and 1D of time that you know nothing about but God Created and has access to all of this information. You have no idea how these other worlds or heavens are connected to our world because your perception is stuck within 1 dimension of time. So everything you say is grounded in arguments from a carnal mind that's limited and has been on earth 20-30-40 years.

Atheists think their limited minds are superior to an Eternal God.

This is why the Bible says you have to be Born Again and you have to crucify the flesh. The carnal mind isn't subject to God's laws therefore the carnal mind doesn't want a God superior to their limited minds. So again, you can't guarantee anything.

Depends on whether you take the Bible seriously and similar arguments can be made about all other 'holy' books.

I think the situation is greatly confused when Einstein and General Relativity are fused with the 'heavens' and other religious concepts. You do understand there are no heavens in physics and it's a religious concept. I don't get what you're trying to say with what 'Einstein said about time'

You postulate the existence of God as a fact. There is no evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer.

You speak of Jesus and the son of God. There is no much evidence that Jesus even existed and it looks it's an imaginary character like Harry Potter.

Using the Bible to reinforce these ideas is part of a circular argument. You need other independent and unbiased sources that can provide evidence for all the claims made.

originally posted by: cooperton
If viruses can evolve into other viruses, then show an example. Show where an influenza strain has become a polio strain, for example. None of your links document such a thing

Ok, so, you've showed your hand here. Basically, you genuinely don't understand biology, natural selection or evolution, all of which have a plethora of evidence backing the observations.

The fact that you that you say:

If viruses can evolve into other viruses, then show an example

Shows you don't understand how things work. I"ve had this exact same discussion with you and others of your ill informed ilk ages ago, and you refuse to read or educate yourselves to mainstream modern science, so I won't bother again.

Needless to say, you don't understand it and using outdated, incorrect, made up religion to explain what you don't understand is a poor arguement.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

So everything you say is grounded in arguments from a carnal mind that's limited and has been on earth 20-30-40 years.
Atheists think their limited minds are superior to an Eternal God.

Sweet... now explain how your mind is diffrent appart from being deluded by religion?

That's right! it isn't and therefore you attribute all these carnal human concepts to God that do nothing in proving God it just proofs human psychology...

So yeah our limited minds are to blame that we not yet know everything. While you rely on a 2000 year old fairytale others might go with more recent findings to explain the world around them...

To each their own, and the rest for me...

a reply to: cooperton

Just show one empirical example that a population of organisms can evolve into something different over time

Homo floresiensis (nicknamed ‘Hobbit’), have so far only been found on the Island of Flores, Indonesia.

In the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

It's funny, people keep asking to be shown proof of evoloution and reasons for this or that and try to claim it's 'Intelligent Design'.
Yet not one creationist can show any proof of God other than a Hebrew Book translated to Greek and Latin, hacked up by the Roman Catholics with 2/3 of it thrown out and then finally to English.
And this is meant to prove everything and science is wrong!!

a reply to: Venkuish1

First, I was responding to a previous post that made the statement that if there's a designer they can guarantee it's not God. Maybe you should have read the post I was responding to before your response.

You then said:

There is no evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer.

You can say this until you're blue in the face and it will still be a meaningless statement. You haven't provided a shred of evidence to refute any of the evidence and your incredulity just illustrates that you have no argument. You think if you repeat this over and over again like it's Beetlejuice, that people will forget that you haven't refuted anything.

Inferences based on evidence is used all of the time in science:

Scientific inference is the process of drawing conclusions or making predictions based on evidence. It is a key part of the scientific method, which uses data to learn about observable phenomena.

Also:

When you break it down, science is about inference. Scientists collect information (data) in a systematic way and draw conclusions about the world. Those conclusions go beyond the data collected which is why they are called inferences. We collect data from a drug trial and infer that the drug will cure a particular disease; we conduct an intervention in an organization and infer that it will increase employee productivity. In both cases our inferences go beyond the people who we included in the study as we make predictions about what will happen in the future with other people.
paulspector.com...

Let's look at Deduction:

Deduction in science concerns testing predictions about how a study would come out. Ideally, deduction is used to test theories to see if their predictions are correct. It is based on simple logic that leads to a conclusion based on assumptions. It is best seen in a simple example.

All men own watches
Alan is a man
Therefore, Alan owns a watch
paulspector.com...

This points out how your assumptions can be false and your conclusion still be true. Let's look at the strength of the assumptions backed by science that infers Intelligent Design.

1. DNA is an encoding/decoding system whose instructions come from the Genetic code. Information is encoded onto the sequence of a storage medium and machinery is built to decode the information on these sequences.


2. The only known cause of an encoding/decoding system where you have information known about A, encoded onto the sequence of a storage medium, then machinery is built to decode the information and you have redundancy, error detection and correction to protect information as it goes through a communication channel is an intelligent designer.

3. Hubert Yockey supports this:

DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon’s 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
evo2.org...

4. The odds against chance of a protein forming randomly are astronomical.

If we assume that a minimally complex cell needs at least 250 proteins of, on average, 150 amino acids and that the probability of producing just one such protein is 1 in 10^164 as calculated above, then the probability of producing all the necessary proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell is 1 in 10^164 multiplied by itself 250 times, or 1 in 10^41,000.
cyberpenance.wordpress.com...

5. Therefore, we can conclude that DNA and the genetic code was designed by intelligence.

You can't do this with a natural interpretation of evolution and that's why I mentioned the principle of sufficient reason. There's no evidence that nature can first know about amino acids and then know that sequences of amino acids can make proteins. Then take that information and encode it onto the sequence of a storage medium and then build machinery to decode the information encoded on it's sequence.

Let me repeat that:

You can't do this with a natural interpretation of evolution and that's why I mentioned the principle of sufficient reason. There's no evidence that nature can first know about amino acids and then know that sequences of amino acids can make proteins. Then take that information and encode it onto the sequence of a storage medium and then build machinery to decode the information encoded on it's sequence.

There's no known cause as to how a soup of chemicals can encode information onto the sequence of a storage medium and create a storage medium more powerful than supercomputers. The most you can say is with time anything can happen or you can stick your head in the sand and say there's no evidence for intelligent design while ignoring the evidence like you did.

We can also use abduction to reach the same conclusion:

Abduction is coming up with the best and most defensible explanation for a finding. This goes beyond the data at hand and is more of a theoretical idea. We combine our research findings with logical reasoning to propose explanations. This can be the foundation of scientific theory as scientists attempt to explain findings.
paulspector.com...

However you cut it, you have no basis to infer a natural interpretation of evolution.

a reply to: Kurokage

Well it is funny...
But just because the assumption, of those saying science is wrong, is wrong, doesn't make science right... Scientifically speaking science could still be proven wrong in many instances.

It could as well be that life is a very basic programing for matter assembly used to colonize the galaxy via panspermia.

If it really developed here on earth the way darwin postulates, why would some organism be able to survive space?

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

This points out how your assumptions can be false and your conclusion still be true.

The assumptions can also be right and the conclusion wrong. As you marvelously demonstrated.

deduction and inferences are only accepted if the same results can be individually repeated, across all religions.

How did that work out with God so far?

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Atheists think their limited minds are superior to an Eternal God.

This is why the Bible says you have to be Born Again

You do seem to enjoy trying to use a fairy tale book as your book of 'science' to try and discredit real science? Lets turn the tables shall we...

The Bible says that people are forbidden from getting rounded haircuts (Leviticus 19:27) or eating shellfish (Leviticus 10:11, Deuteronomy 14:9). Do you stick to that, maybe eat some shellfish or worse have a rounded haircut???? Let’s not get started on slavery and human sacrifice?

Ok, how about some of it's contradictions? something simple to start, finding Jesus missing from the tomb...

The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples (Matthew 28:8).

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others (Luke 24:9).

But Mark has a different ending.

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark 16:8)

You keep talking about this great designer, has anyone ever seen him?

No one has ever seen God (1 John 4:12).

No man has seen or can see [God] (1 Timothy 6:16).

But wait.....

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day (Genesis 18:1).

The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).

So how about this GREAT power of God...

“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

So his awesomeness isn't above chariots?? Yet he was able to create the heavens and the Earth or even flood the whole world, but dang it! Chariots are way beyond him?

Ok, how about something a little more personal to the men?

“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10

“…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2

So does God want it with or without?
I spoke about Gods perverted side on another thread, only 4 sets of DNA after the great flood, God does seem ok with a little incest now and again...

“Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22

“And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17

But what was God’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter? Maybe as long as god could watch?

“And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16

a reply to: Terpene

If it really developed here on earth the way darwin postulates, why would some organism be able to survive space?

I think it's less about space and more about surviving harsh conditions.

I doubt any of the religious will watch this, or if they do, appreciate what it's illustrating, but it's a good example of 'evolution' in the immediate sense. As in, when people don't understand why or how viruses and bacteria become immune or resistent to antibiotics.

This is a nice visual example of exactly that happening in more-or-less realtime:

a reply to: Kurokage

I'm not really talking about extremophiles...

Mushroom Spores are resistan to the radiation in space, why would only they develop such a space resistant propagation and not the rest of the organism on earth?

a reply to: Terpene

Again not really about space and more about adaption....

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Life emerged on Earth at a time when there was much higher background radiation and early life forms must have considerable radiation resistance. Although current background radiation levels are much lower than on the early Earth, earthly life still exists in a field of radiation. For example, 90% of the annual radiation dose for a person living in the US comes from natural sources such as cosmic radiation and radioactive rocks (1). However, there is considerable evidence that fungi respond to radiation in a manner that may differ from other life forms. Large quantities of highly melanized fungal spores have been found in early Cretaceous period deposits when many species of animals and plants died out.

a reply to: NoOneButMeAgain

But
They becoming stronger or weaker?
Such a bad argument, such a bad analogy

a reply to:
neoholographicpart2

The burden of proof is on you in regards to the claim made about intelligent design (and to your fellow creationists). Do you really want me to disprove your assertions?!

Therefore, we can conclude that DNA and the genetic code was designed by intelligence.

I am afraid you are coming to conclusions based on religious faith and not on evidence and data. Evolution is a settled science and despite the fact we still learn about our past, other species, or even the evolution of DNA, evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories and a fact. There is no dispute as to if evolution is factual.

Because of your inability to understand chemistry and biology you are making the usual arguments from ignorance. Its impossible physical and biochemical processes to have initiated life so the intelligence design is the most plausible scenario. That's what you claim basically.

One of your fellow creationists accepts the formation of amino acids as having natural causes but then confused things by arguing that amino acid polymerization has supernatural causes. (he doesn't say it explicitly but he implies it). Before making this argument the same poster tried to involved supernatural forces in cosmology and gravitation by arguing that if dark matter doesn't exist there is something mysterious happening to hold the galaxies together.

It's expectable that creationists will see any physical or biochemical mechanism which isn't understood well or gaps in scientific knowledge as a good opportunity to push their intelligent design belief. But there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of an intelligence creator and master of the universe.

Amino acid formation and polymerization are well known processes despite how much creationists want to argue we don't know about them. The same is true on how starts and planets are formed and there is no mystery so to involve supernatural powers. The only problem is that creationists are lacking basic knowledge in how science works and in physics/chemistry/biology. Grade-10 science will answer most of their questions but they choose a path and a belief in the supernatural world for which there is zero evidence.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#:~:text=Evolution%20is%20both%20a%20fact,one%20example%20of%20observable%20evolution.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics

originally posted by: Creaky
But
They becoming stronger or weaker?
Such a bad argument, such a bad analogy

Are you clinically retarded? No sarcasm, a genuine inquiry. They are 'evolving' through mutations whereby the agent at the cnext oncentration level no longer kills them. How can you not understand the extremely simply premise of the experiment? Did you not go to elementary school and have basic science?

Ah of course! Your religious views means anything that stand opposite to them is denied immediately and obfuscated away.

Sorry, I should never have posted such a simple, clear and obvious example. Next time, I'll quote some Bible scripture like Exodus 21:7-11 or Mark 7: 9-10 . Something you'll understand

a reply to: Venkuish1

I wholeheartedly agree.
They claim a magic book as scientific proof but that even contradicts itself as I posted above.

www.science20.com...

I will recall a classic experiment by David Bartel and Jack Szostak, published in Science in 1993. Their goal was to see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties. They began by synthesizing many trillions of different RNA molecules about 300 nucleotides long, but the nucleotides were all random nucleotide sequences. Nucleotides, by the way, are monomers of the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, just as amino acids are the monomers, or subunits, of proteins, and making random sequences is easy to do with modern methods of molecular biology.

They reasoned that buried in those trillions were a few catalytic RNA molecules called ribozymes that happened to catalyze a ligation reaction, in which one strand of RNA is linked to a second strand. The RNA strands to be ligated were attached to small beads on a column, then were exposed to the trillions of random sequences simply by flushing them through the column. This process could fish out any RNA molecules that happened to have even a weak ability to catalyze the reaction. They then amplified those molecules and put them back in for a second round, repeating the process for 10 rounds. By the way, this is the same basic logic that breeders use when they select for a property such as coat color in dogs.


The results were amazing. After only 4 rounds of selection and amplification they began to see an increase in catalytic activity, and after 10 rounds the rate was 7 million times faster than the uncatalyzed rate. It was even possible to watch the RNA evolve. Nucleic acids can be separated and visualized by a technique called gel electrophoresis. The mixture is put in at the top of a gel held between two glass plates and a voltage is applied. Small molecules travel fastest through the gel, and larger molecules move more slowly, so they are separated. In this case, RNA molecules having a specific length produce a visible band in a gel. At the start of the reaction, nothing could be seen, because all the molecules are different. But with each cycle new bands appeared. Some came to dominate the reaction, while others went extinct.....


In a few generations groups of molecules began to emerge that displayed ever-increasing catalytic function. In other words, species of molecules appeared out of this random mixture in an evolutionary process that closely reflects the natural selection that Darwin outlined for populations of higher animals. These RNA molecules were defined by the sequence of bases in their structures, which caused them to fold into specific conformations that had catalytic properties. The sequences were in essence analogous to genes, because the information they contained was passed between generations during the amplification process.


The Bartel and Szostak experiment directly refutes the argument that the odds are stacked against an origin of life by natural processes. The inescapable conclusion is that genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property.

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain

originally posted by: cooperton
If viruses can evolve into other viruses, then show an example. Show where an influenza strain has become a polio strain, for example. None of your links document such a thing

Ok, so, you've showed your hand here. Basically, you genuinely don't understand biology, natural selection or evolution, all of which have a plethora of evidence backing the observations.

The fact that you that you say:

If viruses can evolve into other viruses, then show an example

Shows you don't understand how things work. I"ve had this exact same discussion with you and others of your ill informed ilk ages ago, and you refuse to read or educate yourselves to mainstream modern science, so I won't bother again.

Needless to say, you don't understand it and using outdated, incorrect, made up religion to explain what you don't understand is a poor arguement.

This is the question the poster asked me on this thread and another one I am participating. I ve asked everyone else who has been participating to answer because I was lost for words. There is a clear lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts in science.

But they choose a belief system which has been debunked by science in the last few hundred years. Especially how much we've learnt in the last 200 years or so.