Encoded information is evidence of Intelligent Design

originally posted by: Creaky
a reply to: NoOneButMeAgain
Retarded
Is Pretending adaptation is evolution

Adaptation is an evolutionary process.

It's a problem only if you have gaps from your school knowledge of science although you can still learn what you ve missed in school.

Learn about variation, heredity, reproduction, natural selection, speciation. Then you will have a good understanding of evolution rather than believing in debunked beliefs that are analogous to flat earth.

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.

This is precisely the banner waving, holy pledge reciting pretense I was describing in the previous topic about atheism and morality which, like this one, was a strawman misrepresenting the philosophical geography as a flimsy excuse to write off humans as being woefully inadequate and even suicidal creatures without the benefit of dogma to guide society like the north star. Here we are again debating the merits of evolution and ignoring the undercurrent of conceit that masquerades as enlightenment.

Where you see engineering, I see nature as the basis for all clever machinations that mankind recreated and then with sheer audacity called invention. The true inventions which aren't directly inspired by natural physics have done us few favors and many ills. Comfort, sloth, and ease of mind. The very principles that motivate afterlife, eternity being smug conceited naiads of the stars.

Bring me a deceased soul and let them speak. The living can only advertise a destination they read about in a brochure.

SPAM

a reply to: TzarChasm

You gave a clear example of a vacuous statement. You said:

Where you see engineering, I see nature as the basis for all clever machinations that mankind recreated and then with sheer audacity called invention. The true inventions which aren't directly inspired by natural physics have done us few favors and many ills. Comfort, sloth, and ease of mind. The very principles that motivate afterlife, eternity being smug conceited naiads of the stars.

A statement devoid of any substance and just blind opinion.

You said you see nature. Frankly, I don't care what you see. I care about the evidence.

This is why you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute what I'm saying because you can't. So you blowhard with these vacuous statements devoid of any substance.

I will present the evidence again because it's obvious you and your bretheren think you can stick your head in the sand, say nature a thousand times and people will be fooled by your lack of any substance.

If you see nature, explain how nature encoded sequence with information and then built the machinery to decode the information in those sequences. You support a mindless process, so explain where this information came from if there wasn't a mind to know this information.

The only known cause of information encoded on a sequence is an intelligent designer. So I can make a scientific inference that intelligent design is the cause of encoding/decoding in DNA.

You say a storage medium more advanced than a supercomputer came from a mindless muddy soup. I'm just saying explain how this is possible and you atheists give me nothing but word salads.

It's simple, an intelligent mind has to know or learn about information. It then puts a storage medium into a sequence and encodes that information onto the sequence. You then build machinery to decode the information or you can tell another intelligent mind the sequence so they can decode the information.

For instance, I know when I'm home and when I'm not home. I want to send this information to a friend passing by my house. I then say I will use the sequence of my porch light as a storage medium. So when the porch light is on, I encode the information "I'm home" to my friend passing by. I then encode the information "I'm not home" when the porch light is off. I have encoded a bit of information on the sequence porch light on/porch light off.

Let me repeat this so we can avoid any more of your vacuous commentary:

For instance, I know when I'm home and when I'm not home. I want to send this information to a friend passing by my house. I then say I will use the sequence of my porch light as a storage medium. So when the porch light is on, I encode the information "I'm home" to my friend passing by. I then encode the information "I'm not home" when the porch light is off. I have encoded a bit of information on the sequence porch light on/porch light off.

This is exactly what we see in the genetic code.


An intelligent mind had to know information about amino acids and that sequences of amino acids form proteins. This Intelligence then took a storage medium(nucleotides) and put them into a sequence of 3 letter codons. So you can see the amino acid Glycine(gly) is encoded onto the sequences GGT, GGC,GGA and GGG. Again, this isn't the actual amino acid just information. You also see redundancy to protect the information as it's being copied. The exact tools intelligent designers use to protect encoded information. Why would they use redundancy?

This has nothing to do with anything natural. Redundancy to protect encoded information is a product of intelligence. Here's an example. I can say:

ABQ = Dog
NVC = Cat

An intelligent mind first has to know information about a dog and cat and the difference between them. I then choose a storage medium and put it into a sequence. That's ABQ and NVC.

I then send ABQ through a communication channel when I want to buy a dog and NVC when I want to buy a cat. The code makes it through around 60% of the time without any errors. That's not good enough so you add redundancy. I now send:

ABQ
BAQ
QAB
AQB for dog.

NVC
CVN
VCN
NCV for cat

This adds redundancy which helps avoid errors and now my error rate jumps to 82%. I can then add more error detection and correction to increase the error rate.

Again, this is the product of reason and logic of an intelligent mind not anything natural. The reason you hear these statements devoid of any substance is because they have no argument.

If you're going to say a mindless soup encoded information onto a sequence then built machinery to decode that information, the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your fantasy!

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2
a reply to: TzarChasm

You gave a clear example of a vacuous statement. You said:

Where you see engineering, I see nature as the basis for all clever machinations that mankind recreated and then with sheer audacity called invention. The true inventions which aren't directly inspired by natural physics have done us few favors and many ills. Comfort, sloth, and ease of mind. The very principles that motivate afterlife, eternity being smug conceited naiads of the stars.

A statement devoid of any substance and just blind opinion.

You said you see nature. Frankly, I don't care what you see. I care about the evidence.

This is why you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute what I'm saying because you can't. So you blowhard with these vacuous statements devoid of any substance.

I will present the evidence again because it's obvious you and your bretheren think you can stick your head in the sand, say nature a thousand times and people will be fooled by your lack of any substance.

If you see nature, explain how nature encoded sequence with information and then built the machinery to decode the information in those sequences. You support a mindless process, so explain where this information came from if there wasn't a mind to know this information.

The only known cause of information encoded on a sequence is an intelligent designer. So I can make a scientific inference that intelligent design is the cause of encoding/decoding in DNA.

You say a storage medium more advanced than a supercomputer came from a mindless muddy soup. I'm just saying explain how this is possible and you atheists give me nothing but word salads.

It's simple, an intelligent mind has to know or learn about information. It then puts a storage medium into a sequence and encodes that information onto the sequence. You then build machinery to decode the information or you can tell another intelligent mind the sequence so they can decode the information.

For instance, I know when I'm home and when I'm not home. I want to send this information to a friend passing by my house. I then say I will use the sequence of my porch light as a storage medium. So when the porch light is on, I encode the information "I'm home" to my friend passing by. I then encode the information "I'm not home" when the porch light is off. I have encoded a bit of information on the sequence porch light on/porch light off.

Let me repeat this so we can avoid any more of your vacuous commentary:

For instance, I know when I'm home and when I'm not home. I want to send this information to a friend passing by my house. I then say I will use the sequence of my porch light as a storage medium. So when the porch light is on, I encode the information "I'm home" to my friend passing by. I then encode the information "I'm not home" when the porch light is off. I have encoded a bit of information on the sequence porch light on/porch light off.

This is exactly what we see in the genetic code.

An intelligent mind had to know information about amino acids and that sequences of amino acids form proteins. This Intelligence then took a storage medium(nucleotides) and put them into a sequence of 3 letter codons. So you can see the amino acid Glycine(gly) is encoded onto the sequences GGT, GGC,GGA and GGG. Again, this isn't the actual amino acid just information. You also see redundancy to protect the information as it's being copied. The exact tools intelligent designers use to protect encoded information. Why would they use redundancy?

This has nothing to do with anything natural. Redundancy to protect encoded information is a product of intelligence. Here's an example. I can say:

ABQ = Dog
NVC = Cat

An intelligent mind first has to know information about a dog and cat and the difference between them. I then choose a storage medium and put it into a sequence. That's ABQ and NVC.

I then send ABQ through a communication channel when I want to buy a dog and NVC when I want to buy a cat. The code makes it through around 60% of the time without any errors. That's not good enough so you add redundancy. I now send:

ABQ
BAQ
QAB
AQB for dog.

NVC
CVN
VCN
NCV for cat

This adds redundancy which helps avoid errors and now my error rate jumps to 82%. I can then add more error detection and correction to increase the error rate.

Again, this is the product of reason and logic of an intelligent mind not anything natural. The reason you hear these statements devoid of any substance is because they have no argument.

If you're going to say a mindless soup encoded information onto a sequence then built machinery to decode that information, the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your fantasy!

You mentioned something being devoid of science. That something is creationism which has been debunked by science over the last few centuries. Not a shred of evidence for the existence of your supreme deity. Creationism is as valid as flat earth.

What physical, chemical, or biochemical processes have a supernatural cause? Can you name them?

You have championed the arguments from ignorance because you clearly don't understand basic science and trying hard to bring the supernatural cause into the equation.

It may seems to you bizarre that chemical reactions can lead to further chemical reactions that can result in life but it seemed unthinkable to have argued a few centuries ago earth wasn't flat or the centre of everything.

How else life can be created a creationist will ask the audience. It must be something supernatural. ¥
The argument from ignorance.

You can help yourself with a time basic reading. I recommend grade-9 or grade-10 science.

a reply to: Venkuish1

You said:

You mentioned something being devoid of science. That something is creationism which has been debunked by science over the last few centuries. Not a shred of evidence for the existence of your supreme deity. Creationism is as valid as flat earth.

Another vacuous comment devoid of any substance. You keep making these proclamations that have nothing to do with the thread. I don't care about your incredulity just the evidence.

Intelligent design need NOT be monotheistic nor contradictory to evolution. Picture countless aliens, perhaps in multiple universes, doing their genetic tweaking (engineering) over however many eons. Evolution isn't always the strictly excruciatingly slow process the Darwinists believe; there are often sudden changes.

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2
a reply to: Venkuish1

You said:

You mentioned something being devoid of science. That something is creationism which has been debunked by science over the last few centuries. Not a shred of evidence for the existence of your supreme deity. Creationism is as valid as flat earth.

Another vacuous comment devoid of any substance. You keep making these proclamations that have nothing to do with the thread. I don't care about your incredulity just the evidence.

You say you care about the evidence and you have repeated this statement in a few posts.

Creationism and evidence don't go together I am afraid. You and your fellow creationists on this thread and a few other threads remind me of the 'debate' Richard Dawkins had with a woman called Wendy Wright. She was keep asking for 'evidence' and had the believed she could debate Dawkins being completely oblivious to the facts and how ridiculous her arguments were.

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2
Intelligent Design

Here's something that people don't think about.

My Dad was 5'10'.

I'm 6'2".

If I had a kid that was 4 inches taller than I am, and that kid had a kid who was 4 inches taller than him, then my bloodline would have evolved by a foot in about a century..

But nobody wants to call it 'evolving' for some reason. And even tiny changes are an evolution.

And my Mom and Dad didn't Intelligently Design me to be 4 inches taller than my Dad. But yet it happened.

I'm telling you, Life was created in the backseat of a Primordial Soup on a Saturday night. Probably by a lightning strike.

To create the crystalline structure of a diamond, you just have to put immense pressure on Carbon. The structure shows up all by itself. No Intelligent Design required. Nothing is encoded by anyone, yet there's this structure.

Our ancestors made decisions. And some of them made dumb decisions, but still survived to reproduce. Just making a decision to do something doesn't equate to intelligence.

I think you give people too much credit for intelligence.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Finally somone that has evolution processes sussed out witout gaps... My prayers have been heard...

What's up with the ebner effect how does that work into the evolutionary process? Or does this field of evolutionary study also conviniently ignore data that doesn't fit into their model?

Or is this just another case of dunning Kruger effect?

a reply to: Grozzvian

That's what the darwinians seem to miss in this debate. We are at the cusp of being technologically able to become somones God and creator. But to some it seems that could have never happend to us.

From afar you couldn't determine who is more irrational in their line of reasoning..

As if they purposely never stray from their diametrically opposed stances.. divide and rule works for every societal construct even science itself...

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Grozzvian

That's what the darwinians seem to miss in this debate. We are at the cusp of being technologically able to become somones God and creator. But to some it seems that could have never happend to us.

From afar you couldn't determine who is more irrational in their line of reasoning..

As if they purposely never stray from their diametrically opposed stances.. divide and rule works for every societal construct even science itself...

The example you ve given is very unfortunate. We are not technologically advanced to become something like a God or creator and even if we (in the future) advance to the point we can do 'miracles' the process of evolution by natural selection is a fact and not a speculation or a belief like the beliefs creationists have in the supernatural forces.

There are gaps in our understanding and scientific knowledge and we will always have some gaps as we learn more and more. But we know how species evolve, how stars and planets form, and that earth isn't flat anymore...

a reply to: Venkuish1

How does the ebner effect work on evolution?

If you have a infinite number of monkeys typing shakespeare.
one of them will type King Lear.

Now we small eartlhings can see a litle further.
we see the lye we tell are selfs about the size of space is not true.
No big bang made it all.
maybe galaxys blow up?
How many planets? It Is infinite. so Monkeys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Venkuish1

How does the ebner effect work on evolution?

Don't even bother, he just repeats the same dogmatic phrases and can't discuss the details of it.

But the Ebner effect is quite astonishing, I found you share that on another post. I think it is essentially unlocking the source code in these organisms, bringing them back to their archetypal design. This may be because a lot of the phenotypic deviation is due to epigenetics, among other reversible factors.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Venkuish1

How does the ebner effect work on evolution?

Don't even bother, he just repeats the same dogmatic phrases and can't discuss the details of it.

But the Ebner effect is quite astonishing, I found you share that on another post. I think it is essentially unlocking the source code in these organisms, bringing them back to their archetypal design. This may be because a lot of the phenotypic deviation is due to epigenetics, among other reversible factors.

What's going on now?
Have you changed your story from the supernatural causes of amino acid polymerization to the 'magical' and hence supernatural Ebner effect?

Explain me what do you find so difficult to understand or magical so some mysterious forces must be involved.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Venkuish1

How does the ebner effect work on evolution?

Not through the presence and interference of a divine intelligent creator.

If you ask cooperton this is what it will tell you or imply there must be something extraordinary going on.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

What's going on now?
Have you changed your story from the supernatural causes of amino acid polymerization to the 'magical' and hence supernatural Ebner effect?

Explain me what do you find so difficult to understand or magical so some mysterious forces must be involved.

Mods need to put this guy in timeout, he offers nothing and continually causes thread drift.

Again, I never said amino acid polymerization requires magic, it requires enzymatic catalysis that is exhibited in all living cells. The process of amino acid polymerization is not thermodynamically favorable without the components of a cell, thereby making abiogenesis through random chance impossible. You then asked for whoever discovered this, hoping it was a creationist, but it isn't, it's a well known thermodynamic fact. This is why we don't have an abiogenesis model and it forever remains a baseless theory that is championed by the ignorant.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

What's going on now?
Have you changed your story from the supernatural causes of amino acid polymerization to the 'magical' and hence supernatural Ebner effect?

Explain me what do you find so difficult to understand or magical so some mysterious forces must be involved.

Mods need to put this guy in timeout, he offers nothing and continually causes thread drift.

Again, I never said amino acid polymerization requires magic, it requires enzymatic catalysis that is exhibited in all living cells. The process of amino acid polymerization is not thermodynamically favorable without the components of a cell, thereby making abiogenesis through random chance impossible. You then asked for whoever discovered this, hoping it was a creationist, but it isn't, it's a well known thermodynamic fact. This is why we don't have an abiogenesis model and it forever remains a baseless theory that is championed by the ignorant.

You said abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible and that implies amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically impossible. You made several claims and you tried to connect the belief in your deity to the kind of morality you think it's acceptable.

From the influenza virus that doesn't evolve to become poliovirus to the monkeys not evolving to become humans to humans who are not monkeys but they are atheists (at least some them) and their morality is questionable.

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis supported by plenty of evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory and it's factual, it's settled science. There is no evidence either for the existence of a supernatural force or for anything else that involves magic and superstition.

The only people who think evolution is not true are creationists and some deeply religious individuals.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You said abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible and that implies amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically impossible.

Amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically unfavorable. This is why there is no working model for abiogenesis, this step is endergonic, meaning it is non-spontaneous:



Notice that the breaking down of bonds between amino acids (peptide bonds) is the favored reaction. Therefore, you will not be able to get polymerizing chains in a primordial soup through the known laws of thermodynamics.

From the influenza virus that doesn't evolve to become poliovirus to the monkeys not evolving to become humans to humans who are not monkeys but they are atheists (at least some them) and their morality is questionable.

You're mocking me for mentioning there's no examples of organisms evolving? It shows you rely on faith, because there's no empirical example of evolution happening.

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis supported by plenty of evidence.

Yet you haven't named any examples of organisms evolving. Influenza remains influenza, E. Coli remains E. Coli, mice remain mice, that's what the data shows.