Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

reply to post by edmc^2


NONSENSE

EVOLUTION in terms of original origins . . . whatever one calls it . . . CHANCE PLUS TIME = ORDERED COMPLEXITY has been FAR from "proven."

All that's happened is that those in rebellion and hostility against the whole notion of God Almighty having any authority over them whatsoever

HAVE WON A TEMPORARY BUT EXTENDED POLITICAL VICTORY.

And that not even in the body politic originally--but by secret society manipulations behind the scenes until the globalists controlled all the media, educational institutions, entertainment industries, music industries, etc. to the end that the body politic was herded like ignorant compliant sheep into the rebelliousness against God and His truths and principles the satanic globalists had long sought.

In other words, y'all bought the Kool-Aid.

THAT'S THE TRUTH.

The CHANCE+TIME-ists flatter themselves to think that they are supremely erudite, informed, perceptive etc. God calls them fools. I figure He knows what He's talking about.

The idea that chance+time=ordered complexity is reality is the most absurdly laughable idiocy satan has ever succeeded in foisting on hapless humans since he seduced eve to bite the fruit.

Time will tell.

Evidently such idiocy will have a lot of time to contemplate its stupidity with serious regretfulness.

However, individuals need not go there or remain stuck there.

The evidence for reality quite contrary to Chance + Time = Odered Complexity [C+T=OC hereafter for my posts] is all around us from sub-atomic variables at galactic levels to molecular & organ complexities in the human body.

But hey . . . if y'all want to pretend that a hurricane hitting a junk yard produced a 747 . . . have at it.

Just don't be too surprised when God Almighty laughs at you beyond scorn.

.

neoholographic
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Yes, it's a clear example of intelligent design. Intelligence can give different sequences of letters, numbers and symbols different meanings.

In that case, let me repeat my question. What is the intelligent design perspective for there being 6 codons for arginine but only one or two for tryptophan? Please answer this time. It's a very simple question. You claim the code was designed. Now explain why it's as it's. You went as far as saying that the code represent a clear example of intelligent design, so answering my question shouldn't be hard at all. One can only wonder why you already skipped the question once. And just so you know, keeping in mind that arginine is an abiotic amino acid and tryptophan is not, 6 codons for arginine and 1 or two codons for tryptophan makes perfect sense in the context of the natural gradual evolution of the genetic code itself.

reply to post by rhinoceros


I think you're asking an awful lot from people who won't even acknowledge self replicating autocatalytic RNA sets as a genuine chemical process that has been observed as well as replicated.

BO XIAN
NONSENSE

EVOLUTION in terms of original origins . . . whatever one calls it . . . CHANCE PLUS TIME = ORDERED COMPLEXITY has been FAR from "proven."

edit on 18/12/2013 by BO XIAN because: tag

edit on 18/12/2013 by BO XIAN because: ditto

edit on 18/12/2013 by BO XIAN because: added

Everything you said after this is completely negated by your statement from ignorance. When you are attacking a premise of which you don't even understand the definition how can you conceive an appropriate argument against it? Just state outright that it can't be true because your god says it isn't, even though god never said anything to you as all "divine messages" are written by men so none of it is gods word, its mans. Man is fallible and arrogant and uses information as a means of control and what better way to control people by letting them think everything is either gods fault or his plan so just do as we say and everything will be alright. How did that work out for Europe between the fall of Rome and the emergence of the Renaissance? Europe became infested with filthy ignorance people who lacked basic hygiene and education with no social mobility. Sounds like paradise.

BO XIAN
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I love the joke about satan and God agreeing to a contest to create man from the dust of the earth.

Then God tells satan

"Get your own dirt."

...and satan got a "mud" and made a monkey out it.

neoholographic
In science, there are things that are self evident. For example, an apple falling from a tree, rain, the seasons, snow or the sun shining.

Science can now tell you why the sun shines or why an apple falls to the ground.

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth. When we see it, we know it. When we see an airplane, television, car or computer monitor we know it was designed by intelligence. It's a self evident truth.

This also applies to DNA. The genetic code is a clear example of intelligent design.

What are the key components to a system that was designed by intelligence? There's 2 of them.

The first component is, you will find instructions. These instructions will be letters, numbers or symbols that are in a sequence that instructs the production of cars, DVD players and yes, proteins. Intelligence will give the sequence of these letters, numbers and symbols.

The second component, is machinery. Intelligence will then design machinery to read this sequence of letters, numbers and symbols.

Again, we see this in DNA, DVD players, cars and everything else designed by intelligence.

When DNA is in a regulatory sequence you get promoters and operators that regulate the production of proteins. You get sequences that produce proteins. You get transcription, translation, error correction and now a new discovery about a second hidden code gives us gene control through what's called duons.

For instance if I were to write aaccThehhhjMANhhiuACROSSnnmmTHEjddfSTREET. I would first have to give meaning to the sequence of the letters THE MAN ACROSS THE STREET. I would then design machinery that can scan the letters and can pick out the sequence of letters that say THE MAN ACROSS THE STREET. This is what's happening with DNA. Sequences of DNA letters are being transcribed and translated. Even when a mistake occurs, it can be caught through error correction.

It doesn't get any clearer than this.

What happened is, people looked at the phenotype and came up with a convoluted theory of evolution. This theory eventually ran into the instructions(DNA) and it has just gotten worse and worse for the convoluted theory of evolution.

Evolution is the end result of intelligent design. It's the end result of a sequence of DNA letters that instruct the regulation and production of proteins.

Nature can produce design. It can produce a mountainside or a snowflake. It can't produce a snowflake that will translate and transcribe regulatory sequences on another snowflake.

Also, why does "nature" exclude intelligence or consciousness? When people say this happened naturally why does naturally mean without God, intelligence or consciousness? Where's the evidence that nature excludes God, consciousness or intelligence?

edit on 16-12-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

OP - very logical explanation!

Only thing I need clarification is this statement:

Evolution is the end result of intelligent design. It's the end result of a sequence of DNA letters that instruct the regulation and production of proteins.

What do you mean by:

Evolution is the end result of intelligent design?

edit:

That is, are you saying evolution is part of intelligent design?

Meaning - God used evolution (darwinian or otherwise) in the design and creation of things?

reply to post by neoholographic

This also applies to DNA. The genetic code is a clear example of intelligent design.

This doesn't necessitate an all powerful god figure. That's too big of a leap. An engineer can also make complex DNA strands.

th3dudeabides
reply to post by neoholographic

 

This also applies to DNA. The genetic code is a clear example of intelligent design.

This doesn't necessitate an all powerful god figure. That's too big of a leap. An engineer can also make complex DNA strands.

hindsight is 20/20 - you're describing AFTER the fact.

Now start from scratch, without intelligence/blue print.

reply to post by edmc^2


The problem here is that you are confusing a "pattern" with a "design." Design implies a conscious choice by an active agent. A pattern simply is, or, rather, is perceived as a pattern by an observer, whether there was intent behind it or not. An automobile is the result of a design process. The leaves on a forest floor may appear to have a pattern, but that is in the mind of the observer. Nature can be seen to form patterns, but they are not the result of design.

note to self /....

maybe too intelligent design ?

rhinoceros

OneManArmy
One could also say that God did it. Using golden geometry and universal constants to create the building blocks of all things.

Sure, but that makes the whole story more complex. You now need an origin story for the Universe creating entity, and further, claiming any knowledge about this entity is quite silly, don't you think? Anyway, this has nothing to do with the "ID movement". They claim that life as such was directly designed in contrast to indirect design via natural constants as you suggested. If you really want to give credit for something, give it to randomness. Had the Big Bang been perfectly symmetrical, all the matter and antimatter would have cancelled each other out and we wouldn't be here. Nothing would. The Greeks had a Goddess for this, Eris (also known as Discordia).

OneManArmy
"If the conditions are right, it just happens" - Does it? Do you have empirical evidence for this?
Can you create life from non life?

Yes, autocatalytic RNA sets have been observed to emerge spontaneously from mixtures of short RNA polymers. There's no universally accepted definition of life, but autocatalytic RNA sets self-replicate and fall under the domain of natural selection, so they should qualify as life just as much as any other self-replicating biological entities like bacteria, trees, rabbits and humans.

edit on 17-12-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-12-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

I agree that randomness is a fundamental variable in the "universe program", true randomness is also like a holy grail of games programming. It prevents predictability and allows every "life" to be an individual experience. Which is the whole point IMO.

As for the autocatalytic RNA sets...

This forms an important and much needed first step towards merging experimental and theoretical lines of work on autocatalytic sets in the context of the origin of life.

Source - Journal of Systems Chemistry

Its hardly conclusive and just a "first step".

They also concluded that autocatalytic RNA sets were NOT the source of "life".
I was reading up on it last night, I was reading some of the sources used in the paper linked.

The fact is, we are here so it started somehow, evolution is a means to an end, as is DNA/RNA as are atoms and subatomic particles. They are the building blocks of all things, and they dont disprove the existence of God, they just show us the mechanisms of "existence" and life.
Im of the school of thought that "everything happens for a reason". Without reason there would be nothing, IMO.
I have spent much time pondering "the beginning" and "something from nothing" while under the influence of a substance that promotes deep thought.
I think "thought" and "consciousness" is the source of all things, some people call it God.
When we can quantify consciousness, then we may be onto something, IMO.
Something didnt come out of nothing, everything came out of consciousness, which was always there.
It just came to realise itself, and to learn about itself it created the physical universe to experience itself in all its intricacies.
Just opinion of course. But science is coming around to my "opinion" which is encouraging for me at least.

DJW001
reply to post by edmc^2

 

The problem here is that you are confusing a "pattern" with a "design." Design implies a conscious choice by an active agent. A pattern simply is, or, rather, is perceived as a pattern by an observer, whether there was intent behind it or not. An automobile is the result of a design process. The leaves on a forest floor may appear to have a pattern, but that is in the mind of the observer. Nature can be seen to form patterns, but they are not the result of design.

No. I'm not confusing pattern with design.

That is,

"An engineer can also make complex DNA strands" IF he knows what he's doing. Otherwise, no strand because strands follow a strict MEANINGFUL PATTERN in order to form.

Just like a ladder, without proper order and sequence, it's not a ladder but a random PATTERN. A meaningless pattern just like the leaves "on the forest floor may appear to have a pattern".

So unless there's MEANINGFUL INTELLIGENCE behind a PATTERN, it's NOT a design much less an Intelligent Design.

And as logic dictates, an intelligent design requires an Intelligent Designer - Creator!

reply to post by edmc^2

"An engineer can also make complex DNA strands" IF he knows what he's doing. Otherwise, no strand because strands follow a strict MEANINGFUL PATTERN in order to form.

Strands simply form. If a strand forms that is capable of reproduction, it will reproduce itself. If it is not capable of reproducing itself, it will not reproduce. Where is meaning in this?

Just like a ladder, without proper order and sequence, it's not a ladder but a random PATTERN. A meaningless pattern just like the leaves "on the forest floor may appear to have a pattern".

Correct. For every molecule capable of reproducing, there are countless others that do not. You seize upon the one but not the others with your mind, confusing pattern with design.

So unless there's MEANINGFUL INTELLIGENCE behind a PATTERN, it's NOT a design much less an Intelligent Design.

Correct. That is why there is no evidence of "design" in nature.

And as logic dictates, an intelligent design requires an Intelligent Designer - Creator!

Correct; that is why I have had to point out the tautology inherent in your reasoning. Since you have mistaken pattern for design, you erroneously believe in a supernatural creator.

DJW001

Correct. That is why there is no evidence of "design" in nature.

Fractals, and the golden ratio and golden geometry is prevalent in nature, it also suggests "design", not random patterns.
See Aesthetics.
Randomness is a very important variable in creating "individuality", but its just a variable in a much larger "program".

The human consciousness has created everything from the wheel to particle accelerators, we literally are in the "image" of God, in that we are creators too, our imagination to create is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

reply to post by OneManArmy

Fractals, and the golden ratio and golden geometry is prevalent in nature, it also suggests "design", not random patterns.

Nice try, but constrained growth is not the same thing as design.

To the OP,It can't be an evident truth because you are not capable of understanding this universe at all,and neither am i or any body else,so to assume you could possibly see evidence of one thing or another seems kinda pointless,maybe wishful thinking if you ask me.Creator or not,it still wouldn't explain where the Creator came from in the first place.The only answer that makes sense in my ant brain is it must be infinite and timeless and has always been here for it's own reasons.

reply to post by infinitedreamer


Not entirely sure if we're on the same "wavelength" but have a star.

reply to post by DJW001


Sounds like more philosophical slight of hand, to me.

What's the difference . . . OBSERVATIONALLY . . .

between

THE PATTERN VS THE DESIGN?

. . . Besides, an arbitrary dogmatic BELIEF that one is independent of DESIGN and one isn't.

Where in the human realm has anyone EVER seen a PATTERNED object

and thought that there had been no human DESIGNER?

Why this philosophical leap of nonsense that

OTHER PATTERNS

didn't have a designer

"just 'cause."

. . . just 'cause the high priests of Scientism said so?

LOLOLOLOLOL

reply to post by edmc^2


Thanks for your response. You asked:

Evolution is the end result of intelligent design?

edit:

That is, are you saying evolution is part of intelligent design?

Meaning - God used evolution (darwinian or otherwise) in the design and creation of things?

Thanks for asking this question because it illustrates a very important point.

What I'm saying is God didn't use evolution, evolution is a natural extension of intelligence. It's the intelligence of God(DNA) interacting with the environment. The theory of evolution looks at how God's design interacts with the environment. Darwin built a theory based on this interaction.

Darwin found a watch on the beach(human body) without instructions. He then came up with a theory on how this watch could evolve over time in successive steps. We then found the instructions(DNA) and that should have shattered any theory of evolution that didn't include intelligent design. It was too late though. Darwin had become people's god , so they were blinded by belief.

The theory of evolution was first built on the randomness of the phenotype. If you just look at the phenotype, you can come up with a theory that's based on randomness. This is what Darwin did. Darwin looked at the organism or the end result of the instructions that were designed by intelligence.

A phenotype (from Greek phainein, 'to show' + typos, 'type') is the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, phenology, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two.

Again, this is clearly what Darwin built the theory of evolution on. We then discovered DNA and the genotype:

The genotype of an organism is the inherited instructions it carries within its genetic code. Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Likewise, not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype.

en.wikipedia.org...

So the randomness inherent in nature springs forth from the intelligence inherent in design when the sequence of letters, numbers and symbols are read by machinery. If I write:

gghiTHEggdfGIRLkkfINllggTHEkkfBLUEmnnvDRESS

Intelligence has to first give the sequence of the letters, THE GIRL IN THE BLUE DRESS meaning. I can then have machinery scan these letters and recognize the sequence of letters that intelligence gave meaning to. For instance, if I want the machinery to start the translation after it reads ghi, I just design it that way. This is what intelligence can do.

Here's a very interesting video:



Like I said, there's a reason why snowflakes don't read regulatory sequences on other snowflakes and produce a snowflake production factory. It's simple, how can a regulatory sequence that's read evolve? Look at this video of the Tryptophan repressor.



The machinery knows when to stop,start, transcribe, translate and positioning. Again, these things are all hallmarks of design. What people will say is, these things occurred naturally. That makes zero sense. They also can't explain why naturally excludes things like intelligence and consciousness. There's theories out there that recognize the material brain is a measuring device that stores information. You need a non local mind that operates and navigates the information stored on the measuring device(classical brain). How can the classical brain recall specific memories at will? If I want to recall a memory of when I first went swimming, how does the brain know I wish to recall that memory? How does the classical brain know the difference between different memories? At the end of the day this ties into intelligent design. There must be a non local consciousness inherent in the universe. You will often hear people say, well it just looks designed. It looks that way because it was intelligently designed.

DJW001

Nice try, but constrained growth is not the same thing as design.

According to who?

. . . . besides the dogmatic high priests of the Religion of Scientism?

That's like taking a dozen eggs and mixing them up . . . then . . .

declaring arbitrarily . . .

THIS 6 are chicken eggs.

THIS 6 are baby dinosaur eggs . . . just because I declare them so.

Whoop T Doo.

What gives you such ARBITRARY CONFIDENCE that the fractals etc. one sees were not inherently (as is MORE LOGICAL) DESIGNED INTO all that we see and call the universe?

So God has a hobby about the Fibonacci sequence . . . and spirals . . . and fractals . . .

Fascinating. But then, to pretend He doesn't . . . is what kind of leap of idiocy?

I'm sure He's quite impressed when folks declare that His clever use of fractals, Fibonacci sequences, spirals etc. just happened to fall out of the galactic cement mixer in the junk yard amidst a hurricane of chaos umpteen trillion years ago. Oh, right, the multiverse isn't that old.

Back to the drawing board.

LOL.