It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 70
42
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

That one was modern Irish, rather than Old Irish, or the Ulster dialect
I generally use modern Irish, as most people who speak Irish Gaelic speak/read that one. One of the best translations is here. I typed mine from memory, so there are bound to be a few issues with the format


Ah thank you, that does help.




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Where did I see it reached the end?

As for did you state it as the only answer? What is the subject of the entire thread? IS the word ONLY in there?


I said the thread was at the end of its rope, thats what dear edmc was referring to. And to be fair, just because circles don't have an end doesn't mean you are getting anywhere. Motion does not imply progress.

edit on 27-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh wait we are not going to have the accusations from creationists we are all Barcs again are we??



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh wait we are not going to have the accusations from creationists we are all Barcs again are we??


What are you doing here exactly? Surely you aren't still trying to beat edmc at his or her own game? Hate to break it to you, but you can't educate the unwilling.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I have a some questions for you.

From your source:


DNA does not work as a blueprint because the information is not reversible. DNA does contain information necessary to construct an organism, but if you examine a fully formed organism, you cannot reconstruct the original DNA sequence.


Is it only saying it's practically impossible to reverse-engineer a genome from examining an organism, or that it's theoretically impossible to reverse engineer a genome functionally equivalent to the original, no matter what measurements you have of the fully formed organism?




The way a computer code works is that the exact sequence of the code - the precise order of the binary 1s and 0s - spells out exactly what operations the computer must perform. But in genetics, the sequence is only part of the picture.


In our current state, we have a few things interacting when it comes to practical implementations of computer code.

1: the programmer or code generating program.
2: the code itself.
3: the hardware that runs the code
4: the inputs (from the user, the clock, the internet etc...)

There is more going on than just the code itself if we're talking about it in a practical manner. For the code to do anything, you have to tell the processor to run it. If you try to run ARM code on 8080 hardware, it won't work. Even when the code starts running, the processor responds to inputs along with the code.

In a theoretical sense, has the process of reproduction been proven to be noncomputable? How on earth can you prove that an emulation of a physical process is noncomputable on any type of Turing machine?

The quoted statement just sounds wrong. If they mean to say genetic code doesn't work the way code developed by human programmers usually works, I'd agree; but I wouldn't take it any further than that. There's no reason to be against learning concepts from one field to help one in another, the results are often fruitful: Nature-Inspired-Metaheuristic-Algorithms, Evolutionary Optimizaton Algorithms.

As far as DNA being a physical chain of atoms, that's true. Everything we use to store our information for our computers is composed of physical components as well though.

Going further into your source, I don't care much for politicizing science. A source which calls Intelligent Design proponents IDiots should be viewed with as much scrutiny as one which promotes arguments which are obviously religiously motivated. I certainly wouldn't expect to change the mind of any creationist or proponent of intelligent design with such a source. Name-calling and politicization are for the idiots, they are antithetical to science and reason.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I've told you I am not here to educate the posters of these threads, I'm here for those who might have an open mind, and need an alternative view.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

I've told you I am not here to educate the posters of these threads, I'm here for those who might have an open mind, and need an alternative view.


I have a sneaking suspicion that they changed the channel 30 pages ago.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

Ok doke, I shall try. As I did not write this, I'm of course going to make assumptions on the use of language (its not a Journal therefore not as well cited to the point I can read the all references they are thinking about)....

(a) If you read further down the paragraph. They are attempting to explain what they mean. Take the "measure the length of the nose" comment (its an odd one, but ok...). You can't as they say measure the nose, and go, ahhh ok it is THAT gene, and there for THAT combination of DNA. A lot of those characteristics are epigenetically determined. SO its not a blue print, it is as they say a recipe. It might come out different each time.

(b) Can I ask why it sounds wrong too you? IS it the phrasing? Because some people hate the word moist for various reasons, but its not a wrong word. How genetics works is not just the order of the 5 letters, its also 101 different modifications, hormone level, etc etc etc

So to answer this question In a theoretical sense, has the process of reproduction been proven to be noncomputable?, we've not yet been able to program a genome, and get what we want. We can pull it apart using computers, oh and some equipment (the sequencers) which chemically interact with it (look at how sequencers work). We can't (at this juncture) pull out our iPhone or Android, and "scan" someone, ask an App to reproduce them, and hey presto you have spare parts.

As for the politics? Its a blog. I went for something someone can access. I've been accused of being unfair for putting references you need to pay to read, or be able to access from a University or research institute.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yet we see the thread necromancy happen or the "I've started reading the thread" weeks/months later. If one person is willing to reconsider, even if they don't change their mind, its worth it to me. I don't expect others to care, or even take part if they do not wish too.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Where did I see it reached the end?

As for did you state it as the only answer? What is the subject of the entire thread? IS the word ONLY in there?


Yes, of course, it's in there but you quoted it or used it out of CONTEXT.

Makes a BIG difference to say The ONLY answer as opposed to The ONLY LOGICAL answer.

To illustrate my point. You claim you're a scientist. So in light of this claim - as a scientist, can please explain LOGICALLY to us - the uneducated - what Prof. Hawking meant when he said the following?



Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.


Can you make sense of it?







edit on 27-9-2016 by edmc^2 because: Can you make sense of it?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

OK, so if you take 'blueprint' too literally the metaphor breaks down. As far as being something that you can build a clone of an organism with, 'blueprint' is a decent metaphor. They seem to be twisting words to criticize those they disagree with, rather than countering the actual points they're trying to make.



Can I ask why it sounds wrong too you? IS it the phrasing?


The phrasing sounds fine. The distinctions they make between genetic code and computer code are inaccurate or misleading.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You have yet to prove that it is Logical. Thus it is not a big difference. You've indeed not talked about the alternatives. You cited Professor Hawkins, yet do not cite him in total. Lets make this clear Dr Hawkings, states quite clearly "God did not create the universe".

So when you prove that Creation is Logical, I will concede that you have a point. Hell will be around 0 Kelvin at that point I believe. You have also not proven the alternatives to be illogical. Therefore only is also subjective



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

lol...

I've heard interesting musings on the idea of Flying pigs

Might be possible




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

I know we are a conspiracy site, so I am stepping on dangerous ground here but .... We've not grown to maturity, Human clones
Though that fine documentary Orphan Black might be on to something


In all seriousness, when you look at say Dolly the sheep, they had a great many failures before Dolly. WE have virtually no control over cloning. That is not even taking a genome in data form (as in a hard disk with the large amount of info) and plugging it into the equivalent of a peptide synthesizer for DNA, to spit out the actual Physical DNA, put it in an "off the shelf ready to go" cell with out a nucleus, or probably the mitochondia (that has DNA which is not in your genome but is important) and let it divide.

Now explain why you feel that the distinctions are inaccurate or misleading please? I'm curious, not trying to shut you down. I'm a snob about this, as I've spend months of my life trying to get DNA sequences to give up information I need.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

How about winged monkeys flying out of lower cavities on a body?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Woah... slow down

Now you're talking creationism...




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Oh no, Genetic modification, I'm pro GMO as well



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

hmm...

well apparently Such Things Exist

you might have to explain the genetics behind them though...




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Ever hear of inbreeding? Limit the gene pool, help select fewer options



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

Ever hear of inbreeding? Limit the gene pool, help select fewer options


Yup...

Once upon a time we called it religious homeschooling




new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join