The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: TzarChasm

there are no axioms of intelligent design. thats why theres 40,000 different ways to read the same book. and thats not mentioning the pantheons of civilizations long buried, and the "permanent, proper, pious" traditions they observed in their time.

So you don't know the core axioms of intelligent design? How are you arguing against it then? The main concept is that God is Conscious Mind and cause of all:

"The Universe is Mental--held in the Mind of THE ALL." Kyabalion Chapter 5.

It is through the Word of this Mind that All was created:

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1-3

You are familiar with such instant manifestation; a smaller scale of such creation is experienced in your dreams at night. You think it, it happens. So to is this world - a mental creation from "God-The-Mind"

a reply to: cooperton

...the kyabalion? you cant be serious. are you actually trying to submit that as evidence?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

the kyabalion? you cant be serious.

Poor edit. You should've kept the old statement, it at least said something meaningful. And yes, I figured that'd be easier for someone who knows nothing about Intelligent Design. If you want more of a challenge Plato's Timaeus.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

the kyabalion? you cant be serious.

Poor edit. You should've kept the old statement, it at least said something meaningful. And yes, I figured that'd be easier for someone who knows nothing about Intelligent Design. If you want more of a challenge Plato's Timaeus.

thanks for the distraction, but no.

why is evolution a lie, and how is intelligent design superior to it? this is the topic, and this is what has thus far been missed entirely. the actual conclusive evidence that evolution is malarkey. the whole reason this thread was made and the smoking gun is still a bluff.

but you will have to share that evidence with someone else, because im done here. i know you have nothing, raggedyman has nothing, randyvs has nothing, servantofthelamb and believerpriest and disraeli all have nothing. sayonara.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
why is evolution a lie, and how is intelligent design superior to it? this is the topic, and this is what has thus far been missed entirely. the actual conclusive evidence that evolution is malarkey...

Quantum physics proved matter is subordinate to mind. If probabilistic waveform materializes due to observation, as demonstrated in The Double Slit Experiment, then it would be impossible for matter to have generated mind - since mind manifests matter. This not only disproves the material reductionist perspective of evolution, but also supports the notions of the ancients that Mind is the foundation of our world.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter" -Max Planck

a reply to: peter vlar

Does any of this seem like it supports your assertions regarding what Yockey is alleged to believe? Not quite. It sounds much more like he is irritated that people like you take tiny bits and pieces of things he says or writes and then run wild with those fragments with zero context or accountability.

Exactly.

Just as they used to do with Stephen Jay Gould's work - and he was likewise absolutely pissed off with the Creationists for misrepresenting his work.

a reply to: cooperton

Quantum physics proved matter is subordinate to mind.

No it doesn't.

Edit...
The double slit outcome is not determined by the observing 'mind' at the time of observation. The outcome is undetermined until it is observed. That is two entirely different things.

If the outcome was determined by the observing mind, then that mind could choose to make the outcome be 'particle-like' every time. But it can't.

Observation 'fixes' (as in makes permanent, not as in repair) the outcome, it doesn't choose the outcome.
...Edit End


It may have consequences for philosophical discussion of esoteric thought systems like phenomenology, but the double-slit experiment has real-world consequences in the real-world, it does not have real-world consequences in the imaginary world.

Over thinking physics and trying to apply to fields of endeavor that it is not meant to apply can only lead to disaster. If matter is subordinate to mind, please go ahead and step out of a plane in flight without a parachute and see how mind can subordinate matter on your behalf.

Misapplying science from one field to non-scientific fields has led to disaster many times. One of the most famous is that of the 'Social Darwinist' movement of the early 20th century attempt to justify vicious racism on account of 'survival of the fittest'. First, Darwin's concept of 'natural selection' is not the same as survival of the fittest or strongest, it is the survival of the most fecund. And second, 'natural selection' is a concept in BIOLOGY and was not intended to have anything to do with sociology. Thirdly, there was nothing 'naturally selective' about assimilation policies in the United States, Australia, or Turkey, or Finland, or the slaughter of 6 million Jews in Europe or of 7 million Ukrainians in the Soviet Union. Fourthly, calling themselves 'Social Darwinists' was libelous. There is nothing 'social' about murder, and it has nothing to do with Darwin.

The double-split experiment demonstrates absolutely nothing about 'mind over matter'. All it does is demonstrate the quantum physics is weird and provide opportunities of exploitation in useful contrivances like the transistor.

a reply to: cooperton

You clear don't understand the physics definition of "observer".

Can't say I'm surprised in the slightest.

originally posted by: cooperton
This Mind is the matrix of all matter" -Max Planck

Yay, more of Plato's Pantheism.

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.

en.wikipedia.org...

Call it "Mind" all you want, it's still the same core philosophy:

'Nature did it'
"God is nature'
'God is (in) everything' (God is everywhere, omnipresent, something the bible never states)
'God is the matrix of all matter' ('God = the Logos = Reason = Mind')
'Mind is the matrix of all matter'

Swap "God" out for "Mind" as much as you like, but I can SEE.

WWF wrestling here. Plato-fans vs Plato-fans. Pardon any offense, it's the unvarnished truth.

Anyone who stumbles onto this thread and doesn't want to read the whole thing, I suggest catching up on page 7 and 10

Oh btw, Panentheism is just another form of Pantheism, and I'm not gonna use a new name for every little adjustment or change to a core way of thinking. You can point out differences all you like and perhaps even contradict the statement of Max Planck that you quoted in support of your views by going back to 'God exists outside of nature or the universe', but then don't use Planck's quotation in support of your views (or leave out his last sentence both in your quotation as in the expression of your views), he's going for the opposite there and just using the word "Mind" instead of "God" and vaguely using the word "matrix" to cover up his promotion of Pantheism (I guess the word "matrix" might allow a person to start arguing that they didn't mean any form of Pantheism and that that Mind still exists outside of nature as the matrix, it's also a nice set-up for neoholographic's "simulated universe"). Vagueness rules in some circles (what is "the matrix of all matter"? Is he referring to the way electrons behave in relation to neutrons and protons as described in quantum mechanics? Than how is that "Mind"? Remember, he says, "This Mind = the matrix of all matter", so it IS the matrix, whatever he may be referring to with that).

And the philosophizing continues...

Stoic Philosophy of Nature
...
God is also referred to as Soul of the World, Mind of the World, Nature, ...creative reason, the Universe. While logos and physis both refer to God,...
Stoic theology is pantheistic...

Stoic Philosophy of Nature

Guess we can add "the matrix (of all matter)" now.

For the Stoics, reason meant not only using logic,...the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things.[whereislogic: you know non-living matter can't reason right?]
...
The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy is a classification derived from the teachings of Plato...
...
Following Socrates,...

Wikipedia: Stoicism

Plato was a student of Socrates.

Despite Paul’s warning, from the middle of the second century C.E., some Christians began using concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain their beliefs. Why? They wanted to be accepted by the educated people of the Roman Empire and thus make more converts.

One Myth Leads to Another
One Myth Leads to Another: ATS thread

Ecclesiastes 1:9:

What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: cooperton

The double slit outcome is not determined by the observing 'mind' at the time of observation. The outcome is undetermined until it is observed. That is two entirely different things.

If the outcome was determined by the observing mind, then that mind could choose to make the outcome be 'particle-like' every time. But it can't.

Observation 'fixes' (as in makes permanent, not as in repair) the outcome, it doesn't choose the outcome.
...Edit End

Although I do believe that belief can alter outcome (Child healed upon belief), I am not arguing that right now. The part I bolded in your response is all I was trying to portray - if probabilistic waveforms are undetermined (immaterial) until observation, how could matter have spawned the observer (Mind, consiousness, etc)?

originally posted by: whereislogic

Oh btw, Panentheism is just another form of Pantheism, and I'm not gonna use a new name for every little adjustment or change to a core way of thinking. You can point out differences all you like and perhaps even contradict the statement of Max Planck that you quoted in support of your views by going back to 'God exists outside of nature or the universe', but then don't use Planck's quotation in support of your views, he's going for the opposite and just using the word "Mind" instead of "God" and vaguely using the word "matrix" to cover up his promotion of Pantheism (I guess the word "matrix" might allow a person to start arguing that they didn't mean any form of Pantheism and that that Mind still exists outside of nature as the matrix, it's also a nice set-up for neoholographic's "simulated universe").

And the philosophizing continues...

matrix means "breeding female" - this is because we are not of this world just like a child is not forever in the womb, but rather, we are supposed to come forth (John 16).

originally posted by: whereislogic
Ecclesiastes 1:9:

What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

Certainly not in this thread except for maybe some things on page 7 and 10.

I was just a little late with my edit.

Also your thinking pathway is now going like this:

matrix = breeding female = mind (= God)
or mind = matrix = breeding female (= God)
(where I didn't spell out "matrix of all matter" I was trying to keep it short for clarity)
Perhaps one could argue that you didn't quite spell out the last step of your misusage of words that aren't synonyms. And it's more odd if you are actually suggesting that Max Planck meant "breeding female" when he used the word "matrix". Remember you quoted Max Planck in support of your views saying:

Mind = matrix of all matter

And now this means "breeding female" of all matter? "Breeding female" also isn't the same as "Mind".

You lost me.
I'm not sharing the video below to complain about your grammar, just to keep things light in this thread and express some feelings I occasionally have:

This is for example how I felt when someone here included a video from Jack Szostak about abiogenesis/chemical evolution earlier (along with the video I immediately shared about the character "Bubbles" in the movie "Finding Nemo"). Especially the line that says: "It's green."

Just as a reminder, here's what a representation of everything involved in real 'gold' looks like in this metaphor and comparison with Jack Szostak's video about a mythological reproducing unicellular organism (or so-called protocell, i.e, his glorified 'soap' bubbles):

Given the nature of my comment responding to myself I actually was looking for the scene that starts at 3:27 in the episode below but that video seems to have been removed from youtube (as a standalone scene). So that's why I filled up my comment now with videos while I only wanted to share 1 initially:

originally posted by: whereislogic

Certainly not in this thread except for some things on page 7 and 10.

I was just a little late with my edit.

Also your thinking pathway is now going like this:

matrix = breeding female = mind (= God)
or mind = matrix = breeding female (= God)

Perhaps one could argue that you didn't quite spell out the last step of your misusage of words that aren't synonyms. And it's more odd if you are actually suggesting that Max Planck meant "breeding female" when he used the word "matrix". Remember you quoted Max Planck in support of your views saying:

Mind = matrix of all matter

And now this means "breeding female" of all matter? "Breeding female" also isn't the same as "Mind".

You lost me (where I didn't spell out "matrix of all matter" I was trying to keep it short for clarity.

I should have been more clear. Matrix is derived from 'mater', which means mother. The word matter is also derived from mater. All matter is denoted as feminine, and thus our bodies are feminine, seeking the Masculine Spirit of the Father. "Daughters of Zion" exemplifies this notion - we are brides awaiting (or rather, seeking) the coming of the bridegroom (The Father, through his Son). Therefore the matrix, this material world we are living in, is like a womb in which we are to come forth and enter the fields (of Spirit) with the Heavenly Father - The Breeding Female. From your posts I know you understand the Truth behind words, so I hope my explanation suffices. I understand Yeshua is the Gate to Life, yet others with Yeshua-phobia seem best fit to receive knowledge in the form of milk (Greek philosophy, quantum physics, etc), before coming to the meaty Knowledge of Christ.

a reply to: cooperton

The part I bolded in your response is all I was trying to portray - if probabilistic waveforms are undetermined (immaterial) until observation

First, such probabilistic waveforms only exist for sub-atomic particles. Schrodinger's Cat is an impossible thought experiment scenario.

Second, the 'observer' is anything outside the entangled system. In Schrodinger's thought experiment, the Geiger Counter is the observer that collapses the quantum probability waveform - not 'mind', a geiger counter.

Third, the object is never in both states at once. The Cat is never both dead and alive; that is a complete misinterpretation. It is ALWAYS one or the other. Both before and after 'observation'. The quantum probability function describes only the probability that the object will be in one state or another when it is observed.

Another thought experiment: put your hand in a wooden box so that you cannot see what is going on in the box but you can manipulate your hand freely. Flip a coin. The probability of result is exactly slightly less than 50% for either heads or tails and a small but finite amount for an edge; right? Now take the box away and the quantum probability function collapses to 100% for one of the three possible outcomes. The observation does not determine the outcome, the observation RECORDS the outcome. The probability function is collapsed from indeterminate to determined.

In the double slit, each photon has the POTENTIAL to act as a particle or a wave dictated by the probability function. The observer (which is the slit) 'catches' the photons one way or the other. The slit doesn't determine the outcome, it collapses the probability function. Either the photon passes as a particle and makes a dark spot on the wall behind, or it passes as a wave and builds the interference pattern.

, how could matter have spawned the observer (Mind, consiousness, etc)?

I dunno. Maybe Douglas Hofstadter could help you with that one (heck most likely even his father Robert could help you).

While your are reading Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid in order to get a handle on that, you might well remember that the observer in the double-slit experiment is not mind, but the slit.

Here is another list of trying to relate unrelated ideas, maybe solving one of these will help you find your way to answering your original question.

* Do you walk to school or take your lunch?

* How many pancakes does it take to cover a dog house? Fourteen, of course, because footballs don't have feathers.

I could go on but beating a dead horse is a waste of time, you know?

Asking how unrelated concepts relate is a bit like kissing your sister. Warm and fuzzy at first but ultimately unrewarding and even a little bit creepy.

I'm sure Hofstadter has a whole lot of better silly quips in his FARG catalog ( and ambigrams )

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: cooperton

First, such probabilistic waveforms only exist for sub-atomic particles. Schrodinger's Cat is an impossible thought experiment scenario.

Impossible only because it cannot be tested because we cannot unobserve the observable world - it can only be tested on the quantum level.

Second, the 'observer' is anything outside the entangled system. In Schrodinger's thought experiment, the Geiger Counter is the observer that collapses the quantum probability waveform - not 'mind', a geiger counter.

I'm under the impression that the geiger counter served as the variable that would make it indeterminable (until observation) whether or not the cat had died.

Third, the object is never in both states at once.

No. Quantum physics says otherwise. Bedlam articulated it very well in his post in this thread: water in multiple states simultaneously

^LOL Coop, still beating that dead horse, huh? I debunked that argument about the double slit experiment in another thread and now you just bring it up again as if that conversation never happened. The dishonesty of creationists is simply astounding. Why are you guys so desperate to prove your faith?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TzarChasm
why do you folks keep encouraging him?

I just have trouble resisting when work is slow and I need something to pass the time. It's funny watching the OP dig himself deeper with every passing post. You are absolutely right, though, this thread has run it's course.

Sadly for you, you couldn't even answer simple questions about a TATA or a CAAT box. You lost this debate about 10 pages ago or maybe your Geneticist friend answered you and they were stuck like you without an answer.

You can't answer my simple questions about ID, so you lost this "debate" and all credibility the instant you said that evolution needs to be replaced by intelligent design without quoting a single scientific source. How can you say this without evidence of a designer? It's the same stone age argument of "We don't know how it works, therefor god did it."

a reply to: cooperton

I should have been more clear.

That is always a good plan.

Matrix is derived from 'mater', which means mother.

Yes and no. Yes because it is basically true according to many scholars, and no because you don't describe why. In the original sense, a matrix was a womb or uterus or even just a pregnant animal. In the modern sense, matrix is "something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form" (Merriam-Webster Online) which derives from about the 1550's; a mother's womb is one such matrix. Rather straight forward.

(from the context we are not describing a system of crossed lines or of a set of columns and rows of symbols - though the derivation would be similar)

The word matter is also derived from mater.

A bit more difficult justifying that one. Most likely the English word is from the Old French/Anglo French matere meaning "subject, theme, topic; substance, content, material; character, education "(Online Etymology). Or it may have come directly from the Latin materia "substance from which something is made" (again Online Etymology).

All matter is denoted as feminine, and thus our bodies are feminine, seeking the Masculine Spirit of the Father.

That is a fairly traditional view, of course, since at least Aristotle. But it is rather pathetically non-politically-correct these days, and for one who espouses Christian beliefs probably downright heretical. After all, according to Aristotle, since the female provides the matter, and the male the spirit, the only way a female could be created is if some terrible mistake took place. So you are saying God made a terrible mistake when he created Eve (and all the other females that had to exist to mate with Cain and Abel and son on)?. Oh Really?

a reply to: Barcs

You said:

You can't answer my simple questions about ID, so you lost this "debate" and all credibility the instant you said that evolution needs to be replaced by intelligent design without quoting a single scientific source. How can you say this without evidence of a designer? It's the same stone age argument of "We don't know how it works, therefor god did it."

I have presented mountains of evidence to support my position even from Atheist and I didn't have to phone a friend like you to answer simple questions.

I don't need evidence of a designer, in fact throughout this thread, I've said who or what the designer may be could come in different forms. I only need evidence of design and I've presented that evidence in abundance. So much so, you have to run to a Geneticist to try and get an answer to a simple question about a TATA and CAAT box. You still haven't answered those questions.

This is what Darwinist try to do. They want to debate the designer even though most proponents of Intelligent Design are not debating a particular designer or even claiming they know who the designer is. Darwinist can't debate the issues so they want to turn it into a debate about Creationism.

The fact is, the evidence of intelligent design is overwhelming as I and others have layed out in this thread. If I see a toy plane lying on a sandy beach, I can say that plane was designed even though I don't know the designer.

It's the same with DNA. I can see a system that encodes information on sequences of DNA and then makes the machinery to decode this information and say this was designed by intelligence. Like the atheist Yockey says, information theory shows that chance and self organization couldn't have done this.

On the other hand, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE that a simple non living something can magically come out of the prebiotic goo AND become a living organism more complex than a supercomputer.

Intelligence can be a fundamental property of nature when you look at things like a quantum mind where the theory was recently corroborated with the discovery of vibrations in microtubules as predicted by Hamerrof and Penrose.

The point is, there's EVIDENCE that supports Intelligent Design there's NO EVIDENCE to support evolution without intelligent agency. There's NO EVIDENCE that some simple non living something magically become a complex encoding/decoding system and as the atheist Yockey says, because of information theory any theories that this system arose by chance or self organization is SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID!

I agre 100%!!

originally posted by: neoholographic
I have presented mountains of evidence to support my position even from Atheist and I didn't have to phone a friend like you to answer simple questions.

You have not posted a single scientific research paper or scientific source to support your position.

I don't need evidence of a designer, in fact throughout this thread, I've said who or what the designer may be could come in different forms. I only need evidence of design and I've presented that evidence in abundance.

Negative. If you wish to claim an intelligent designer made DNA, you need evidence of this designer. That's how science works if you wish to assert a claim like that. There is no evidence of design. There is you appealing to complexity and giving your opinion based on what science hasn't figured out yet. There is no scientific research that supports your position. NONE.

This is what Darwinist try to do. They want to debate the designer even though most proponents of Intelligent Design are not debating a particular designer or even claiming they know who the designer is. Darwinist can't debate the issues so they want to turn it into a debate about Creationism.

First, I'm not a Darwinist, stop using terminology you don't understand that doesn't apply to the modern world. Second, yes if you claim DNA is designed, that is the same as claiming there is a designer. Your logic is exactly the same as not understanding how cars are made and assuming that Harry Potter created them via magic. You are guessing based on complexity, nothing more. You won't even admit your opinion is an opinion. That's how close minded you are.

On the other hand, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE that a simple non living something can magically come out of the prebiotic goo AND become a living organism more complex than a supercomputer.

Nobody claims that the original DNA molecule was that complex. You are once again making an assumption. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE that any intelligent entity created DNA. And you are dead wrong, I already posted evidence of abiogenesis that documented several experiments, so there IS evidence, you just ignore it.

The point is, there's EVIDENCE that supports Intelligent Design there's NO EVIDENCE to support evolution without intelligent agency.

This is the exact opposite of reality.

a reply to: Barcs

You said:

You have not posted a single scientific research paper or scientific source to support your position.

Nothing but lies and it's exactly why you had to run to a Geneticist to answer simple questions. I and others have presented mountains of evidence that you or your Geneticist friend can't refute.

You think if you keep saying this it means something, It doesn't. Maybe you should click your heels 3 times and maybe it will come true.

You said:

Nobody claims that the original DNA molecule was that complex. You are once again making an assumption. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE that any intelligent entity created DNA. And you are dead wrong, I already posted evidence of abiogenesis that documented several experiments, so there IS evidence, you just ignore it.

This post proves my point. Nobody claims that the original DNA molecule was that complex and there's no evidence that some simple something coming out of the prebiotic goo can become a complex encoding/decoding system. Like the atheist Yockey says, information theory makes any theories of chance and self organization creating a complex encoding/decoding system SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID!

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)

cosmicfingerprints.com...

More from the atheist Yockey:

However, information theory shows that the origin of life is unknowable by scientific methods and must be accepted as an axiom of biology. (An axiom is an elementary fact that cannot be proved or derived from any other facts and therefore must be taken as a starting point.)

There's overwhelming evidence of design but no EVIDENCE that a simple non living something can magically become a complex system that encodes information on sequences of DNA and also makes the machinery to decode this information.

a reply to: neoholographic

Cosmicfingerprints.com is not a scientific source, and nobody cares about quote mines from Yockey. Please link the scientific research papers directly instead of bias propaganda sites. This argument is not about atheism, it's about evolution, yet you keep bringing up atheism or atheists as if it has anything to do with it. You have been conditioned to believe that evolution is atheistic, but it's not.

Please by all means post your scientific research papers that prove design. You keep saying it and quoting propaganda, but nothing legit or scientific thus far. Information theory is not biology and is completely irrelevant when referencing DNA, which is NOT computer software. Care to try again? Please give me science for once.