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

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Computer code is used BY US to understand and explain things.

This is an example of what I meant in my previous comment. Conveniently ignoring that ALL WORDS are used by us to help understand and explain things (including realities/facts) to make his point without actually spelling out his point (but people are thinking it after reading his comment, like a trigger to their figurative database of arguments they've heard regarding this subject and how to deny realities/facts by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, a conditioned, trained behaviour). It doesn't negate the appropiateness of certain words when applied to realities/facts/certainties/truths.

Notice how I used the word "figurative" in the sentence above before "database"? That's how you use words to make it clear when you're using an analogy or metaphor. Likewise you can use words like "like" or "similar to" if you suspect that it might not be clear that you're using an analogy or metaphor. The so-called peer reviewed articles in reputable magazines that use the word "code" (or "programming", "programmed") in relation to DNA that I've seen are clearly not using a metaphor or an analogy. They do it because they know it's the appropiate word to describe, help understand and explain a reality/fact.

Fact: DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms IS a code.

A person who is willing to hear out and learn from those teaching science/knowledge about DNA would do well to not only pick up what they're saying about the subject of evolution but also hear out the rest and practice their ability to tell fact from fiction and when those who possess a lot of knowledge regarding these subjects move from discussing facts into discussing fiction (which also happens in published articles).

The video below describes the facts with words, as is the purpose of language and communication when you're trying to explain facts/realities to help people understand them and when you're not trying to warp people's understanding of language and encourage them to deny facts to sell mythology as science and science as mythology. Notice the usage of the words "information, encoded, code, operation, instructions, machine", just to name a few words with further logical implications for a person willing to accept and deal with reality:



And the same words used by the Japanese (after translation into english, also notice "programmed"):



If it's programmed, then the process of programming was involved, which initially requires a programmer or programmers with the required amount and type of intelligence for whatever has been programmed; there's a relation between this that can give you further clues as to the level of technological advancement and know-how of the programmer or programmers, and the word "initially" relates to this level of technological advancement as well when we're talking about self-executing (in conjunction with the right biomolecular machinery to get that function out of the code/blueprint) and replicating codes. The abilities regarding self-execution and replication, which are still interdependent with the machinery for execution of the code, do not negate or lower the initial requirement for a programmer(s), it increases the level of technological advancement and know-how or intelligence required, and makes the evidence more convincing, especially if you also consider the interdependency of everything involved in a viable living reproducing organism.

merriam-webster.com-dictionary:

programmer

a : a person who prepares and tests programs for devices (as computers)
b : one that programs a mechanism
c : one that prepares an instructional program
d : a person who plans or prepares entertainment programs

Do you see any mention of Mother Nature, nature, the laws of nature, natural, or evolution in there? Which ones do you think apply when I used the word programmer? Is it OK when multiple descriptions of the meaning of that word apply? Might there be some aspect of a programmer that they decided not to emphasize to keep the dictionary from having to be stored in DNA format to keep it from getting too big (thinking about one of the latest science threads about using DNA to store computer data)? Something they might assume everyone already knows is required for the process of pogramming or preparing a mechanism or instructional program?

a reply to: nwtrucker The most notorious atheist of the 20th century has changed his mind, and now believes that there is a God who designed mankind. en.wikipedia.org...

DNA is a one size fits all molecule. It will give many things two legs, four legs, tails, no tails, etc. It will give you leaves, stems, flowers. However, what it will not do is give you more DNA. Information is not added by DNA to DNA, however some evidence exists that a virus can alter your DNA. Almost all DNA modifications that are considered mutations are unsuccessful toward advancing the fitness of the individual. When you consider the human genome, our DNA has 6 billion dipolar base pairs. Given this number, it is more than apparent that time does not allow the development of the human genome. With the expectation that Earth has 3.5 billion years of life development possibilites, you would need two successful mutations per year to get to our genome, which is impossible given that almost all mutations are derogatory. en.wikipedia.org...

Actually, there is evidence all around for humans being alive with dinosaurs. We have human footprints inside dinosaur prints in the same mud riverbed in the Paluxy riverbed. Fortunately, photos and casts were made of the best one before a scientist was caught destroying it. Today's corrupt science wants you to believe the opposite. forbiddenhistory.info.../55


The "tail" is essential on humans. Cut yours off and you will see why. It has nothing to do with being a tail as in a primate tail.

Good luck on your search for the truth.

I think people's biggest issue with design is many believe those who speak about the idea simply mean we were once designed and that was that. No.

I believe "evolution" as a theory is a pretty strong element of an otherwise extremely long story. But not the entire story.

a reply to: Foundryman

Unless we were made to be imperfect... Can't surpass our creators now, can we?

It seems mainstream science is slowly waking up to the reality of our true origins as told since time immemorial. The Veil is lifting. It's only a matter of time before we reach the event horizon of truth.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Question: are planets alive?

The requirement to live somewhere is living.

Never know!

Some think mother earth is alive.

Gaia ring a bell?

Seriously tho, if ya ain't gots no universe, ya ain't gots no planets.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: neoholographic

'Religious'????
You don't really understand evolution, do you? Or the amount of time involved? Don't worry about it, neither does Sanford, as he's a YEC.

Ya because time replaces intelligence.

TIME is its OWN intelligence according to "Evolution".

The materialist/atheist answer to life.

Matter + Time x Chance

It's amazing all the brand spanking new life forms that are just popping up all over the place!

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
The only reason anyone would believe themselves to be created by something so much greater than themselves is if they considered themselves to be "pretty stinkin great" themselves.

I chalk that up to arrogance and ignorance in roughly equal measure.

There is plenty of verifiable evidence that evolution is a FACT if one tries to view things without a religious bias and uses the information sources available to find out the way things actually are.

Everything did not "pop" into existence a mere 6000 or so years ago, dinosaur bones and meteoric debris layers and ice cores in the antarctic and arctic were not put there by the devil to confuse those of defective faith.

I always hold out the possibility that I may be mistaken though, but pretty much believe in things based on whether they can be determined to be self evident, or not....

Sounds like you are a religious fundamentalist.

Or your knowledge is at that level.

Until the dirt to life barrier is broken down and recreated by science many times and peer reviewed with doco's on the Nat Geo channel and yayhoo's on you tube posting their own creations, science has nothing but bones, faith and a lot of talk.

Oh yeah, need an ecosystem to go with that life.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Could you please explain why chickens have DNA for teeth, even though they don't have teeth at this current time?

Or why humans have DNA for tails and have tail bones?

My friend,

Your questions are quite easy to answer with a single word; Reusability.

Ask any professional software engineer about code reuse, and they will likely tell you it is one of the most important aspects of programming. They will tell you that almost any and all code they write is written with reusability in mind, because there is no reason to write the same piece of code from scratch, over and over again, when you can just write it once and reuse it later. So they write code into classes and libraries that can be reused in the future by other pieces of software, whenever and wherever it is needed.

So if some intelligent designer set out to make a new life form, a new species, chances are that intelligent designer wouldn't waste time rewriting the entire instruction set that defines this species from the ground up. They would more than likely reuse instruction sets (code) that has already been written. They would likely start from a specific class (species), and extend that class. It is known as "class inheritance" to programmers. However, just because you inherit a class to extend it, doesn't mean you have to use all the code within that class. You can use only the parts of the class you need, or override methods to make them do something entirely different. So if someone were to disassemble or reverse engineer the code, they would see dormant functions and methods and properties that are simply not used, along side the code that is used, because its all a part of a base class.

This could explain why chickens have DNA for teeth, but they don't have teeth. The designer reused a class to form the mouth, but didn't reuse the part of the class that generates teeth. So we see dormant code.

It could also explain why there is evidence of evolution. We are witnessing intelligent code reuse, by a professional programmer.

a reply to: whereislogic

You make a crucially important mistake (well, more than one, but I will concentrate on just the one) in your post trying to read meanings into words that are just not there.

Fact: DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms IS a code.

That is correct. In fact, it is a GENETIC CODE.

Many many words have more than one meaning, sometimes even meanings that are exactly opposite from each other. Take the word 'bad' for instance. You and I might be at a basketball game and see a player try an extremely unlikely athletic shot. I might say "What a bad shot" and mean that the player should have known better than to try something stupid like that. Of course when it goes in, you might say "What a bad shot" and mean what a daring, out of the box, super shot and "in your face you crummy opposing team".

Now you give a definition for a programmer and rightly point out that that definition doesn't really allow for a programmer to be 'Mother Nature' or other natural occurrence like random mutation and natural selection (for now we'll ignore that some other dictionary might well allow for such a definition). What you left out is any justification for using the word 'programmer' in the first place.

Notice that you went to great lengths to justify the use of the word 'code' but didn't define what a code is and just jumped from there to requiring that a code must require a programmer. So lets look at the definition for the word 'code' (from the same dictionary as yours):

Full Definition of code

1: a systematic statement of a body of law; especially : one given statutory force
2: a system of principles or rules
3a : a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings
4: genetic code
5: a set of instructions for a computer

Examining each point in turn, number 1 requires not a programmer, but a legislature; number 2 requires not a programmer, but a civilization; number 3a and 3b requires not a programmer, but an agreement between interested parties; we'll get to number 4 in detail below; number 5 requires a programmer (hey presto!). So out of 5 definitions exactly 1 requires a "programmer" and that explicitly specifies that it applies to a computer.

It is clear that life is not a computer in actuality, no matter how many metaphors are used to describe life functions. Memory is often described as a 'juke box, that when stimulated with the correct record number plays back the memory'. But the mind is not a machine and the memory is NOT a juke box. It just isn't.

We should discuss definition number "4: Genetic Code". Notice that "Genetic Code" is separate from each of the others. When dictionaries do that, it is to indicate that the numbered usage is different enough from other usages that it should be treated differently. So a "body of law" is different from a "system of principles", which is different from a "system of signals", which is different from a "genetic code", which is different from a "set of instructions for a computer". See how that works?

Now it so happens that a "genetic code" is so different from the other usages that the online version of the dictionary (the same one you used, apparently) actually links to its definition for "genetic code":

Definition of genetic code

: the biochemical basis of heredity consisting of codons in DNA and RNA that determine the specific amino acid sequence in proteins and appear to be uniform for nearly all known forms of life

There is no reference there to anything requiring anything resembling a "supernatural programmer". In fact the definition goes on to point out that the first known usage of the term "genetic code" was in 1961. The double helix structure of DNA was described in 1953 and Crick, Wilkins, and Watson were awarded the Nobel prize in 1962. It is not hard to imagine the the term "genetic code" was coined to describe the function of the DNA for the layman.

Bottom line: not every 'code' requires a programmer. You could stretch the definition of 'programmer' to include legislatures, committees, and culture groups, but you are indeed stretching and using metaphors or analogies to do so. Legislatures are (sort of) LIKE a computer programmer when they design a legal system, they are not ACTUALLY a computer programmer.

The word "code" was borrowed in 1961 to help describe the functions of DNA as the "genetic code", it is a very good description but it has nothing to do with computer codes or programming. On the other hand, today computer programmers are borrowing terms from biology to describe their coding systems. "Neural Networks" are not actually brains, but they behave in similar fashion (or at least that is the goal) to solve certain problems.

That is all. Word pictures, analogies, metaphors, are just mind maps that help make unfamiliar concepts familiar, nothing more, nothing less. The Schrödinger/Heisenberg Probability Cloud model of the atom is just that: a model. No physicist would ever say an atom is actually a probability cloud (and Chemists are generally happy to use the Bohr orbiting electron model). You need to be VERY careful not confuse the analogies for the actuality of the world.

This is NOT a pipe...

a reply to: Jim Scott

The most notorious atheist of the 20th century has changed his mind, and now believes that there is a God who designed mankind.

Oh really? Richard Dawkins has recanted? I'd be rather interested in a link to that story.

Or did I get that wrong? Perhaps you are talking about Christopher Hitchens?

Gee, I dunno, how many 'most notorious atheists' are there?

Looking at the world apes could be just devolved humans.
It looks so simple when you realize that you know nothing about life and you still live. People and other animals know nothing about enzymes and DNA. We only know how to eat and fart.

How exactly are we superintelligent self-creating, evolving beings? Science can't replace a religion. It should know it's empirical place.
It wanted to have the same or higher status but it failed in the grand scheme. Like communism.
Great thread. Lotta anti-theists - satans got a logic-beating here.

a reply to: rnaa

summing up your comment which I already adressed in my comment to neoholographic (previous page):

"capitalizing on the ambiguity of language".

You're basically demonstrating everything I said about it in previous comments in various threads that I'm not going to repeat. Most notably ignoring the choice of words in the videos I shared, not my choice, but entirely appropiate therefore I agree with it. Whether these people are justified in using these words is up to you to find out, but you'll need to get rid of your bias and warped understanding of logic and language first. There's no point in bringing up:

Many many words have more than one meaning, sometimes even meanings that are exactly opposite from each other.

When I already did and explained why such a line of thinking does not in any way negate the appropiateness of certain words when correctly applied to facts/realities. You did not specify how this is of any influence regarding the words used in the videos I shared (which are the same words used in published articles about the subject). You twist what I said to hear what you want to hear (your preferred straw man) and pretend that somehow I didn't justify the words that I used or that where used in the videos, words that if you really don't understand them (and you're not just pretending) you could simply look up yourself in the dictionary rather than making vague unsupported statements about dictionaries possibly including something in their definitions that you're hoping for. Very discouraging for me to try to continue responding to the rest.

One last thing, in my comment I clearly showed that I was using the word code with the same meaning as the synonym "blueprint", where is the definition for blueprint in your examples of definitions that are by no means excluding all other possible definitions and things you can emphasize when talking about a particular word? Might definitions 3a and 3b be describing some aspects of that meaning for the word "code"? And can an encoder also be a programmer? Or might those definitions just not be entirely accurate in describing a "genetic code", which is not much of a definition but more of an example of an application of the word code (and perfect to point at when one wants to capitalize on the ambiguity of language and pretend that when something was "programmed" it doesn't mean a programmer or programmers and the process of programming were involved, just because you don't like to follow down this logical pathway and the meaning of those words indicating intelligence being involved as well)? And then pretend that if the dictionary doesn't say anything about intelligence then it's not involved. Warping the understanding of the words: programmed, programming, programmer and programmers (or code, encoded, encoding, encoder; as well as conflating and switching up what I said about the usage of the word "code" and the word "programmed" in the relative videos to lend support to your misinterpretations and rather shallow view and explanations regarding those examples of definitions or applications that you quoted from the dictionary).

a reply to: whereislogic

Your misappropriating definitions to suit your argument. DNA is simply chemistry and requires no intelligence to guide it. You're just making stuff up.

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: whereislogic

DNA is simply chemistry and requires no intelligence to guide it.

Your 'hidden' baseless unsupported unreasonable and illogical claim and thought that 'Mother Nature did it' ('nature did it', 'the laws of nature did it', 'the laws of chemistry did it', 'chemistry did it', 'it's just chemistry', "is simply chemistry", 'let's not talk about how it initially came into existence anymore please') is not hidden from me. Since your comment was short I'll leave it at that as well.

And your first accusation was just more 'pot calling the kettle black' (in relation to your thinking and the comment you were responding to and what rnaa was doing). With the only difference here that the kettle is actually trying to help clean the pot after having found and applied a good methodology to get clean itself, only to be called "black" when sharing or explaining that methodology and encouraging the pots to try it out for at least a little while. Sorry for the very figurative language, once I got started I had to finish my point.

Where did the first set of data come from to control the first dna strand ? Data requires intelligence . The argument is about bio-Genesis , not evolution per-se . Without data dna is just a string of molecules stuck together incapable of doing anything .

originally posted by: neoholographic
Like I said, Evolution is a BIG LIE.

Randomness can't create instructions. It's just nonsense. The mechanics of evolution didn't evolve. Things like gene regulation, gene expression, transcription, translation and error correction. These things are products of intelligence that's used when you're creating instructions.

If I find instructions to build an airplane, I know intelligence created it.

Just look at something like the lac operon.

This is intelligent design. Randomness has nothing to do with it. You can go into any factory and see the same thing play out as machines and people follow instructions.

Here's a video about transcription and translation.

FASCINATING STUFF!

How did transcription and translation evolve? How did the mechanic to make a Protein evolve through a random process? It just sounds silly to even say it.

Randomness occurs AFTER THE FACT. After the gene makes it to the environment then some of them thrive and and some of them don't and this is all subject to randomness. The process of a gene reaching the environment is HIGHLY DESIGNED by intelligence.

People ASSUME that these things need to be explained without intelligence. Without intelligence, you get a convoluted mess that makes no sense.

Where does it say intelligence has to be excluded from explaining these things. We don't need to know the origin of this intelligence. It could be God, Advanced Civilization or some quantum computer with machine intelligence.

We find one of the most complex and sophisticated instruction manuels and the Primary Axiom says, we have to explain this in a "natural" way and "natural" has to exclude intelligence.

WHY ISN'T INTELLIGENCT DESIGN A NATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE GENETIC CODE?

We know what intelligence looks like and we know intelligence can create things like translation, transcription and error correction when creating instructions. There's no evidence that randomness or some mythical common ancestor can do any of these things.

Self assembly and self organizing systems have been recognized for a very long time. You're a day late and a dollar short on your statement.

There are over 500 recognized journals that have published thousands of research papers on varying topics in evolution. Why don't you pick out one of those papers and tell us why they're wrong. In fact, why not tell us why they're all wrong.

You don't get it because you formulated an opinion before understanding the research that has already been done. This is an ass-ways backwards way of doing anything - especially science.

Again, pick out one or two papers from recognized journals on any subcategory of evolution and present your case. The problem with you folks is that you have no case. You don't do the work. You don't read. You don't debate. You don't ask questions. You don't learn.

It's a pity, really.

originally posted by: TREESNAKE1111
The argument is about bio-Genesis , not evolution per-se . Without data dna is just a string of molecules stuck together incapable of doing anything .

Isn't it interesting how certain people try to seperate the subject of what they refer to as "evolution" from "abiogenesis" but when a thread like this pops up the arguments against some of the conclusions involving the word "design", "designer", etc. are remarkably similar to those arguing in favor of what they sometimes refer to as "biological evolution" (usually involving philosophies regarding common descent or common ancestry...etc., not gonna spell it all out anymore). In essence:

'nature did it'
'words are unclear', long live agnosticism and philosophical naturalism

Perhaps it has something to do with the famous and prominent evolutionary philosophers Haldane and Oparin referring to what Huxley referred to as "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" as "the chemical evolution theory of life". Which is one of the many fancy ways of saying:

'Mother Nature did it' ('Gaia did it')



Sorry to those who've already seen the video above, but it's appropiate now in this comment.

a reply to: neoholographic

Here on the results from a Google Scholar search for DNA self assembly and evolution. Please note the number of research articles which come up for only one topic in evolution. This is proof positive that evolution deniers have zip understanding of what the science of evolution is about.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You don't get it because you formulated an opinion before understanding the research that has already been done. This is an ass-ways backwards way of doing anything - especially science.

More 'pot calling the kettle black' (especially regarding the research that neoholographic brought up in this thread so far, see further below) and misapplication or vague (powered up?) usage of the word "science" (from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge", you wanna do knowledge? Or did you want to wave your 'magic stick of truth' around to lend more credibility to your words?).

Qouting you again:

Again, pick out one or two papers from recognized journals on any subcategory of evolution and present your case. The problem with you folks is that you have no case. You don't do the work. You don't read. You don't debate. You don't ask questions. You don't learn.

Why would he have to pick out any other papers than the ones he's already selected this thread to be about? You're the one arguing for:

'Nature did it'

And after that more pot calling the kettle black demonstrated in your own comment (with maybe some exceptions here and there or slight variations I'd like to put in the way you phrased that, and a caveat I'd like to put in regarding me not knowing much of the kettle this time).

Don't vaguely point to "self-assembly" without giving us a single logical reason to believe that the laws of nature are capable of causing the emergence of the capabilities and information required regarding self-assembly that is present in the (DNA) genomes of even the organisms with the tiniest genomes on the planet (unicellular prokaryotic bacteria) AND the biomolecular machinery required to get that functionality out of those genomes. But I'm sure you'll want to broaden your interpretation of "self-assembly" to conflate it with something completely unrelated to the self-assembly properties I'm talking about when I'm saying something about the inner operations of living organisms (including unicellular organisms). Capitalizing on the ambiguity of language and confusing the topic; like Krauss uses snowflakes and the stuff about crystal lattices I shared with you that Meyer discussed in the video the last time we spoke, ah this is vague, I'll just share the video again:

a reply to: whereislogic

Dr. Meyers' conclusions are backed up by reverse engineering the science. He's left so much out that it would take hours to simply correct and respond to his lecture.

As I said before, I seriously doubt he would dare to give this lecture in front of a crowd of molecular biologists and chemists. He would be inundated with questions and criticisms.