Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?, page 49

privacy

Pages: << 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 32 times

reply posted on 10-2-2012 @ 09:39 AM by Barcs

LMAO, you ignored every point I made.

Hubert P. Yockey, PhD, is a Darwinist

No he's not. First, there's no such thing, and 2nd he is not an evolutionary (or other type of) biologist, he's a physicist who studies information theory.

Yockey concludes the the origin of life is unknowable.

And that's pretty much all that needs to be said. It is unknowable. I agree 100%. Anyways I asked for a scientific study that claims the information is a computer language, not loose references in a book about information theory where he is trying to explain genetic code to a layman. He is not saying there is AN INTELLIGENCE BEHIND THE CODE. Not a single thing in his book claims that.

Did you every notice that this troll, Barcs, never cites any authority? Check out his posts in this thread and others. What he does is bellow, "you're wrong", demand sources from you but never cites any himself.

What do you need a source for? When I don't source, I assume it is common knowledge, or it has been sourced 100 times over in this section. What would you like me to back up? Funny whenever I ask ID advocates for objective evidence they NEVER back it up. But then again, you IGNORE my entire response and then expect me to respond to selective quotes from an information theory book? It's funny that you call me a troll when everything I say can be backed up by scientific data.

Who has more credibility on these scientific issues, PhDs or a computer repairman? Let us see some authority for your pronouncements.

And I'm supposed to assume that YOU are more credible than either? I at least have experience writing programming code, which is absolutely nothing like the code in DNA. What do you do for a living that qualifies you in this discussion? The book you quote mined is not a book that claims there is intelligence behind the design. I asked you for scientific evidence, not opinions on information theory. He's obviously trying to relate the 2 to explain how DNA works, but nowhere in the book does he once mention that there must be intelligence behind the code. Again, this is YOUR conclusion, which is based very loosely on what this book is actually talking about. It certainly isn't the conclusion of the scientist who wrote it.

edit on 10-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-3-2012 @ 02:11 PM by caf1550

reply to post by edmc^2

before i keep reading this thread i just want to ask you, what facts do you have that a "creator" created life? and please don't say the bible

why do you think we are so special as a species because we are just a very small part of a HUGE universe, like another post said earlier if the world ended today the universe would continue to go on without us, if our sun supernovaed if would just be another star ending its life in the vastness of the universe

im sorry but religion has caused more problems for the world we live in, there are no facts in the bible its all speculation, it quite easy for people to lie and convince people they are something or someone else.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

reply posted on 10-3-2012 @ 05:44 PM by edmc^2

reply to post by caf1550

before i keep reading this thread i just want to ask you, what facts do you have that a "creator" created life? and please don't say the bible

Did you watched the OP video? If you did, I'm sure you've noticed that it's based on scientific studies and principles - no mention of the Bible.

But since creation deals with the Creator (of life) then it's important to consider its contents.

In any case here's my simple answer to you that a

"creator" created life

Life can only come from a pre-existing life.

Do you agree with this scientific fact?

why do you think we are so special as a species because we are just a very small part of a HUGE universe, like another post said earlier if the world ended today the universe would continue to go on without us, if our sun supernovaed if would just be another star ending its life in the vastness of the universe im sorry but religion has caused more problems for the world we live in, there are no facts in the bible its all speculation, it quite easy for people to lie and convince people they are something or someone else.

We're not special but a unique part of God's creation - because out of all the physical creation we're the only ones who were created "in his image" - meaning we have wonderful attributes that you can't find in the lower species.

Attributes such as love, mercy, justice, wisdom and power and the capacity and ability to go beyond space and time. That is, the ability to fathom the infinite universe as well as the ability to plan for the future and think of the past present and as well as the future.

None of the lower species as I already said can do that. What they have is instinct.

if the world ended today the universe would continue to go on without us

I agree, if there's no creator, but since the evidence show that life was created thus such event will not happen.

So what do you think of the video, compelling and convincing?

tc.

reply posted on 10-3-2012 @ 06:02 PM by caf1550

reply to post by edmc^2

I did watch the video, it did not change my stance on supporting evolution

yes I do agree that life can evolve from pre-existing life over millions of years to what we have today.

Attributes such as love, mercy, justice, wisdom and power and the capacity and ability to go beyond space and time

You say we have the capacity to go beyond space and time and I disagree with that, If there was a creator why wouldn't he give us this capacity to start with, I believe that yes a a species we a destined to explore the cosmos much like our ancestors explored the known world.

If there was a creator why would he give us the want to kill one another?

Are you sure that "lower species" as you say don't poses the ability to love each other, or show mercy or justice?

en.wikipedia.org...

You say there is evidence of a creator but I don't see it, I see their is evidence of evolution over millions of years, how can you account for the age of the Universe or the age of planet Earth?

how can you account for all the species that lived before humans, fossil records?

how can you account for the evolution of various virus's like the new strains of flu, they evolved when people began to create vaccines for previous strains.

reply posted on 10-3-2012 @ 09:07 PM by edmc^2

reply to post by caf1550

yes I do agree that life can evolve from pre-existing life over millions of years to what we have today.

So we have a common ground - life came from pre-existing life, only difference is that you believe that once life started it then evolved into a higher form. While I believe that (human) life was created perfect - possessing all of the wonderful qualities. The desire to kill and do harm came in much later on (after the fall from grace) while you believe that it's a natural part of the species in order to survive (as in survival of the fittest).

You say we have the capacity to go beyond space and time

Yes that's what I said - we have the ability to fathom the universe. In other words our brains, our mind is able to contemplate such things as space travel, time travel, quantum entanglement and other amazing facts or artefacts of the universe.

Think of Stephen Hawkins - his body is imprisoned by the disease that plague mankind yet his mind is able to travel and penetrate the depths of space and time. We have Einstein, Kepler, Newton and many more giants of science that were able to peer through space and time.

But you say:

and I disagree with that, If there was a creator why wouldn't he give us this capacity to start with, I believe that yes a a species we a destined to explore the cosmos much like our ancestors explored the known world.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

But to me the fact that the Creator gave us this capacity means that he has plans for mankind, to explore the vastness of the universe. Like you said ...

we a[re] destined to explore the cosmos much like our ancestors explored the known world.

No other form of life on earth was given this ability but man.

Are you sure that "lower species" as you say don't poses the ability to love each other, or show mercy or justice?

What we perceive as emotions on animals are just traits and instincts, that's all. Their capacity to think and ponder like the meaning of life is non-existent or to plan for the future or to think of space travel or fall in love is non-existent. We, that is, humans give them these human attributes because we ourselves have posses them.

As for the animals - they can be taught to "learn" human-like traits, but up to a certain point and we sometimes interpret it as human emotion. It is not as they don't have the capacity to go beyond what they learned.

It's for this reason that the Creator instructed man to take care of them and also because we have conscience.

(sad part is that some humans behave worst than animals)

You say there is evidence of a creator but I don't see it, I see their is evidence of evolution over millions of years,..

You don't see the evidence of a creator because you're looking at it from the pov of evolution theory. Some say it takes faith to believe in a Creator so they can't see the evidence.

Yet in reality, it takes more faith to believe evolution theory than to believe in a Creator.

how can you account for the age of the Universe or the age of planet Earth?

No mystery there, these are based on scientific facts which coincidentally the Bible does not contradict.

how can you account for all the species that lived before humans, fossil records?

No mystery there either, in fact the Bible shows that animals were created before humans - only difference is that evolutionist/palaeontologist say that animals lived millions of years before homo-sapiens. They based this on fossil records. Records that actually support creation not evolution.

how can you account for the evolution of various virus's like the new strains of flu, they evolved when people began to create vaccines for previous strains.

What you call "evolution" or "micro-evolution" to precise is simply adaptation. These new strain of viruses that you talked about are adapting to their environment. They have the ability to develop or adapt to their surroundings in order to survive, but guess what they are still a virus. For thousands of years that's how they survive. We develop new vaccines to destroy them, they adapt, and no they don't evolve into something.

My question to you is - in the video - where did the DNA code (information) came from? Did it came from nowhere, by accident, blind chance, luck or guidance?

Which one makes sense?

tc

reply posted on 26-3-2012 @ 02:18 PM by Cataclysm

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Cataclysm

3. There are no information codes (other than in DNA) produced, in nature, by natural selection:

Prove this.

You want me to prove a negative? And, how is that done exactly?

Better yet, why don't you give an example of an 'information code' in nature, other than DNA.

edit on 26-3-2012 by Cataclysm because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-3-2012 by Cataclysm because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-3-2012 @ 02:50 PM by Barcs

Originally posted by Cataclysm

3. There are no information codes (other than in DNA) produced, in nature, by natural selection:
Prove this.

You want me to prove a negative? And, how is that done exactly?

Better yet, why don't you give an example of an 'information code' in nature, other than DNA.

You stated it as if it were fact. If you are going to do such a thing, you need to provide evidence. YOU claimed there is no information code produced in nature other than DNA. I didn't claim there was. Where do you even come up with such an idea? That is just a random guess, based on personal opinion as I clearly pointed out earlier in the thread. This is why I said there is no objective evidence of a design. Anything could technically be considered information, but you cannot provide any evidence to suggest anything beyond natural processes to account for DNA code. If you have evidence of this creation or design process, please present it. If you can't, then it's merely opinion as I've stated multiple times in here. You are the one that said we should stick to science, then you present a list of items that is half science and half opinion.

edit on 26-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-3-2012 @ 09:20 PM by Cataclysm

reply to post by Barcs

I'm saying there are no other information codes because: I've researched the subject; asked questions, read papers, jounals, etc... all on the subject of the existence of natural information codes. Thus far, I have not encountered anyone who even suggests the existence of information codes that nature creates randomly, or any other way. Nature is not in the business of information.

That's the evidence. They don't exist. That's my proof. I rest my case.

If you believe they do exist, state your proof... identify one.

reply posted on 28-3-2012 @ 05:41 PM by Barcs

Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by Barcs

I'm saying there are no other information codes because: I've researched the subject; asked questions, read papers, jounals, etc... all on the subject of the existence of natural information codes. Thus far, I have not encountered anyone who even suggests the existence of information codes that nature creates randomly, or any other way. Nature is not in the business of information.

That's the evidence. They don't exist. That's my proof. I rest my case.

If you believe they do exist, state your proof... identify one.

I don't care if they exist. It's a hypothetical statement. You can't prove it one way or another, therefor it means nothing in science, just like the god hypothesis. Science never says "there is no god", despite the lack of evidence. Science simply ignores it. That's how it works. Now speaking of evidence, please post these exact "information codes" you are talking about and evidence that it was programmed. Define information. We can gather information from almost anything. I'm aware of how DNA works, but YOUR OPINION on whether or not it was designed, is NOT proof, and your response is not scientific it is philosophical, based on a completely hypothetical question.

Information theory is just the latest of many forms of pseudo science that creationists and ID advocates cling to these days. Scientific evidence of a designer or design process does not exist. This has been my argument since the beginning and thus far it holds true.

edit on 28-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 11:19 AM by Cataclysm

reply to post by Barcs

No one has observed information codes in nature; that is, codes that occur accidently, randomly through natural processes.

DNA is a code.

All known codes are created by intelligence.

DNA was created by intelligence.

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 11:39 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by Barcs

No one has observed information codes in nature; that is, codes that occur accidently, randomly through natural processes.

DNA is a code.

All known codes are created by intelligence.

DNA was created by intelligence.

1. How is deoxyribonucleic acid a code?

2. The part we call "the genetic code" is in the order of 3 consecutive nucleotides (aka codons). There are at least 18 different codes.

3. Just by looking at a codon table, we can tell that the genetic code evolved over time, e.g. Isoleucine (one of the first amino acids) tRNA with UAU anticodon used to pair with ATN (N is A,T,G or C) codons. However, much later, a Methionine tRNA with CAU anticodon captured ATG codons, thus partitioning the ATN block.

So you see, here's one known code that was not created by intelligence. Another would be, if somebody made algorithms that wrote code. In this case, the algorithms are the laws of nature. All swans used to be white, until they discovered black swans in Australia. There's a lot of scientific literature on the evolution of the genetic code. I wholeheartedly recommend you to get familiar with the terminology and then start reading if you want to understand what happened (strong background in chemistry recommended).

edit on 30-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 11:52 AM by Cataclysm

reply to post by rhinoceros

If you have to ask how DNA is a code, it is you who needs to do some additional reading of this subject.

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 11:59 AM by rhinoceros

reply to post by Cataclysm

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It's nonsensical to say "DNA is a code". DNA is a storage medium for the genetic code(s), much like HDDs are storage media for any kind of code, including the genetic ones. At least get familiar with the basics before you start throwing up "facts"..

edit on 30-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 12:16 PM by iterationzero

reply to post by Cataclysm

Your (well... Perry Marshall's) syllogism is a well-defined logical fallacy known as a Questionable Cause. From the link I just provided:

The general idea behind this fallacy is that it is an error in reasoning to conclude that one thing causes another simply because the two are associated on a regular basis. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because they are associated on a regular basis. The error being made is that a causal conclusion is being drawn from inadequate evidence.

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 12:39 PM by Barcs

Originally posted by Cataclysm
No one has observed information codes in nature; that is, codes that occur accidently, randomly through natural processes.

DNA is a code.

All known codes are created by intelligence.

DNA was created by intelligence.

When in doubt, ignore everything I presented and repeat the original argument.

How do you know DNA wasn't created by natural processes? That is your fatal assumption that contradicts your entire standpoint. Sorry, unless you've got scientific evidence, you have no business responding to me.

If you have to ask how DNA is a code, it is you who needs to do some additional reading of this subject.

Says the guy who hasn't presented a single piece of evidence for his case and bases his entire hypothesis on an assumption.

edit on 30-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 03:56 PM by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Cataclysm

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It's nonsensical to say "DNA is a code". DNA is a storage medium for the genetic code(s), much like HDDs are storage media for any kind of code, including the genetic ones. At least get familiar with the basics before you start throwing up "facts"..
edit on 30-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Correction - the DNA is the code hence DNA code, oftentimes referred to as Genetic Code. Why is this so hard for you to see I don't know?

As for the HDD - the cell molecule is the storage medium equivalent to HDD's. The bits stored in the HDD is the code just like the DNA CODE (DNA sequence -ATGC) stored inside each cell.

Matter of fact there's a growing field in bio-science known as "Biostorage" where bits of INFORMATION - that is, CODE to you - are stored / encrypted in living cells.

Biostorage -- the art of storing and encrypting information in living organisms -- is a young field, having existed for about a decade.

In 2007, a team at Japan's Keio University said they had successfully encoded the equation that represents Einstein's theory of relativity, E=MC², in the DNA of a common soil bacterium.

news.discovery.com...

Below is just a small portion of the DNA CODE:

and here's the storage media containing the DNA CODE (see also Cataclysm's avatar)

Heck even evolutionists refer to the DNA code or the Genetic Code as the "blueprint of life" - 'xept you and Barcs I guess.

DNA: Blueprint for Life . by administratoron January 14, 2009. Tags:.

DNA is short for deoxyribonucleic (dee-ox-ee-rye-bo-new-clay-ick) acid. (Try saying that 3 times real fast!) It is the genetic blueprint, or recipe, for making all living things. Almost every cell in your body contains DNA and all the information needed to make you what you are, from the way you look to which hand you write with.

www.microbeworld.org...

-- might need to take Cataclysm's advice before you try to educate him.

tc

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 05:36 PM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It's nonsensical to say "DNA is a code". DNA is a storage medium for the genetic code(s), much like HDDs are storage media for any kind of code, including the genetic ones. At least get familiar with the basics before you start throwing up "facts"..

Correction - the DNA is the code hence DNA code, oftentimes referred to as Genetic Code. Why is this so hard for you to see I don't know?

No. DNA is not the code, but the storage medium for the genetic code, like I already told you. Why is this so hard for you to see?

Originally posted by edmc^2
As for the HDD - the cell molecule is the storage medium equivalent to HDD's. The bits stored in the HDD is the code just like the DNA CODE (DNA sequence -ATGC) stored inside each cell.

I can't believe you said "cell molecule".

The cell is the whole. Since mitochondria make energy, they're PSU. Transfer and Ribosomal RNAs are written in their own codes, but together they create a virtual machine in which the genetic triplet code of codons (or the Genetic Code) is translated (or executed). All programs (genes), including tRNA, rRNA, and protein, are stored in DNA molecules, or chromosomes (just like a HDD). In the human HDDs for example you can find "make virus" programs, although in these sectors the data is usually corrupted (e.g. mutated randomly). There's also a great amount of essentially empty space that has been wiped with 0's and 1's (or repeat sequences).

When you say DNA code, you are in fact talking about IUPAC code for nucleotides (A for Adenosine, etc.). It's completely different thing than the genetic code. Which is essentially a translation table (ATG = Met, ATA = Ile, ATC = Ile, ATT = Ile, and so forth..)

In genes, in DNA, the genetic code is written in triplets of nucleotides, whereas in HDDs, the genetic code is written in 0's and 1's. tRNAs and rRNAs interpret the triplet code, much like computer software interprets code written in a number of languages.

edit on 30-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 06:06 PM by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It's nonsensical to say "DNA is a code". DNA is a storage medium for the genetic code(s), much like HDDs are storage media for any kind of code, including the genetic ones. At least get familiar with the basics before you start throwing up "facts"..

Correction - the DNA is the code hence DNA code, oftentimes referred to as Genetic Code. Why is this so hard for you to see I don't know?

No. DNA is not the code, but the storage medium for the genetic code, like I already told you. Why is this so hard for you to see?

Originally posted by edmc^2
As for the HDD - the cell molecule is the storage medium equivalent to HDD's. The bits stored in the HDD is the code just like the DNA CODE (DNA sequence -ATGC) stored inside each cell.

I can't believe you said "cell molecule".

The cell is the whole. Since mitochondria make energy, they're PSU. Transfer and Ribosomal RNAs are written in their own codes, but together they create a virtual machine in which the genetic triplet code of codons (or the Genetic Code) is translated (or executed). All programs (genes), including tRNA, rRNA, and protein, are stored in DNA molecules, or chromosomes (just like a HDD). In the human HDDs for example you can find "make virus" programs, although in these sectors the data is usually corrupted (e.g. mutated randomly). There's also a great amount of essentially empty space that has been wiped with 0's and 1's (or repeat sequences).

When you say DNA code, you are in fact talking about IUPAC code for nucleotides (A for Adenosine, etc.). It's completely different thing than the genetic code. Which is essentially a translation table (ATG = Met, ATA = Ile, ATC = Ile, ATT = Ile, and so forth..)

In genes, in DNA, the genetic code is written in triplets of nucleotides, whereas in HDDs, the genetic code is written in 0's and 1's. tRNAs and rRNAs interpret the triplet code, much like computer software interprets code written in a number of languages.
edit on 30-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

I can't believe you said "cell molecule".

ha! thanks for catching me - dna molecule not cell molecule.

so do you agree that the code in the dna (in short DNA code) is a type of program far more advance than that made by humans?

tc.

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 08:21 PM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
so do you agree that the code in the dna (in short DNA code) is a type of program far more advance than that made by humans?
tc.

The code is very simple, but the processes that keep it all going, are still to a large degree beyond our understanding. In the end, it's governed by the laws of chemistry and how different kinds of molecules interact with one another. Still, you have to keep in mind that it's the result of a very long journey (from which we still see relics even in the genetic code context). Point being, it doesn't imply design..

reply posted on 31-3-2012 @ 09:40 AM by vasaga

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Cataclysm

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It's nonsensical to say "DNA is a code".

One sentence later...

Originally posted by rhinoceros
DNA is a storage medium for the genetic code(s), much like HDDs are storage media for any kind of code, including the genetic ones.

The amount of brainwashing is strong in this one.