Evolution Busted by Definition - Information, Intelligence and Language / Videos and Evidence

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


evolution : the change in the frequencey of alleles in a population over generations


Better to view groups of genes from the perspective of logic in programming set by links and chains, just like sentences of language. We are a mirror of the micro from the macro. Of all the videos I post, this one gives us the best perspective from a programming and linguistics perspective of punctuation, syntax and grammar in DNA. God marks his creation by Laws, not just the laws of physics.

edit on 22-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Who do you think put evolution into motion?

Who do you think put life as we know it into motion?

Science is just a study of life around us, whereas Religion is about where we (Conscious human beings) came from and where we go after we die, personally I don't see why the two can't go hand in hand.



You still miss the point of my posts...


And if it's not the same thread then why don't you change the title so it doesn't read so similar to your last thread?

"The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist"

vs

"Evolution Busted by Definition - Information, Intelligence and Language / Videos and Evidence"


Semantics...
edit on 3/22/2012 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Who do you think put evolution into motion?

Who do you think put life as we know it into motion?

Science is just a study of life around us, whereas Religion is about where we (Conscious human beings) came from and where we go after we die, personally I don't see why the two can't go hand in hand.



You still miss the point of my posts...

And if it's not the same thread then why don't you change the title so it doesn't read so similar to your last thread?

"The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist"

vs

"Evolution Busted by Definition - Information, Intelligence and Language / Videos and Evidence"

Semantics...


If you are noticing similarities, then you are confirming the premise of this thread. Language demonstrates intelligence, information and chains of the same in the design of life. I know you are aware of the truth here, so let me pose this to those who might read this. How can inert matter do the same narrowing of information apart from consciousness? Design shows up in the information of intelligence. All design, even this thread, is intelligence driven for unique purpose. Again, this thread is all about the evidence for creation and not simply the absurdity against the lie that evolution is a cause. It's a result.

edit on 22-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I'll say it again. Semantics.


But if you're just going to assault my intelligence because I noticed similarities between your threads, I'm just going to leave. I call them similarities, you call them differences. Again; Semantics.

Have fun with your thread...

Personally I don't see why you waste your time on this. A good chunk of these people are set in their ways of atheism, if you couldn't tell already by their posts.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Meh, debunk evolution? Debunk this...

Or just debunk dinosaurs


I'm not going to debunk the video because I don't really think it's wrong. I'm not a creationist. But I just wanted to point out that even though I think the theory is good, there is actually still some debate about this theory and why.

You see the theory has some missing evidence to confirm it 100%. You ever heard people say, if humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Well we know evolution doesn't work that way. When one species evolves into another species, both species continue to live on obviously. So, where the heck is the species we evolved from? It's missing.

See, the debate is actually the opposite of that argument. The other species we evolved from could have continued to live on right? So, if humans evolved from primates with fused chromosomes, then where are the primates with the fused chromosomes?

At some point there must have been other non-human primates that ALSO had the same fused chromosomes. If they didn't exist, then how did we evolve from them and get their fused chromosome? But they're not there! All other primates have all their chromosomes. So, what is going on?

Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.

There's also the problem that even if that theory is true, it still doesn't prove we evolved from primates. All it proves is that once upon a time we had all our chromosomes, but now we don't. But even THAT causes problems. It's about near impossible with animals with non-matching chromosomes to mate. So, who was the first fused chromosome human supposed to mate with? How did they manage to live on if everyone else had their chromosomes? But maybe a fused chromosome wasn't enough to prevent mating. Don't know.

But, see it leaves the door open. There is still the possibility that primates have a similar number of chromosomes and similar DNA simply because that's what it took to make a primate. If there was a creator or God or alien species if you will, they probably just used similar DNA to create similar animals and humans were always humans.

Just like a computer programmer will use code over and over for every program he writes. Maybe they all read data from a file for example. So, they might have the same file processing code or networking code with only slight changes.

If the creator built one primate and wanted to make another type of primate, would an intelligent creator start completely over, or would he work with what he had already accomplished like programmers do today? That's the idea. If there is some DNA code that's needed to make legs grow, for example, then you would expect to see something similar in most every animal with legs regardless of if they had evolved or been "programmed" by a creator.

Now of course, what's the most logical answer? That the species we evolved from simply went extinct right? Or maybe big foot is the missing link and we just haven't caught one right? lol. Sure, that's why I don't mean to debunk the video.

I think the video is on point, I'm just pointing out the debate isn't completely over. There are still questions to be answered. Which is good, because if not, I would never have a reason to log in.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


If you wanna expand your views on time take an Astronomy class.


And that class would likely tell you what the video I posted in my last comment said. Time is a local illusion for the individual and cannot tell you a true view of sufficient distance that is non-local. It is seen by the observer as a ratio of distance to mass, with other factors skewing the results. We view our own time of 7,000 years as constant, but not in proper relation to the total around us. It's the same as looking down evenly spaced stairs in spiral form. Form the top, the first step is accurate to our individual perspective. The last step is non-local and smaller by ratio of 1:1.618. Time is the same but changed by mass and gravity at a non-local distance. Did you watch the video? 6 days of creation is on God's calendar of 1000 years for each day. To our view looking into the past at a distance, that is stretched by a ratio of distance, mass and speed. Physicists and cosmologists do not know how to measure what is not locally observable with 100% accuracy to perspective. The best we can do is view it on a smaller scale and judge by the ratios and perspectives around us. What is presented below is not a theory that is implausible in the least.

edit on 22-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Originally posted by boncho
Meh, debunk evolution? Debunk this...

Or just debunk dinosaurs


I'm not going to debunk the video because I don't really think it's wrong. I'm not a creationist. But I just wanted to point out that even though I think the theory is good, there is actually still some debate about this theory and why.

You see the theory has some missing evidence to confirm it 100%. You ever heard people say, if humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Well we know evolution doesn't work that way. When one species evolves into another species, both species continue to live on obviously. So, where the heck is the species we evolved from? It's missing.

See, the debate is actually the opposite of that argument. The other species we evolved from could have continued to live on right? So, if humans evolved from primates with fused chromosomes, then where are the primates with the fused chromosomes?

At some point there must have been other non-human primates that ALSO had the same fused chromosomes. If they didn't exist, then how did we evolve from them and get their fused chromosome? But they're not there! All other primates have all their chromosomes. So, what is going on?

Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.

There's also the problem that even if that theory is true, it still doesn't prove we evolved from primates. All it proves is that once upon a time we had all our chromosomes, but now we don't. But even THAT causes problems. It's about near impossible with animals with non-matching chromosomes to mate. So, who was the first fused chromosome human supposed to mate with? How did they manage to live on if everyone else had their chromosomes? But maybe a fused chromosome wasn't enough to prevent mating. Don't know.

But, see it leaves the door open. There is still the possibility that primates have a similar number of chromosomes and similar DNA simply because that's what it took to make a primate. If there was a creator or God or alien species if you will, they probably just used similar DNA to create similar animals and humans were always humans.

Just like a computer programmer will use code over and over for every program he writes. Maybe they all read data from a file for example. So, they might have the same file processing code or networking code with only slight changes.

If the creator built one primate and wanted to make another type of primate, would an intelligent creator start completely over, or would he work with what he had already accomplished like programmers do today? That's the idea. If there is some DNA code that's needed to make legs grow, for example, then you would expect to see something similar in most every animal with legs regardless of if they had evolved or been "programmed" by a creator.

Now of course, what's the most logical answer? That the species we evolved from simply went extinct right? Or maybe big foot is the missing link and we just haven't caught one right? lol. Sure, that's why I don't mean to debunk the video.

I think the video is on point, I'm just pointing out the debate isn't completely over. There are still questions to be answered. Which is good, because if not, I would never have a reason to log in.


All we need to do is shift the direction of evolution from a cause to a result. The programming is obvious. Adaptation is part of the logic of a changing environment and a creature that needs to follow the changes. We see this programming in our own machines. When we finally see the Designer in the design, we have the excluded middle that unifies all the paradox in observation. From this point on, the evolution of design shows the adaptation of the species as a feature to protect the design from the one wearing it. The changes are necessary to keep the original highpoint of what was designed from degrading by use. It's all in the direction you are looking and the view you take. One is much more obvious than the other keeps it from being.

Evolution is a result of design on purpose.





edit on 23-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Possibly, as a sometimes programmer who "creates" programs I can see that. As someone that's studied statistics, probability, information theory, and genetic algorithms I can see it from the point of evolution too. Since I've also seen programs write themselves and evolve until they work.

The problem is, that when you get down to it, sometimes there's no way to tell the difference between random data and true information unless you know where it came from first. In the end, you just have to believe.
edit on 22-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Possibly, as a sometimes programmer who "creates" programs I can see that. As someone that's studied statistics, probability, information theory, and genetic algorithms I can see it from the point of evolution too. Since I've also seen programs write themselves and evolve until they work.

The problem is, that when you get down to it, sometimes there's no way to tell the difference between random data and true information unless you know where it came from first. In the end, you just have to believe.
edit on 22-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


Right. The faith is there as a veil from the data. This is important for the program. We collapse the data when need. The data collapses the wave function around us by perspective to the unit of time and space we occupy. Otherwise, we would be overloaded and would not adapt. Our own computer realities work the same way. The user of the game collapses the data he needs to see the part of the overall program he needs or is engaged in at the time. Collapsing wave function works specifically in this manner from a physics standpoint. For a holographic reality, this is the part that creates the image we occupy as the created image of God.

Genesis 1:27

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

We occupy the Time, Space, Matter and Energy of the created image.

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

edit on 23-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman


Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.

 


I'm not sure what you mean by this, from what I interpreted from the video, the fusing of the chromosomes is the evolution of the species.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


So before I even begin to digest your thread I must ask you do you believe in creationism? If so, how come dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible, like ever? In fact, their never mentioned in any ancient manuscript.
edit on 22-3-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)


There are plenty of references to beasts that fit the description of a dinosaur in the Bible. This is the link Enoch gave. It really hinges on how you interpret words like 'dragon' and 'leviathan'. Is it merely figurative? Or very much literal? I really don't want to get into the etymology or linguistics...This requires more critical thinking on your part.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman


If the creator built one primate and wanted to make another type of primate, would an intelligent creator start completely over, or would he work with what he had already accomplished like programmers do today?

 


This thread, and most creationist theories aren't about a general creator and how it would relate to the scientific discoveries of man. They are all based off of some religious text that supposedly was passed to man from god. (Judging by the psalms in the OP, this one is favorable of the bible) Unfortunately, all the religious texts were written by man and nearly all of them make absolutely no sense, or they directly contradict scientific discovery.

Soooo.....

The only way you can argue creationism is by leaving the bible et al out of the equation.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by tinfoilman


Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.

 


I'm not sure what you mean by this, from what I interpreted from the video, the fusing of the chromosomes is the evolution of the species.



The video purports that the exact point of fusion of the chromosomes is known. Since you posted it, I'm assuming you advocate it? Do you believe that? If you, can you provide any evidence to support that claim?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


So before I even begin to digest your thread I must ask you do you believe in creationism? If so, how come dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible, like ever? In fact, their never mentioned in any ancient manuscript.
edit on 22-3-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)


There are plenty of references to beasts that fit the description of a dinosaur in the Bible. This is the link Enoch gave. It really hinges on how you interpret words like 'dragon' and 'leviathan'. Is it merely figurative? Or very much literal? I really don't want to get into the etymology or linguistics...This requires more critical thinking on your part.






Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads.


Seven headed Velociraptor?

*


"Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. (Job 41:19-21)


Fire breathing T-Rex?

*


While it is presumed that dinosaur fossils weren't discovered until recently * it's not entirely impossible that old civilizations couldn't have created myths about fossils and bones they accidentally ran into.

This is something to think about.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo


The video purports that the exact point of fusion of the chromosomes is known. Since you posted it, I'm assuming you advocate it? Do you believe that? If you, can you provide any evidence to support that claim?

 


Do I advocate where the point of fusion was? I don't even know what you're asking.

You can read this paper if you are looking for supporting evidence of the video.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by CaptainNemo


The video purports that the exact point of fusion of the chromosomes is known. Since you posted it, I'm assuming you advocate it? Do you believe that? If you, can you provide any evidence to support that claim?

 


Do I advocate where the point of fusion was? I don't even know what you're asking.

You can read this paper if you are looking for supporting evidence of the video.


I asked if you believed that the purported exact point of fusion is known, and if you did, please provide evidence.

Could you please quote or paraphrase the study? You seem to know more about this than I. I don't want to miss the answer.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.


That's the same logical fallacy that permeates this type of thread. You don't completely understand evolution, or you hold it's meaning in a different light.

Where are the humans with all of their 28 chromosomes? thousands of years ago they were still doing what our ancient relatives did.

Where are the apes with 26 chromosomes? Some are right here on the internet.

I'm saying that there was no time when that happened. Humans are not chimps or apes and vice versa.

Primitive apes and primitive humans had a common ancestor but at some point the path our ancestor traversed became forked, and due to whatever reason presented at the time, one group went on towards a familiar evolutionary path leading them to remain largely static in their evolution, while the other group encountered new environments and situations, which lead them to adapt and evolve much more.

Over time in this environment, obviously those 2 chromosomes were rendered redundant and they fused, perhaps as a result of using our brains becoming more developed, the concept of expressing ideas in language, or painting, or shared hunting, or the sense of tribal belonging leading to trade with neighbouring neanderthall, conflicts, etc etc... that we do not know.

But there was no time when a chimp had 26 chromosomes or a human had 28, we branched off separately from a common ancestor and evolved on our own.

What Bonchos clip states is that if evolution were a lie, then things like this would not happen. If we were created intelligently and have been this was since we were put on this earth, then why do we have evidence in our DNA that shows us to at some point to have had a common ancestor with creatures who are similar in so many ways to us? Indeed, our DNA is common in many ways to many creatures on this planet and many look nothing like us.... Evolution just branched common ancestors into different areas.

I'm curious what would happen if they were able to fuse the chromosomes in a chimp or ape via genetic manipulation... then again, that could be too scary.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by tinfoilman


Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.

 


I'm not sure what you mean by this, from what I interpreted from the video, the fusing of the chromosomes is the evolution of the species.



Not the evolution into a human. There are many more differences between primates and us than just a fused chromosome.

If you took a primate and fused its two chromosomes exactly like ours are, you wouldn't get a human out of it. You'd get a primate with a fused chromosome. It would still be nothing close to a human.

That's a very small change. For that to work, you would have to believe that we evolved from primate to human IN ONE STEP. We had a primate that gave birth to a human with fused chromosomes. Evolution doesn't work like that. Evolution is lots of small changes that build up over time. One single change like that just wouldn't do it.

Even if that was the case, then that human would have went extinct. Humans can't mate with other primates. IF the reason humans are human and NOT primates is ONLY because of the fused chromosome and no other reason, then that means the fused chromosome MUST be what's preventing humans from mating with other primates.

Therefore, if that's true, then the first human wouldn't have been able to mate and went extinct. Its fused chromosome mutation would have prevented it from doing so. Therefore, the only way we could have evolved from a primate WITHOUT fused chromosomes is if that fused chromosome did not prevent us from mating with that species until we evolved further.

Therefore since a fused chromosome would not have prevented said mating, and since we can't mate with those primates, we can deduce by simple logic that a fused chromosome is NOT the only difference between a primate and a human.
edit on 23-3-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by tinfoilman


Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.

 


I'm not sure what you mean by this, from what I interpreted from the video, the fusing of the chromosomes is the evolution of the species.



The video purports that the exact point of fusion of the chromosomes is known. Since you posted it, I'm assuming you advocate it? Do you believe that? If you, can you provide any evidence to support that claim?


Do you mean in time? No it's not known at what time or what point in our evolution the fusing of the chromosome took place. They know where on the chromosome it is physically attached to the other. But nobody knows WHEN that change took place.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mainidh

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Okay, so, maybe we evolved to humans FIRST and THEN our chromosomes fused right? Okay, but there's a problem with that also. If that's the case then that means there MUST have been humans with ALL their chromosomes. But they're missing too! Where's the missing link between the two? Where's the primate with missing chromosomes or the human with extra chromosomes? One of the two had to exist at some point.


That's the same logical fallacy that permeates this type of thread. You don't completely understand evolution, or you hold it's meaning in a different light.

Where are the humans with all of their 28 chromosomes? thousands of years ago they were still doing what our ancient relatives did.

Where are the apes with 26 chromosomes? Some are right here on the internet.

I'm saying that there was no time when that happened. Humans are not chimps or apes and vice versa.

Primitive apes and primitive humans had a common ancestor but at some point the path our ancestor traversed became forked, and due to whatever reason presented at the time, one group went on towards a familiar evolutionary path leading them to remain largely static in their evolution, while the other group encountered new environments and situations, which lead them to adapt and evolve much more.

Over time in this environment, obviously those 2 chromosomes were rendered redundant and they fused, perhaps as a result of using our brains becoming more developed, the concept of expressing ideas in language, or painting, or shared hunting, or the sense of tribal belonging leading to trade with neighbouring neanderthall, conflicts, etc etc... that we do not know.

But there was no time when a chimp had 26 chromosomes or a human had 28, we branched off separately from a common ancestor and evolved on our own.

What Bonchos clip states is that if evolution were a lie, then things like this would not happen. If we were created intelligently and have been this was since we were put on this earth, then why do we have evidence in our DNA that shows us to at some point to have had a common ancestor with creatures who are similar in so many ways to us? Indeed, our DNA is common in many ways to many creatures on this planet and many look nothing like us.... Evolution just branched common ancestors into different areas.

I'm curious what would happen if they were able to fuse the chromosomes in a chimp or ape via genetic manipulation... then again, that could be too scary.


Thanks for not reading my post. The point of it was, where is the common ancestor with the fused chromosomes? The truth is we don't know if it actually existed or not. That's the missing evidence I was talking about that would make the case 100% proven.

Everything else you said basically has nothing to do with my point.





 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join