There's Something Very FISHY About Evolution! Smell it here!

The evidence for design continues to be found by mainstream science. This video outlines a newly discovered mechanism for Salmon traveling upstream. Evolution continues to provide no answer that can refute intelligent design. Any perceived evolution in life is a result of programming and not a cause of life. The same digital information encoded into an acorn, making the 75 foot oak tree, is the same Word used to render a salmon with a compass in its head. We are programmed energy in the form of matter, moving in time and space. Word is the information and wave function collapsed to render our universe.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

"without the compass, the salmon species couldn't reproduce."
That's a bit of a stretch for me, personally. It's true that they wouldn't be able to reproduce as we observe, but that doesn't necessarily mean they absolutely can't reproduce.

I believe in intelligent design, but I don't see why evolution has to be wholly dismissed in order to assert the idea of intelligent design. I find it far more amazing that God would create a complex system of natural laws and use them to build his creation as opposed to simply speaking and everything being as is. Either option is viable, but God's creation is meant to point to him, so why would scientific discoveries deny him? For the record I don't think evolution is wrong, but many of the implications of evolution are wrong.

So where does duct tape fit into the grand scheme. Intelligent design or God?? like everything else it depends on whom you ask!!

Hey Enoch, nice to bump into you again,

I found my self very puzzled regarding the subject, it is true everything is by design, I mean like, everything we know exits comes down to some sort of order/equation/formula,

From sacred geometry, numerology, cryptology, the ratio of body parts, the revolutions around the Sun, the flow of the tidle waves,

To, my favourite, bananas being made to peel.

But I don't believe in any God known to any religion on Earth.

I'm stuck

And then of course there is the question of what is life? Energy? Soul? Conciousness?

From what I gather, it is something the mind recieves, but does not create.

One of the main reasons I cannot believe in one single creator, is because I'm curious as to what made the creator? And so on and so forth, like trying to percieve what the first thing to ever exist was.

Thoughts like this make my mind go giddy.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I thought thought came before the word?

reply to post by EnochWasRight


You would benefit greatly from a crash course on Natural Selection.

There is no proof or evidence to suggest Intelligent Design is a valid theory.

It's funny that you use salmon as an example here because they are perfect examples of evolution, we're talking observable evolution here.... Within one generation of salmon born in a hatchery they changed their genes in order to excel in surviving there, at the cost of them not being able to mate in the wild... So thanks for playing...

reply to post by Sinny


"bananas being made to peel."

In case you didn't know THAT was from humans using selective breeding and other processes to make bananas more human friendly. The supermarket banana you know of today is not anywhere close to how it started.

When you understand how evolution works you can understand how salmon, as well as other animals, develop the capability to sense the earth's magnetic field for navigational purposes.

Here is another example of an animal with the ability to sense the earth's magnetic field for navigational purposes... only it uses light instead of magnetite (interesting concept):

Bird light compass

I'm not sure that you understand what evolution is, it makes sense.

By the way loads of animals have this "compass", a small piece of magnetite in their brain, including us.

Look, at new attempt at irreducible complexity. Wasn't it all about the eye a couple years ago? Then the bacterial flagellum?

I'm not sure why creationists think that pointing at biological functions they fail to understand make a compelling argument against evolution.

Funny that he speaks about duplicity and baseless assertions based on a psuedoscientific commitment when he's actively employing an argument from ignorance. "Durrr, we don't understand how the salmon's bio-magnetic compass came to be naturally, so obviously, a God did it!"

What a dishonest charlatan to be peddling this trash in his crappy book.

reply to post by MeesterB

I believe in intelligent design, but I don't see why evolution has to be wholly dismissed in order to assert the idea of intelligent design.

Right. I said it in the OP. If we see Design, we then know that evolution is a result and not a cause. It's very true that micro evolution can be observed as adaptation to environment and other factors. This would be a design feature and not the cause of life and consciousness.

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
Look, at new attempt at irreducible complexity. Wasn't it all about the eye a couple years ago? Then the bacterial flagellum?

I'm not sure why creationists think that pointing at biological functions they fail to understand make a compelling argument against evolution.

Funny that he speaks about duplicity and baseless assertions based on a psuedoscientific commitment when he's actively employing an argument from ignorance. "Durrr, we don't understand how the salmon's bio-magnetic compass came to be naturally, so obviously, a God did it!"

What a dishonest charlatan to be peddling this trash in his crappy book.

It's about every single piece of design in nature. The micro is a mirror of the macro and all points in between are necessary for it all to exist.

Collapsing wave function is nearly a proof for creation by design since nearly all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics needs the observer to collapse the indeterminate wave in a dimensional space. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the most accurate and demonstrates that matter does not create consciousness. Consciousness creates matter. Leonard Susskind gives us the best rendering yet of what energy collapse and wave function suggests. Energy is Information. Plain and simple, the world was rendered with WORD, just as the Bible states in John 1. I quoted it in the OP.

This video is profound and coming from a leading scientist. The more we know, the closer we get to the source of light. The law of inverse squares demonstrates that we are close enough by now to see the light for what it is--The Consciousness of God.

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
Look, at new attempt at irreducible complexity. Wasn't it all about the eye a couple years ago? Then the bacterial flagellum?

I'm not sure why creationists think that pointing at biological functions they fail to understand make a compelling argument against evolution.

Funny that he speaks about duplicity and baseless assertions based on a psuedoscientific commitment when he's actively employing an argument from ignorance. "Durrr, we don't understand how the salmon's bio-magnetic compass came to be naturally, so obviously, a God did it!"

What a dishonest charlatan to be peddling this trash in his crappy book.

Not really. Dishonest is stating that matter can rise above itself in complexity. We know, by observing all of nature, that NOTHING rises above its source. All rivers flow away from a greater source. This is basic common sense science. It doesn't get more basic than this. No science has EVER demonstrated a plausible description of how life reverses information entropy with reproduction. We do, however, have a mind-boggling description of how it happened in Genesis. Missler does a brilliant job describing it.

You need all the videos to know in total, but this video covers entropy in nature. It's worth noting that what I mentioned in the paragraph above is not entropy in energy, but entropy in information. Missler is speaking of entropy in energy and information by dimension if you watch all his videos.

Mainstream science is behind. If you want purpose to describe what science observes, get with Missler.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
Look, at new attempt at irreducible complexity. Wasn't it all about the eye a couple years ago? Then the bacterial flagellum?

I'm not sure why creationists think that pointing at biological functions they fail to understand make a compelling argument against evolution.

Funny that he speaks about duplicity and baseless assertions based on a psuedoscientific commitment when he's actively employing an argument from ignorance. "Durrr, we don't understand how the salmon's bio-magnetic compass came to be naturally, so obviously, a God did it!"

What a dishonest charlatan to be peddling this trash in his crappy book.

Not really. Dishonest is stating that matter can rise above itself in complexity. We know, by observing all of nature, that NOTHING rises above its source. All rivers flow away from a greater source. This is basic common sense science. It doesn't get more basic than this. No science has EVER demonstrated a plausible description of how life reverses information entropy with reproduction. We do, however, have a mind-boggling description of how it happened in Genesis. Missler does a brilliant job describing it.

1. Just because we can't explain something scientifically today, doesn't mean we can't tomorrow.
2. I could write a book and make up a story about how it happens, doesn't mean it's credible, nothing in the bible is proven to be credible.

Show me the explanation in text form, I bet it has some huge flaws.

reply to post by SpearMint

1. Just because we can't explain something scientifically today, doesn't mean we can't tomorrow.
2. I could write a book and make up a story about how it happens, doesn't mean it's credible, nothing in the bible is proven to be credible.

Show me the explanation in text form, I bet it has some huge flaws.

Are you from Missouri? I am. I can show you.

Genesis 1:1-3

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

3 dimensional objects are traveling in the fourth dimensional space of time. Space is what we occupy and move within. Matter is collapsed from energy in the form of changing states of hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen is the only element without a neutron. It has one proton and one electron, positive and negative in a balanced state. See this as good and evil in balance to form free will and choice. All of our reality is rendered from hydrogen bonds in the form of matter, using laws that govern the process. Light quanta is both particle and wave, but sciences misses the third--consciousness. There are four properties of matter that produce the world around us: Cohesion, Adhesion, Attraction and Repulsion. Energy is information. See this video. LINK So far, science and the Bible are in total agreement. Einstein agrees as well on the matter of Time, Space, Matter and Energy.

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

What word can we use to describe the words on your screen? They are a rendered image of energy in time, occupying a space and volume in the form of particle and wave. The computer did not create itself, it was designed. How? Word is programming. The best way to describe it is WORD in an image. Before, I stated that 3D objects move in 4D. This is because the indeterminate wave of probability was collapsed from the 5th dimension into the fourth. This happens a slice at a time, therefore, we see time as a movie. Dimensions above us see us in greater detail. Just as we see the 2D plane in greater detail, they see us from above. As God describes, we are HIS Image and INSIDE that image as well. The image is rendered with hydrogen bonds.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Later in this chapter, the Word is show to be Jesus, the son of God. The Son is the Word / Wave / Logos / Law. He is then shown to be the first image God created in the form of the cosmos. He is the macrocosm and we are the copy in an image, the microcosm.

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

How does he hold everything together? Well, you need to visualize how the words on the screen are held together. Words and information have no quality that is seen apart from the form they occupy. If Word in rendered as an image, it becomes a symbol. The image represents what the word implies. Word is actually hidden apart from a body. Collapsing wave function is the observer collapsing the 5th dimensional space of the whole. Christ is the Word / Wave. God is Light. Holy Spirit is consciousness. They are all the Godhead. We are the image of God, both particle and wave with consciousness.

Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

What is a command? In computer language, it is input to the operating system. God created us in this manner from word. Can you see this in nature?

Is the oak tree in the acorn or is the acorn in the oak tree? We know that both are correct, yet the image is rendered with WORD inside both. The acorn has the DNA pattern for the 75 foot oak tree enfolded into programming. It also has the necessary matter to express one from the other. After, the other then reforms the first. You are the same.

If you look in a mirror, do you see the real you in the image? No. The real you is the one casting the image. Information can be saved or lost. The Salmon and his compass are simply a design feature of Word.

Okay. Your turn. Poke holes with your "Science." If you would like a more detailed version, consult the first article listed from the link in my signature. I go into detail within many articles.

I could write a book and make up a story about how it happens, doesn't mean it's credible.

You know what, this is very true. This is how Neo-Darwinism works. All stories.

All evidence is interpreted within the darwinian framework, then the evidence is said to be confirmation of that framework. The tail wags the dog.

Eg. Evolution of the eye is but a story of how it could of happened, it seems plausable yes but it is still just a story. Problem is the Trilobyte eye was the first eye besides the light sensing molecules, there is no evidence of eyes before the cambrian and no known lineage. Same with Anomalocaris the predator of the cambrian, it had compound eyes unmatched today except by the dragonfly.

And yet a simple story is supposed to be a scientific explanation? Sorry it is not. It's much the same as the irreducable complexity argument, it has never been refuted by any scientific standard. The opposite is actually true. A story is meant to suffice.

Intelligent design does not mean evolution is false, Evolution is a fact as far as I'm concerned. The current theory is not. Intelligent design accepts natural selection and even the effects of random mutation, some even accept a common anscestor. The co-founder of natural selection was in fact a design theorists. That's right Darwin shared the discovery, but not many people know that.

The fact is we have found many more dramatic exampes of large scale genetic change beyond the extremely simplistic view of slow acumulation of accidents filtered through natural selection.

This is a long lecture but if you are interested in more modern concepts of evolution I highly reccomend it.

Don't be put off by the title, James Shapiro is NOT a intelligent design theorist. He is a critic of darwinism however. This theory is refered to as natural genetic engineering, it could also be called non supernatural intelligent design. How these abillities came about is another question. IMO life was designed to evolve.



It's so refreshing to see such honesty.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The evidence for design continues to be found by mainstream science.

Tell your god that he needs to recall his #ty designs and try again. All these ones I really enjoyed were "intelligently designed" to have cancer and die. Your god is an idiot and a crappy craftsman.

Originally posted by Elzon1
reply to post by Sinny

 

"bananas being made to peel."

In case you didn't know THAT was from humans using selective breeding and other processes to make bananas more human friendly. The supermarket banana you know of today is not anywhere close to how it started.

When you understand how evolution works you can understand how salmon, as well as other animals, develop the capability to sense the earth's magnetic field for navigational purposes.

Here is another example of an animal with the ability to sense the earth's magnetic field for navigational purposes... only it uses light instead of magnetite (interesting concept):

Bird light compass

edit on 31-7-2012 by Elzon1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2012 by Elzon1 because: (no reason given)

I pissed myself laughing when I read this.. Someone doesn't comprehend what evolution is. And this would even be applicable to co-evolution. But when someone tells me it's through selective breeding, and then state that isn't evolution, I couldn't help but literally laugh..

the irreducable complexity argument, it has never been refuted by any scientific standard.

This is such an utter bs lie that it's ridiculous.. And you lost in court on this very subject kiddo.. And worse yet, we can demonstrate irreducible complexity in consciousness too! :

www.youtube.com...

And where is that Meme song when someone utter gets owned in a debate, or has an epic fail like you just did? :

www.youtube.com...

In fact the easiest thing to reduce in complexity is the conscious state.. Hell, I can take any life form and reduce their complexity 1 atom at a time, and still have those atoms be functional, and serve a function in another thing... Christians depositing that argument are to stupid to realize how stupid that argument was. The scientific community literally laughed at that irreducible complexity argument.

We do, however, have a mind-boggling description of how it happened in Genesis

This also made me laugh.. THe bible doesn't say anything more than basically asserting "GOD DONE IT", and Genesis is literally ripped from a polytheistic creation story that predates it... And if you actually read Genesis, it's so laughably wrong it's hilarious.. And everything in that video is basically a man making # up, to which is not in Genesis, and conforming it to sound like it was... The bible doesn't discuss any sort of thing regarding biology, chemistry, genetics, or anything else on a scientific level. Dishonest twits at best here.

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

the irreducable complexity argument, it has never been refuted by any scientific standard.

This is such an utter bs lie that it's ridiculous.. And you lost in court on this very subject kiddo.. And worse yet, we can demonstrate irreducible complexity in consciousness too! :

You just confirmed you don't know what IC is.

So a single judge decides science now? Fact is he ignored testimony from a micro biologist that performed knockout test confirming IC. The judge went for a story, he believed that it was an argument only against darwinism and not support for ID that story has now been refuted in that the TSIII system is now known not to be a predecessor.

Watch the lecture from James Shapiro, he brings this up. He says the critique is correct, he does not however agree with the conclusion. He's just a tad more qualified than you I think

Like I said it has not been refuted by any scientific means.

Show empirical evidence in the peer reviewed literature that refutes it? Something besides a story.

You won't. It will be just more bla bla bla.

or has an epic fail like you just did? :

You are clearly dillusional.

Like your epic fail in not being able to refute it SCIENTIFICALLY?

I don't want to derail the thread, so show the empirical peer reviewed evidence. Put up or shut up.

They always try to hide behind science but when challenged, they just invent stories with no scientific support.
It's the great atheist creation myth.