Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

reply to post by flyingfish


I just provided empirical evidence. Care to reply.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


All your doing is preaching...
Prove your op with empirical evidence.

Start by justifying those beliefs based on evidence, reason, proof, and logic.
The supernatural is irrelevant and superfluous to our understanding of how reality works.
Not once have we found a verifiable supernatural mechanism while we have found millions of natural mechanisms.

reply to post by MrXYZ

"science can't explain that, ergo god did it."

People did the same with floods, plagues, fire and comets in the past. Every single time there proven wrong

Thanks for providing so many great examples of God of the gaps tooth

Hey evolution has its gaps as well. As an example evolution fails at giving an explanation for the multi layerd symbiotic relationships between species and food.

Evolution claims a species makes a choice, and thats good enough to believe in, but a closer look reveals that in fact they are all making the same personal choice, doesn't sound to personal any more. In addition they never experiement with food unless they are starving so how do they know that a rock is not food? There is only one answer, they are being directed to the food.

Something else that isn't making any sense is how a process that creates over a billion species is not considered a creator, I think whats really going on is a lame attempt to abolish the idea of a creator.

Nice try but since nothing aside from speciation has ever been confirmed, your looking pretty desperate. Evolution is not a scientific theory, a scientific theory is falsifiable and thats a requirement to determine if something is scientific or not.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

All your doing is preaching...
Prove your op with empirical evidence.

Start by justifying those beliefs based on evidence, reason, proof, and logic.
The supernatural is irrelevant and superfluous to our understanding of how reality works.
Not once have we found a verifiable supernatural mechanism while we have found millions of natural mechanisms.

edit on 4-11-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

You won't get off that easy. You didn't have time to watch the videos. I demonstrated the verses with cold hard facts from science. Axioms are only evident. What they imply must be seen by the whole. If you have a reply other than bias, send me some context. I have done this for you amply throughout this thread. I have science and the Bible on my side. That's two witnesses. Additionally, I have linguistics that back the entire process up by demonstrating the root relationship between chains of information. Proteins and Amino acids back this up and show the parallel between these chains, the sickness caused by a break in the chain (Sin) and the fact that DNA is digital. This is my third witness.

Further, I have history backing me up and scripture telling us when, why and how things will happen. Further, I have science mirroring this many different ways. The signs of our times are mirrored by the Bible. Again, another witness.

Further, the process of linguistics hides the mystery and explains it further. See this: Amnion and Amnesia

See my threads. See the link in my signature. I provide every angle and show relationships between science, linguistics, philosophy, history and current events. It's a cloud of witness that points one direction. UP!

What do you have to offer as an alternative to what the data actually suggests? Are you saying the many scientists I noted in the two videos you ignored are incorrect? How so? Is Leonard Susskind wrong about energy being information? What do you suggest as a better implication and make sure you show me empirical evidence.

Bias is not evidence. Speak to the subject and not at the object. Ignore(ance) is ignoring the truth.

reply to post by flyingfish


Start by justifying those beliefs based on evidence, reason, proof, and logic.
The supernatural is irrelevant and superfluous to our understanding of how reality works.
Not once have we found a verifiable supernatural mechanism while we have found millions of natural mechanisms.


There is noting supernatural about WIFI. It can be explained, yet it is a wave that consciousness collapses with the right tools and laws. God is not unnatural at all. He is only above this reality. We also have proof from scientific axioms that higher axioms must always exist until we have THE axiom that shows the relationship of the whole. God is that axiom. He constructed this hologram with natural laws that are set into the process by the programmer. We have a metaphor for this and you are using it to connect your thoughts to mine. The voice does the same, but you cannot see the words coming from my mouth. You can only see the words coming from my distal phalanges because you collapsed the wave of this thread to your sense mechanism (computer) produced by a creator. Memory collapsed in time from a hard drive is no different than collapsing wave function in our reality. They are mirrored.

I have only shown conclusively that a connection exists between what science is JUST NOW realizing and what the Bible stated from the beginning. If you have an older textbook, provide it. If you can nullify what my textbook says, then you have a case. Either way, you have not provided either.

Axioms and theories are not proven so much as they need to be disproved first. The ball is in your court with this, not mine. The Bible reinforces all its words with axioms that are clearly spoken. I have shown the relationships and now you are free to disprove what they say. If not, we stand on a solid evidence.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Hey evolution has its gaps as well. As an example evolution fails at giving an explanation for the multi layerd symbiotic relationships between species and food.

Actually, that's exactly what it does

Evolution claims a species makes a choice, and thats good enough to believe in, but a closer look reveals that in fact they are all making the same personal choice, doesn't sound to personal any more. In addition they never experiement with food unless they are starving so how do they know that a rock is not food? There is only one answer, they are being directed to the food.

Why do you blindly repeat the same nonsense arguments that were debunked a few pages ago??

Living beings have relationships with other living beings. Either they are food, or they are prey...or there is a symbiotic relationship. The theory of evolution describes how this came to be.

And animals do experiment with food, at least a ton of them do. Some animals are specialists, and they evolved in a way that optimises them towards a certain type of food. Other animals (like bears) will eat everything that remotely looks like food. Don't believe me? Camp somewhere in Canada and leave an open Snickers bar outside your tent. I bet you $100 that if a bear passes by he won't go "oh, damn, it's a Snickers...looks so good...but I can't experiment because tooth thinks that's how nature works".

Also, as I've told you before...some animals eat rocks. Most birds do...and quite a few reptiles too.

reply to post by flyingfish


Just to show you how wrong you are, that target food is real and can be proven unlike evolution.

When I bring up the question of what is drive behind a species locating food, everyone always assumes its personal choice. In essence your saying that a species allready knows the difference between what food should smell or taste like, versus, say a rock or dirt, or poo. It's still a contradiction at this point because something would have still had to program them to know what is food and what is not.

Going the other direction, you could say that they either taste or smell the food to see if its to their liking. Again your back at square one becasue something would have to tell them the difference. We never see animals testing out rocks next to food for a comparison. There never is an experimental stage of testing things to see if they are food or not. These animals have a pre programed direction that has told them exactly what their food is suppose to be. We know they know what it is based on the fact that they find and stick to food, we also know they allready know what food isn't based on the fact that they don't eat rocks and dirt on a regular basis.

Now you can argue with these facts, but they don't change, this pattern is evident in the past, and the future. Animals know what their food is suppose to be, which requires programming of some type. Not only does it require programming but it also requires a programmer to tell them what their food is suppose to be. So the idea of a creator is winning over these debates, especially in the realm of Target food.

Target food has been identified in a few species, but I'm sure there are more. The abalone is one, he has one food only and thats seaweed.Not that one food alone is always how target food would work. The anteater I once thought was in his target food could be in phase one now that I look at the wiki closer. The fact that he eats a variety of insects would make him a phase one. But the abalone is still an excellent example of target food being a goal. I had a third and forgot it.

Animals would not need to eat an entire food group if they were able to locate there target food, as it provides them with what they are seeking. When they pick up a new food group, thats phase two of hunger. Phase three is starvation.

Humans are in phase two, we eat everything and anything, and we even made some of our own food groups, and processed food.

You can look at this from boh sides of the fence. From a common sense point of view it makes no sense that a species would and should just eat what ever is around. First of all that can be not only unhealthy but can be dangerous to boot. There appears to be a symbiotic relationship between species and food, at least if you want to look at it from the idea of evolution. There is a connection between them that also programms.

I don't buy the excuse that food evolves along with everything else because that would mean that everything is changing but managing to keep a symbiotic relationship at the same time. For something to work like this it would have to be backed by intelligence. Lets pretend I'm wrong with all of this, even though I'm not, at best you still needed intelligence to program evolution and programming its food.

So there are your choices...
There is either intelligence. or
there is intelligence or
there is intelligence.

reply to post by flyingfish

"science can't explain that, ergo god did it."

People did the same with floods, plagues, fire and comets in the past. Every single time there proven wrong

Thanks for providing so many great examples of God of the gaps tooth

Why would you pick a fight with him about proving the supernatural when I have allready told you a plethora of times that the bible and the events that took place are listed as supernatural which does not conform to scientific standards, and I keep tell you this...

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

supernatural

Once again, as you can see, These are forces beyond the scope of scientific understanding, so drop the prove it attituide, your barking up the wrong tree.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Actually, that's exactly what it does

So evolution explains how a species makes a decision on food, I have to hear this.

Why do you blindly repeat the same nonsense arguments that were debunked a few pages ago??

Now remind me, were you one of the people claiming that a species just eats what ever, cause I got news for you, I can look up just about any diet for anything online and its not looking like anything just eats whatever.

Living beings have relationships with other living beings. Either they are food, or they are prey...or there is a symbiotic relationship. The theory of evolution describes how this came to be.

That would require intense intelligent programming that isn't even in the scope of humans being able to do it either. Making sure that a few things are in balance with each other might be possible but over a billion species, no way man, thats going to require a lot of brain work, and we simply don't have it. But let me guess, your going to try to sell me on the idea that this magical little process known as evolution has it all. Prove it.

And animals do experiment with food, at least a ton of them do.

You keep saying that, I want to see the wiki that talks about that experimental stage, hell I would even settle for some lame forum that claims it, again domestic animals wouldn't apply.

Some animals are specialists, and they evolved in a way that optimises them towards a certain type of food. Other animals (like bears) will eat everything that remotely looks like food. Don't believe me? Camp somewhere in Canada and leave an open Snickers bar outside your tent. I bet you $100 that if a bear passes by he won't go "oh, damn, it's a Snickers...looks so good...but I can't experiment because tooth thinks that's how nature works".

That is all the signs of a bear that is hungry, which doesn't apply, remember a species will even eat its own poo if it's hungry enough. My parakeets will if I forget to feed them. It's another clue that his target food is long gone. He is obviously in phase 2 of hunger and will eat anything. Anytime something will eat anything its sort of common sense they are starving.

Also, as I've told you before...some animals eat rocks. Most birds do...and quite a few reptiles too.

Sure to help with digesting, my parakeets eat grit. I'm talking about something of a regualr diet that they depend on.

Its just another classic example of the person I'm debating with trying harder to prove me wrong then to prove the theory wrong. Your example of some species eating rocks would have to apply to ALL species or at least most, to prove they all experiment with locating food. However there is a big difference between species going hungry and eating rocks and some using rocks to help with digestion, either don't apply to my example, but its nice of you to try to sneek that in.

Perhaps a little more understanding of what I'm talking about might help. Animals don't experiment with rocks and dirt to determine they don't like rocks, can you explain why that is, and why we never see this happening, again starving animals are exempt from this and so are others that use them to aid in digestion. I'm speaking specifically about the ones that would attempt to eat rocks for nutritional reasons and domesticated animals are exempt as well as if we were to starve an animal it could turn to eating rocks if its the only thing they can find.

Here is a good question for you, since you believe that evolution actually does have something to do with determining if a species has food or not. It's obviously not working, why is it that some species have target food while others don't? Your balance is obviously wrong. How come humans have no natural source of calcium? We need 1000 mg per day and fruits and veggeis are way off on this and we would have to gorge ourselves, cows milk is not natural and has to be processed or we can get sick and die, so Sardines are the highest on the list needing 5.4 servings a day or them or one lb per day. As you can see, we are missing our calcium. Why do some species have their needed food and we got screwed?

reply to post by flyingfish


More evidence. Pair of World-Renowned Scientists Show Evidence for the Soul

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by flyingfish

 

More evidence. Pair of World-Renowned Scientists Show Evidence for the Soul

More evidence of what? it's not even a scientific theory by definition and best falls short of any technical details pertaining to quantum mechanics.
Besides even if it could be proven how does it disprove evolution?

Your missing the mark, science does not care what you believe. Science is only interested in what can be shown by evidence and testing to be true.
You have clearly demonstrated several times over that you don't know the first thing about this subject.
I don't really see why anyone should be expected to take your preaching seriously.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Start by justifying those beliefs based on evidence, reason, proof, and logic.
The supernatural is irrelevant and superfluous to our understanding of how reality works.
Not once have we found a verifiable supernatural mechanism while we have found millions of natural mechanisms.

There is noting supernatural about WIFI. It can be explained, yet it is a wave that consciousness collapses with the right tools and laws. God is not unnatural at all. He is only above this reality. We also have proof from scientific axioms that higher axioms must always exist until we have THE axiom that shows the relationship of the whole. God is that axiom. He constructed this hologram with natural laws that are set into the process by the programmer. We have a metaphor for this and you are using it to connect your thoughts to mine. The voice does the same, but you cannot see the words coming from my mouth. You can only see the words coming from my distal phalanges because you collapsed the wave of this thread to your sense mechanism (computer) produced by a creator. Memory collapsed in time from a hard drive is no different than collapsing wave function in our reality. They are mirrored. I have only shown conclusively that a connection exists between what science is JUST NOW realizing and what the Bible stated from the beginning. If you have an older textbook, provide it. If you can nullify what my textbook says, then you have a case. Either way, you have not provided either. Axioms and theories are not proven so much as they need to be disproved first. The ball is in your court with this, not mine. The Bible reinforces all its words with axioms that are clearly spoken. I have shown the relationships and now you are free to disprove what they say. If not, we stand on a solid evidence. edit on 4-11-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

Your relying on belief, scripture, dogma, revelations and other non-empirical evidence.
When religious groups differ in their interpretations of what you call "evidence" they generally split, creating two or more denominations or sects.
There is no empirical evidence that will differentiate between the interpretations! Exactly the opposite of science.
I find any search for truth that ignores theories and evidence that contradict dogmatic belief to be delusional fantasy.

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by flyingfish

 

More evidence. Pair of World-Renowned Scientists Show Evidence for the Soul

More evidence of what? it's not even a scientific theory by definition and best falls short of any technical details pertaining to quantum mechanics.
Besides even if it could be proven how does it disprove evolution?

Your missing the mark, science does not care what you believe. Science is only interested in what can be shown by evidence and testing to be true.
You have clearly demonstrated several times over that you don't know the first thing about this subject.
I don't really see why anyone should be expected to take your preaching seriously.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are ignoring the larger picture and implication. Your first sentence goes against what it means for two imminent scientists to come out with such information. The article cannot capture the pier reviewed work that was done around the article. There are many videos on the internet you can consult on the same topic.

reply to post by flyingfish


Nothing you can say will be valid here until you demonstrate the fallacy in this post: LINK and from the elements of the OP that I outlined. Science continues to disprove evolution as a cause and renders it a simple result of programming. We are baptized into the water to rise to NEW life. This is the nature of involution and evolution. LINK

Gospel of the Nazarenes (Lection 88)

12. For by involution and evolution shall the salvation of all the world be accomplished: by the Descent of Spirit into matter, and the Ascent of matter into Spirit through the ages.

You have no ground to stand on when the Bible and other scripture can demonstrate itself as more accurate than science. Science implies misplaced concreteness. The Bible verifies what is misplaced and brings it back to reality. Until you answer the points in my threads, you are left with your own fallacy. You need witnesses and you have none.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Your posts show a complete lack of understanding of science and how it works, as well as an unhealthy tendency to substitute ancient bronze age tribal mythology for reality.
You need to support your claims, or admit that you can't do so.

It is time to put up or shut up.

reply to post by flyingfish


Pay attention to what Enoch wrote...

The Bible verifies what is misplaced and brings it back to reality.

This is dead on truth.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Your posts show a complete lack of understanding of science and how it works, as well as an unhealthy tendency to substitute ancient bronze age tribal mythology for reality.
You need to support your claims, or admit that you can't do so.

It is time to put up or shut up.

On the contrary, my posts have demonstrated a degree of understanding that you are unwilling to contradict apart from incredulity. Correct me if I am incorrect. Simply saying it is so with an attack on my position only reveals your own. Back your words up with context please. Unless you deny what you perceive as ignorance you will give no value to your claims.

Start with this post point by point.

While you are at it, speak to the facts of information entropy and how this relates to the early single celled factory of chemiosmosis. Compare the bits of information we can expect to lose as you view the mechanical process of the electron transport chain. Make sure you explain how the cell was able to choose its best outcome apart form consciousness to build such a complex process. Further, associate this with collapsing wave function and how the states of matter can change to defy information entropy and entropy in energy.

Once you get this done, answer the question: Is the acorn the enfolded 75 foot oak tree or is the oak tree the DNA in the acorn?

Which came first? Did the Word of DNA come first or the acorn or the oak tree?

If you are honest, you will say, "I don't know and neither does science." One the other hand, if you use the Bible, you have an answer that agrees with the data that is observed. We are programmed with WORD! Reality is a hologram. Divinity created it.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

If you are honest, you will say, "I don't know and neither does science." One the other hand, if you use the Bible, you have an answer that agrees with the data that is observed. We are programmed with WORD! Reality is a hologram. Divinity created it.

In other words:"Science can't explain that, ergo god did it!"

Great example of the god of the gaps, thanks

People have used the same nonsense argument when it comes to comets, plagues, floods, and a ton of other stuff they simply couldn't explain at the time. And guess what, every single time we were able to eventually explain those things, no magic (aka god) was involved.

I understand goat herders from 2k years ago using that rationale, but I'd like to think we're a bit more logical in the 21st century. How about we abandon that clownish god of the gaps argument and actually start looking for real evidence?

You know...logic...rationality...common sense...objective evidence....anything but that silly "science can't explain it, ergo god did" argument

Also, basing things on the bible is kind of ironic given there are hundreds of cases where the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Pay attention to what Enoch wrote...

The Bible verifies what is misplaced and brings it back to reality.

This is dead on truth.

Well, the bible is also wrong in hundreds of cases...so I'd take that stuff with a grain of salt. At least it should be clear that a literal interpretation would be lunacy

Also, out of every ATS member you are the last person to tell someone to "pay attention"...no one would require that more than you

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Here is a link to ENCODE Project where the information can be found: ENCODE PROJECT

Link to Papers / Journal of Nature

A Creator is becoming impossible to deny. As John 1 states, we are created with WORD.

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.

edit on 1-10-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

30 papers written by me say that god is bs and you have no idea what your talking about


Edit: oh no my toast came out burnt. god must be angry with me