Semiotics of DNA. Logical Evidence for Intelligent Design.

templar knight
I may disagree with your view but do appreciate the way that you have constructed the arguement.
Evolution IMHO works in a slightly different analogy, you put some random letters down

Rgfddr if sdwwzxw worm

Through time, the words that are meaningless get removed- evolution- while the words that make sense survive. So through "selection" words and then sentences will form.

You are saying that before life started their was just a big glob of DNA with no specified information, and that suddenly specified order came out of no where. The first organism had DNA. This DNA had specified information. So using our letter analogy.

You assume the information started out like this

dafkjdfgydfdtnufhnjduhndughjrushgfbdjv

And eventually worked its way up from unspecified to specified.
akdkfjsufakdljfuaseklfjisajfksd to Jesus from Jesus to Jesus walked from Jesus walked to Jesus walked on water.

This is not logical.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

The origination of a new form has never been documented by science. I will agree that micro-evolution occurs however that is as far as it goes. Macro-evolution has no observable evidence behind it, and until it does should be taken as only a theory.

Please define "form", "micro-evolution", and "macro-evolution" as you understand them.

I have said this in like 5 threads in the past 2 days,

Universe = Operating System, DNA/RNA = Application

DNA = Programming to turn Atoms into molecular machines!

References to embark on:

Mitochondria - Is apart of every cell, its in all of us, yet almost alien to us. It performs the respiratory functions of every living cell.....This is the Breathe of Life!
Mitochondrial Eve, testing the DNA of mitochondria in Humans has led to the discovery that humans stem from a single Woman! Not a group of women, a single woman!
Sono-Luminescence Bombarding gas bubbles suspended in fluid or water with ultrasounds makes small micro stars. Looking at space as an uncompressed liquid!

Job 12 KJV
10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

Genesis 2 6-7 KJV
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 1 KJV
The Second Day: Firmament
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

and I like to think of the Universe as a Simulation or this:

Our Solar System is just a Molecule in a much larger galaxy!! Nothing is by accident! No Coincidences! Only the simulation is true! Every particle that is here , is here for a reason, cuz it represents something in a much grander scale!

The Earth has one moon not by chance, but because that is how that particle is represented. Barnards star system and alpha centuari might all be apart of the same molecule in the larger universe. And, if Earth didnt have its moon, its wouldnt be that vital molecule in the larger universe!

Think of us as white blood cells for Earth, and Earth is an atom, in a molecule, in a cell in a living creature that is a part of a larger Universe, maybe even a brain cell in God. like it says in this verse.

Acts 17 NIV

16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”


and visit this site:
with Nassim Haramein, He is the thinking man's man!
resonance.is...

and covertpanther expands on this idea even more in this thread:
Universal Experience: The Micro & Macrocosm relation
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread968807/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

You are saying that before life started their was just a big glob of DNA with no specified information, and that suddenly specified order came out of no where.

Nobody has said that, you are making huge leaps is sequence.

Before there was DNA, there was RNA, before there was RNA, there were nucleotides . . .

Things started simple and became more complex (evolved). Information was built upon information and through physical laws (chemical bonds), natural selection, and mutations became more complex.

That's about as simply has it can be stated, in fact it is a gross over-simplification. This is basically what Rhino's thread was stating. Things just didn't "pop" into being . . . that would be creationism.

This is not logical.

It's the epitome of logical.

More links for you to not read . . .
DNA evolution
Evolution 101

reply to post by solomons path

*Your first link "Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics", compelling yet opinion.
*I did not read your second link as it's from wiki.
* For a good argument against this link see your first link.
*Your fourth link...........

This is evidence that all organisms on Earth, whether living or extinct, are related, and that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

This is not *fact* by your definition nor is it empirical evidence.
It could just as well be "evidence that all organisms on Earth, whether living or extinct" have a common designer.
*Your fifth link, while intriguing, can also be proof of a common designer.
If one were to read a series of books, each book may have a different story line but one can usually tell they were written by the same person because of the way they are written.
Quad

solomons path
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Should have hit refresh . . . Didn't notice you answered already, sorry.

Well I added a few other areas . . . not that they'll be read.

Why would they not be read? Did I not ask you to post them? How can anyone take you seriously when you assume?

Solomons just looking for truth

He is trying to shake the tree to see how ripe our fruit is.

Timothy writes about testing the spirit , and this is what he is doing. To see how strong it is!

False Prophets will bear bad fruit

reply to post by solomons path


I pulled this from one of your sources.

(P1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
(P5) Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

This does not refute ID. This actually strengthens the argument for intelligent Design. You see science, but you do not use logic at all.

(P1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.

Ok, so their are certain bits of information required by all life forms. If that information is required for life why would it change?

(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.

Ok, so God used the same bit of information for the same functions in all organisms....that is logical it doesn't refute ID.

(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).

The information is important and required for all life, so why wouldn't there be multiple translations(different codons express same gene) of the information? Again This doesn't refute ID.

(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.

So important information has multiple channels in which it can be expressed. If I say hello, hola, or konichiwa I have changed forms, but the information is the same. It is the same with codons. Again I do not see anything refuting semiotics or intelligent design.

Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

So if new information is created from already existing information the required bit of information is coded the same. Using my previous example hello, hola, konichiwa. The form of hello(codon) used is based on the persons country of origin(existing information). This again is a logical assumption of a code created by an ID. Obviously animals

(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

Why couldn't chimpanzees and humans be evidence that similar animals have similar sequencing, rather than proof of common descent. The origination of a new form has never been documented. Based on the information at hand I would say its to soon to assume that ubiquitous genes necessarily mean common genetic descent. I'd say we both need to give science more time to discuss this last point.

Quadrivium
The link you provided seems to be a compelling hypothesis. It is not however empirical evedence. Nor is it *fact* using the definition provided by Solomon's path.
Quad

"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."

Care to enlighten me how sequenced genomes don't represent empirical evidence?

reply to post by solomons path


I apologize for not being more clear on this. I invested more detail into my tangent rather than the original topic. What should have been mentioned is that I disagree with part of the OP's claims, although, taken in the context I outlined, the relationship between semiotics and creationism is present. Not in its ability to manipulate our DNA - although I provided a definition for the 'coding' which I should have connected to our individualism at heart rather than our physical attributes- but it is able to manipulate and direct our evolution via the heart by serving as a 'reason' or 'cause' or 'stimuli' for a false basis on which natural selection can operate.

Just as with nature, a species responds to stimuli in its environment. The response comes in the form of 'yes' and 'no' reactions to stimuli such as fear, anxiety, worry, stress, etc. This is the same stimuli is 'created' by the 'author' who they call the 'creator' who in reality only 'creates' through his 'word.' It is the doctrine that is used to force men to reflect and compare themselves and their actions to the standards written therin. This is a vey effective way to generate a 'response' of fear and anxiety when given a false ultimatum and consequences for said actions. 2000 years of Christianity, which is structured after an additional ~3500 years of Judaism (or older Abrahamic traditions) which is modeled after an even longer period of brahmic (correct title for this?) traditions is enough to time to influence evolution enormously. The proof is in the growth. Why do think it is written unto Abraham "your seed shall be as the sand in the sea?" and again, in the new testament "God is able of these 'stones' to raise up children of Abraham."

And the kicker is that all of this influence is rooted in semiotics. It isn't the language alone, but the usage of the language and how it can influence the heart. Whether we acknowledge it or not, all men alive today either are, have been or are a product of this influence.

like I said before, this whole concept is much more rooted in our world than in religion alone. It is in music, poetry and media of every kind. Even the signs and symbols all around -colors and shapes chosen for traffic signs, for example - are rooted in this. Even the evolution of language has left a clear trail of evidence of the reason for this "confounding." One could consider English the child of all language. It is perfect for this concept because of the multitude of synonyms for each of our words and their roots. It is also the reason for specific languages for different fields of study such as latin in the medical field and greek characters in math and physics. Surely English has been chosen for the 'multitude' as a universal mode of communication because of the ability to construct a message in such a way to bring about images relating the same dogmas we are familiar with.

We should know this because of the example left for us in the gospels. They call it the "living word." Preachers and evangelists exhort their followers to "stay in the word" and that the "holy spirit" will show them the truth of these scriptures in time. Isn't that spirit the realization and understanding of the "semiotics" used in the bible. The only way to connect those dots is to consume most of the scriptures and then again, even a third time until it is clear that the connection between certain ideas takes on the same structure, yet masked by different figures and parables so as to require the reader to continue to study and study - given he is compelled to do so by his heart due to the feeling that something is amiss, and through the lack of faith in man - until he brings down the walls that limit his own intuition...The walls that were erected by the same book in the first place...the intuition that was provided within the same book using this concept of semiotics...

see how deep this is? -the attempt to reconcile the half-truths written by the author of confusion. "for ye have not known the depths of Satan" (special note: satyam, Sanskrit meaning: truth; "ye have not known the depths of the truth"? - making our enemy the truth? could this be why it says: "love your enemy? it is far too deep to be written out)

The point of all of this is the relationship between semiotics and creation. In my previous post I went off on a tangent before realizing I left one thing unclear. Creation does exist and is all around us and in every thing outside of our hearts. It I not a grand design by a man in the sky called God, but it is the knowledge and usage of an invocative stimuli ingrained in everything. This knowledge is kept by the elite and those in high authority. We all know this already! we just need to connect the dots...and understanding semiotics is the way to do so.

Language and literature has supernatural potential in that it is used to impose the belief -whether consciously or subconsciously- that a forces, outside of nature and outside of what we would otherwise already know, has the power to govern and influence beyond our will and beyond our control. If we accept this as truth, we are buying a lie and therefore subject to every form of manipulation that has been in the making for thousands of years. Yes, we in a sense have been created or have been subject that the influence unwillingly. The fact that we exist in a world where this influence is so heavily present is enough to conclude that we have been created. Forget physical properties, who cares how we got here, I care about who we are becoming and where we are going. I care about individualism and every human being who follows their own heart, knows their own value and beauty and lives by the only good universal concept that we should love one another, which is a property of the heart. "ye shall know them by their fruits"....if we see the fruits of the religious we are well aware of the fruit of hypocrisy, which is a conduit through which evil and deception can pass.

again, I had to catch myself at a stopping point because I could do this for days on end...on a final note, Christians set a stumbling block before those who deny the 'person' of Jesus with this: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

...and the response to that is this: Jesus came to preach a truth, and time again he claimed "I speak not on behalf of myself"...."the father speaks through me"...."if I speak on behalf of myself, my witness is a lie."

-by that you know 'Jesus' is a personified vessel for a message. Now, what sort of vessel could carry the father's message? "....he is in the bossom of the father"...."take heart"...."do not lose heart".....hearden not your heart"....it is the HEART

....and who speaks through the heart? "god is Love"...."there is no fear in Love".....[b]LOVE (passion, compassion, zeal, even wrath) speak through the heart!

So, do I claim the "heart" came in the flesh? yes! I have one, you have one, etc...this is the truth.

This is the work semiotics.

...I did it again, last thing, stop believing in prophecy!! believe only in what you want to come to pass. why should we all continue to head right into this nightmare that has been created for us should we fail to chose our own destiny?

Quadrivium

solomons path
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Should have hit refresh . . . Didn't notice you answered already, sorry.

Well I added a few other areas . . . not that they'll be read.

Why would they not be read? Did I not ask you to post them? How can anyone take you seriously when you assume?

This post wasn't in response to you . . . It was a reply to Rhino.

As for your first post to me . . . None of those sources, including wiki, are opinions. Those papers/sites are all backed by empirical evidence (research), hence the citations.

And, no . . . we wouldn't see those things if we expected a designer. Either you didn't read them (most likely) or you don't understand what you are reading and why they are examples (evidence/facts) of common descent. If we expected design, we wouldn't see a similarity throughout the taxa, each species would have separate genetic lineage. It's exactly the commonalities that lead us to descent.

I'll take the first example, Pseudogenes, and explain it so even a child can understand why they are not evidence of design.

Psuedogenes are broken fragments (non-functional remnants) that appear in multiple species across many groups. However, in some species they are functional . . . others they are not. The most common one cited relates to Vitamin C. In primates and guinea pigs, we do not have the ability to produce Vitamin C. So, if we do not eat/supplement it . . . we get scurvy and die. However, all other animals naturally produce it. Despite this, primates and guinea pigs still have the gene to produce Vitamin C . . . it's just broken. Why would a creator give a whole class of animals have a gene that doesn't work, if it's non-function meant certain death?

I'll put it this way . . . even more layman.

When car manufacturers started replacing the old carburetor with fuel injection, they didn't leave the useless carburetor in the new models. It was taken out. Also, cars don't leave the line without a fuel injection system and the manufacturer tells the owner after purchase . . . it doesn't work figure it out or you never get to drive. Some design.

Unlike design, the evidence I provided wasn't found and then scientists claimed that's evolution. Hypotheses start with a prediction that these items would exist if evolution were true . . . when researchers can then find them (across taxa) and trace their connection to other species, it confirms the prediction. We can even tell, based on predictive mutation rates, when certain species had these genes "turned off".

Design makes no predictions because it starts with the conclusion and then claims everything is evidence of "design". That is why design proponents don't make new finds or show empirical evidence of design . . . they just make a appeal to emotion and claim every find is "not evidence of evolution, but design". If that wasn't the case how is design aided by pseudogenes? Why are they there? How does design account for tracing these genes? What evidence has been found of a designer?

You're merely doing what every creationist/ID'er does and how ever design paper I concludes . . . "sure they're there and you can explain why, but that's not evolution" . . . could be design".

However, I didn't expect you to respond any other way.

reply to post by pariyzeramiyn


You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. Semiotics has nothing to do with DNA or genetic code. It's a false premise. You are taking two things that don't to relate to each other, but saying they do based on a false belief that genetic code equates to a "language" like computer code. And then claiming this relationship shows design . . . however, there is no relationship to begin with.

AbleEndangered
Solomons just looking for truth

He is trying to shake the tree to see how ripe our fruit is.

Timothy writes about testing the spirit , and this is what he is doing. To see how strong it is!

False Prophets will bear bad fruit

Keep spamming every thread with pseudo-mysticism . . . at least it's entertaining.

reply to post by solomons path



If all life on earth that has been so far studied, comes from a common ancester ?
Then that common ancester must have possessed all the traits of all said life in order for them
to be inherited ? Yes /no ?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


You seem to be missing the main point, which is in the discussion section, that we can predict descent by comparing how closely related (or not) the sequencing is.

What predictions does design hypothesis make on this? And how have they verified or falsified these predictions? How does sequencing of cytochrome-C similarity aid the designer and for what function? Where is the evidence of said designer?

You are doing the same as Quad . . . taking empirical evidence confirming predictions made in hypotheses designed around physical laws and the rules of Evolutionary Theory . . . then saying "yep that's design". Yet still no falsifiable predictions or standard set of rules for design hypothesis or what function these processes are designed for. See the last couple paragraphs of my response to Quad.

You guys remind me of the Christian missionaries that first travelled to China and Japan . . .

In the sixteenth century European Christian missionaries first came to China and Japan. In meeting the Buddhists of China and Japan, the missionaries saw many things that reminded them of Christianity. They saw similarities in the Buddhist and Christian services. They thought they also saw similarities in Christian and Buddhist books and doctrines.

The early Christian missionaries were disturbed by these apparent similarities. They decided that Satan had invented a counterfeit Christianity to lead people astray and to keep them from following the true Christian teachings.

Christians worship an almighty, all merciful God who is the Creator of Heaven and earth. Shin declares the object of its religious refuge to be the Buddha of Endless Life and Light. This Buddha is all merciful and omniscient, but he is neither the Creator nor regulator of the world.

Christians believe that all people in the world must accept Christ, and missionaries undergo all sorts of hardship to bring the gospel of Jesus to all mankind. Christians "have a story to tell to the nations." They go to teach and elevate people. Christianity teaches that God, himself uncaused, is the cause of all things. Moreover, God continues to take an active interest in his creation and directs and manages it according to his own wisdom. Christians believe that God will hear and answer prayers. Christianity holds that the law of cause and effect operates according to the pleasure of God.

But Shin Buddhism, being non-theistic, has no concern with prayers. All things operate in accord with a strict law of cause and effect, and not even Amida Buddha can violate this law to bring us salvation. Amida Buddha himself, in fact, arose in accord with this law of cause and effect. Shin maintains that the law of cause and effect is an eternal, immutable law within the universe.

Christianity finds evidence of its truth in the fact that all people will accept it. Shin takes universal acceptance as a sign of not being a true doctrine.

Shin is a rational teaching, presenting the ancient truths of Sakyamuni Buddha's message in a uniquely modern garb.

Shin and Christianity each are completely different from the other.

solomons path
reply to post by pariyzeramiyn

 

You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. Semiotics has nothing to do with DNA or genetic code. It's a false premise. You are taking two things that don't to relate to each other, but saying they do based on a false belief that genetic code equates to a "language" like computer code. And then claiming this relationship shows design . . . however, there is no relationship to begin with.

You don't seem to understand the just because you refuse to accept the existence of a semiotic system doesn't mean it is not there.

randyvs
reply to post by solomons path

 

If all life on earth that has been so far studied, comes from a common ancester ?
Then that common ancester must have possessed all the traits of all said life in order for them
to be inherited ? Yes /no ?

edit on 20-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

No . . . that's where the cypher (not language) of genetic code (change after change building upon each other) comes in. When things get rearranged new traits/functions pop up or fall away. Small,small, changes each generation over billions of years.

Now I'll accept your next planned statement/proposition/trap, as soon as you show me empirical (independently verifiable/falsifiable) evidence of said creator/designer.

I'm out for the night . . . Friday and my baby just got home! Enjoy your weekend Randy!

reply to post by solomons path


I will make this less exhaustive. I already told you at the beginning of my previous post that I do not believe in semiotics having a direct relationship to DNA. The direct relationship is only present between the concept of creationism and semiotics. DNA existed before creationism. Then, through semiotics, came creation. It is the effect of the thousands of years of this influence being ingrained in every aspect of humanity in the way we communicate and the way in which we live that has derailed us from our natural state of evolving and set us on a course that has been CREATED.

The way in which CREATION has been carried out is through SEMIOTICS. It is the stimuli of which is rooted in religion, and engrained in society. It is rooted in our language through underlying meaning of symbols and signs, which is semiotics. It is the power (ability) to influence our evolutionary development according to a DESIGN outside of nature. It is the CONDITIONING that is creation...and the elite are those who play "god", the creator.

The only way our DNA could be influenced by this is over a course of time long enough period to provoke changes through natural selection based of the FALSE (created) fears, lusts, desires and other stimuli provided by all forms of communication, especially that of religion. This is accomplished by the concept of semiotics. It is the way we view our world in a false way; the illusion that has been grafted into nature for the sake of creating mankind in the "image" of "god."

JOHN 1:13 "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

...which is the will of the elite for us to be reduced to a dumb people. People who are exposed to semiotics which relate a false stimuli to its host. People who see the world a structure, looking up from the bottom of that hierarchy and believing they must climb the ladder for success, using the structure provided, and all of the false 'truths' along the way, serving the same purpose to uphold the structure itself and teach their children to do the same.

What would be frightening is if semiotics could, in fact manipulate DNA. At least in our current state we can chose our own path. Yes we have evolved, but according to structure set up by the elite, using semiotics. yes, we have all turned away from our hearts over the course of thousands of years of this influence but we can still desire the truth and our own will and individuality before we decide to teach our children to go the way of the world.

Am I off base? do we not already know his? I am serious...It would surprise me if this cannot be acknowledged as bearing some truth. Correct me once again if I am wrong here, but please do so in a convincing way and without ignoring statements I have already made.

These matters are important and we should work together to know the truth, not trash the entire inspired view, but only areas that need additional insight from others. Thanks for responding in any case, you have allowed me another attempt at clearing this up. I do have a difficult time communicating in writing because I stray off course frequently _javascript:icon('')

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


And you've been shown multiple times that the evidence shows it is not a semiotic system. It's not about belief, it's about evidence.

solomons path
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

You seem to be missing the main point, which is in the discussion section, that we can predict descent by comparing how closely related (or not) the sequencing is.

What predictions does design hypothesis make on this? And how have they verified or falsified these predictions? How does sequencing of cytochrome-C similarity aid the designer and for what function? Where is the evidence of said designer?

You are doing the same as Quad . . . taking empirical evidence confirming predictions made in hypotheses designed around physical laws and the rules of Evolutionary Theory . . . then saying "yep that's design". Yet still no falsifiable predictions or standard set of rules for design hypothesis or what function these processes are designed for. See the last couple paragraphs of my response to Quad.

You guys remind me of the Christian missionaries that first travelled to China and Japan . . .

In the sixteenth century European Christian missionaries first came to China and Japan. In meeting the Buddhists of China and Japan, the missionaries saw many things that reminded them of Christianity. They saw similarities in the Buddhist and Christian services. They thought they also saw similarities in Christian and Buddhist books and doctrines.

The early Christian missionaries were disturbed by these apparent similarities. They decided that Satan had invented a counterfeit Christianity to lead people astray and to keep them from following the true Christian teachings.

Christians worship an almighty, all merciful God who is the Creator of Heaven and earth. Shin declares the object of its religious refuge to be the Buddha of Endless Life and Light. This Buddha is all merciful and omniscient, but he is neither the Creator nor regulator of the world.

Christians believe that all people in the world must accept Christ, and missionaries undergo all sorts of hardship to bring the gospel of Jesus to all mankind. Christians "have a story to tell to the nations." They go to teach and elevate people. Christianity teaches that God, himself uncaused, is the cause of all things. Moreover, God continues to take an active interest in his creation and directs and manages it according to his own wisdom. Christians believe that God will hear and answer prayers. Christianity holds that the law of cause and effect operates according to the pleasure of God.

But Shin Buddhism, being non-theistic, has no concern with prayers. All things operate in accord with a strict law of cause and effect, and not even Amida Buddha can violate this law to bring us salvation. Amida Buddha himself, in fact, arose in accord with this law of cause and effect. Shin maintains that the law of cause and effect is an eternal, immutable law within the universe.

Christianity finds evidence of its truth in the fact that all people will accept it. Shin takes universal acceptance as a sign of not being a true doctrine.

Shin is a rational teaching, presenting the ancient truths of Sakyamuni Buddha's message in a uniquely modern garb.

Shin and Christianity each are completely different from the other.

How many times am I gonna have to tell you, that you are misunderstanding the argument. I am not refuting the chemical and physical processes involved with DNA. I am stating that these chemical and physical processes cause an exchange of information with semiotic dimension...I do not understand why you keep going in depth with physical and chemical processes....Regardless if you are right and there used to be nucleotide bases that turned into RNA that turned into DNA(which is only a theory not proven fact like you pretend it is) there is still an exchange of information with specified complexity. The fact that the information has semiotic dimension is what I claim is proof of ID not the physical aspects of DNA.