Clear evidence of Intelligent Design

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: nugget1

Your... mental conundrum? I thought this topic was about physics, not psychiatry.

Is that you, Phage?

I always thought psychiatry dealt with personalities, their varried expressions and problems. I don't care to share any of mine with you.

I don't thibk it's possible to seperate an enquiring mind from physics and still try and understand our very existance sans any thought.

If your examination of subatomic behavior needs to be focused through an ideological lens, aka studying the why instead of the how, I have to wonder if you're actually studying physics or your identity in relation to physics. One might even argue that you're putting Descartes before the horse.

And yes, it's possible to separate the baggage of the human psyche from the subject of objective examination, otherwise it's not objective. It's called the scientific method, not scientific bias.

a reply to: TzarChasm

One might even argue that you're putting Descartes before the horse.

Nice ...... golf clap.

Fibonacci Sequence.
Golden Spiral.
Mandlebrot Set.
Gematria.

Anyone who studies these concepts long enough should discover enough to understand God exists (and he loves Mathematics).

But If you're too lazy to do that, just take a bunch of psychdelic mushrooms instead.

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: neoholographic

Absolutely awesome thread neo!

I miss Chuck Missler and his topics like this.

OK give me a week or two to go through this, lol.

I think anyone can question Abiogenesis though, or at east question why they're questioning, then from there it's all downhill for the Bigbang crowd.

Thanks and I remember reading Chuck Missler's book Cosmic Codes.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
I've been telling my Atheist friends that God is a Scientist for quite some time now.

I'll direct them to this link in the future.

Thanks for the wonderful thread!

Thanks and as I always say, God Creates what science discovers.

I started a couple of threads on this:

The Bible predicts what science discovers
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Science finds more evidence of God's Creation
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Perfectweaponinc
a reply to: neoholographic

Extremely well written thread! I haven’t looked into things like this in a long time! This thread has sparked a section of me that has grown dormant over time. I thank you for this! This has me wanting to start my research on Codons once again!

Great to hear!

If you have any questions on this as you do your research just shoot me a message on ATS.

Did we not invent error-correcting code, before we were seeing it in nature ?

It seems to me, sometimes, that we tend to observe the natural world, through the biases of things that we believe to be true.

What about the vast majority of non-Christians around the world ?

Are we all SOL ?

Possibly thousands of tribes, and religions have understood similar concepts.

Why believe that only the vision through our filtered bias, is the right one ?

Can anyone see beyond their tinted goggles, and see what may be in common between all of them, and science ?

a reply to: neoholographic

Starred&Flagged!

Great post. I have a question about the error correcting code in 3 dimensions. What do you think that means?

Even if it is intelligent design, God a computer, a sentient cosmic jellyfish, whatever, that intelligence must have itself been created somehow, and by what? What was before this universe or all the others?

None of it makes the blindest bit of difference really. Even if we get to the point where we understand it enough to be able to hop from place to place in an instant, we would still be trapped inside a creation of an intelligence. I have a feeling we always will be and always are, over and over.

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's clear that there's nothing "natural" about the universe. When you're stuck inside of 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time, you believe that our "material" shell is the sum of all existence.

It's like thinking the parts created the whole. The parts are just icons or interfaces designed by intelligence that are avatars for information and higher dimensions.

First off, local realism is dead and it has to be. This is because what we call subatomic "particles" aren't particles in the physical sense. They don't have an independent physical reality. They come from invisible quantum fields and also have a wave like nature. So they can't be locally real.

Death by experiment for local realism
www.nature.com...

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
www.scientificamerican.com...

Here's some quotes from Heisenberg and Planck about this:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck

Say you have a quantum pool table and you have the 8 ball and 3 ball on the table. Quantum Mechanics violates the principle of locality. This is what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." Locality says the 8 ball has to touch the 3 ball in order to affect the 3 ball. QM says the 8 ball could be on one end of the table and the 3 ball could be at another end of the table and if I turn the 8 ball clockwise, instantly the 3 ball will turn counterclockwise. There could be one in New York and one in San Diego and the same thing will happen instantly.

It also violates the principle of realism. Einstein asked is the moon still there when I'm not looking at it. Subatomic "particles" don't have independent states that exist as measured states prior to measurement. With classical objects, you can say the table is brown even when I'm not interacting with it but with quantum systems, you could only say it's brown when it's measured and observed.

How can anything be real in the physical sense if the basic building blocks of what we call matter isn't real in the physical sense? The Bible tells us the universe doesn't have an independent existence and that the Word(Jesus) holds all things together.

Colossians 1:16 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.

The Bible also tells us that things that are seen are made by things which do not appear.

Hebrews 11:3 “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

Powerful stuff!

Look at this website, the things that can be seen are the reply button or the start a new thread button. These are just pixels on the screen that allow you to easily navigate through the website. They were made by lines of computer code from an intelligent mind that do not appear. The Bible tells us the visible comes from the invisible and isn't some independent physical reality. Look how quantum fields are described:

These INVISIBLE FIELDS sometimes act like particles, sometimes like waves. They can interact with one another. They can even, some of them, flow right through us. The theory of quantum fields is arguably the most successful scientific theory of all time. In some cases, it makes predictions that agree with experiments to an astonishing 12 decimal places.
www.quantamagazine.org...

Let's get to the piece de resistance, THE GENETIC CODE!

Myself and many others on this forum have shown that the high level of engineering in the genome didn't and couldn't come from the primordial goo. Look at this article:

Harvard stores 70 billion books using DNA
www.computerworld.com...

70 billion books in a drop of DNA! They have also encoded DVD's and PDF files into DNA. Here you have a powerful storage medium, more powerful than any supercomputer, with information encoded on its sequence and they say non-intelligence sprung forth from the primordial goo and created a storage medium that the smartest engineers on the planet haven't duplicated. It strains credulity.

Sadly, a natural interpretation of evolution has become too big to fail. It's a way for people to deny God and to deny their spiritual nature. They say they don't need God because they have evolution and that's just a lie. It's a crutch for those still stuck in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time and they think that's the sum of all reality.

Hubert Yockey said this in his book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

The tools of information theory that we use to build modern civilization with error correcting codes and encoded information just ended up in the genome and came from the primordial goo. Who was in this goo, Nikola Tesla?

Let's look at the Genetic Code:

The A,C,G and T stands for adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T) and in RNA thymine changes to U(uracil).

What's the 1st thing you notice? If you look at the first 2 letters in each row, they are the same.

CONT'D

After all that the notion of intelligent design still just your opinion

a reply to: neoholographic

What convinced me we are in a creation is because there are no galaxy factories spitting them out. They seem to just self inspire right where they are. So if we live in a very complex and quite ancient reality they must come from the outside, or from withing the inside of the code. In other words you program a galaxy but it doesn't show up, until you execute the code. And if you were already in the code the galaxy would just, appear.

And this bit of magic. Instructions coming from the Electromagnetic spectrum.

rumble.com...

Seems like our Divine Creator is a Data engineer.

You know, when this error correction fails, the results include cancer.

For an intelligent designer, there seems to be a non-negligible fault rate.

If I were to accept the design of life to be created by a form of intelligence, then I must also accept that this intelligence has limitations, because all of the characteristics you describe in this post, have failure rates. They are real and can't be ignored, because we can observe significant amounts of them, and we have to deal with the aftermath of those failures on a case by case basis.

So, designed by full omnipotence? I have well founded doubts.

Your intelligent designer FAILED to get rid of cancer, at least in humans. Now our very real, intelligent scientists, have to deal with that. Our doctors have to deal with that. Our families have to deal with that.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Archivalist

I odd how a complex arrangement of chemistry has needs and requirements. Perhaps there’s something more to it?

Feel free to describe for me, a functional form of life that has zero complexity.

In reality the phrase "complexity" is arbitrary.

As far as I am personally concerned, a rock and a human have an equal amount of complexity.

You are no more real to me than dirt is.

A wise person once told me "Maybe we are just something that rocks do."

A combination of science and understanding leaves me with this knowledge of existence.

The atoms that make up your body began as hydrogen, that was fused into heavier and heavier elements by stars, billions of years ago.

You are made of star dust.

On the idea of complexity of rocks.

A stalagmite and a stalactite are pointy rocks. Pointy rocks are, in some aspects more complex than "regular" rocks, but in some aspects, they are more simple. We know where to find pointy rocks. We know how pointy rocks probably came into being. You don't necessarily know where to find a "regular rock" in the same sense. You can't say with great accuracy and precision what made a "regular rock".

If you see a stalactite or a stalagmite, you know it was probably in a cave, or formed in a cave. It was either on the ground of the cave or the ceiling of the cave. It formed because liquid flowed and droplets deposited precipitate in the same spot over long periods of time.

A "complex" situation, but simply explained. Whereas you find a random rock on the ground, made of the same material a stalactite or stalagmite is made of... But how did it get there? Where did it come from?
You can provide explanations, but they will be less precise and probably less accurate.

A process is a process. What is needed for any interaction is equal when you break it down to the finest argument "Why does this exist? When it could have not existed?"

I find no more evidence for God in life, than I do in the inanimate. There is equal evidence. I am not saying there is no evidence. There is implicit evidence. I just don't subscribe to a line of belief that it can be outlined and pinpointed in the way presented in this thread.

The complexity appears, because it has to, not because it was "made" to.

a reply to: Archivalist

Good post Archie.

Consider the most complex robots being shown to the public today.

They are basically an entity capable of moving, sensing, making decisions, adjusting to situations, and a multitude of other stuff, with no substantive maintenance needs other than a battery charge.

A simple battery, that provides one kind of fuel.

How long will they last with nothing other than charging ?

Are their moving joints, sealed to keep the lubricants inside, and lasting for 20 years ?

Are their contact points durable for 20 years ?

How many critters in nature live for 20 years ?

Why do we need so much bloody maintenance, different foods and natural medicines, exercise, and stimulation ?

Would a lion, croc, shark, or a polar-bear, hunt and eat a robot ?

a reply to: Nothin

If we removed all restrictions and gave a fairly intelligent engineer cart blanche to build a robot that could last as long as possible?

Nuclear battery, exceeding the life span of all life on the planet by magnitudes.

Also, sharks "hunt" and eat plastic. So yes, they would do the same for robots.
They're not smart, they're hungry, and they follow a pre-set algorithm for what to try and eat.

As for the others, you could probably fool a croc with a robot, but the mammals are probably too smart to eat a robot.

We could probably engineer an edible robot if that were the challenge. A robot that could be eaten by animals for sustenance, what an idea...

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

Starred&Flagged!

Great post. I have a question about the error correcting code in 3 dimensions. What do you think that means?

Great question.

It means spacetime would be an error correcting code and information on logical qubits encoded in spacetime and in our DNA could simulate what we call evolution and it has nothing to do with primordial goo.

This explains why there's 3 codons that code for amino acids. It's an erroror correcting code in 3 dimensions. It also explains why A is always paired with T and G is always paired with C. They're qubits doing quantum error correction. Clear fingerprints of God. Nature didn't create anything, God did.

a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, God did. And it got it wrong. It designed humans like an apprentice, an undexterous engineer, or a clumsy designer.

9 useless body parts that humans no longer need

Just hope next time that kiddy god tries to create something at leat asks the real experts.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

Starred&Flagged!

Great post. I have a question about the error correcting code in 3 dimensions. What do you think that means?

Great question.

It means spacetime would be an error correcting code and information on logical qubits encoded in spacetime and in our DNA could simulate what we call evolution and it has nothing to do with primordial goo.

This explains why there's 3 codons that code for amino acids. It's an erroror correcting code in 3 dimensions. It also explains why A is always paired with T and G is always paired with C. They're qubits doing quantum error correction. Clear fingerprints of God. Nature didn't create anything, God did.

Thanks and I’m reading up on these error correcting codes and it’s very interesting.

Try minding your business, it isn't a make up set. Always an answer isn't there, and the wrong one too. Reading later. Pity about the fecker who hit it with a shovel as they say.
a reply to: neoholographic

originally posted by: Archivalist

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Archivalist

I odd how a complex arrangement of chemistry has needs and requirements. Perhaps there’s something more to it?

Feel free to describe for me, a functional form of life that has zero complexity.

In reality the phrase "complexity" is arbitrary.

As far as I am personally concerned, a rock and a human have an equal amount of complexity.

You are no more real to me than dirt is.

A wise person once told me "Maybe we are just something that rocks do."

A combination of science and understanding leaves me with this knowledge of existence.

The atoms that make up your body began as hydrogen, that was fused into heavier and heavier elements by stars, billions of years ago.

You are made of star dust.

On the idea of complexity of rocks.

A stalagmite and a stalactite are pointy rocks. Pointy rocks are, in some aspects more complex than "regular" rocks, but in some aspects, they are more simple. We know where to find pointy rocks. We know how pointy rocks probably came into being. You don't necessarily know where to find a "regular rock" in the same sense. You can't say with great accuracy and precision what made a "regular rock".

If you see a stalactite or a stalagmite, you know it was probably in a cave, or formed in a cave. It was either on the ground of the cave or the ceiling of the cave. It formed because liquid flowed and droplets deposited precipitate in the same spot over long periods of time.

A "complex" situation, but simply explained. Whereas you find a random rock on the ground, made of the same material a stalactite or stalagmite is made of... But how did it get there? Where did it come from?
You can provide explanations, but they will be less precise and probably less accurate.

A process is a process. What is needed for any interaction is equal when you break it down to the finest argument "Why does this exist? When it could have not existed?"

I find no more evidence for God in life, than I do in the inanimate. There is equal evidence. I am not saying there is no evidence. There is implicit evidence. I just don't subscribe to a line of belief that it can be outlined and pinpointed in the way presented in this thread.

The complexity appears, because it has to, not because it was "made" to.

"Maybe we are just something that rocks do" is precisely the crux of the subject. To rephrase, maybe any mundane substance if given enough time and opportunity could be alive and sentient and investigating its place in the universe, and that's the problem. We can't just be the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel because all the magic is reduced to causality, and mortality, and nihilism. It's sacrilege. One might argue this is a psychiatric disposition rather than a scientific one.