Clear evidence of Intelligent Design

a reply to: neoholographic

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

Yeah, that is the silliest starting point for a tangent I have ever heard. Even from you.

OF COURSE you will see that pattern there, because whoever made that chart was systematically iterating each possible combination.

So what is the 2nd thing you notice? That every 3 letter combination of the 4 bases are listed.

And notice how he has a heading for each Column and Row Group. And notice that the heading for each row group is the first letter of each combination in that row group. And notice that the heading for each column is the second letter in each column.

That is a combination matrix chart.
It is generated by a human scientist.
It is not generated by a supernatural designer.

Sheesh.

a reply to: rnaa

This makes no sense: You said:

OF COURSE you will see that pattern there, because whoever made that chart was systematically iterating each possible combination.

Wrong!

Whoever made the chart had no choice but to make it this way because this is how it was designed.

The 4 codons that code for Valine are:

GTT
GTC
GTA
GTG

Tell me the human scientist that decided to code the amino acid Valine to these 4 sequences? They had no choice but to assemble the chart this way because this is how it was designed.

The 4 codons that code for Glycine are:

GGT
GGC
GGA
GGG

Tell me the human scientist that decided to code the amino acid Glycine to these 4 sequences of nucleatides?

a reply to: neoholographic

I have a magic square that I created myself. I used a sequence of numbers that came to me one night. The square is positioned on a wall, like a painting and is my meditation medium. It's a very potent medium because I discovered it hides many intriguing possibilities that are not immediately visible.

I have a feeling it could be strongly argued that this magic square is proof positive that only intelligent design can account for its existence.Yes I made it but I didn't come up with the code, it came to me.

a reply to: Anadandan

Sounds like you're living in a fantasy unless your code coded for all life on earth and it coded for 20 amino acids that went through transcription, translation error correction and proofreading. It then went to a polypeptide chain that formed the sequence of the gene that was read and then folded into a protein.

What a wonderful Intelligent Design!! It's why you're here now responding on this thread.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: tanstaafl
So the author of this topic, by YOUR assessment, is a liar and/or a fool.

The OP wasn't making vague pronouncements (unlike you), they were making an argument, one that you apparently didn't bother to read, because you al;ready 'know'...

And my counter argument has been largely to say what you just did here, but you perceive my position as being vehemently atheist.

Your words speak for themselves.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl
So you know how God would think? hmmm

Hmmmm is riight, since nothing I said could even remotely be construed as sych, except by insincere ass.

I just love the joke that God played when he gave us a gap in the muscular wall of our abdomen that can cause a hernia...
Now that is fun!!

Again, only when you violate the proper human diet. And the amount of abuse the human body can take is actually amazing, miraculous even.

originally posted by: Quintilian
a reply to: tanstaafl
Unfortunately that word (agnostic) now has many different meanings

Only to wordsmiths that like to twist words to their own advantage.

My use simply means I don't know, and wouldn't presume to know the mind of God, if there is one.

For example, there are people who run churches, have congregations and give sermons from the pulpit, yet are agnostic (have known some of them).

Exactly what I was just describing, wordsmiths, and charlatans.

a reply to: neoholographic

Well it's not something out of science fiction. It begins as a mathematical code then shifts into something else in.No sooner than this is realised it shifts again. So it doesn't start out as a magical square. It begins as a few numbers which transform into colours which can then be arranged into a squares inside squares, patterns inside patterns that harmonise in perfect symmetry creating a magic square that transcends human imagination.
That's what it is.

originally posted by: Quintilian

Humans are well on the way to creating some remarkable AI with the real possibility that intelligent robots might even be a reality soon

Yes, because humans are intelligent, and can therefore create intelligence. Which is my point. Us intelligent humans must have been made by an intelligence. It shocks me why so many are vehemently opposed (not saying you, but in general) to intelligence in the universe. Especially since the entirety of the universe perpetuates according to intelligible laws

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

If that were true, every equation would require a trigger or someone to light the match. And there isn't one.

That wouldn't be required. A good computer programmer can implement the code and then not have to worry about it because it perpetuates without flaw. Just like our physical universe

If an intelligence is required for everything around us, it's strange that not a single Nobel Prize winner in Physics has figured that out.

Intelligent humans trying to discern the intelligible universe is a sign enough. If the universe were unintelligent then there would be no coherence to be studied. Nor would us intelligent beings exist.

You're free to believe whatever you want. Just don't call it science. Science has nothing to say about the existence or non existence of a god. Come back when you can show that your supernatural guy in the sky is required for everything around us.

Come back when you can prove intelligent systems can emerge without an intelligent creator.

a reply to: cooperton

Come back when you can prove intelligent systems can emerge without an intelligent creator.

That's easy. We're here and the guy in the sky isn't. The universe works just fine without supernatural intervention.

a reply to: cooperton

You said:

I've said this before on these forums, but imagine the terminator robot coming to be by random chance. It's laughably absurd, and could never happen by random chance even over an infinite amount of time given the current laws of physics. The reason people think that humans could have evolved is merely because we were indoctrinated with this idea from a young age. An incomplete understanding of biological functions and complexes allows the ignorant notion that biological organisms could have come to be without logical input. Biological organisms are far more complex and intricate than even the best artificial intelligence. Random chance couldn't even create a garage door opener, let alone a terminator robot. Nor could random chance have made us biological encephalized organic supercomputers

Exactly!

This only occurs because a natural interpretation of evolution has become too big to fail. People use evolution to deny God and to deny their spiritual nature.

Here's a good illustration of the odds against atheism.

First, you have to deal with probability. The probability of evolution occurring naturally is effectively zero. Shannon entropy illustrates this.

Look at a deck of cards. When you open the deck of cards, they're in their lowest entropy state. This is because it takes the least amount of information to describe the order of the deck of cards.

I could say A-K in the order of hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs and you know the order of the cards with a few pieces of information. As soon as I shuffle the deck, entropy increases because it takes more information to describe the order of the deck of cards.

Now, you have to ask, which is easier, randomly shuffling the cards and viola one of the shuffles puts the deck in one of the 24 lowest entropy states which are some combination of A-K in any order of hearts, clubs, diamonds and spades or an intelligent mind taking 3-5 minutes to put the deck of cards into one of its lowest entropy states?

This is in the face of the fact that 52 cards can be arranged in 8 followed by 67 zeroes! It looks like this:

80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

There's so many ways the cards can be arranged, a person in their lifetime is not likely to shuffle the cards and get the same order of the deck in their lifetime.

So out of that 8 followed by 67 zeroes, there's just 24 ways that's the lowest entropy state. You would have to randomly shuffle the deck of cards for trillions of years and it's still highly unlikely vs an intelligent mind that would take 3-5 minutes to put the deck in one of its lowest entropy states.

These are the insurmountable odds for the universe coming into existence and viola, all of these fine tuned constants just appear or with life and the genome with 3 billion base pairs.

It gets worse, because before you even get to probability, there needs to be naturalness. Scientist looked to find naturalness but ended up finding more evidence of God's Creation.

The crisis became undeniable in 2016, when, despite a major upgrade, the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva still hadn’t conjured up any of the new elementary particles that theorists had been expecting for decades. The swarm of additional particles would have solved a major puzzle about an already known one, the famed Higgs boson. The hierarchy problem, as the puzzle is called, asks why the Higgs boson is so lightweight — a hundred million billion times less massive than the highest energy scales that exist in nature. The Higgs mass seems unnaturally dialed down relative to these higher energies, as if huge numbers in the underlying equation that determines its value all miraculously cancel out.

To explain “naturalness,” physicists are rethinking some of their core assumptions about the way that nature works. The extra particles would have explained the tiny Higgs mass, restoring what physicists call “naturalness” to their equations.
Quanta

This is important because a hallmark of intelligent design is that a mind can put systems in states that are not natural to the system. This is how we build civilization. Parts of a car are not natural to the car. Parts of a house are not natural to a house. These are things designed by intelligence.

So before you even get to probability, you have to have naturalness. Here's an example:

The natural state of a pair of dice is the numbers 2-12. Knowing this, we can calculate the probabilities and say that overtime you will roll more 7's than you will 2's because there's more ways to roll a 7 than a 2. What you will not roll is a 14. This is because 14 isn't a natural state of the pair of dice.

So if you find a pair of dice that landed on 14, you would want to find out how it got there because 14 isn't a natural number the pair of dice can be in.

Now an intelligent mind can put the dice in a state that's not natural to the pair of dice. An intelligent mind can take the two dice that are 6's and add a dot into the middle of each dice. Now you have two 7's and you can roll a number that's not natural to the pair of dice. Like I said, the lack of naturalness is a hallmark of intelligent design. An intelligent mind can put systems into states that are not natural to the system.

In the article, they even talk about abandoning reductionism

You don't need reductionism when you have intelligent design.

Sadly, the atheist and materialist will try to explain this away because they're stuck in Plato's Cave. They can't see past 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time so they think the shadows on the cave wall are all that exists.

originally posted by: neoholographic
... 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...

lol, "the most succesful scientific theory of all time"? They've gotta be joking here. Some people also refer to these imaginary "quantum fields" as a "multidimensional brane" (or perhaps better said, that's the next step some people take in their philosophical pathway, interpreting and describing these quantum fields as a "multidimensional brane"), as in the article below:

To Avoid a Cosmic Beginning, Physicist Paul Steinhardt Goes to Extraordinary Lengths | Evolution News

On the YouTube channel Closer to Truth, Robert Lawrence Kuhn recently interviewed physicist Paul Steinhardt about his cyclical cosmological model. The model has proven very attractive to atheists since it avoids the philosophical implications of the universe having a beginning. ... What struck me with renewed force in the recent interview is the model’s layer upon layer of assumptions unsupported by any empirical evidence.

... The basic framework for his theory includes the following components:

- Our universe resides in a multidimensional brane that resides in a higher dimensional space containing other parallel branes hosting other universes. [whereislogic: there is no experimental evidence to suggest the existence of this "multidimensional brane", nor of this "higher dimensional space" nor of these "other parallel branes" nor of these "other universes"; where is the (proper) evidence?]

- The branes collide periodically due to an interbrane force drawing them together. [where is the evidence for this "interbrane force"? Can we test its properties and attributes like the force of gravity?]

- The collisions result in big bang events in the branes. The universes in the branes then expand due to the energy of the collision causing a contracting universe to bounce into an expanding one. The branes reset to their original separation. [where is the evidence for these "big bang events"? Can you point me to the first contracting universe ever discovered? How about one that bounces into an expanding one?]

- The collision transfers energy into a scalar field. That energy then transfers from the scalar field into the production of matter and energy uniformly filling the universe. [you guessed it, where is the evidence for this "scalar field"? Come on man, you're just making up fancy words to impress and beguile when you know you've got nothing!]

- The universe expands as in standard Big Bang cosmology with galaxies, stars, and planets forming as the universe cools.

- The expansion of the universe eventually accelerates.

- The expansion phase ends, and the universe begins to slowly contract. The slow contraction smooths out the universe.

- The contraction ends in a bounce, and the universe again expands starting a new cycle.

- The expansion, contraction, and bounce are directed by the energy of the scalar field whose value corresponds to the distance between the branes. [on what science is any of this based? The answer will follow in this article, and it turns out to be pseudoscience. Namely, the pseudoscience of so-called "string theory", an unverified untestable philosophy and one of the bigger scams in theoretical physics all based on an erronuous/paradoxal/contradictory interpretation of quantum physics, namely the Copenhagen interpretation, which was already 'debunked' by Schrödinger with his cat example.]

Multitude of Assumptions

The cyclic cosmological model purportedly explains such features of our universe as the near uniformity of the cosmic background radiation and the lack of curvature of space as well as other models, but it can only do so by relying on numerous speculative assumptions. The entire framework is founded on string theory which many physicists are starting to seriously question (here, here). It also assumes the existence of parallel multidimensional branes containing separate universes — a questionable application of string theory, even if true. The collision of the branes must occur in just the right manner to generate universes with just the right amount of inhomogeneity to birth galaxies with stars and planets.

...

Between brackets were my remarks.

a reply to: whereislogic

What??

I didn't mention branes or multidimensions that has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm talking about Quantum Field Theory as it pertains to Feynman Diagrams and Quantum Electrodynamics.

In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics.[1]: xi  QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.

QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles. The quantum field of a particle is determined by minimization of the Lagrangian, a functional of fields associated with the particle. Interactions between particles are described by interaction terms in the Lagrangian involving their corresponding quantum fields. Each interaction can be visually represented by Feynman diagrams according to perturbation theory in quantum mechanics.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you abandon QFT, you have to abandon Feynman diagrams:





Do you know what it means to agree with experiments to 12 decimal places?

If you're a scientist and you come up with a theory and you say the value of X when measured should be .0479111256510942... and when they do the measurement they observe .0479111256517205....

This means your prediction was astonishingly accurate.

This is why I say, science discovers what God Creates.

I didn't mention branes. Didn't you read the title of the article you posted?

To Avoid a Cosmic Beginning, Physicist Paul Steinhardt Goes to Extraordinary Lengths

This is one man's opinion that has nothing to do with this thread. If you wanted to debate his theories, you should have started a thread.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Many scientist are saying, spacetime is an quantum error correcting code.

How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code

The same codes needed to thwart errors in quantum computers may also give the fabric of space-time its intrinsic robustness.
www.quantamagazine.org...

Here's a video called Is Spacetime a Quantum Error-Correcting Code?

Except space-time is neither space nor time, it's just (in my opinion) a poor confusing terminology chosen by Einstein to describe his discoveries concerning relativity. It should neither be conflated or confused with either space or time, and also not both (as if it's some kind of combination of both, that just makes what Einstein discovered more confusing to explain, and easily misused by those trying to promote their speculations under the marketingbanner of "Science" in order to give the appearance they are making valuable contributions to the sciences and are worth their salaries, tenureships, career advancements, etc. As they go along with the idea of 'publish or perish'.).

I see a lot of conflation going on there, as if what counts for space and time also counts for space-time.

a reply to: neoholographic

String theory (and its discussion of a multidimensional brane) is considered and referred to as a quantum field theory. They are intrinsically connected. This is why I edited and added: (or perhaps better said, that's the next step some people take in their philosophical pathway, interpreting and describing these quantum fields as a "multidimensional brane").

Quantum Field Theory, String Theory and Predictions (Part 9) – Of Particular Significance

... As I described in the second post in this series, “quantum field theory” is the term that describes the general case; “a quantum field theory” is a specific example within the infinite number of “quantum field theories”.

By the way, my issue is with the way some people talk about these so-called "quantum fields" as if they themselves have some sort of physical existence or can produce what is physical by themselves. When they are describing these fields as "INVISIBLE FIELDS [that] sometimes act like particles, sometimes like waves" (quoting from your source in the part I was responding to), they are using terms that are used to describe the behaviour of physical things (which includes light and energy). This easily gives some people the erronuous impression that these "invisible fields" have some kind of physical existence themselves. Which in turn gives rise to all sorts of speculations regarding these fields producing physical things such as our entire universe and everything in it, as in the Lawrence Krauss mythology:

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: tanstaafl
So the author of this topic, by YOUR assessment, is a liar and/or a fool.

The OP wasn't making vague pronouncements (unlike you), they were making an argument, one that you apparently didn't bother to read, because you al;ready 'know'...

And my counter argument has been largely to say what you just did here, but you perceive my position as being vehemently atheist.

Your words speak for themselves.

I'm not the one who has something to prove, by composing 70+ topics about the same general subject, because the knowledge that Earth is round and not flat desperately needs validating online by strangers whose souls depend on my armchair expertise in the matter. I'm happy being a vague pronouncer. It's not like I'm being paid to invest actual effort.

originally posted by: cooperton

It's a way of saying you're trying too much. No need to flex so hard, just chill a little ya know? else be herniated.

Thanks coop! I always wondered what was Gods reason.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
It doesn't... unless you are not eating a proper human diet.

Well it does not matter what you eat as the body stops producing many things whether you are a man or woman. The other side of this is if everyone doesn't eat a proper diet as you say then that plays into evolution too because in either case evolution STOPS after the childbearing years.

In societies where the people eat a proper human diet, men are still able to father children well past 80 or 90, and often live well past 100 remaining vital and active right up until they died.

That is true, but if we are talking evolution then we need to look at the normal age range over a long period of time, and not just what we see today. Maybe in the future we will have kids later, but woman only have so many eggs that the environment affects along their life, so having kids past 35 for women increases a good many risks. This means we would need old men having kids with extremely younger women, and that is not typical in any sense of even with animals in nature as the older alpha gets replaced by the younger alpha.

The human has really been a 50 year animal if you made it past childhood, after that it is the magic of science and luck. There is a reason we can physically procreate at about 12. Those in the past who made it past 40 really were an extremely small factor in the procreation cycle, and so really plays little into evolution.

a reply to: whereislogic

Again, you're all over the place. Your link talks about M-Theory and String Theory which are speculative while Quantum Field Theory is not.

For instance, QFT made the prediction for the magnetic moment of the electron.

The prediction: 2.00231930435520
The observation: 2.00231930436146

Show me where string theory or M-theory have had any successes.

originally posted by: neoholographic

This only occurs because a natural interpretation of evolution has become too big to fail. People use evolution to deny God and to deny their spiritual nature.

I think you are incorrect... Evolution does not try to prove or disprove God in anyway. Evolution and God should really not be part of the same discussion. Why they enter the discussion is because some people think that God just zaps everything into existence to include humans. One day there were no humans and instantly there were. One can believe in God and also believe there was a natural order of events that took billion of years in the creation of what we have today and not all done with the snap of God's fingers.

Evolution tries to answer a "how" question, and God is a "why" question. The two can coexist very nicely if one was willing to accept the fact that God just didn't zap all life into existence in their current form.

As I have said, the God question is a non-falsifiable statement, so only those on the religious side seem to continually want to jump into something unprovable no matter what, as we see with the OP's "Clear evidence of Intelligent Design".

Do not try to prove faith... It just doesn't work... The more one tries the less faith I think they have.