see,maybe the master of the universe is outside the delusion of "time"
and how much ever the fact of natural selection helps,what you need to bring all the new information to the gene pool of a miserable bacteria how the hell ever it got there out of dead matter is uncontrolled "random" mutations
see,maybe the master of the universe is outside the delusion of "time"
and how much ever the fact of natural selection helps,what you need to bring all the new information to the gene pool of a miserable bacteria how the hell ever it got there out of dead matter is uncontrolled "random" mutations
Another misinterpretation of evolution as "blind chance". The don't mention and of the "design flaws" that many birds have. For instance, many have wings that are all but useless for flight, most hummingbirds have to consume food almost constantly because their bodies are so ineficient. Many species have to eat more than their own body weight every hour in nectar just to survive. You'd think an all knowing being could have come up with a better "design".
@allamericanjoe2002 you must be a dumb idiot !!! With comments like that, you probably never passed 2nd grade, or simply don't understand nature, or simply are just looking for a response.Tell me which one it is and I will help you !
@buschmann69 Really? Please expound on your point... I won't bother to point out the redundancy of your infantile insult simply because it should be obvious unless you're yet in grade school. You really should make a better argument when you respond to ones post. You gave me exactly the uneducated response from a christian simplton I would have expected. I can only infer that you suggest evolution IS blind chance?
We simply do not live out the implications of an atheistic worldview, as if there is no reason or purpose to our existence. We desire purpose and meaning in a world that is purposless and meaningless??? We desire things to be 'right' to be 'perfect.' But why if it truely is a meaningless and purposless existence? I find that VERY odd. Just maybe death is UNATURAL. We crave what this world simply can't give us.Simply ODD! Jesus said.."life and immortality has been brought to light"
This video makes it soud that we as people and animals were created only for the amusement of a creator, since none of the attributes belong to the animal or to evolution, but to (Name your god).
Why don't we simply omit our moral beliefs? We have no empirical proof of what is right or wrong. A concensus of morality does not prove it. Example, the majority of germans thought killing jews was right.
The inclusion of such moral limitations on our freewill has only caused man to kill man and create wars over these 'believed' right and wrongs.
The concept of a freewill, to me is a non argument. Men will do what they please within their own personal standards that benefits them in their day to day lives. Just as killing all those around you would be detrimental and could further hinder your own ease of existence. The killing of jews, or any other genocidal act only pits the strong against the weak, where the so called chosen are exempt, while those that do not fit the description, are slaughtered for geographical or birth differences.
If we were made for a Gods 'amusement' (which is not the case, Biblically speaking) that is still not evidence that a God doesn't exist. It is merely an emotional, moral and theological objection. For example, the fact that torture chambers are disgned to torture people is not evidence that they are not designed.
To have a designer also does not prove that a god designed it. Your point also could allude to a collaberation of a number of designers who worked together to create something, which could have also just as easily been created by a sole creator, as long as the skills and proper tools needed are available.
A deeper issue remains, why would a god build humans, animals, fish and all of the other creatures? To what purpose, if for any purpose at all. The more we delve, the more confusing.
So if one day you find a sandbar where none existed, you would assume that someone designed it for a reason? Or that a deformed or mentaly challenged child was purposely designed that way for some unknown reason? Thats like saying that if you put a piece of toast into a toaster, and an image was toasted into it that looked like the virgin mary, that god himself came down and designed that image? Cause if there is a design, there must be a designer?
Of course not. Those things fall within the statistical probabilities of time and chance occurrences. But the occurrence of life / DNA does not. That is why the 'chance occurrence of life' hypothesis is no longer considered plausible.
Deformities, disease and death are all the result of genetic information entropy. In other words..'something has gone wrong.' In the biblical 'fall' - creation has been separated from it's input.
The erosion of a design is not evidence against design.
Using the bible as a guide wipes out all of your statements and insights. You very sensibly present your argument and then you ruin it by using the bible as some fact filled tome. You are saying that a god created us by merely mentioning us into reality or by the simple wave of his hand? Yet you feel that the chance occurence of life is an improbability? If you are going to believe in one type of fairy tale, then chance occurence is not too far fetched using your own standards.
Biblically speaking, I merely observed it makes consistent statements with intelligent design theory.The biblical statement that creation is under a 'fallen' condition is consistent with 'design gone wrong' in nature...i.e., disease, deformities and death. Genetic information entropy.
How does God 'create' things? I don't know. Just as there are many unanswered questions in science, so to are they in theology.
There is nothing consistent about the bible or any other religious doctrine. As for the fallen condition theory, biology would ace that also since it makes more sense then a designer who is supposed to be all knowing and yet still allows these flaws. He does not try to correct or improve on his created subjects.There is obviously no intent in the bible for things to live forever, just by having fruit trees and other vegetables and animals that consume each other indicates a begining and an end.
The Bible is beautifully coherent and consistent from Genesis to Revelations. Paradise lost to paradise restored. From beginning to end...the theme of redemption fills every page. Only one lacking biblical exegesis would claim the Bible is not consistent. Now...ones 'interpretation' most certainly can be inconsistent!
As for God 'allowing these flaws', it is not an argument that God is incapable of correcting them...it is merely a God allowing consequence.
Echos, biblical inconsistencies such as those offered by 'the skeptics anotated bible' etc...are based on a lack of biblical exegesis, and are taken out of context spun to give the appearance of a contradiction. People are supposed to notice your good works openly because your good character permeates them, not because of your attempt to have them see how "good" and "great" you are. The former is humility. The latter is prideful and wrong. The Pharisees did them openly with wrong intention.
Please explain why there are approximately 20,000 (more actually) recognised interpretations of "the infallible word"..........Seems a little odd to me that a perfectly scripted book can be so terribly misinterpreted by so many. Men can write books that are more consistent.
100% of human observation tells us programming, software and coded information ONLY comes by intelligence. A naturalistic explanation of the origin of the genetic code is just that, a belief based on ZERO empirical evidence. Programming never is produced bottom-up, it is 100% of the time produced top-down. If you disagree, all you need is an example of a code that did NOT come from a mind. Just one.
Much of your argument makes sense and is logical in its definition and presentation, but, you should also address the source of any prescriptive information through non-supernaturalistic natural processes. You are also correct in that the simplest known living organisms are replete with empirical evidence of organizational unity and coherence which directs future biochemical events toward undeniable ends and purposes. (Continued)
But, using or appealing to unknown laws constitutes a "naturalism of the gaps," corresponding to supernaturalists' appealing to a "God of the gaps" for scientific explanation. Neither is acceptable in naturalistic science. Just as you require empirical evidence for my view, you should also need to provide empirical evidence for the god theory, without the use of any religious doctrine, for as you know, are not a great source of scientific information or evidence.
The problem with your argument is that you've made several, possibly faulty, presuppositions and then begun to ask questins that simply confirm your presuppositions..........
The problem is, most people already have a preconcieved bias, and the question is settled for them deep down. And what follows is an emphasis on any evidence that supports that bias, and a dismissal of any contrary evidence that does not. We are all subject to this temptation if we are not careful.
I have approached the 'BIG QUESTION' of God for many years now, and was a hardboiled atheist for the most part.But the more we discover about this world and life itself,the harder it is to remain a unbeliever in a supreme intelligence,even in the face of all the problems it now has.Even the very fact that we 'assume' the world is not 'right' or not the way it 'ought' to be suggest there is a way it SHOULD be.I believe this inclination we have, among several, points towards purpose in the world.
DNA. This is the answer you seek. Do you have ANY empirical evidence to suggest that DNA was DEFINITELY created by intelligence? Do you realise that DNA isn't even a code? WE have coded it to make it possible to understand.
DNA cannot be offered as an example of coded information that is 'known' not require intelligence. Since the question is whether DNA required intelligence or not, you cannot derive the premise from the desired conclusion. That would be circular reasoning.
And yes, we have 100% of human observation that coded information ALWAYS is the result of intelligence. There is not a single KNOWN example to the contrary, unless you would like offer one.
Why does not the chance occurence of life fit into statisttical probabilities? Are we here because someone created us, or just a product of our environment where certain environments occured and where we then devoloped over time into our current state? Are deformities, disease and death truly the result of entropy, or just a continuation of our development, where things sometimes go wrong due to environmental or other issues. The biblical fall of man is not a fact, and should not be used.
But programing (genetic coding) is at the heart of ALL life... and there are NO EMPIRICALLY KNOWN causes that are sufficient to produce software EXCEPT intelligence. This is what we KNOW. Science had ONE cause that is KNOWN to produce coded information and that is intelligent processes. The burden of proof lies with the one who claims programing,software and coded information can arise UNINTELLIGENTLY! We have no examples of this. Not one.
We both agree it had to come from somewhere, the source is the question. If I understand you correctly, only a creator could have installed the programming to get the ball rolling. But as can be seen through nature itself, it has the will to survive and thus develop into what we know today, obviously not an easy process based on the millions or even billions of years that have come and gone, giving even the simplest form of life time to progress, no less miraculous then a god theory.
Yes, only intelligent agents are empirically KNOWN to produce coded information, programming and software etc. Which is a crucial ingredient in life. The laws of physics and chemistry cannot account for coded information. Codes which are symbolic, are only known to be the product of minds.If someone wants to postulate coded information can arise through un-intelligent processes,the onus is on them to provide evidence for it.For now,the only scientific inference that can be made is intelligence.
How do you know that "only intelligent agents are empirically KNOWN to produce coded information"? Have you looked into every single possibility that ever existed? Your method is SERIOUSLY lacking in scientific method. If your claims were even vaguely true, I.D. would have been introduced as a scientific theory - but it hasn't because it IS NOT SCIENCE.
How do we know that only intelligent agents are empirically KNOWN to produce coded information? Because in 100% of the cases where we KNOW the origin of an observed example of coded information,we KNOW it was the result of intelligence. Can you think of a counter example of this empirical observation? DNA cannot be used,it is the one example that is in question.One camp 'believes' its coded information arose without intelligence,the other has 100% inference that codes NEVER arise unintelligently
Arguing that nature has a will to survive doesn't explain the programming that gives it that appearance.Biological processes are controlled by coded informaion..genetic software.Computers can log on to the internet for automatic updates and do many other processes all in the absence of a'guiding intelligence' intervening.The operation of biological processes does not explain the origin of the programming running them any more than computers carrying out processes accounts for it's programming.
Again, DNA. The fallacies in your arguments are numerous. The burden of proof lies with those climing that an intelligent designer, outside of space and time (or whatever definition gets you hot)exists.
So...again, the onus is on you, or anyone else who asserts that coded information can arise someother way besides intelligence! We KNOW codes can arise by intelligence. We merely 'believe' they can arise WITHOUT it. 100% of our experience empirically proves minds can produce codes while we have zero examples of it comming someother way. We must remember naturalistic materialism 'hypothesizes' coded information in DNA arose WITHOUT intelligence. But, for now, intelligence is the only proven one.
The first problem with your argument is that we are using "inteliigence" to find "intelligence". It IS possible that WE are the only "intelligent" life form in the universe. If this was true, wouldn't it just be a coincidence that we find "intelligence"?
The coincidence is that we have found a strikingly unique artifact that is ONLY known to be the result of intelligent processes at the heart of life, coded information.The inference is that it to is the result of intelligence.There are no counter examples of codes being the result of something else.Science infers that the universe obeys a fixed set of discoverable laws,we cannot prove this,it might be wrong,but we have 100% of prior observations that this is so.Same with codes.100% inference.
I think your understanding of science may be slightly incorrect. Science observes things AND THEN attempts to make predictions based on the observations (basically). For a theory (prediction) to be accepted it must be VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE and FALSIFIABLE. Your theory doesn't pass the test - it lacks ANY of those foundations. I may have over simplified science but essentially what I have described is reasonably accurate.
This is not a 'deductive' proof. We cannot 'deductively' prove gravity will be the same tomorrow, but we can infer it based on 100% of past observations. The same with entropy, the speed of light, and the law of conservation of matter and energy. It's possible they may not be constant...but the purden of proof is on the one who claims they might not be. Thus goes the same for codes...100% of our observations shows us only intelligence produces them. 100% inference.
Here is a summarisation of your argument - "only intelligence can create codes" - beings on this earth are the only
witnessed "intelligence" that we have - therefore WE or something on this planet MUST have written the code for DNA. It's a ridiculous argument that falls apart when even vaguely scrutinised. If there were ANY scientific basis it wouldn't have been thrown out of court so easily.
Im willing to consider a counter example of a code that did not come from an intelligent processes. Just as Im willing to consider a counter example of gravity not being constant. But until then, the only logical and rational inference that science can make at this time is...that codes only result from intelligent processes. There simply is no KNOWN counter example to the contrary. Just like gravity.
Mate, I agree that we HAVE NOT seen an example of intelligence producing a code, but your logic is fallacious - it's an argument from ignorance (and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense). You're argument is basically that because we haven't seen something happen It CANNOT be possible which is a fallacy. As an atheist even I accept that "god is possible" - unlikely, but possible. To suggest that something is IMPOSSIBLE just because you've never seen evidence of it is absurd.
Because life has turned out to be FAR more complex than originally thought.
I have no problem with 'evolution,'what I have a problem with is that successful evolution is driven by random mutations (mistakes,errors etc) filtered by natural selection.Rather,evolution is a intercellular genetic algorithm!An algorithm that continually searches for benificial changes according to an ever changing evironment.And the 'harmful' mutations are the result of information entropy.Two types of mutations!
So what you are saying, even though you say some one or something created the universe, that once it was created, it was left to its own devices to evolve as it would see fit? This creator gave it its information, and the spark of life and then kicked it out the door to fend for itself. Aside from bringing aliens into the picture, who would also have the same questions of their beginings to deal with, are you leaning towards a god who is this master builder who had time to create it all?
Yes, a prescribed evolution that unfolds. A genetic algorithm, preprogrammed to multiply and fill every ecological niche possible. Like a Swiss army, life is knife front-loaded with all the tools (genetic information) that would be benificial somewhere sometime eventually.
A Master Creator seperate, distinct and outside of the universe where time is meaningless.
How can something exist outside of every'thing'?Well,'everything' in the physical universe, itself had a definite beginning at the big bang.The universe and every'thing' in it is natural...therefore its cause lies outside of itself and by definition must be 'supernatural' not being contained within the natural. And to go further,the first cause of all that has been caused logically must be uncuased, thus eternally existent. If not, we run into a infinite regress of finite causes.
Can life with all the specified complexity we observe be the product of mere time and chance or not. The mounting evidence suggests not, leaving the only known alternative that is sufficient to produce what we observe...intelligence.
The analogy of biological processes and computer processes is valid in the context of 'coded information' - programming...which controls inanimate mindless materials in the absense of any intelligence within the system itself. The intelligence is contained in the coded information itself. Thus both biological and computer processes are both governed by coded information (software). All software where the origin is known, has 100% of the time been the result of intelligence. DNA has it.
Yeah, the fact that something mutates does not make it intelligent. Everything mutates with time, that's not intelligence, that's mutation (one of the core concepts of evolution).
You're still caught on this concept that information can only arise from intelligence. A rock is sitting on a hill. The location, density, size, etc of that rock is all information. None of that information was made by an intelligence.
Well I gotta run for now, nice discussion at any rate.
I ask when you lay your head down tonight, ask this one question..."are mutations really random? or might they actually be engineered algorythims seeking beneifcial changes?"
And yes, rocks sitting on a hill contain a state whereby we can come along and interpret it as information in our minds.
Coded information gets encoded, transmitted, then decoded.
So you've just admitted that the rock being there is information that is not encoded by a coder, but information nonetheless. I honestly couldn't care weather there is someone directing our mutations. If there is, they sure suck at it... our thumb is way too short and completely lacking in dexterity. Our eye has a blind spot right in the middle of it. We utterly fail at simple mathematical comprehension.
It's for these reasons that if a designer is out there, he sucks at his job.
The new theory of evolution. Beneficial mutations are not "mindless or random," but are engineered algorithms that continually search for beneficial changes according to a organisms environment.
I cannot do your homework for you. Again, your objections are utterly and thoroughly addressed on his site and in his debate at infidels. It's all there if you care enough to look. If you don't care enough to do that, you don't care enough to find out.
The website I offered is for those who care enough to investigate for themselves. Its not for those who simply want to argue. Im not here to argue or debate.
And to your objection that everything "mutates,' does not make it intelligence, I point this out.
Intelligence can work through derived conditions. Example. Humans design thermostats. We design houses that use them. We set it to maintain ( by design) a certain condition in the house. A certain temp will be maintained in the absence of any direct human intervention. All on it's own! Certain stimuli produce certain reactions. All by design.
James Shapiro notes that when a protozoa splices its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces and re-arranges them, this is not a random or haphazard process, this is a highly engineered process.
This same process of intelligent evolution is how your immune system learns to fight off germs its never seen before: It systematically tries different combinations and once its cracked the code on the invading disease,it passes those changes onto daughter cells.
DNA is a fantastically sophisticated and elegant communication protocol. It has error correction, redundancy, self-healing characteristics, repair mechanisms, and an amazing, adaptive, evolutionary algorithm.
James Shapiro notes that when a protozoa splices its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces and re-arranges them, this is not a random or haphazard process, this is a highly engineered process.
This same process of intelligent evolution is how your immune system learns to fight off germs its never seen before: It systematically tries different combinations and once its cracked the code on the invading disease, it passes those changes onto daughter cells. Your own immune system is a miniature model for evolutionary biology.
Adaptation through internal celular genetic engineering as described by McClintock and Shapiro.
The "random mutation" theory, sadly, is an urban legend.
If there was an "intelligent evolution" than we wouldn't DIE. We would immediately have the intelligence to know how to fight off every disease. You're way over-simplifying how our immune system works. You don't just "try and crack the code" with "random mutations of daughter cells".
If you're going to undermine the work that every biologist has ever done, at least understand what it is that you're criticizing.
I'm done here, as clearly you don't deserve the time of day.
The reason we have birth defects, aging, extinction and death is: Random mutation. Information Entropy. A slight corruption of the signal is all it takes for the design to degrade over time and malfunction. Random Mutation is noise, noise is entropy, entropy is irreversible. Entropy causes birth defects, aging, extinction and death. NOT eyes, ears, new limbs and superior new features. The Random Mutation Theory of Evolution is an inversion of the most ludicrous kind.
It is far and away the most widespread, most absurd, most damaging urban legend in the 1000 year history of science. To a communications engineer its more ludicrous than a flat earth.
The fact that millions of scientists still believe it only shows us how easily we human beings can be conned.
I think people believe this because its the most convenient way to omit God from the discussion.
You make it sound as if omiting a god is a bad thing?
Why are there no buildings that are made by a god? Surely he can create the universe, how hard would a building be to protect those that he created? The inclusion of god has only caused man to kill man and create wars in his name. This does not put the blame on the god, but the men who believe in him/her. But who is to say that if there was no god, that we as humans would have not done the same things, only in someone elses name.
The abuse of a belief in a 'God' is not evidence against a God. The abuse of guns is not evidence that guns are bad. The abuse of human freewill is not evidence against the goodness of freewill. The abuse of anything can be bad, but is not an argument that the 'object' being abused is bad itself or wrong...i.e a belief in God. Many clothed and fed starving people right now are the result of a 'proper' belief in God andwould argue your point Echos.
I agree with some of your statements, would you also agree that religious doctrines and dogmas also be put aside when discussing the existence of a god. Since there are so many views on what a god is or is not, I believe that any religious notions only get in the way. The base question being, is there a god, is there currently still a god or did he only exist at one time if at all, since it seems that biologicaly we get along without any supernatural intervention.
Yes, initially. The information theory argument cannot identify the 'Designer' but gives us 100% inference that life is designed.
I would argue that life "getting along" without any direct supernatural intervention is also not evidence it's origin came about without supernatural intervention. Computer processes can carry on for eons once a coded algorithm is in place. A computer can log on for automatic updates in the absense of direct human intervention for example.
Analogies like computers just don't stack up when you're discussing "life". The two things are so fundamentally different that most analogies are useless, particualrly within the context thet you're asserting them.
A rock is a rock. It has no coded information. It has no plans for another rock, no instructions to build another rock, no encodeing system using symbols. No decoding mechanism. DNA on the other hand has a complete plan using coded information to construct another oganism other than itself. The DNA molecule has its own characteristics about itself, like a rock, but a rock has no coded plan to build a completely different structure than itself. You are missing the point.
A rock is like a book with blank pages. Both have facts about themselves that we draw upon and give meaning to. But a book with a story and DNA both have coded information that carries a message. One DNA molecule has coded instructions of how to build another structure besides itself. Thats coded information.
When we look at a rock, a hill we create representations of those things in our minds.But within those objects themselves there are no symbolic representations.DNA,however, contains a symbolic representation.The codons GGG symbolically represent Glycine.Glycine is produced when the code is decoded.This is an encode/decode operation and a code which cannot be derived from the laws of physics.Because DNA uses symbols and purely material objects do not,it is in a separate category.
Dr. James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago is one of the leading researchers in this field. Let me share with you about what hes discovered about protozoa.
A cell under stress will splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces. Then a program senses hundreds of variables in its environment and then re-arranges those pieces to produce a new, better, evolved cell. A protozoa re-programs its own DNA and evolves. Intelligently.
The random mutation theory, sadly, is an urban legend.
INTERESTING FACTOID: This same process of intelligent evolution is how your immune system learns to fight off germs its never seen before: It systematically tries different combinations and once its cracked the code on the invading disease, it passes those changes onto daughter cells. Your own immune system is a miniature model for evolutionary biology.
From experiecne, we know that information can be measured in any sequence that is digital, linear and segregated. Therefore the information in the genome can be measured. Therefore the genome ( the "code" you keep rambling about) can come about naturally. No need for an intelligence
Measuring information in no way accounts for how coded information arose in the first place. I have no problems with evolution. Its just not based on "random" mindless mutations. They are engineered algorithms. With possibly a mechanism that detects permutations that have already been tried unsuccessfully
If you've read any of his work, you'd also know that he himself refutes the idea of a designer. A genome is digital, linear and segregated. The digits in this case are the letters of an alphabet, each one different from the other. The letters of the alphabet of the genome are the 64 codons of DNA and RNA. The letters are in a sequence in DNA and RNA, so they are linear. And they are separate and distinct from one another, so they are segregated.
Dont confuse what he says: " that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering."
With what his personal beliefs are. Huge conflation you are making there.
Yeah, in case you missed it, I demolished your argument when I pointed out your false definition of "code". You say that code requires a coder, and a decoder. Then you tell me to find "code" that doesn't have one of either. Your definition is loaded, and therefor your argument is invalid.
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
Deal with the experts. You are the one in denial. Sorry.
I cannot do your homework for you. Again, your objections are utterly and thoroughly addressed on his site and in his debate at infidels. It's all there if you care enough to look. If you don't care enough to do that, you don't care enough to find out.
If your satisfied with the conclusions you have come to, thats your choice.
The website I offered is for those who care enough to investigate for themselves. Its not for those who simply want to argue.
Ah, so now you're using a false definition to make your claim true. Code does not have to be exchanged between two things to make it code. I'll give you a great example. PI (the number), if deciphered contains every known audio track ever created. Every letter ever written, and every thought you've ever had can be decoded from PI. PI is not "created", nor is it intended to be "decoded". However it does contain code, and it can be deciphered to say literally everything.
It doesnt matter if a definition is arbitrary, as long as the defintion stays consistant when we use it. A definition is a means to pinpoint what is being discussed.
As you noted, PI fails for being coded information, there is no decoding.
For the third time. Coded information is a message, plan, instructions, or idea that gets encoded, using agreed upon symbols between the endocer and decoder, then transmitted, the decoded. Ruminate on this for a minute until it becomes clear please.
Here's a "code" that comes about without a designer. A rock is sitting on the top of a hill. It is there, that is information. In the definition that you've provided "code" is any form of information. No intelligence put that rock there, no intelligence moved it.
If you want me to give you a better description of code coming about, give me a definition of "code". What is this "code" you speak of, and what characteristics does it have.
Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols.
DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
Pertaining to the rock. There is no information there encoded or to be decoded. It is only a rock. It only has information when we observe it and asign information to it.
DNA on the other hand actually comunicates a coded plan, information. It encodes and decodes this information wether we are there or not. The information represents a real physical structure to be built.
You've still yet to define to me what exactly "code" is. The rock is on a hill. It is there, and that is information. The fact that it is there is still going to be true whether you see it or not.
Again, define for me what you consider "code" and I'll be able to give you a better example. Until then, you're just talking to yourself.
yes "code" is there, that does not, however imply a "designer" which is what you are asserting. You got the right definitions, but your interpreting them wrong.
Codes, plans, and instructions ALWAYS imply intelligence. We have 100% of human observation that these things ONLY come from minds. If you disagree all you need is one counter-example. There are none. Just like the law of gravity, we cant prove it will be the same tomorrow, but because we have 100% observation that it always acts the same, we can infer it will be the same tomorrow. Because we have no counter examples! In the exact same manner, codes ONLY come from minds. DNA has codes.
The counter example IS your example. You're asking me to note something that has no intelligence behind it, but whenever I show you one, you simply say "no that was designed by an intelligence" The reason that we can't just "infer" an intelligence is because then you get into an infinte regress. Something had to make code your coder and so on. And since every effect has a cause, there CAN NOT be a causeless effect. You can not go from "DNA LOOKS COMPLICATED" to "MY GOD DID IT".
No Im asking you to provide ANY example of coded information that DOES NOT come from a mind, thats all.All you need is one.ANd my argument is falsified.
Yes,by logic there has to be a first uncaused cause of all finite things that are caused or we run into a infinite regress of cuases.Something has to be eternal. And its not the universe.
No,DNA contains precislely something that is 100% of the time produced by minds.Coded information,if you disagree,all you need is one counter example.
Basic cause and effect laws say that everything with an effect must have a cause. For that reason, the universe must have a cause correct?
Apply that exact same logic to your "eternal uncaused cause". Basic cause and effect laws say that everything must have a cause, and your "creator" is not an exception.
You've yet to bring forth any evidence to show that the universe is not eternal.
You need to realize, it's everything that is finite that needs a cause. Finite things had a beginning. They need a cause. Time, space and matter all had a beginning. All modern cosmological evidence supports this. It is logically impossible to have a infinite regress of finite cause and effects.
Therefore the ONLY logical conclusion is there must be an eternal uncaused cause. There is no other available option.
You are missing the point. If we use your logic we have an infinite regress.
The concept of something eternal is self refuting because it is NOT a logical conclusion.
You still haven't even proven your premise that "all the evidence points towards a finite universe". There is in fact evidence to the contrary. All the evidence points to the universe expanding. Something that is infinite DOES NOT END and is therefor always expanding.
Are you serious? And what does expanding itself imply?? Look, use logic here...if its expanding...rewind the process. Now what do you see? Get it? All comming back to a point. Hello beginning. What do you think Big Bang cosmology is all about???
Yeah, big bang cosmology says that all matter was at one point concentrated in one small part, which then exploded and caused the universe to expand. The "beginning point" of the big bang is not "the beginning" of the universe, it's just the point farthest back that we can (or need to) measure.
The matter was there before the big bang happened, and therefor you've yet to explain where it came from, and you've got no reason to say it is not eternal.
anon, the onus is on you. You are one that needs to demonstrate codes CAN come from something besides intelligence.
All codes that we EVER observe, come from where??? Minds! Every single one!!!
DNA contains codes. What is the inference??? Well, its obvious. All codes that we do know the origin of come from minds and we have not one single counter example to the contrary.
You are the one saying codes can come from somewhere else. This demands evidence. Provide it.
Evolution is a natural process, don't imply that nature was engineered, because something had to engineer your engineer, and implying an "engineer" isn't a solution, it's an unnecessary workaround. You're "engineer" can't be eternal, if he can, then then nature is eternal, and there's no reason for the engineer.
Coded information, instructions, and plans in DNA give us 100% inference to design. Codes cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry. Codes only come from mental processes.
This universe had a beginning. Therefore nature cannot be eternal, it had a beginning. The cause of this universe is outside of it. There has to be a uncaused original cause of all finite caused things. Or you end up with an infinite regression of finite causes. Therefore, an eternal uncaused cause exists.
"Coded information" is subjective. We consider it "designed" but do you know why that is? WE ARE A PRODUCT OF THAT PROCESS. Essentially what you're saying is "we don't know how nature go there, so god dunnit".
On the second issue, let me show you where you got it wrong...
"This universe had a beginning."
What right do you have to say that the universe had a beginning? If the universe "MUST" have a beginning, so does you "eternal cause", you can't special plead.
Coded information certainly is not subjective. The codes are REAL, they produce REAL effects, they produce REAL physical structures. The codes do this wether we are here to observe it or not.
All the scientific data today tells us the universe is finite, NOT eternal. It had a beginning. If the cause of the universe is finite, then it also needs a cause. But if this rule applies for all the causes, we run into a infinite regress of finite causes. Logic dictates a UNCAUSED first cause exists.
What I'm telling you is that the phrase "coded information" is subjective. You mean "coded" as in it had to be made by an outside source, but what it really means is it was developed by an undirected process.
You're still asserting that the universe is finite, when you don't know that. What you know is that the universe is expanding, but that's almost certainly just a change in position. an "Uncaused first cause" is a self-refuting Idea, if it's uncaused, then it cannot cause anything.
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 book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
It's ironic that finches and mocking birds were the driving forces behind Darwin's theory!
You can cherry pick birds in the same way as you can pick bible/ quran verses to prove a point. I didn't see an emu or an ostrich flying during this - mainly ospreys and humming birds?!
I'm afraid that if the quran's publication signals the end of all islamic scientific learning then our muslim bretheren are in for a tough time of things!
Muslims did spend a fair proportion of that time leading in science, it's important that they continue to try, despite whatever their modern social pressures may be.
Too often the koran/ bible is used as a barrier for progress. They both should be ignored for the most part.
I had no idea who hovind was (i'm not american) but, "God" bless wikipedia, i
I wouldn't worry too much about sharing plans, my desire to write a paper on dinosaur metabolism is limited by both desire and knowledge, I wont steal it, promise!
I work with a number of arab (and other muslim) researchers, all good scientists. I'm afraid it's the mainstream I worry about.
I'd take the book on evolution over relgion every time! good work!
"Even if they wanted to, they could not make their wings any different."
I really doubt the maker of this video had such an immense lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Instead, he's purposely distorting the theory to mislead his viewers. Isn't lying against the Muslim faith?
If something is true, do you really have to lie to promote it?
yes it is wrong to lie*, and as a muslim, I'm pissed that another would do this.
the qur'an never said birds were perfect-only that they were a wonderous design (you do have to agree with that, no?). It merely says to look up at the bird, and to admire god's work-in my case, my thought on this is not very different to Ken Miller (so Yes, natural selection is accepted by me)
*save in wars, saving yourself/another person, and making peace. but since this video is none of that, its wrong.
This video's catastrophically wrong. I think you'd really enjoy the articles at New Scientist on evolution. They're on the main home page. Just read them, because if you're right, what harm could it do?
The fact that the birds muscle responsible for its upstroke is seemingly poorly designed for its function as it has to go up and around and back instead of being on the other side of the muscle responsible for the down stroke, the reason for this is that it is the easiest way for it to evolve instead of producing an entirely new muscle. If I can find any more info I'll post it.
I saw one video where a iraqi "scientist" debated with several other scientists about the world being flat and backs it up with the Koran. Why on earth can humans become so stupid and willingly accept it? It is Religion. FICTION, Not FACTS.
Your all correct. Allah didn't create anything. Because allah doesnt exist. He was originally a wooden idol amongst many in a polytheistic society in ancient Babylon.
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. The God of the Bible is the ONLY God that exists and He created everything. Even the wood that they used to carve allah out of originally. One day every knee will bow to Jesus Christ the Son of God. If you believe on Him in this life then you will live forever.
If allah designed wings for flight than why are there some birds that have wings that cannot fly? And again, why are there birds with feathers that do not fly if the feathers are designed for flight?
Shoot-fahr, ah thought ah'd seen it all, but gollie! We got ourselves evolvin', testin' birds!
Them birds must be smart!
But seriously-- how many millions of species of "protobirds" must have died out in getting to where they had all the characteristics required for flight?
Is this really attributable to random selection, or even non-random selection...?
why do they always say there's no way things could come purely from chance or coincidence, no ones saying other wise. That and the bird is in no way perfect.
You are being brainwashed, do a quick search on evolution, spend an hour a day watching videos if you don't like reading, learn something useful and stop being lied to. Believing in evolution does not disprove God. Do yourself a favor, educate yourselves.
common dutchman, you don't seriously beleive this stuff? if you really carea botu this stuff.why not look into why and how this stuff happens instead of just saying allah did it.... where does saying allah did it do for you?
he says "you cant believe this stuff because it can't be true... why not try to find out how stuff actually happened instead of just saying allah did it."
"It would be utterly illogical to believe that this design could come about through blind coincidences."
Very true, I totally agree. Luckily, natural selection is not a "blind" or "coincidental" force. It gives creatures exactly the kinds of features that suit their needs, as the video says.
Seriously, before you attack evolution, try to, like, understand it?
Wow. The master of the universe spends his time designing birds? Are you kidding? And Evolution is blind chance? Wow.
ZListon 1 year ago
@ZListon
see,maybe the master of the universe is outside the delusion of "time"
and how much ever the fact of natural selection helps,what you need to bring all the new information to the gene pool of a miserable bacteria how the hell ever it got there out of dead matter is uncontrolled "random" mutations
the blind chance analogy isnt that wrong...
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
@ZListon @ZListon
see,maybe the master of the universe is outside the delusion of "time"
and how much ever the fact of natural selection helps,what you need to bring all the new information to the gene pool of a miserable bacteria how the hell ever it got there out of dead matter is uncontrolled "random" mutations
the blind chance analogy isnt that wrong...
HighFlyingDutchman 1 year ago
plzzzzzzzzzzzz watch the watchman argument
ilovetheview47 1 year ago
Another misinterpretation of evolution as "blind chance". The don't mention and of the "design flaws" that many birds have. For instance, many have wings that are all but useless for flight, most hummingbirds have to consume food almost constantly because their bodies are so ineficient. Many species have to eat more than their own body weight every hour in nectar just to survive. You'd think an all knowing being could have come up with a better "design".
allamericanjoe2002 2 years ago
Don't mention the supracoricoideus ligament
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Even my calculator has a solar backup.
Craydon 1 year ago
@allamericanjoe2002 you must be a dumb idiot !!! With comments like that, you probably never passed 2nd grade, or simply don't understand nature, or simply are just looking for a response.Tell me which one it is and I will help you !
buschmann69 1 year ago
@buschmann69 Really? Please expound on your point... I won't bother to point out the redundancy of your infantile insult simply because it should be obvious unless you're yet in grade school. You really should make a better argument when you respond to ones post. You gave me exactly the uneducated response from a christian simplton I would have expected. I can only infer that you suggest evolution IS blind chance?
allamericanjoe2002 1 year ago
We simply do not live out the implications of an atheistic worldview, as if there is no reason or purpose to our existence. We desire purpose and meaning in a world that is purposless and meaningless??? We desire things to be 'right' to be 'perfect.' But why if it truely is a meaningless and purposless existence? I find that VERY odd. Just maybe death is UNATURAL. We crave what this world simply can't give us.Simply ODD! Jesus said.."life and immortality has been brought to light"
nvutube7 2 years ago
This video makes it soud that we as people and animals were created only for the amusement of a creator, since none of the attributes belong to the animal or to evolution, but to (Name your god).
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
Why don't we simply omit our moral beliefs? We have no empirical proof of what is right or wrong. A concensus of morality does not prove it. Example, the majority of germans thought killing jews was right.
The inclusion of such moral limitations on our freewill has only caused man to kill man and create wars over these 'believed' right and wrongs.
nvutube7 2 years ago
The concept of a freewill, to me is a non argument. Men will do what they please within their own personal standards that benefits them in their day to day lives. Just as killing all those around you would be detrimental and could further hinder your own ease of existence. The killing of jews, or any other genocidal act only pits the strong against the weak, where the so called chosen are exempt, while those that do not fit the description, are slaughtered for geographical or birth differences.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
If we were made for a Gods 'amusement' (which is not the case, Biblically speaking) that is still not evidence that a God doesn't exist. It is merely an emotional, moral and theological objection. For example, the fact that torture chambers are disgned to torture people is not evidence that they are not designed.
nvutube7 2 years ago
To have a designer also does not prove that a god designed it. Your point also could allude to a collaberation of a number of designers who worked together to create something, which could have also just as easily been created by a sole creator, as long as the skills and proper tools needed are available.
A deeper issue remains, why would a god build humans, animals, fish and all of the other creatures? To what purpose, if for any purpose at all. The more we delve, the more confusing.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
Yes, the information theory argument does not attempt to identify the designer...it merely gives us 100% inference that life is designed.
Is life designed and who is the designer are two seperate questions.
To determine who, how many or what the designer is, is another argument.
Again, the un-known identity of a designing agent is not evidence that life was not designed.
Finding a painting in the woods where no human can be found, is not an argument the painting was not painted.
nvutube7 2 years ago
So if one day you find a sandbar where none existed, you would assume that someone designed it for a reason? Or that a deformed or mentaly challenged child was purposely designed that way for some unknown reason? Thats like saying that if you put a piece of toast into a toaster, and an image was toasted into it that looked like the virgin mary, that god himself came down and designed that image? Cause if there is a design, there must be a designer?
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
Of course not. Those things fall within the statistical probabilities of time and chance occurrences. But the occurrence of life / DNA does not. That is why the 'chance occurrence of life' hypothesis is no longer considered plausible.
Deformities, disease and death are all the result of genetic information entropy. In other words..'something has gone wrong.' In the biblical 'fall' - creation has been separated from it's input.
The erosion of a design is not evidence against design.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Using the bible as a guide wipes out all of your statements and insights. You very sensibly present your argument and then you ruin it by using the bible as some fact filled tome. You are saying that a god created us by merely mentioning us into reality or by the simple wave of his hand? Yet you feel that the chance occurence of life is an improbability? If you are going to believe in one type of fairy tale, then chance occurence is not too far fetched using your own standards.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
Biblically speaking, I merely observed it makes consistent statements with intelligent design theory.The biblical statement that creation is under a 'fallen' condition is consistent with 'design gone wrong' in nature...i.e., disease, deformities and death. Genetic information entropy.
How does God 'create' things? I don't know. Just as there are many unanswered questions in science, so to are they in theology.
nvutube7 2 years ago
There is nothing consistent about the bible or any other religious doctrine. As for the fallen condition theory, biology would ace that also since it makes more sense then a designer who is supposed to be all knowing and yet still allows these flaws. He does not try to correct or improve on his created subjects.There is obviously no intent in the bible for things to live forever, just by having fruit trees and other vegetables and animals that consume each other indicates a begining and an end.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
The Bible is beautifully coherent and consistent from Genesis to Revelations. Paradise lost to paradise restored. From beginning to end...the theme of redemption fills every page. Only one lacking biblical exegesis would claim the Bible is not consistent. Now...ones 'interpretation' most certainly can be inconsistent!
As for God 'allowing these flaws', it is not an argument that God is incapable of correcting them...it is merely a God allowing consequence.
nvutube7 2 years ago
I am not against the bible for the artistic and emotional writings, just pointing out the errors.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. (Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
MT 5:16 Good works should be seen.
MT 6:1-4 They should be kept secret.
JN 1:1, 10:30 Jesus and God are one.
JN 14:28 God is greater than Jesus.
Your criteria for truth in the bible appears to be suspended or at least held at bay, no empirical evidence here.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
Echos, biblical inconsistencies such as those offered by 'the skeptics anotated bible' etc...are based on a lack of biblical exegesis, and are taken out of context spun to give the appearance of a contradiction. People are supposed to notice your good works openly because your good character permeates them, not because of your attempt to have them see how "good" and "great" you are. The former is humility. The latter is prideful and wrong. The Pharisees did them openly with wrong intention.
nvutube7 2 years ago
There are aplogetic answers and explanations for all such 'alleged' inconsistencies, if one is honestly looking for answers.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Please explain why there are approximately 20,000 (more actually) recognised interpretations of "the infallible word"..........Seems a little odd to me that a perfectly scripted book can be so terribly misinterpreted by so many. Men can write books that are more consistent.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha. You can't be serious?
burkeyatm 2 years ago
100% of human observation tells us programming, software and coded information ONLY comes by intelligence. A naturalistic explanation of the origin of the genetic code is just that, a belief based on ZERO empirical evidence. Programming never is produced bottom-up, it is 100% of the time produced top-down. If you disagree, all you need is an example of a code that did NOT come from a mind. Just one.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Much of your argument makes sense and is logical in its definition and presentation, but, you should also address the source of any prescriptive information through non-supernaturalistic natural processes. You are also correct in that the simplest known living organisms are replete with empirical evidence of organizational unity and coherence which directs future biochemical events toward undeniable ends and purposes. (Continued)
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
But, using or appealing to unknown laws constitutes a "naturalism of the gaps," corresponding to supernaturalists' appealing to a "God of the gaps" for scientific explanation. Neither is acceptable in naturalistic science. Just as you require empirical evidence for my view, you should also need to provide empirical evidence for the god theory, without the use of any religious doctrine, for as you know, are not a great source of scientific information or evidence.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
Well said! RAmen!
burkeyatm 2 years ago
Thanks for the backup!!!
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
The syllogism goes like this...
1) DNA contains coded information.
2)All examples of coded information where we know the origin, has always been the result of intelligence.
3)Thus we have 100% inference to design in DNA.
If you disagree, all that is needed is a single counter example. Just one.
nvutube7 2 years ago
The problem with your argument is that you've made several, possibly faulty, presuppositions and then begun to ask questins that simply confirm your presuppositions..........
burkeyatm 2 years ago
The problem is, most people already have a preconcieved bias, and the question is settled for them deep down. And what follows is an emphasis on any evidence that supports that bias, and a dismissal of any contrary evidence that does not. We are all subject to this temptation if we are not careful.
nvutube7 2 years ago
I have approached the 'BIG QUESTION' of God for many years now, and was a hardboiled atheist for the most part.But the more we discover about this world and life itself,the harder it is to remain a unbeliever in a supreme intelligence,even in the face of all the problems it now has.Even the very fact that we 'assume' the world is not 'right' or not the way it 'ought' to be suggest there is a way it SHOULD be.I believe this inclination we have, among several, points towards purpose in the world.
nvutube7 2 years ago
DNA. This is the answer you seek. Do you have ANY empirical evidence to suggest that DNA was DEFINITELY created by intelligence? Do you realise that DNA isn't even a code? WE have coded it to make it possible to understand.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
DNA cannot be offered as an example of coded information that is 'known' not require intelligence. Since the question is whether DNA required intelligence or not, you cannot derive the premise from the desired conclusion. That would be circular reasoning.
And yes, we have 100% of human observation that coded information ALWAYS is the result of intelligence. There is not a single KNOWN example to the contrary, unless you would like offer one.
Also...DNA is literally coded information.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Why does not the chance occurence of life fit into statisttical probabilities? Are we here because someone created us, or just a product of our environment where certain environments occured and where we then devoloped over time into our current state? Are deformities, disease and death truly the result of entropy, or just a continuation of our development, where things sometimes go wrong due to environmental or other issues. The biblical fall of man is not a fact, and should not be used.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
But programing (genetic coding) is at the heart of ALL life... and there are NO EMPIRICALLY KNOWN causes that are sufficient to produce software EXCEPT intelligence. This is what we KNOW. Science had ONE cause that is KNOWN to produce coded information and that is intelligent processes. The burden of proof lies with the one who claims programing,software and coded information can arise UNINTELLIGENTLY! We have no examples of this. Not one.
nvutube7 2 years ago
We both agree it had to come from somewhere, the source is the question. If I understand you correctly, only a creator could have installed the programming to get the ball rolling. But as can be seen through nature itself, it has the will to survive and thus develop into what we know today, obviously not an easy process based on the millions or even billions of years that have come and gone, giving even the simplest form of life time to progress, no less miraculous then a god theory.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
Yes, only intelligent agents are empirically KNOWN to produce coded information, programming and software etc. Which is a crucial ingredient in life. The laws of physics and chemistry cannot account for coded information. Codes which are symbolic, are only known to be the product of minds.If someone wants to postulate coded information can arise through un-intelligent processes,the onus is on them to provide evidence for it.For now,the only scientific inference that can be made is intelligence.
nvutube7 2 years ago
How do you know that "only intelligent agents are empirically KNOWN to produce coded information"? Have you looked into every single possibility that ever existed? Your method is SERIOUSLY lacking in scientific method. If your claims were even vaguely true, I.D. would have been introduced as a scientific theory - but it hasn't because it IS NOT SCIENCE.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
How do we know that only intelligent agents are empirically KNOWN to produce coded information? Because in 100% of the cases where we KNOW the origin of an observed example of coded information,we KNOW it was the result of intelligence. Can you think of a counter example of this empirical observation? DNA cannot be used,it is the one example that is in question.One camp 'believes' its coded information arose without intelligence,the other has 100% inference that codes NEVER arise unintelligently
nvutube7 2 years ago
Arguing that nature has a will to survive doesn't explain the programming that gives it that appearance.Biological processes are controlled by coded informaion..genetic software.Computers can log on to the internet for automatic updates and do many other processes all in the absence of a'guiding intelligence' intervening.The operation of biological processes does not explain the origin of the programming running them any more than computers carrying out processes accounts for it's programming.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Again, DNA. The fallacies in your arguments are numerous. The burden of proof lies with those climing that an intelligent designer, outside of space and time (or whatever definition gets you hot)exists.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
So...again, the onus is on you, or anyone else who asserts that coded information can arise someother way besides intelligence! We KNOW codes can arise by intelligence. We merely 'believe' they can arise WITHOUT it. 100% of our experience empirically proves minds can produce codes while we have zero examples of it comming someother way. We must remember naturalistic materialism 'hypothesizes' coded information in DNA arose WITHOUT intelligence. But, for now, intelligence is the only proven one.
nvutube7 2 years ago
The first problem with your argument is that we are using "inteliigence" to find "intelligence". It IS possible that WE are the only "intelligent" life form in the universe. If this was true, wouldn't it just be a coincidence that we find "intelligence"?
burkeyatm 2 years ago
The coincidence is that we have found a strikingly unique artifact that is ONLY known to be the result of intelligent processes at the heart of life, coded information.The inference is that it to is the result of intelligence.There are no counter examples of codes being the result of something else.Science infers that the universe obeys a fixed set of discoverable laws,we cannot prove this,it might be wrong,but we have 100% of prior observations that this is so.Same with codes.100% inference.
nvutube7 2 years ago
I think your understanding of science may be slightly incorrect. Science observes things AND THEN attempts to make predictions based on the observations (basically). For a theory (prediction) to be accepted it must be VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE and FALSIFIABLE. Your theory doesn't pass the test - it lacks ANY of those foundations. I may have over simplified science but essentially what I have described is reasonably accurate.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
This is not a 'deductive' proof. We cannot 'deductively' prove gravity will be the same tomorrow, but we can infer it based on 100% of past observations. The same with entropy, the speed of light, and the law of conservation of matter and energy. It's possible they may not be constant...but the purden of proof is on the one who claims they might not be. Thus goes the same for codes...100% of our observations shows us only intelligence produces them. 100% inference.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Here is a summarisation of your argument - "only intelligence can create codes" - beings on this earth are the only
witnessed "intelligence" that we have - therefore WE or something on this planet MUST have written the code for DNA. It's a ridiculous argument that falls apart when even vaguely scrutinised. If there were ANY scientific basis it wouldn't have been thrown out of court so easily.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
Im willing to consider a counter example of a code that did not come from an intelligent processes. Just as Im willing to consider a counter example of gravity not being constant. But until then, the only logical and rational inference that science can make at this time is...that codes only result from intelligent processes. There simply is no KNOWN counter example to the contrary. Just like gravity.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Mate, I agree that we HAVE NOT seen an example of intelligence producing a code, but your logic is fallacious - it's an argument from ignorance (and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense). You're argument is basically that because we haven't seen something happen It CANNOT be possible which is a fallacy. As an atheist even I accept that "god is possible" - unlikely, but possible. To suggest that something is IMPOSSIBLE just because you've never seen evidence of it is absurd.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
Because life has turned out to be FAR more complex than originally thought.
I have no problem with 'evolution,'what I have a problem with is that successful evolution is driven by random mutations (mistakes,errors etc) filtered by natural selection.Rather,evolution is a intercellular genetic algorithm!An algorithm that continually searches for benificial changes according to an ever changing evironment.And the 'harmful' mutations are the result of information entropy.Two types of mutations!
nvutube7 2 years ago
So what you are saying, even though you say some one or something created the universe, that once it was created, it was left to its own devices to evolve as it would see fit? This creator gave it its information, and the spark of life and then kicked it out the door to fend for itself. Aside from bringing aliens into the picture, who would also have the same questions of their beginings to deal with, are you leaning towards a god who is this master builder who had time to create it all?
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
Yes, a prescribed evolution that unfolds. A genetic algorithm, preprogrammed to multiply and fill every ecological niche possible. Like a Swiss army, life is knife front-loaded with all the tools (genetic information) that would be benificial somewhere sometime eventually.
A Master Creator seperate, distinct and outside of the universe where time is meaningless.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Could you please explain how something can exist outside of everything? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this claim?
burkeyatm 2 years ago
How can something exist outside of every'thing'?Well,'everything' in the physical universe, itself had a definite beginning at the big bang.The universe and every'thing' in it is natural...therefore its cause lies outside of itself and by definition must be 'supernatural' not being contained within the natural. And to go further,the first cause of all that has been caused logically must be uncuased, thus eternally existent. If not, we run into a infinite regress of finite causes.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Why did God create several creatures? And to what ultimate purpose?
I don't know.
nvutube7 2 years ago
The origins of life question can be put simply...
Can life with all the specified complexity we observe be the product of mere time and chance or not. The mounting evidence suggests not, leaving the only known alternative that is sufficient to produce what we observe...intelligence.
nvutube7 2 years ago
There has never been any suggestion that "chance" is a major player in the cause of life.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
The analogy of biological processes and computer processes is valid in the context of 'coded information' - programming...which controls inanimate mindless materials in the absense of any intelligence within the system itself. The intelligence is contained in the coded information itself. Thus both biological and computer processes are both governed by coded information (software). All software where the origin is known, has 100% of the time been the result of intelligence. DNA has it.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Yeah, the fact that something mutates does not make it intelligent. Everything mutates with time, that's not intelligence, that's mutation (one of the core concepts of evolution).
You're still caught on this concept that information can only arise from intelligence. A rock is sitting on a hill. The location, density, size, etc of that rock is all information. None of that information was made by an intelligence.
anon4654 2 years ago
Well I gotta run for now, nice discussion at any rate.
I ask when you lay your head down tonight, ask this one question..."are mutations really random? or might they actually be engineered algorythims seeking beneifcial changes?"
And yes, rocks sitting on a hill contain a state whereby we can come along and interpret it as information in our minds.
Coded information gets encoded, transmitted, then decoded.
nvutube7 2 years ago
So you've just admitted that the rock being there is information that is not encoded by a coder, but information nonetheless. I honestly couldn't care weather there is someone directing our mutations. If there is, they sure suck at it... our thumb is way too short and completely lacking in dexterity. Our eye has a blind spot right in the middle of it. We utterly fail at simple mathematical comprehension.
It's for these reasons that if a designer is out there, he sucks at his job.
anon4654 2 years ago
The new theory of evolution. Beneficial mutations are not "mindless or random," but are engineered algorithms that continually search for beneficial changes according to a organisms environment.
I cannot do your homework for you. Again, your objections are utterly and thoroughly addressed on his site and in his debate at infidels. It's all there if you care enough to look. If you don't care enough to do that, you don't care enough to find out.
nvutube7 2 years ago
The website I offered is for those who care enough to investigate for themselves. Its not for those who simply want to argue. Im not here to argue or debate.
CosmicFingerprints . com
nvutube7 2 years ago
And to your objection that everything "mutates,' does not make it intelligence, I point this out.
Intelligence can work through derived conditions. Example. Humans design thermostats. We design houses that use them. We set it to maintain ( by design) a certain condition in the house. A certain temp will be maintained in the absence of any direct human intervention. All on it's own! Certain stimuli produce certain reactions. All by design.
Evolution is an engineered algorithm!
nvutube7 2 years ago
Comment removed
nvutube7 2 years ago
James Shapiro notes that when a protozoa splices its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces and re-arranges them, this is not a random or haphazard process, this is a highly engineered process.
This same process of intelligent evolution is how your immune system learns to fight off germs its never seen before: It systematically tries different combinations and once its cracked the code on the invading disease,it passes those changes onto daughter cells.
Random mutation is a urban legend!
nvutube7 2 years ago
DNA is a fantastically sophisticated and elegant communication protocol. It has error correction, redundancy, self-healing characteristics, repair mechanisms, and an amazing, adaptive, evolutionary algorithm.
James Shapiro notes that when a protozoa splices its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces and re-arranges them, this is not a random or haphazard process, this is a highly engineered process.
nvutube7 2 years ago
This same process of intelligent evolution is how your immune system learns to fight off germs its never seen before: It systematically tries different combinations and once its cracked the code on the invading disease, it passes those changes onto daughter cells. Your own immune system is a miniature model for evolutionary biology.
Adaptation through internal celular genetic engineering as described by McClintock and Shapiro.
The "random mutation" theory, sadly, is an urban legend.
nvutube7 2 years ago
LMAO!
If there was an "intelligent evolution" than we wouldn't DIE. We would immediately have the intelligence to know how to fight off every disease. You're way over-simplifying how our immune system works. You don't just "try and crack the code" with "random mutations of daughter cells".
If you're going to undermine the work that every biologist has ever done, at least understand what it is that you're criticizing.
I'm done here, as clearly you don't deserve the time of day.
anon4654 2 years ago
The reason we have birth defects, aging, extinction and death is: Random mutation. Information Entropy. A slight corruption of the signal is all it takes for the design to degrade over time and malfunction. Random Mutation is noise, noise is entropy, entropy is irreversible. Entropy causes birth defects, aging, extinction and death. NOT eyes, ears, new limbs and superior new features. The Random Mutation Theory of Evolution is an inversion of the most ludicrous kind.
nvutube7 2 years ago
It is far and away the most widespread, most absurd, most damaging urban legend in the 1000 year history of science. To a communications engineer its more ludicrous than a flat earth.
The fact that millions of scientists still believe it only shows us how easily we human beings can be conned.
I think people believe this because its the most convenient way to omit God from the discussion.
nvutube7 2 years ago
You make it sound as if omiting a god is a bad thing?
Why are there no buildings that are made by a god? Surely he can create the universe, how hard would a building be to protect those that he created? The inclusion of god has only caused man to kill man and create wars in his name. This does not put the blame on the god, but the men who believe in him/her. But who is to say that if there was no god, that we as humans would have not done the same things, only in someone elses name.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
The abuse of a belief in a 'God' is not evidence against a God. The abuse of guns is not evidence that guns are bad. The abuse of human freewill is not evidence against the goodness of freewill. The abuse of anything can be bad, but is not an argument that the 'object' being abused is bad itself or wrong...i.e a belief in God. Many clothed and fed starving people right now are the result of a 'proper' belief in God andwould argue your point Echos.
Peace.
nvutube7 2 years ago
I agree with some of your statements, would you also agree that religious doctrines and dogmas also be put aside when discussing the existence of a god. Since there are so many views on what a god is or is not, I believe that any religious notions only get in the way. The base question being, is there a god, is there currently still a god or did he only exist at one time if at all, since it seems that biologicaly we get along without any supernatural intervention.
EchosFromaBlankMind 2 years ago
Yes, initially. The information theory argument cannot identify the 'Designer' but gives us 100% inference that life is designed.
I would argue that life "getting along" without any direct supernatural intervention is also not evidence it's origin came about without supernatural intervention. Computer processes can carry on for eons once a coded algorithm is in place. A computer can log on for automatic updates in the absense of direct human intervention for example.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Analogies like computers just don't stack up when you're discussing "life". The two things are so fundamentally different that most analogies are useless, particualrly within the context thet you're asserting them.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
A rock is a rock. It has no coded information. It has no plans for another rock, no instructions to build another rock, no encodeing system using symbols. No decoding mechanism. DNA on the other hand has a complete plan using coded information to construct another oganism other than itself. The DNA molecule has its own characteristics about itself, like a rock, but a rock has no coded plan to build a completely different structure than itself. You are missing the point.
nvutube7 2 years ago
A rock is like a book with blank pages. Both have facts about themselves that we draw upon and give meaning to. But a book with a story and DNA both have coded information that carries a message. One DNA molecule has coded instructions of how to build another structure besides itself. Thats coded information.
nvutube7 2 years ago
When we look at a rock, a hill we create representations of those things in our minds.But within those objects themselves there are no symbolic representations.DNA,however, contains a symbolic representation.The codons GGG symbolically represent Glycine.Glycine is produced when the code is decoded.This is an encode/decode operation and a code which cannot be derived from the laws of physics.Because DNA uses symbols and purely material objects do not,it is in a separate category.
nvutube7 2 years ago
This did not happen through accidental random mutation.
If life evolved from a single cell, this happened through an ingenious algorithm that engineers its own beneficial mutations.
This is an engineering feat of the most amazing proportions imaginable.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Dr. James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago is one of the leading researchers in this field. Let me share with you about what hes discovered about protozoa.
A cell under stress will splice its own DNA into over 100,000 pieces. Then a program senses hundreds of variables in its environment and then re-arranges those pieces to produce a new, better, evolved cell. A protozoa re-programs its own DNA and evolves. Intelligently.
nvutube7 2 years ago
The random mutation theory, sadly, is an urban legend.
INTERESTING FACTOID: This same process of intelligent evolution is how your immune system learns to fight off germs its never seen before: It systematically tries different combinations and once its cracked the code on the invading disease, it passes those changes onto daughter cells. Your own immune system is a miniature model for evolutionary biology.
nvutube7 2 years ago
From experiecne, we know that information can be measured in any sequence that is digital, linear and segregated. Therefore the information in the genome can be measured. Therefore the genome ( the "code" you keep rambling about) can come about naturally. No need for an intelligence
anon4654 2 years ago
Measuring information in no way accounts for how coded information arose in the first place. I have no problems with evolution. Its just not based on "random" mindless mutations. They are engineered algorithms. With possibly a mechanism that detects permutations that have already been tried unsuccessfully
Check out that link I sent you pm.
nvutube7 2 years ago
If you've read any of his work, you'd also know that he himself refutes the idea of a designer. A genome is digital, linear and segregated. The digits in this case are the letters of an alphabet, each one different from the other. The letters of the alphabet of the genome are the 64 codons of DNA and RNA. The letters are in a sequence in DNA and RNA, so they are linear. And they are separate and distinct from one another, so they are segregated.
anon4654 2 years ago
"There is nothing in my publications that indicates I support
Intelligent Design." - Hubert Yockey, April 1999
Eat your own appeal to authority
anon4654 2 years ago
Dont confuse what he says: " that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering."
With what his personal beliefs are. Huge conflation you are making there.
He says its origins are "unknowable."
nvutube7 2 years ago
Yockey never once said that all codes need a coder. Find me that quote and I will eat my computer monitor.
I'm not in denial, you're a false-information spewing tool who can't stand to be called out on your bullshit.
Oh, and even though yockey is a creationist, he still accepted the fact that the abiogenesis has yet to be explained in a scientific way.
anon4654 2 years ago
Yeah, in case you missed it, I demolished your argument when I pointed out your false definition of "code". You say that code requires a coder, and a decoder. Then you tell me to find "code" that doesn't have one of either. Your definition is loaded, and therefor your argument is invalid.
anon4654 2 years ago
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
Deal with the experts. You are the one in denial. Sorry.
DNA certainly contains coded information.
nvutube7 2 years ago
And such systems, based on 100% of human observation ONLY come from minds.
You say there are no other codes that occur naturally, you are correct. Only minds make them. DNA has them.
The inference is obvious. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate coded information can come from something other than minds.
I await.
nvutube7 2 years ago
I cannot do your homework for you. Again, your objections are utterly and thoroughly addressed on his site and in his debate at infidels. It's all there if you care enough to look. If you don't care enough to do that, you don't care enough to find out.
If your satisfied with the conclusions you have come to, thats your choice.
The website I offered is for those who care enough to investigate for themselves. Its not for those who simply want to argue.
nvutube7 2 years ago
"There is nothing in my publications that indicates I support
Intelligent Design. " - Hubert Yockey, April 1999
I've done more biology work than you will ever pretend to do kid. Learn to do real science
anon4654 2 years ago
I respect the work you may have done. But try interpeting the work as observing a engineered algorythim.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Ah, so now you're using a false definition to make your claim true. Code does not have to be exchanged between two things to make it code. I'll give you a great example. PI (the number), if deciphered contains every known audio track ever created. Every letter ever written, and every thought you've ever had can be decoded from PI. PI is not "created", nor is it intended to be "decoded". However it does contain code, and it can be deciphered to say literally everything.
anon4654 2 years ago
It doesnt matter if a definition is arbitrary, as long as the defintion stays consistant when we use it. A definition is a means to pinpoint what is being discussed.
As you noted, PI fails for being coded information, there is no decoding.
For the third time. Coded information is a message, plan, instructions, or idea that gets encoded, using agreed upon symbols between the endocer and decoder, then transmitted, the decoded. Ruminate on this for a minute until it becomes clear please.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Here's a "code" that comes about without a designer. A rock is sitting on the top of a hill. It is there, that is information. In the definition that you've provided "code" is any form of information. No intelligence put that rock there, no intelligence moved it.
If you want me to give you a better description of code coming about, give me a definition of "code". What is this "code" you speak of, and what characteristics does it have.
anon4654 2 years ago
Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols.
DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Pertaining to the rock. There is no information there encoded or to be decoded. It is only a rock. It only has information when we observe it and asign information to it.
DNA on the other hand actually comunicates a coded plan, information. It encodes and decodes this information wether we are there or not. The information represents a real physical structure to be built.
nvutube7 2 years ago
You've still yet to define to me what exactly "code" is. The rock is on a hill. It is there, and that is information. The fact that it is there is still going to be true whether you see it or not.
Again, define for me what you consider "code" and I'll be able to give you a better example. Until then, you're just talking to yourself.
anon4654 2 years ago
Code is defined as communication between an encoder such as a writer or speaker and a decoder such as a reader or listener using agreed upon symbols.
The rock again. What information is being encoded, and how is it sending it, and who is decoding this information using agreed upon symbols??
nvutube7 2 years ago
yes "code" is there, that does not, however imply a "designer" which is what you are asserting. You got the right definitions, but your interpreting them wrong.
anon4654 2 years ago
Codes, plans, and instructions ALWAYS imply intelligence. We have 100% of human observation that these things ONLY come from minds. If you disagree all you need is one counter-example. There are none. Just like the law of gravity, we cant prove it will be the same tomorrow, but because we have 100% observation that it always acts the same, we can infer it will be the same tomorrow. Because we have no counter examples! In the exact same manner, codes ONLY come from minds. DNA has codes.
nvutube7 2 years ago
The counter example IS your example. You're asking me to note something that has no intelligence behind it, but whenever I show you one, you simply say "no that was designed by an intelligence" The reason that we can't just "infer" an intelligence is because then you get into an infinte regress. Something had to make code your coder and so on. And since every effect has a cause, there CAN NOT be a causeless effect. You can not go from "DNA LOOKS COMPLICATED" to "MY GOD DID IT".
anon4654 2 years ago
No Im asking you to provide ANY example of coded information that DOES NOT come from a mind, thats all.All you need is one.ANd my argument is falsified.
Yes,by logic there has to be a first uncaused cause of all finite things that are caused or we run into a infinite regress of cuases.Something has to be eternal. And its not the universe.
No,DNA contains precislely something that is 100% of the time produced by minds.Coded information,if you disagree,all you need is one counter example.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Basic cause and effect laws say that everything with an effect must have a cause. For that reason, the universe must have a cause correct?
Apply that exact same logic to your "eternal uncaused cause". Basic cause and effect laws say that everything must have a cause, and your "creator" is not an exception.
You've yet to bring forth any evidence to show that the universe is not eternal.
anon4654 2 years ago
You need to realize, it's everything that is finite that needs a cause. Finite things had a beginning. They need a cause. Time, space and matter all had a beginning. All modern cosmological evidence supports this. It is logically impossible to have a infinite regress of finite cause and effects.
Therefore the ONLY logical conclusion is there must be an eternal uncaused cause. There is no other available option.
You are missing the point. If we use your logic we have an infinite regress.
nvutube7 2 years ago
The concept of something eternal is self refuting because it is NOT a logical conclusion.
You still haven't even proven your premise that "all the evidence points towards a finite universe". There is in fact evidence to the contrary. All the evidence points to the universe expanding. Something that is infinite DOES NOT END and is therefor always expanding.
anon4654 2 years ago
Are you serious? And what does expanding itself imply?? Look, use logic here...if its expanding...rewind the process. Now what do you see? Get it? All comming back to a point. Hello beginning. What do you think Big Bang cosmology is all about???
nvutube7 2 years ago
Yeah, big bang cosmology says that all matter was at one point concentrated in one small part, which then exploded and caused the universe to expand. The "beginning point" of the big bang is not "the beginning" of the universe, it's just the point farthest back that we can (or need to) measure.
The matter was there before the big bang happened, and therefor you've yet to explain where it came from, and you've got no reason to say it is not eternal.
anon4654 2 years ago
anon, the onus is on you. You are one that needs to demonstrate codes CAN come from something besides intelligence.
All codes that we EVER observe, come from where??? Minds! Every single one!!!
DNA contains codes. What is the inference??? Well, its obvious. All codes that we do know the origin of come from minds and we have not one single counter example to the contrary.
You are the one saying codes can come from somewhere else. This demands evidence. Provide it.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Evolution is not a undirected process. When videos stop strawmanning evolution, I will eat my face.
anon4654 2 years ago
Evolution is an engineered process.
CosmicFingerprints . com
nvutube7 2 years ago
Evolution is a natural process, don't imply that nature was engineered, because something had to engineer your engineer, and implying an "engineer" isn't a solution, it's an unnecessary workaround. You're "engineer" can't be eternal, if he can, then then nature is eternal, and there's no reason for the engineer.
youreafuckingidiot . com
anon4654 2 years ago
Coded information, instructions, and plans in DNA give us 100% inference to design. Codes cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry. Codes only come from mental processes.
This universe had a beginning. Therefore nature cannot be eternal, it had a beginning. The cause of this universe is outside of it. There has to be a uncaused original cause of all finite caused things. Or you end up with an infinite regression of finite causes. Therefore, an eternal uncaused cause exists.
nvutube7 2 years ago
"Coded information" is subjective. We consider it "designed" but do you know why that is? WE ARE A PRODUCT OF THAT PROCESS. Essentially what you're saying is "we don't know how nature go there, so god dunnit".
On the second issue, let me show you where you got it wrong...
"This universe had a beginning."
What right do you have to say that the universe had a beginning? If the universe "MUST" have a beginning, so does you "eternal cause", you can't special plead.
anon4654 2 years ago
Coded information certainly is not subjective. The codes are REAL, they produce REAL effects, they produce REAL physical structures. The codes do this wether we are here to observe it or not.
All the scientific data today tells us the universe is finite, NOT eternal. It had a beginning. If the cause of the universe is finite, then it also needs a cause. But if this rule applies for all the causes, we run into a infinite regress of finite causes. Logic dictates a UNCAUSED first cause exists.
nvutube7 2 years ago
What I'm telling you is that the phrase "coded information" is subjective. You mean "coded" as in it had to be made by an outside source, but what it really means is it was developed by an undirected process.
You're still asserting that the universe is finite, when you don't know that. What you know is that the universe is expanding, but that's almost certainly just a change in position. an "Uncaused first cause" is a self-refuting Idea, if it's uncaused, then it cannot cause anything.
anon4654 2 years ago
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)
nvutube7 2 years ago
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
nvutube7 2 years ago
it's amazing , allah is the most high
Ayubalkaka1 2 years ago
Those poor chickens, ostriches, kiwis and dodos must have really pissed off Allah - for to have wings - and have no flight capability.
aiyic 2 years ago
Wow! Like...how can man re-create a human heart?
aiyic 2 years ago
PMSL
artyfarty2 2 years ago
It's ironic that finches and mocking birds were the driving forces behind Darwin's theory!
You can cherry pick birds in the same way as you can pick bible/ quran verses to prove a point. I didn't see an emu or an ostrich flying during this - mainly ospreys and humming birds?!
I'm afraid that if the quran's publication signals the end of all islamic scientific learning then our muslim bretheren are in for a tough time of things!
andywaggott 2 years ago
actually, its been in publicaion for 1400 years.. and for much of that time muslims led in science, but I digress:
that said, quote mining this book or any book/fact or other for one's agenda is a despicable deed, one worthy of Kent Hovind.
and I believe you know what happened to him?
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Muslims did spend a fair proportion of that time leading in science, it's important that they continue to try, despite whatever their modern social pressures may be.
Too often the koran/ bible is used as a barrier for progress. They both should be ignored for the most part.
I had no idea who hovind was (i'm not american) but, "God" bless wikipedia, i
now do!
andywaggott 2 years ago
well, its what I'm here for: help put the muslim world back in the lead (muslim Arab).
paleontology major-hope to write a definitive paper on Dinosaur metabolism. I might write a book on evolution and religion....
oh, sorry-shouldn;t share my plans XD
Albukhshi 2 years ago
I wouldn't worry too much about sharing plans, my desire to write a paper on dinosaur metabolism is limited by both desire and knowledge, I wont steal it, promise!
I work with a number of arab (and other muslim) researchers, all good scientists. I'm afraid it's the mainstream I worry about.
I'd take the book on evolution over relgion every time! good work!
andywaggott 2 years ago
No Bird can go Mach 3 -- Chechmate
Birds just have natural selection going for them.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Yeah you don't understand much about science and fill what you don't know with religion don't you.
Shom42 2 years ago 3
"Even if they wanted to, they could not make their wings any different."
I really doubt the maker of this video had such an immense lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Instead, he's purposely distorting the theory to mislead his viewers. Isn't lying against the Muslim faith?
If something is true, do you really have to lie to promote it?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
yes it is wrong to lie*, and as a muslim, I'm pissed that another would do this.
the qur'an never said birds were perfect-only that they were a wonderous design (you do have to agree with that, no?). It merely says to look up at the bird, and to admire god's work-in my case, my thought on this is not very different to Ken Miller (so Yes, natural selection is accepted by me)
*save in wars, saving yourself/another person, and making peace. but since this video is none of that, its wrong.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
The ignorance is mind-numbing... Please attain a fifth-grade understanding of evolution before spewing this shameful flat-earth stone-age crap.
killface76 3 years ago 2
This video's catastrophically wrong. I think you'd really enjoy the articles at New Scientist on evolution. They're on the main home page. Just read them, because if you're right, what harm could it do?
AuthenticPunkDance 3 years ago 2
"blind coincidences" x_x why must creationists almost always know nothing about evolution?
chessplayersmate 3 years ago 4
Allah is fake, and Mohamed is a false prophet
NorbPwn 3 years ago
SO you are a Xtian right
lol
HighFlyingDutchman 3 years ago
I hear mohamed was banging a 9 year old
hawt right
NorbPwn 3 years ago
watch the slanders against prophet Muhammad on my page
peace
HighFlyingDutchman 3 years ago
Flawless Design?
Avian flu.
Checkmate.
Rissoleking 3 years ago 2
Jesus destroyed Rome.
Fucking party pooper. That's all he was.
NeolightAnon 3 years ago
everything can be explained by science, claiming "allah" made birds flawless in design discredits everything this video said.
meaden24 3 years ago 4
Oh wow, they actually took the time to film and narrate this crap?
Venaloid 3 years ago 2
The fact that the birds muscle responsible for its upstroke is seemingly poorly designed for its function as it has to go up and around and back instead of being on the other side of the muscle responsible for the down stroke, the reason for this is that it is the easiest way for it to evolve instead of producing an entirely new muscle. If I can find any more info I'll post it.
scienceminded 3 years ago 3
Ugh, here we go again: EVOLUTION IS NOT BASED ON COINCINDENSE.
So the only argument in this video is actually: "The world is so perfect, it must have been made by God"
Also: Evolution doesn't rule out God. God/Allah could have created the species via Evolution.
Mithcoriel 3 years ago 3
"None can uphold them except (Allah) Most Gracious"
Is it just me, or doesn't this quote imply that Allah is holding them in the air, not their wings?
molewizard 3 years ago
cuckooganda
Amarventris 3 years ago
Since when does natural selection equal 'blind chance'?
Starmexus84 3 years ago 8
I saw one video where a iraqi "scientist" debated with several other scientists about the world being flat and backs it up with the Koran. Why on earth can humans become so stupid and willingly accept it? It is Religion. FICTION, Not FACTS.
l0rf 3 years ago 2
"No plane's flight control and technology, bare any comparison of those of bird's"
He couldn't have said better, (You can't highjack a bird and crash into a building).
Deanballoonatic 3 years ago 3
Wow! i didn't see the "Allah" thing coming. I thought this was a christian vid :-p
but yeah this video is silly
whatsafugazi 3 years ago 4
Your all correct. Allah didn't create anything. Because allah doesnt exist. He was originally a wooden idol amongst many in a polytheistic society in ancient Babylon.
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. The God of the Bible is the ONLY God that exists and He created everything. Even the wood that they used to carve allah out of originally. One day every knee will bow to Jesus Christ the Son of God. If you believe on Him in this life then you will live forever.
poolboy22v 3 years ago
If allah designed wings for flight than why are there some birds that have wings that cannot fly? And again, why are there birds with feathers that do not fly if the feathers are designed for flight?
jebus6kryst 3 years ago 5
In the beginning of this video he mensioned humans having tested planes for hundreds of years. Birds have millions of years of evolution behind them.
Woderftw 3 years ago 2
lol :D
HighFlyingDutchman 3 years ago
Shoot-fahr, ah thought ah'd seen it all, but gollie! We got ourselves evolvin', testin' birds!
Them birds must be smart!
But seriously-- how many millions of species of "protobirds" must have died out in getting to where they had all the characteristics required for flight?
Is this really attributable to random selection, or even non-random selection...?
sketchbook1 3 years ago
why do they always say there's no way things could come purely from chance or coincidence, no ones saying other wise. That and the bird is in no way perfect.
carnut666 3 years ago 6
You are being brainwashed, do a quick search on evolution, spend an hour a day watching videos if you don't like reading, learn something useful and stop being lied to. Believing in evolution does not disprove God. Do yourself a favor, educate yourselves.
sciampaglia 3 years ago 6
What a lie this video makes.
farvision 3 years ago 5
now...lets take a look the the chicken....
common dutchman, you don't seriously beleive this stuff? if you really carea botu this stuff.why not look into why and how this stuff happens instead of just saying allah did it.... where does saying allah did it do for you?
dale22x 3 years ago 3
I'll pay anyone $50 to translate what he said? Anyone?
DJcrackbitch 3 years ago
he says "you cant believe this stuff because it can't be true... why not try to find out how stuff actually happened instead of just saying allah did it."
pay up. lol
flamingmuffincowpie 3 years ago 2
"It would be utterly illogical to believe that this design could come about through blind coincidences."
Very true, I totally agree. Luckily, natural selection is not a "blind" or "coincidental" force. It gives creatures exactly the kinds of features that suit their needs, as the video says.
Seriously, before you attack evolution, try to, like, understand it?