|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: PROOF against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: That's not the answer ! No, it is the answer to this question of yours:
quote: The reason Percy provided no explanation is because no explanation is required. Codes are arbitrary, as this one is. In fact, crashfrog, it doesn't really matter if you are talking about arbitrary or not. ... the main thing is that you said that code is meaningful information. But in this case you disagree with Percy's example... because he is using this meaningful information to create [the first] meaningful information. Understand? That's nonsense. You can't do that.
Why 0001 created blue color? In Percy's example, because 0001 codes for protiens that give rise to blue eye color. Why does 0001 code for blue eye proteins, and not 0011, for instance? Because Percy says so, and it's his example, and the precice configuration of his code is irrelevant, because codes are arbitrary. You are saying that it is blue because Percy says so. My question is... who said so at the begenning when there was no human? You are saying that there had to be an intelligence who said so... aren't you?
The problem si - there is NO definition of circle [in the example], crashfrog. You're speaking English, though. Therefore we assume Percy knows what "circle" means. It doesn't matter that you didn't define it in your example; everybody knows what the definition was. If you were speaking another language besides English, you should have said so. If you were assuming Percy was ignorant of the definition of "circle", you should have said so. But you didn't. But there were 2 question - 2 examples.... first one "Why did he draw it?", second one "Was he able to draw it if he didn't know how it looks like and didn't know what he is going to draw" - in this second one was applied your "arbitrary"-explanation of creating information. And, as you can see, it is one big nonsence.You can't use defintion of circle from first question and apply it to second question, because in second question, in fact, there is no definition "circle". Just read carefully. And I've explained it in other posts as well. And give me clear explanation of how information "evolved". Through natural selection and random mutation, in the case of genetic information. As Percy already showed you. And as I showed you, Percy used information to create information... so your example is nonsense.
So if code has a meaning... how was created that code? Percy made it up, because codes are arbitrary. The code he provided is not the real code, it's an example. But the real code is just as arbitrary, as I showed you, though the sequence for (for instance) blue eye protiens might be hundreds of these pages long, and hardly convinient as an example. It doesn't matter, though. Everything Percy showed you about his code applies to the actual genetic code sequences. It's just that his analogy was simpler. Apply 1st and 2nd answer of this post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
pink sasquatch writes: Would you be interested in responding to my original comment now? Well, I can and simply... if you don't believe in 'higher intelligence' than your question is absurd.
Essentially, I feel a problem with your arguments is that you are ignoring the possibility of a selective filter determining what parts of a random outcome are kept and which are discarded. You are saying about selective filter which is determining what parts of a random outcome are kept... my question is simple... how was created that "selective filter"? Or it just was?Before you reply, try to think what I'm saying and explaining in previous posts as well. Otherwise I would have to copy it again and again. It's quite boring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Loudmouth writes: They are saying that H2 and O2, when combusted, will form H2O. They say that each chemical reaction is predictable because of the information held in the atomic structure of the atoms. They say that certain reactions are more probable than others because of thermodynamics. The information is found in nature at the very root of matter and physics. Well done. And now please apply it to a Big Bang theory - how did it work? And you see? We are talking about information and you are saying that information was even when Big Bang happened (that should be logical in fact) - ....How did it get to those atoms? Or it just was? YOU SEE? You can't use information to create [the first] information! IS THIS NOT A PROOF ? It si senselessness - you must see it or you don't want to see it !
In the quantum fluctuation that caused the formation of positive/negative energy, and matter/antimatter. I guess you are talking about those atoms which "hold the information in the atomic structure" (your words) .... Again - don't tell me you don't see this, that you are blind. Don't tell me that, Loudmouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Coragyps writes: One example: the photosphere of a star is chock-full of atoms sending forth information, coded by the wavelengths of light they emit, about their identity, their temperature, the pressure, magnetic field, and gravitational field they find themselves in, their degree of ionization....And this information can be "read" by perfectly stupid atoms in some other part of the galaxy - all they have to do is match up absorption with the star's emission. Apply the same answer as in my reply to Loudmouth post. I will copy it: "Well done. And now please apply it to a Big Bang theory - how did it work? And you see? We are talking about information and you are saying that information was even when Big Bang happened (that should be logical in fact) - ....How did it get to those atoms? Or it just was? YOU SEE? You can't use information to create [the first] information! "
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I see what you are getting towards - the universe created itself!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Charles Knight writes: I see what you are getting towards - the universe created itself! Well, it couldn't without information. Nothing here has created itself... somebody has to decide to create it. (and this is the point where my discussion started, as you remember) [or something must recieve existing information how to create it]. Without given information, couldn't be created information itself so couldn't be created anything - including life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Nothing here has created itself But that would mean that nothing could exist! EVER! But I know the probability of the universe existing is 1, so that can't be right. No the universe must have created itself - it's the only logical solution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Charles Knight writes: Nothing here has created itself But that would mean that nothing could exist! EVER! But I know the probability of the universe existing is 1, so that can't be right.
Good thinking. Well, in fact, I realized it after I pressed "submit". I realized that I forgot something. The sentence should be like this: Nothing here has created itself without given information.
No the universe must have created itself - it's the only logical solution. But you see, it is not. So why it must be? .... The information can be produced only by intelligence, you can read the evidence in previous posts. ....the same like crashfrog said ...0001 is blue because Percy said so. ... yes, it could be brown (if he said so), it could be black (if he said so), but it was blue - simple...because he said so. .... that means everything here could be absolutely different, if "somebody" said so... And that is the logic (you are talking about).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
no that makes no sense - if the universe did not create itself, then where did it come from?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 05:16 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
no that makes no sense - if the universe did not create itself, then where did it come from? But I explained that before -> The only logical explanation is that some intelligence said so and that way created it. I (Percy and crashfrog - although they are not aware of that) have shown an example how it works in the previous post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
not at all - how is it not logical that the universe did not provide this information? Was it not likely that the universe created itself
You still fail to provide a more logical explaination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Charles Knight writes: not at all - how is it not logical that the universe did not provide this information? Was it not likely that the universe created itselfYou still fail to provide a more logical explaination. is it logical that 0001 became blue? Yes, it could be "whatever" color... But "whatever" wouldn't exist without given information! That means you are against it, as it is not logical for you and you are against crashfrog and Percy (eg) [in fact, this is nice example where you can see that evolutionists are all against themselves, that's because theory of evolution is a "blind circle - without the end (or start)", full of nonsense] -> who defend theory of evolution -> that means you don't really believe it, you just need something else to "believe"... (explanation later in this post) As I said, it's not logical for you. In fact, it is very and absolutely logical, you just don't want it to be logical, and that's the difference.To change a belief from evolution theory to mentioned 'higher intelligence' is very difficult. It's not just you have to accept prooved fact that something is different, but, and that's the most important... you would have to change the way of your life, it's the moral thing which is "blocking" you to accept it. That means if there are 100 proofs, you wouldn't accept it. Different way:Read the name of this topic. What does it say? Yes, I do not need to give you logical-for-you explanation. I'm showing you the proof against the evolution. That's all I'm doing. If it is not the proof, tell me what does "proof" mean. If you don't want to accept it [higher intelligence], that is your choice. That's also very important thing - everyone has a choice - there is absolutely no need to "kicking" somebody to "believe" in that. Why should anybody do that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
nice dodge - it's ok just to say "I don't have an answer for you".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So let's look at how the example of the circle might come about, without design.
Little kid is at daycare. Draws pictures on paper. On one paper, just by chance, he draws a circle. The teacher says keep that one and draw me another like it. Can you imagine that happening? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
jar writes: So let's look at how the example of the circle might come about, without design.Little kid is at daycare. Draws pictures on paper. On one paper, just by chance, he draws a circle. The teacher says keep that one and draw me another like it. Can you imagine that happening? jar jar jar.... you are doing everything to show that black is white. Teacher says....Why?.... Got it? Something with information says -> is giving information ! Teacher is giving information to keep it! Why teacher just don't sit whole time? Why he has to give an information to keep it? Because he's already got information which tells him to give information to keep it!You can't use information to create [the first] information! Can you see "without information there would be absolutely nothing" in that example now?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024