|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: PROOF against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
jar writes: But who said so at the beginning when there was no human??? Life, death and reproduction. There is no goal or direction to evolution. Changes happen. There are mutations. Most are neutral, have no effect. Some are harmful, and the critter dies. Those changes, the harmful ones, don't get passed on. A few are beneficial, they help the critter live long enough to reproduce. Those get passed on to future generations. Natural selection is the filter. The critter lives long enough to reproduce, or it doesn't. It really is as simple as that. In fact, it is very simple and very logical as I showed you a clear proof how the information is created... that means -> I showed you an error what you were still doing. Simply... you didn't realize that "example" you were talking about was like that because you said so... so you realized that that "example" wasn't created by accident. Again... it was, because you said so, not by accident. And that's all about information. The only logical thing how could information (and that means life as well, everything) be created, is, that some existing "intelligence" had to say so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
yes - the universe like we have established - thanks for clearing that up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Charles Knight writes: maybe it created itself - or do you think that everything needs a creator? Everything in this world needs an information at the beginning. Nothing creates itself without it - by accident... as prooved above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
so everything needs a creator? It's a simple question, why don't you give a simple answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Well, if there was already information within the quantum fluctuation that created the information in atoms, then atoms do not contain the first information. The Casimir effect is an observable fact. In this effect, we see pairs of matter and anitmatter appear out of nothing, and then these pairs collide and create small amounts of energy. We see the creation of information ALL OF THE TIME, THROUGHOUT TIME. It is not an assumption, it is an observable fact. The Casimir effect is thought to be caused by quantum fluctuations, and the product of these fluctuations is atoms that contain information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: So was the meteor copying information when it created a circular depression in the ground?
quote: Why not? If man had never seen a circle and he saw a meteor crater, he would now know of circles. Are you saying that the meteor carries circle making information?
quote: Circles are naturally formed in nature. Man would be able to measure the characteristics of these circles. These list of characteristics would then be circle. Therefore, nature holds information that man is able to extract.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Ok, that is enough!
Everyone take this to an appropriate thread about information, physic and/or abiogenesis. yxifix, you have NOT shown that this has any connection with the topic of the thread. If anyone continues they will get a break or the thread will be shut down as too far off topic. I'll be back in a couple of hours to check. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-11-2004 01:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: the main thing is that you said that code is meaningful information. If that's the intent of a code, yes. If that's the intent of a code? You clearly stated it is! So why are you talking about intent? I'm talking about the code itself not about a 'product' code is creating!
But codes are not automatically meaningful in themselves. It's often possible to find meaning in things that cannot possibly have it; I reccomend you go cloud-gazing to observe this phenomenon. As much as a cloud might look like a rabbit or Abraham Lincoln, it's ludicrous to suggest that cloud actually contains meaning. This is a bit funny.... all what you are doing is you are copying information with meaning - because you know how the rabbit looks like! If you wouldn't know it and said the cloud looks like a rabbit, it would be meaningless because you don't know how the rabbit looks like. So you are again just using information to create another information. That means -> if cloud is a "meaningless code" and a 'rabbit-image' is 'hidden' meaning, you will need another code to find out that meaning. -> if cloud is something (meaningless information is just something, it's not information) and 'rabbit-image' is the 'hidden' meaning you will need to know rabbit -> you will need to know information which tells you that meaning. Understand? It's everytime absolutely the same situation. You are always using information to create information.
But in this case you disagree with Percy's example... No, I agree with it. Genetic codes do not contain meaning; they're part of a mechanical/chemical process that generates protiens. Hahah... now you are saying codes do not contain meaning, but some pages ago you were saying absolutely something different, do you remember??Message 286 quote: So what is this??? Unbelievable. You are changing phrases as you like!!! But nevermind - I have to tell you - well, repeat it - that if it is so, if the code do not contain meaning, than it is not information ! It's just a bunch of numbers. You will need another code (information) that tells you the meaning of that bunch of numbers - so as mentioned above, you are still using information to create information !
The gene for blue eyes doesn't actually code for blue eyes, remember - it codes for protiens that give rise to blue eyes. That's all genetic codes do - generate protiens. That's not "meaning", that's protien. Well, a bit funny once again... YES, you are right, that's not meaning, that's meaningful information! So what? So I have to ask you why proteins give rise to blue eyes?? Why genetic code generates proteins??? Oh no. Tell me one thing - what's your point in this example? I still can't see creation of information without using information.
My question is... who said so at the begenning when there was no human? It's simply a consequence of the laws of physics being the way that they are. There's a gene for blue eyes because certain protiens, when placed in the chemical envrionment of the human iris, reflect blue light. That's just a consequence of the physics of the universe. The gene doesn't "mean" anything, it generates a specific protien. No, you are writing about something else. Still the same, just in different color. Once again - message 295: your quote>
quote: Do you understand what are you saying? Why laws of physics are as they are... You are saying (applying what you said in the quote) that the laws of physics are the way that they are because "somebody" (in your quote it would be Percy) said so!!! But at that moment there was no human to say so - so WHO WAS THAT???
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" No, there weren't. Let's look at what you said:
quote: You're free to change your examples anyway you like, but please don't misrepresent the situation. I answered the question that you asked. Your original example did not include any of the additional information you have since added. message 278 ! That is a reply to your post so why are you behaving as you wouldn't know about second question??? So who is misrepresenting something, crashfrog?
And as I showed you, Percy used information to create information... so your example is nonsense. I'm not sure I truly understand. Remember that Percy was explaining how you could get new information from already-existing information through random processes. Percy wasn't trying to address how information entered the universe. Don't fault Percy because you don't understand the question he was answering. Do you think so? Well done ! Than you can tell me how the information entered the universe. Thank you ! That is the most important part
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: EXACTLY! ! - you stated - YOU SAID SO, SO IT WAS LIKE THAT Do you get it?? But who said so at the beginning when there was no human??? What he's asking is, who instituted the selection pressure; who set up the filters? The answer is nobody. Selection pressures on organisms are consequences of the laws of physics. Why are there laws of physics? That's not a question science can answer; we don't (can't?) know the restrictions on how universes can be created. We don't know that the laws of physics can even be any other way. Maybe these laws are the only laws that can exist, and moreover, maybe they can't not exist. We assume the universe came from nothing but that's just an assumption. For all any of us know it's not possible for a universe to not exist. THIS IS ONE BIG NONSENSE. Once again - message 295: your quote>
quote: Applying mentioned message to your quote, the result would be: "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? That's not a question science can answer we don't (can't?) know the restrictions on how those meanings can be created. We don't know that the meanings can even be any other way. Maybe these meanings are the only ones that can exist, and moreover, maybe they can't not exist. We assume the meanings came from nothing but that's just an assumption. For all any of us know it's not possible for a meaning to not exist " IS NOT THIS STRANGE, crashfrog? Demagogy! It is exactly the same. That means you are ONCE AGAIN saying absolutely different thing then you were saying before !!! You are changing your opinions as soon as you don't have logical arguments -> always when it is suitable to you !! SO WHAT IS THIS ???? This is a kind of discussion you do?? The truth is if you wouldn't change what you said before by 180, you would have to say, that the laws of physics are as they are because "somebody" said it will be so But you knew you can't say something like that - SO YOU ARE LYING instead of it ! UNBELIEVABLE!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Charles Knight writes: so everything needs a creator? It's a simple question, why don't you give a simple answer. But I said that - if there is no "intelligence", there is nothing in this world - so there must be a creator of this world. This is the only logical explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
you are not quite there - you are still making too much of a leap - you still haven't explained why the universe could not be this creator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Loudmouth writes: quote: Well, if there was already information within the quantum fluctuation that created the information in atoms, then atoms do not contain the first information. The Casimir effect is an observable fact. In this effect, we see pairs of matter and anitmatter appear out of nothing, and then these pairs collide and create small amounts of energy. We see the creation of information ALL OF THE TIME, THROUGHOUT TIME. It is not an assumption, it is an observable fact. The Casimir effect is thought to be caused by quantum fluctuations, and the product of these fluctuations is atoms that contain information. What? If there was? I'm asking where is that first information from? Not what would happen if it was. How did it evolve? All you are saying is "it was" ... you are right, we can see creation of information all of the time, but all of the time it is because there is another information which "produce" those informations. It's always the same question. It's always the same answer. - you can't create information without existing information! And if theory of evolution don't know (even theoretically) how to create an information without using information, it can't be able to be created anything through "evolution" - even life ! That is called PROOF that it is BIG NONSENSE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Loudmouth writes: quote: So was the meteor copying information when it created a circular depression in the ground? What?? It was using information when it created something, yes... As you can see, information was before it happened. Because of natural forces and mechanisms (as you mentioned) - they work as they work because "somebody" said so - that's the only logical explanation. So what was the point of your post if you clearly don't want to show me how the information was evolved? Thanks for a clear answer.
quote: Why not? If man had never seen a circle and he saw a meteor crater, he would now know of circles. Are you saying that the meteor carries circle making information? Do you remember a thing-that-looks-like-circle I mentioned several times? A meteor crater isn't the thing-that-looks-like-circle? I think it is ! Oh man !How the hell you want to explain me the creation of the information with this examples??? quote: Circles are naturally formed in nature. Man would be able to measure the characteristics of these circles. These list of characteristics would then be circle. Therefore, nature holds information that man is able to extract. But it is example, Loudmouth! You can change word "circle" to word "animal"! Are animals naturally formed in nature? In that case everything is naturally formed. Why? Because it is said so! The only logical explanation ! Are circles naturally formed in nature? Why? The answer is the same -> information already exists so how the hell you want to show me how the information evolved with this??? Since now, I want clear explantion of creation of the life - from the beginning THANKS.All you are writing so far is just a bunch of meaningless words for me, not answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
AdminNosy writes: Ok, that is enough! Everyone take this to an appropriate thread about information, physic and/or abiogenesis. yxifix, you have NOT shown that this has any connection with the topic of the thread. If anyone continues they will get a break or the thread will be shut down as too far off topic. I'll be back in a couple of hours to check. NosyNed is your friend, isn't he? Administrator, could you tell what is the forum name? Yes it is "ORIGIN OF LIFE" so what is the origin of life? What do you think? Isn't it a code? - information??? Haven't I clearly showed proof against evolution? Have you read whole discussion??- now I showed you this has a connection with the topic of the thread. So if you will give somebody break or you will shut down the thread, I'll remember it - I have copied whole discussion on my HD and I will show to everybody how evolutionists' arguments looks like how they are changing those arguments by 180 "from time to time" when it is suitable for them - that it is full of lies and full of demagogy.In fact, I don't really care about such discussion, bye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Charles Knight writes: you are not quite there - you are still making too much of a leap - you still haven't explained why the universe could not be this creator. I have already explained why, and I am not going to repeat it. If you don't remember what I write, your problem.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024