|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: PROOF against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
"If he starts to draw whatever creations (dashes, dots, joined dashes -> so maybe even accidentally square or circle, whatever) There is no way he could draw a circle and knew he did it, so he can save his work and start with another one. -> If theoretically he would draw a circle that way - he wouldn't recognize it, because he wouldn't know how the circle look like!!! He would just carry on drawing! So without existing meaning [of thing that will be created] there is no way you can accidentally create that thing. " But - what if there was something else in the environment with the "drawer" and the "drawings". This mindless "something else" somehow recognizes drawings of non-circles and immediately destroys them. The result is that after millions of random drawings, only circles remain. It doesn't matter if none of the forces understands the abstract concept of a "circle" - only circles persist because of the mindless selective force.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Well... are you an evolutionst? Irrelevant, "evolutionist" is just a word that likely has very different meanings for different people, and my accepting or rejecting of that label should not alter your response to my arguments. Would you be interested in responding to my original comment now? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Nothing here has created itself... somebody has to decide to create it. Who, or what, created the "information" for "somebody"?
if you don't believe in 'higher intelligence' than your question is absurd. Who, or what, created the "information" for the 'higher intelligence'? Here's direct questions to get to the point: - What do you believe the ultimate source of "information" to be?- And how is that original "information" different than all others, such that it was not derived from other information?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
If you don't know to explain it at least theoretically, the theory of evolution is NONSENSE... that's sure. What is now sure is that you are not familiar with the theory of evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life. You do realize there are many who believe that a higher power created the universe and life, but that life developed as described by the theory of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
yxifix- your complaints that I am off-topic are a bit ridiculous, since I am continuing the thread as you have come to define it in the past several pages. In fact, your last message stated:
We will not talk about creation of genetic information. We will talk about creation of information. That is the intent of the questions I posed to you. Since you have been pleading with everyone over the past hundred messages to explain the source of information, I can only find it as a ploy that you cry "off topic!" when the same questions are asked of you. Truthfully, you have not made a single comment regarding evolution in this entire thread. Do you care to contribute one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Again my beliefs have nothing to do with the science of evolution.
You've stated, "Well, as I said, there are unseparable parts of this theory which does..."[address the origin of life]. Please support this assertion, since your personal beliefs have nothing to do with the science of evolution either. What are these unseparable parts of the theory of evolution that address life origins, specifically?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
yxifix - you seem to be the one off-topic, refusing to answer questions until you've taken a poll of people's personal beliefs.
So please, do get back on-topic, and answer the question I posed in a previous message: What are the unseparable parts of the theory of evolution that address life origins, specifically?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
The creation of information. - you can include it into any part of science as you like, it will be part of evolution. Funny, when I just asked you about the creation of information you accused me of being off-topic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
yxifix-
Please explain to me specifically how the theory of evolution addresses the "creation of information", since I don't see it. Though I could easily see an argument for "change of information".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Information is at the beginning of universe, but information is at the beginning of life as well. So you have to start your theory from the beginning itself - from the evolution of information, my friend... not from existing information!!!" Many people have tried to explain it to you, and I'm not sure how to make it more clear that the theory of evolution does NOT deal with the creation of the initial information - even if you believe it does. Do you know the general meaning of the word "evolve"? I'm not entirely sure that you do, since you use it as a synonymous with "create". When something (like information) "evolves" it "changes" from what already is existing - it is not "created" without prexisting information. That is why the "theory of evolution" is not called the "theory of creation", because the information has only changed, it has not been created. We shouldn't argue past each other because of incorrect definitions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
yxifix-
That information is called DNA code actually... a cell can't be created by accident without already existing information (in this example it is a DNA code - yes it is!!!) ....so as I said this is a point where whole theory just stops!!! First, let me say that I understand your argument. I agree that the DNA code and life itself represent information. However, let me restate that your argument does NOT refute the Theory of Evolution, because the ToE does not deal with the origin of information or life. So when you state, "this is a point where whole theory just stops," you are incorrect not because of your information argument, but because of your misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the Theory of Evolution, since the ToE doesn't start until after the information has come into existence. Do you understand this point? If you check out the forum glossary, you'll find:
Evolution - Genetic changes in populations of organisms through time that lead to differences among them. Understand? Only changes, not creation If you want to continue debating the origin of information, that's fine - just understand that it does not apply to the Theory of Evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
yxifix - So you wanna proof?
Accident:1. By accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful. 2. If there is created something meaningful by accident, it can be used within existing natural laws. Information:1. By information can be created something meaningless or meaningful. 2. The information can be created by existing intelligence, by a program created by intelligece, or entirely by accident. Everything mentioned are logical facts.And this is clear proof that information can create itself by accident! As it fits with logic. There is absolutely no way you can prove the fact is not a fact using the same fact. _____________ Hopefully you've realized that I've only changed a few words of your text that you claim to be "proof" in more than one thread in this forum. Hopefully you also realize that your personal definition of these terms do not constitute "proof" any more than my reinterpretation of them does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
So I am sorry man.... you forgot about "etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc" I have mentioned. It's not just a cell can't be created without DNA code it is also: Eyes can't be created without already existing DNA code for vision. DNA code for vision can't be created without already existing vision. Again, and not surprisingly, your logic is flawed. The DNA code can come before the trait - this happens everytime genetic engineering takes place in the lab. Imagine an organism that has no light sensation - a mutation occurs in its DNA sequence that results in protein that allows the organism to detect light. The organism now has extremely rudimentary 'vision', where before there was none. Please explain specifically where this scenario is flawed, and specifically why DNA sequence cannot precede the protein it codes for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Read message 226 in different forum. There are also proofs my definitions are correct, your ones are not. The only and exact definitions are these: yxifix- All message 226 contains is your asserted definitions, a description of Pasteur's work which has no bearing on your assertions, and a poor computer analogy. Neither constitutes evidence, let alone proof. You insult everyone for not reading the entire thread - you've evidently ignored the entire thread, since the fact that your message 226 proves absolutely nothing has been explained to you numerous times. [As a side note: it is spelled "proved" - I thought you were making a typo, but since you wrote "prooved" six times in boldface in the last message I'll assume you are unaware of the correct spelling.] Just because you assert something is "proof" does not make it so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Before replying you have to show what is wrong with my proof here. I have read your infamous message 226 more than once, and have seen you use it as your proof on too many occasions. It contains:1) asserted definitions 2) the story of Pasteur and spontaneous generation 3) an analogy involving a computer in a locked room 4) insults to Mark Please explain which of these points is proof and how it explains your hypothesis on origin-of-information. Insulting me, telling me to reread the thread, or calling this a "hopeless attempt" will do nothing but reveal that there is no proof in message 226, since you refuse to defend it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024