Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROOF against evolution
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 284 of 562 (132443)
08-10-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by yxifix
08-10-2004 4:53 PM


"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by yxifix, posted 08-10-2004 4:53 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by yxifix, posted 08-10-2004 6:34 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 296 of 562 (132506)
08-10-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by yxifix
08-10-2004 6:34 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by yxifix, posted 08-10-2004 6:34 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 5:16 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 376 of 562 (132952)
08-11-2004 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by yxifix
08-11-2004 5:16 AM


turtles all the way down?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 5:16 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 6:55 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 379 of 562 (132955)
08-11-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by yxifix
08-11-2004 6:07 PM


evolution vs. origins?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 6:07 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 7:04 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 386 of 562 (132968)
08-11-2004 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by yxifix
08-11-2004 6:55 PM


Re: turtles all the way down?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 6:55 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 7:35 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 390 of 562 (132975)
08-11-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by yxifix
08-11-2004 7:04 PM


Re: evolution vs. origins?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 7:04 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 7:42 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 399 of 562 (133006)
08-11-2004 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by yxifix
08-11-2004 7:35 PM


Re: turtles all the way down?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 7:35 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by yxifix, posted 08-12-2004 3:30 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 402 of 562 (133010)
08-11-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by yxifix
08-11-2004 7:42 PM


Re: evolution vs. origins?
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 7:42 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by yxifix, posted 08-12-2004 3:51 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 403 of 562 (133011)
08-11-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by yxifix
08-11-2004 7:42 PM


Re: evolution vs. origins?
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by yxifix, posted 08-11-2004 7:42 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by yxifix, posted 08-12-2004 4:08 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 423 of 562 (133274)
08-12-2004 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by yxifix
08-12-2004 3:30 AM


Re: turtles all the way down?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by yxifix, posted 08-12-2004 3:30 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Brad McFall, posted 08-12-2004 2:34 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 428 by yxifix, posted 08-14-2004 6:55 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 460 of 562 (134249)
08-16-2004 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by yxifix
08-14-2004 6:55 PM


Re: turtles all the way down?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by yxifix, posted 08-14-2004 6:55 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:02 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 463 of 562 (134255)
08-16-2004 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by yxifix
08-14-2004 6:51 PM


So you wanna proof?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by yxifix, posted 08-14-2004 6:51 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:13 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 466 of 562 (134258)
08-16-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by yxifix
08-16-2004 5:02 AM


Re: turtles all the way down?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:02 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:40 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 467 of 562 (134259)
08-16-2004 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by yxifix
08-16-2004 5:13 AM


Re: So you wanna proof?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:13 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:45 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 492 of 562 (134485)
08-16-2004 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by yxifix
08-16-2004 8:32 PM


Re: turtles all the way down?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:32 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:51 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024