How does Complexity demonstrate Design

No, "say so" doesn't count for nought - because it works as prooved. Some things are just as they are because you say they will be like that.Sure, I'm making argument - because it's proof, Mark. You are right, it must have been designed... but, as prooved it can't be designed itself by accident without program how to do it - without information.
You can say whatever you like, this is evident argument and proof against the theory of evolution.

I don't really care if you accept it or not. It is prooved in the discussion about the proof against the evolution - you have to read it whole, not just 3,4 of my posts. And now tell me what do you think you are telling me with this? You are giving me proof that your theory of life creation is just bunch of nonsense. -> show me your premises and conclusions how the hell the information created itself by accident without program (another information). I don't have to have evidence that genetic code doesn't evolve - you have to have evidence it evolves, because Evolution says everything evolves. Got it? My proof is that you don't have evidence but you are still saying it is like that and it is science-based theory. It is NOT, unfortunatelly for you. You have absolutely no idea how it could be done - that's your main problem, you can't do a research with it. No we haven't reached that part... you have reached that part, obviously. Unlucky man. I have already proved negative by pointing out which important part of theory doesn't match (is missing) to the theory. Creation of an information. If you don't know the answer, don't say it is science-based theory because it is a BIG LIE.1:30 here, time to sleep.

you are just talking and talking and talking... but all you really say is nothing. Do you think I'm interested in your fancies and word-games? No, I'm not. I'm interested in facts, mark. Theory of evolution is the theory based on the facts and not fancies, isn't it? This is all what you are talking about in 100 lines... You are funny. What a poor thinking. So... O K ... forget about a word "proof" (you obviously love to play with words - that's poor). And tell me FINALLY how the hell information evolved? Give me a clear answer finally. All you said is something about googling. A bit funny, you must agree.Creation of life - first one is not atom, first one is not bacteria, first one is not a cell... first one is and always will be program -> information. Understand?? 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...(life=information!!) not from existing information!!! If you are talking about how was life evolved, you have to say how was information evolved, mark. Do you get it? If you are talking about logic, are you able to use it?So your argument is Evolution is science-based -> Then show me evidence FOR your premise, mark. I'll be happy to read itIf you can't... you are lying that you have one... UNDERSTOOD? And that means Theory of evolution is not scientific-based theory!
Sorry, you hear the truth.

Before reading this please read also my last replies to Loudmouth and Pink Sasquatch in discussion Origin of Life -> Proof against evolution (messages 425, 428). There are 2 proofs (1. God exists, 2. Evolution is nonsense) ....but I'll mention something from those replies in this one as well. But you have to read those as well before replying to this post. Thanks. All right. (you are saying = "evolution is science based on evidence" (but that evidence have been presented by nobody so far) = so I said - "show me evidence you are talking about")No apology.
Again, I said "if you can't give me evidence then you're lying". That means I didn't say you are lying.... but you've been just talking about shifting burden of proof, so I don't know if you can or can't explain it, that means again the same - because of that I didn't say you are lying ...and this is called logic. Logic is needed to be used before replying the way you did. So again, no apology needed - a reason doesn't exist. Invalid. Please, don't even try to teach anybody about logic. I know Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V is not difficult to use (I use it even myself from time to time).... but don't teach anybody about things all you know about is just a definition but you don't really understand what does that mean. Demagogy! I didn't say it. You know it. ...I said information can't be created without another information by accident. Read it 10 times.
Evidence? No problem:Lets have a look at some logical facts (evidences):Accident:
1. By accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)
2. If there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.Information:
1. By information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)
2. The information can be created only by existing intelligence or by a program created by intelligece (or something that uses such program).Please remember this, this is very important.Everything mentioned are logical facts.
So problem solved for cosmology and abiogenesis. (don't forget, you have to read those two replies to Loudmouth and Pink Sasq... there is more)This is evidence for premise = a proof that God ('higher intelligence') exists. Well, if you say there is talking fish called Eric somewhere in the ocean that means it is a science based on evidence? ...could you please tell us all (in this forum, everybody is surely interested) what is a difference between Theory of Evolution and Theory of Existance of talking fish Eric in the ocean. Thank you, mark!!!
Don't forget, this has nothing with a proof against the evolution, this is just a question I would like to know the answer, so no need to talk about shifting burden of proof. Again. Thank you for the answer, in case you'll forget to answer, I'll ask again. No, evolution is not based around evidence. But ok, if you still want to play word-games, lets play word-games... no problem for me:A PROOF EVOLUTION IS NONSENSEPremise:
Evolution is nonsense. Genetic code can't be created by accident, there is needed somebody who can create it - an existing intelligence.Evidence :
As I already said:

quote:

---

Accident:
1. By accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)
2. If there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.

​

Information:
1. By information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)
2. The information can be created only by existing intelligence or by a program created by intelligece (or something that uses such program).

​

Everything mentioned are logical facts.

---

So as already prooved it's sure, information is created by information -> there is absolutely no way it could create itself by accident... that's the prooved fact. You can't fool a fact. So what does this mean?a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.
b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).So before any process of non-living material can happen, information must be given only by some intelligence (as already prooved above) [I'll call it God]
So if information is created by information (as prooved) that means:
information => an atom
information => a bacteria
information => DNA code
information => a cell
information => lifeWithout information there can't be created information by accident as prooved before. That means also that a cell exists just because of information. That information is called DNA code actually... but DNA code (information) can't be created by accident without another information (in this example it is a cell) .... and... a cell can't be created by accident without already existing information (in this example it is a DNA code!!!) ....so as I said this is a point where whole theory just stops!!!Without DNA code there is no cell = without a cell there is no DNA code.
Without DNA code there is no vision = without vision there is no DNA code for vision created!etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etcIt is also a logical fact that there can't be done any research about thing to find out how it was created by accident when it is already prooved that it can't be created by accidentAnd that means (according to mentioned proofs) all you are doing is, that you are using intelligence - God to create such thing as DNA code, a cell, vision etc etc!!! In other way Theory of evolution says God created a man !!! and in other way Theory of evolution is lying that God didn't do that ! ! !.... because that's prooved that information can't create itself by accident - so DNA code can't create itself by accident.And this is called A proof that evolution is just a fiction, that it is nonsense.So, mark... I hope you are happy with premise and evidence, aren't you?

Before reading this please read all of these posts:
Message 213 in this thread
Messages 425, 428 in Origin of Life - Proof against evolution (one of those is a reply to one of your posts) ....I think you have already read mentioned replies and now you know you have a problem.... Yes, I accept the laws of gravity. And as already prooved many many times... the only explanation how they were created is that Somebody (existing intelligence) had to say they will be as they are. I think it's clear for you now.
Don't you remember my first post in "Origin of Life->Proof against evolution" thread? If you will draw a circle on a paper it will be a circle not square because you decided so. If you will say that 0001 is for blue .... it will not be brown, it will be blue, because you said so. Already explained. Demagogy! Where did I say it? Please, quote me. OK, read answers in replies mentioned at the top of this message.

Your quotation:

quote:

---

Yes, the theory of evolution is based around evidence & not fancies, & if you intend to falsify it you are required to provide evidence of YOUR claims.

---

Hm.... maybe I'm blind.I wouldn't be surprised if you say I am. (Of course using long descriptions of what is logic, truth and false) Well done....all what I've said about logic in my last post still stands.... Waaaaauuuu...... I'M AMAZED ! ! ! ! ! ! FANTASTIC !OH MAN ! ! ! ! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?If those are assertions and not logical facts than we live in a world of FANTASY according to you!!!!!! That means a black could be blue! But that would be against the "evidences" in you theory once again! CONGRATULATIONS !Unbelievable!What is your job? Entertainer? : ))No other words needed.

I don't have to do anything. I have just finished. I showed a proof of the truth.You can live your fictional life in a fictional world you "believe" in......... so far.
Don't forget.This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-14-2004 07:50 PM

Exactly. You are right about those posts but you forgot something:Evolution is saying = "I'm based on evidence", you are an evolutionist. So that means you are saying "Evolution is based on evidence."
It's like mathematics .... you are saying "I played football 20+20 minutes" ..... so I said "you played 40 minutes" .... than you are saying "you liar I didn't say it !!! I'm awaiting apology! " THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, mark.So in your other post you just prooved that 20+20=40. Once again. No apology needed. No reason. Invalid.So all I said about logic in that post still stands, of course.And don't let me to start discussion about talking fish named Eric ... I would wipe out your words and "arguments" as easily as everything else. You can think you speak howsoever complicated but you thinking is very simple. And that's what is important. All you are saying is just about "you can write whatever I'll never answer you".Btw, about those logical facts about Accident and Information - you are real entertainer.My age is not important.I have finished with prooving. I did it. You can say whatever you like.
Live in your world of fantasy, as well.

mark24 wanna play... lets play Don't you await apology anymore? Let me guess why..... Assertion. You have to show evidence for your premise! ...invalid I don't have to have. I asked what is a difference. Again, you have to show evidence for your premise. Shifting the Burden of Proof.... invalid. Again, you have showed no evidence, shifting a burden of proof.by the way ....hypocrite? "I'm awaiting apology." [EHMMMMM]You are very confused man. You probably don't even know what you are talking about. You have made an assertion. I didn't say I want to proove you are wrong, I just asked what's the difference. That's all. So, no the burden of proof is on you. Sorry man. The same. I don't have to have one. ....invalid. Once again... apology from your side is needed -> according to you. So I think you will apologize. If not, you are against your own words. Are you sure... (read next post) No disrepect, mark, and how old are you? ehmYou see, mark? You are very simple - that's your very simple thinking I was talking about. You just stuck in your own words - that means you are just talking talking talking, but don't really understand what about. I'm sure all you know are only definitions but you don't know how to use it practically. That's very sad you want to teach anybody about it.
If you would think you are the smartest and the most clever, don't think like that, it's not good basis on which you can base a discussion with anybody.

PROOF IT IS A FACTIntroduction:

quote:

---

Louis Pasteur - A proof against spontaneous generation -> Fully aware of the presence of microorganisms in nature, Pasteur undertook several experiments designed to address the question of where these germs came from. Were they spontaneously produced in substances themselves, or were they introduced into substances from the environment? Pasteur concluded that the latter was always the case.

​

Pasteur was the first to say that there are such tiny things, like little worms, too small even to be seen, and that those little worms cause various sores and all kinds of sicknesses. So it is necessary to wash your hands, drink boiled water, open the windows to let in good air so that you may live long and not be sick. The doctors poked fun at him, said he was stuck up, knew nothing himself yet, thought he could teach others. The y nicknamed him The Brewer. Pasteur was not a doctor, only a learned naturalist, and he had noticed these bacteria for the first time when they made wine. So they gave him this nickname out of spite.
Anyone else would have been insulted and said: "You don't want to believe it — too bad." But Pasteur was not insulted. He felt sorry for those who were being killed by bacteria, leaving so many orphans. But what worried him most was that nobody was willing to help him, and he could see that his idea did not explain everything.

​

And now everybody knows that bacteria exist, everybody knows what to do against different infectious diseases. And every doctor and every patient knows the great benefits which the famous scientist Louis Pasteur conferred on mankind.

---

As can be seen Pasteur (I guess you know who is he) made an experiment and found out that if there are no bacteria in a tube, they won't spontaneously appear and generate themselves. So there must be existing bacterias in there in order to generate themselves. Is it right? Is it a proof? Nowadays I would say if a water is boiled it is logical fact you won't get disease... In fact, it is a prooved fact according to Pasteurs experiments. Or you would say it is still just an assertion?Information (DNA code, a cell, etc)There have been done many experiments so far. For example:
Premise: Computer can't do any operation without an existing intelligence (in this case a man).
Experiment: A computer was switched on and let 4 years alone in a room. No intelligence (nobody) hadn't had access to this room. After 4 years it was discovered that nothing happened - computer hadn't done even the smallest operation itself. So another experiment took place. It was created a simple program [which would give a computer a command to random select whatever letters] by researcher (a man) and "inserted" to a computer. A program had been run. The result was astonishing - everybody in the room was amazed -> Computer did exactly the same what the program "told" it to do!
There have been done many similar experiments with other things that prooved the same.
And similar experiments have been done about what will happen if a non-living thing would do something by accident if it can recognize what it is without an existing intelligence. No, it couldn't. Experiments can be shown.
Conclusions:a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.
b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).Accident:
1. It is prooved by accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)
2. It is prooved if there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.Information:
1. It is prooved by information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)
2. It is prooved the information can be created only by existing intelligence or by a program created by intelligece (or something that uses such program).That's all mark....As you can see you were once again completely (but I mean seriously completely) wrong so now no need to talk about logical facts .... we can stick just to a fact really. Because of this now it is prooved that God exists and Evolution is nonsense.... Have a nice day.

Exactly. I know. That's why you have to read all of them. In a message above (msg 226) I just did. You are right, you don't need to know it. But you have to read all replies before replying. Assertion. You have to show evidence for your promise. Invalid.

Well, admin, when I say "before reading this post you have to read posts xxx and xxx" then read the Loudmouth answer "I didn't read it" ...so I have to repeat some part, don't you think? I need everybody to read some posts like that before replying... so if I repeat something, it is not without further elaboration... and that means it is not against rules.Another thing...
mark24 was saying that my Information and Accident descriptions were just accertions so I've given him facts. And you must agree an assertion and a fact are not the same repeated things (though they look like) even if there is just one word changed in a sentence.I've completely showed what is proof in Pasteur example. If it is not a proof, then what is a proof?

I am sorry mark. We can see it whenever we like.Argument from ignorancePasteur's example did show and prove exactly what is true and what is false. So there is no way we can talk about argument from ignorance.Unrepresentative SampleThere is no way we can talk about unrepresentative sample, mark. Pasteur did make his experiment on the whole sample (bacteria - each bacteria has the same way of reproduction, noone can just appears). Sorry, you are again wrong."Every human lives because of oxygen which is needed to stay him alive" ... is this a fact?This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-15-2004 10:51 AM

Sorry. We are not talking about mutations or "evolution" of bacteria. But about a proof against spontaneous generation.

Sorry, my example (msg 226) is the same as you are talking about... you have to read all discussion (including Origin-of-Life one).
Atoms and molecules needed before a cell and DNA code was created are also carying a "program". That's why all of them are not the same. Each of them has different one.