PROOF against evolution

Well.a) You are using examples like 0001 is blue, 0010 is green, 0100 is brown, 1000 is yellow...something like it is and, simply, it was. But why? Why 0001 is not green, 0010 is not yellow, 0100 is not blue and 1000 is not brown? There is no explanation to this in your posts, Percy.b) Lets do a small exercise/example. Take a paper. Draw a circle. ...and now... tell me why it is a circle? Why it is not a square?I would like to read your answer, thank you.

Good try. But I'm not interested in "philosophical" fantasies (as this is not that kind of forum, I guess) but in facts...The same but different way for you:
Lets build a house. Now tell me why it is a house? Why it is not a bicycle?I hope you understand my point.

Well, what are you talking about? I'm asking clear question. If you do have answer on how was information "evoluted" , tell me the answer for this one as well, because you used it in your definition so, surely, it is very important part to know. So your one is strong? That means you know the answer? So why those words? Give me an explanation. That's all I'm asking for. Thank you. Is it wrong? Really? What exactly is wrong? SURE ! ...I think the evolucionists believe in this as well... or am I not right? So what's the point of this sentence?One last thing... I'm not curious about "scientific-philosophical" thoughts... I'm interested in facts, Charles. I'm not interested what you think about me or somebody else, what you think about my thoughts etc etc. So if you don't know the answer, or you don't want to answer me clearly, spare your words for different threads. Thank you.

"you" = "evolucionists"Read message 264.It was pointed exactly to Percy's definition (as stated). ...I thought you knew, what Percy was talking about in this discussion..... so why do you answer to questions you don't read and understand?

that's probably because I'm not English, ...i guess? But thank you for the most important thing (the purpose of this forum) - teaching me grammar!Ok, now I know your "arguments" to my clearly stated question and we can close discussion between both of us.

No, the exact question was "Why it is a circle and not square?" while not "What is a difference between circle and square?"I will explain my point in next answer to cashfrog.That's also answer to Charles Knight.

Cashfrog, sorry, but what are you talking about? You are saying code can be meaningless - well done. In that case that's not code, but just a bunch of numbers, nothing else. That means 00 and 01 will never get toghether to create 0001, simply because there is no meaning to do so! And so — the final result would be meaningless. Do you get me? I think you know what meaningless results are good for. What about GCU, GCC, GCG? But doesn't matter. There is no reason, or you think there is no reason resp. you don't know the reason yet? Which one is it? I'm not interested in "junk DNA"-discussion, cashfrog. "don't know yet", "I'm not sure" doesn't mean "powerful evidence it's not so".
Is there a particular reason why do you live? Would you like to say "No, it is not"?...well, no, you just don't know it, or you are not sure. Well, if I wouldn't ask and he would do it?... The answer is "Because he decided to draw a circle.". He knew what he is going to draw so he created it. There is no other meaningful explanation.Now - your "arbitrary code"-explanation -> practically:
(the answer has to change: Is he able to create a circle without knowing how it looks like?"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.What does that mean: Information without a meaning IS NOT information. And that's all about it. Information is and always has came with meaning TOGETHER ! Hopefull Percy will read this. This is specially for him. ....Simply he drew a circle. Right. Well, cashfrog, this is very very nice example, thank you -> Did those words decide themselves by accident what will they mean?? Well? I guess they were created and organized [given meaning] by somebody at the same time (that means information and meaning are coming together always.... and also again information without a meaning is not information -> so code without a meaning is not code). And you?Why are you called "cashfrog" and not "Michael"?

Well, exactly. Words are assigned by man (somebody else) who give them a meaning as well. Not themselves by accident! ...What does that mean -> If information without a meaning exists - that "information" can't "choose" its meaning by accident itself! or meaning can't "choose" "information" without a meaning itself!
Words without a meaning are not words - it's just bunch of letters - it's "information" without a meaning.....and what does that mean read above.
So -> circle, Cashfrog and words wouldn't exist without the information with meaning. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.Got it?In fact, you don't understand what I was talking about a circle... read it once again:"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. "you can see in that example that circle doesn't exist actually at that time [when he was drawing those creations], so it wasn't a word "circle" as well (it's named because I had to name it, otherwise you wouldn't understand probably... well, you can change word 'circle' for 'thing that looks like circle' if you like) .... all you need is to imagine to his position -> his goal is to draw a thing, that doesn't exist and he don't know how it looks like -> stupid isn't it? But that's what your evolution is saying.Question is : Who is that "somebody" (mentioned above) who gave a meaning to the information? ? ?

As I said, I'm not interested in what's the difference between a square and a circle.My point is that without 'information with meaning' there is no way genetic code (program) could be "evolved" by accident. Discussion was - how the 'information without a meaning' "evolved" to 'information with meaning' by accident.

Well... You clearly didn't understand (or don't want to understand) what I was talking about.... Can you explain me how this example shows us the "evolution" of information? All you are saying is that information comes toghether with meaning But discussion is how was this information created or "evolved" (if you like)You are also saying that 'information with meaning' is copying 'information with meaning' ... again - but how was "evolved" this kind of information? You are still saying that "it just was". My question is still the same - "evolution" of information.

Well... are you an evolutionst?

How do you know the word "bear" had a new meaning? ok, enough... i'm tired of this.... (btw, that site doesn't explain how the information was "evolved")So my clear question is and will be: Give me logical definition/explanation how was information evolved..... you have exact explanation how was universe evolved (Big Bang without a meaning, btw), so you have to have the same for the information.

UNBELIEVABLE ! .... That's not the answer ! ....so you can explain me, why people don't have naturally golden eyes, or red ones? ....why 00 comes together with 01? Why 0001 created blue color? Your explanation is "Because it is so" or "because it works and though there is no explanation needed"...is this normal??? 100% sure? Or just a possibility? ....reference, please. The problem si - there is NO definition of circle [in the example], crashfrog. You clearly don't understand it. First answer at the top apply to this one as well. And give me clear explanation of how information "evolved".So if code has a meaning... how was created that code? How was created 0001 (blue) etc what Percy was talking about... because Percy was talking about that as if "it was". But you are clearly saying symbol "apple" was not, it was created.... symbol "apple" = code .... and now please answer me.

Sorry, information can't be inserted, because information doesn't exist ! ....you can't use bottle to create a bottle. OK - what are atoms and laws of thermodynamics saying? What is stored there? What information? So you would like to hear "meaningful information" rather? OK then.. change it and try to answer. ....where was the information at that moment and how was created? Or it just happened ?

In fact, you are jabbering, jar - you don't understand it at all.btw, you are right, map is not a territory - map is map, and territory is territory... that's correct. The same like window is not house. Again, the MAIN thing for you is to explain me how the meaningful information evolved. And another proof why you don't understand - sure there is nobody who gives meaning to information simple because information without a meaning IS NOT information and that means meaning and information always come together so it is nonsence to teach a difference between meaning and information ! - but that's the question to Percy, because he was talking information and meaning are two different things. He tried to show, how the information was created and thenhow was created a meaning of that information (but strange thing is, that he used the information itself in explanation, and surely, you can't create [first] information using another information - nonsence). So you are right, question should be - Who is that "somebody" who give a meaningful information ? ? ? Or you have a meaningful logical explanation how that information was created itself by accident?? And this is once another clear evidence how you understand it. Of course it is supid! But that's exactly what you teach about accidentally created life - about evolution, jar. That's all against the logic.
Definition of circle by man was created by copying the thing-that-looks-like-circle ....It was copying the existing information. Information is always created (or copied) by another information. Information didn't just appear. There is absolutely no way your mind could create a circle if it haven't seen it before ! Because of this if it created it by accident, it would never knew it is a circle and though would never give it a definition "circle"!! Again - information is copying information... information didn't just appear.GOT IT?If you disagree, spear words like "you are jabbering" and give me meaningful logical explanation how the information evolved. Because this is the main thing you have to explain before talking about creating life itself. Or you would rather like to jump straight to it? No. no. ... it's against the "evolution" itself and that would mean that's the proof the evolution is just bunch of nonsense.