PROOF against evolution

can you point to the "proof" in there?

Have you read it?If yes, I'm not going to talk about proofs with you, as you clearly don't understand what does that word mean. 15 y.o. kids know it.

really? That's the best you've got? "a 15-year old...!Strange that as you can't even spell it. You make a number of assumptions and claims in a mostly unconnected rambling fashion.

You think I do care what you are saying (your words are just your assertions - evidence for premise is completely missing)? You are just confusingly spinning around.

yxifix, you are, in some cases, dealing with practicing scientists and mathematicians. What you are posting suggests you have little education in any of the areas you are discussing.Arrogance under such circumstances can be annoying to others. I suggest you back off a little and attempt to learn something.

It is not about arrogance Admin, it is about ignorance of others. Everybody is saying what I have presented are not proofs but nobody has shown an example of what is a proof.So arrogance is not tolerated, but ignorance is? Don't forget, all I want from you is to be fair.

Others are not doing a good job of showing you just what is wrong with your "proofs". I hope they will take a bit of time to try to help you with that.Your ideas are so very obviously and simply wrong that others haven't figured out how to explain the problems to you yet. We'll see if they can find a way to do so.

Finally found time to check my email and discovered that Vxifix had replied to a message I posted last month. I've only skimmed the ensuing discussion, but what a silly attempt to disprove evolution: Evolution can't happen because we don't know how the semantics and symbols were defined and joined.To me, the key fallacy in Vxifix's argument is his belief that meaning implies an intelligence creating that meaning, placing him firmly in the IDist camp. But at heart, biology is just complicated chemistry, and the processes that influence and modify the genetic code occur without any intelligent direction, and we've observed this taking place in the lab.So Vxifix can argue all he likes that evolution is impossible because meaning has to come from somewhere, but allele frequencies and nucleotide sequences care not and continue changing over time.--Percy

This message is really for everybody but yxifix. I remember that desdamona said almost the exact same thing during her reign of terror. Can someone confirm that yxifix is not the same person as desdamona... or the other way around?

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

yxifix- 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: Understand? Only changes, not creationIf you want to continue debating the origin of information, that's fine - just understand that it does not apply to the Theory of Evolution.

Unbelievable. You haven't read it and you already know I haven't prooved anything ! So what's this?! You probably don't know what you are talking about. I would like to see your "arising meaning of information" or how you call it. And that would be interesting reading!All in all... I want to tell you only one thing -> Do NOT reply like this before you have read whole discussion!! Thank you.

Hi. I'm not Desdamona surely, I don't even know who it is.

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.

I see this post as one of last hopeless attempts to show black is white in real.

quote:

---

The theory holds that life began with the simplest forms, then developed into more complex forms, until at last the most complex form, man, was "evolved."

---

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.Bones can't be created without already existing DNA code for bones.
DNA code for bones can't be created without already existing bones.Hair can't be created without already existing DNA code for hair.
DNA code for hair can't be created without already existing hair.Lungs can't be created without already existing DNA code for lungs.
DNA code for lungs can't be created without already existing lungs.Teeth can't be created without already existing DNA code for teeth.
DNA code for teeth can't be created without already existing teeth.Tongue can't be created without already existing DNA code for tongue.
DNA code for tongue can't be created without already existing tongue.Million other things can't be created without already existing DNA code for these million other things.
DNA code for million other things can't be created without existance of million other things.So again ... This is a point where whole theory of evolution just stops - at the beginning of its fictional dream.This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-16-2004 04:15 AM

Sorry man ... absolutely hopeless attempt.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: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).Bye bye