| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"IKnowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
19 Jun 2004 10:55:33 AM |
| Object: |
Life Processes-No Accident |
Life Processes-No Accident
Information-coded, purposeful, complex and specified is the basis for all
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
The first requirement means that a very long string of letters or symbols
is required.
The second means that the order of the letters is not directed by physical
or chemical laws, which by their nature produce only simply repeating
patterns(such as printing "ABC" over and over again until the printer runs
out of paper).
The third requirement means that not just any order will do but only the
precise order required to produce the encyclopedia, or computer operating
progarm, or array of cellular proteins coded for in the DNA nucleotides.
Genuinely creative evolution thus requires a mechanism capable of creating
immense amounts of complex , specified, aperiodic genetic information.
Random mutation is not such a mechanism, nor is natural selection, nor is
any physical or chemical law. Laws produce simple repetitive order, and
chance produces meaningless disorder. When combined[as in evolution
theory] law and chance work against each other to prevent the emergence of
a meaningful sequence.
In all human experience, only intelligent agency can write an encyclopedia
or a computer program, or produce complex specified aperodic information
in any form. Therefore, the information necessarily present in organisms
points to the conclusion that they are products of intelligent design". *
*"The Wedge of Truth", Phillip E. Johnson, 2000, p. 127
And if intelligent design is required than it follows that there must be a
Designer and that Designer is the Lord Jesus Christ:
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His son, whom He hath appointed
heir of all things, by whom also He MADE the worlds; " Hebrews 1:2
.
|
|
| User: "ChucklesPF1" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
19 Jun 2004 11:09:34 AM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
And if intelligent design is required than it follows that there must be a
Designer and that Designer is the Lord Jesus Christ:
Bullcrap. Everyone knows that Allah is the designer!
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His son,
Last days? Almost 2000 years ago?
whom He hath appointed
heir of all things, by whom also He MADE the worlds; " Hebrews 1:2
An heir implies the father is dead or will die.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "HarCo Industries" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 11:01:54 AM |
|
|
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IKnowHim-1906040855330001@pm1-49.kalama.com>...
Life Processes-No Accident
Information-coded, purposeful, complex and specified is the basis for all
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
The first requirement means that a very long string of letters or symbols
is required.
Oh no! My dog can't even read! I guess he'll never have babies.
The second means that the order of the letters is not directed by physical
or chemical laws, which by their nature produce only simply repeating
patterns(such as printing "ABC" over and over again until the printer runs
out of paper).
This does not either happen in nature! I know; I tested it with an
apple tree. I told it to print "ABC" over and over again, but it kept
misspelling it.
The third requirement means that not just any order will do but only the
precise order required to produce the encyclopedia, or computer operating
progarm, or array of cellular proteins coded for in the DNA nucleotides.
Oh, but you see, it was done as a serial, so the only had to put in
enough info to get to the next cliff hanger, not the whole encylopedia
at once.
Genuinely creative evolution thus requires a mechanism capable of creating
immense amounts of complex , specified, aperiodic genetic information.
Like an Etch-A-Sketch.
God, I love those things.
Random mutation is not such a mechanism, nor is natural selection, nor is
any physical or chemical law. Laws produce simple repetitive order, and
chance produces meaningless disorder. When combined[as in evolution
theory] law and chance work against each other to prevent the emergence of
a meaningful sequence.
No, not true. And I have the lifeforms to prove it! Right in my
bathtub!
In all human experience, only intelligent agency can write an encyclopedia
or a computer program, or produce complex specified aperodic information
in any form. Therefore, the information necessarily present in organisms
points to the conclusion that they are products of intelligent design". *
*"The Wedge of Truth", Phillip E. Johnson, 2000, p. 127
Yay! Truth Wedgies for EVERYONE!
And if intelligent design is required than it follows that there must be a
Designer and that Designer is the Lord Jesus Christ:
What the hey? Maybe the designer is really... THE DEVIL! Or maybe
Odin. Odin would be cool.
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His son, whom He hath appointed
heir of all things, by whom also He MADE the worlds; " Hebrews 1:2
Oh, man, he was SO TRASHED when he wrote that. Great party, though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 11:22:03 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2004 09:01:54 -0700, (HarCo
Industries) wrote:
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IKnowHim-1906040855330001@pm1-49.kalama.com>...
Life Processes-No Accident
Information-coded, purposeful, complex and specified is the basis for all
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
The first requirement means that a very long string of letters or symbols
is required.
Oh no! My dog can't even read! I guess he'll never have babies.
No Dog ma?
.
|
|
|
| User: "HarCo Industries" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 07:19:53 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<isvld01gg56ujfhjmdef9thkd1di3cpesm@4ax.com>...
On 24 Jun 2004 09:01:54 -0700, (HarCo
Industries) wrote:
Oh no! My dog can't even read! I guess he'll never have babies.
No Dog ma?
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
I'm sorry, that was just a reflex. Nothing personal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
19 Jun 2004 01:20:37 PM |
|
|
IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
Life Processes-No Accident
Information-coded, purposeful, complex and specified is the basis for all
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
The first requirement means that a very long string of letters or symbols
is required.
Or a short sequence with a lot of variation possible at eacg place in
the sequence
The second means that the order of the letters is not directed by physical
or chemical laws, which by their nature produce only simply repeating
patterns(such as printing "ABC" over and over again until the printer runs
out of paper).
Guess nature and life fail this one
The third requirement means that not just any order will do but only the
precise order required to produce the encyclopedia, or computer operating
progarm, or array of cellular proteins coded for in the DNA nucleotides.
Life fails this one to, as there is no evidence that other genetic codes
would not be jsut as good. Indeed the best analysis suggest there are
billions of alternatives that would be better
Genuinely creative evolution thus requires a mechanism capable of creating
immense amounts of complex , specified, aperiodic genetic information.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
20 Jun 2004 01:50:39 PM |
|
|
IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
Life Processes-No Accident
Oh, I think if I spoke to YOUR parents, they would use the word
"accident" in describing you.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
19 Jun 2004 04:17:12 PM |
|
|
IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
Life Processes-No Accident
Nobody claims life is an accident. A snow crystal is also no
accident, but the result of the chemical properties of water.
Information-coded, purposeful, complex and specified is the basis for all
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
This is nothing more than begging the question.
<- snip ->
*"The Wedge of Truth", Phillip E. Johnson, 2000, p. 127
Can't you think up anything yourself?
And if intelligent design is required
That's a humongously big "IF".
than it follows that there must be a
Designer and that Designer is the Lord Jesus Christ:
That's a non sequitur.
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His son, whom He hath appointed
heir of all things, by whom also He MADE the worlds; " Hebrews 1:2
And *that* is a verse which has no meaning to me whatsoever.
RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Plasmatron" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
20 Jun 2004 11:27:28 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism IKnowHimDoYou <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote:
Life Processes-No Accident
Information-coded, purposeful, complex and specified is the basis for all
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
The first requirement means that a very long string of letters or symbols
is required.
The second means that the order of the letters is not directed by physical
or chemical laws, which by their nature produce only simply repeating
patterns(such as printing "ABC" over and over again until the printer runs
out of paper).
The third requirement means that not just any order will do but only the
precise order required to produce the encyclopedia, or computer operating
progarm, or array of cellular proteins coded for in the DNA nucleotides.
Genuinely creative evolution thus requires a mechanism capable of creating
immense amounts of complex , specified, aperiodic genetic information.
Random mutation is not such a mechanism, nor is natural selection, nor is
any physical or chemical law. Laws produce simple repetitive order, and
chance produces meaningless disorder. When combined[as in evolution
theory] law and chance work against each other to prevent the emergence of
a meaningful sequence.
In all human experience, only intelligent agency can write an encyclopedia
or a computer program, or produce complex specified aperodic information
in any form. Therefore, the information necessarily present in organisms
points to the conclusion that they are products of intelligent design". *
*"The Wedge of Truth", Phillip E. Johnson, 2000, p. 127
And if intelligent design is required than it follows that there must be a
Designer and that Designer is the Lord Jesus Christ:
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His son, whom He hath appointed
heir of all things, by whom also He MADE the worlds; " Hebrews 1:2
Just because life is complex as heck doesn't mean it required
intelligent design. Complex things can evolve from less complex
things. Your attempt to claim otherwise is nothing but intellectual
laziness.
Speaking of laziness, the huge leap you make from the idea that
there is a designer to the idea that it's your particular designer
is REALLY lazy. We're talking stunningly and amazingly full of crap
here. There are THOUSANDS of religions that believe in a creator,
and you just brush them all aside in favor of your own personal
favorite fairy tale with no evidence given except that your fairy
tail claims to be true.
Come on man, even if I accept that we are the result of
intelligent design how do we know it wasn't just a bunch of alien
genetic engineers from the planet Quarb doing it as a contract job
to provide a cheap semi-sentient snack food for the Greys?
Oh, I know, where did the Greys and the Quarban geniticists come
from? Why they just Magicked themselves into existence the way the
christian god supposedly did of course ;)
--
The Left Reverend Plasmatron at hotpop com
"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think"
- Niels Bohr
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
20 Jun 2004 04:44:34 AM |
|
|
In article <IKnowHim-1906040855330001@pm1-49.kalama.com>,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Life Processes-No Accident
We know. So what?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
19 Jun 2004 05:19:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:55:33 -0700 in episode
<IKnowHim-1906040855330001@pm1-49.kalama.com> we saw our hero
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou):
Philip E. Johnson
Has no education nor experience in any science at all.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "SReeseMe" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
20 Jun 2004 07:28:42 AM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Life Processes-No Accident
From: "Mark K. Bilbo" y@hoo.com-amikchi
Date: 06/19/2004 6:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <pan.2004.06.19.22.19.27.663044@hoo.com-amikchi>
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:55:33 -0700 in episode
<IKnowHim-1906040855330001@pm1-49.kalama.com> we saw our hero
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou):
Philip E. Johnson
Has no education nor experience in any science at all.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic
Bingo. Isn't interesting that most "creation scientists" have little or no
background in science?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
19 Jun 2004 01:32:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:55:33 -0700,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Information-coded, purposeful, complex and specified is the basis for all
life. Philip E. Johnson says that
Johnson's a lawyer. Got anything from a biologist?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
23 Jun 2004 02:56:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:55:33 -0700,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
The first requirement means that a very long string of letters or symbols
is required.
The second means that the order of the letters is not directed by physical
or chemical laws, which by their nature produce only simply repeating
patterns(such as printing "ABC" over and over again until the printer runs
out of paper).
The third requirement means that not just any order will do but only the
precise order required to produce the encyclopedia, or computer operating
progarm, or array of cellular proteins coded for in the DNA nucleotides.
This encyclopedia. Did the information it contains, come together all
at once, or was it accumulated over a long period of time?
Computer OS. There are a lot of similarities to DNA and a computer
program.
Do you know anything about programming?
My first attempt. was on a computer made from a machine control chip<4
bit>, half a dozen NIXIE tubes, a paper tape reader/writer<two
separate pieces>, and a massive 1Kbit, of "ring" memory. I made my
changes slowly and tediously, in binary, one bit at a time.
That is just two bits, two chances to work.
DNA has four, but DNA is in two polarised pairs, and codons of three
letters, ATG, CTA, TAT, etc
If we are very crude, and call the pairs, AT/TA, and CG/GC, "yes" and
"no" and allow that the codon is three letters, you have 16 different
ways of saying "yes, and "no".
This does allow nature to make a lot more mistakes, a lot faster than
binary could, but it also allows her to find the odd usable
combination, a lot faster.
I made lots of mistakes, in fact, I made mostly, mistakes, but the
bits of code that worked, I recorded, and kept, and like nature, I
never bothered to try and work out why they worked, or how.
I also replayed them, time after time, and changed them, and if they
still worked, kept them as well.
I am no script wizard, but I do have a massive library of routines
that I have built up over the years. Some are only a few bytes long,
to do simple things, like set a flag, or count how often a flag is
changed.
Others are vary large, and probably contain several repeats of the
same routine, doing totally different things, or nothing. Some are
still in binary, or Hex, although most of it transferred to "C".
But even then, some of the "C" routines have large chunks of hex. in
them, that I can't translate to "C".
Now on the odd occasion that I want to write a program, all I do is
patch a bunch of existing code blocks together, and write the control
routines.
(I only write one "species(?)" of program, so it works.)
....And once they work, they go into the data base too.
Just like DNA.
My programs contain massive redundancy, massive duplication, and are
totally unstructured, just like DNA, and just like DNA, my programs
are evolved things, changing seriously, only at need to match a new
environment, or problem, but with the potential to give me whatever it
is I need, in the area that I play.
What I am saying, is that even computer programs, do not just appear,
full blown, they take time, and the data has first, to be gathered,
and the environment to use the data, has to exist.
....And there will be a lot of stops and starts, and slow patches, and
setbacks, before it is a working OS, and probably a lot more once it
does work.
Also, as the program develops, a lot of other programs will sprout(?)
from it, using the same basic code, but doing other things.
Just like nature, just like DNA.
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IKnowHimDoYou" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
23 Jun 2004 11:55:53 AM |
|
|
In article <rgdid0hesp24v5vg5tp63lh22or8qlj98r@4ax.com>, no-bugger@all wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:55:33 -0700,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
The first requirement means that a very long string of letters or symbols
is required.
The second means that the order of the letters is not directed by physical
or chemical laws, which by their nature produce only simply repeating
patterns(such as printing "ABC" over and over again until the printer runs
out of paper).
The third requirement means that not just any order will do but only the
precise order required to produce the encyclopedia, or computer operating
progarm, or array of cellular proteins coded for in the DNA nucleotides.
This encyclopedia. Did the information it contains, come together all
at once, or was it accumulated over a long period of time?
Computer OS. There are a lot of similarities to DNA and a computer
program.
Do you know anything about programming?
_____________________________________
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming is not
creating information only managing the information that is put into it. I
do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder here.
_____________________________________
My first attempt. was on a computer made from a machine control chip<4
bit>, half a dozen NIXIE tubes, a paper tape reader/writer<two
separate pieces>, and a massive 1Kbit, of "ring" memory. I made my
changes slowly and tediously, in binary, one bit at a time.
That is just two bits, two chances to work.
DNA has four, but DNA is in two polarised pairs, and codons of three
letters, ATG, CTA, TAT, etc
If we are very crude, and call the pairs, AT/TA, and CG/GC, "yes" and
"no" and allow that the codon is three letters, you have 16 different
ways of saying "yes, and "no".
This does allow nature to make a lot more mistakes, a lot faster than
binary could, but it also allows her to find the odd usable
combination, a lot faster.
____________________________________
DNA has a correcting attribute that eliminates most random mutations or
mistakes. This is a good agrument against the required mutations needed
for evolution as claimed by the evolutionists.
____________________________________
I made lots of mistakes, in fact, I made mostly, mistakes, but the
bits of code that worked, I recorded, and kept, and like nature, I
never bothered to try and work out why they worked, or how.
I also replayed them, time after time, and changed them, and if they
still worked, kept them as well.
I am no script wizard, but I do have a massive library of routines
that I have built up over the years. Some are only a few bytes long,
to do simple things, like set a flag, or count how often a flag is
changed.
Others are vary large, and probably contain several repeats of the
same routine, doing totally different things, or nothing. Some are
still in binary, or Hex, although most of it transferred to "C".
But even then, some of the "C" routines have large chunks of hex. in
them, that I can't translate to "C".
Now on the odd occasion that I want to write a program, all I do is
patch a bunch of existing code blocks together, and write the control
routines.
(I only write one "species(?)" of program, so it works.)
...And once they work, they go into the data base too.
Just like DNA.
_____________________________________
No, your computer programs are the product of your intelligence and not of
random chance as required by evolution. You have stumbled into Barra's
Blunder here as have many other evolutionists. First comes the
information from the designer-then comes the designed program-not the
other way around.
_____________________________________
My programs contain massive redundancy, massive duplication, and are
totally unstructured, just like DNA, and just like DNA, my programs
are evolved things, changing seriously, only at need to match a new
environment, or problem, but with the potential to give me whatever it
is I need, in the area that I play.
What I am saying, is that even computer programs, do not just appear,
full blown, they take time, and the data has first, to be gathered,
and the environment to use the data, has to exist.
...And there will be a lot of stops and starts, and slow patches, and
setbacks, before it is a working OS, and probably a lot more once it
does work.
Also, as the program develops, a lot of other programs will sprout(?)
from it, using the same basic code, but doing other things.
Just like nature, just like DNA.
______________________________________
No. The computer program is not like "nature". The only likeness is that
both require an intelligent designer who provides information. The
computer program is simply a mechanical system for using selected
information.
______________________________________
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
23 Jun 2004 02:04:53 PM |
|
|
In article <IKnowHim-2306040955530001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming is not
creating information only managing the information that is put into it. I
do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder here.
You don't even know what "information" is, do you? Of course we create
information. That's one of our evolutionary advantages. Twit.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
23 Jun 2004 05:11:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:04:53 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-BE3DED.15045223062004@news05.east.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <IKnowHim-2306040955530001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming is not
creating information only managing the information that is put into it.
I do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder here.
You don't even know what "information" is, do you? Of course we create
information. That's one of our evolutionary advantages. Twit.
He said he's know a little. It's obviously very, very, very little.
Does he think that every computer program has existed since the beginning
of time and no new programs are ever written?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 05:01:57 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.06.23.22.11.32.755861@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:04:53 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-BE3DED.15045223062004@news05.east.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <IKnowHim-2306040955530001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming is not
creating information only managing the information that is put into it.
I do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder here.
You don't even know what "information" is, do you? Of course we create
information. That's one of our evolutionary advantages. Twit.
He said he's know a little. It's obviously very, very, very little.
Does he think that every computer program has existed since the beginning
of time and no new programs are ever written?
Well, there is the concept among us programmers that there has only
really been one program that was created completely original, and all
others are just modifications that have been made down the years. {;-)
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 08:53:25 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:01:57 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-3021DC.06015624062004@news03.east.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <pan.2004.06.23.22.11.32.755861@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:04:53 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-BE3DED.15045223062004@news05.east.earthlink.net> we saw our
hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <IKnowHim-2306040955530001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming is not
creating information only managing the information that is put into
it. I do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder here.
You don't even know what "information" is, do you? Of course we create
information. That's one of our evolutionary advantages. Twit.
He said he's know a little. It's obviously very, very, very little.
Does he think that every computer program has existed since the
beginning of time and no new programs are ever written?
Well, there is the concept among us programmers that there has only really
been one program that was created completely original, and all others are
just modifications that have been made down the years. {;-)
It's all Turing's fault!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 02:46:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:53:25 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:01:57 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-3021DC.06015624062004@news03.east.earthlink.net> we saw our hero
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <pan.2004.06.23.22.11.32.755861@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:04:53 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-BE3DED.15045223062004@news05.east.earthlink.net> we saw our
hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <IKnowHim-2306040955530001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming is not
creating information only managing the information that is put into
it. I do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder here.
You don't even know what "information" is, do you? Of course we create
information. That's one of our evolutionary advantages. Twit.
He said he's know a little. It's obviously very, very, very little.
Does he think that every computer program has existed since the
beginning of time and no new programs are ever written?
Well, there is the concept among us programmers that there has only really
been one program that was created completely original, and all others are
just modifications that have been made down the years. {;-)
It's all Turing's fault!
Pity that IKnowHimDoYou can't pass the Turing test...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 02:58:56 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:9sbmd09cpg09as5cqlmn3t1vb91h6pjavv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:53:25 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:01:57 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-3021DC.06015624062004@news03.east.earthlink.net> we saw our
hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <pan.2004.06.23.22.11.32.755861@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:04:53 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-BE3DED.15045223062004@news05.east.earthlink.net> we saw
our hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <IKnowHim-2306040955530001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming is
not creating information only managing the information that is
put into it. I do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder here.
You don't even know what "information" is, do you? Of course we
create information. That's one of our evolutionary advantages.
Twit.
He said he's know a little. It's obviously very, very, very little.
Does he think that every computer program has existed since the
beginning of time and no new programs are ever written?
Well, there is the concept among us programmers that there has only
really been one program that was created completely original, and
all others are just modifications that have been made down the
years. {;-)
It's all Turing's fault!
Pity that IKnowHimDoYou can't pass the Turing test...
What does that say about those who keep trying to argue with him?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 04:12:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:58:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:9sbmd09cpg09as5cqlmn3t1vb91h6pjavv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:53:25 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:01:57 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-3021DC.06015624062004@news03.east.earthlink.net> we saw our
hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <pan.2004.06.23.22.11.32.755861@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:04:53 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-BE3DED.15045223062004@news05.east.earthlink.net> we saw
our hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <IKnowHim-2306040955530001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming is
not creating information only managing the information that is
put into it. I do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder here.
You don't even know what "information" is, do you? Of course we
create information. That's one of our evolutionary advantages.
Twit.
He said he's know a little. It's obviously very, very, very little.
Does he think that every computer program has existed since the
beginning of time and no new programs are ever written?
Well, there is the concept among us programmers that there has only
really been one program that was created completely original, and
all others are just modifications that have been made down the
years. {;-)
It's all Turing's fault!
Pity that IKnowHimDoYou can't pass the Turing test...
What does that say about those who keep trying to argue with him?
He's useful for target practice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 05:55:54 PM |
|
|
In article <vqgmd0pjl42en9tqj0kbo0qsbjntsrm9iv@4ax.com>,
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
What does that say about those who keep trying to argue with him?
He's useful for target practice.
I would agree, but he never tells you when you've hit the target. He's
more like a wall to hit tennis malls against. And nearly as entertaining.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 04:32:47 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:vqgmd0pjl42en9tqj0kbo0qsbjntsrm9iv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:58:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:9sbmd09cpg09as5cqlmn3t1vb91h6pjavv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:53:25 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:01:57 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-3021DC.06015624062004@news03.east.earthlink.net> we saw
our hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <pan.2004.06.23.22.11.32.755861@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:04:53 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-BE3DED.15045223062004@news05.east.earthlink.net> we saw
our hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <IKnowHim-2306040955530001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming
is not creating information only managing the information that
is put into it. I do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder
here.
You don't even know what "information" is, do you? Of course we
create information. That's one of our evolutionary advantages.
Twit.
He said he's know a little. It's obviously very, very, very
little.
Does he think that every computer program has existed since the
beginning of time and no new programs are ever written?
Well, there is the concept among us programmers that there has
only really been one program that was created completely original,
and all others are just modifications that have been made down the
years. {;-)
It's all Turing's fault!
Pity that IKnowHimDoYou can't pass the Turing test...
What does that say about those who keep trying to argue with him?
He's useful for target practice.
Those penguin programs are more fun. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 05:50:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:32:47 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:vqgmd0pjl42en9tqj0kbo0qsbjntsrm9iv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:58:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:9sbmd09cpg09as5cqlmn3t1vb91h6pjavv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:53:25 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:01:57 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-3021DC.06015624062004@news03.east.earthlink.net> we saw
our hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <pan.2004.06.23.22.11.32.755861@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:04:53 +0000 in episode
<nemo0037-BE3DED.15045223062004@news05.east.earthlink.net> we saw
our hero *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>:
In article <IKnowHim-2306040955530001@pm1-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Yes, I know a little about programming. Computer programming
is not creating information only managing the information that
is put into it. I do not want to fall for Berra's Blunder
here.
You don't even know what "information" is, do you? Of course we
create information. That's one of our evolutionary advantages.
Twit.
He said he's know a little. It's obviously very, very, very
little.
Does he think that every computer program has existed since the
beginning of time and no new programs are ever written?
Well, there is the concept among us programmers that there has
only really been one program that was created completely original,
and all others are just modifications that have been made down the
years. {;-)
It's all Turing's fault!
Pity that IKnowHimDoYou can't pass the Turing test...
What does that say about those who keep trying to argue with him?
He's useful for target practice.
Those penguin programs are more fun. :-)
LOL. Agreed!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
23 Jun 2004 07:22:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:55:53 -0700,
(IKnowHimDoYou) with calm deliberation, and malace aforethought,
wrote:
____________________________________
DNA has a correcting attribute that eliminates most random mutations or
mistakes.
It does?
This is a good agrument against the required mutations needed
for evolution as claimed by the evolutionists.
Funny thing about evolution. There is no such thing as a "required"
mutation".
It is a bit like some engineers I know, my self included.
The tool I need to keep going might be a spanner, but if a rock and a
screwdriver are all that there is, I'll try that, instead. Some times
it works, and sometimes it don't.
I made lots of mistakes, in fact, I made mostly, mistakes, but the
bits of code that worked, I recorded, and kept, and like nature, I
never bothered to try and work out why they worked, or how.
I also replayed them, time after time, and changed them, and if they
still worked, kept them as well.
I am no script wizard, but I do have a massive library of routines
that I have built up over the years. Some are only a few bytes long,
to do simple things, like set a flag, or count how often a flag is
changed.
Others are vary large, and probably contain several repeats of the
same routine, doing totally different things, or nothing. Some are
still in binary, or Hex, although most of it transferred to "C".
But even then, some of the "C" routines have large chunks of hex. in
them, that I can't translate to "C".
Now on the odd occasion that I want to write a program, all I do is
patch a bunch of existing code blocks together, and write the control
routines.
(I only write one "species(?)" of program, so it works.)
...And once they work, they go into the data base too.
Just like DNA.
_____________________________________
No, your computer programs are the product of your intelligence and not of
random chance as required by evolution.
It is very nice of you to say so, but you are far from correct.
As I have said in another post, when I first started to try
programming, my inputs were purely random, but if my random sequence
did anything, I kept it, and noted what it did. If it did nothing, or
simply locked the machine up, I would discard it.
Just like nature. If it works, it gets the chance to try and survive,
but if it don't work, it is gone, and thus, my programs evolved.
You have stumbled into Barra's
Blunder here as have many other evolutionists. First comes the
information from the designer-then comes the designed program-not the
other way around.
True enough in a commercial setting, but nature aint a commercial
venture.
Nature is a dabbler, and so, to find your simile, you must look among
the dabblers, like my self.
snip
Also, as the program develops, a lot of other programs will sprout(?)
from it, using the same basic code, but doing other things.
Just like nature, just like DNA.
______________________________________
No. The computer program is not like "nature". The only likeness is that
both require an intelligent designer who provides information. The
computer program is simply a mechanical system for using selected
information.
Oh but it is, very like nature.
Nature has rules.
This element behaves this way.
That element behaves that way.
Together, they behave the other way.
Rules that not only say that it can happen, but rules that say that if
the conditions are right, it *must* happen.
Little square pulses in a wire, don't have that, so we do it for them.
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
23 Jun 2004 09:36:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:56:10 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> posted thusly:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:55:33 -0700,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
The first requirement means that a very long string of letters or symbols
is required.
The second means that the order of the letters is not directed by physical
or chemical laws, which by their nature produce only simply repeating
patterns(such as printing "ABC" over and over again until the printer runs
out of paper).
The third requirement means that not just any order will do but only the
precise order required to produce the encyclopedia, or computer operating
progarm, or array of cellular proteins coded for in the DNA nucleotides.
This encyclopedia. Did the information it contains, come together all
at once, or was it accumulated over a long period of time?
Evolutionists are great at getting people to ask the
wrong questions. The real question is, did the
information in the encyclopedia come together all by
itself, or was an intelligence at work?
The encyclopedia demonstrates intelligence in action
and information that cries out design and not
randomness.
Computer OS. There are a lot of similarities to DNA and a computer
program.
Do you know anything about programming?
Yes and I know that a computer program is designed and
that it is obvious that an intelligence was at work and
that it didn't come together, all by itself, at random.
My first attempt. was on a computer made from a machine control chip<4
bit>, half a dozen NIXIE tubes, a paper tape reader/writer<two
separate pieces>, and a massive 1Kbit, of "ring" memory. I made my
changes slowly and tediously, in binary, one bit at a time.
That is just two bits, two chances to work.
DNA has four, but DNA is in two polarised pairs, and codons of three
letters, ATG, CTA, TAT, etc
If we are very crude, and call the pairs, AT/TA, and CG/GC, "yes" and
"no" and allow that the codon is three letters, you have 16 different
ways of saying "yes, and "no".
This does allow nature to make a lot more mistakes, a lot faster than
binary could, but it also allows her to find the odd usable
combination, a lot faster.
Sure it does. Look, while you try to make life sound
so simple and act as if it is nothing at all for it to
pop up all by itself, we both know that you're either
lying or deluded. The fact is, that life is incredibly
complex. A single cell is many times more intricate
and faster than any supercomputer, yet you would never
claim that the non-living materials of the
supercomputer came together by chance and it works
because of randomness, yet you want us to believe that
non-living materials all came together all by
themselves, at random and work in a design much more
complicated than that same supercomputer AND that it
became living matter, on top of that. That's
ridiculous, plain and simple and the fact is, that
mathematically, what you believe to have happened, is
impossible.
I made lots of mistakes, in fact, I made mostly, mistakes, but the
bits of code that worked, I recorded, and kept, and like nature, I
never bothered to try and work out why they worked, or how.
And there was intelligence at work. The computer did
not make itself, in order to be able to produce code,
nor does the program write itself. You wrote it and
that works against your belief, not for it. Unless
you're claiming that you have no intelligence?
I also replayed them, time after time, and changed them, and if they
still worked, kept them as well.
That's right. Y-O-U changed them! Why don't you get
that simple fact?
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
www.icr.org
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
23 Jun 2004 06:16:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:36:02 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> with calm deliberation, and malace
aforethought, wrote:
This encyclopedia. Did the information it contains, come together all
at once, or was it accumulated over a long period of time?
Evolutionists are great at getting people to ask the
wrong questions. The real question is, did the
information in the encyclopedia come together all by
itself, or was an intelligence at work?
The encyclopedia demonstrates intelligence in action
and information that cries out design and not
randomness.
Well, no, it doesn't. But that also, is irrelevant.
Xtians state, on these boards, that we claim, that life began when one
day a blob of chemicals crawled out of the ooze, and became a
completely functional cell, like magic.
This is untrue, it is just a silly straw man that you keep using.
However, it does have bearing.
Fact is, your encyclopedia evolved, as did your ability to make it.
And no, you are quite right, it did not put it's self together, but
then it is not alive.
farther, the information did not come together in the right order; Did
it?
So until it became a finished encyclopedia, it was nothing,
incomplete.
Life OTOH, since it was single chemicals, has been viable in it's own
right.
Some chemicals form bonds very easily> Carbon is very good at that,
and combines with other elements to form very complex molecules.
Each molecule, complete in it's self.
Some of these molecules are able to combine with other molecules, to
form self replication molecules. Again, complete in it's self.
At every stage in it's development, from chemical element, to zebra,
or whatever, it was a distinct and viable unit in its self.
Can you say that for your encyclopedia?
Computer OS. There are a lot of similarities to DNA and a computer
program.
Do you know anything about programming?
Yes and I know that a computer program is designed and
that it is obvious that an intelligence was at work and
that it didn't come together, all by itself, at random.
You might be surprised.
My first attempt. was on a computer made from a machine control chip<4
bit>, half a dozen NIXIE tubes, a paper tape reader/writer<two
separate pieces>, and a massive 1Kbit, of "ring" memory. I made my
changes slowly and tediously, in binary, one bit at a time.
That is just two bits, two chances to work.
DNA has four, but DNA is in two polarised pairs, and codons of three
letters, ATG, CTA, TAT, etc
If we are very crude, and call the pairs, AT/TA, and CG/GC, "yes" and
"no" and allow that the codon is three letters, you have 16 different
ways of saying "yes, and "no".
This does allow nature to make a lot more mistakes, a lot faster than
binary could, but it also allows her to find the odd usable
combination, a lot faster.
Sure it does. Look, while you try to make life sound
so simple and act as if it is nothing at all for it to
pop up all by itself, we both know that you're either
lying or deluded.
And you intend to convince me of this, with insults?
Okay.
The fact is, that life is incredibly
complex.
No argument.
A single cell is many times more intricate
and faster than any supercomputer,
Faster? In what way?
yet you would never
claim that the non-living materials of the
supercomputer came together by chance and it works
because of randomness,
Of course not, none of the computer components has the necessary
properties, unlike atoms and molecules.
Also, every component in a computer is a very complex and independent
unit in it's self.
I know of no life form that is made up of thousands of equally
complex, but separate units, all connected together, unless you want
to include ants, bees, etc. and they aint really connected together.
on top of that, you cannot take a bee from one hive, and put it in
another, and expect it to work.
yet you want us to believe that
non-living materials all came together all by
themselves, at random
No, we don't expect you to believe that: We do not believe it.
and work in a design much more
complicated than that same supercomputer AND that it
became living matter, on top of that. That's
ridiculous, plain and simple and the fact is, that
mathematically, what you believe to have happened, is
impossible.
Mathematically. Hmm.
Do you know what a fractal, is?
Consider a Mandlebrot(sp) set.
If you follow the equation, you should end up with a fairly even
distribution of points, because of the random factors involved, but
you actually end up with a very complex, <dare I sat it?> design.
Pattern, is the correct word.
And that is your problem, you are confusing "pattern" with "design"
I made lots of mistakes, in fact, I made mostly, mistakes, but the
bits of code that worked, I recorded, and kept, and like nature, I
never bothered to try and work out why they worked, or how.
And there was intelligence at work.
Not really.
The computer did
not make itself, in order to be able to produce code,
That is also true, but irrelevant. The computer does not produce code.
The computer merely shifts code, around.
nor does the program write itself. You wrote it and
that works against your belief, not for it. Unless
you're claiming that you have no intelligence?
I am claiming "no great intelligence", and, in the beginning, "no
programming skill/knowledge what so ever", either. But my random
proddings, produced workable routines
But I got things to happed, by random poking.
I also replayed them, time after time, and changed them, and if they
still worked, kept them as well.
That's right. Y-O-U changed them! Why don't you get
that simple fact?
Well of course. Chemicals have certain properties that binary bits
lack.
Binary bits cannot be carried in solution, they do not have different
properties under different conditions. They cannot mix with other,
different solutions, so that they combine with the chemicals in that
solution, and become something else;
In fact, they do not even have a real existence.
So you have got to poke them.
It is only doing for the bits, what the element's own atomic structure
does for it.
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
24 Jun 2004 07:08:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:16:52 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> posted thusly:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:36:02 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> with calm deliberation, and malace
aforethought, wrote:
This encyclopedia. Did the information it contains, come together all
at once, or was it accumulated over a long period of time?
Evolutionists are great at getting people to ask the
wrong questions. The real question is, did the
information in the encyclopedia come together all by
itself, or was an intelligence at work?
The encyclopedia demonstrates intelligence in action
and information that cries out design and not
randomness.
Well, no, it doesn't. But that also, is irrelevant.
And we stop right there. If you can't even admit that
an encyclopedia demonstrates intelligence in putting it
together, then you are not going to accept any truth,
except that which you create in your own mind.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
In the beginning, God created...
And He did it in six days and said
He did it in six days (Exodus 20:11).
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Life Processes-No Accident |
23 Jun 2004 12:07:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:36:02 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:56:10 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> posted thusly:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:55:33 -0700,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
life. Philip E. Johnson says that:
"The information that directs the life processes-like any other meaningful
text- needs to be complex, aperiodic, and specified.
The first requirement means that a very long string of letters or symbols
is required.
The second means that the order of the letters is not directed by physical
or chemical laws, which by their nature produce only simply repeating
patterns(such as printing "ABC" over and over again until the printer runs
out of paper).
The third requirement means that not just any order will do but only the
precise order required to produce the encyclopedia, or computer operating
progarm, or array of cellular proteins coded for in the DNA nucleotides.
This encyclopedia. Did the information it contains, come together all
at once, or was it accumulated over a long period of time?
Evolutionists are great at getting people to ask the
wrong questions. The real question is, did the
information in the encyclopedia come together all by
itself, or was an intelligence at work?
The encyclopedia demonstrates intelligence in action
and information that cries out design and not
randomness.
Computer OS. There are a lot of similarities to DNA and a computer
program.
Do you know anything about programming?
Yes and I know that a computer program is designed and
that it is obvious that an intelligence was at work and
that it didn't come together, all by itself, at random.
Why do people believe in God? For most people the answer is still some
version of the ancient Argument from Design. We look about us at the
beauty and intricacy of the world - at the aerodynamic sweep of a
swallow's wing, at the delicacy of flowers and of the butterflies that
fertilize them, through a microscope at the teeming life in every drop
of pond water, through a telescope at the crown of a giant redwood
tree. We reflect on the electronic complexity and optical perfection
of our own eyes that do the looking. If we have any imagination, these
things drive us to a sense of awe and reverence. Moreover, we cannot
fail to be struck by the obvious resemblance of living organs to the
carefully planned designs of human engineers. The argument was most
famously expressed in the watchmaker analogy of the eighteenth-century
priest William Paley. Even if you didn't know what a watch was, the
obviously designed character of its cogs and springs and of how they
mesh together for a purpose would force you to conclude "that the
watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some
time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who
formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who
comprehended its construction, and designed its use." If this is true
of a comparatively simple watch, how much the more so is it true of
the eye, ear, kidney, elbow joint, brain? These beautiful, complex,
intricate, and obviously purpose-built structures must have had their
own designer, their own watchmaker - God.
So ran Paley's argument, and it is an argument that nearly all
thoughtful and sensitive people discover for themselves at some stage
in their childhood. Throughout most of history it must have seemed
utterly convincing, self-evidently true. And yet, as the result of one
of the most astonishing intellectual revolutions in history, we now
know that it is wrong, or at least superfluous. We now know that the
order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about
through an entirely different process, a process that works without
the need for any designer and one that is a consequence of basically
very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by
natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by
Alfred Russel Wallace.
What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have
in common? The answer is statistical improbability. If we find a
transparent pebble washed into the shape of a crude lens by the sea,
we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the
unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is
not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an
elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and
chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss"
engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by
chance. If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw
them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary
laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer
luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss
compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to
fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the
number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood,
have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can
completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the
question as an explanation.
This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be
circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of
atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before,
when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course,
it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of
grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this
one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of
course, is that the ball had to land somewhere. We can only stand
amazed at the improbability of the actual event if we specify it a
priori: for example, if a blindfolded man spins himself round on the
tee, hits the ball at random, and achieves a hole in one. That would
be truly amazing, because the target destination of the ball is
specified in advance.
Of all the trillions of different ways of putting together the atoms
of a telescope, only a minority would actually work in some useful
way. Only a tiny minority would have Carl Zeiss engraved on them, or,
indeed, any recognizable words of any human language. The same goes
for the parts of a watch: of all the billions of possible ways of
putting them together, only a tiny minority will tell the time or do
anything useful. And of course the same goes, a fortiori, for the
parts of a living body. Of all the trillions of trillions of ways of
putting together the parts of a body, only an infinitesimal minority
would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many
different ways of being alive - at least ten million different ways if
we count the number of distinct species alive today - but, however
many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are
vastly more ways of being dead!
We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too
complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being
by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is
that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of
chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small
enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one
after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by
genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic
material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure.
Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of
them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival
and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random
changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the
species and become the norm. The stage is now set for the next small
change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these
small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next,
the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too
complex to have come about in a single act of chance.
For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into
being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's
say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be
written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these
mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed,
spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is
in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too
large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes
simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of
changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances.
We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is
perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from
something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very
slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less
elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so
on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small
differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you
are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare
skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That
depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough
time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?
The fossils tell us that life has been evolving on Earth for more than
3,000 million years. It is almost impossible for the human mind to
grasp such an immensity of time. We, naturally and mercifully, tend to
see our own expected lifetime as a fairly long time, but we can't
expect to live even one century. It is 2,000 years since Jesus lived,
a time span long enough to blur the distinction between history and
myth. Can you imagine a million such periods laid end to end? Suppose
we wanted to write the whole history on a single long scroll. If we
crammed all of Common Era history into one metre of scroll, how long
would the pre-Common Era part of the scroll, back to the start of
evolution, be? The answer is that the pre-Common Era part of the
scroll would stretch from Milan to Moscow. Think of the implications
of this for the quantity of evolutionary change that can be
accommodated. All the domestic breeds of dogs - Pekingeses, poodles,
spaniels, Saint Bernards, and Chihuahuas - have come from wolves in a
time span measured in hundreds or at the most thousands of years: no
more than two meters along the road from Milan to Moscow. Think of the
quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese; now
multiply that quantity of change by a million. When you look at it
like that, it becomes easy to believe that an eye could have evolved
from no eye by small degrees.
It remains necessary to satisfy ourselves that every one of the
intermediates on the evolutionary route, say from bare skin to a
modern eye, would have been favored by natural selection; would have
been an improvement over its predecessor in the sequence or at least
would have survived. It is no good proving to ourselves that there is
theoretically a chain of almost perceptibly different intermediates
leading to an eye if many of those intermediates would have died. It
is sometimes argued that the parts of an eye have to be all there
together or the eye won't work at all. Half an eye, the argument runs,
is no better than no eye at all. You can't fly with half a wing; you
can't hear with half an ear. Therefore there can't have been a series
of step-by-step intermediates leading up to a modern eye, wing, or
ear.
This type of argument is so naive that one can only wonder at the
subconscious motives for wanting to believe it. It is obviously not
true that half an eye is useless. Cataract sufferers who have had
their lenses surgically removed cannot see very well without glasses,
but they are still much better off than people with no eyes at all.
Without a lens you can't focus a detailed image, but you can avoid
bumping into obstacles and you could detect the looming shadow of a
predator.
As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is
disproved by large numbers of very successful gliding animals,
including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and
squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of
skin between their joints that really are fractional wings. If you
fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that
increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or
large your flaps may be, there must always be a critical height such
that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would have
been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your
descendants have evolved that extra surface area, their lives would be
saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a slightly
greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds
of generations later, we arrive at full wings.
Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That
would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the
combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the
dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit
closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink,
you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of
how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed
impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very
different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly
different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently
long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive
anything from anything else.
Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once
upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God. But is there any
evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is yes; the
evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the
places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution
had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place
where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this
could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that
fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove
the evolution theory.
The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the
continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected
if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees.
The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what
we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant
cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in
all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended
from one single ancestor. The evidence for evolution is so compelling
that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume that God
deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look
as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the
geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic
confidence trick. Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such
trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more
scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All
living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote
ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago.
The Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed as a reason for
believing in a God. Are there any other arguments? Some people believe
in God because of what appears to them to be an inner revelation. Such
revelations are not always edifying but they undoubtedly feel real to
the individual concerned. Many inhabitants of lunatic asylums have an
unshakable inner faith that they are Napoleon or, indeed, God himself.
There is no doubting the power of such convictions for those that have
them, but this is no reason for the rest of us to believe them.
Indeed, since such beliefs are mutually contradictory, we can't
believe them all.
There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural
selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start fr | | | |
