12/15/2009 - As of today, on a trial basis we are allowing unregistered users to start threads and post replies to others threads. All posts go into the staff moderation que for approval. Rude remarks, personal assaults and spam of any kind will not be approved nor tolerated.
Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy of religion asks questions about religion. It may include but are not limited to the nature and existence of God, religious language, miracles, prayer, the problem of evil, and how religion and other value-systems such as ethics interrelate. Religious philosophy, on the other hand, is the philosophical thinking that is inspired and directed by religion, such as Christian philosophy and Islamic philosophy.
Marshall's philosophy basically is that DNA is a language or a code and that all languags or codes that we know of are made by an intelligence, but I don't buy it, because I didn't see the evidence for who made the "DNA-language" or "code". It still boils down to faith.
I suggest you re-read some of his works for it most certainly does not boil down to faith - He also has proven that it most certainly is a language/code/blueprint - Only a die hard evolutionists would say otherwise - and he is 100% correct stating that it most certainly has to come from intelligence - now you are correct in saying: "I didn't see the evidence for who made the "DNA-language" or "code" - but that is not the point however - fill in the blanks yourself with whatever God/cosmic force you wish or would like to believe in but you cannot state it was accomplished without intelligence for that is just pure idiocy ........ In my humble opinion.
---------- Post added at 12:26 pm ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 am ----------
Wanted to add, and this is not directed at anyone on this thread - I have noticed in my quest that many people have a disability, I guess would be the right word, to just accept the obvious simple answers to certain ideas - They believe because it is simple it cannot be the truth failing to understand that the most logical simple answer is usually the truth - simplicity is genius as the proverb goes.
Very few people come along (Hitler comes to mind, this Mr. Perry and even Scott Roberts for instance) who have the ability to see past the smoke screens and dis-info road blocks, the Science and psycho babble and get to the Foundation of an idea or "Truth" and once there can determine, by simple common sense, if that particular "truth" has a Foundation that is faulty or not -
For If a foundation of any given idea is proven to be false than everything that is built upon it is also in error - Even if some of it contains truths or facts, those truths/facts have been twisted or mis-represented to support the foundational lie. That is evolution (as taught today) in a nutshell in my opinion.
It is like the parable Jesus Christ brought forward about building your house on a faulty foundation - no matter how good the material is that you use to build the house (solid wood floors, walls made with the best of lumber, roof, etc. etc.) when the rains come it will fall to the ground due to the foundation.
Let us speak plain; There is more force in names than most men dream of; and a lie may keep it's throne a whole age longer if it skulk behind the shield of some fair seeming name. Let us call tyrants tyrants, and maintain that only freedom comes by grace of God, and all that comes not by His grace must fall - James Russell Lowell.
Whether you think the "language", "code" or pattern of DNA as I would rather call it, came about by design or by chance is a matter of personal preference I guess, but what seems to be the case is that DNA converges with evolutionary theory. For example the difference in the human genome and that of the chimpanse is only little more than one percent and we also share genetic commonalities with lifeforms that are vastly more different from us than the chimpanse.
I can understand that someone sees a "designer" when looking at the beauty of the patterns of nature, but what I don't get is that someone who accepts the reality of DNA on the other hand denys the theory of evolution that fits so well with what the genetic "code" seems to be "telling" us.
Whether you think the "language", "code" or pattern of DNA as I would rather call it, came about by design or by chance is a matter of personal preference I guess, but what seems to be the case is that DNA converges with evolutionary theory. For example the difference in the human genome and that of the chimpanse is only little more than one percent and we also share genetic commonalities with lifeforms that are vastly more different from us than the chimpanse.
I can understand that someone sees a "designer" when looking at the beauty of the patterns of nature, but what I don't get is that someone who accepts the reality of DNA on the other hand denys the theory of evolution that fits so well with what the genetic "code" seems to be "telling" us.
DNA is not a pattern but a code (which I think is so very well proven) and the difference between the two is as night and day as well as the human to the chimpanse - To to say that it ..converges.. with evolutionary theory let alone "fits so well" is ........ Well, you already heard my view on on that type of thinking but I will say again - If the foundation is faulty everything built upon it is also faulty or becomes error.
Excerpt: Patterns occur naturally - no help required from a 'designer'. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day.
Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.
Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.
We can explore five possible conclusions:
1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.
There were six major counter-arguments to information as proof of intelligent design. You can follow these links for a thorough summary of the discussion threads:
1. The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)
2. The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)
3. The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)
4. The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)
5. The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)
6. The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)
---------- Post added at 11:25 am ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 am ----------
Let us speak plain; There is more force in names than most men dream of; and a lie may keep it's throne a whole age longer if it skulk behind the shield of some fair seeming name. Let us call tyrants tyrants, and maintain that only freedom comes by grace of God, and all that comes not by His grace must fall - James Russell Lowell.
I don't think the foundation is faulty. The evolution of lifeforms is evident in genetics.
Well, a tornado, for example, is also a "code". You could decypher the atomic make-up of a tornado and that resulting atomic string would be the "code" for how a tornado forms. All things that exist are simply a pattern of atoms, no more no less, but some patterns speaks more to the human mind than others, so the human brain sees it more as a "language" or a "code". Finding patterns is one of the things the human brain has evolved to do. It's a natural consequence of being an entity in a world of patterns...
I don't think the foundation is faulty. The evolution of lifeforms is evident in genetics.
We are not taking about the evolution of lifeforms being evident but whether that evolution is random chance or intelligent design - Random chance - Something of no intelligence bringing forth something of intelligence
Well, a tornado, for example, is also a "code". You could decypher the atomic make-up of a tornado and that resulting atomic string would be the "code" for how a tornado forms. All things that exist are simply a pattern of atoms, no more no less, but some patterns speaks more to the human mind than others, so the human brain sees it more as a "language" or a "code". Finding patterns is one of the things the human brain has evolved to do. It's a natural consequence of being an entity in a world of patterns...
Please believe me when I tell you that I am not trying to pick a fight but your argument is false as displayed in the excerpt below - Please read.
It has been said (and I very much agree) the only in the realm of religion do words suddenly lose their true definitions proving (IMO) that evolution, as taught today in our completely Jew controlled Academia, is just that.... a religion.
The following discussion shows efforts to demonstrate that many naturally occurring things in nature, like gravity, are codes - and why none of these things are actually codes according to formal definitions of information theory.
Summary:
The formal definition of a code according to Perlwitz and Waterman (see below) is a set of symbols that uniquely map a point in space "A" to a point in space "B." In other words there is special symbolic correspondence between a letter or word (idea) and a real physical entity. The word "coffee" represents a beverage made from cocoa beans, for example. Symbolic relationships of this kind are only created in the mental world; they by definition do not exist in the purely material world.
The infidels make many valiant (!) attempts to assert that any and all of the following natural phenomena are codes: Gravitational fields (a field is a field, but it is not a code, as it does not uniquely map a point in space A to a point in space B), crystals and snowflakes (they have edges and boundaries and growth patterns but do not contain any codes), magma flows and layers of rock and ice (one might possibly argue that these things are encoding systems but they have no corresponding decoding system, until someone shows up to inspect and interpret them), bee waggles and tree rings (yes! these things are most certainly codes - but they derive from DNA, and therefore don't count as examples of naturally occurring codes, since DNA has not been proven to have a naturalistic origin), radioactive decay (same problem as gravity and magma flows), rhodopsin (an example of transduction; may be an encoding system but there is no decoding). Other arguments which are presented and refuted in turn: laminar flow, blood dialysis, flight, black holes, thunderstorms, pouring water. None of these examples support the naturalistic position.
The infidels attempt to say that computer programs which create derivative computer programs are an example, but all computer programs ultimately have human origin - therefore they are examples of intelligent design.
Chaos, fractals and complex systems: They produce stalagmites, stalactites, tornados, hurricanes, erosion, turbulence, sand dunes, rivers, ocean waves, planetary orbits, snowflakes and crystals. All of these things occur naturally with no help from a designer; they are excellent examples of self-organization. However none of these things produce codes. There is an infinite chasm between the most complicated forms of chaos and even the simplest codes. Codes have an entire dimension of order that chaos doesn't have: Symbolic Information.
The formula for gravity is 1/r^2. The idea of an elipse is stored as coded information in this formula.
No; our description of gravity's pull as 1/r^2 is a symbolic representation of its behavior, but gravity itself is just a force. Gravity and tornados and sand dunes and water molecules contain no code, no symbols, no encoding / decoding mechanisms. DNA, however does symbolically represent something other than itself: A plan, instructions for building a complete organism.
The 1/r^2 force of gravity by itself makes planets move in ellipses, and this exists without us. However, the situation is quite different in the case of a computer file of, let's say, a JPG file. This relationship depends on our act of defining it.
Does the description of gravity, 1/r^2, give us a big ellipse or a small one? An elongated one or a round one? An approximately parabolic path? Or a spiral, as the orbit comes closer and closer and the object crashes? Does 1/r^2 describe the crash itself, which may be extraordinarily complex? Gravity may cause the object to burn up in the atmosphere and never reach the ground. Gravity makes cool air drop, so hot air rises . Gravity holds my chair to the ground and me to the chair. The possibilities that a gravitational field can give rise to are legion. It contributes to all of these things, but which of these outcomes does it specify in advance?
The answer, of course, is that it specifies none of these outcomes. It has no code that predetermines any single one of these things. It is simply one contributing force in all of them.
Why? Because 1/r^2 describes the strength of the field as a function of radius from a single point, nothing more. The equation for an ellipse can be given in a number of different forms, but 1/r^ 2 itself does not specifically describe an ellipse. Nor does it specifically describe a spiral, or a crash, or cool air dropping as hot air rises.
That's because gravity is a force, not a code.
This is in contrast to DNA, which codes for every inheritable trait. It codes, in advance, for whether your eyes are green or blue. Whether your skin is white or red or black or yellow. Whether you are male or female. Whether your blood is RH Negative or O Positive. Whether you go bald or not, whether your chest is hairy, whether you are short or tall. The physical characteristics and biochemical instructions that DNA specifies in any particular instance would fill a very large book.
DNA codes for these characteristics the same sense that magnetic fields on your hard drive code for Aunt Mildred's picture.
That's because DNA is not a force, or a field, or a boundary, or a purely chaotic phenomena. It's a code.
Crystals have information coded in their structure because you can predict the direction of crystal growth.
My toddler has a box of square wooden blocks, and if I tilt the box towards one corner and shake it, they'll naturally line up in lattices. But none of those blocks contains instructions to assemble a lattice. They're just blocks.
Likewise, the edges of crystals are boundaries, but they are not codes. Whatever molecule is next to a boundary is next to a boundary, but there is no symbolic relationship. A water molecule all by itself contains no plan or instructions to build a specific structure or a particular molecule; but DNA does.
The distances of alpha particles from a speck of radium provide coded information about the time of decay of each nucleus. Perry, you are just presenting assertions by simple fiat.
If we say the temperature in the room is 70 degrees F, we have used a convention of symbols to describe a very real characteristic of air. However "70 degrees F" is the symbolic representation of a man-made encoding / decoding system; the air itself is just molecules in motion.
Now if mercury is sitting in a tube (a naturally occurring thermometer, let's say) and it rises when the temperature rises, we still do not yet have an encoding / decoding system. However, if we take a red pen and mark degree marks on the tube so that the rising of the mercury corresponds to a specific temperature, now we do have an encoding / decoding system, and when we read the thermometer, we have coded information.
This is consistent with my definition of "coded information" as "a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium."
Just like the molecular motion that we interpret as temperature, alpha particle radiation is not coded information until meaning is assigned to it. Alpha particles are being radiated, but what message do they symbolize that is independent of the particles themselves? Did the count go up because the speck of radium moved closer to the sensor, or because we added more radium? The alpha particles have no symbolic relationship until we assign a meaning to their arrival, just like we do with temperature.
Examples of naturalistic things that are purported to be codes
1. Flight. Birds and insects do it, humans copied it. This is an examples of something that has been systemized, codified and reproduced.
Birds are a product of DNA. This still doesn't answer the question of where DNA came from; this is a circular argument.
2. Laminar flow. Fish use it. And now, submarines .. Again, systemized, codified and reproduced.
Laminar flow is not a system of symbols and does not qualify as a code by any formal definition from information theory. A flow does not a fish make. Fish are a product of the code in their DNA, and submarines are the product of design.
3. Blood dialysis happens in your kidneys. Again, systemized, codified and reproduced. 4. Oyxgen scrubbing is used in submaries . Copied from aligators . Again, systemized, codified and reproduced.
Blood dialysis and alligators are products of DNA. This still doesn't answer the question of where DNA came from; this is a circular argument.
5. Black hole and neutron star formation is a complete process. Not one step can occur out of place. Must happen in the right order. Not necessarily linear.
Contains no system of symbols, no encoding / decoding mechanism.
6. Multiple storm cell growth exhibits elements of communication. Is definitely systematic.
Does not contain code or communicate based on any information theory definition.
7. Magma flows are a code
Earth magnetic field example:
Source of signal is current direction in the dynamo of the earths core
The medium is the magnetic field generated and the space it occupies
The reciever is molten rock at the mid atlantic ridge
The message is the direction of the current in the core, or the direction of the induced field
The mapping of source to reciever is 1:1 as the current direction in the earth's core uniquely defines a magnetization direction the the molten rock as it solidifies. Noise sources can all be identified and we have a complete and natural shannon -weaver communication system and a well defined natural code. Perry said all it took was one example to disprove his claim.
I think you have forgotten my original definition of coded information, from the very beginning of this thread: I define "Coded information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium. In Earth's magnetic field (or rhodopsin , or layers of ice on the South Pole, or whatever), there is no decoding mechanism. Framing it within Shannon's model, yes, you arguably have a transmitter but you still do not have a receiver. With DNA you have both.
A particular 'meaning' (as you use it here) is assigned in the magma problem, and I have just explained it.
You have asserted that magma has meaning and then in the same breath say that meaning does not exist. That is a contradiction.
What I have asserted is that magma has no meaning inside of its own encoding / decoding system, because there is no decoding system in magma. But certainly when we come and inspect the magma we can infer meaning from the data we collect.
The orientation of the fields frozen in the magma means something specific about the direction of the earth's dynamo when it was frozen. Meaning here is defined as the full physical reality of the core/magma system - just like DNA.
It requires no conscious or intelligent designer.
It doesn't have an 'existence' at all, it's just part of the description, it contains no semantics.
Meaning as I use it here is observing the entire functional system, whether DNA or the Atlantic Ridge magma flows and understanding what it means.
There is no meaning within the boundaries of the magma system, because it is impossible to say whether the "message" was "decoded" properly or not. In fact it is impossible to say that it was decoded at all, because there is no decoding system. The magma merely reflects whatever condition it was in when it hardened. If a meteor fell in the magma while it was cooling then the path of the meteor distorted the direction of the frozen magnetic field. Was that a corruption of the "signal"? No. Because the fact is, the meteor was part of what happened and the meteor has not interfered with any �decoding' process at all. That's because there is no decoding of any kind happening until a human shows up and tries to interpret it.
On the other hand, when a sequence of codons within DNA lead to the development of a functioning organism, that is an objective fact that exists independently of anyone's observation or opinion. That's because DNA replication is an encoding / decoding process. Furthermore, if a meteor destroys the DNA and the organism doesn't replicate, then decoding has failed. This also is an objective fact, regardless of anyone's opinion or observation. It is not subjective.
The decoding system in layers of magma is very simple, it's the magnetic particles oriented in the field. The receiver is the molten magma at the Mid-Atlantic ridge. The magnetic particles correspond one to one to the direction of the earth's magnetic field.
So how can there not be a receiver when the message is not only received but recorded in the rock for us to observe? We have a sender, a receiver, and a response that is 1:1 corresponding to the signal. The message is defined and easy to see.
This does not constitute a decoding mechanism, because no meaning is assigned to the particle orientation by a decoder within the system. To you and I , perhaps these things have meaning, maybe even a great deal of meaning. But within the system, no. This is no different than ice / water. Does ice in cold temperature and water in warm temperature constitute an encoding / decoding system? No, because there is no decoder. Same with the orientation of these magnetic particles - there is no decoding system there either.
Your point 2 part A ("all codes are designed) is also wrong. You've stated that all codes are created by a conscious mind. This is not true. We have provided many good examples that contradict this point but you still fail to understand where you were contradicted. Two of those examples are repeated for the ninth or tenth time: Ant pheromone trails and bee waggles. There is no consciousness there; no consciousness is writing the code they leave or describe. Compare this to robotic white line followers.
I responded to this earlier when I talked about computers getting their updates automatically over the Internet. No intelligence on either end there. But intelligence had to program the software or the robotic line follower in the first place.
I personally do not know whether ants and bees are conscious or intelligent or not; I'll leave that debate to people smarter and more informed than me. But supposing they are intelligent, then the pheromone trails and bee waggles are designed by the ants and bees. Supposing they are not intelligent, then the pheromone trails and bee waggles are derivatives of instructions that reside in their DNA. Which brings us right back to the question - if there is no designer, then show me a physico -chemical process that creates the instructions (coded information) in DNA.
Relative to the gravity discussion, I had said: "1/r^2 describes the strength of the field as a function of radius from a single point, nothing more."
This determines the shape of the orbit. 1/r^2 specifically describes the shape "conic section", but not its size or orientation - just as plant DNA specifically describes the shape of a leaf, but not the size of the plant, the number of leaves etc. Therefore the analogy between the 1/r^2-force and DNA stands; the differences are quantitative, not qualitative.
Gravity alone does not uniquely determine anything other than itself. Gravity does not conform to my definition of coded information, nor does it conform to Perlwitz , Burks and Waterman's definition of a code.
Your point 2 part B is also wrong. You've stated that there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. Not true. Think of water pouring on a slanted surface or rippled surface - in gravity it "codes" itself to run and find the lowest point. It even exhibits intelligent activity! Do you realize how challenging it is to code a program to do that in a 3 dimensional gradient map?
Chaos produces complexity (indeed, beyond our ability to compute, that's what the Butterfly effect is all about) but chaos does not produce codes. There is no encoding / decoding mechanism when water is pouring, nor is there a system of symbols.
Chaos does produce codes. A simple random number generator, if let run long enough will produce order like arrangements, words even some simple sentences. Who knows what would emerge if let run long enough? In chaotic systems there are periods of predictability.
Pouring water most definitely has encoding. When it strikes a surface or goes down a tube, it exhibits ordered behavior, with no brain or consciousness. If there was no coding, it wouldn't obey the laws of physics, would it? Plumbing and hydraulics wouldn't exist if pouring water wasn't a code.
The behavior of water running downhill is not a code, based on Perlwitz , Burks and Waterman's definition, or Shannon's, or any formal definition in information theory. There is no specific mapping of letters of alphabet A onto alphabet B. Remember that even a simple random number generator, to exist, requires letters to be defined by a conscious mind first. That said , this random number generator still does not produce code. It just produces random letters, which by themselves do not constitute a decoding system.
"All programming algorithms are ultimately designed by conscious minds. There are no known exceptions." Perry, this is categorically false. There are plenty of computer programs that generate algorithms. There are even algorithm generating programs that were generated by algorithm generating programs. Of course they were written by humans, but humans derived them in the first place from nature. Nature was the first author if you like, and I mean figuratively. Humans programmed an evolutionary process.
A computer algorithm can create an algorithm that creates an algorithm, but the first one is still programmed by someone. The fact that we copy them from nature does not prove that DNA occurs naturalistically - that's a circular argument. Let's be clear that when I say "naturally" or "naturalistically" I don't mean "mother nature" such as we say in casual conversation. I mean "naturalistic" in the strict scientific sense, i.e. derivable from known scientific laws. And in that sense, neither DNA nor codes of any kind (using formal definitions from information theory) have never been shown to emerge from lifeless, unintelligent processes. Natural laws explain their operation but not their origin.
Originally Posted by pmarshall : Instructions, by definition, require a mapping from probability space A to probability space B. Therefore any set of specific instructions is necessarily a code.
Yep. Back to snowflakes, gravity, inorganic chemistry, etc. You keep walking in circles.
Gravity contains no specific mapping of symbols from probability space A to probability space B. Nor does it contain any instructions. It is just a static force. That's why HRG continues to be unable to show why 1/r^2, all by itself, specifies any particular outcome. He has said that it creates ellipses; yet 1/r^2 is not an equation for an ellipse. In fact an equation for an ellipse cannot be derived from gravity alone. Gravity alone codes for nothing.
By your contrived definitions, we can never find a code that arose naturally. Because you assert that all known codes have conscious minds as designer, giving language, Morse code, etc as examples. Then I show you a counterexample. You say "not so fast, as we've already agreed, all codes have conscious minds as a designer�"
Please be careful not to misquote me. I freely accept any example that conforms to Perlwitz , Burks and Waterman's definition, or Shannon's, any formal definition of code in information theory. The reason we have precise definitions of words is so we can distinguish the nature of one thing from that of another. I have not asserted that we all agree that all codes (according to formal definitions of code) have conscious minds as a designer. I'm just waiting for one naturalist to produce an actual, empirical counterexample.
DNA alone specifies nothing; it requires a full complement of m-RNA, t-RNA and ribosomes to specify a protein.
In the same way, Gravity, with the help of planets specifies ellipses, orbit times (3rd Keplerian law) , .... Other attractive forces specify other shapes etc.
This is a conflation of two entirely different things. One strand of DNA, all by itself (yes, even without a cell to reproduce in - ask a geneticist), uniquely and specifically defines: male or female; cat or dog or antelope or human; blood type; number of vertebra; and a long list of other things. The fact that the growth is subject to environmental factors (cell could die or whatever) is quite secondary. In contrast, gravity, all by itself, uniquely defines nothing.
You either don't realize what "gravity" means, or you are equivocating. A law uniquely defines something - by the definition of the word. A gravitational field uniquely defines that which is expressed by its mathematical formulation. If you are unfamiliar with that formulation, pick up a physics textbook and read it.
Gravity does not uniquely map a point in probability space A to a point in probability space B, thus is not a code according to the following formal definition: Given a source with probability space [Omega, A, p( A)] and a receiver with probability space [Omega, B, p(B)], then a unique mapping of the letters of alphabet A onto letters of alphabet B is called a code. Here p( A) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet A and p (B) is the probability vector of the elements of alphabet B. ( Perlwitz , Burks and Waterman, 1988). Gravity is a force, but it is not a code.
Any molecule that self assembles in bulk contains a code.
Only if it fits the Perlwitz definition. No non-living molecules do.
Maybe you could call your body the message of your own DNA since that is the end product of the DNA action. That kind of communication is really no more than the type of communication a proton has with an electron.
DNA codes for specific characteristics of your body, after Perlwitz . A proton has no such relationship with an electron.
Rhodopsin is a chemical that isomerizes when a photon of light hits it. The 'message' is created when the photon has isomerized the molecule, there is noise since the photon may not be absorbed, or there may be some other excitation of the molecule. The information gained is the presence of the photon and the 'coding' is simply the way the information is gained. So the 'code' is the two states of the molecule and what they represent. So why is the code representing the two states of rhodopsin designed by a conscious mind instead of simply existing due to the laws of physics ?
.
The absorption of certain frequencies of light, by itself, does not represent coded information, because there is no encoding/decoding system. But in the context of your body, of course, the states are coded and transmitted to your brain so you can perceive color. Refer to my post several weeks ago about thermometers and temperature. Similarly, freezing temperatures turn water into ice, but that does not constitute coded information until a decoding system is introduced.
Perry, you never supplied us with a physical description of how to apply communication theory to things like rhodopsin and DNA.
Read Shannon's book "The Mathematical Theory of Communication" and observe Figure 1 in the first chapter: Information source / transmitter / signal / noise source / received signal / receiver / destination and note its isomorphism with DNA in Yockey , p. 35. A Rhodopsin molecule, all by itself, contains no such communication system. Nor does it produce any code according to Perlwitz's definition.
Light receptors in CCD arrays (cameras) occur in non living things, in fact anything with a color to it has molecules that respond to light and we may determine a 'code' for their response. But what is the significance? This is an example of a naturally occurring code, thereby overturning Perry's assertion.
Nowhere did I ever say that all things containing code are conscious. CCD arrays are not conscious, of course. But they are designed by conscious minds.
Many phenomena of nature are not derivable from the basic laws but are still consistent with them. Weather and superconductivity are two examples.
That is demonstrably incorrect. Weather patterns can be derived purely from physical laws, given exact knowledge of the constants and initial conditions. Superconductivity is also a function of well known physical properties of some materials, predictable from our knowledge of molecular behavior.
Everyone knows that the equations for weather are not solvable, and only powerful computer simulations provide insight. The problem of predicting weather patterns is much greater than just the problem of initial conditions.
We cannot deterministically predict weather, certainly not. But if you set up the initial conditions, weather does happen, naturally. And it can be modeled on computers etc etc , that's where the Butterfly Effect came from. But in the same sense there is no naturally occurring set of conditions which creates encoding / decoding systems such as we see in DNA. Weather occurs naturally. Spontaneous generation does not.
Infidels Debate Main Page
---------- Post added 09-08-2010 at 12:08 am ---------- Previous post was 09-07-2010 at 11:02 pm ----------
Getting back to my original point of this thread which is my belief in Destiny/purpose - Destiny and purpose and the reason the Jew wants, nay, needs to supress/kill it - Excerpt from Francis Parker Yockey's book - "Imperium."
This quality of direction we call Destiny. Destiny is the hallmark of everything living. Destiny-thinking is the type of thought which understands the living, and it is the only kind which does. The other method of human thought is that of Causality. This method is inwardly compulsory in dealing with inorganic problems of technics, mechanics, engineering, systematic natural philosophy. It finds the limits of its efficacy there, however, and is grotesque when applied to Life. It would tell us that youth is the cause of maturity, maturity of old age, that the bud is the cause of the full-blown flower, the caterpillar the cause of the butterfly.
The Destiny-Idea is the central motive of organic thinking. If anyone thinks it is merely an invisible causality, he understands it not. The idea of Causality is the central motive of systematic, or inorganic thinking. The latter is scientific thinking. It aims at subjugation of things to understanding; it wishes to name everything, to make outlines distinct, and then to link phenomena together by classification and causal linkage. Kant is the height of this type of thinking, and to this side of Western philosophy belong also Hume, Bacon, Schopenhauer, Hamilton, Spencer, Mill, Bentham, Locke, Holbach, Descartes. To the organic side belong Macchiavelli, Vico, Montaigne, Leibnitz, Lichtenberg, Pascal, Hobbes, Goethe, Hegel, Carlyle, Nietzsche and Spengler, the philosopher of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Scientific thinking is at the height of its power in the realm of matter, that which possesses extension, but no direction. Material happenings can be controlled, are reversible, produce identical results under identical conditions, are recurrent, can be classified, can be successfully comprehended as though they are subject to an a priori, mechanical, necessity, in other words, to Causality.
Scientific thinking is powerless in the domain of Life, for its happenings are uncontrollable, irreversible, never-recurring, unique, cannot be classified, are unamenable to rational treatment, and possessed of no external, mechanical necessity. Every organism is something never seen before, that follows an inner necessity, that passes away, never to reappear. Every organism is a set of possibilities within a certain framework, and its life is the process of actualization of these possibilities. The technique of Destiny-thinking is simply living into other organisms to understand their life-conditions and necessities. One can then apprehend what must happen.
The first chapter of this book is outstanding (it all I read so far for I started in on the book two days ago) although I am sure it even gets better - He is the kind of writer you have to read a little and sit back and ponder what he said for awhile before moving on- Read more: Ulick Varange (Francis Parker Yockey) — Imperium — Chapter 1
Let us speak plain; There is more force in names than most men dream of; and a lie may keep it's throne a whole age longer if it skulk behind the shield of some fair seeming name. Let us call tyrants tyrants, and maintain that only freedom comes by grace of God, and all that comes not by His grace must fall - James Russell Lowell.
As a life long evolutionist, my mind has been changed once I looked at BOTH sides.
1. No human being has ever observed Macro Evolution.
2. No animal has ever added genetic code that was not already within their species DNA.
3. Macro Evolution was invented by 2 Jews.
* A Toyota car is 99.9% similar to a Ford but do people think the Toyota evolved into a Ford? Or do people think each car was built separately while still sharing 99.9% of the same materials? Same thing goes for any animal. Just because they are similar does not mean they somehow Macro Evolved into each other. All animals are made out of similar proteins, so of course all animals are very similar in DNA.
I haven’t listened to all of this yet but I have had this conversation with a ‘scientist’ friend of mine. I DO BELIVE IN God, as most of you know, however he doesn’t. He thinks that there are holes in this argument and I can sort of see some of them myself, although for me The Jew himself is all the proof I need of there being a God.
So to play devil’s advocate here I will tell ya what he told me;
“Because we do not know of any other instance of a code not be formulated by intelligent design does not make it proof that all codes are from intelligent design” i.e. not being able to prove the negative does not make it a positive, so to speak. Because we don’t know of something that would counter someone’s argument is not proof that their argument is solid, or factual. It only shows, with our current understanding, that we cannot ‘currently’ prove them wrong. His point is valid here, but it’s a small point in this particular argument as it does seem overwhelming true that codes don’t ‘happen’ by happenstance, they need design.
Another point he made was that not all organisms carry DNA, this one shocked me cause I did believe it to be true, but it turns out there is one simplistic organism that has no DNA. Organisms with Prokaryotic Cells such as bacteria can be argued to have no DNA. He brought up this point to illustrate his conviction that natural selection is the reason for our DNA coding. As if to say we started from a blank slate and built up our codes over millions of years. I personally do not buy into this argument for many reasons but I did think it should be brought up here for everyone’s consideration. I personally cannot see why then we’d evolve ‘junk DNA’ or why the smallest of creatures and even the earlist records or theses smallest of creatures already have very complex DNA. Certainly for this argument of his to be true than the older samples of life forms from earth’s beginning days would have very simple coded DNA strands, but they do not. They are already very complex.
Just my two cents.
---------- Post added at 04:38 pm ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 pm ----------
sorry some type o's there, im at work and rushing this, the last part should have read;
I personally cannot see why then we’d evolve ‘junk DNA’ or why the smallest of creatures and even the earliest records of these ‘smallest of creatures’ already have very complex DNA. Certainly for this argument, of his, to be true than the older samples of life forms from earth’s beginning days would have very simple coded DNA strands, but they do not instead they are already very complex.
as i am not a man of faith in religion, i must concur that i myself, as i get older, do see things very differently when it comes to intelligent design vs. natural selection.
on a daily basis science is being left with more questions than answers, but questioning our world is where science comes from; this is not a bad thing.
if there is a god, and i am saying if because it is arrogant to assume there is and assume there is not, but if there is a god, he would want us to become as powerful and as smart as he is. that is what parents want of their own children, afterall.
these days, the hardest selling point for me on the question of creationism vs natural selection is this: DNA/RNA are the only self-replicating molecules in the universe.
molecules are particles, devoid of life by definition. molecules do not replicate themselves. how does DNA/RNA do it?
there are advances in modern chemistry and biology leading to man-made self replicating molecules, but it would be hubris to assume at such an early stage of research that man has even begun to closely unlock the doors of the mysteries of life on earth.
mind you this, if man is learning how to copy this action in a lab, perhaps it all does come down to a fantastic accident of science. all i know is, whenever i walk into a graveyard, i am reminded that it all comes to an end in this flesh we are given, and that we must do all that we can to the best of our abilities while we have this time. those old skeletons under the soil should remind us all of that.
"God made man in his own image. God intended for man to become one with God. We are going to become one with God. We are going to...have almost as much knowledge, and almost as much power as God. Cloning, and the reprogramming of DNA, is the first serious step in becoming one with God." - Dr. Richard Seed
“Because we do not know of any other instance of a code not be formulated by intelligent design does not make it proof that all codes are from intelligent design”
I would have to disagree for that is exactly what it does and the opposition knows it - That is why they go out of their way to try to prove patterns are codes or come up with something like your friend did which he would not apply to anything else but this issue.
The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West everyday and has since time memorial but that does not prove in will rise in the East tomarrow? I would suggest you look at the definition of the word language and Code.
i.e. not being able to prove the negative does not make it a positive, so to speak. Because we don’t know of something that would counter someone’s argument is not proof that their argument is solid, or factual. It only shows, with our current understanding, that we cannot ‘currently’ prove them wrong. His point is valid here, but it’s a small point in this particular argument as it does seem overwhelming true that codes don’t ‘happen’ by happenstance, they need design.
...
Let us speak plain; There is more force in names than most men dream of; and a lie may keep it's throne a whole age longer if it skulk behind the shield of some fair seeming name. Let us call tyrants tyrants, and maintain that only freedom comes by grace of God, and all that comes not by His grace must fall - James Russell Lowell.
hey I was quoting my buddy, this was one of his counters. I think it's fairly weak point myself, but if it were a court of law we were in it might hold water. We're not talking about something here that is completely tangable here. We are talking about genetic code, and in science you can't just say something is true because you know of no instance where it doesn't seem to be true. In science it has to be demonstratable, so in that sense you can't prove something is by using examples of what it is not. We figured out the earth was round not by proving it's not square or triangular but by demonstrating certain properties, that the earth has, that belong only to spherical objects. You can't prove a positive by using negatives in science, you need to be able to demonstrate your findings. If you say 'all codes are from inteligent design' then you need to demonstrate that. I don't think this can be done, however I'm still with you (and him) on the conclusion that it sure SEEMS to be the case. But whatever, this was his point afterall not mine, just playing devil's advocate here.
LaydeeLiberty
