News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Science Disproves Evolution

Started by Pahu78, August 28, 2008, 07:59:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pahu78

Compatible Senders and Receivers

QuoteOnly intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatoryâ€"something nature cannot do.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1821409

curiosityandthecat

-Curio

Asmodean

Ok... Let's play. Have I seen you somewhere before BTW?

Quote from: "Pahu78"Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I).
Intelligence also utilises and tries to understand those NOT created by it. There are codes and programs in every pattern. There is information in EVERYTHING.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Each involves senders and receivers.
Only those actively used for something or actively being percieved.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.)
:eek: Can this be?! You are correct. Although senders and recievers are not limited to those you named.

Quote from: "Pahu78"The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.
And thus, to us most codes and programs and information out there is perfectly useless.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began.
Life is not a requirement. It is only if you mean to understand or cathegorise the code, but it is not essential to the code being there in the first place.

Quote from: "Pahu78"All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences.
No.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.
No.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatoryâ€"something nature cannot do.
You assume that every message that is being communicated is in some way useful. Say a star some thousands of light years away is producing a massive energy outburst every 100 years. There is a basic code for you. On its basis you can make a program, which in this case would predict when the next outburst hits. Thus, you obtain information. Is it useful? Not to me, it isn't.

The first claim is false on so many levels. That inflicts that the entire line of thought is meaningless. Read some REAL science articles, where conclusions are derived from facts and not the opposite.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

McQ

Quote from: "Pahu78"Compatible Senders and Receivers

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatoryâ€"something nature cannot do.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1821409

This person has been warned that this post constitutes spamming and will not be tolerated. If it occurs again, he will be banned from the forum.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Jolly Sapper

HAHA... if the message is do damned important, why do you have to pay for it?

Benoît Bôls

Quote from: "McQ"This person has been warned that this post constitutes spamming and will not be tolerated. If it occurs again, he will be banned from the forum.
Before he gets the ban hammer, I would like to see how he tries to refute our responses to the article that he had posted. Not that I'm advocating ID, but I find it interesting to see how they can wriggle their way out of a corner, especially without resorting to logical fallacies.

If he is a troll, let's let him out from under his bridge and see what kinds of tricks he can perform.
"Nothing frightens me more than religion at my door."
- John Cale

curiosityandthecat

Quote from: "Benoît Bôls"
Quote from: "McQ"This person has been warned that this post constitutes spamming and will not be tolerated. If it occurs again, he will be banned from the forum.
Before he gets the ban hammer, I would like to see how he tries to refute our responses to the article that he had posted. Not that I'm advocating ID, but I find it interesting to see how they can wriggle their way out of a corner, especially without resorting to logical fallacies.

If he is a troll, let's let him out from under his bridge and see what kinds of tricks he can perform.

I highly doubt s/he'll be back. Unfortunate, really.
-Curio

Benoît Bôls

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I highly doubt s/he'll be back. Unfortunate, really.
I doubt it, too. I see that sort of thing on my own forum all the time: Spam n' Run.


But, I was hoping s/he would stay. S/he would make a nice pet.
:(
"Nothing frightens me more than religion at my door."
- John Cale

McQ

Yeah, not sure if I should have termed him "spammer" or "troll". The post is simply a cut and paste from the link he put in, with no introductory remarks or position statement. Not even a, "Hey this is what I think! Anyone care to discuss?"

Neither did he make a point of any kind, other than that he is able to cut and paste garbage from a creationist website. Then he had the nerve to message me and ask me what part of his message constituted spam.

Hmmm....where to start?
 :raised:
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Asmodean

Quote from: "McQ"Hmmm....where to start?
 :D
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Pahu78

McQ:   Yeah, not sure if I should have termed him "spammer" or "troll". The post is simply a cut and paste from the link he put in, with no introductory remarks or position statement. Not even a, "Hey this is what I think! Anyone care to discuss?"

Pahu:   One would think that I agree with the scientific facts I am sharing.

McQ:   Neither did he make a point of any kind, other than that he is able to cut and paste garbage from a creationist website.

Pahu:   So you believe any scientific fact with which you disagree is “garbage”?

McQ:  Then he had the nerve to message me and ask me what part of his message constituted spam.

Hmmm....where to start?

Pahu:   Just can’t figure it out, eh?

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that ‘s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with the scientists being quoted, not me. As I mentioned in my private message to you, which you have chosen to partially make public, the mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the king’s idol.

Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den for worshipping God, contrary to the king’s decree.

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic church during the inquisition.

Hitler murdered six million Jews and seven million Christians because he disagreed with them.

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.

Muslims murder anyone who disagrees with them.

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your world=view.

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (I.E. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They’ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identify, are always 100 percent correct.

curiosityandthecat

-Curio

Asmodean

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"
QFT. *resists stating the obvious all over again*

...MUST ... ... RESIST..! MU... S... TRE... SIS... T...  :borg:
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Whitney

Pahu78 has been issued his/her second and last warning via pm:

QuoteThis warning is issued for you being disrespectful to those who organize this board by claiming, without reason, that we are attempting to silence you due to disagreement.  If we wanted to silence you you would have been banned already and your posts deleted.  If we do ban you your posts will remain for others to read and take from what they wish.  

If you want to stick around you need to start treating everyone on this forum with the same respect you would afford to them if they were sitting at your dinner table.  So far all I've seen from you is spam and personal attacks.

No more warnings will be issued the next step is banning.  This is also a public warning free to be viewed by other members.
[/color]

Jolly Sapper

Okay, its pretty obvious that Pahu doesn't want to actually talk about anything.  

Nowhere in the few paragraphs of information on the page you linked to, is there anything that seems to support your claim.  I'm calling "Science disproves Evolution" as your claim as its not mentioned anywhere on the page you linked to.  Now if you want discussion, then by all means state your thesis, link to-copy/paste some info, and explain how this information supports your thesis.  

Drive by copy past jobs, with nothing from you explaining what its for or why you linked to it, is not a very good way to start a positive discussion.  

Playing the victim card after being told your original post was spammy, is not a good way to start a positive discussion.

Now, if you want to discuss something make a point, find some supporting evidence or make some arguments for your point, and be ready for an actual discussion/debate.