DNA Is a language system in and of itself (life). God created man in his own image...All who know God have been here from the beginning. Life is the Creator, the creator is life. The language that is there enables the DNA to make the language that reads the DNA to make the language. It has all got to be there or it will not work. From a perspective of those who believe in evolution; you got to say matter by itself actually produce a language system and had to produce information. What you observe is exactly the opposite of what evolutionist require.
You're skipping ahead of yourself a bit here. You can't go (1) DNA is a language (Conclusion) God. We need to see your working. Also you seem to be defining God here as "life" which is bio-pantheism not christianity. Also you seem a bit confused. "DNA is the language that lets DNA talk to DNA". That's equivalent to saying "Russian words are the language that let russian words talk to russian words". For something to qualify as a language it has to be a form of communication between two things that allows for the transfer of information between those two things. Russian speaking people are not russian language, the two are distinct and separate. I don't deny that we can look at DNA and get information from it, but we can also look at snowflakes and get information from them about highly complex crystalline structures.
Gweeedo wrote:I understand this might not be the information you were looking for. But to those who might believe man evolved from apes...it might give doubt. I thought this was very interesting. It is not my life nor my idea, as proof of Gods existence.
It's not evidence of anything. Even if we ignored the problems with your position so far and said that we agree with what you're saying about DNA being a language and it was created by a mind, it still tells us precisely nothing about that mind. Yeah sure it could be the christian God, but it could equally be Zeus or Thor or Allah or Ajbit (one of the Mayan creator Gods) or aliens from another planet or interdimensional beings or any one of a million others things.
Gweeedo wrote:History might be the proof you need. For thousands of years people have been fighting, worshiping, living, dying in the name of GOD. Maybe the actions and beliefs of the patriarchs (all who believe) of the Bible, brought about the incarnation (the word became flesh) of God. History is all the proof I need...irrefutable.
For large parts of history people thought that some really weird things were true. People have also died for things that we now know are just plain untrue. Think of all the people that have followed all the now dead religions and died in the name of those Gods. Does that prove that Thor and Zeus are real too? Just because there have been a lot of people in history who thought something was true has absolutely no bearing on whether that thing is actually true. Stating something as irrefutable doesn't make it so...
Gweeedo wrote:Israeli war (Yom Kippur War); a war that began on Yom Kippur in 1973 with the attack of Israel by Egypt, Syria, and Iraq: No chance for Israel, if not for God.
If you're now defining God as "massive American logistical support including shipping in large numbers of tanks, guns, etc" than yeah you're correct. Unfortunately I don't think I've ever heard of God being defined that way... Also worth noting is that the Americans did this because Israel was basically threatening to nuke their enemies and the americans didn't want a nuclear war being started.
Gweeedo wrote:It is not you who get to choose, it is God who chooses you. No reason for God having to prove himself to you. If God came down today and showed himself to you...tomorrow you would not believe. if you find yourself standing with the goats, when in Heaven, you will know you are in trouble...if you see me standing next to you, don't make a sound...Bahhh
That's a pretty big statement. I wouldn't believe if confronted with God himself. f*ck off! You cannot tell me what I would or would not believe or under what conditions.
And the plain fact is Gweeedo that I'm the only one actually engaging you on this because EVERY SINGLE thing you've said has been said before multiple times in this thread and it has been explained to all of those people exactly all of the same things I'm explaining to you. I could easily have just given you a link back 30 pages instead, and then 40 pages before that, and then 20 pages before that. None of what you're saying is groundbreaking and new, it's the same flawed arguments started by the same creationist hacks that we've been hearing for ages now.
Famous German mustachio Nietzsche memorably asserted that, due to His ceasing to serve as an authority in people's lives, God had died. However, as Gweeedo said, God still lives on for some. And if He lives, then He must be 'real' (insofar as anything is 'real').
crispybits: Quote:what you're saying about DNA being a language and it was created by a mind. end quote
NOOOO!(you are missing it)That is not what I suggested.
OK, maybe I did not explain it fully. My writing skills are weak. I have not the ability to write a book (explain it in its entirety) or even remember halve the shit I read. The book might give a person a better understanding: In the beginning was information (DNA). By Dr. Werner Gitt (one of the most Powerful arguments you could ever have against the idea that matter could ever give rise to life) DNA is fascinating. You might even say; DNA (life) Created itself within its own design. Life has always been...there is no beginning no end. God created man in his own image, man is God (in Christ Jesus). Time (the beginning, creation) as no relevance in eternity.
Quote: That's a pretty big statement. I wouldn't believe if confronted with God himself. f*ck off! You cannot tell me what I would or would not believe or under what conditions. end quote
That is the only thing I can tell you with certainty (tangible evidence)...GOD said it, not me! That is just human Nature. It is not that simple...show me evidence and I am a believer. The world has all the ''evidence of god'' at their feet...why is it, anybody would ask for Evidence of GOD? It is not so they can understand and believe in GOd...it is so they can spit in his face (refute it). No worries, that is human nature...sin is in control. Once you experience God you will understand that he is everything. everything outside of God is death. All will pass away.
There is a lot we can learn from history. Thinking we have come so far and have a better understanding, of all things...there is nothing new under the sun. What is, has been before, what is to come, has already been done.
As I have pointed earlier (above), you are wrong in your understanding of what it is I am talking about. It is clear to me, you have not understood a word I have said. Therefore you must know, your Retort is moot (past and present). Maybe there is another link you could give, that might touch base on what it is you know me to be saying, Now...or is it going to be ''explained to all of those people exactly all of the same things I'm explaining to you'' Again and again and again.
You are the only one engaging me on this...because you wish to argue. 234 pages on this post, might be a chance somebody will find this enlightening.
Gweeedo wrote:Israeli war (Yom Kippur War); a war that began on Yom Kippur in 1973 with the attack of Israel by Egypt, Syria, and Iraq: No chance for Israel, if not for God.
Boy God sure is indecisive. He went from hating Jews in 1943 to loving Jews in 1973. 30 years is but a mere blink of an eye to God. Do you think he is really that indecisive? Can you give a different reason for his fickleness?
Gweeedo wrote:Israeli war (Yom Kippur War); a war that began on Yom Kippur in 1973 with the attack of Israel by Egypt, Syria, and Iraq: No chance for Israel, if not for God.
Boy God sure is indecisive. He went from hating Jews in 1943 to loving Jews in 1973. 30 years is but a mere blink of an eye to God. Do you think he is really that indecisive? Can you give a different reason for his fickleness?
lol, He has always had a love hate relationship, they are still his Chosen people...the reason being; that all others would have them wiped from existence. Many will try...none will succeed..Who can stand against GOD! But hey, you got to take it out on someone..why not Gods chosen people.
OK so we're getting somewhere Gweeedo - I now know the source of your argument (or at least part of it).
So I don't create a massively long and hard to read without losing the will to live post, and as you've already read the book and have a good understanding of exactly what it's saying, I'm hiding the arguments made by that book inside spoiler tags. Feel free to have a look at them and cross reference with the book and tell me if I'm misrepresenting anything though if you wish.
Right, now that's out of the way, what Gitt does is actually not extend Shannon's work at all. At best he massively restricts it, but more likely is he directly contradicts it.
4-No information can exist in purely statistical processes. Theorem 3: Since Shannon's definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning.
Those are Gitt's statements. Now compare and constrast with Shannon:
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
What Shannon is saying is that the meaning of the message is irrelevant to the problem of getting the message from A to B. Like a radio engineer doesn't need to know the song that will be played on the radio to make the radio work in the first place. What Gitt is saying is that Shannon is wrong in his definition of information, effectively that the radio engineer MUST know which song will be played in order to make the radio work properly. The song cannot exist as a purely statistical collection of electromagnetic waves to be transmitted, the meaning within the lyrics of the song are an integral part of how the radio will function.
The second major problem with Gitt's work comes from those conditions. In the second sufficient condition Gitt notes (with mathematical support from Chaitin, another mathematician) that randomness cannot be proven. He states that "communication about the originating source of the information is necessary." Yet in the condition right before that he relies on being able to discern the "ulterior intention at the semantic, pragmatic and apobetic levels". In plain English Gitt allows himself to make guesses about the intelligence and purpose behind a source of a series of symbols, even though he doesn't know whether the source of the symbols is random. Gitt is trying to have it both ways here. He wants to assert that DNA fits his strictly non-random definition of information, even after acknowledging that randomness cannot be proven.
There is a deeper problem with Gitt's assertions though. And that is that they are simply assertions. Gitt describes his principles as "empirical", yet the data is not provided to back this up. Similarly, he proposes fourteen "theorems", yet fails to demonstrate them. Shannon, in contrast, offers the math to back up his theorems. It is difficult to see how Gitt's "empirical principles" and "theorems" are anything but arbitrary assertions. Neither do we see a working measure for meaning (a yet-unsolved problem Shannon himself avoided). Since Gitt can't define what meaning is sufficiently to measure it, his ideas don't amount to much more than arm-waving.
By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming DNA sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for DNA without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning. If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information. We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source. We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so.
And you're right by the way, I like arguing about this sort of stuff. I did philosophy at uni despite the terrible career prospects precisely because I like arguing about this stuff. My enjoyment of this arguing has no relevance or bearing, however, on whether my argument is good or bad. My argument stands on it's own, separate from me. But mostly I don't like to see people taken in by con-men and sham artists who try and pass nonsense off as science to fit their pre-conceived ideas about reality, sell books and fool anyone who doesn't take the time to sit down and really deconstruct their claims. The book you got your argument from is flawed. If you can fix and improve on Gitt's work then go right ahead and do so, but please don't believe something just because some guy wrote it in a book. Think for yourself!
Interesting read, took me some time to wrap my head around it. I got to admit I did not read the book in its entirety (Gitt). I red enough to be fascinated and applied it to further my personal understand of Creation.
IT is not so much evidence of God, as much as it might provide a better understanding of God and or evolution as a false science (not logical). Information is in (for all time), random is out...no chance random will ever amount to squat (not that it ever has).
The meaning of the 'message' is what creates A to B (therefore not irrelevant). Like God, being that radio engineer that 'creates' a Radio, knowing exactly what songs are going to be played on it...The information is all there...it has to be. You don't need a radio engineer to get a radio to work...it already is in working order.
In short, this could all be considered circular reasoning.
Language is a powerful thing. The ''word'' is life, it brings to life, it gives life. A person is acquitted or condemned by what he speaks. Nobody can control the tongue! Language (information) is the law of the universe and every living soul there in. I always wondered how GOD Could speak a simple word and woop there it is. ''LET THERE BE LIGHT,'' and there was light. Gitt is on to something.
Take God out of the equation ...Gitt's, relevancy might give rise to doubt.
Thanks for posting. I will keep this one short. I do not have four hours that it normally takes me to type out a post.
P.S Can you give an example of a Genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome. Never mind...joking.
To keep it brief Gweeedo, your problem here is that you don't understand randomness. There is no way, if we just get handed a string of numbers, that we can tell if they are randomly generated without knowing something about how they are generated.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
That looks like an ordered set of numbers following a pattern. But there is a chance that those numbers have come from rolling a 10 sided dice 10 times in a row.
3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3
That looks more random right? Except that's the first 10 digits of pi. It could still have been generated by rolling the dice 10 times, with the same probability as the last string.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Same again, same probability as the others to come out of a random number generation system.
Unless we have knowledge of the source of the numbers we cannot say that any of those number strings are definitely random or not random. You cannot infer backwards from the number string any information about the source, you must gain information about the source from somewhere other than the numbers themselves.
It's the same with DNA, you cannot infer anything about the source of the apparent patterns within DNA from the DNA itself.
Yes, evolution provides systems that work from this DNA coding, but it's not random like you think. The best example I can give is imagine you have a multiple choice test written entirely in a language you don't understand (chinese or ancient nordic runes or something) There are four possible answers to each question. You can submit the answers to the test as many times as you like and find out what your score was.
So first time round you hand in 100 sets of randomly picked answers. Now those tests on average will come out somewhere close to 25%, but there may be some that come out at 30-40%. You pull out the ten with the highest scores and then use them as the basis to create 100 more answer sheets by changing just two or three answers on each one ten times each. Now some of those scores will have dropped, but others will have risen, so you pull out the top ten again and do the same again. If you keep doing this it won't be long before you have a test result back in the 90%+ range.
That's effectively how evolution works. Yes it throws seemingly random changes at things, but then it applies selection to the results of those changes and only allows the better results to carry on, while the worse results are like the creatures that died out. So the process overall is not random. Evolution does not say we got here randomly or that randomness created the diversity of life on Earth. You're basing your trust in what people like Gitt say on a straw man fallacy, they are claiming that evolution is random when it's not, and all of their subsequent arguments are flawed because of this basic misunderstanding.
That looks like an ordered set of numbers following a pattern. But there is a chance that those numbers have come from rolling a 10 sided dice 10 times in a row.
A chance, yes. But that chance is 1 in 10 raised to the power of 10. (Or 1 E 10 if you remember those old calculators.) We call that number Ten Billion. Yes it's one in ten billion.
I once was a part of a computer game company; we have a dice generator in our chat rooms. No one really bothered to test it; they trusted the simple Unix random function.
I rolled a series of four sided dice and got ...
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ... every time
Turns out there was a bug in the simple random function. We changed the function to a more complex one.
Seeing that string in a series of a billion numbers should be possible; seeing it twice is definitely not random.
Now on the other hand, the human brain is a pattern recognition system; sometimes it can find a pattern where there is none, by skipping those areas that do not follow the pattern.
That looks like an ordered set of numbers following a pattern. But there is a chance that those numbers have come from rolling a 10 sided dice 10 times in a row.
A chance, yes. But that chance is 1 in 10 raised to the power of 10. (Or 1 E 10 if you remember those old calculators.) We call that number Ten Billion. Yes it's one in ten billion.
I once was a part of a computer game company; we have a dice generator in our chat rooms. No one really bothered to test it; they trusted the simple Unix random function.
I rolled a series of four sided dice and got ...
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 ... every time
Turns out there was a bug in the simple random function. We changed the function to a more complex one.
Seeing that string in a series of a billion numbers should be possible; seeing it twice is definitely not random.
Now on the other hand, the human brain is a pattern recognition system; sometimes it can find a pattern where there is none, by skipping those areas that do not follow the pattern.
Crispy's point is any that any possible combination of those 10 digits is as likely as any other (unles the test is rigged).So the ones that appear ordered are as likely as those that don't,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 is as likely as 1 8 0 4 1 9 5 6 2 4 .Maybe because there are vastly more apparently unordered combinations,we are as you say pattern seeking animals.In my experience talking to atheists and theists,the latter are far more likely to misunderstand probability,whether this can be linked to their theism I can't say for sure but I'd love to see some research done on this.
Actually my main point was that just by looking at the numbers, however patterned they may seem to be, without other information about the source of the numbers you cannot ever say that those numbers either definitely did or did not get generated randomly. There is always a chance that the numbers are from a perfect RNG program (if anyone ever manages to write one), or dice rolls, or whatever. Any 10 digit number has a 1 in 10 billion chance from a purely random method of digit selection, so it's not even like the ones I listed are flukes, they are just as likely as all the other results. They just happen to be ones that fall in patterns.
As to your comment about the brain being a pattern recognition machine tzor, you're absolutely right. I bet you don't even have to think for very long to think of hundreds or thousands of kinds of number sequences that would look patterned in my example. There's the ones I wrote sure, there's also 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 type patterns with a bigger jump increment, there's 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 and 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 and then all of those smaller cycle repeats (then use differing jump increments on them), there's even things like 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 where two parts of the number have different and separate patterns (all with differing increments and cycle lengths). We're easily into the thousands once you work out just those kinds already, how many more kinds of pattern could we potentially come up with do you think? Now, what's the chance of one of those randomly generated numbers happening to fall into one of those kinds of patterns? It's a fair few 0s less than one in ten billion that's for sure...
quote: It's the same with DNA, you cannot infer anything about the source of the apparent patterns within DNA from the DNA itself. end quote. it might be possible, that history (past present and future) can make (provide, create) inferences about the source of the apparent patterns within DNA from the DNA itself. Adding an incorporeal (spirit, soul) element into DNA might give insight. Too deep for me.
Quote:That's effectively how evolution works. Yes it throws seemingly random changes at things, but then it applies selection to the results of those changes and only allows the better results to carry on, while the worse results are like the creatures that died out.end quote
So, evolution is a onward and upward process one example (in short): What your saying is that all dogs came from ''the one gene pool,'' and that all dog species today came from (let us say) something like, a Wolf, which over time gave rise to something like, a poodle. It's hard to understand; how do you get from that (wolf) to that (poodle). Think about it; a poodle is full of lots of mutations (it is in fact all our domestic verities of dogs are, and the poodle has it's share) and mistakes. Actually, the changes we observe (in nature) are a down hill process...the opposite of evolution. Forget it, not really a subject I want to get into.
I just missed a Show on the Science Channel: Asking the question of luck, random, dice. I missed it ;-( I believe the word luck came from the name Lucifer. Believe it to be considered a blessing from Lucifer (maybe the source you were looking for).
Actually luck is a derivative of "gheluc" which is a 15th century dutch word meaning happiness or good fortune.
And yes that evolution example was simplified. To get an accurate picture you'd do 2-3 rounds of tests then split some of the papers off and change the correct answers index and start again, and continue randomly branching off with new sets of answers to generate new patterns of correct results, representing the way species adapt.
As for not adding information - there is confirmed, testable and repeateable science that has showed that the following has happened in nature:
- increased genetic variety in a population - increased genetic material - novel genetic material - novel genetically-regulated abilities
Also, it's not about making things better and better per se. Evolution doesnt always select the fastest or strongest, it selects the best suited attributes to survive and breed. Sometimes those make animals smaller or weaker or slower, in situations where being smaller or weaker or slower confers no disadvantage.
crispybits wrote:Actually luck is a derivative of "gheluc" which is a 15th century dutch word meaning happiness or good fortune.
And yes that evolution example was simplified. To get an accurate picture you'd do 2-3 rounds of tests then split some of the papers off and change the correct answers index and start again, and continue randomly branching off with new sets of answers to generate new patterns of correct results, representing the way species adapt.
As for not adding information - there is confirmed, testable and repeateable science that has showed that the following has happened in nature:
- increased genetic variety in a population - increased genetic material - novel genetic material - novel genetically-regulated abilities
Also, it's not about making things better and better per se. Evolution doesnt always select the fastest or strongest, it selects the best suited attributes to survive and breed. Sometimes those make animals smaller or weaker or slower, in situations where being smaller or weaker or slower confers no disadvantage.
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.
Gweeedo wrote:But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.
This is soo true.
Plus he makes water, tomatoes, yeast, grain, hops, etc...
