Evidence that demands a verdict

[Ninurta]

more explanation for you

CODE IS DEFINED as communication between an encoder ( a writer or speaker ) and a decoder ( a reader or listener ) using agreed upon symbols . . . 
DNA's definition as a LITERAL CODE ( and not a figurative one ) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's . . . 
DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages . . . DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: .. 
The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins .. Genetic information passes from DNA to an RNA copy and then is READ in the cell by the the ribosome which makes a protein molecule based on the genetic information encoded in DNA . . . This is the central tenet of molecular biology . . . Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical .. but in fact quite literal in every way . . . In other words .. the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all .. it is direct application of mathematics to DNA .. which by definition is a code

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PATTERNS AND CODES

PATTERNS occur naturally .. no help required from a 'designer' . . . 
Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer .. snowflakes .. tornadoes .. 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 chaos 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.

see also: DNA: the tiny code thats toppling evolution
[url=http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution/][/url]

My argument here is that this is a matter of semantics - fun with words. Trying to make a distinction between states of information (whether it is "code" or "pattern") by redefining words to mean what one wants them to mean.

"Patterns" occur all the time, but would not exist at all without someone or some thing to recognize the pattern as a pattern - otherwise, it just "is", and has no name... because there is no one and no thing to name it. Kinda like animals would be if Adam had never named them.

Does "code" exist if there is no recipient to receive it? Is it then not just another "pattern"?

Just so you'll know, NO patterns are random. Each and every one has a design to follow, and a reason for following that design. That's why they are "patterns" - they have a design. What is in question here is WHAT or WHOM designed the design for the pattern to follow. Using the snowflakes you mentioned as "just patterns", you will never see a snowflake shaped like a dodecahedron. That's because they have a design to follow, and are constrained by it. Who or what designed that pattern, if anything or anyone? THAT is what is at question here.

Are we trying to confuse or conflate "code", "pattern", and information" here?

.

[Grace]

more explanation for you

CODE IS DEFINED as communication between an encoder ( a writer or speaker ) and a decoder ( a reader or listener ) using agreed upon symbols . . .

No - quite frankly its not. The word your trying to redefine is cipher and is not the definition of code.

Fun fact; "Code" is not meant to be understood by all, but rather, is meant only for a specific subset which can understand the code and put it to its intended use. In this, it conveys a level of secrecy and confusion to all who are not in that subset. Which, oddly, matches quite beautifully with the Bible itself - noting specifically Matthew 13:13;

This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

Some things just aren't meant for all to understand and codes are among those things.

[BIAD]

...“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

Some things just aren't meant for all to understand and codes are among those things...

Without meaning to come-off as swaggering, this is why the character 'Boy In A Dress' was created.


Debates are fine as long as a belief isn't being debated. It's just personal -in my opinion.

Sorry for butting-in.

[Ninurta]

...“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

Some things just aren't meant for all to understand and codes are among those things...

Without meaning to come-off as swaggering, this is why the character 'Boy In A Dress' was created.

Um... that looks more like a swishing sashay than a swagger... I gotta admit, though, it's better than walking like a truck driver in that red dress and heels! Then again,  who am I to judge walk types? My knuckles drag the ground when I walk!

Debates are fine as long as a belief isn't being debated. It's just personal -in my opinion.

Sorry for butting-in.

Exactly!

Here's what most laymen in these discussions fail to understand, and what it took two scientists tag-teaming me to get through my thick skull: "science" and "religion" are not mutually exclusive - according to science, anyhow. They deal with two entirely different things. Comparing one to the other, or trying to use one to support or refute the other, is like trying to make apple cider with oranges.

Science deals with the concrete, the observable, the repeatable, the falsifiable. Things you can experiment on, and/or lay hands on.

Try laying hands on a deity, and you'll soon understand the difference!

Religion, on the other hand, relies on faith and belief, the esoteric, mostly unobservable, rarely repeatable, and never falsifiable. If a theory cannot be falsified, it is not "science". religious things cannot be falsified, because they cannot be experimented on. What good is a god with electrodes stuck to it's head by it's followers? It rapidly becomes a "not god". If you falsify your religion, you just blew it up, and it's not a viable religion any more - and ALL things in science must be falsifiable, or they are not science.

Furthermore, religion , since it does rely on faith, is destroyed as soon as it is "proven". Once proven, it no longer requires faith, and is therefore no longer religion. The bible itself says so:

"11 - When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

12 - For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 - And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

- 1 Corinthians 13:11-13, NIV  (which is, of course, the only true version of the bible that isn't in the original languages!)

Science can neither support nor refute religion, because of the very natures of the two different fields. Likewise, religion can neither support nor refute science, for the same reason.

It IS entertaining, however, to watch both sides go at one another in their efforts to do so, and steal the other side's premises and thunder for their own! Makes "capture the flag" look positively relaxing!

.

[BIAD]

Exactly!

Here's what most laymen in these discussions fail to understand, and what it took two scientists tag-teaming me to get through my thick skull: "science" and "religion" are not mutually exclusive - according to science, anyhow. They deal with two entirely different things. Comparing one to the other, or trying to use one to support or refute the other, is like trying to make apple cider with oranges.

Science deals with the concrete, the observable, the repeatable, the falsifiable. Things you can experiment on, and/or lay hands on.

Try laying hands on a deity, and you'll soon understand the difference!

Religion, on the other hand, relies on faith and belief, the esoteric, mostly unobservable, rarely repeatable, and never falsifiable. If a theory cannot be falsified, it is not "science". religious things cannot be falsified, because they cannot be experimented on. What good is a god with electrodes stuck to it's head by it's followers? It rapidly becomes a "not god". If you falsify your religion, you just blew it up, and it's not a viable religion any more - and ALL things in science must be falsifiable, or they are not science.

Science can neither support nor refute religion, because of the very natures of the two different fields. Likewise, religion can neither support nor refute science, for the same reason.

It IS entertaining, however, to watch both sides go at one another in their efforts to do so, and steal the other side's premises and thunder for their own! Makes "capture the flag" look positively relaxing!

Yep, a debate doesn't require a winner and you certainly won't get one discussing science verses religion!

If there comes a day when science proves that all the religions in the world are correct, then the evidence
will be shown after it's gone through it's usual stringent testings.

Scientists won't look red-faced or sheepish, their work is not connected to their belief-structures -in general.
But if a Priest/shaman or Imam laughs and says "I told you so!" then the academic response may well be:
show us the viable evidence... that's all.

P.S. You're right, it was more of a swishing sashay.

[Grace]

belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

or trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

If we don't discuss our beliefs, if we only speak in echo chambers we will never grow, we will never learn, we will simply stagnate and die. A belief is not limited to religion, beliefs are 99% of everything discussed online, or are the basis of those discussions.

Personally, while some may think echo chambers are healthy, that some things should never be discussed outside of them, I see echo chambers as an illness, and they certainly characterize many illnesses of our day. Rather than going outside of the echo chamber to learn and grow, people more and more seek their own personal echo chamber and shut out the rest as if it doesn't have value, as if that which is outside the echo chamber is a thing to fear.

I will never seek the echo chamber, I will seek to learn and interact with those who hold different beliefs from me, which will cause me to grow in potentially beneficial ways. I see that as healthy. I would not be who I am today if I had stayed inside an echo chamber - and I am better for it.

In the end, to each his own.

[BIAD]

belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

or trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

If we don't discuss our beliefs, if we only speak in echo chambers we will never grow, we will never learn, we will simply stagnate and die. A belief is not limited to religion, beliefs are 99% of everything discussed online, or are the basis of those discussions.

Personally, while some may think echo chambers are healthy, that some things should never be discussed outside of them, I see echo chambers as an illness, and they certainly characterize many illnesses of our day. Rather than going outside of the echo chamber to learn and grow, people more and more seek their own personal echo chamber and shut out the rest as if it doesn't have value, as if that which is outside the echo chamber is a thing to fear.

I will never seek the echo chamber, I will seek to learn and interact with those who hold different beliefs from me, which will cause me to grow in potentially beneficial ways. I see that as healthy. I would not be who I am today if I had stayed inside an echo chamber - and I am better for it.

In the end, to each his own.

I agree with you Grace, learning about others and the way they perceive their world, does improve
one's own development. But I think that entering these areas is an exploration and demands a certain
decorum -just as you would hope others would carry when wishing to explore yours.

Exploration requires civility, if a person enters a discussion with the idea that their own beliefs are correct
and all others are wrong, then it's a deliberate intent to dominate and hold sway.

This means that all facets of a particular belief will be judged by the person who implies themselves as
superior and only have credibility if that person decides it isn't abrasive to their own convictions.
It's a form of passive-invasion.

In my humble opinion.

[727Sky]

I think I will tell a story about Joe...Joe had a daughter that I was interested in.. He and his wife had 9 surviving out of 10 kids of which the particular daughter I liked was some kind of fine..

Joe was a preacher and head of the First Born church... If you were not first born you were destined to burn in hell etc etc.. Man we had some serious discussions about religion way back when.. I never changed his mine and he never changed mine but we remained friends... He was the kind of guy who could walk up and stick a knife in you and you would still like him...  

I told him we were going to land on the moon and he said no we are not for god placed the moon for mankind to light the night..hummmm.. "Does god come by every night and turn it on? It has nothing to do with it's orbit around the earth and the reflection of the sun from it's surface"?

"Well I do not know but we will not be allowed to go to the moon"...

OK everyone saw it on T.V. and way back when most believed we had actually landed..

"So Joe if you were wrong about that is it possible you are wrong about other things"?

"I can not be wrong if I quote the word of god"..

Joe was a friend of mine until his death 20 years ago... He swore Jesus was coming any day and was certain it would be in his life time. (that seemed to be a popular belief in many christen churches even though no one can know the hour or the day of Christ return; supposedly).... For someone of so much faith he lived his life in fear of his loving god.. I felt sorry for him and his family. None had ever been to a doctor and if they were sick they would bring certain members of the church in to pray over the sick... If they did not get well...then it was god's will... always an out , no ? I will say they were all a very healthy bunch, teeth and all. 

Joe is in the ground and his daughter married a friend of mine and had 3 kids... I am happy I dodged that daughter bullet.. but I will never forget Joe..

[dadmansabode]

Joe is in the ground and his daughter married a friend of mine and ........ 


Well, regardless of some un-biblical and on-the-edge belief .... if Joe was a believer in Jesus Christ

Joe is not in the ground ........ to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord

Whether a believer believes the Lord's return will happen in his life time or not .... his destination is the same

1 Corinthians 5:8 .. we are of good courage .. I say and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord

the Body of Christ (the Church) has always lived in expectation of our Lord's return

[guohua]

@"727Sky"  I like Joe!!! 

@"dadmansabode"  I really don't care for your Preaching or putting links in your replies to your site.

Remember this, you will respect other members point of view as we debate and Never mock their use of our written language.
All these excellent people stood by me and helped me when I was still using my Mandarin to English Translator when my husband wasn't around to help me.

None of my friends here mocked or ridiculed me when others at two other sites did.

Yes, we're back and I'm watching these thread closely.
@"dadmansabode"  before you use links to your site in replies, you need to have permission from one of my Admin or Super-Mods and yes that includes Ninurta or myself.
Sorry but I get the feeling you're trying to use our site through this thread as a portal to your own site.

If you're interested in other discussions, like UFO's or something else we discuss, then participate in other threads here and contribute, other than pushing just religious post.

OK, Rant is over with.
Sorry, one more thing,,,,,,, (yes I'm a Woman) there is no debating me on the above statement.   
I've mentioned in a PM to you about your use of our site to promote your site.

[dadmansabode]

please do not hate me because I am informative .......... dadmansabode.com :)

[guohua]

please do not hate me because I am informative .......... dadmansabode.com :)

I don't hate, if I did, you'd feel the Pain.
Oh and your blatant show of ignoring my warning.

You've earned yourself a five (5) day post suspension. 
You should have sent a PM to me tonight and asked permission to attach your website, but instead you decided you were above us all or just me.

[Sol]

Evidence that demand a verdict



Just one quick question:

If there is strong unequivocal evidence, why the need for a verdict?

Everyone knows that third party testimony is just about useless in court. He said/she said never fly high.

Witness testimony is shady most of the time and rejected nowadays most of the time.

And that is the evidence presented here.

Don't need a verdict, it wouldn't even make it to court.

.

[dadmansabode]

If there is strong unequivocal evidence, why the need for a verdict? < indeed there is, it's a decision YOU need to make

[BIAD]

If there is strong unequivocal evidence, why the need for a verdict? < indeed there is, it's a decision YOU need to make

Well, there's always....

[guohua]

If there is strong unequivocal evidence, why the need for a verdict? < indeed there is, it's a decision YOU need to make

Well, there's always....

OK,,,, Got-It!!
Definition of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.
Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act.

Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.
Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. 

And,,,,, Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism.
University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.

" Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

Link

YES!!!!!       Intelligent Alien Race!!!!

[Ninurta]

< indeed there is, it's a decision YOU need to make

Why?

Why does ANYONE, even ME, need to decide that?

Will my decision affect the fate or fabric of the universe? Will it change the facts if I decide they are wrong?

MY decision in the  matter means nothing at all in the long run, same as everyone else's.

.

[dadmansabode]

MY decision (verdict) in the  matter means nothing at all in the long run, same as everyone else's.


this is a debate thread concerning an issue of scientific truth and what that truth points to

[Ninurta]

MY decision (verdict) in the  matter means nothing at all in the long run, same as everyone else's.


this is a debate thread concerning an issue of scientific truth and what that truth points to

There is no scientific truth. Science does not deal in truth, that is the purview of philosophy. Science deals in observation, hypothesis,, more observation, theory, still more observation, and the potential for falsification. If a subject is not falsifiable, it is not within the realm of science. Religious matters are not subject to science, because they are neither verifiable, nor falsifiable, and do not lend themselves well to experimental repeatability. God does not say "ok, here's an experiment that anyone can do to verify - I'm open to poking, prodding, and will sit still for repeated experimentation".

Religious matters are matters of faith. When faith is verified, when it becomes objective fact (as opposed to subjective belief), then faith is utterly destroyed, as there is no longer any need for faith. Religion dies as soon as it is proven. There is no longer any need for religion, faith, or even salvation if it is a proven fact. Everyone then gets it, because none can deny it, and the work of Christ on the cross is brought to nought. There was no need for it if everyone can verify God for himself by simply mixing religion with science and doing a few experiments.

Is it your intent to destroy religion by verifying it as "fact" or "truth"? Do you mean to make your God falsifiable?


.

[BIAD]

There is no scientific truth. Science does not deal in truth, that is the purview of philosophy. Science deals in observation, hypothesis,, more observation, theory, still more observation, and the potential for falsification. If a subject is not falsifiable, it is not within the realm of science. Religious matters are not subject to science, because they are neither verifiable, nor falsifiable, and do not lend themselves well to experimental repeatability. God does not say "ok, here's an experiment that anyone can do to verify - I'm open to poking, prodding, and will sit still for repeated experimentation".

Religious matters are matters of faith. When faith is verified, when it becomes objective fact (as opposed to subjective belief), then faith is utterly destroyed, as there is no longer any need for faith. Religion dies as soon as it is proven. There is no longer any need for religion, faith, or even salvation if it is a proven fact. Everyone then gets it, because none can deny it, and the work of Christ on the cross is brought to nought. There was no need for it if everyone can verify God for himself by simply mixing religion with science and doing a few experiments.

Jumpin'-Gee-Hosa-Fat!! If there's ever been a more rational explanation placed on the internet, that's the one!

I cannot add anything to it, it's perfect. Faith.