YEC (was Heaven will be boring)

[Enoch2021]

That which cannot be seen (detected) is not evidence of anything.

Factually Incorrect. Can you "SEE" Software/Information? If you need me to POST IT (You already seen it ) let me know. Can you "SEE": TRUTH, Knowledge, Logic....do they exist?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Thus, faith is belief without evidence. Hope is not evidence. Belief is not evidence.

Biblical Faith is the exact opposite. You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

Say What? It's not even close...."You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith."

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambigu ... ivocation/

False Equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency:

The following statements are examples of false equivalence:

"They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
"We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence


Which Fallacy is in play here?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Au Contraire, I beg to differ....

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life. Ya see....

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....

Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......



The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?

You're looking a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise.
CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

I'm just spit-balling here, but.....I think you may need a new "Just So" Story.

Oh btw....

"The Ribosome, together with it's accessories, is probably the most sophisticated MACHINE ever made. All of it's components are active and moving, and it is environmentally friendly, producing only GDP and phosphate". {Emphasis Mine}
Garrett, R., Mechanics of the ribosome, Nature 400(6747): 811-812, 1999

Oh and btw, See those IF's/EF's/RF's...they are "Functional Proteins". Where'd they come from if it takes the Entire Process above... to make them? Hmm, a little Chicken and Egg action...the "Space Shuttle building the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant" motif. And Yes, it gets better....
Let's say I remove one of the IF's (Initiation Factors) or an EF (Elongation Factors) from the milieu, what happens to DNA Translation...IN TOTO, eh? Yes, that's right.... it's a Football Bat/Pillow Hammer. Ya get ZERO Translation (No Functional Protein Synthesis)...guess what that means? The Entire Process is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!
And what did Charlie say...

Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

What about a Complex "Process" in place of that "Organ", Charlie? We have Plenty of Organs that scuttle his mind-numbing nonsense anyway. Get an A&P Glossary and start with "Abdomen" and end with "Zygote"...those and everything In-Between are his Huckleberry. But I digress,


Please tell us HOW on Earth does:

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Ladies and Gentleman, ink/paper/and glue molecules don't author books or technical instruction manuals for building robots. Pentose sugars, nucleo-bases, and activated phosphates don't create algorithms for the construction/maintenance/repair of literally thousands of "protein-robots" in each Cell; and that's just the mere TIP of the Iceberg.

This Game is OVER!!

So formally, "Scientifically"; Have it, Best Wishes (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 ) ...

"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?


Love, this is Non-Sequitur as Hydrogen is Non-Sequitur to Water.

regards

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 60 by Enoch2021]

Ok, so that's it then. This is your personal theory (I'm hapy to accept that), and your entire theory is encapsulated in your posting.

All you have done, my friend, is tell us that you personally are incapable of seeing how evolution could possibly have been reponsible for producing certain structures that you believe to be irreducibly complex, and therefore it MUST have been done by an intelligent designer, that is also the God that you happen to believe in. Firstly, such claims of 'irreducibilty' have been shown to be wrong in many examples before yours, demonstrating that just because you have concluded that something is irreducibly complex, by no means proves that it is. History is good teacher. Secondly, it does not follow that a 'God' must be involved, much less 'your' God. And finally, and very importantly, just saying 'God must have done it' is no explanation for anything, unless you can offer another a complete and coherent alternative to evolution, with full details as to exactly how your alternative theory explains everything, and here you fail completely.

You ask the relevance of Craig Venter's take on all of this. Well, you see, unlike you, Craig Venner is a professional in this field, and he represents the vast majority of other professionals in the field, who completely reject your Intelligent Designer conclusions, and I tend to believe them.

If you really want answers to your questions, then you need to ask professionals in the field such as Venter. Have you asked them? Given their combined level of experience and expertise compared to yours, and given they do NOT favour ID over evolutuon, I have good reason to believe they would demolish your arguments.

Also, if your arguments for ID are as good as you obviously think they are, then why don't you publish your theory? If true, and if you have clearly demonstrated it to be true, then Journals such as Nature and Science are always looking for groundbreaking research such as yours, and you do not need any qualifications to publish in these journals. Why haven't you published your work? Could it be that it would not be accepted because (a) your points would be easily demolished by experts in the field and (b) you have offered no satisfactory alternative beyond 'God did it'? Go on. Publish your work.

ytrewq: Then you will need to explain EXACTLY how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today

Enoch2021: It's Called The Genetic CODE. The HOW? Well HE Spoke it. I don't have the first clue HOW they built the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 (Space shuttle Engine) but I can tell you for an Absolute FACT that Intelligent Agent(s) were it's Source and not wind/waves colluding with Copper and Iron Ores.

And that is a good summary of the quality of your case, and your complete inability to present details of your alternative theory to evolution, details that are necessary for your case to be worth anything at all.

On your own admission, you haven't a clue how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today.

How did your designer actually and physically implement the genetic code?

Well HE spoke it!

Really? And that is a detailed and satisfactory explantion of HOW your claimed designer actually implemented the genetic code? Are you serious? You will need to do a lot better than that to be taken seriously.

Good luck in getting your theory published and accepted!

PS! If you are going to publish your theory and have it taken seriously and accepted, then you will first need to explain why many features and constructional details of animals are clearly not intelligently designed, such as (but not limited to) the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes.

For a moment I thought you were responding to somebody else.

Ok, so that's it then. This is your personal theory (I'm hapy to accept that), and your entire theory is encapsulated in your posting

It's more of a Scientific Law (than a theory): "The What"

CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

All you have done, my friend, is tell us that you personally are incapable of seeing how evolution could possibly have been reponsible for producing certain structures that you believe to be irreducibly complex....

1. Although Irreducible Complexity is a Powerful Argument, I just brought it up "incidentally" as an "Oh, By the Way" motif. 99.8% of my Post and position is concerning "INFORMATION". We can get to Irreducible Complexity if you wish after dealing with the "Elephant in the Room".

2. I've already debunked evolution..it's a "Just So" Story; double click that link and it'll hook you up.

Firstly, such claims of 'irreducibilty' have been shown to be wrong in many examples before yours

Really? Where is mine wrong...? And it has been "Purported" that Irreducible Complexity has been refuted...it hasn't, neither by Kenneth Miller or anyone else. All he has is a feebly contrived Straw Man (Fallacy) that is easily refuted.

But hey, we can get to that....but, as they say, first things first: Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software....?

Secondly, it does not follow that a 'God' must be involved, much less 'your' God

Geez, everyone on this forum trots this out here; it's quite astonishing. If I must.....again:

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal

I suppose that since Reliable Historical Documentation isn't recognized as Authoritative in this Neighborhood then I will just settle for an Intelligent Agent responsible for the Whole Ball Of Wax. TRUTH be told, The "Who Is The CREATOR" is a Separate Question.

...unless you can offer another a complete and coherent alternative to evolution

Why? Why do I need to offer an alternative to a Demonstrable Fairytale. Ok...Non-Fiction. Good?

with full details as to exactly how your alternative theory explains everything, and here you fail completely

Why? I already gave you "The What" (Scientific Law). The lack or the existence of the HOW or "Theory" doesn't Preclude/render VOID the Integrity/VERACITY of the Law. This is quite the Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)

You ask the relevance of Craig Venter's take on all of this

No, I used him as SME in Support of DNA being a "CODE". I didn't ask him regarding his personal "Religion/Faith/Beliefs"...I could care less. Ya SEE, I only care for what he can Scientifically VALIDATE.
"You" were the one who brought up his "take"...it's Painfully Irrelevant.

Well, you see, unlike you, Craig Venner is a professional in this field, and he represents the vast majority of other professionals in the field, who completely reject your Intelligent Designer conclusions...

I used to be a "Professional" in my field....but I'm retired; However, I am receiving a Pension, so technically...I'm still a Professional.

Hmmm... does Dr. Craig Venter represent or the spokesperson for other Geneticists "Religion/Faith/Beliefs"? Is he a "Guru" or something? How is this Relevant may I ask?
So Dr.Venter rejects Irrefutable Scientific Evidence in favor of Religion? I suppose that's why he's an Athiest. Lines Up.

And this is an Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy)--- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... arity.html

If you really want answers to your questions, then you need to ask professionals in the field such as Venter.

I already "KNOW" the answers or I wouldn't have asked. And, they're Irrefutable; Ergo... Dr. Venter or any other Dr. is in the same boat as you, the fine folks on this or any other forum, or anywhere in the Hallowed Halls of Academia on this planet. Call or send my post to anyone you wish and have them roll on by and we'll get to cases. It'll take less than 2 posts!

I have good reason to believe they would demolish your arguments.

You do, eh? Can you divulge the reason...? So you know "people" that'll "Hand my Hat" to Me, eh? Bring'em On!!!! I'm their Huckleberry

Also, if your arguments for ID are as good as you obviously think they are...

They're better, as I said they're Irrefutable.

then why don't you publish your theory? If true, and if you have clearly demonstrated it to be true, then Journals such as Nature and Science are always looking for groundbreaking research such as yours

How many "ID" Article's concerning "ID" have you seen in Nature and Science in the past 10 Years? lol I don't have enough Money to Bribe the "Gate Keepers". It's not that "Groundbreaking" anyway, your Average 3rd Grader can reckon it.

PS! If you are going to publish your theory and have it taken seriously and accepted, then you will first need to explain why many features and constructional details of animals are clearly not intelligently designed, such as (but not limited to) the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes.

Oh no, those pesky Giraffes again. As I said, you touch on any of those Null's and I'll speak to "YOUR" Giraffe Dilemma. Yes, I saw the discovery documentary with Richard Dawkins and couldn't stop laughing.

Is this Intelligently Designed...



regards

[FarWanderer]

These challenges are erroneous.

You are saying two things:
Information is evidence.
Information can't be seen.

I'm saying that INFORMATION only comes from Intelligent Agent. Information is not "Physical"...that is, you can't put it in a Jar and Paint it RED...it's Semiotic.

OK, then you are saying more things:

Information is evidence.
Information can't be seen.
Information only comes from intelligent agent.
Information is not "physical". (why the quotation marks?)
Information is semiotic.

Now, I don't disagree with any of these claims individually, depending on the sense in which you are using the word "information". However, I don't think all 5 instances can coherently be referring to the same meaning for the word "information". In other words, I believe you are equivocating.

You call information semiotic. Sure, it can be thought of semiotically. But it can also be thought of physically. If it couldn't, then a sentence like: "That man is carrying important information in his suitcase" would be unintelligible.

When you claim that information is evidence, however, I don't see how it could be so if your use of the word "information" is in the semiotic sense. Hence why I originally called it a non-sequitur.

Ya see, Let's say I wrote on the board in chalk: "I Like Ice Cream" then erased it with my hand. Can you then inspect/take the chalk off my hand and Liberate the Message? The Medium is not the Message.

I can "liberate" it about as well as I can reconstruct a house after it has burned down.

Windows 7 is no less physical than a motherboard. It is a physical configuration of a physical medium

Say What?? Take a Picture of Windows 7 (Not the CD Case) and post it here.

And here you specifically disallow any reference to a physical medium, further showing precisely that "Windows 7" can be thought of in a physical sense.

It's not even right or wrong; it's just a fiat of definition; an arbitrary interpretation.

Please show where/how that it's "arbitrary"?

So...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Between what and what?

If you can't (and you can't) then "Information" Transcends the Medium.

Reminder: your definition for "information" is "the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence".

If you are implying that genetic code is communication/reception of knowledge, who or what are the participants? What's the knowledge being communicated/received?

Communication can occur throughout an (endless?) number of physical mediums; but communication always requires a medium for its existence. So, how can you say that information is unequivically "transcendent" to its mediums? or, if we are to conceive of it differently, its singular medium that is the whole of the physical world?

As is noted, here....

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

And if the Moon were made of green cheese it'd still be the Moon.

[historia]

They all invariably have Ph.D.'s in Theology or History, have published numerous peer reviewed journal articles and books in the field, and are highly cited by other scholars. Examples include Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, Kurt Aland, and D.C. Parker.

Have you read any of them?

I really don't care if they have 30 PhD's each, and yes I have come across them.

That's funny, because you sure made a big song and dance out of the credentials and expertise of the scientists you cited above. But when it comes to the New Testament manuscripts, you "really don't care" if the authors you are reading have expertise in that subject? Can you name any respectable New Testament scholars who support your arguments?

There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone!

Okay. But there are contradictions between all New Testament manuscripts.

Okay??? Not in the Universal zip code of that scale love.

Would you say, then, that the King James Version is also "corrupted" because the Textus Receptus, the critical Greek text on which the KJV was based, contradicts many other Greek manuscripts, including those of the Majority Text? If not, why?

Yes the Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Alexandrinus...to name the Biggies. So what's your point?

From your answers here it's clear to me you have not done much research into New Testament manuscripts.

Let's step back here for a second, then: Are you familiar with the Textus Receptus (TR), the published Greek text that the King James translators used for translating the New Testament? Perhaps you can tell us, then, how it was constructed, what manuscripts it was based on, and who put it together? Do you know what the Majority (or Byzantine) Text is, and its relationship to the TR?

Yes, that's because several different endings were added to various copies of the Gospel of Mark between the second and fourth centuries.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Are you familiar with these...

(Deuteronomy 4:2) "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

(Revelation 22:18-19) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: {19} And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

I am.

If one WORD was tampered with "INTENTIONALLY" it's corrupted.

If you believe that, then you must believe that the King James Version is "corrupted," since it includes passages, like the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), and the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), all of which were added to these texts after they were composed.

No other gospel has this kind of textual issue. Why do you think Mark alone has these different endings?

Clearly, Irenaeus is not talking about the Gospel of Mark. Further, there are no "shortened" or "mutilated" versions of Luke or the Pauline epistles in the codices you've referenced. Seems then that this quote from Irenaeus is irrelevant to our discussion.

Really?

It's not Mark alone, love?

You didn't answer my question. When we look at the various manuscripts of the New Testament, we see that all of the manuscripts contain the same ending for Matthew, the same ending for Luke, and the same ending for John. But when it comes to Mark, we see some manuscripts that end at 16:8, some that have a short ending, some with a long ending, and some with an 'intermediate' ending.

Why is that the case with Mark but not the other gospels?

Why did Eusebius say that in his day the vast majority of the manuscripts of Mark did not include the long ending?

But one WORD altered in Mark alone scuttles them IN TOTO. Let's take just a cursory look see (Just a Sample)...

What "They" Deleted (Highlighted)....

No one "deleted" these passages, Enoch. Those passages were added to Byzantine manuscripts over the course of centuries. The KJV used a critical version of the Greek text that included these additions. If such alterations then "scuttles them IN TOTO" then the King James Version is "scuttled IN TOTO."

Modern translations have removed these Byzantine additions to the text in order to get closer to what the original text said.

Are Ya seeing a "PATTERN" here, per chance?

Yes, the pattern here is that, over the course of centuries, when scribes copied the New Testament, they tended to conflate and expand the text. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the later Byzantine / Majority Text with earlier text types like the Alexandrian and Western text.

And what exactly would that problem be? Irenaeus was familiar with a copy of Mark that included the long ending. No surprise there. Eusebius, writing in Caesarea in the fourth century, tells us that that some manuscripts of Mark did, indeed, contain this ending, but the vast majority did not. Again, why do you think that is?

Well the problem there Historia, is the TEXT was Manipulated...MY ENTIRE POINT!

Indeed, and the King James Version includes these "manipulations," such as the long ending of Mark and the others mentioned above. Therefore you must conclude that the KJV is "corrupted." In fact it is the most "corrupted" English translation, since the other translations have, for the most part, removed these "manipulations."

So let me see if I understand you here. There were Gnostics in Alexandria, so any manuscript produced in Alexandria is therefore Gnostic?

That would be like saying: because the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is headquartered in New York, all books published in New York are Jehovah's Witness books. That would be a genetic fallacy.

Yes it sure would be accept for the fact that these codices ORIGINATED there....

How does that change anything?

Orthodox Christians produced these codices. Just because Gnostics also happened to live in the same city doesn't make these manuscripts "Gnostic."

Gnostics also lived in Antioch, Rome, and all major cities in the Roman Empire. Does that mean that any New Testament manuscript produced in those cities are also Gnostic? This whole line of argumentation is completely absurd.

the TEXTS were Manipulated....and Gnostics were known for Manipulating Scripture

No they weren't. There is no historical support for your claim that "Gnostics" went around changing a verse here and a verse there from the Bible. Gnostics, for the most part, generally preferred their own books, such as those found at Nag Hammadi, over those in the Bible.

Irenaeus tells us that one specific semi-Gnostic sect, lead by Marcion, edited one specific gospel, Luke, and several of Paul's letters, and used those alone for scripture. Eusebius even tells us the specific edits Marcion made: He removed Luke's birth narrative (since he didn't believe Christ was actually born) and he removed from Luke and the Pauline epistles any references to the Jewish Scriptures, since Marcion, like all Gnostics, completely rejected the Old Testament. He also rejected the other gospels, Acts, the Pastorals, the catholic epistles, and Revelation.

Trying to use that example to say "Gnostics were known for Manipulating Scripture " -- and misquoting Irenaeus in order to do so! -- is grasping at straws.

But since we're here, let's compare Marcion's canon to Codex Sinaiticus.

Marcion's canon included:

• (a) No Old Testament
  (b) No Matthew, Mark, and John
  (c) An edited version of Luke with no birth narrative or references to Jewish scriptures
  (d) No Acts
  (e) Some Pauline epistles, edited to remove references to Jewish scriptures, but no Pastorals
  (f) No catholic epistles
  (g) No Revelation

Sinaiticus includes:

• (a) The complete Old Testament
  (b) Matthew, Mark, and John
  (c) The complete version of Luke, including the birth narrative and references to Jewish scriptures
  (d) Acts
  (e) All of the Pauline epistles, including all references to Jewish scriptures, and the Pastorals
  (f) The catholic epistles
  (g) Revelation

So did Marcionites or Gnostics produce Sinaiticus? Of course not! It includes books (such as the Old Testament) that no Gnostic would touch with a ten foot pole! It does not include the "curtailed" version of Luke that Irenaeus mentions. It is, in fact, nearly the opposite of what Marcion would have produced.

Only someone completely and utterly ignorant of Gnosticism could even suggest this manuscript and the other codices were produced by Gnostics.

In a Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Westcott wrote,
"No one now I suppose hold that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history- I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did".
Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p. 69

Westcott wrote,
"The concept is that bringing Christ to the full perfection of his humanity which carries with it the completeness of power and dignity. This perfection was not reached until after death".
B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 49

westcott wrote,
" The resurrection seems to me to be the image of man unfallen to a higher life-not future but present. Not I shall be hereafter but I am".
B.F. Westcott, Life of Westcott, Vol 2, p.77

He's a HERETIC!! ...along with his partner in Crime. Would you like some of Hort's? They're quite the Spectacle!!

So from your hyper-literalist-North-American-Fundamentalist point of view, even a conservative Anglican is a "heretic." I'd like to say that that's surprising, but sadly it's not.

Would you call someone who believes in transubstantiation a heretic?

Are you familiar with the term 'quote mining', by chance?

Yes, I'm very familiar "on this forum" with the charge. Not so much with the SUPPORT, However.

Better yet, here is the full quote from Westcott you've sniped above. I'd like for you to tell me what exactly you think he is discussing in this letter, and what he means when he -- quite clearly in jest -- says he would be proclaimed a "heretic."

TO THE REV. J. F. WlCKENDEN
HARROW, 15th September [1855?].

Will you not excuse me if I decline to attempt to settle any chronological point in the Gospels? The data are far too uncertain to give more than a probable conclusion; and in many cases the order of time is wholly hopelessly uncertain. How much I should like to have been in some closet to listen to your discussion of aion. What unorthodox groans would have issued from the recess quarter? How certainly I should have been proclaimed heretic ! I do hope you furnished the good people with a Bruder. . . .

It appears he was calling it like he was seeing it. The 3 Citations above leave quite little doubt he was right on the "MARK"!

He was "calling it like he was seeing it?" You'll need to do better than that, Enoch.

What did Westcott mean when he was talking about the "chronological point in the Gospels"? What was Wickenden's discussion about aion? How do the "unorthodox groans" and Westcott's joke that he would be "proclaimed heretic" relate to that discussion?

If you don't know the answer to those questions, you don't understand the context in which he made this comment. And if you don't understand that context, then you are quote mining. It is disingenuous, at best.

Nope, on this you are simply mistaken. Virtually all of these translations are based on the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, not the critical text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. The preface of each will tell you so.

Ipse Dixit, eh? A "Nope". You need to take a little closer look.

Sure, let's do that. The preface to the NIV states:

The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies Greek New Testament.

Here's the preface from the ESV:

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

We can look at the other translations you mentioned, but they all say basically the same thing. As I said above, these translations use the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, not the critical text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. If you disagree, you are simply wrong.

[ytrewq]

My summary remains unchanged.

The vast majority of professional in this field reject ID. If you think that you are smarter than their combined knowlwedge and experience, then good luck to you. Maybe you are, but we are entitled to be skeptical. That is all I am saying.

You say your case for ID is irrefutable. If this is really true then of course you could publish it. Your claim that you need to bribe the scientific journals to get something published is incorrect, as I know from experience. The reason you can't publish your theory is because it won't stand up to scrutiny. End of story on that one.

You have not in fact subjected your theory to scrutiny by a representative mix of professionals in the field, known as peer review. Until you do, your claims that your theory is 'irrefutable' and would be accepted by experts in the field, is nothing more than hot air.

You did not address the following from my previous posting.

[Replying to post 60 by Enoch2021]

ytrewq: Then you will need to explain EXACTLY how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today

Enoch2021: It's Called The Genetic CODE. The HOW? Well HE Spoke it. I don't have the first clue HOW they built the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 (Space shuttle Engine) but I can tell you for an Absolute FACT that Intelligent Agent(s) were it's Source and not wind/waves colluding with Copper and Iron Ores.

And that is a good summary of the quality of your case, and your complete inability to present details of your alternative theory to evolution, details that are necessary for your case to be worth anything at all.

On your own admission, you haven't a clue how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today.

How did your designer actually and physically implement the genetic code?

Well HE spoke it!

Really? And that is a detailed and satisfactory explantion of HOW your claimed designer actually implemented the genetic code? Are you serious? You will need to do a lot better than that to be taken seriously.

Can't say more that I already said above, and here you have totally failed. I really am sorry. Saying 'Well HE spoke it' to physically implement the genetic code just doesn't cut it. You are living in fantasy land if you think that is a satisfactory explanation. No wonder scientific journal reject your ideas.

Also, you clearly you have no answer for why many features and constructional details of animals are clearly not intelligently designed, such as (but not limited to) the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes. Why you should find this funny I have no idea. Here we have irrefutable evidence that animals are not intelligently designed.

Tell me, do you agree that evolution does in fact occur, not only in the past, but right up to the present day? How could it NOT occur?

For the record, evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact. How does your theory accommodate that?

CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

How do you justify that assertion?

What about the strikingly beautiful shape and form of a snowflake? That is most certainly not random. The 'information/software' in this case is encoded in the properties of water and ice, not sourced by an intelligent agency. So much for your 'always, ever, ever, ever' assertion.

But more importantly, how do you actually KNOW irrefutably that coded genetic information has not evolved? Seems darned obvious to me that it would and has, as the complexity of liferforms has increased as a result of selective pressure favouring more complex organisms. So your key assertion is wrong, right from the start. There is no evidence for or requirement that the coded genetic information that makes a human has been sourced by intelligent agency, rather than having evolved over millions of years. If you don't believe that, then you simply do not understand how evolution works.

Maybe you don't understand how evolution works. The final result of an evolutionary process is highly complex, not random, and has the appearance of being 'designed', and yet this is illusory. It is easy to be deceived, as many ID advocates have been, when looking at the amazingly complex end products of an evolutionary process, such as an eye, or a human, or an efficient coding scheme, or genetically coded information for increasingly complex organisms. An intelligent designer is not required.

The only 'gap' left for you to argue about, is how the very first, very, very primitive organism came to be. Science does not know the answer to that, but still there is no reason to invoke a God.

Finally, I'll side with you, just slightly anyway. It seems to me that matter itself has properties that predispose the emergence and evolution of life. The fact that DNA even does or can exist is remarkable, for if organic chemistry had been different, then perhaps life simply would not have been possible. I don't know why matter has properties that are so favourable for the existence of life, though still there is no reason to invoke a God. However, even if we were to accept that matter itself was 'intelligently designed', then evolution would still proceed without divine assistance, just as it does now, and the idea of a personal Christian God is so far removed as to be irrelevant.

[Enoch2021]

They all invariably have Ph.D.'s in Theology or History, have published numerous peer reviewed journal articles and books in the field, and are highly cited by other scholars. Examples include Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, Kurt Aland, and D.C. Parker.

Have you read any of them?

I really don't care if they have 30 PhD's each, and yes I have come across them.

That's funny, because you sure made a big song and dance out of the credentials and expertise of the scientists you cited above. But when it comes to the New Testament manuscripts, you "really don't care" if the authors you are reading have expertise in that subject? Can you name any respectable New Testament scholars who support your arguments?

There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone!

Okay. But there are contradictions between all New Testament manuscripts.

Okay??? Not in the Universal zip code of that scale love.

Would you say, then, that the King James Version is also "corrupted" because the Textus Receptus, the critical Greek text on which the KJV was based, contradicts many other Greek manuscripts, including those of the Majority Text? If not, why?

Yes the Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Alexandrinus...to name the Biggies. So what's your point?

From your answers here it's clear to me you have not done much research into New Testament manuscripts.

Let's step back here for a second, then: Are you familiar with the Textus Receptus (TR), the published Greek text that the King James translators used for translating the New Testament? Perhaps you can tell us, then, how it was constructed, what manuscripts it was based on, and who put it together? Do you know what the Majority (or Byzantine) Text is, and its relationship to the TR?

Yes, that's because several different endings were added to various copies of the Gospel of Mark between the second and fourth centuries.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Are you familiar with these...

(Deuteronomy 4:2) "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

(Revelation 22:18-19) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: {19} And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

I am.

If one WORD was tampered with "INTENTIONALLY" it's corrupted.

If you believe that, then you must believe that the King James Version is "corrupted," since it includes passages, like the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), and the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), all of which were added to these texts after they were composed.

No other gospel has this kind of textual issue. Why do you think Mark alone has these different endings?

Clearly, Irenaeus is not talking about the Gospel of Mark. Further, there are no "shortened" or "mutilated" versions of Luke or the Pauline epistles in the codices you've referenced. Seems then that this quote from Irenaeus is irrelevant to our discussion.

Really?

It's not Mark alone, love?

You didn't answer my question. When we look at the various manuscripts of the New Testament, we see that all of the manuscripts contain the same ending for Matthew, the same ending for Luke, and the same ending for John. But when it comes to Mark, we see some manuscripts that end at 16:8, some that have a short ending, some with a long ending, and some with an 'intermediate' ending.

Why is that the case with Mark but not the other gospels?

Why did Eusebius say that in his day the vast majority of the manuscripts of Mark did not include the long ending?

But one WORD altered in Mark alone scuttles them IN TOTO. Let's take just a cursory look see (Just a Sample)...

What "They" Deleted (Highlighted)....

No one "deleted" these passages, Enoch. Those passages were added to Byzantine manuscripts over the course of centuries. The KJV used a critical version of the Greek text that included these additions. If such alterations then "scuttles them IN TOTO" then the King James Version is "scuttled IN TOTO."

Modern translations have removed these Byzantine additions to the text in order to get closer to what the original text said.

Are Ya seeing a "PATTERN" here, per chance?

Yes, the pattern here is that, over the course of centuries, when scribes copied the New Testament, they tended to conflate and expand the text. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the later Byzantine / Majority Text with earlier text types like the Alexandrian and Western text.

And what exactly would that problem be? Irenaeus was familiar with a copy of Mark that included the long ending. No surprise there. Eusebius, writing in Caesarea in the fourth century, tells us that that some manuscripts of Mark did, indeed, contain this ending, but the vast majority did not. Again, why do you think that is?

Well the problem there Historia, is the TEXT was Manipulated...MY ENTIRE POINT!

Indeed, and the King James Version includes these "manipulations," such as the long ending of Mark and the others mentioned above. Therefore you must conclude that the KJV is "corrupted." In fact it is the most "corrupted" English translation, since the other translations have, for the most part, removed these "manipulations."

So let me see if I understand you here. There were Gnostics in Alexandria, so any manuscript produced in Alexandria is therefore Gnostic?

That would be like saying: because the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is headquartered in New York, all books published in New York are Jehovah's Witness books. That would be a genetic fallacy.

Yes it sure would be accept for the fact that these codices ORIGINATED there....

How does that change anything?

Orthodox Christians produced these codices. Just because Gnostics also happened to live in the same city doesn't make these manuscripts "Gnostic."

Gnostics also lived in Antioch, Rome, and all major cities in the Roman Empire. Does that mean that any New Testament manuscript produced in those cities are also Gnostic? This whole line of argumentation is completely absurd.

the TEXTS were Manipulated....and Gnostics were known for Manipulating Scripture

No they weren't. There is no historical support for your claim that "Gnostics" went around changing a verse here and a verse there from the Bible. Gnostics, for the most part, generally preferred their own books, such as those found at Nag Hammadi, over those in the Bible.

Irenaeus tells us that one specific semi-Gnostic sect, lead by Marcion, edited one specific gospel, Luke, and several of Paul's letters, and used those alone for scripture. Eusebius even tells us the specific edits Marcion made: He removed Luke's birth narrative (since he didn't believe Christ was actually born) and he removed from Luke and the Pauline epistles any references to the Jewish Scriptures, since Marcion, like all Gnostics, completely rejected the Old Testament. He also rejected the other gospels, Acts, the Pastorals, the catholic epistles, and Revelation.

Trying to use that example to say "Gnostics were known for Manipulating Scripture " -- and misquoting Irenaeus in order to do so! -- is grasping at straws.

But since we're here, let's compare Marcion's canon to Codex Sinaiticus.

Marcion's canon included:

• (a) No Old Testament
  (b) No Matthew, Mark, and John
  (c) An edited version of Luke with no birth narrative or references to Jewish scriptures
  (d) No Acts
  (e) Some Pauline epistles, edited to remove references to Jewish scriptures, but no Pastorals
  (f) No catholic epistles
  (g) No Revelation

Sinaiticus includes:

• (a) The complete Old Testament
  (b) Matthew, Mark, and John
  (c) The complete version of Luke, including the birth narrative and references to Jewish scriptures
  (d) Acts
  (e) All of the Pauline epistles, including all references to Jewish scriptures, and the Pastorals
  (f) The catholic epistles
  (g) Revelation

So did Marcionites or Gnostics produce Sinaiticus? Of course not! It includes books (such as the Old Testament) that no Gnostic would touch with a ten foot pole! It does not include the "curtailed" version of Luke that Irenaeus mentions. It is, in fact, nearly the opposite of what Marcion would have produced.

Only someone completely and utterly ignorant of Gnosticism could even suggest this manuscript and the other codices were produced by Gnostics.

In a Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Westcott wrote,
"No one now I suppose hold that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history- I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did".
Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p. 69

Westcott wrote,
"The concept is that bringing Christ to the full perfection of his humanity which carries with it the completeness of power and dignity. This perfection was not reached until after death".
B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 49

westcott wrote,
" The resurrection seems to me to be the image of man unfallen to a higher life-not future but present. Not I shall be hereafter but I am".
B.F. Westcott, Life of Westcott, Vol 2, p.77

He's a HERETIC!! ...along with his partner in Crime. Would you like some of Hort's? They're quite the Spectacle!!

So from your hyper-literalist-North-American-Fundamentalist point of view, even a conservative Anglican is a "heretic." I'd like to say that that's surprising, but sadly it's not.

Would you call someone who believes in transubstantiation a heretic?

Are you familiar with the term 'quote mining', by chance?

Yes, I'm very familiar "on this forum" with the charge. Not so much with the SUPPORT, However.

Better yet, here is the full quote from Westcott you've sniped above. I'd like for you to tell me what exactly you think he is discussing in this letter, and what he means when he -- quite clearly in jest -- says he would be proclaimed a "heretic."

TO THE REV. J. F. WlCKENDEN
HARROW, 15th September [1855?].

Will you not excuse me if I decline to attempt to settle any chronological point in the Gospels? The data are far too uncertain to give more than a probable conclusion; and in many cases the order of time is wholly hopelessly uncertain. How much I should like to have been in some closet to listen to your discussion of aion. What unorthodox groans would have issued from the recess quarter? How certainly I should have been proclaimed heretic ! I do hope you furnished the good people with a Bruder. . . .

It appears he was calling it like he was seeing it. The 3 Citations above leave quite little doubt he was right on the "MARK"!

He was "calling it like he was seeing it?" You'll need to do better than that, Enoch.

What did Westcott mean when he was talking about the "chronological point in the Gospels"? What was Wickenden's discussion about aion? How do the "unorthodox groans" and Westcott's joke that he would be "proclaimed heretic" relate to that discussion?

If you don't know the answer to those questions, you don't understand the context in which he made this comment. And if you don't understand that context, then you are quote mining. It is disingenuous, at best.

Nope, on this you are simply mistaken. Virtually all of these translations are based on the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, not the critical text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. The preface of each will tell you so.

Ipse Dixit, eh? A "Nope". You need to take a little closer look.

Sure, let's do that. The preface to the NIV states:

The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies Greek New Testament.

Here's the preface from the ESV:

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

We can look at the other translations you mentioned, but they all say basically the same thing. As I said above, these translations use the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, not the critical text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. If you disagree, you are simply wrong.

Historia ahhh,

Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland)...

"In 1898 Eberhard Nestle published the first edition of his Novum Testamentum Graece. Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time: Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis."{Emphasis Mine}
https://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/ ... testament/

Greek New Testament (UBS GNT)....

"3rd, Corrected Edition (1983): While the principal text subsequently remained largely unchanged and was modified (along with the punctuation apparatus) only in matters of punctuation, the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) subjected the apparatus criticus to a thorough revision, based on the work for the 26th Edition of Nestle-Aland (see above), published in 1979." {Emphasis Mine}
https://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/ ... testament/

You'll forgive me if I end the discussion....I've given you quite enough. Roll with what you got.

regards

[Enoch2021]

These challenges are erroneous.

You are saying two things:
Information is evidence.
Information can't be seen.

I'm saying that INFORMATION only comes from Intelligent Agent. Information is not "Physical"...that is, you can't put it in a Jar and Paint it RED...it's Semiotic.

OK, then you are saying more things:

Information is evidence.
Information can't be seen.
Information only comes from intelligent agent.
Information is not "physical". (why the quotation marks?)
Information is semiotic.

Now, I don't disagree with any of these claims individually, depending on the sense in which you are using the word "information". However, I don't think all 5 instances can coherently be referring to the same meaning for the word "information". In other words, I believe you are equivocating.

You call information semiotic. Sure, it can be thought of semiotically. But it can also be thought of physically. If it couldn't, then a sentence like: "That man is carrying important information in his suitcase" would be unintelligible.

When you claim that information is evidence, however, I don't see how it could be so if your use of the word "information" is in the semiotic sense. Hence why I originally called it a non-sequitur.

Ya see, Let's say I wrote on the board in chalk: "I Like Ice Cream" then erased it with my hand. Can you then inspect/take the chalk off my hand and Liberate the Message? The Medium is not the Message.

I can "liberate" it about as well as I can reconstruct a house after it has burned down.

Windows 7 is no less physical than a motherboard. It is a physical configuration of a physical medium

Say What?? Take a Picture of Windows 7 (Not the CD Case) and post it here.

And here you specifically disallow any reference to a physical medium, further showing precisely that "Windows 7" can be thought of in a physical sense.

It's not even right or wrong; it's just a fiat of definition; an arbitrary interpretation.

Please show where/how that it's "arbitrary"?

So...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Between what and what?

If you can't (and you can't) then "Information" Transcends the Medium.

Reminder: your definition for "information" is "the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence".

If you are implying that genetic code is communication/reception of knowledge, who or what are the participants? What's the knowledge being communicated/received?

Communication can occur throughout an (endless?) number of physical mediums; but communication always requires a medium for its existence. So, how can you say that information is unequivically "transcendent" to its mediums? or, if we are to conceive of it differently, its singular medium that is the whole of the physical world?

As is noted, here....

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

And if the Moon were made of green cheese it'd still be the Moon.

Information is evidence.
Information can't be seen.
Information only comes from intelligent agent.
Information is not "physical". (why the quotation marks?)
Information is semiotic.


Now, I don't disagree with any of these claims individually, depending on the sense in which you are using the word "information". However, I don't think all 5 instances can coherently be referring to the same meaning for the word "information". In other words, I believe you are equivocating.

They're not meanings or definitions they are Attributes/Characteristics of "Information".

But it can also be thought of physically. If it couldn't, then a sentence like: "That man is carrying important information in his suitcase" would be unintelligible.

Where's the Suitcase? All you have are "Squiggly Lines"---the letters of the Alphabet----Words-----Sentences, ect. The only way they have "meaning"/INFORMATION is we have a Preemptive agreed upon Convention... The English Language; otherwise, it's nonsense. Only by Intelligent Agency, communication and agreement can those "squiggly lines" contain INFORMATION.

I can "liberate" it about as well as I can reconstruct a house after it has burned down.

You can not extract the message form the chalk on my hand lol.

OK, I just wrote a message on the board and erased it...



What's the message?

Roger Sperry PhD, Neurobiologist and Nobel Laureate...

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink".

And here you specifically disallow any reference to a physical medium, further showing precisely that "Windows 7" can be thought of in a physical sense.

Well the CD Case isn't the Message. Get a Floppy disc or a CD weigh them both empty and fill them each to the brim with Software. Weigh them again....do they weigh more? You can send INFORMATION through air you can download it wirelessly...it's Mass-less.

So...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?


Between what and what?

I don't think I can reduce this or break it down any further.

If you are implying that genetic code is communication/reception of knowledge, who or what are the participants? What's the knowledge being communicated/received?

Didn't I already post this?

Pull this up: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746

Then start here (a little below below the C A T pic):
"To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude..." and read the 4 paragraphs.

Communication can occur throughout an (endless?) number of physical mediums; but communication always requires a medium for its existence.

Yes, I never said otherwise. The point is....The Medium isn't the MESSAGE.

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".


And if the Moon were made of green cheese it'd still be the Moon.

Yes, I'm sure that's what he meant.

regards

[Enoch2021]

My summary remains unchanged.

The vast majority of professional in this field reject ID. If you think that you are smarter than their combined knowlwedge and experience, then good luck to you. Maybe you are, but we are entitled to be skeptical. That is all I am saying.

You say your case for ID is irrefutable. If this is really true then of course you could publish it. Your claim that you need to bribe the scientific journals to get something published is incorrect, as I know from experience. The reason you can't publish your theory is because it won't stand up to scrutiny. End of story on that one.

You have not in fact subjected your theory to scrutiny by a representative mix of professionals in the field, known as peer review. Until you do, your claims that your theory is 'irrefutable' and would be accepted by experts in the field, is nothing more than hot air.

You did not address the following from my previous posting.

[Replying to post 60 by Enoch2021]

ytrewq: Then you will need to explain EXACTLY how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today

Enoch2021: It's Called The Genetic CODE. The HOW? Well HE Spoke it. I don't have the first clue HOW they built the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 (Space shuttle Engine) but I can tell you for an Absolute FACT that Intelligent Agent(s) were it's Source and not wind/waves colluding with Copper and Iron Ores.

And that is a good summary of the quality of your case, and your complete inability to present details of your alternative theory to evolution, details that are necessary for your case to be worth anything at all.

On your own admission, you haven't a clue how your intelligent designer actually produced the wide range of organisms that we observe today.

How did your designer actually and physically implement the genetic code?

Well HE spoke it!

Really? And that is a detailed and satisfactory explantion of HOW your claimed designer actually implemented the genetic code? Are you serious? You will need to do a lot better than that to be taken seriously.

Can't say more that I already said above, and here you have totally failed. I really am sorry. Saying 'Well HE spoke it' to physically implement the genetic code just doesn't cut it. You are living in fantasy land if you think that is a satisfactory explanation. No wonder scientific journal reject your ideas.

Also, you clearly you have no answer for why many features and constructional details of animals are clearly not intelligently designed, such as (but not limited to) the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes. Why you should find this funny I have no idea. Here we have irrefutable evidence that animals are not intelligently designed.

Tell me, do you agree that evolution does in fact occur, not only in the past, but right up to the present day? How could it NOT occur?

For the record, evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact. How does your theory accommodate that?

CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

How do you justify that assertion?

What about the strikingly beautiful shape and form of a snowflake? That is most certainly not random. The 'information/software' in this case is encoded in the properties of water and ice, not sourced by an intelligent agency. So much for your 'always, ever, ever, ever' assertion.

But more importantly, how do you actually KNOW irrefutably that coded genetic information has not evolved? Seems darned obvious to me that it would and has, as the complexity of liferforms has increased as a result of selective pressure favouring more complex organisms. So your key assertion is wrong, right from the start. There is no evidence for or requirement that the coded genetic information that makes a human has been sourced by intelligent agency, rather than having evolved over millions of years. If you don't believe that, then you simply do not understand how evolution works.

Maybe you don't understand how evolution works. The final result of an evolutionary process is highly complex, not random, and has the appearance of being 'designed', and yet this is illusory. It is easy to be deceived, as many ID advocates have been, when looking at the amazingly complex end products of an evolutionary process, such as an eye, or a human, or an efficient coding scheme, or genetically coded information for increasingly complex organisms. An intelligent designer is not required.

The only 'gap' left for you to argue about, is how the very first, very, very primitive organism came to be. Science does not know the answer to that, but still there is no reason to invoke a God.

Finally, I'll side with you, just slightly anyway. It seems to me that matter itself has properties that predispose the emergence and evolution of life. The fact that DNA even does or can exist is remarkable, for if organic chemistry had been different, then perhaps life simply would not have been possible. I don't know why matter has properties that are so favourable for the existence of life, though still there is no reason to invoke a God. However, even if we were to accept that matter itself was 'intelligently designed', then evolution would still proceed without divine assistance, just as it does now, and the idea of a personal Christian God is so far removed as to be irrelevant.

My summary remains unchanged.

Mine also. So just a few.....busy day.

The vast majority of professional in this field reject ID.

So? All you have here is...

Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy)--- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... arity.html

We need SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE "supporting" their claims...have them start with the Null's.

If you think that you are smarter than their combined knowlwedge and experience, then good luck to you.

Well if by smarter you mean that I Know that ink/paper/glue molecules can't author War and Peace or Technical Instruction Manuals.....and "They" can't seem to grasp the concept; then YES, I suppose I'm Exponential Magnitudes Smarter.

You did not address the following from my previous posting.

Yes sir, I did. Don't need to explain the "HOW" just Identify the "WHAT".

What about the strikingly beautiful shape and form of a snowflake? That is most certainly not random.

You have to be able to discern between the 3 Types of Complexity: 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC)."

Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk.

Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu: Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes.

Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.

So RSC and OSC = "Nature" (Unguided)

FSC = Intelligent Design Construct (Guided)

"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity." {Emphasis Mine}
L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.

The 'information/software' in this case is encoded in the properties of water and ice, not sourced by an intelligent agency. So much for your 'always, ever, ever, ever' assertion.

There is no Information/Software in Chemical Bonds; they're just...Chemical Bonds.

Roger Sperry PhD, Neurobiologist and Nobel Laureate...

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink".

how do you actually KNOW irrefutably that coded genetic information has not evolved?

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a Functional 50 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin

2. How Did Stupid Atoms CREATE Their Own Software....?

Again: CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

To refute, Falsify any of the Null's.

evolved over millions of years

Begging The Question Fallacy x 2: "evolved" and "millions of years".

Maybe you don't understand how evolution works. The final result of an evolutionary process

Did you click the link? You're "whistlin past the graveyard" with this.

You skipped from how evolution works....to....the final result?

Are Peppered Moths an example of evolution?

Do these 2 Fathers of 20th Century evolution "theory' know?? ....

General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

the idea of a personal Christian God is so far removed as to be irrelevant.

Sound like an "Opinion" to me. SUPPORT....?

regards

[sf]

We can look at the other translations you mentioned, but they all say basically the same thing. As I said above, these translations use the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, not the critical text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. If you disagree, you are simply wrong.

I've been staying out of this because it would be more appropriate to make a new thread on this debate, wouldn't it? This one is called "heaven will be boring"

P.S. The Nestle-Aland text is based on Westcott-Hort's text and two other works: http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/history/ and the UBS Greek NT is "is identical with that of the 26th and 27th editions of Novum Testamentum Graece by Nestle Aland except for some minor punctuation differences" http://www.ubs-translations.org/cat/bib ... testament/

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 62:

All you have done, my friend, is tell us that you personally are incapable of seeing how evolution could possibly have been reponsible for producing certain structures that you believe to be irreducibly complex...

My data indicates those of a binary mindset can't help but see that way. (Clinical term - I confess a record of dooficity of irrefutible pedigree) .

All are requested to add this to their latest ten years of data, reporting promptly any discrepencies and all new fidndings.


Let's throw our arms and minds into the air, let's out us a big ol' sigh, and say, "Well how 'bout that". It limits further questioning like I try to limit pancakes hanging out in crowds.

[ytrewq]

ytrewq: The vast majority of professional in this field reject ID.

So? All you have here is...

Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy)--- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ularity.ht

If you think that you are smarter than their combined knowlwedge and experience, then good luck to you.

Well if by smarter you mean that I Know that ink/paper/glue molecules can't author War and Peace or Technical Instruction Manuals.....and "They" can't seem to grasp the concept; then YES, I suppose I'm Exponential Magnitudes Smarter.

No, I was not appealing to poularity as such at all. That fallacy would be if a Christian claimed evidence for his (unfounded) beliefs simply because there are millions of Christians in the world.

I was appealing to accumulated expertise in a particular scientific field. Broadly speaking, the views of a professional scientist, on a scientific topic within their area of expertise, are worth more that the views of an unqualified person. But even more so, given that the vast majority of professional scientists working in relevant disciplines overwhelmingly reject ID, then we should indeed by skeptical of your individual view that ID is irrefutable. Do you understand the difference?

As I said, that does not exclude the possibility that you are right and they are all wrong, but we should nonetheless be skeptical of your claims. Apparently you do indeed think you are smarter than the accumulated wisdom of tens of thousands of professionals in the field. Good luck to you. Maybe you are.

I'll address your other points in due course. Cheers.