Before reading this please read also my last replies to Loudmouth and Pink Sasquatch in discussion Origin of Life -> Proof against evolution (messages 425, 428). There are 2 proofs (1. God exists, 2. Evolution is nonsense) ....but I'll mention something from those replies in this one as well. But you have to read those as well before replying to this post. Thanks.
mark24 writes:
I am not interested in how information got here. I’m not making an argument that requires evidence
All right.
If you can't... you are lying that you have one... UNDERSTOOD? And that means Theory of evolution is not scientific-based theory!
Sorry, you hear the truth.
In order to lie, I have to be perpetrating deliberate falsehoods, since that isn’t the case, I expect an apology.
(you are saying = "evolution is science based on evidence" (but that evidence have been presented by nobody so far) = so I said - "show me evidence you are talking about")
No apology.
Again, I said "if you can't give me evidence then you're lying". That means I didn't say you are lying.... but you've been just talking about shifting burden of proof, so I don't know if you can or can't explain it, that means again the same - because of that I didn't say you are lying ...and this is called logic. Logic is needed to be used before replying the way you did. So again, no apology needed - a reason doesn't exist. Invalid.
Logic is about consistency. In order to make a valid argument you must follow certain rules. If those rules aren’t followed then your argument is logically invalid. It’s not playing word games. Pick any book up on the subject of logic. Go to any website that deals with logic & argument & you’ll get the same story everywhere you go........
Please, don't even try to teach anybody about logic. I know Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V is not difficult to use (I use it even myself from time to time).... but don't teach anybody about things all you know about is just a definition but you don't really understand what does that mean.
Your assertion that information cannot come about naturally at all is an assertion, nothing more, you have no evidence for it
Demagogy! I didn't say it. You know it. ...I said information can't be created
without another information by accident. Read it 10 times.
Evidence? No problem:
Lets have a look at some logical facts (evidences):
Accident:1. By accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)
2. If there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.
Information:1. By information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)
2. The information can be created only by existing intelligence or by a program created by intelligece (or something that uses such program).
Please remember this, this is very important.
Everything mentioned are logical facts.
So problem solved for cosmology and abiogenesis. (don't forget, you have to read those two replies to Loudmouth and Pink Sasq... there is more)
This is evidence for premise = a proof that God ('higher intelligence') exists.
I conclude, because you cannot prove otherwise, that somewhere in the ocean is a talking fish called Eric. If you cannot disprove that there is a talking fish called Eric in the ocean, then you are forced by your own reasoning to accept my conclusion.
Well, if you say there is talking fish called Eric somewhere in the ocean that means it is a science based on evidence? ...could you please tell us all (in this forum, everybody is surely interested) what is a difference between Theory of Evolution and Theory of Existance of talking fish Eric in the ocean.
Thank you, mark!!!Don't forget, this has nothing with a proof against the evolution, this is just a question I would like to know the answer, so no need to talk about shifting burden of proof. Again. Thank you for the answer, in case you'll forget to answer, I'll ask again.
Your argument is of the form that because the genetic code has not been observed to appear naturally, it couldn’t have, therefore god-did-it.
It is the premise is in contention. You have to show that the genetic code could not form naturally in order to have an evidentially supported premise.
Yes, the theory of evolution is based around evidence & not fancies, & if you intend to falsify it you are required to provide evidence of YOUR claims.
No, evolution is not based around evidence. But ok, if you still want to play word-games, lets play word-games... no problem for me:
A PROOF EVOLUTION IS NONSENSE
Premise:
Evolution is nonsense.
Genetic code can't be created by accident, there is needed somebody who can create it - an existing intelligence.
Evidence :
As I already said:
quote:
Accident:
1. By accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)
2. If there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.
Information:
1. By information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)
2. The information can be created only by existing intelligence or by a program created by intelligece (or something that uses such program).
Everything mentioned are logical facts.
So as already prooved it's sure, information is created by information -> there is absolutely
no way it could create itself by accident... that's the
prooved fact. You can't fool a fact. So what does this mean?
a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.
b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is
always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).
So before any process of non-living material can happen, information must be given only by some intelligence (as already prooved above) [I'll call it God]
So if information is created by information (as prooved) that means:
information => an atom
information => a bacteria
information => DNA code
information => a cell
information => life
Without information there can't be created information by accident as prooved before. That means also that a cell exists just because of information. That information is called DNA code actually... but DNA code (information) can't be created by accident without another information (in this example it is a cell) .... and... a cell can't be created by accident without
already existing information (in this example it is a DNA code!!!) ....so as I said this is a point
where whole theory just stops!!!
Without DNA code there is no cell = without a cell there is no DNA code.
Without DNA code there is no vision = without vision there is no DNA code for vision created!
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
It is also a logical fact that there can't be done any research about thing to find out how it was created by accident when it is already prooved that it can't be created by accident
And
that means (according to mentioned proofs) all you are doing is, that you are using intelligence -
God to create such thing as DNA code, a cell, vision etc etc!!!
In other way Theory of evolution says God created a man !!! and in other way
Theory of evolution is lying that God didn't do that ! ! !.... because that's prooved that information can't create itself by accident - so DNA code can't create itself by accident.
And this is called
A proof that evolution is just a fiction, that it is nonsense.
So, mark... I hope you are happy with premise and evidence, aren't you?
™ Version 4.2
