alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
You can make a claim like that if you ignore the FACT the first post in the thread also contains this:
Last edited:
The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals
- Thread starter Moltuae
- Start date
You can make a claim like that if you ignore the FACT the first post in the thread also contains this:
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
Please show me your evidence computers "just emerge". I would like to see that.
Also please reconcile your statements with the 2 peer reviewed papers from respected journals I posted earlier in this thread. You know, where evolutionary biologists state the entire genomic computer as if it were pre-programmed, must have existed before complex animals and the other paper claiming the genome is evidence we were created because we found another Wow! signal.
Where did seedubya state that? I don't see it.
What he does state however, is the fact that there are only one of two possibilities here: Either the universe "just emerged" or it was created by a divine being who "just emerged".
Unless you believe in a creator of gods (and a creator of god creators .... ad infinitum), it has to be one or the other. The point being, the creator theory solves nothing, in fact it raises more questions.
So, in your view, did a creator "just emerge"? What's your theory on where he/she/it came from?
Agnosticism as its best. I like that.
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
Since when is looking at evidence and raising a question about that evidence that leads to many more questions an issue?
Your logic is like claiming for a murder investigator that comes upon a body in a closed room with 5 bullets to the head and no gun anywhere around can't declare there was a murder until we first prove who the murderer is and where he and the investigator came from.
purdybread
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 84
Make it stop!
Your analogy assumes irrefutable evidence for creation, making the assumption that there can be no other explanation. I don't know of any such evidence. A closer analogy would be that you have assumed a murder has taken place simply because a dead body has been found.
I must admit though, I do find all this fascinating. The interesting part for me is what makes some people believe in a god when others do not. Or how people come to believe in one particular creator, when there are so many different creators to choose from. Personally, I know very few religious people so I am genuinely intrigued when I meet someone with religious beliefs. In the UK we don't really do religion. Many people over here are christened 'Church of England' shortly after birth but more for reasons of tradition rather than belief. What few churches remain are largely used for christenings, weddings and funerals. I have met and known a few Muslim and Hindis though and had some interesting open discussions with them about their views and how they came to believe in what they do. One recurring answer seems to be that they all 'inherit' their beliefs, by which I mean they seem to be religious because their parents and peers were. I'm yet to meet anyone (who wasn't in some part raised with religion) who chose to follow religion in later life, though clearly there are some people who do just turn to religion when they have no apparent religious background. I think it would be fascinating to meet someone like that to find out their reasons. Would you mind telling me, were you raised into religion or did you turn to it later in life? (genuinely interested)
Why?
We're having a very civil discussion (at least I thought we were). I don't see anything wrong with discussing differences of opinion.
Differences never get resolved if we simply ignore them.
Sky-Knight
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 5,764
- Location
- Arizona
Your analogy assumes irrefutable evidence for creation, making the assumption that there can be no other explanation. I don't know of any such evidence. A closer analogy would be that you have assumed a murder has taken place simply because a dead body has been found.
I must admit though, I do find all this fascinating. The interesting part for me is what makes some people believe in a god when others do not. Or how people come to believe in one particular creator, when there are so many different creators to choose from. Personally, I know very few religious people so I am genuinely intrigued when I meet someone with religious beliefs. In the UK we don't really do religion. Many people over here are christened 'Church of England' shortly after birth but more for reasons of tradition rather than belief. What few churches remain are largely used for christenings, weddings and funerals. I have met and known a few Muslim and Hindis though and had some interesting open discussions with them about their views and how they came to believe in what they do. One recurring answer seems to be that they all 'inherit' their beliefs, by which I mean they seem to be religious because their parents and peers were. I'm yet to meet anyone (who wasn't in some part raised with religion) who chose to follow religion in later life, though clearly there are some people who do just turn to religion when they have no apparent religious background. I think it would be fascinating to meet someone like that to find out their reasons. Would you mind telling me, were you raised into religion or did you turn to it later in life? (genuinely interested)
Why?
We're having a very civil discussion (at least I thought we were). I don't see anything wrong with discussing differences of opinion.
Differences never get resolved if we simply ignore them.
I'm a religious person and I have similar interests. I have faith which means I think God created all of this. But, I also know that such a being couldn't tell the whole truth to a bunch of goat herders in the desert. So I don't take the Bible literally, it's a collection of children's stories and cautionary tales. It's a record of WHY we shouldn't treat each other like garbage.
So with that ethos in mind, I derive no small amount of amusement in learning everything I can about HOW this creation actually works.
But back to the topic at hand, if I recall correctly it was recently discovered that pale skin was a Neanderthal trait, and that the Neanderthals didn't "go extinct". They simply merged with the rest of humanity. There isn't a magic uniform being called a human, there are several families of hominids that became homo sapien, or at very least were close enough to be genetically compatible. When you look at the history of the Earth and realize that there has been multiple times in its history that it's had a super continent, and it will have one again in the future...
Well long story short all life on this rock is VERY similar to each other. There's not much genetic difference between a person and a tree. Homo Sapiens aren't a product of a single evolutionary thread, but actually a combination of several threads. Which makes our origins far less clear, but also far more interesting.
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
I was not raised into religion. I would not describe my parents as being Christian. They do not go to church. I do however live in the Bible belt.Would you mind telling me, were you raised into religion or did you turn to it later in life? (genuinely interested)
Believe me, I would not be raising this issue here on Technibble just because I am a Christian, if I did not believe the genome being a computer was not an incredibly significant discovery. The FACT the genome is not only a computer, but is being adapted as our computer of the future is very powerful evidence we were created by a higher power. There is no science to explain how the genomic computer came about by natural causes. In fact, the genomic computer was discovered in what neo-Darwinian evolution said must be/has to be 98% Junk DNA in order for neo-Darwinian evolution to be true. It said it must be so because evolution is messy, incomplete and inefficient. Where is the new evolutionary science to explain why the junk they were looking at is actually a computer? Based upon what evidence would any reasonable person think a computer does not need a programmer? Why was it a computer geek that first saw the genome as a computation and not these evolutionary biologists?
Why is this not a VERY significant discovery to everyone that understands computers?
mraikes
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 1,856
- Location
- Los Lunas, NM
Had to LOL a little at this. Because that's almost exactly way the process works in the US, and now my imagination runs wild. Stop reading now if you don't have time for some nonsense...
We believe there was a murder because we don't understand how a person can absorb 5 headshots without a gun and a 2nd party to pull the trigger. It seems impossible. So we find someone to blame.
A person is discovered, hiding in the room's heretofore unnoticed closet! His shoes and hands are covered in brain splatter. He immediately says "I did it."
But he's not called the murderer. He's called the "accused" or "Alleged killer" or "Person of Interest".
His background, personality and history are dredged for for all possible facts. Who is he? Where did he come from? Why was he there?
Now the Alleged Killer is put on trial where the investigator becomes the investigated. Who is he? What is his background? Is he racist? A dirty cop? To lazy to pursue other leads, hoping for an easy conviction? A clumsy cop messing up evidence? The possibilities are endless.
Then jury learns from a "paid expert" that a certain type of cartridge might, maybe, possibly, once in a million years, spontaneously discharge while being handled! And the investigator isn't a nice person! And a cop that was present in the room doesn't like Asian people!
Now the accused claims he didn't admit guilt! He was coerced! The not-nice investigator and racist cop said mean things! He heard a scary loud noise, ran into the room, freaked out at the blood, got scared and hid when he heard someone else coming!
The jury thinks that's all very reasonable. Because of course cartridges don't require a gun to be dangerous. And schools have known for years that even cheese sandwiches and pointy fingers in the shape of guns are dangerous. Society knows there doesn't actually have to be a gun, or even cartridges, for people to be injured by bullets.
Who knows? Maybe the victim accidently made a gun shape with his fingers when he scratched his head while holding 5 bullets, and the finger gun went off!
Nope not a murder. Probably an accident! Maybe even a suicide! You just have to be more open minded to the possibilities.
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
really, he shot himself five times in the head, disposed of the gun, came back and closed the door behind him, then died and nobody else was involved in this act?
I guess that is one assumption, then there are reasonable and logical assumptions...
I don't really see the genome as a 'computer' in that sense, more of store of data. Sure, there are biological/chemical actions going on that can be considered to be computations, but it bears no resemblance to any conventional computer that 'requires' a creator. However, let's suppose the genome is a computer. Or better still, let's look at the human brain, which certainly is a computer, even if it has a completely different architecture to most of the computers we presently use. Biological computers such as the brain do not contain lines of code (which would of course indicate there was a programmer) -- these are self-learning computers that require no programmer, something which can be demonstrated by studying artificial neural networks.
mraikes
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 1,856
- Location
- Los Lunas, NM
Every society that rises from the ashes of the one before determines in it's own mind what is "reasonable and logical". Including the one we find ourselves in today.
1 Cor 1:18-25 pretty much addresses it. No number of TN posts will change it.
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
Artificial neural networks were still created/designed/programmed. They do not exceed their design on their own. AI 1.0 does not create AI 2.0 all on it's own. And it is not just a data store, even though scientists say they can store all the data ever created in the entire history of computing in a teaspoon of DNA. It uses Boolean logic. Look what the science says from the papers I linked to:
glennd
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 2,527
- Location
- South West Victoria Australia
you forgot climate change
Let's not confuse software with hardware here. I was giving the example of artificial neural networks to demonstrate how biological computers are able to self-program (ie learn), since you specifically cited biological programming as requiring a programmer. With that out of the way, let's move on to the hardware ...
There seems to be a common misconception that complex products of evolution, such as the brain, are entirely comparable with human creations, such as computers or mechanical timepieces, leading to the belief that these biological 'products' must also have a designer and a creator. In some ways these comparisons are correct, it's just some of the assumptions and conclusions that are wrong.
If we take the man-made computer example and study the hardware, it's clear this machine didn't just suddenly spring into existence -- it exists in its present form for a reason, and the same is true for the brain. Now we need to work backwards in time with the computer, and study each and every element in more detail. In doing so, what we find is that not one part of it is completely new. The CPU for example will likely share much of its architecture and features with its predecessor, which will also share design elements with early CPUs, continuing on backwards with each and every progressive step traceable right back to some of the very first CPUs. And before those early CPUs, we can trace back further still to early integrated circuits and the first electronics developments using basic logic gates made using semiconductors such as germanium and silicon or even thermionic valves. Looking beyond the electronics, there are technologies that help to make it all possible -- modern manufacturing techniques, plastics and other materials that have been developed or improved over many years. Some of these will have been developed or refined to work specifically with computers but, like the electronic components, all of them will have a history of development that can be traced back to some of the earliest chemical experiments.
The point I'm getting at here, is man-made developments are gradual and progressive, just like biological evolution, with a couple of important differences: Firstly evolution happens on a comparatively huge time-scale with very small and gradual steps. We're talking about millions of years and lots and lots of mutations here -- some successful, some not so successful. Secondly, evolution's 'designer' is the environment -- every single threat or opportunity represents an acceptance or rejection of the current 'design', favouring those with the greatest advantage, no matter how small that advantage may be.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming now that, if properly studied and understood, it's impossible to reject. Similarly, the formation of the planets, stars and galaxies is well understood with ever increasing evidence to support most of the popular theories. Where things get really interesting is the stuff we don't yet understand, particularly the origin of the universe and the origin of life. It may be impossible to ever know with complete certainty how the universe began but I think there's a good chance that some day (possibly even within our own lifetimes) we'll replicate the fascinating moment that chemistry becomes biology, creating the most basic form of life. Now instead we could simply state that 'god did it' and go no further, or we could push on with our experiments and possibly make the greatest discovery in the history of mankind. You see the thing is, much of what we know and understand already was once thought to be mystical or magical. Only by accepting it's not and striving to understand the universe around us were we able to progress to where we are now. And it's important to keep doing that if we're to progress further. God plays no part in that. In fact a god theory doesn't provide the answers, it simply takes away the questions.
Last edited:
Krynn72
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 2,294
- Location
- Connecticut
Computers evolved through natural selection. Any computer with a change that made it stupid or slower was discarded/destroyed and never replicated.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
Sky-Knight
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 5,764
- Location
- Arizona
DNA is a self replicating, self repairing, data storage medium with a primary objective of perpetuating itself.
It's not a computer, it's a computer virus. And the magic about the stuff is in the fact that it changes over time against the forces of entropy. Here we are, talking about it, because of it... and yet if the laws of thermodynamics have any say, we shouldn't have gotten past the single cell stage, much less make it to the walking, talking, self aware, colonies of life we actually are.
It's not a computer, it's a computer virus. And the magic about the stuff is in the fact that it changes over time against the forces of entropy. Here we are, talking about it, because of it... and yet if the laws of thermodynamics have any say, we shouldn't have gotten past the single cell stage, much less make it to the walking, talking, self aware, colonies of life we actually are.
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
None of this is true and no body suggests anything such thing. Many scientists believe in God. Dawkins does not get to speak for all scientists as much as he would like to. In fact, most scientists believe in God. I do not see any Bible verses stating "thou shall not be a scientist". God does not tell them to stop doing science and stop discovering because he did it. Knowing God created the laws of physics has nothing to do with us using our brains he gave us to discover how he did it and how it all works.
Discovering the genome is a computer, where it was previously believed to be 98% junk is revolutionary. Science is based on evidence. I see zero scientific evidence to explain computers self designing and self programming, given any amount of time. And I see no evidence anywhere to suggest it is reasonable to think they do. Doing so with no science or evidence to explain this would be a 100% faith based belief. As a matter of fact, the science I see on the subject says just the opposite. It says it is " irreducible to any natural origin" and the odds of this are according to the "null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13". Which means nada, never happened.
alluseridsrejected
Active Member
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Central TX
Peer reviewed science calls it "the genomic computer". and says it processes using Boolean logic. Leonard Adelman saw it as computation and demonstrated how to compute on the genome in the laboratory. Scientists have working DNA based storage, memory and processors in the laboratory. Microsoft plans to have a DNA based computer by 2020. Medical science is saying:
"the human cell should not be analyzed as a biological mechanism but as a biological computer with all the consequences of such an approach."
Digital model of the cancer cell – is this the time for us to debug/reprogram the cancer cell?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707930/
There is an entire subject matter on nature.com called DNA computing and is full of papers:
https://www.nature.com/subjects/dna-computing
Microsoft of all companies is stating they will cure cancer within 10 years because "what is going on in cancer is a computational problem" and that "It’s not just an analogy"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-cancer-within-10-years-by-reprogramming-dis/
But you claim it is not a computer based on what?