tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post5301119504640195972..comments2023-05-30T11:30:05.329+01:00Comments on The Necro Files: DNA proves the existence of GodGarg Unzolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-89595771856581446632011-02-22T11:01:32.029+00:002011-02-22T11:01:32.029+00:00Speaking of vestigial organs:
Ostriches have wing...Speaking of vestigial organs:<br /><br />Ostriches have wings. What for? Here's a discussion on more vestigial structures:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges<br /><br />As you prefer making anonymous comments, your balls are pretty much vestigial too.Garg Unzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-63024673548646489162011-02-22T10:52:47.676+00:002011-02-22T10:52:47.676+00:00I'd love to deal with your concerns. In fact, ...I'd love to deal with your concerns. In fact, I have so I would humbly request that you bother reading my posts before you decide what they're about.Garg Unzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-80165631480753547922011-02-22T10:48:28.520+00:002011-02-22T10:48:28.520+00:00I think the statement is better put this way.
DNA...I think the statement is better put this way.<br /><br />DNA is perfectly good evidence TOWARDS the idea that there may be intelligence at work.<br /><br />Something like that.<br /><br />You simply CANNOT tell someone they are silly for thinking DNA has SOMETHING about it that is reasonable to say might be okay not so stupid to at least infer there might be intelligence around.<br /><br />MY FCKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-84365904526066292632010-10-13T21:58:35.693+01:002010-10-13T21:58:35.693+01:00Thanks for the comment, Dibban. You may not know t...Thanks for the comment, Dibban. You may not know this, but I am a trained fine artist, a qualified graphic designer, a former musician and a fairly cunning linguist. There's nothing wrong with my creative, right brain. I think the word you are looking for is agnostic. I agree with you wholeheartedly - human beings should doubt and be uncertain about everything to some degree, while Garg Unzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-39694676318457455002010-10-13T15:31:11.739+01:002010-10-13T15:31:11.739+01:00First of all, you seems to be caught in your left ...First of all, you seems to be caught in your left brain and that's why you think everything logically. But you may be hurt at the fact that all your logic is rubbish. It's because a logical mind can only see half of the picture. Whatever there is, it exists in pairs. what you put up as logic is equally true and false. your arguments are both true and false. DNA is both a code and not a Dibbanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816211536682077520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-80409203731447748322008-07-20T20:44:00.000+01:002008-07-20T20:44:00.000+01:00If you read my original post, you will find that a...If you read my original post, you will find that according to Mr Marshall definitions, his syllogism is invalid. Read it again. You will find that my facts and my logic concerning this matter are correct.<BR/><BR/>We don't know the origins of DNA. Therefore, we don't know that DNA was designed to begin with.<BR/><BR/>There are many naturally occurring codes which satisfy Mr Marshall's definitionsGarg Unzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-43316316846402294772008-07-20T18:27:00.000+01:002008-07-20T18:27:00.000+01:00Garg said: You said it yourself: you are making a ...Garg said: <B>You said it yourself: you are making a leap of faith. <BR/><BR/>There really is no point in carrying on with this discussion, because you do not rely on facts and logic, but on your beliefs.</B><BR/><BR/>Au contraire, my friend! It is you, not I, who have taken a leap of faith. I have used the scientific method employing the process of inductive inference to derive the best Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-64163232567477483002008-07-15T10:42:00.000+01:002008-07-15T10:42:00.000+01:00You said it yourself: you are making a leap of fai...You said it yourself: you are making a leap of faith. <BR/><BR/>There really is no point in carrying on with this discussion, because you do not rely on facts and logic, but on your beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Thanks anyway.Garg Unzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-60628632576152479042008-07-15T08:45:00.000+01:002008-07-15T08:45:00.000+01:00Garg said:My reasoning explains why we have severa...Garg said:<B>My reasoning explains why we have several branches of languages which are not mutually intelligible. The medium is irrelevant. Your reasoning fails to explain why an intelligently designed language (like you claim DNA to be) will not allow you to have cow and chicken DNA mix. You can have cows mount chickens and chickens mount cows all you like, but their DNA won't produce a progeny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-4393980126469761672008-07-15T08:36:00.000+01:002008-07-15T08:36:00.000+01:00Garg said:A more logical premise is that someone h...Garg said:<B>A more logical premise is that someone had to design the designer. Like I said, it only pushes the problem further back in time. It does not explain a natural phenomenon but it requires scientists to believe in supernatural phenomenon.</B><BR/><BR/>Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus all believed in a divine Creator of the universe. The theories they developed, which showed specific Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-537860872539494632008-07-15T08:26:00.000+01:002008-07-15T08:26:00.000+01:00Garg said:Unless you mean to claim that a bunch of...Garg said:<B>Unless you mean to claim that a bunch of cavemen sat around the fire one day and decided: “Ooh let’s have language and tomorrow, let’s invent the wheel!”, which is what your intelligent design theory would require. In this case, Shakespeare only discovered Shakespeare by the grace of Cthulhu and did not actually come up with his own works...<BR/>By my reasoning, language could Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-85792168622094062422008-07-15T08:13:00.000+01:002008-07-15T08:13:00.000+01:00Garg said:Now the Discovery Institute, which fund...Garg said:<B>Now the Discovery Institute, which funds both Dembski and Behe and started this ‘intelligent design is a scientific theory’ nonsense is definitely, unashamedly, admittedly biased. </B><BR/><BR/>Of course the Discovery Institute is biased! I don’t agree with their anti-evolutinary stand but I respect their right to support an intelligent design hypothesis for life origins and Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-83631131413727420212008-07-15T08:03:00.000+01:002008-07-15T08:03:00.000+01:00Garg the Unzola said:If you feel that Wikipedia is...Garg the Unzola said:<B>If you feel that Wikipedia is biased, feel free to join them and fix their errors. That’s the entire point of Wikipedia. Until such time as your ID apologetics survives the scrutiny of a panel of experts and gets itself on Wikipedia, I will use Wikipedia as my primary source for my layman blog posts. Anyone can participate, anyone can reference it at any time and it has Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-33180464698790928482008-07-12T11:30:00.000+01:002008-07-12T11:30:00.000+01:00If you feel that Wikipedia is biased, feel free to...If you feel that Wikipedia is biased, feel free to join them and fix their errors. That's the entire point of Wikipedia. Until such time as your ID apologetics survives the scrutiny of a panel of experts and gets itself on Wikipedia, I will use Wikipedia as my primary source for my layman blog posts. Anyone can participate, anyone can reference it at any time and it has been found to be as Garg Unzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-31811137999558928912008-07-12T07:28:00.000+01:002008-07-12T07:28:00.000+01:00I respond to Garg the Unzola comments to my earlie...I respond to <B>Garg the Unzola</B> comments to my earlier post:<BR/><BR/><I>Garg said:<B>It is important to note that specified complexity is a term invented by William Dembski, and is already discredited. Wikipedia..</B></I><BR/><BR/>Wikipedia evaluated the CSI explanatory filter developed by Dembski and is a biased critique. A fair and balanced critique would present both supporting and Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-40941372185456813232008-07-07T11:44:00.000+01:002008-07-07T11:44:00.000+01:00It is important to note that the digitized DNA cod...<B>It is important to note that the digitized DNA code is of specified complexity.</B><BR/><BR/>It is important to note that specified complexity is a term invented by William Dembski, and is already discredited. Wikipedia..<BR/><BR/><B>How could it be that such a complex information and decoding system evolved by random chance in a primordial soup, as I was led to believe in my early days as a Garg Unzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-27306294794063417612008-07-07T06:53:00.000+01:002008-07-07T06:53:00.000+01:00According to a much-discussed survey reported in t...According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, a leading science journal, found that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believed in God. Not just a nonspecific transcendental presence, but a God to whom one may pray to intervene and to provide an answer.<BR/><BR/>The survey, by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia, was a followup to theAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-5913055844610815372008-07-07T06:39:00.000+01:002008-07-07T06:39:00.000+01:00DNA over millions of years has been subjected to r...DNA over millions of years has been subjected to random mutations and natural selection. Natural selection pressures drive the random mutations to nonrandom selection. Thus evolution is not a random process. As explained below, trial and error could not have been a mechanism for a de novo spontaneous origination of the genetic code.<BR/><BR/>neoDarwinism mechanism (if you want to call it trialAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-27556400954580476352008-07-07T06:32:00.000+01:002008-07-07T06:32:00.000+01:00Perry Marshall proposes an interesting syllogism f...Perry Marshall proposes an interesting syllogism for the origin of the DNA code. I have summarized a number of findings below that support his inductive hypothesis. It is important to note that the digitized DNA code is of specified complexity. Crystal structures, magnetic fields, and plate tectonics have information. However, those types of random information are not of the specified Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-60186581155265871312008-05-28T04:25:00.000+01:002008-05-28T04:25:00.000+01:00Good takedown of Marshall's argument. Sometimes I...Good takedown of Marshall's argument. Sometimes I wonder if the problem is the way that evolutionay biologists talk about "genetic programming." Makes programmers think they automatically are qualified to discuss genetics and DNA.<BR/><BR/>Machinehuman, you are putting limitations on what can and cannot be a god. It's silly, because all gods are human constructs, and they are only bound by ourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-51345570886636371392008-04-02T14:58:00.000+01:002008-04-02T14:58:00.000+01:00have you heard of the krill papers?http://www.mind...have you heard of the krill papers?<BR/>http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/krillpapers.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-45127427254816293362008-03-21T05:17:00.000+00:002008-03-21T05:17:00.000+00:00Nice post. Self destructive argument - "Pattern is...Nice post. Self destructive argument - "Pattern is a RANDOM sequence that does not NEED the aid of a designer." A non-omniscient / omnipotent God is not a God. There's no random to God (if exists), not any residua. You can't prove God by pointing out one thing that does not need a designer / creator, whatever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-14894592026955316572008-03-14T00:06:00.000+00:002008-03-14T00:06:00.000+00:00This is just the first example that came to mind w...This is just the first example that came to mind within the first 3 seconds; I'm sure there are plenty more examples...<BR/>But even if we couldn't come up with a single example, why can't it be "all codes, except DNA, were designed by an intelligence"?Uri Kalishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08561692601016236573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19361141.post-49325772235914192802008-03-13T21:00:00.000+00:002008-03-13T21:00:00.000+00:00If I understand you correctly, he claims that ever...If I understand you correctly, he claims that everything that carries information is designed by an intelligent entity. It took me about 3 seconds to think of a case where something clearly not caused by an intelligent entity, do carry information. How about the magnetic striping of the mid-ocean ridges? That’s rocks carrying information about the Earth’s magnetic field changing through the ages.Uri Kalishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08561692601016236573noreply@blogger.com