Darwin vs DNA

[CandySlice]

As we continue the study of our DNA it may become apparent we were 'seeded' by some alien race. There is more and more evidence each day to support this theory. And maybe we were made in the image of the 'Gods' or an alien technology. We do seem to be 'engineered', in the parlance of technology and as has been said here, that we made the quantum leaps we've made at different times in our history not by accident but by actual design.
I think we are hybrids. Perhaps integrated into the highest form, Neanderthal. And maybe the floods and different catastrophes were a starting over point until they got it right.

Nobody can deny we made just such a quantum leap after WW2. We went from covered wagons to walking on the moon in less than 100 years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Flat Earth Society is on a recruitment drive?

Yes holliie,it takes faith to believe the DNA code was created by a natural process.

No, it doesn't. The evidence suggests that DNA arose from entirely natural processes.

Every argument from design ultimately rests upon an observation that DNA (and the organisms that exhibit it) appear to be man-made constructs. An observation that enjoys not support in evidence (or valid logic) at all.

Look at your assertion. Now look what the Doctor said to Perry Marshall.

Perry, your hypothesis invokes a complicated designer whose origin is not known. Such a designer would appear to be more complex than either humans or DNA. And how do you propose that your designer was created? An infinite regress of designers?

I have already addressed this question – re-quoting an earlier post: Everything we currently know about nature rules out an infinite regress of causes. In absence of a material explanation, the only alternative for the origin of code is an uncaused coder. Which is why a human designer (re: HRG’s question earlier) is not a plausible explanation. Thus the only available explanation that remains is an uncaused, conscious, metaphysical designer. (This is also the limit of my syllogism’s ability to identify God.) Those who dislike this option always do, of course, have the option of waiting for a naturalistic cause to be discovered. But one cannot say one has empirical evidence until such evidence is produced.

We do not assert that we know DNA arose naturally;

If you make no assertion that DNA arose naturally, then you are off the hook! Others in this forum make precisely that assertion. All I ask for is some proof.

It’s just that we have no evidence that it did not arise naturally.

100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce codes. The evidence we do have is that, without exception, all codes come from a mind.


Loki Do you know something the Doctor does not know ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You demonstrate ID is philosophical not scientific.

Thank you.

In your and my opinion, but we can't quantify it.

Your word is not evidence,

Your word is not proof.

It is merely your word.

Design is evidence of intelligence . Why do some deny biological evidence being designed even though it is supported by the evidence ? We see cells reproducing cells but we have no viable explanation how a cell could form naturally except by a cell already existing.

All the amino acids would have to be in just the right sequence,then the proteins would as well. Now how would you explain a cell reproducing itself without the molcular machines being in place already ?

Both sides demonstrate presuppositions play a role in our theories in other words philosophical views.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As we continue the study of our DNA it may become apparent we were 'seeded' by some alien race. There is more and more evidence each day to support this theory. And maybe we were made in the image of the 'Gods' or an alien technology. We do seem to be 'engineered', in the parlance of technology and as has been said here, that we made the quantum leaps we've made at different times in our history not by accident but by actual design.
I think we are hybrids. Perhaps integrated into the highest form, Neanderthal. And maybe the floods and different catastrophes were a starting over point until they got it right.

Nobody can deny we made just such a quantum leap after WW2. We went from covered wagons to walking on the moon in less than 100 years.

Define Alien ?

 

[CandySlice]

Yes holliie,it takes faith to believe the DNA code was created by a natural process.

No, it doesn't. The evidence suggests that DNA arose from entirely natural processes.

Every argument from design ultimately rests upon an observation that DNA (and the organisms that exhibit it) appear to be man-made constructs. An observation that enjoys not support in evidence (or valid logic) at all.

Look at your assertion. Now look what the Doctor said to Perry Marshall.

Perry, your hypothesis invokes a complicated designer whose origin is not known. Such a designer would appear to be more complex than either humans or DNA. And how do you propose that your designer was created? An infinite regress of designers?

I have already addressed this question – re-quoting an earlier post: Everything we currently know about nature rules out an infinite regress of causes. In absence of a material explanation, the only alternative for the origin of code is an uncaused coder. Which is why a human designer (re: HRG’s question earlier) is not a plausible explanation. Thus the only available explanation that remains is an uncaused, conscious, metaphysical designer. (This is also the limit of my syllogism’s ability to identify God.) Those who dislike this option always do, of course, have the option of waiting for a naturalistic cause to be discovered. But one cannot say one has empirical evidence until such evidence is produced.

We do not assert that we know DNA arose naturally;

If you make no assertion that DNA arose naturally, then you are off the hook! Others in this forum make precisely that assertion. All I ask for is some proof.

It’s just that we have no evidence that it did not arise naturally.

100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce codes. The evidence we do have is that, without exception, all codes come from a mind.


Loki Do you know something the Doctor does not know ?

Exactly. And doesn't it stand to reason that mind wasn't from here? Far fetched as it might sound it beats the fairy tales in the Bible.

 

[CandySlice]

As we continue the study of our DNA it may become apparent we were 'seeded' by some alien race. There is more and more evidence each day to support this theory. And maybe we were made in the image of the 'Gods' or an alien technology. We do seem to be 'engineered', in the parlance of technology and as has been said here, that we made the quantum leaps we've made at different times in our history not by accident but by actual design.
I think we are hybrids. Perhaps integrated into the highest form, Neanderthal. And maybe the floods and different catastrophes were a starting over point until they got it right.

Nobody can deny we made just such a quantum leap after WW2. We went from covered wagons to walking on the moon in less than 100 years.

Define Alien ?

Advanced civilisations. Perhaps from another world. Read about Panspermia.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, it doesn't. The evidence suggests that DNA arose from entirely natural processes.

Every argument from design ultimately rests upon an observation that DNA (and the organisms that exhibit it) appear to be man-made constructs. An observation that enjoys not support in evidence (or valid logic) at all.

Look at your assertion. Now look what the Doctor said to Perry Marshall.

Perry, your hypothesis invokes a complicated designer whose origin is not known. Such a designer would appear to be more complex than either humans or DNA. And how do you propose that your designer was created? An infinite regress of designers?

I have already addressed this question – re-quoting an earlier post: Everything we currently know about nature rules out an infinite regress of causes. In absence of a material explanation, the only alternative for the origin of code is an uncaused coder. Which is why a human designer (re: HRG’s question earlier) is not a plausible explanation. Thus the only available explanation that remains is an uncaused, conscious, metaphysical designer. (This is also the limit of my syllogism’s ability to identify God.) Those who dislike this option always do, of course, have the option of waiting for a naturalistic cause to be discovered. But one cannot say one has empirical evidence until such evidence is produced.

We do not assert that we know DNA arose naturally;

If you make no assertion that DNA arose naturally, then you are off the hook! Others in this forum make precisely that assertion. All I ask for is some proof.

It’s just that we have no evidence that it did not arise naturally.

100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce codes. The evidence we do have is that, without exception, all codes come from a mind.


Loki Do you know something the Doctor does not know ?

Exactly. And doesn't it stand to reason that mind wasn't from here? Far fetched as it might sound it beats the fairy tales in the Bible.

So why do you rule out God and the angels ?

 

[CandySlice]

Or maybe the 'fairy tales 'in the Bible were just descriptions from a primitive people that had no technological terminology to explain the things they saw.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As we continue the study of our DNA it may become apparent we were 'seeded' by some alien race. There is more and more evidence each day to support this theory. And maybe we were made in the image of the 'Gods' or an alien technology. We do seem to be 'engineered', in the parlance of technology and as has been said here, that we made the quantum leaps we've made at different times in our history not by accident but by actual design.
I think we are hybrids. Perhaps integrated into the highest form, Neanderthal. And maybe the floods and different catastrophes were a starting over point until they got it right.

Nobody can deny we made just such a quantum leap after WW2. We went from covered wagons to walking on the moon in less than 100 years.

Define Alien ?

Advanced civilisations. Perhaps from another world. Read about Panspermia.

God and the angels do not live here and they are somewhere out in deep space maybe even outside our unverse correct ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Or maybe the 'fairy tales 'in the Bible were just descriptions from a primitive people that had no technological terminology to explain the things they saw.

Oh no you don't ,the bible is a very credible source.

 

[CandySlice]

Or maybe the 'fairy tales 'in the Bible were just descriptions from a primitive people that had no technological terminology to explain the things they saw.

Oh no you don't ,the bible is a very credible source.

If you take it for the patched together book of poetry it really is. But I prefer a better explaination.
This is the man who invented the moon buggy we sent to the moon.
Background


A native of Steyr, Austria, engineer Blumrich is the holder of patents on numerous inventions.



Until recently the author was chief of the Systems Layout Branch at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. In earlier years, he developed the structural design of the Saturn V booster and participated in the design of Skylab. He has left NASA in order to spend his full time on research concerning extraterrestrial visitors in ancient times.



He wrote the book Da tat sich der Himmel auf (The Spaceships of Eziekel)

References in some holy scripture to strange machines have prompted, throughout history, speculation and conjecture in order to lend acceptable, if not rational, explanations of the phenomenon reported.



Modern technical knowledge and test procedures have been used to reconstruct a model of what was seen and experienced by one of the four great Jewish prophets two and a half millennia ago.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Any thoughts of visits to our planet by extraterrestrial beings is immediately stopped by the realization that existing scientific knowledge precludes that possibility. If such visits could be made at all, they would have to originate outside our solar system, and interstellar journeys would require unimaginable lengths of time.



Yet this established knowledge is confronted with the wealth of mankind’s myths and legends which claim the exact opposite, that "gods" came from the skies. Their appearances were frequently accompanied by fire, smoke and thunderous noise; their influence on man was, mostly, beneficial. If the source of this information is the ’ primitive’ peoples’ we call it a fable; if the origin lies in religious scriptures of the more developed civilizations, we interpret the tales in a more spiritual or even holy manner.

That this attitude is unfair and wrong is manifest in at least two respects: it disregards the sincere and honest belief of the peoples who handed down the accounts, and degrades the tales to fictional stories. At its worst, the information is dismissed as the result of hallucination, the effects of drugs, or plain invention.


But this attitude is also wrong and unfair with regard to man’s future development because it denies even the possibility of progress in the corresponding fields of science.

Thus we seem to be at an impasse because of an apparent conflict between science and legend. Yet the way is not totally blocked: we can make progress in this very important field of knowledge once we realize that science and engineering are two separate (although not independent) activities, each with its own area of significance. We must acknowledge the present inability of science to help formulate answers to the question of extraterrestrial visitors, while realizing that engineering and industrial technology have not been introduced to the controversy.



The participation of engineers becomes an unconditional requirement in the evaluation of configurations and phenomena implying visits from other worlds. Here it is only natural that our fledgling knowledge concerning space flight emerges as a contributor of prime significance.

My interest is aroused.

My own involvement in the subject of extraterrestrial visitors began with a vehemently negative attitude. Having worked as an aeronautical engineer since 1934-first in the design and analysis of aircraft, then for the past fifteen years in the design and development of both launching vehicles and spacecraft-I was firmly entrenched in the camp of those who declare visits from outer space to be an impossibility.

It legs of some kind of flying vehicle:

"Their legs were straight. and the soles of their feet were round; and they sparkled like burnished bronze."
It was in this frame of mind that I began to read Erich von Daniken’s "Chariots of the Gods? His claim that the prophet Ezekiel had encounters with spaceships prompted me to read the biblical book of Ezekiel carefully with the intention of proving von Daniken wrong.



By the time I had got to verse 7 of the very first chapter, however, I found myself interpreting a description of the landings
Having designed and tested such structures myself, I could not deny that it was possible to read in this a direct, yet simple, technical description.

The contrast of that evidently clear passage with the quite hazy pictures sketched by the rest of the chapter made me realize that the prophet could not have known what it was he had seen, or could not have understood it. I realize the necessary consequences of this: the prophet could only describe his encounters with space vehicles and their crews in the terms available to him-with words and comparisons familiar to him and his contemporaries. So I began taking Ezekiel seriously, in an engineering sense.

Because I had to rely on translations, I used six different bibles, ranging in time from early in the last century to 1972, edited by Jewish, Roman Catholic, and protestant translators. Besides these, I used two highly detailed biblical commentaries.

My application of aircraft (specifically, helicopter) and spacecraft engineering principles to the reports of the prophet resulted in the penetration of Ezekiel’s visual descriptions, and the replacement of these by known structural configurations. The final result is shown by the drawing at the beginning of this paper.



There we see a quasi-conical main body, supported by four helicopter units, which carries the command capsule atop its rounded upper portion. We should consider that Ezekiel first saw this vehicle at a distance of about 1,000 meters; at the moment the nuclear engine fired, probably with some white clouds of condensation (because of the engine’s "chill down" phase) shooting past the craft’s main body.

In these fiery, dynamic surroundings Ezekiel notices the moving rotors, see the landing legs and mechanical arms attached to the helicopter units. His first reaction is to compare the helicopters with man-like figures, but he then finds in the term ’living creatures’ an expression of admirable vagueness to reflect his uncertainty. During final decent and landing, Ezekiel observes the protective covers of the helicopter’s gear mechanisms, which he able to describe best by comparing them with human faces.



He notices the red-hot radiator -glowing coals- (Chapter 1, verse 13)

13. "As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning."

covering part of the lower central body; the prophet is fascinated by the wheels which, in their basic form, are the only element he recognizes and thus describes in great detail.


The visual description of the wheel has been misinterpreted in numerous paintings and texts. Yet no one has ever taken seriously the functional description which indicates that the wheels could move, in any direction, without being turned or steered. The latter has led me to develop a precise engineering interpretation, and for which a patent was granted by the United States Patent Office no. 3,789,947, Feb. 5, 1974.



A particularly gratifying application of this interpretation, incidentally, would be to facilitate considerably the mobility of wheelchairs for the physically handicapped.





Prototype, analytical research

Ezekiel ends his technical description with comments on the command capsule and on the commander himself. The amount of detail he includes is astounding. It is significant that the prophet describes features which are of little engineering importance but which, to the eye, carry the same weight as true structural elements.



The quasi-conical shape of the spacecraft’s central body-ideally suited to permit its combination with the helicopters, and thus a most important feature of the vehicle-is an existing engineering product. It was developed at the Langley Research Center of NASA, and has been studied analytically and in a series of wind-tunnel tests.

After establishing the general configuration of the spaceship, I made an analytical investigation; although the configuration appeared to be structurally and functionally sound, its feasibility could be proved only if weights, dimensions, performance and other basic characteristics turned out to be within reasonable limits. The analysis was performed parametrically, that means dimensions, weights and performance were varied in steps over a wide range of possibilities.



From the first crude calculation to the final detailed analysis, the results left no doubt of the vehicles feasibility: they reveal a general technology of spacecraft construction not far beyond our current, most advanced capabilities.



The only element we are incapable of building is the nuclear reactor within the propulsion system. Although this would be a fission reactor, it would require a specific impulse, of at least 2,000 seconds against the about 900 seconds of today’s nuclear engines.



It is reasonable to assume, however, that we could have this capability within a few decades if we were to invest enough effort in its development.



The over-all result, then, is a space vehicle technically feasible beyond doubt and very well designed to suit function and purpose; its technology is in no way fantastic but, even in its extreme aspects, lies almost within our own capabilities of today.



The results indicate, moreover, that Ezekiel’s spacecraft operated in conjunction with a mother vessel orbiting the earth. We have no point of firm reference for an exact determination of the dimensions of the landing craft, but we can approximate these within the range I investigated analytically. The illustration above shows the shape and proportions.



The diameter of the central body would be about 18 m, that of the rotor of a helicopter unit would be 11 m, total weight from the time of lift-off from the earth for the return flight to the mother ship would be 100,000 kg, the engine’s specific impulse would be 2,080 seconds, and the craft would carry two or three passengers.

With these conclusions, I had to declare defeat; I wrote to Eric von Daniken, explaining that matter.)
My attempt to refute his theory had resulted in a structural and analytical conformation of a major part of his hypothesis. Determining the form, dimensions and functional capabilities of what Ezekiel saw makes understandable a number of passages in his text that are otherwise meaningless; it also aids considerably in separating the prophetic or visionary parts of Ezekiel’s book from those concerning encounters with spaceships. (I confined my study to the


Being an engineer, I am not qualified to investigate the non-engineering portions.

 

[LOki]

Yes holliie,it takes faith to believe the DNA code was created by a natural process.

No, it doesn't. The evidence suggests that DNA arose from entirely natural processes.

Every argument from design ultimately rests upon an observation that DNA (and the organisms that exhibit it) appear to be man-made constructs. An observation that enjoys not support in evidence (or valid logic) at all.

What is your proof ?

Proof of what?

 

[LOki]

Yes holliie,it takes faith to believe the DNA code was created by a natural process.

No, it doesn't. The evidence suggests that DNA arose from entirely natural processes.

Every argument from design ultimately rests upon an observation that DNA (and the organisms that exhibit it) appear to be man-made constructs. An observation that enjoys not support in evidence (or valid logic) at all.

Here is a debate on the information theory that you brought please answer Mr. Marshall's questions and watch him answer your questions.

----WALL OF TEXT CUT & PASTED LIKE A RETARD SNIPPED----

No.

If you have a point you wish me to address, present it.

I'm not going to respond to your C/P vomit piles.

 

[CandySlice]

I mean lets face it YWC, you want me to believe in immaculate conceptions, rising from the dead and a guy going around gathering two of everything and cramming all of them into an ark so why not a God that has chosen to populate more than one planet in the universe?

 

[LOki]

Since I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist, would those of you who believe in evolution explain how a random bang created an extremely complex DNA language with 3 billion genetic letters that actually store information in the form of a four-character digital code?

First, the theory of evolution is founded upon and validated in verifiable evidence and the application of valid logic, hence, cannot be considered faith ... except for those cases where one's belief in the validity of evolution is embraced and/or held without the benefit of reviewing the evidence and applying valid logic to the analysis. In that case, "just believing" in the validity of the theory of evolution is just as much faith as "just believing" a superstitious creation story.

Second, you're not describing evolution. If you wish to have a legitimate disagreement about the theory of evolution, you must first disabuse yourself of the retarded strawman you're beating on.

Sorry but the theory of evolution is held together by vivid imaginations and conjecture.

Sorry, projecting your superstitious paradigm upon the theory of evolution does not change the actual fact of reality that the theory of evolution is founded upon and validated in verifiable evidence and the application of valid logic.

 

[LOki]

I believe it takes more faith to not believe in God than to believe in God.

The evidence, thin though it may be, suggests there is no God--hence, not faith.

What evidence ?

The lack of verifiable evidence that God exists.

That evidence precisely.

 

[LOki]

Yes holliie,it takes faith to believe the DNA code was created by a natural process.

No, it doesn't. The evidence suggests that DNA arose from entirely natural processes.

Every argument from design ultimately rests upon an observation that DNA (and the organisms that exhibit it) appear to be man-made constructs. An observation that enjoys not support in evidence (or valid logic) at all.

Look at your assertion. Now look what the Doctor said to Perry Marshall.

Perry, your hypothesis invokes a complicated designer whose origin is not known. Such a designer would appear to be more complex than either humans or DNA. And how do you propose that your designer was created? An infinite regress of designers?

I have already addressed this question – re-quoting an earlier post: Everything we currently know about nature rules out an infinite regress of causes. In absence of a material explanation, the only alternative for the origin of code is an uncaused coder. Which is why a human designer (re: HRG’s question earlier) is not a plausible explanation. Thus the only available explanation that remains is an uncaused, conscious, metaphysical designer. (This is also the limit of my syllogism’s ability to identify God.) Those who dislike this option always do, of course, have the option of waiting for a naturalistic cause to be discovered. But one cannot say one has empirical evidence until such evidence is produced.

We do not assert that we know DNA arose naturally;

If you make no assertion that DNA arose naturally, then you are off the hook! Others in this forum make precisely that assertion. All I ask for is some proof.

It’s just that we have no evidence that it did not arise naturally.

100% of our experience tells us that naturalistic causes do not produce codes. The evidence we do have is that, without exception, all codes come from a mind.


Loki Do you know something the Doctor does not know ?

Yes.

I know that appeals to ignorance and strawmen are not valid arguments.

 

[LOki]

You demonstrate ID is philosophical not scientific.

Thank you.

Design is evidence of intelligence . Why do some deny biological evidence being designed even though it is supported by the evidence ? We see cells reproducing cells but we have no viable explanation how a cell could form naturally except by a cell already existing.

All the amino acids would have to be in just the right sequence,then the proteins would as well. Now how would you explain a cell reproducing itself without the molcular machines being in place already ?

Both sides demonstrate presuppositions play a role in our theories in other words philosophical views.

I'll be generous and accept this non-sequitur as valid; the difference in these presuppositions is that the theory of evolution bases it presuppositions on valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, whereas intelligent design's presuppositions are entirely superstition.

 

[CandySlice]

YWC, why is it such a holy person such as yourself INSISTS on calling names?? I know you say you are sorry for it but it doesn't stop you from doing it over and over..

 

[JakeStarkey]

The scientific method replicates conditions and results.

Your philosophy, while interesting, cannot replace the scientific method.

No, ID is merely philosophy, cannot be quantificated.

You demonstrate ID is philosophical not scientific.

Thank you.

Design is evidence of intelligence . Why do some deny biological evidence being designed even though it is supported by the evidence ? We see cells reproducing cells but we have no viable explanation how a cell could form naturally except by a cell already existing.

All the amino acids would have to be in just the right sequence,then the proteins would as well. Now how would you explain a cell reproducing itself without the molcular machines being in place already ?

Both sides demonstrate presuppositions play a role in our theories in other words philosophical views.