4everGod:



Your lack of depth when making postulations is mind boggling.

Is an snowflake DNA? NO

Are they comparable? NO

The snowflake which is simply frozen water molecules has never existed on its own as that would mean that water also evolved which it did not.

Can you tell me the very first origin of water? The same creative force that brought life to be and is responsible for DNA is responsible for a snowflake.

DNA is gotten from molecules while the snowflake is simply iced water molecule but have you seen DNA in this ice molecule b4?

Life has an author and its not evolution as you know it. Micro evolution had never resulted in Macro evolution.

Straws straws straws aren't your hands killing you with all the grasping you've been doing. Water evolve ke
Are you trying to say that snow flakes are not complex? cause I doubt you can make it with all the intelligence you posses

Lennycool:

It has a precise pattern,. Get sense

The dictionary defines code as
A set of rules f or converting information into another form or representation.
Now the information would be, molecular structure of water, temperature, pressure, air movement e.t.c and the other representation would be the snowflake.
It converted something into another thing.

Hence code

Please everybody come and see who is telling me to get sense
He is actually using dicrionary to describe snow flake as "code".


For real?
So a snow flake is now a set of rules and commands abi?
Abeg who dey obey the command?

Oh. I am disappointed.

Lennycool:

Straws straws straws aren't your hands killing you with all the grasping you've been doing. Water evolve ke
Are you trying to say that snow flakes are not complex? cause I doubt you can make it with all the intelligence you posses

which straws the ones you dropped? Snowflakes have a simple complexity. The question you should be asking should be this...

How is it that as inanimate as a snowflake is it always has 6 sides to it. it never has 4 or 5 and half sides but always 6 sides and this it keeps replicating as without it being 6 sided it can never be a snowflake.

I asked you if water evolved before it began to exist and if you knew the first source of water and here you are saying I am clutching at straws. if you can say water evolved then you can also claim that snowflakes are random occurrences. Can you make this claim?

felixomor1:


Please everybody come and see who is telling me to get sense
He is actually using dicrionary to describe snow flake as "code".


For real?
So a snow flake is now a set of rules and commands abi?
Abeg who dey obey the command?

Oh. I am disappointed.

The guy is fixated on trying to use evolution to dispute creation but he lacks the very knowledge of what he is parading.

4everGod:


The guy is fixated on trying to use evolution to dispute creation but he lacks the very knowledge of what he is parading.

Seriously, i feel for him

felixomor1:


Please everybody come and see who is telling me to get sense
He is actually using dicrionary to describe snow flake as "code".


For real?
So a snow flake is now a set of rules and commands abi?
Abeg who dey obey the command?

Oh. I am disappointed.

As I've already said before the snowflake proves codes can be self made, using the information that surrounds it, the coding is an intrinsic combination of available information. Below is a microscopic view of the snowflakes complexity

Lennycool:

As I've already said before the snowflake proves codes can be self made, using the information that surrounds it, the coding is an intrinsic combination of available information. Below is a microscopic view of the snowflakes complexity

Forget bro.
No amount of twisting will do.

4everGod:


which straws the ones you dropped? Snowflakes have a simple complexity. The question you should be asking should be this...

How is it that as inanimate as a snowflake is it always has 6 sides to it. it never has 4 or 5 and half sides but always 6 sides and this it keeps replicating as without it being 6 sided it can never be a snowflake.

I asked you if water evolved before it began to exist and if you knew the first source of water and here you are saying I am clutching at straws. if you can say water evolved then you can also claim that snowflakes are random occurrences. Can you make this claim?

You're very funny water is a combination of oxygen and hydrogen, do you think you cannot separate the constituents of water? All gases were made during the big bang.
I repeat get sense.

felixomor1:


Forget bro.
No amount of twisting will do.

Didn't you look at those pictures, did any one instruct the water molecules on how to combine? But behold they still form shapes with relation to external factors.

Lennycool:
During an argument with a Nairalander he asserted that DNA code cannot come about without an intelligent mind, my answer to him was so long I decided to turn it into a new thread.
First off by following his logic we come upon an infinite regress. If DNA as complex as it is, cannot come without an intelligent mind and hence must need a creator. The question woukd then be, Who created the creator? As the creator must be more intelligent than his creation(DNA) and hence must need a creator because he too is complex. And then the question again would be, Who created the creator's creator? and again and again till infinity, an infinite loop that can only be broken when you accept that something in that circle must have existed without being created and if it can exist without being created, then so can DNA(which is much simpler compared to the creators).

But taking the question at face value and without much deep logic, I want you to examine several pictures that are at the end of this post.

As beautiful and complex as those snow flakes seem those snow flakes were made without any guiding hand. Non whatsoever. I doubt that any of you can make such intricate shapes out of thin ice, but these occur naturally and ironically they start from much simpler beginnings to such complex states, evolutionist propose the same about life.
You can read more about how snowflakes are formed here

http://www.its.caltech.edu/atomic/snowcrystals/faqs/faqs.htm

DNA coding is a natural process and is not proof of an intelligent mind. Ponder on these points.

[size=13pt]Infinite Regress OR Uncontrolled Complexity[/size]


RaphieMontella , Weah96 , SirWere , sonofluc1fer , Stephendamsoho , EyeHateGod , FearGodAndLive Kevoh , Johnnydon22 , Akintom , Hardmirror , GRIMMJOE , CoolUsername , 1990news , JSoE , Etesam , Audray , Edenoscar , DeSepiero , charix , GoodMuyis , jonbellion , menxer seun hopefulLanlord coldhardtruth itZQuinn winner01 , kingebukasblog , Richirich713,
scholar8200 , malvisguy212 , Muafrika2
Dejideji1 , truthman2012, Image123 ,
InesQor, Joshthefirst MrPresident1, gatiano
sukkot, OLAADEGBU , vooks, UyiIredia
Jeromejnr, goodmuyis Gombs. Joeagbaje
Jcross KingEbukasBlog Scholar
analice107 anas09

Snowflakes are not based on codes so stop being silly. You are wrong and that Nairalanders is right because DNA possess a genetic code with protein complexes acting as encoders a decoders. The reason why that cannot possibly evolve is because coding systems require foresight since in codes materials symbolically represent other materials eg codons represent amino acid. Natural processes lack this foresight and so cannot possibly build a genetic code. This doesn't mean scientists, blinded of course by the materialism, haven't tried to profer natural origins for the genetic code but they are all problematic and extremely speculative. For example, the frozen accident thesis which assumes the genetic code random action of tRNA like ribozymes, ignoring how such ribozymes naturally originated it is merely assumed that codes were randomly created by their action. That said, your objection that God is complex fails because God is immaterial and as such He can't possibly be complex in the way material contraptions are.

Lennycool:

Didn't you look at those pictures, did any one instruct the water molecules on how to combine? But behold they still form shapes with relation to external factors.

Sorry bro. Show some dignity.

This does not make a snow flake a set of instructions, nor a code.

Sorry.

Scholar8200:
I am here to learn.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Who or what created or predated energy?

What was the earliest/first state of energy and how did that come about?

So ur God Now has the ability to Create that which can't be created?

EyeHateGod:

So ur God Now has the ability to Create that which can't be created?

Not just that alone.
God is creation.
Without Him was nothing made that was made.
Time, space, matter, everything.

Warp it?

felixomor1:


Sorry bro. Show some dignity.

This does not make a snow flake a set of instructions, nor a code.

Sorry.

Believe what you want man

felixomor1:

Not just that alone. God is creation. Without Him was nothing made that was made. Time, space, matter, everything.
Warp it?

Matter can't be created nor Destroyed!

EyeHateGod:

Matter can't be created nor Destroyed!

By any physical means.

Garrit?

UyiIredia:


Snowflakes are not based on codes so stop being silly. You are wrong and that Nairalanders is right because DNA possess a genetic code with protein complexes acting as encoders a decoders. The reason why that cannot possibly evolve is because coding systems require foresight since in codes materials symbolically represent other materials eg codons represent amino acid. Natural processes lack this foresight and so cannot possibly build a genetic code. This doesn't mean scientists, blinded of course by the materialism, haven't tried to profer natural origins for the genetic code but they are all problematic and extremely speculative. For example, the frozen accident thesis which assumes the genetic code random action of tRNA like ribozymes, ignoring how such ribozymes naturally originated it is merely assumed that codes were randomly created by their action. That said, your objection that God is complex fails because God is immaterial and as such He can't possibly be complex in the way material contraptions are.

Thanks for the alphabetical gymnastics, you sure made a lot of sense.

felixomor1:

By any physical means.
Garrit?

the postulate for matter didn't mention supernatural or Physical

felixomor1:


Not just that alone.
God is creation.
Without Him was nothing made that was made.
Time, space, matter, everything.

Warp it?

And with all he created he didn't see anything better to do than help a desert tribe conquer other desert dwellers. Yahweh no get work

EyeHateGod:

the postulate for matter didn't mention supernatural or Physical

That's what they do, when you corner them with logic they start saying God is spirit or God is eternal. Excuse upon excuse

Lennycool:

That's what they do, when you corner them with logic they start saying God is spirit or God is eternal. Excuse upon excuse

Then how can a Spirit immaterial make Matter material? Don't those Creationist think at all?

These guys up here aren't trying to have a conversation. Do you really think that they'd accept your point? They can't come up with a decent argument so they start trying to nit-pick.

Here's the thing: snowflakes and crystals are complex structures. DNA itself is a product of molecular self-assembly. There really isn't any argument here.

Also, going by creationist logic, how can a complex designer exist without a designer itself? If it can't then the argument is meaningless; if it can, then that means they agree that complex structures can exist without a designer making the argument meaningless.

Either way, the argument is meaningless.

Lennycool:

And with all he created he didn't see anything better to do than help a desert tribe conquer other desert dwellers. Yahweh no get work

So this is where u come to pour out the anger? After ur blunders are exposed

Eiya.

EyeHateGod:

the postulate for matter didn't mention supernatural or Physical

Becos we r not kindergarten.

Are you?

Maybe.

Comparing the complexity of a snowflake with the DNA is the height of intellectual buffoonery. There is even no intellect here to begin with. Such a doofus. You really need an education. So if the DNA was intelligently designed (How can it not be?) the next logical question to you is who created the designer? Some of you are not even worth a byte of data.

TheSixthSense:
Comparing the complexity of a snowflake with the DNA is the height of intellectual buffoonery. There is even no intellect here to begin with. Such a doofus. You really need an education. So if the DNA was intelligently designed (How can it not be?) the next logical question to you is who created the designer? Some of you are not even worth a byte of data.

DNA is a product of molecular self- assembly.

4everGod:


How is it that as inanimate as a snowflake is it always has 6 sides to it. it never has 4 or 5 and half sides but always 6 sides and this it keeps replicating as without it being 6 sided it can never be a snowflake.

Snowflakes have six-sided symmetry because of the angles that the two hydrogen atoms make with the oxygen atom in each water molecule. Those angles minimize the total electrical energy of the water molecule. Any other angles would produce greater energy.

Any other angles would produce greater energy. Large bodies, like the planet Saturn, are round because a spherical shape minimizes the total gravitational energy. A mathematical theorem says that a sphere is the particular geometrical shape that has the least surface area for a given volume. Many objects in nature, like hailstones and soap bubbles, have greater electrical energy the greater the surface area. Thus hailstones and soap bubble minimize their energy by having spherical shapes.

A beautiful illustration of some of the ideas above is the beehive. Each cell of a honeycomb is a nearly perfect hexagon, a space with six identical and equally spaced walls. Isn’t that surprising? Wouldn’t it be more plausible to find cells of all kinds of shapes and sizes, fitted together in a haphazard manner? It is a mathematical truth that there are only three geometrical figures with equal sides that can fit together on a flat surface without leaving gaps: equilateral triangles, squares, and hexagons. Any gaps between cells would be wasted space. Gaps would defeat the principle of economy. Now you might ask why the sides of a cell in a beehive need to be equal in length. It is possible that each cell could have a random shape and unequal sides and the next cell could then be custom made to fit to that cell, without gaps. And so on, one cell after another, each fit to the one before it. But this method of constructing a honeycomb would require that the worker bees work sequentially, one at a time, first making one cell, then fitting the next cell to that, and so on. This procedure would be a waste of time for the bees. Each insect would have to wait in line for the guy in front to finish his cell. If you’ve ever seen bees building a beehive (or watched a video of bees on YouTube), they don’t wait for one another. They work simultaneously. So the bees need to have a game plan in advance, knowing that all the cells will fit together automatically. Only equilateral triangles, squares, and hexagons will do.

But why hexagons? Here unfolds another fascinating story. More than two thousand years ago, in 36 BC, the Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro conjectured that the hexagonal grid is the unique geometrical shape that divides a surface into equal cells with the smallest total perimeter. And the smallest total perimeter, or smallest total length of sides, means the smallest amount of wax needed by the bees to construct their honeycomb. For every ounce of wax, a bee must consume about eight ounces of honey. That’s a lot of work, requiring visits to thousands of flowers and much flapping of wings. The hexagon minimizes the effort and expense of energy. But Varro had made only a conjecture. Astoundingly, Varro’s conjecture, known by mathematicians as the Honeycomb Conjecture, was proven only recently, in 1999, by the American mathematician Thomas Hales. The bees knew it was true all along.

There’s more to the bee story. Bees are related to the question of why flowers have so much symmetry. Bees need flowers for their food and for making wax, and flowers need bees for pollination. Experiments published in 2004 by researchers at the Freie Universität in Berlin and the CNRS Université Paul-Sabatier in Toulouse show that bees are more attracted to flowers with symmetry. And why are bees attracted to flowers with more symmetry? The same researchers propose that symmetrical stimuli from the flowers are more easily processed by the visual system in the bee brain—that is, they require less neurological apparatus. Again, the principle of economy at work. cc: Lennycool

felixomor1:

Becos we r not kindergarten.
Are you? Maybe.

what is this one saying?

TheSixthSense:
Comparing the complexity of a snowflake with the DNA is the height of intellectual buffoonery. There is even no intellect here to begin with. Such a doofus. You really need an education. So if the DNA was intelligently designed (How can it not be?) the next logical question to you is who created the designer? Some of you are not even worth a byte of data.

Can you please tell me where is the Sense

EyeHateGod:

what is this one saying?

I really wish u didn't get it.
But I am wrong.
U over understood it.

Lennycool:

The dictionary defines intelligence as
Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to learn and comprehend.

Do snowflakes have the ability to learn and comprehend?

You are filled with a lot of crap fallacies and diversions. Nobody said snowflakes have the ability to learn and comprehend, i simply asked for your definition of intelligence to be sure of your perspective. You said that there is no intelligence behind snowflakes, and that they are Beautiful without intelligence. That could mean two things, one and mainly that there is no intelligent designER behind it. Two, that it does not in itself HAVE intelligence. Of course, it does not have intelligence, nonetheless, it is made and produced by an Intelligent Designer. That it is able to even repeat its process from the laws of nature is good proof that it was intelligently made.

Image123:


You are filled with a lot of crap fallacies and diversions. Nobody said snowflakes have the ability to learn and comprehend, i simply asked for your definition of intelligence to be sure of your perspective. You said that there is no intelligence behind snowflakes, and that they are Beautiful without intelligence. That could mean two things, one and mainly that there is no intelligent designER behind it. Two, that it does not in itself HAVE intelligence. Of course, it does not have intelligence, nonetheless, it is made and produced by an Intelligent Designer. That it is able to even repeat its process from the laws of nature is good proof that it was intelligently made.