A pattern is any distinctly organized sequence. Patterns occur everywhere in nature — the spiraling seeds of a sunflower, the hexagonal cells of a honeycomb, the circular ripples on a pond when a fish jumps, et cetera.

On the other hand, “Codes are special….Codes, by definition, must carry information. They must do more than simply form a pattern — codes must transmit data and convey meaning.” The kicker:

Codes do not occur naturally in the world. Musical notation does not sprout from trees, and symbols do not draw themselves in the sand. Codes are the deliberate inventions of intelligent consciousness.

So codes always have an intention or awareness behind them?

Exactly. Codes don’t appear organically; they must be created.

What about DNA? Bingo! The genetic code. That’s the paradox.

You think DNA was created by an intelligence?

When I witness the precision of mathematics, the reliability of physics, the symmetries of the cosmos, I don’t feel like I’m observing cold science; I feel as if I’m seeing a living footprint…the shadow of some greater force that is just beyond our grasp.

The heart of the problem is that physical laws are simple and general, and by their nature they produce the same thing over and over again. Law-governed processes can produce simple repetitive patterns, as in crystals, but they can’t produce the complex, specified sequences by which the nucleotides of DNA code for proteins any more than they can produce the sequence of letters on a page of a textbook.

Snowflakes are a crystal, and form easily by natural laws. They actually have a very low level of complexity. Like all crystals, they can be described easily by the laws that govern chemical bonding and atomic packing. For that reason, among others, nobody claims that snowflakes or crystals require explanation by design. Because they are characterized by low CSI, or “Complex and Specified Information,” we wouldn’t expect them to trigger a design inference.

There you have it life is a product of intelligence.
cc: blueAgent

Horlufemi:
A pattern is any distinctly organized sequence. Patterns occur everywhere in nature — the spiraling seeds of a sunflower, the hexagonal cells of a honeycomb, the circular ripples on a pond when a fish jumps, et cetera.

On the other hand, “Codes are special….Codes, by definition, must carry information. They must do more than simply form a pattern — codes must transmit data and convey meaning.” The kicker:

Codes do not occur naturally in the world. Musical notation does not sprout from trees, and symbols do not draw themselves in the sand. Codes are the deliberate inventions of intelligent consciousness.

So codes always have an intention or awareness behind them?

Exactly. Codes don’t appear organically; they must be created.

What about DNA? Bingo! The genetic code. That’s the paradox.

You think DNA was created by an intelligence?

When I witness the precision of mathematics, the reliability of physics, the symmetries of the cosmos, I don’t feel like I’m observing cold science; I feel as if I’m seeing a living footprint…the shadow of some greater force that is just beyond our grasp.

The heart of the problem is that physical laws are simple and general, and by their nature they produce the same thing over and over again. Law-governed processes can produce simple repetitive patterns, as in crystals, but they can’t produce the complex, specified sequences by which the nucleotides of DNA code for proteins any more than they can produce the sequence of letters on a page of a textbook.

Snowflakes are a crystal, and form easily by natural laws. They actually have a very low level of complexity. Like all crystals, they can be described easily by the laws that govern chemical bonding and atomic packing. For that reason, among others, nobody claims that snowflakes or crystals require explanation by design. Because they are characterized by low CSI, or “Complex and Specified Information,” we wouldn’t expect them to trigger a design inference.

There you have it life is a product of intelligence.
cc: blueAgent

Excellent article. no thoughtless lifeless Whirlwind or force can create or code the Human DNA never not even in 100billion years.

Its funny how Atheists and Liberals accept and apply mathematical probability everyday
but refuse it when it disproves their fantasy call Evillusion.

blueAgent:




Excellent article. no thoughtless lifeless Whirlwind or force can create or code the Human DNA never not even in 100billion years.

Its funny how Atheists and Liberals accept and apply mathematical probability everyday
but refuse it when it disproves their fantasy call Evillusion.

These people are avoiding this thread like the plague.

I'm waiting for them

Horlufemi:


These people are avoiding this thread like the plague.

I'm waiting for them

Lol....true they will avoid the thread.they cannot fool themselves forever this shows that this articles are having lasting impression on them.

Horlufemi:


These people are avoiding this thread like the plague.

I'm waiting for them

blueAgent:



Lol....true they will avoid the thread.they cannot fool themselves forever this shows that this articles are having lasting impression on them.

They are not avoiding cos they dont know what to say, they're probably avoiding it cos, they've not seen it?!


I'm yet to decide, who is more illogical, btw atheists, ipods, fanatics of religion n republicans

Op, Nice analysis.

When it comes to genetic code issues, evolutionists go low key.

Source: Dan Brown, Origin.

blezdBen:
Source: Dan Brown, Origin.

Awesome novel that is.
That very stuff got me thinking...

I've been searching for a PDF file of this book to no avail. Do you have it?

Ranchhoddas:
I've been searching for a PDF file of this book to no avail. Do you have it?

Yeah...had to buy it, didn't regret tho...Dan is genius.

blezdBen:

Yeah...had to buy it, didn't regret tho...Dan is genius.

Alright.

ashjay001:



They are not avoiding cos they dont know what to say, they're probably avoiding it cos, they've not seen it?!


I'm yet to decide, who is more illogical, btw atheists, ipods, fanatics of religion n republicans

Dem supposed don see am by now!

I know for sure they've seen it and they dodged the thread

Day 2: They are still not here. I can't believe this

Horlufemi:
Day 2: They are still not here. I can't believe this

As usual, they cannot debate on DNA coding their points will fail them.

Hahaha don't you believe in the arbitrary forces of mother nature?

BTW atheism makes no sense.

blueAgent:


As usual, they cannot debate on DNA coding their points will fail them.

please mention them. so we can call them out

Horlufemi:

please mention them. so we can call them out

Wilgrea7,OLAADEGBU,4 lordnicklaus,raphieMontella,felixomor, produce, winner01, harlems02, Zoharariel, PunkyV,KingEbukasBlog, analice107,MEILYN, hahn,GooseBaba, hopefulLandlord, otemanuduno,ValentineMaryEdenoscar, johnydon22, EyeHateGod, Immorttal, Buharimustdie20, HCpaul,Teempakguy, Mizblinks, TrajansKong, davien, norant Atheists, JackBizzle, seagulsntrawler, Rossikki, panafrican, OLAADEGBU, Tynover, Whyem15, Lucasbalo,

Horlufemi:

please mention them. so we can call them out

Wilgrea7,OLAADEGBU,4 lordnicklaus,raphieMontella,felixomor, produce, winner01, harlems02, Zoharariel, PunkyV,KingEbukasBlog, analice107,MEILYN, hahn,GooseBaba, hopefulLandlord, otemanuduno,ValentineMaryEdenoscar, johnydon22, EyeHateGod, Immorttal, Buharimustdie20, HCpaul,Teempakguy, Mizblinks, TrajansKong, davien, norant Atheists, JackBizzle, seagulsntrawler, Rossikki, panafrican, OLAADEGBU, Tynover, Whyem15, Lucasbalo,

Blueagent, why do you mention me? God Almighty, the creator of Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Atum, Odin and all things is very intelligent. Op take note.

Doctufos: Parables of Otem 1: 1-10


Parables of Otem
Chapter One
1. My appreciation goes to God the Universe, the father of all gods.
2. He who made all things; the material and immaterial things.
3. All the things in our universe were set in their places by God Almighty.
4. The gold, the silver, the tin, lead, diamond, graphite, gypsum, talc;
5. The rain, the sky, the sun, the stars, the planets, the thoughts, ideas, philosophies;
6. The trees, plants, animals, humans, all living and non-living.
7. And nature has he set in charge of bringing change to the things which he has made;
8. And nature has no emotions, but all that is brought to fulfillment by nature are the things which should happen.
9. For the big bangs, natural disasters, collisions of planetary bodies, earthquakes, cyclones, storms, hurricanes, tears and all things which nature brings with it are for the ordering of the universe.
10. And all good things which nature brings with it also are for the ordering of the universe. For the gentle breeze, the rich soil, the rain, the light, sleep, the sweetness of sex, smiles, laughter and other products of nature are for the balance of the universe.

blueAgent:


As usual, they cannot debate on DNA coding their points will fail them.

Calling HopefullandLord. Come over sir.We need your Contributions.

blueAgent:


Wilgrea7,OLAADEGBU,4
lordnicklaus,raphieMontella,felixomor,
produce, winner01,
harlems02, Zoharariel,
PunkyV,KingEbukasBlog,
analice107,MEILYN,
hahn,GooseBaba,
hopefulLandlord,
otemanuduno,ValentineMaryEdenoscar, johnydon22, EyeHateGod, Immorttal,
Buharimustdie20, HCpaul,Teempakguy,
Mizblinks, TrajansKong, davien, norant Atheists,
JackBizzle,
seagulsntrawler, Rossikki, panafrican, OLAADEGBU, Tynover, Whyem15, Lucasbalo,

And i add TrumporIdie. Let's leave insults aside today, let's have a sound discussion. You are an atheists yeah? Come and show your intelligence here, let me learn from you.

analice107:
Calling HopefullandLord. Come over sir.We need your Contributions.

okay, let me read

hopefulLandlord:

okay, let me read

Aight

Horlufemi:


Dem supposed don see am by now!

I know for sure they've seen it and they dodged the thread

why being so combative? you should've put "Atheists" or "Atheism" in your title so you can attract our attention, we don't check every thread you know?

analice107:
Aight

OP is just god of the gaps and personal incredulity

hopefulLandlord:


OP is just god of the gaps and personal incredulity

You talking about this 'God of the gaps'. Let's settle down and talk about 'it or him' now.

What is God of the gaps and how does it or he operate?

analice107:

You talking about this 'God of the gaps'. Let's settle down and talk about 'it or him' now.

What is God of the gaps and how does it or he operate?

God of the gaps is simply using what we don't yet understand as "proof of god"

hopefulLandlord:


God of the gaps is simply using what we don't yet understand as "proof of god"

Okay, can we now reason out those things we don't know or hasn't been outrightly spoken yet understand?

Give us one of them.

analice107:

Okay, can we now reason out those things we don't know or hasn't been outrightly spoken yet understand?

Give us one of them.

I can give you examples of people of the past using what they didn't know or understand as proof of god; thunder, ground shakes, rainfall, wind, sickness etc were used to "prove" the existence of god at the time but as we grew more in knowledge people stopped using that to argue for god and now we've arrived at "DNA" such as the one OP is talking about, he sees the gap and plugs god in the hole

When Isaac Newton reached the limit of his ability to describe the universe, he attributed what he did not know to god. God seems always to be just beyond the horizon of knowledge, is someplace that we can't yet see. God is an ever receding idea, pushed just a little bit further out with every new discovery. It is the best excuse in the world to quit thinking.



pay attention to the quote below which was made at a time when people regarded epilepsy to be something divine

People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.



this cosmologist puts it succinctly

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of scientists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the scientists at the time didn't understand [and now we do understand] […]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on — so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.




God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness , or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.

hopefulLandlord:

I can give you examples of people of the past using what they didn't know or understand as proof of god; thunder, ground shakes, rainfall, wind, sickness etc were used to "prove" the existence of god at the time but as we grew more in knowledge people stopped using that to argue for god and now we've arrived at "DNA" such as the one OP is talking about, he sees the gap and plugs god in the hole

I know you have read the Bible, you don't have to believe it. Have you come by anywhere YHWH talked about Thunder, earth quake (Ground shaking) Rainfall, Wind, and sickness? Why they were created and how to avert them (sickness?)

I believe you've read the book of Job and seen all these there. Why will you blame those people who believed them to be divine.

Now, does science proof what causes them or who or what created them?

hopefulLandlord:

Pay attention to the quote below which was made at a time when people regarded epilepsy to be something divine

[b][i]People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe

I don't understand what you mean by Epilepsy being divine. Do you mean it cones from God?
I will never blame anyone who believes epilepsy to be demon possession, bcso The Master cast it out from people and He called it a Spirit.

Epilepsy is demon possession.

hopefulLandlord:

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of scientists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game?

If i don't understand a thing, the scientist (who work to discover what causes what), don't understand it, but God through His words talks about it, I will totally believe it.

hopefulLandlord:

this cosmologist puts it succinctly

[b][i] Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the scientists at the time didn't understand [and now we do understand] […]. .

Do the Scientists understand what causes what or create those things? because, last i check, Scientists work to discover, they can never create what they discover.

hopefulLandlord:

If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on — so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem

Did you watch the Video posted by Butterflylion about a scientist who got converted by answering questions his student asked him? Put that scenario and this your question will crumble becos like that scientist, you'll discover that what is taught can never happen.

hopefulLandlord:

[b][i]God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries

This is quite funny. When you 'discover', the operative Word is discover. It was there, they didn't just know it was, now they discovered it, who put it there is what you should tell me.
Lolzzz, When you say 'You get some laws' do they create the laws governing their discovery or the observe their discovery to understand the laws guiding it? case in point, gravity.

Lolzz, Until you discover and understand a mystery, you need God, but once you do, you don't need Him anymore, but you still need Him for other mysteries you still don't understand.

Did you read what you just typed?

hopefulLandlord:

So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness , or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out

i'm very sure you didn't read what the bolded said, if not you'nt have posted it, because you just made fun of the Scientists. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

hopefulLandlord:


I can give you examples of people of the past using what they didn't know or understand as proof of god; thunder, ground shakes, rainfall, wind, sickness etc were used to "prove" the existence of god at the time but as we grew more in knowledge people stopped using that to argue for god and now we've arrived at "DNA" such as the one OP is talking about, he sees the gap and plugs god in the hole

When Isaac Newton reached the limit of his ability to describe the universe, he attributed what he did not know to god. God seems always to be just beyond the horizon of knowledge, is someplace that we can't yet see. God is an ever receding idea, pushed just a little bit further out with every new discovery. It is the best excuse in the world to quit thinking.



pay attention to the quote below which was made at a time when people regarded epilepsy to be something divine

People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.

Hippocrates

this cosmologist puts it succinctly

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of scientists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the scientists at the time didn't understand [and now we do understand] […]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on — so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness , or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.

Richard Feynman

Such hypocrisy. Science has dumped somethings believed to be right in the past but discovered it was wrong. Even in the present. Scientists to are guilty of this. They are holding on to evolution with religious zealousness because once it's discovered to be a fable people may start believing in God again. Genetics, molecular biology and information theory is coming for evolution.

I had the time to argue but I can't really now.

Information theory is not mystery, Genetics is not mystery. Everything in the post is pure science. I don't know where I mentioned mystery or trying to prove God. Don't let us go through that route yet.

All codes are created by a mind DNA, music, software (no exceptions). Every other code minus DNA comes from the human mind. DNA code is the one we don't know the origination. The complexity of The DNA can't even happen by chance in the life span of the universe. but it's here. it's contains "complex specified information" which comes from a mind. Look at it logically then get back.

This is science (information theory) and not a we don't know gaps thing that we don't know.

The genetics and information theory inferes a creator (I'm not talking about the Christian God now before you knack your head for wall). Let's do science or don't you want to know the origin of life?

Another strong case for a creator is that you will never find another natural existing Code. before you start mentioning. It has to be copiable, transcribable and storable.

If you can mention one then there is no Creator

hopefulLandlord:


I can give you examples of people of the past using what they didn't know or understand as proof of god; thunder, ground shakes, rainfall, wind, sickness etc were used to "prove" the existence of god at the time but as we grew more in knowledge people stopped using that to argue for god and now we've arrived at "DNA" such as the one OP is talking about, he sees the gap and plugs god in the hole

When Isaac Newton reached the limit of his ability to describe the universe, he attributed what he did not know to god. God seems always to be just beyond the horizon of knowledge, is someplace that we can't yet see. God is an ever receding idea, pushed just a little bit further out with every new discovery. It is the best excuse in the world to quit thinking.



pay attention to the quote below which was made at a time when people regarded epilepsy to be something divine

People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.

Hippocrates

this cosmologist puts it succinctly

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of scientists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the scientists at the time didn't understand [and now we do understand] […]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on — so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness , or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.

Richard Feynman

Am very interested in this topic .......but since you wish to deviate a little to the God of the gap argument.... Let have a discussion.....


You are commiting argumentun ad furious fallacy...in English it means argument of the future fallacy....Therefore I will coined a new word for any atheists who accuse believer on God of the gap fallacy....the word shall be known as ignorance of the Gap....

The arguments for the existence of God such as Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, etc. are all DEDUCTIVE arguments. This means that the premises are established by what we do know, rather than what we don’t know. If the premises were all based off of what we don’t know, then the deductive argument would be invalid because all of the premises would be controversial.

For example with cosmological Argument, we use what we do know to develop the following premises:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause




Unlike the atheists who are hypocritical in their accusations. When confronted with the evidence of the existence of God using deductive arguments the atheists will say “I don’t know is a valid answer!” though it is, but it is not sound for any rational atheist that has conclude believe of God is illogical....


Let me give you example, my culture teaches life begin on water. Science later find evidence... My culture teaches that there is energy force on every nature... The thunder, the flower ,and the rock...this is another evidence that has been claimed by scientists...



Let me ask you a question.... Do you rely on science as evidence to disprove or proof the existence of God?

vaxx:
Am very interested in this topic .......but since you wish to deviate a little to the God of the gap argument.... Let have a discussion.....


You are cominting argumentun ad furious fallacy...in English it means argument of the future fallacy....Therefore I will coined a new word for any atheists who accuse believer on God of the gap fallacy....the word shall be known as ignorance of the Gap....

The arguments for the existence of God such as Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, etc. are all DEDUCTIVE arguments. This means that the premises are established by what we do know, rather than what we don’t know. If the premises were all based off of what we don’t know, then the deductive argument would be invalid because all of the premises would be controversial.

For example with cosmological Argument, we use what we do know to develop the following premises:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause




Unlike the atheists who are hypocritical in their accusations. When confronted with the evidence of the existence of God using deductive arguments the atheists will say “I don’t know is a valid answer!” though it is, but it is not sound for any rational atheist that has conclude believe of God is illogical....


Let me give you example, my culture teaches life begin on water. Science later find evidence... My culture teaches that there is energy force on every nature... The thunder, the flower ,and the rock...this is another evidence that has been claimed by scientists...



Let me ask you a question.... Do you rely on science as evidence to disprove or proof the existence of God?

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause

can you elucidate on the second premise?