It's Origin Was --> An Intelligent Source (or Entity)

[Andrew]

"The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."

~ Selected

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <6vadnQIzx5JKbojM...@earthlink.com>,

Why should we believe you or this quote from an unknown person?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

The study and consideration of information structures, their basis
and their context, would be worthwhile. Information theory and physical
engineering are not good enough. Kind of an organizing principle('spiritual')
approach is needed. In this reality, physical structures are needed
to instance information structures, but there is something 'spooky'
going on. For instance the 'human' need for stories. or the
mystery that there is anything at all. Physics needs to be expanded
to include information structures. But then, I don't know what I am
talking about.

[SkyEyes]

On Feb 9, 1:41 am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 23:01:58 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >  complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >  instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >  to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >  unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> >                                 ~  Selected
>
> The study and consideration of information structures, their basis
> and their context, would be worthwhile. Information theory and physical
> engineering are not good enough. Kind of an organizing principle('spiritual')
> approach is needed. In this reality, physical structures are needed
> to instance information structures, but there is something 'spooky'
> going on. For instance the 'human' need for stories. or the
> mystery that there is anything at all.

Actually, that's turned out to be not that much of a mystery after
all. There's something rather than nothing because nothing is
inherently unstable. Hence, something.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:42:40 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Feb 9, 1:41�am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 23:01:58 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> > "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>> > �complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>> > �instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>> > �to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>> > �unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>
>> > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ~ �Selected
>>
>> The study and consideration of information structures, their basis
>> and their context, would be worthwhile. Information theory and physical
>> engineering are not good enough. Kind of an organizing principle('spiritual')
>> approach is needed. In this reality, physical structures are needed
>> to instance information structures, but there is something 'spooky'
>> going on. For instance the 'human' need for stories. or the
>> mystery that there is anything at all.
>
>Actually, that's turned out to be not that much of a mystery after
>all. There's something rather than nothing because nothing is
>inherently unstable. Hence, something.
>

"Inherently"?
What does that mean? Looks like one of your confabulated and
practiced stories.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-624EB5...@news.giganews.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>
>> ~ Selected
>
> Why should we believe you or this quote from an
> unknown person?

Probably because it cannot be successfully refuted.

[Andrew]

"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message news:30567c4d-c1fa-43e2...@jt13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 9, 1:41 am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 23:01:58 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> > "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>> > complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>> > instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>> > to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>> > unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>
>> > ~ Selected
>>
>> The study and consideration of information structures, their basis
>> and their context, would be worthwhile. Information theory and physical
>> engineering are not good enough. Kind of an organizing principle('spiritual')
>> approach is needed. In this reality, physical structures are needed
>> to instance information structures, but there is something 'spooky'
>> going on. For instance the 'human' need for stories. or the
>> mystery that there is anything at all.
>
> Actually, that's turned out to be not that much of a mystery after
> all. There's something rather than nothing because nothing is
> inherently unstable. Hence, something.

This is true, only when in the context of, something.

[Y]

THE FORCE shapes DNA...

The same FORCE that causes a ball to drop to the Earth, causes small
particles of matter to coalesce together. The FORCE curves space and
time and guides matter through space through motion. This is why DNA
is double stranded and curved. This structure was not chosen or
designed, but arose, emerged from the nature of THE FORCE. The Force
also keeps electrons in orbit, around the nucleus of atoms. The FORCE
is also responsible for all the outcomes of snowflakes.

The 'emergent' (RESEARCH EMERGENCE) outcomes of the force are not due
to intelligence, but due to the very nature of the THE FORCE. THE
FORCE is mindless and unintelligent. It rules the universe through
plain and simple force.

Think about the great powers on planet Earth in the world of people.
With great power hardly ever comes great intelligence. This rule is
common throughout the universe. The universe is ruled BY FORCE !

Read this a stop insisting that the almighty is intelligent. It isn't.
The reason intelligent design is NOT considered science, is because if
it were, Einstein would have been an intelligent designer, before some
mid-western nobodies even proposed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

-y

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <xo2dnalbL4cgvovM...@earthlink.com>,

Of course it can because it's nonsense. Which has been explained to you
dozens of times in great detail and fact.

It's a perfect example of this fantasy you're always talking about.

[Devils Advocaat]

Who supposedly said this and when?

Was it merely an opinion or a statement of fact?

Did they provide any supporting evidence?

Did they mean information in its mundane use of the word?

Why does information need to have a meaning in human terms?

Will you ever be able to answer these questions?

And will you ever tell the truth?

[Malcolm McMahon]

Suggest you read up on Genetic Algorithms, an irrefutable demonstration
of complex, and potentially practically useful information being
generated by a process which mimics evolution and has no other source of
intelligence.

[raven1]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 23:01:58 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

Actually, the instructions are encoded in the structure of the
physical medium. There's neither a need nor a reason to postulate a
ghost in the machine.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 23:01:58 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>

wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew repeats lies and alleges that they are quotes from somewhere
because he worships an evil god,

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 02:26:20 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

It is known to be false.

You are known to be a liar.

[raven1]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 02:26:20 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>

wrote:

No one is obligated to refute an unsupported assertion. The burden of
proof is entirely on the author of the quote.

[Andrew]

"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:kf5lu2$5v0$3...@dont-email.me...

> Andrew wrote:
>
>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>> ~ Selected
>
> Suggest you read up on Genetic Algorithms, an irrefutable demonstration
> of complex, and potentially practically useful information being
> generated by a process which mimics evolution

Yes, but Genetic Algorithms themselves are --> *intelligently
designed* by computer scientists. They don't self originate.

> and has no other source of intelligence.

That's like saying that evolution "has no other source of intelligence....."
it just keeps going. But that's only *after* life was *created* initially.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-769F73...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >
>> >> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>> >> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>> >> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>> >> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>> >> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>> >>
>> >> ~ Selected
>> >
>> > Why should we believe you or this quote from an
>> > unknown person?
>>
>> Probably because it cannot be successfully refuted.
>
> Of course it can because it's nonsense.

How so? Explain.

> Which has been explained to you dozens
> of times in great detail and fact.

Where? Please cite.

[Andrew]

"raven1" wrote in message news:0soch81tlkvssq3l7...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>
> Actually, the instructions are encoded in the structure
> of the physical medium.

The instruction are a metaphysical entity, incorporeal
to the physical medium. Like the words in a book are
also somewhat part of the structure of a book, but they
convey intelligence which is immaterial to it's physical
medium. This factor points to an intelligent source for
it's causation.

[Andrew]

"raven1" wrote in message news:lqtch8pm9vh749i27...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Jeanne Douglas" wrote:

>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>>>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>>>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>>>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>>>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>>>
>>>> ~ Selected
>>>
>>> Why should we believe you or this quote from an
>>> unknown person?
>>
>>Probably because it cannot be successfully refuted.
>
> No one is obligated to refute an unsupported assertion.
> The burden of proof is entirely on the author of the quote.

The basis of the above is an established fact. It is the
conclusion that has not been generally accepted.

But that's because of factors that go beyond the facts.

[raven1]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:20:05 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"raven1" wrote in message news:lqtch8pm9vh749i27...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>>>>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>>>>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>>>>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>>>>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ Selected
>>>>
>>>> Why should we believe you or this quote from an
>>>> unknown person?
>>>
>>>Probably because it cannot be successfully refuted.
>>
>> No one is obligated to refute an unsupported assertion.
>> The burden of proof is entirely on the author of the quote.
>
>The basis of the above is an established fact.

Another unsupported assertion.

> It is the
>conclusion that has not been generally accepted.

Probably because it is a Non Sequitur based on a false premise.

>But that's because of factors that go beyond the facts.

Such as Occam's Razor.

[Father Haskell]

Apparently your "intelligent" creator slept on
the job.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:20:05 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>

wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"raven1" wrote in message news:lqtch8pm9vh749i27...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>>>>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>>>>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>>>>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>>>>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ Selected
>>>>
>>>> Why should we believe you or this quote from an
>>>> unknown person?
>>>
>>>Probably because it cannot be successfully refuted.
>>
>> No one is obligated to refute an unsupported assertion.
>> The burden of proof is entirely on the author of the quote.
>
>The basis of the above is an established fact.

Andrew knows that it is not a fact. That is one of the reasons that he
refuses to respond to me. He knows that I know that he is a liar who
preaches falsehoods.

>It is the conclusion that has not been generally accepted.

Andrew knows that he is making indefensible claims.

>But that's because of factors that go beyond the facts.

Andrew refuses to allow any facts get in the way of his false doctrines.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 08:52:40 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew, you know that there is absolutely no evidence that life was
created.

[raven1]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:18:39 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"raven1" wrote in message news:0soch81tlkvssq3l7...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>>
>> Actually, the instructions are encoded in the structure
>> of the physical medium.
>
>The instruction are a metaphysical entity, incorporeal
>to the physical medium.

Repeating your assertion will not make it any more correct.
"Metaphysical" and "incorporeal to" are weasel-words, BTW.

>Like the words in a book are
>also somewhat part of the structure of a book, but they
>convey intelligence which is immaterial to it's physical
>medium. This factor points to an intelligent source for
>it's causation.

The problem with analogies is that it's too easy to fall into the trap
of taking them literally, and drawing unwarranted inferences from
them. A better comparison than a book would be to a language, which
also uses words to convey information, yet which is not designed, but
evolves*.

(*Discounting deliberately constructed languages like Elvish, C++,
etc..)

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 9, 5:18 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "raven1" wrote in messagenews:0soch81tlkvssq3l7...@4ax.com...

Do you honestly think you can get away with this bull again?

A man writes a book.

There's only one copy.

No one ever reads it.

The author no longer recalls its content.

The book is destroyed.

Where's the information?

Come on Andrew answer the question.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <4bqdnagggYkrGYvM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "raven1" wrote in message news:lqtch8pm9vh749i27...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>"Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >>>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >>>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >>>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >>>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
> >>>>
> >>>> ~ Selected
> >>>
> >>> Why should we believe you or this quote from an
> >>> unknown person?
> >>
> >>Probably because it cannot be successfully refuted.
> >
> > No one is obligated to refute an unsupported assertion.
> > The burden of proof is entirely on the author of the quote.
>
> The basis of the above is an established fact.

Then you be able to provide evidence for it.

> It is the
> conclusion that has not been generally accepted.

Because it's ridiculous idiocy.

> But that's because of factors that go beyond the facts.

And what factors would those be?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <QbydnbAO6oP8GYvM...@earthlink.com>,

Wow. What a load of gibberish.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <zPCdncQV6I4f44vM...@earthlink.com>,

So you can ignore it again? Seriously?

[raven1]

Occam's Razor comes to mind.

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 9, 12:20 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> But that's because of factors that go beyond the facts.

Then those factors are worthless, and should be discarded.

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 9, 12:18 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "raven1" wrote in messagenews:0soch81tlkvssq3l7...@4ax.com...

It more strongly points to bullshit.

[Immortalist]

On Feb 8, 11:01 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>

>                                  ~  Selected

You are claimining that it would be impossible for molecules to form
DNA. Do you have any evidence at all for the shit you say?

[jigo]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <6vadnQIzx5JKbojM...@earthlink.com>,

> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>
>> ~ Selected
>

> Why should we believe you or this quote from an unknown person?

Well, it doesn't matter who it's from, it's just wrong in saying
that because information is complex, etc., it implies an intelligent
source. Evolution explains why and how organisms adapt and evolve
as well as how the information in the genetic code changes. It's
basically a circular argument.

[Jack Pine]

On Feb 9, 5:26 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-624EB5...@news.giganews.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >>  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >>   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >>   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >>   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >>   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> >>                                  ~  Selected
>
> > Why should we believe you or this quote from an
> > unknown person?
>

> Probably because it cannot be successfully refuted.

Andrew, do you think that the code is purposeful? Why?

[Jack Pine]

On Feb 9, 12:40 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> Andrew knows that he is making indefensible claims.

You can't possibly know what Andrew knows, so by your own merciless
definition of the word 'liar' you are one.

[Jack Pine]

The fact that the information can be irradicated doesn't change the
fact that the the book had an author. No doubt this has already
happened to lots of books, and will surely happen to all books given
enough time.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:26:37 -0800 (PST), Jack Pine
<jackpi...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Pay attention to how Andrew acts and what he says. It is clear from his
actions that he knows that he is BSing us.

[%]

jack , you did a %

[Jack Pine]

Hey, fancy running into you here.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 2:01:58 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>
> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>
> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>
> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>
> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>

No, Bozo. It points to evolution. No deity required.

[%]

Jack Pine wrote:
> On Feb 9, 5:41 pm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jack Pine wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 12:40 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> Andrew knows that he is making indefensible claims.
>>
>>> You can't possibly know what Andrew knows, so by your own merciless
>>> definition of the word 'liar' you are one.
>>
>> jack , you did a %
>
> Hey, fancy running into you here.

i'm everywhere

[Zinnic]

Surely information and intelligence are mutually inclusive. How can
you have one without the other?
Zinnic

[me]

On Feb 8, 11:01 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>

>                                  ~  Selected

'Its origin was --> an intelligent source (or entity)'
obviously written by any man talking of females, lolz

[Andrew]

"jigo" wrote in message news:5116c3f2$0$1204$607e...@cv.net...
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>>
>>> ~ Selected
>>
>> Why should we believe you or this quote from an
>> unknown person?
>
> Well, it doesn't matter who it's from,

What matters is the veracity of the content.

> it's just wrong in saying that because information is complex,
> etc., it implies an intelligent source.

Please list a few sources of complex information with specified
instructions in code format that do not have an intelligent source.

> Evolution explains why and how organisms adapt and evolve

They do, but what does that have to do with the *origin of* the
*digital code* in the DNA molecule without which we wouldn't
be here?

> as well as how the information in the genetic code changes.

It does, according to the known laws of genetics.

[Andrew]

"Jack Pine" wrote in message news:90d7617c-89b4-4b34...@j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

"Andrew" wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:

> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> >> ~ Selected
>
> > Why should we believe you or this quote from an
> > unknown person?
>
> Probably because it cannot be successfully refuted.

-
- Andrew, do you think that the code is purposeful?

Absolutely and positively yes.

- Why?

Because otherwise there would be no proteins.

That's what code in DNA does. It is code for the
synthesis of the specified proteins of life.

All living things, plants and animals, are made
up of proteins. Therefore without this *code*
there would be no life. And we would not be
here talking about it.


Andrew

[Andrew]

"me" wrote in message news:e4ad391a-18b6-4ac8...@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>
>> ~ Selected
>
> 'Its origin was --> an intelligent source (or entity)'
> obviously written by any man talking of females, lolz

Undoubtedly.

[Yap]

On Feb 9, 3:01 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
>                                  ~  Selected

DNA is part of science and does not have anything to do with religion.
By taking science matters to try to validate your pixie and at the
same time rejecting scientific disapproval of your deity means you are
trying to muddy the water.
But your effort actually is seriously eroding the confidence of the
faith, rather than strengthening it because all the believers shun
knowledge based thinking.

[Yap]

On Feb 10, 1:41 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 08:52:40 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:kf5lu2$5v0$3...@dont-email.me...

> >> Andrew wrote:
>
> >>>  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >>>   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >>>   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >>>   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >>>   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
> >>>                                  ~  Selected
>
> >> Suggest you read up on Genetic Algorithms, an irrefutable demonstration
> >> of complex, and potentially practically useful information being
> >> generated by a process which mimics evolution
>
> >Yes, but Genetic Algorithms themselves are --> *intelligently
> >designed* by computer scientists. They don't self originate.
>
> >> and has no other source of intelligence.
>
> >That's like saying that evolution "has no other source of intelligence....."
> >it just keeps going.  But that's only *after* life was *created* initially.
>
> Andrew, you know that there is absolutely no evidence that life was
> created.

He doesn't care.........
He just want his creator to be alive in all the minds of human, and to
worship it.

He is just a very weak human, needing a protector up in the sky.

[Yap]

No..
Andrew has been spewing nonsense in the forum for a long time.
And it is through his postings that any one can judge "what he knows".

We are correct to name him liar, because he never is able to back up
his claims.
Free Lunch doesn't fit into your misguided label.

[Yap]

You mean dumb information like the one Andrew spewed above has
intelligence?
Or even lies fabricated by someone purposely have intelligence?

That must be news.

[%]

is that when you grabbed your boner

[osugeography]

On Feb 9, 6:15 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 Feb, 07:01, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>

> >                                  ~  Selected
>
> Who supposedly said this and when?
>
> Was it merely an opinion or a statement of fact?
>
> Did they provide any supporting evidence?
>
> Did they mean information in its mundane use of the word?
>
> Why does information need to have a meaning in human terms?
>
> Will you ever be able to answer these questions?
>
> And will you ever tell the truth?

Hello, DA. I ran a quick check on the quote, and besides several ng's,
it was said to be found at Conservaedia, Creationism section.
Surprise!

I have been using EVE 2.5 for my plagiarism checks, but "Plagiarism
Detector" looks as if it might be a good deal better. Does anyone know
of a good plagiarism detector or spotter under $100?

Thanks, and the best to you, DA.
Marvin

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[SkyEyes]

On Feb 9, 8:26 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "me" wrote in messagenews:e4ad391a-18b6-4ac8...@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

So you're a misogynist as well as an idiot, then?

Good to know.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Andrew]

"osugeography" <osugeo...@aol.com> wrote in message news:9855430a-8e1f-4b42...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 9, 6:15 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9 Feb, 07:01, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>> > complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>> > instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>> > to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>> > unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>
>> > ~ Selected
>>
>> Who supposedly said this and when?
>>
>> Was it merely an opinion or a statement of fact?
>>
>> Did they provide any supporting evidence?
>>
>> Did they mean information in its mundane use of the word?
>>
>> Why does information need to have a meaning in human terms?
>>
>> Will you ever be able to answer these questions?
>>
>> And will you ever tell the truth?
>
> Hello, DA. I ran a quick check on the quote, and besides several ng's,
> it was said to be found at Conservaedia, Creationism section. Surprise!

Would you please post it here, or link to it. Thanks.

> I have been using EVE 2.5 for my plagiarism checks, but "Plagiarism
> Detector" looks as if it might be a good deal better. Does anyone know
> of a good plagiarism detector or spotter under $100?

Just so you can find out who "~ Selected" is. Lol!


Andrew

[Andrew]

"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:49dbedce-5841-416c...@mm7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
"Andrew" wrote:

> "me" wrote:
> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> >> ~ Selected
>
> > 'Its origin was --> an intelligent source (or entity)'
> > obviously written by any man talking of females, lolz
>
> Undoubtedly.

-
- So you're a misogynist as well..

No, it's obvious you didn't understand.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 10, 8:59 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:49dbedce-5841-416c...@mm7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

And it's obvious you're lying about the nature of information.

Again.

[Andrew]

"Father Haskell" wrote in message news:eab91487-c0db-438b...@w4g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> But that's because of factors that go beyond the facts.
>
> Then those factors are worthless, and should be discarded.

Absolutely, and what -are- those "factors"?

--> an a priori adherence to....

1. a materialistic only worldview

and

2. atheism

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 10, 4:42 am, osugeography <osugeogra...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 6:15 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Feb, 07:01, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > >  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> > >   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> > >   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> > >   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> > >   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> > >                                  ~  Selected
>
> > Who supposedly said this and when?
>
> > Was it merely an opinion or a statement of fact?
>
> > Did they provide any supporting evidence?
>
> > Did they mean information in its mundane use of the word?
>
> > Why does information need to have a meaning in human terms?
>
> > Will you ever be able to answer these questions?
>
> > And will you ever tell the truth?
>
> Hello, DA. I ran a quick check on the quote, and besides several ng's,
> it was said to be found at Conservaedia, Creationism section.
> Surprise!

Can you give me the conservapedia link? I'm having a spot of bother
tracking it down.

>
> I have been using EVE 2.5 for my plagiarism checks, but "Plagiarism
> Detector" looks as if it might be a good deal better. Does anyone know
> of a good plagiarism detector or spotter under $100?
>
> Thanks, and the best to you, DA.
> Marvin
>
> Marvin Sebourn

> osugeogra...@aol.com

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 10, 8:52 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "osugeography" <osugeogra...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:9855430a-8e1f-4b42...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

When you provide a quote, putting "selected", "ibid" or other sundry
meaningless words only shows you up as bordering on foolish.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 9, 12:15 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 Feb, 07:01, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> >                                  ~  Selected
>
> Who supposedly said this and when?
>
> Was it merely an opinion or a statement of fact?
>
> Did they provide any supporting evidence?
>
> Did they mean information in its mundane use of the word?
>
> Why does information need to have a meaning in human terms?
>
> Will you ever be able to answer these questions?
>
> And will you ever tell the truth?

Just answer the above questions.

Thank you.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:52:40 -0800, Andrew wrote:

> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:kf5lu2$5v0$3...@dont-email.me...

>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and- instructions, as a
>>> metaphysical entity incorporeal to the physical medium upon which it
>>> is carried.. unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>> ~ Selected
>>

>> Suggest you read up on Genetic Algorithms, an irrefutable demonstration
>> of complex, and potentially practically useful information being
>> generated by a process which mimics evolution
>
> Yes, but Genetic Algorithms themselves are --> *intelligently designed*
> by computer scientists. They don't self originate.

The programmer creates a set of rules, just as the universe does.

>
>> and has no other source of intelligence.
>
> That's like saying that evolution "has no other source of
> intelligence....."
> it just keeps going. But that's only *after* life was *created*
> initially.

The evolutionary elements in GA are a _lot_ simpler than even the
simplest living organism we know today. You don't need anything as
complex as a bacterium for evolution to take hold. Just a self-
replicating chemical complex with imperfect copying.

That's not to much to ask of random chemistry.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 09:18:39 -0800, Andrew wrote:

> "raven1" wrote in message
> news:0soch81tlkvssq3l7...@4ax.com...

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>>> complex, purposeful, specified information -and- instructions, as a
>>> metaphysical entity incorporeal to the physical medium upon which it
>>> is carried.. unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>>>

>> Actually, the instructions are encoded in the structure of the physical
>> medium.
>
> The instruction are a metaphysical entity, incorporeal to the physical
> medium. Like the words in a book are also somewhat part of the structure
> of a book, but they convey intelligence which is immaterial to it's
> physical medium. This factor points to an intelligent source for it's
> causation.

They're an informational structure, like a computer program. If that's
"metaphysical" the word doesn't mean what I think it means.

[Andrew]

"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:kf7q7a$f21$5...@dont-email.me...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "raven1" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains complex,
>>>> purposeful, specified information -and- instructions, as a
>>>> metaphysical entity incorporeal to the physical medium upon
>>>> which it is carried.. unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent
>>>> Source."
>>>>
>>> Actually, the instructions are encoded in the structure of the
>>> physical medium.
>>
>> The instruction are a metaphysical entity, incorporeal to the physical
>> medium. Like the words in a book are also somewhat part of the structure
>> of a book, but they convey intelligence which is immaterial to it's
>> physical medium. This factor points to an intelligent source for it's
>> causation.
>
> They're an informational structure, like a computer program.

Yes.

> If that's "metaphysical" the word doesn't mean what I think it means.

Meaning incorporeal, or immaterial to the physical medium that it is
attached to (not supernatural).

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <0sWdnRRCftEF_orM...@earthlink.com>,

What the fuck does that mean?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 9, 7:01 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
>   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
>   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
>   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
>   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>

>                                  ~  Selected

Andrew, this incorporeal information, is it completely lacking in both
matter and energy?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:01:18 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>In article <0sWdnRRCftEF_orM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Father Haskell" wrote in message
>> news:eab91487-c0db-438b...@w4g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >
>> >> But that's because of factors that go beyond the facts.
>> >
>> > Then those factors are worthless, and should be discarded.
>>
>> Absolutely, and what -are- those "factors"?
>>
>> --> an a priori adherence to....
>>
>> 1. a materialistic only worldview
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2. atheism
>
>What the fuck does that mean?

Andrew doesn't like it when people dismiss his claims just because he
cannot back them up with any evidence. The scientific method shows him
that he is preaching nonsense, so he has to be at war with it to get
anyone to believe his doctrines.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:45:42 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Nope.

[osugeography]

On Feb 10, 2:52 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "osugeography" <osugeogra...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:9855430a-8e1f-4b42...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

To Andrew: Let's review your post above. Some selected points:

1) Andrew, you wrote: "Would you please post it here, or link to it.
Thanks."
A) I will give you the courtesy of an on-subject reply, although you
have refused to even answer me, in regards to questioning some of the
statements you have made.
B) The main reference I saw, other than some references to posts in
newsgroups (and the plagiarism checker was only a trial program) was
the citing of Conservapedia, Creationism Section, as a place where it
was written. You find it. If you were concerned with your writings
being accurate and complete, you would know where they came from, and
try to determine their truth or non-truth before considering posting.

2) Andrew, you wrote, in comment upon my use of plagiarism checkers,
that: "Just so you can find out who "~ Selected" is. Lol!"
A) That's a LIE, Andrew, and you you know who the Prince of Lies is,
don't you?
B) Only one of the reasons I have used plagiarism checkers (and
possibly the main reason ten or twelve years ago) was to expose the
utter B.S. that some people people were posting in alt.revisionism
(That's when I first "met" Joe Bruno. But not to check his
statements). Some Holocaust Revisionists there made statements about
the Holocaust which were couched in pseudo-scholarly rhetoric. Besides
what I knew of the subject (and I never claimed to be an authority) I
used plagiarism detectors to determine the real origin of their
statements, and their accuracy. Frequently the Holocaust Revisionts
and deniers practiced deceit, such as when they falsely attributed
anti-Jewish statements to mostly revered historical figures, or
subtly, but critically, altered historical documents to further the
reasons for their hate.

3) In summary: I gave you the courtesy of a reply, although you
generally ignore my questions to you, which have all been civil. You
LIED about the reason why I made the general query concerning a
plagiarism detector.

You LIED, Andrew. Will you admit that?


Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[%]

can you admit that you never have

[Andrew]

"osugeography" wrote in message news:adf556c7-322f-4a8a...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "osugeography" wrote:
>> > Devils Advocaat wrote:

I could not find it there. You stated again it was there, and after a
courteous request to post it, or even a link - you refuse; but thanks
anyway. You also refuse to comment on the veracity of the content
of the quote.

I suspect that is because it is simply another truth which exposes your
cherished worldview to be false, and you are not ready to accept that.


Andrew

[Andrew]

"osugeography" <osugeo...@aol.com> wrote in message news:adf556c7-322f-4a8a...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>
> 2) Andrew, you wrote, in comment upon my use of plagiarism checkers,
> that: "Just so you can find out who "~ Selected" is. Lol!"
> A) That's a LIE, Andrew, and you you know who the Prince of Lies is,
> don't you?
> B) Only one of the reasons I have used plagiarism checkers (and
> possibly the main reason ten or twelve years ago) was to expose the
> utter B.S. that some people people were posting in alt.revisionism
> (That's when I first "met" Joe Bruno. But not to check his
> statements). Some Holocaust Revisionists there made statements about
> the Holocaust which were couched in pseudo-scholarly rhetoric. Besides
> what I knew of the subject (and I never claimed to be an authority) I
> used plagiarism detectors to determine the real origin of their
> statements, and their accuracy. Frequently the Holocaust Revisionts
> and deniers practiced deceit, such as when they falsely attributed
> anti-Jewish statements to mostly revered historical figures, or
> subtly, but critically, altered historical documents to further the
> reasons for their hate.

I see. So in summary, the reason you need plagiarism checkers is to
"expose the utter B.S. that some people have" who hate you. I see.

This is sad, that they would hate you.

So sad.


>
>
>
> Marvin Sebourn
> osugeo...@aol.com



Andrew

[Tom McDonald]

No, you clearly don't see. Martin didn't say they hated *him*; he said
they were haters, apparently mostly anti-Semites. Note he wrote "...to
further the reasons for their hate"--so, not him, but those killed in
the Holocaust.

You believe the Holocaust happened. Don't you?

> This is sad, that they would hate you.

Might have been. Wasn't.

> So sad.

Your twisted reading skills are sad. And since you always read others'
words in such a way as to twist them to your own purposes, they make God
sad. And you know what happens to folks who make your God sad.

If you don't, you will find out very soon, when you wake up in the Lake
of Fire and are all confused and such, since you'd thought yourself such
a Very Good Christian. Repent while there is still time, Andrew.

[Andrew]

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:SIWRs.189583$Sl.9...@newsfe27.iad...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "osugeography" wrote:
>>>
>>> 2) Andrew, you wrote, in comment upon my use of plagiarism checkers,
>>> that: "Just so you can find out who "~ Selected" is. Lol!"
>>> A) That's a LIE, Andrew, and you you know who the Prince of Lies is,
>>> don't you?
>>> B) Only one of the reasons I have used plagiarism checkers (and
>>> possibly the main reason ten or twelve years ago) was to expose the
>>> utter B.S. that some people people were posting in alt.revisionism
>>> (That's when I first "met" Joe Bruno. But not to check his
>>> statements). Some Holocaust Revisionists there made statements about
>>> the Holocaust which were couched in pseudo-scholarly rhetoric. Besides
>>> what I knew of the subject (and I never claimed to be an authority) I
>>> used plagiarism detectors to determine the real origin of their
>>> statements, and their accuracy. Frequently the Holocaust Revisionts
>>> and deniers practiced deceit, such as when they falsely attributed
>>> anti-Jewish statements to mostly revered historical figures, or
>>> subtly, but critically, altered historical documents to further the
>>> reasons for their hate.
>>
>> I see. So in summary, the reason you need plagiarism checkers is to
>> "expose the utter B.S. that some people have" who hate you. I see.
>
> No, you clearly don't see. Martin didn't say they hated *him*; he said
> they were haters, apparently mostly anti-Semites. Note he wrote "...to
> further the reasons for their hate"--so, not him, but those killed in the
> Holocaust.

Don't you see how personally he took their posts?

> You believe the Holocaust happened. Don't you?

I never knew there was an alt.revisionism.

But why would you want to go there, if there is hate?

He said that this was over a decade ago.

Now he wants a new plagiarism checker, in the
context of, finding the origin of -my- quote......

"The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
~ Selected

He said that he found the above quote somewhere, but
refuses to give a link to it. He also refuses to comment
on it's content, apparently because it exposes his (and
your) cherish atheistic worldview --> to be a deception.


Andrew

[Tom McDonald]

To provide some truth in a place full of lies? You know, like you claim
to be doing in alt.atheism?

> He said that this was over a decade ago.

Could be his job there was done.

> Now he wants a new plagiarism checker, in the
> context of, finding the origin of -my- quote......

And quite rightly so. You have a penchant for giving quotations without
context, and without real citations. Like you did below:

> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
> ~ Selected
>
> He said that he found the above quote somewhere, but
> refuses to give a link to it. He also refuses to comment
> on it's content, apparently because it exposes his (and
> your) cherish atheistic worldview --> to be a deception.

I'm not an atheist.

And since neither you nor he was able to provide the relevant context,
it is not possible to make an honest and decent comment on the content.

You know, sort of like if I quoted from the Bible and said it stated,
"There is no God". The Bible does say that, you know. Would you care to
comment on that statement? Or will you be forced to provide the context
in order to discuss it honestly and decently?

Do you know about honesty and decency, Andrew?

[Jope]

On Feb 9, 6:15 am, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 9, 6:01 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >  "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >   complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >   instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >   to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >   unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> >                                  ~  Selected
>

> THE FORCE shapes DNA...
>
> The same FORCE that causes a ball to drop to the Earth, causes small
> particles of matter to coalesce together. The FORCE curves space and
> time and guides matter through space through motion. This is why DNA
> is double stranded and curved. This structure was not chosen or
> designed, but arose, emerged from the nature of THE FORCE. The Force
> also keeps electrons in orbit, around the nucleus of atoms. The FORCE
> is also responsible for all the outcomes of snowflakes.
>
> The 'emergent' (RESEARCH EMERGENCE) outcomes of the force are not due
> to intelligence, but due to the very nature of the THE FORCE. THE
> FORCE is mindless and unintelligent. It rules the universe through
> plain and simple force.
>
> Think about the great powers on planet Earth in the world of people.
> With great power hardly ever comes great intelligence. This rule is
> common throughout the universe. The universe is ruled BY FORCE !
>
> Read this a stop insisting that the almighty is intelligent. It isn't.
> The reason intelligent design is NOT considered science, is because if
> it were, Einstein would have been an intelligent designer, before some
> mid-western nobodies even proposed it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>
> -y
The problem is : Man is intelligent.And intelligence is simply the
recognizing of that faculty within nature itself.
Spending some times trying to define intelligence itself would end up
dispelling atheism.
The number one element of intelligence is purpose.
The number two is complexity.
The number three is autonomy.
Seeing a piece of paper moving by the wind does not show any
particular intelligence .
But if that piece of paper keeps landing specifically on the right eye
of different people.We would immediately recognize that intelligence
is at play
That is the difference between a moving driverless car which ends up
crashing and one that is being driven by an intelligent entity.
.Now look at the universe, and multiply that type of behavior billions
of times.
Simple isn't it.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <SIWRs.189583$Sl.9...@newsfe27.iad>,

Sometimes I wish there was a hell because I'd love to see the look on
the faces of the nasty religibots when they discovered that they were
not going to be allowed in their heaven.

[Y]

Yes and No. All of those billions and billions of interactions were
caused by THE FORCE. The force creates, gives impetus to and guides
all motions of energy. There is nothing intelligent about this
process.

There is nothing intelligent about a factory worker doing the same
thing over and over again. If The Force were a mind, it would be like
a factory worker, repetitive and unintelligent.

The problem is, humankind is intelligent, but obviously not that
intelligent to expect a deity to be 'humanesque'.

-y

[osugeography]

On Feb 10, 12:03 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "osugeography" wrote in messagenews:adf556c7-322f-4a8a...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

1) Andrew wrote: "You stated again it was there". Answer: No, Andrew,
I wrote that "Plagiarism Detector" listed that your quote was to be
found at Conservapedia. I did NOT write that it was there. I looked
for a couple of minutes, and didn't find it.

2) You write that you made "a courteous request to post it, or even a
link..." Answer: First, as above, I wrote that "Plagiarism Detector"
software listed Conservapedia as having had that quote, not that I
said it was there. Do you expect me to provide a link to Conservapedia
for you? And after you LIED about why I was interested in plagiarism
software, do you expect me to be sugar-solicitous, guiding you?

3) Andrew writes that: "You also refuse to comment on the veracity of
the content of the quote". Unless you can show me where you asked this
of me, this is a deceitful, obfuscating claim by you.

4) Andrew wrote that: "I suspect that is because it is simply another

truth which exposes your cherished worldview to be false, and you are

not ready to accept that". Answer: My "cherished worldview" is likely
a good deal more complex than you imagine. I do not call honest
believers liars. I have written words (on the internet) of high praise
for dedicated believers. Want a reference?

5) And you wrote below that "in summary, the reason you need

plagiarism checkers is to "expose the utter B.S. that some people

have" who hate you. I see. This is sad, that they would hate you".
Answer: You diddled the quote, Andrew. I wrote that "one of the

reasons I have used plagiarism checkers (and possibly the main reason

ten or twelve years ago...)" Note the tense of the statement. And not
surprisingly, you have the cart before the horse--the reason some
Holocaust Revisionists or Deniers hated me was because I exposed their
writings as dishonest or deceitful. I didn't ask for it, but I was
enough of a thorn in the side of some anonymous little coward that
they posted my name and address, the names and addresses of my
immediate neighbors, my job affiliation, my college, the Dean of my
college, and the President of the University I attended, requesting
that they be contacted and informed of my behaviour. The only sadness
in the entire episode is sadness because so many people are prejudiced
and deceitful

6) Andrew, you have squirmed and obfuscated. You have a real talent
for obfuscation.

7) My thanks to Mr McDOnald for his words below. Much obliged!

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[Jope]

The force existed 50 billions years ago,and ended up creating man,
who has life ,intelligence and consciousness, using the ressources
available to him .THE FORCE is great.Some people call him GOD.

[raven1]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:45:42 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>

wrote:

Then you're inappropriately applying it to DNA. The message *is* the
medium.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Devils Advocaat]

On 11 Feb, 22:31, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:45:42 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in messagenews:kf7q7a$f21$5...@dont-email.me...

> >> Andrew wrote:
> >>> "raven1" wrote:
> >>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >>>>> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains complex,
> >>>>>  purposeful, specified information -and- instructions, as a
> >>>>>  metaphysical entity incorporeal to the physical medium upon
> >>>>> which it is carried.. unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent
> >>>>> Source."
>
> >>>> Actually, the instructions are encoded in the structure of the
> >>>> physical medium.
>
> >>> The instruction are a metaphysical entity, incorporeal to the physical
> >>> medium. Like the words in a book are also somewhat part of the structure
> >>> of a book, but they convey intelligence which is immaterial to it's
> >>> physical medium. This factor points to an intelligent source for it's
> >>> causation.
>
> >> They're an informational structure, like a computer program.
>
> >Yes.
>
> >> If that's "metaphysical" the word doesn't mean what I think it means.
>
> >Meaning incorporeal, or immaterial to the physical medium that it is
> >attached to (not supernatural).
>
> Then you're inappropriately applying it to DNA. The message *is* the
> medium.

Indeed, destroy the medium, the information is gone.

Just like in the book scenario I presented to Andrew.

[Jope]

"He has created the Orion and the Pleiades, The LORD is his name"

[Y]

On Feb 11, 2:30 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The force existed  50 billions years ago,and ended up creating man,
> who has life ,intelligence and consciousness, using the ressources
> available to him .THE FORCE  is great.Some people call him GOD.

The Force is not a "him". But you're right, The Force did create man.

-y

[Y]

It's not a "him" and doesn't have a name. It's possible to recognise
The Force, but you have to have a keen eye for observation. The Force
is neither male, nor presides over a med-evil region of England (And
is thus neither a Lord).

-y

[jope]

Let's see :the Force gave man consciousness,therefore ,the Force must
have possessed consciousness in the first place.
If your accept that the Force is conscious ,then you are talking about
God.But ,due to the hardness of your heart,you are refusing to accept
him as God.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command,
so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
Hebrew 11

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<db324b52-2374-4c01...@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

Why?

[SkyEyes]

On Feb 9, 2:22 am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:42:40 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 9, 1:41 am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:

> >> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 23:01:58 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> > "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >> >  complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >> >  instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >> >  to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >> >  unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> >> >                                 ~  Selected
>

> >> The study and consideration of information structures, their basis
> >> and their context, would be worthwhile. Information theory and physical
> >> engineering are not good enough. Kind of an organizing principle('spiritual')
> >> approach is needed. In this reality, physical structures are needed
> >> to instance information structures, but there is something 'spooky'
> >> going on. For instance the 'human' need for stories. or the
> >> mystery that there is anything at all.
>
> >Actually, that's turned out to be not that much of a mystery after
> >all.  There's something rather than nothing because nothing is
> >inherently unstable.  Hence, something.
>
> "Inherently"?
> What does that mean? Looks like one of your confabulated and
> practiced stories.

From Dictionary.Com:

in·her·ent
[in-heer-uhnt, -her-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable
element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.

Synonyms: innate, native, inbred, ingrained, essential.

Do you get it now? Nothingness is, by its very nature, unstable.
Therefore, something exists.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

On Feb 9, 3:27 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:30567c4d-c1fa-43e2...@jt13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> > On Feb 9, 1:41 am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 23:01:58 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> > "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains
> >> > complex, purposeful, specified information -and-
> >> > instructions, as a metaphysical entity incorporeal
> >> > to the physical medium upon which it is carried..
> >> > unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> >> > ~ Selected
>
> >> The study and consideration of information structures, their basis
> >> and their context, would be worthwhile. Information theory and physical
> >> engineering are not good enough. Kind of an organizing principle('spiritual')
> >> approach is needed. In this reality, physical structures are needed
> >> to instance information structures, but there is something 'spooky'
> >> going on. For instance the 'human' need for stories. or the
> >> mystery that there is anything at all.
>
> > Actually, that's turned out to be not that much of a mystery after
> > all.  There's something rather than nothing because nothing is
> > inherently unstable.  Hence, something.
>

> This is true, only when in the context of, something.

Cite, please?

[jope]

On Feb 12, 4:06 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <db324b52-2374-4c01-973f-3edd70c80...@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

Self evident.Unless you are able to propose otherwise.Can you even
define consciousness?

[Andrew]

"Y" wrote in message news:98a3ea92-abf2-48b8...@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

- Jope wrote:

> The force existed 50 billions years ago,and ended up creating man,
> who has life ,intelligence and consciousness, using the ressources
> available to him .THE FORCE is great.Some people call him GOD.

-
- The Force is not a "him". But you're right, The Force did create man.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and man became a living being."
Genesis 2:7

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<2462ce2c-b6ff-45a8...@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,

It's not self-evident to me; to me its nonsense.

Why is it self-evidence to you?

As for a definition for consciousness, science is at the very beginning
of studying the phenomenon, learning more every day. But the only thing
that's really known at this time is that consciousness is an emergent
property of our physical brain.

[Y]

On Feb 12, 7:08 pm, jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:

> Let's see :the Force gave man consciousness,therefore ,the Force must
> have possessed  consciousness in the first place.

That is simply untrue. Just because some life is conscious, does not
entail that the force which created life is conscious.

> If your accept that the Force is conscious ,then you are talking about
> God.But ,due to the hardness of your heart,you are refusing to accept
> him as God.

I recognise that the force is a deity, by definition. On the other
hand, "the force" is not God, since "God" is male and has a mind.

> "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command,
> so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
> Hebrew 11

Interesting. The bible also describes other aspects of God, which are
not at all similar to the force that is observably responsible for the
universe.

-y

[Y]

On Feb 12, 8:53 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Y" wrote in messagenews:98a3ea92-abf2-48b8...@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

The force certainly coalesces matter into the very special
configurations that is human life. The materials that form human life
mostly do come from the ground. The ground is there because of gravity
(which is one aspect of the force). We are what we eat. Though we
don't eat dirt per se, we eat things that grow from the dirt or eat
other things that eat things that grow from the dirt.

Regarding the breath of life, the force which brought this planet
together arranged the elements in a particular hierarchy. Heavier
elements remained closer to the Earth's core, and lighter elements
float up in the atmosphere. On Earth, oxygen is mostly found above
ground. Helium for example is found in the high parts of the
atmosphere.

I highly doubt that humans were the first organisms to breath. Even
plants have a special way of breathing. We must not forget, that as
life, we are not just related to apes, we are also related to fish,
plants and flowers. Aspects of people even share similar geometries to
flowers. Our eyeballs are round, like some flowers, and remarkably
both of these anatomies are sensitive to light.

One often missed crucial aspect to evolution is the role that the
forces play in shaping and guiding life and it's smaller parts.

The hierarchy of elements and orders throughout the planet and the
universe are shaped by the force.

-y

[chelloveck]

On 2/9/2013 1:01 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "The fact that the digital code in the DNA contains complex,
> purposeful, specified information -and- instructions, as a
> metaphysical entity incorporeal to the physical medium upon which it
> is carried.. unequivocally points to an --> Intelligent Source."
>
> ~ Selected

Natural explanations never replaced a cosmos legislated by God with a
random mess (non-cosmos); it just kept the lawfulness and dropped the
anthropomorphic conception of universal principles as a discrete,
supernatural personhood.

"Intelligence" is itself just a complex version of pattern retention
(molecular in the instance you address, neural grounded in the other).
IOW, the basic requirement for intelligence that makes the rest possible
is likewise "memory" that has become active rather than stagnant or
passive (that is, the latter merely a temporary endurance or storage of
form / pattern found variously in the world, but usually minus any means
to preserve it from change or destruction).

The brained animal concerns a continuing replication of information
patterns to maintain them (this includes the acquired, whatever is not
innate, being duplicated, passed-on socially); and receptivity of and
response to effects of an environment. Sections of pattern (either
"hardware" or software") eventually developing into regulators of other
sections, with accidents or laxity in the latter governance allowing
mistakes or modifications that could result in the appearance of
"creativity". With general characteristics of some of the latter
products eventually being abstracted into a "plan" or "strategy" for
procedurally or "deliberately" engaging in invention (genuine
creativity; full-blown sapience finally achieved).

The most primitive self-replicating molecular pattern possible (barely
capable of just so) is thus itself a primitive example of a
proto-intelligent process. So elemental and crude that its functional
configuration can eventually fall out of countless chemical arrangements
transpiring for billions of years across a universe far vaster than is
even visible by optical telescope, on one of likewise countless planets,
dwarf planets, moons, comets, etc. Probability is the origin here, when
it happens to be accommodated with sufficient territory over a systemic
or rule-abiding time and space.

[Jope]

By accepting the existence of a Force with immeasurable abilities,you
are no longer an atheist;at least as far as logic and reason are
concerned.You need to remove yourself from that list and turn to
God.Ask him to reveal himself to you.If you are sincere,he will answer.

[Jope]

I meant to write:
By accepting the existence of a determining Force with such

immeasurable abilities,you
are no longer an atheist;at least  as far as logic and reason are

concerned.Atheists normally do not bother themselves with the notion
of an ultimate causality.You need to remove yourself from that list

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 01:53:14 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Quoting Genesis shows us that you refuse to learn anything. It is
totally unreliable. You know that.

[Y]

I don't need to turn to a christian God. The Christian God is a lie.

-y

[Y]

On Feb 13, 7:49 am, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I meant to write:
>  By accepting the existence of a determining  Force with such
> immeasurable abilities,you
> are no longer an atheist;at least  as far as logic and reason are
> concerned.Atheists   normally do not bother themselves with the notion
> of an ultimate causality.You need to remove yourself from that list
> and turn to God.Ask him to reveal himself to you.If you are sincere,he
> will answer.

If God exposes himself to me in any form, I will call the police.

-y

[SkyEyes]

Andrew??? Andrew??? <Taps mic> Is this thing on? My goodness,
Andrew got quiet, there, when I asked him to support his assertion.