My tastes can run very eclectic, but I favor hard, guitar oriented rock.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Mysterious Alien Tablet
- Thread starter Patriottechsan
- Start date
Creation scientists are not studying or reporting on science when they report on creationism. They are very closed-minded about this and have no evidence that a creator exists, let alone that the actions of a creator were required in anything that is studied by science. Creationism is a belief system. It is not science. There is probably little or no scientific value to anything that is published in the periodical you linked. It is not even a recognized scientific publication. It is a religious publication.
siti
Well-Known Member
I read it OK and I agree with one part where it says:
"Our alien language analogy is only a dim reflection..." - their science might not be up to much, but their language skills are pretty much on the money - "dim" is absolutely, unquestionably and entirely indubitably the right word.
"Our alien language analogy is only a dim reflection..." - their science might not be up to much, but their language skills are pretty much on the money - "dim" is absolutely, unquestionably and entirely indubitably the right word.
Patriottechsan
Member
Ok so here's the deal. You're trying to tell or sell me on the idea or concept that language, be it written, oral, sign etc shows no sign of Intelligence & just comes about w/o any Intelligence involved. That's what evolution sells.
So go ahead & make your pitch & sell me on the idea, concept that communication between people, things ie computers etc don't need intelligence.
As a computer any of you give me your best shot. As a linguist give me your best shot. As a deaf person give me your best shot. I don't care who or what you do.
You show me & convince me communication can be done w/o INTELLIGENCE being involved.
I can hardly wait to see these. Now I have to go take my computer & put in the shop & go out to eat with my wife. I really thank God that we all will have intelligence so we can communicate with understanding.
Now sell me how intelligence was never ever needed for any of this or these things. They just evolved per evolution.
Have a good evening.
So go ahead & make your pitch & sell me on the idea, concept that communication between people, things ie computers etc don't need intelligence.
As a computer any of you give me your best shot. As a linguist give me your best shot. As a deaf person give me your best shot. I don't care who or what you do.
You show me & convince me communication can be done w/o INTELLIGENCE being involved.
I can hardly wait to see these. Now I have to go take my computer & put in the shop & go out to eat with my wife. I really thank God that we all will have intelligence so we can communicate with understanding.
Now sell me how intelligence was never ever needed for any of this or these things. They just evolved per evolution.
Have a good evening.
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - I want to be a tree - is that OK? And my answer is volatile organic compounds (VOCs). That's how I communicate with my neighbours - by releasing volatile organic compounds when my leaves and branches are cut or damaged - so I can let neighbouring trees know that I am being attacked - perhaps by a herbivorous animal - and then they can start to produce other chemicals that taste bad or are toxic to defend themselves...I have no brain, no central nervous system, nothing that remotely resembles human intelligence...and yet I can communicate.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Just because you aren't capable of imagining how DNA came about without a creator does not mean that you get to insert your unverified creator god into the equation and try to claim that it's evidence. God is NEVER a satisfactory answer to a mystery. Answering a mystery with an even larger mystery is an exercise in futility.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
".Hi, I'm one of the authors of the papers being discussed here (thanks for pointing out this discussion, Simone). Saying right off: I am not going to make war and press on changing anything in the wiki-article. I'll appreciate if the wiki-editors here will take my note into account; but if not - well, I can live with that, From the discussion here I see that the point is not whether our papers are ID or not (they are not; if that matters - I share entirely naturalistic worldview). Rather, the point is whether they are numerology or not. As I guess, this is a short way of saying that the data we described might be just the result of our arbitrary "juggling" until we found some "desired patterns". In our recent paper (mentioned here by the user Andy Shepp) we devote a good chunk of text to discussing this very point, so here I'll instead make a comparison between our study and the Bible Code (the comparison brought about by PZ Myers, I suppose). First - there is no any scientific hypothesis behind the Bible code (at least none that I've heard of. God? That's not a hypothesis, since the notion of God is notoriously ill-defined. Without such restriction, you are free to choose/invent any method you like for data analysis. In our case, we have the working hypothesis (that of Sagan and Crick & Orgel), and we attempt to develop analysis methodology appropriate for that hypothesis - the condition which greatly restricts the options (in particular, we are trying to follow similar basic logic that was used to construct Earth-made messages such as the Arecibo message, etc.). Second - the analogy with the Bible code is irrelevant simply from statistical standpoint. In one case the data (Bible) is millions of letters long - what a scope for opportunities. In another case, the data (genetic code) is only a few hundred bits. Next, the Bible is but one of many books ever written, while the genetic code is unique (with several minor variations). The Bible is written with a writing system which is itself completely arbitrary and is but one of many existing writing systems; in contrast, in our approach we do not rely in any way on arbitrary cultural codes, relying instead on the language of abstract logic and mathematics (yes, I know not everyone agrees that even mathematics might be useful for communication with another intelligent species; still, if you attempt to do that, first of all you'll most probalby resort to logic/mathematics, not Hebrew, right?). ----------- Of course, I by no means imply that our data unambiguously supports the hypothesis of Crick & Orgel. My point is that the data favors this hypothesis to the extent which makes it unreasonable to dismiss it as numerology just like the Bible code. As typically happens in such situations, the problem is that it is difficult to find an objective criterion for judging opinions and biases." - Maxim Makukov
Reference: Wikipedia Talk Panspermia Talk
anspermia - Wikipedia
That pretty much sums me up too.
I need to know what you consider intelligent before I can answer. Would a termite be considered intelligent?
I have learned that I should be careful about playing some of it while driving. It can be a little too liberating.
Evolution does not say that language came about without any intelligence involved. Where do you come up with these idiotic notions?
The fact that humans are intelligent and developed and use language is not evidence that DNA was designed. Not that this fact will stop you from all your logical fallacies and beliefs without basis.
I have to remember who we are talking to here, because there is another poster that thinks that bird nests, beaver dams and other animal constructions are the result of scientific research carried out by these animals.
The termite is an excellent example of an organism that does not possess anything remotely like human intelligence, but successfully builds and air conditions large and elaborate cities.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Don't bother. Even if we can't read that prticular article, I'm sure most of us have read a few other articles from CreationMagazine.com
There is nothing new here. It is just the same old GodDidIt stories rehashed ad nauseam.
A group of 33 scientists and authors, who've authored the journal article "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic" published in the March issue of the scientific peer-reviewed journal "Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, suggests octopuses are likely of extraterrestrial origin. Their conclusion that octopuses likely have an extraterrestrial origin is reached in part on the basis of the octopuses' particular ability to routinely edit their RNA sequences for adapting to their environment.
These 33 scientists and authors seem to make a compelling case for the extraterrestrial origin of octopuses when they point out that "The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral nautilus to the common cuttlefish to squid to the common octopus can’t be found in any pre-existing life form." A plausible reason for this is given as “It is plausible then to suggest they [octopuses] seem to be borrowed from a far distant ‘future’ in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large.
The authors do make a valid point in support of their conclusion when they point out the " data on the somatic RNA diversification mechanisms in the behaviourally sophisticated Cephalopods such as Octopus. These data demonstrate extensive evolutionary conserved adenosine to inosine(A-to-I) mRNA editing sites in almost every single protein-coding gene in the behaviorally complex coleoid Cephalopods (Octopus in particular), but not in nautilus (Liscovitch-Brauer et al., 2017) ( Reference: Liscovitch-Brauer, et al.Trade-off between transcriptome plasticity and genome evolution in cephalopods Cell, 169 (2017), pp. 191-202)
This enormous qualitative difference in Cephalopod protein recoding A-to-I mRNA editing compared to nautilus and other invertebrate and vertebrate animals is striking. Thus in transcriptome-wide screens only 1–3% of Drosophila and human protein coding mRNAs harbour an A-to-I recoding site; and there only about 25 human mRNA messages which contain a conserved A-to-I recoding site across mammals. In Drosophila lineages there are about 65 conserved A-sites in protein coding genes and only a few identified in C. elegans which support the hypothesis that A-to-I RNA editing recoding is mostly either neutral, detrimental, or rarely adaptive (reviewed in Liscovitch-Brauer et al., 2017). (Reference: (Reference: Liscovitch-Brauer, et al.Trade-off between transcriptome plasticity and genome evolution in cephalopods Cell, 169 (2017), pp. 191-202) Yet in Squid and particularly Octopus it is the norm, with almost every protein coding gene having an evolutionary conserved A-to-I mRNA editing site, resulting in a nonsynonymous amino acid change (Liscovitch-Brauer et al., 2017). (Reference: Liscovitch-Brauer, et al. Trade-off between transcriptome plasticity and genome evolution in cephalopods Cell, 169 (2017), pp. 191-202) This is a virtual qualitative jump in molecular genetic strategy in a supposed smooth and incremental evolutionary lineage - a type of sudden “great leap forward”. Unless all the new genes expressed in the squid/octopus lineages arose from simple mutations of existing genes in either the squid or in other organisms sharing the same habitat, there is surely no way by which this large qualitative transition in A-to-I mRNA editing can be explained by conventional neo-Darwinian processes, even if horizontal gene transfer is allowed. " One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth. ...''
Funny you should mention that, I was driving to a small town about 40 minutes away this morning to get some fresh fish from the co-op and AC/DC Highway to Hell came on the radio, I turned the volume up and my foot got a bit heavy, I was catching the car in front at a rapid rate when a highway patrol came around the corner up in front, after he went past I looked in the mirror and saw his brake lights come on and then he turned around. I thought I was gone but he passed me and pulled over the car in front. Either the car in front was speeding too and the radar locked on it first or the cop got the wrong car. I felt a little guilty but kept on driving lol
It will be interesting if he declares termites to be intelligent. That's if he even acknowledges the post at all, which is doubtful.
AC/DC is exactly the kind of music I was thinking about. I have be alert when driving while that plays.
I was following another car once, years ago, and we were doing about 90 in a 55 mph zone. A highway patrolman pulled us both over. He asked me if I knew how fast I was going and I told him that I didn't know. He obviously only had the other car on the radar and was hoping I would confess something. I kept quiet. The woman in the car I was following got a ticket and I was just sent on my way. I felt a little guilt, but not enough to take a ticket for 35 mph over the limit.
Given his record, odds are he will ignore it.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
I read the article then I read the sources supporting your article. As usual all of its sources are from ID websites except for one. - Zinn K. 2007. Dscam and neuronal uniqueness. Cell. pages 455-6. Unfortunately for you this actual research does not support what your article claims. This is just another example of the desperate attempt of the intelligent design supporters to misuse research and information. To think it starts of with Bill Gates of Microsoft (No there is an expert in evolution).
If the information does not support you belief then you can insult, repeat the same claim over and over, and continue to make bold incorrect statements as if you say them enough they must be true.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
100% false. If you had actual evidence in support of Creationism?
You would have posted it decades ago... and Charles Darwin wouldn't even be a footnote in history, as the overwhelming evidence for creationism would have eclipsed his work.
That didn't happen-- because there is no evidence in support of creationism-- none.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
No. That is absolutely false. Straw Man. Go study *real* evolution. Not that claptrap you are trying to sell.
Bees. They communicate quite well. They can communicate actual location of flowers, etc. But are, really, not intelligent. No more intelligent than a hand calculator.
Plants. Nobody but nobody seriously believe plants are intelligent. But. They most certainly do communicate between one another!
A large body of study, with respect to plants, and how they communicate with each other-- one of the most interesting? Large forests-- trees, even different species -- are interlinked via fungus organisms living in their roots -- and trees will communicate various things to the other trees in the forest. It's pretty amazing. But no intelligence of any sort.
That's two, just off the top of my head.
But wait! There is one more: Creationists. They clearly communicate with each other using complex language.
However, when closely examined? No detectable intelligence can be observed...
Game.
Set.
Match.