young earthers

[outhouse]

because they assume evolution to be true up front

Its wrong bud, science talyors nothing for evolution, it just so happens it fits perfectly with nature.

geology doesnt deal with evolution nor do they talyor there work to meet evolutions needs.

science is huge but and evolution is only one small part of many many many departments


when NASA sends people into outer space they do not taylor there needs to evolution.

what I would say is what proof do you use to determine YEC?

 

[Man of Faith]

Its wrong bud, science talyors nothing for evolution, it just so happens it fits perfectly with nature.

geology doesnt deal with evolution nor do they talyor there work to meet evolutions needs.

science is huge but and evolution is only one small part of many many many departments


when NASA sends people into outer space they do not taylor there needs to evolution.

what I would say is what proof do you use to determine YEC?

I have positive proof of an intelligent designer, (a creator) But first I want you to answer the question below.

Do you know of any code, as defined by “a rule for converting a piece of information, for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture, into another form or representation, like one sign into another sign, not necessarily of the same type”, that came about naturally without an intelligent designer?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have positive proof of an intelligent designer, (a creator) But first I want you to answer the question below.

Do you know of any code, as defined by “a rule for converting a piece of information, for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture, into another form or representation, like one sign into another sign, not necessarily of the same type”, that came about naturally without an intelligent designer?

There is no known physical law which prevents a code from coming into existence as the result of a stochastic process.
Does the question relate to your proof?

 

[Man of Faith]

There is no known physical law which prevents a code from coming into existence as the result of a stochastic process.

That's not what I asked. Over the billions of years of earth history, can you point to one?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have positive proof of an intelligent designer, (a creator) But first I want you to answer the question below.

Do you know of any code, as defined by “a rule for converting a piece of information, for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture, into another form or representation, like one sign into another sign, not necessarily of the same type”, that came about naturally without an intelligent designer?

Then riddle me this: are you able to provide examples of creationism which are not already explained by evolutionary theory?

 

[Man of Faith]

Then riddle me this: are you able to provide examples of creationism which are not already explained by evolutionary theory?

You are ignoring the question. That seems to be the popular way to keep the ToE alive.

 

[Tristesse]

I have positive proof of an intelligent designer, (a creator) But first I want you to answer the question below.

Do you know of any code, as defined by “a rule for converting a piece of information, for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture, into another form or representation, like one sign into another sign, not necessarily of the same type”, that came about naturally without an intelligent designer?

If you're referring to DNA, it's not a code in the sense that you're making it out to be. A code typically transfers information from one source to another, and thats not what DNA does. However, if you are going to use DNA as your answer, then my answer is pretty simple, DNA is a naturally occurring "code" that does not require an intelligent designer. But I don't agree that DNA is a code in the sense you're portraying it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's not what I asked. Over the billions of years of earth history, can you point to one?

For every code found in nature, there is no evidence of an intelligent designer.

For every code designed by humans and some animals, of course there is an intelligent designer.

 

[Man of Faith]

For every code found in nature, there is no evidence of an intelligent designer.

For every code designed by humans and some animals, of course there is an intelligent designer.

But you cannot point to any code found in nature because there aren't any. Codes are only created by intelligence.

 

[Tristesse]

But you cannot point to any code found in nature because there aren't any. Codes are only created by intelligence.

Ok, codes are only created by intelligence, so what?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But you cannot point to any code found in nature because there aren't any. Codes are only created by intelligence.

If there aren't any codes found in nature (I would consider the communication between bees and also whales to be a type of 'code'), then the question is completely useless to you argument.

.... because all codes that we can identify that have an intelligent designer does not point to God as the designer.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps it would be constructive if Man of Faith clearly defined what he means by "code."

 

[Man of Faith]

Perhaps it would be constructive if Man of Faith clearly defined what he means by "code."

“a rule for converting a piece of information, for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture, into another form or representation, like one sign into another sign, not necessarily of the same type”,

 

[Tristesse]

“a rule for converting a piece of information, for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture, into another form or representation, like one sign into another sign, not necessarily of the same type”,

Instead of being coy, why don't you just state your argument of what you think humans have as a code, and I can tell you why you're wrong.

 

[Man of Faith]

Instead of being coy, why don't you just state your argument of what you think humans have as a code, and I can tell you why you're wrong.

Well I want to wait on outhouse so I can show him the evidence he asked for, or she, sorry.

 

[Revoltingest]

that's not what i asked. Over the billions of years of earth history, can you point to one?

dna....

 

[Tristesse]

Well I want to wait on outhouse so I can show him the evidence he asked for, or she, sorry.

Just say it. You think DNA is a code, and you are fractally wrong. I'll explain why you're wrong when you state your case.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

dna....

Dude, he's asking a stupid question.

 

[NeverGotBetter]

Well I want to wait on outhouse so I can show him the evidence he asked for, or she, sorry.

Once outhouse comes on and you give whatever the apparent evidence is, others are going to comment on what you're posted anyway, you're going to respond to those comments and so save time by posting it. It's obvious you're beating around the bush for DNA, which is made by nature, there's evidence for that but you stated a code is made only by intelligence. Whatever the argument or evidence is, it's based on this faulty assumption so it's going to be false anyway. Unless... you're not referring to DNA :run:

Also, when you gave the definition of "code", why didn't the definition state it was made by an intelligent designer?

 

[Revoltingest]

Dude, he's asking a stupid question.

And I gave'm a straight answer...the only one I could think of.