Compatible Senders and Receivers

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 16.   Compatible Senders and Receivers

So then let's say evolution is nature's designer. Doesn't mean that evolution has to be intelligent.

Evolutionism does not apply to everything such as humans but there are many instances when it is true though

__________________
Alchohol = The devil's elixir while MJ = God's herb; It all makes sense
Always strive "to know, and to search; and to seek out wisdom, and the reasonableness of things." Ecclesiastes 7:25

So given that my CNS has cannabinoid receptors that means that the creator intended for me to be high all the time.

__________________
Still today, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look west, and with the right kind of eyes you can just make out the high water mark, that place where the wave finally broke, and rolled back.

- Hunter S. Tompson

Haven't you ever heard of self-organizing systems? Complex organizations of what you've called "senders and receivers" that crystallize into shape without foresight or planning.

Only intelligence recognizes codes, programs and information as codes, programs and information.

Even if every single thing you said in your post was proven true, which I really don't believe, this one line, I am absolutely sure, is not proven or even able to be proven.

__________________
"I smoke a lot of pot"

We are all just physical manifestations of electricity signals.

We are the physical result of interacting psychokinetic signals.
At least thats how i see it.

__________________
Still today, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look west, and with the right kind of eyes you can just make out the high water mark, that place where the wave finally broke, and rolled back.

- Hunter S. Tompson

The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.

What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1

When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease.

Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a. “... the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).” Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 17.   Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 

Another religion versus evolution argument that neither side can ever prove beyond all doubt.

__________________
Fate decides who walks into your life, you decide who you let stay, who you let walk away, and who you refuse to let walk out.

The same old wall that religious folks and scientific thinkers run into...

Infinity indeed can be crossed. There are shortcuts through infinity, everywhere. Time is only a mind barrier, an illusion. At least in my opinion. What is all this talk of impossibilities? Any/every thing is possible, it just takes the right perspective.

"Anything is possible
Believe in a wish and it'll come true

Everything is delightful
There's nothing frightful
In a piece of the world where we make our own rules"

Here we go again.... This post is so ill-informed I could cry.

Why do Creationists sorry, ID supporters keep copying and pasting rubbish that they don't even understand themselves?

This is a science forum, for - well y'know - Science.

Read all about the Transition you claim never happened...

"Although Archaeopteryx is by far the best-known of the transitional fossils, it is not the only one, or even the best. The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished. It is not, therefore, surprising that the creationists do not talk much about the reptile-mammal series, and when they do, most of what they say is demonstrably untrue."

Read the whole thing:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...7/therapsd.htm

__________________
Minds are like parachutes, they both work best when open.

Thomas R. Dewar

I don't know about that! to be honest, pretty much everything this guy posted was Horseshit and readily disproven tbh.

The thing is, like most of the ID crowd he doesn't even understand what he's copy-pasting. That's what makes these arguments so bloody annoying.

Once you start to get somewhere they go and get themselves banned or just vanish once you prove everything they said/posted is toss.

__________________
Minds are like parachutes, they both work best when open.

Thomas R. Dewar

Can you prove either beyond any doubt ?
I would be interested to see anyone try.
The man who thinks he has found the truth will seek no further.

__________________
Fate decides who walks into your life, you decide who you let stay, who you let walk away, and who you refuse to let walk out.

I can prove everything this guy posted is pseudo-science and not true - so, erm - YES!

in fact it looks like posted the same crap here:
Science Disproves Evolution - sci.physics | Google Groups

and was rightly WTFPWNED

__________________
Minds are like parachutes, they both work best when open.

Thomas R. Dewar

Disproving anothers theory does not prove your own.

__________________
Fate decides who walks into your life, you decide who you let stay, who you let walk away, and who you refuse to let walk out.

Which is EXACTLY what he was trying to do.

I'm not trying to disprove his theory - he doesn't have one, he's just attacking evolution and doing a poor job to boot.

__________________
Minds are like parachutes, they both work best when open.

Thomas R. Dewar

You're kind of missing the point.
I asked "can you prove the theory of evolution beyond doubt" ?
You claimed that by disproving his theory you were proving your own.

__________________
Fate decides who walks into your life, you decide who you let stay, who you let walk away, and who you refuse to let walk out.

I'm having a similar discussion in politics.

I personally don't believe in creationism but I don't deny the possibility. People are either going to be open minded and say "it may be possible" or staunchly say no that it's wrong.

meh, really when it comes down to it no one with all certainty can prove 100% that either side is right.

It just so happens though that science is winning the battle.

__________________
DISCLAIMER: I do not know how to grow/cultivate cannabis. All posts made by me are fictitious in the form of role playing a cannabis cultivator.

The act of role playing is acting out a story/game. In this case I am participating in a Role playing game, or an RPG, of Cannabis growers.

None of this is Real and I reitterate I have no expierence with growing or using cannabis.

Check out my New and Improved Grow Log!!!

Check out my Mothering Log!!!

No I'm not missing the point, carefully read my posts - at no point did I say disproving ID proved evolution. I said everything he copy-pasted was inaccurate or lies and easily proved false. He is making claims with no basis in fact.

There are mountains of evidence but unfortunately you usually need to study Biology or even have a degree in Genetics to fully comprehend all of it - the ID crowd utilise this situation rather well by spewing pseudo science that the average person can't distinguish from real science.

This isn't just semantics either, creationists lie, deceive and distort - and they do it a lot.

Evolution is a scientific theory - it is falsifiable, makes predictions, and yes I can happily prove it to be true - beyond doubt. Where would you like me to start? Microevolution or Macroevolution? Transitional fossils or Endogenous retroviruses?

Non scientists arguing about science is a recipe for disaster

__________________
Minds are like parachutes, they both work best when open.

Thomas R. Dewar

You presume far too much Delta.
Your so called proof is simply an understanding limited by what we think we know. The beauty of any knowledge is that it can expand our understanding of something and in many cases it can destroy our preconceptions.
Science has not got all the answers .

If we start believing we have all the answers we stop asking questions , only by questioning everything will we ever truly grow and learn , take nothing for granted and never accept anything at face value.

__________________
Fate decides who walks into your life, you decide who you let stay, who you let walk away, and who you refuse to let walk out.

You are now missing the point my friend.

I'm not presuming anything and to be frank your response is insulting and it makes it obvious you don't understand the theory and are not equipped to discuss it beyond your own opinion of science and knowledge as a whole.

I haven't stopped asking questions - but I have actually studied evolution (along with Genetics and Microbiology). If I had a better idea of how everything works I would have won a Nobel prize by now. Scientists would fall over themselves to prove a theory wrong - that's sort of the whole point of science.

Its the ID / Creationists who have stopped asking questions - go figure.

Evolution is a well understood mechanism - it is beyond doubt. Science does actually have all the answers here. Everything in biology has confirmed this - nothing has disputed it. I really thing we are arguing Apples and Oranges here as I suspect your point is more a philosophical approach to human understanding rather than you diagreeing specifically with the theory of evolution - which would be a fallacy.

__________________
Minds are like parachutes, they both work best when open.

Thomas R. Dewar