proving evolution as just a "theory"

[The Times]

What about "evolutionists" who are theists? Who believe that all order is ultimately the creation of God?

Well what about them? Can you possibly shed some light and I will give you my opinion. Thanks.

 

[Speedwell]

Well what about them? Can you possibly shed some light and I will give you my opinion. Thanks.

You can start with the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Christians as well as a large percentage of Protestants. We can leave non-Christian theists until later.

 

[The Times]

You can start with the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Christians as well as a large percentage of Protestants. We can leave non-Christian theists until later.

Non-Christian Atheistic predominantly push the Evolution Theory. It can be said that all Atheists are Evolutionists.

The Christian and non- Christian theists have a different reason altogether for believing in Theistic Evolution, which is in vast contrast to Atheistic Evolutionists.

That being said, it is unfair to group theistic evolutionists with atheistic evolutionists, because one believes in an intelligent designer, whilst the other denies any intelligence.

The Atheistic Evolution is order out of chaos, as in the Latin motto: ORDO AB CHAO.

The debate of this thread is to prove that ORDO AB CHAO is purely speculative and is unable to resolve an unresolvable contradiction, that is, if chance, with chaos brought about order, then why don't we see a vast multitude of embedded algorithmic patterns in matter, the function and movement of matter and the conversion of matter to a lifeform.

What I have come to learn about Evolutionists, is that their primary and secondary discourses are part of an elementary process of deduction. Just like the Flat Earthers, who solely rely on circumstantial evidence such as a land based observor sees the earth flat, therefore the Earth must be flat. So that bits and pieces of Disjointed DATA are used in the concoctions in order to haphazardly stitch together supporting ideas for their narrative.

With reference to my dialogue with @Kylie and by seeing the bits and pieces of disjointed ideas presented in this thread, has made me realise that Evolutionists are doing exactly what the Flat Earthers are doing. By that I mean, they will point to say how sand particulates are ordered and how chaotic silicate melt is layered and all these disjointed data are presented as evidence to support their narrative.

So what is their narrative?

That there is no intelligent designer/Engineer.

Flat Earthers will not make any links between their fragmented ideas and expect people to believe them at their word. Evolutionists respond by saying there is no embedded algorithmic pattern to establish, because order establishes itself out of chaos, arising from pure chance. This is the chance roulette of Evolutionists and you can quite easily discern that the ideas presented are absent of connecting algorithims and they build a closed loop of non connecting ideas to try and push their narrative that there is no intelligent designer.

As an Engineer I have come to understand that whether you are dealing with the field of mechanics, electromagnetics or electrical circuitry, the basic idea from one algorithim connects to other ideas using working out to establish ideas from ideas and this forms the scientific cohesiveness of the field of engineering.

Evolution theory has failed the test, because there are no related embedded algorithms and no interconnected ideas, rather a cacophony of unrelated and disjointed ideas.

We can't consider Evolution Theory as scientific as much as we can't consider Flat Earth Theory as scientific.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Understood.. but maybe that's the actual end of the discussion... not a "dead' end .. but an actual end. Stating that something required no form of creation.. appears to be in my view the most logical conclusion.. If you see the universe as "One".. linking everything together then yes.. It would appear that everything has always been here.. but I think our universe shows signs of age.. so that would in my opinion imply that our universe isn't that thing that wasn't subject to creation..

Great! Then the Universe can be something requiring no form of creation, perhaps it just changed state - therefore it can both be the thing that's eternal AND the thing that shows age - we've just done away with an entire realm of unexplained and unevidenced supposition about an uncreated creator.

Lol.

Perhaps not. Perhaps you would lose your job as a professor, like many have. Just as classic liberalism has been taboo in many colleges since the 1970s, and historical inferences that are in any way pro Western European about any topic, we find that for every epistemic category there are men and women wearing priestly garments proclaiming their right to control "knowledge."

But you received a bunch of "likes" and a "winner" so you must be on to something.

Who lost their job for demonstrating evidence? Also, how many Scientists lost their job when the Universe was found not to be in a steady state after all?

Strange. My friends in departments of theoretical mathematics talk about publishing "Contraversial theories" in mathematics can be career limiting, but you are not granting a research field like evolution is controversial?

Controversial theories in mathematics are a different story to the sciences. Also, evolution is not controversial. Well, not in scientific circles, that is...

Do you think that when the number one molecular evolutionist is fired that doesn't slow people who are researching from publish findings that disconfirm the theory. Follow Eugenie Scott NSF and ask if any grants will be awarded to someone who doesn't support a NeoDarwinian inference?

It doesn't matter what number the molecular evolutionist is, the reason for dismissal could be any number of things, but a well evidenced scientific argument won't be it - see above re: steady state universe.

Having said that, I have come to understand that the Pundits of Evolution Theory are no different to the Pundits of Flat Earther Theory or other conspiracy theories for that matter.

....HAHAHAHAhahahaha!

The Flat Earthers have a conspiracy against NASA and government, whilst the Evolutionist have a conspiracy against the Single Intelligencia.

.............HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha!

Either way, it highlights to me a cognitive dissonance that is being exhibited on the part of Evolutionists, because they dogmatically hold to a 100% conviction in discounting order from an Intelligence source, when facts to the contrary present a single signature pattern like the Fibonacci pattern, that is evidenced throughout all matter from the finite to the infinite.

.....................BAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha!!!!....<cough>

 

[Ophiolite]

Saved by science is your descriptor.

As a general comment not personally directed to you. I like to have a go at interpreting it like....

Saved by chance maybe in case of Evolution Theory?

It may also be saved by Chaos, if that makes sense at all!

None of this post makes any sense to me at all. (Please note the second line of my signature.)

 

[xianghua]

Then you haven't been paying attention.

realy? can you explain sfs evidence? maybe i missed something...

 

[The Times]

None of this post makes any sense to me at all. (Please note the second line of my signature.)

Is that a sincere reply?

 

[The Times]

....HAHAHAHAhahahaha!

Are you alright?

.............HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha!

Are you alright friend?

.....................BAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha!!!!....<cough>

Are you better now, that you let it out?

I mean you well and hope that you realise how futile it is to reject the intellectual property of the single Intelligencia.

Be comforted with my words friend.

 

[Ophiolite]

Is that a sincere reply?

Yes. Very much so. It made no sense to me as part of this discussion. It did not seem to relate in a coherent way to any part of this discussion. Internally the individual sentences did not appear to hang together. I cannot even come up with a couple of alternate interpretations to place before you and ask "which of these, if any, is correct?" Would you please take another stab at stating what you mean?

 

[The Times]

Yes. Very much so. It made no sense to me as part of this discussion. It did not seem to relate in a coherent way to any part of this discussion. Internally the individual sentences did not appear to hang together. I cannot even come up with a couple of alternate interpretations to place before you and ask "which of these, if any, is correct?" Would you please take another stab at stating what you mean?

What is your primary language that you speak.

 

[Ophiolite]

What is your primary language that you speak.

English. Now will you show me the courtesy of having a second attempt at explaining what you meant?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Are you alright?



Are you alright friend?



Are you better now, that you let it out?

I mean you well and hope that you realise how futile it is to reject the intellectual property of the single Intelligencia.

Be comforted with my words friend.

Why, Yes, Thank you for letting me get that out, I haven't had a good laugh at such an epic leg pulling in quite a while. Heck, for a second there I thought you were serious!



btw, what are you comforting me with your words for?

 

[The Times]

English. Now will you show me the courtesy of having a second attempt at explaining what you meant?

Engineering equations are worked out from other engineering equations. Scientifically all engineering equations are interconnected through algorithms that use practical and repeatable solutions to the problem. The laws do not change, though the methodology used varies from research to research.

The essential part of knowing where things come from is not by looking at random phenomena, but rather by looking at the connections they have. Like a unique finger print, the unique path taken is evidence of the workings of the intelligent designer who uses these connections across the board. It is this unique signiture that we look at when we discern the single intelligencia.

Fibonacci pattern is the smoking gun which discloses the single intelligent Creator.

No logical argument can be made to say that the Fibonacci pattern is the only algorithmic path that could have been taken to establish order or that the Fibonacci pattern is the most efficient pattern used to arrive at order. Either way, it invalidates the Evolutionists premise of randomness or chaotic path to the order of life itself. In fact contrary to randomness we observe order from order, as opposed to order from chaos.

The basic framework of life was already designed to be perfect to begin with and allowance for fine tuning embedded within the process (plant). That is why from a wolf to a dog the variability is allowed, only within the constraint of the species. Notwithstanding this reasoning, the Fibonacci DNA pattern remains unchanged as the framework for life.

Now it comes down to the reasoning as...

to say that the Fibonacci pattern is the only algorithmic path that could have been taken to establish order or that the Fibonacci pattern is the most efficient pattern used to arrive at order. Either way, it invalidates the Evolutionists premise of randomness or chaotic path to the order of life itself. In fact contrary to randomness we observe order from order, as opposed to Evolutionists order from chaos.

 

[Ophiolite]

I strongly advise you to actually LEARN about the things you are trying to discredit.

But that would leave us with nothing to do but agree!

 

[USincognito]

Non-Christian Atheistic predominantly push the Evolution Theory. It can be said that all Atheists are Evolutionists.

The Christian and non- Christian theists have a different reason altogether for believing in Theistic Evolution, which is in vast contrast to Atheistic Evolutionists.

That being said, it is unfair to group theistic evolutionists with atheistic evolutionists, because one believes in an intelligent designer, whilst the other denies any intelligence.

The Atheistic Evolution is order out of chaos, as in the Latin motto: ORDO AB CHAO.

The debate of this thread is to prove that ORDO AB CHAO is purely speculative and is unable to resolve an unresolvable contradiction, that is, if chance, with chaos brought about order, then why don't we see a vast multitude of embedded algorithmic patterns in matter, the function and movement of matter and the conversion of matter to a lifeform.

What I have come to learn about Evolutionists, is that their primary and secondary discourses are part of an elementary process of deduction. Just like the Flat Earthers, who solely rely on circumstantial evidence such as a land based observor sees the earth flat, therefore the Earth must be flat. So that bits and pieces of Disjointed DATA are used in the concoctions in order to haphazardly stitch together supporting ideas for their narrative.

With reference to my dialogue with @Kylie and by seeing the bits and pieces of disjointed ideas presented in this thread, has made me realise that Evolutionists are doing exactly what the Flat Earthers are doing. By that I mean, they will point to say how sand particulates are ordered and how chaotic silicate melt is layered and all these disjointed data are presented as evidence to support their narrative.

So what is their narrative?

That there is no intelligent designer/Engineer.

Flat Earthers will not make any links between their fragmented ideas and expect people to believe them at their word. Evolutionists respond by saying there is no embedded algorithmic pattern to establish, because order establishes itself out of chaos, arising from pure chance. This is the chance roulette of Evolutionists and you can quite easily discern that the ideas presented are absent of connecting algorithims and they build a closed loop of non connecting ideas to try and push their narrative that there is no intelligent designer.

As an Engineer I have come to understand that whether you are dealing with the field of mechanics, electromagnetics or electrical circuitry, the basic idea from one algorithim connects to other ideas using working out to establish ideas from ideas and this forms the scientific cohesiveness of the field of engineering.

Evolution theory has failed the test, because there are no related embedded algorithms and no interconnected ideas, rather a cacophony of unrelated and disjointed ideas.

We can't consider Evolution Theory as scientific as much as we can't consider Flat Earth Theory as scientific.

 

[Ophiolite]

Engineering equations are worked out from other engineering equations. Scientifically all engineering equations are interconnected through algorithms that use practical and repeatable solutions to the problem. The laws do not change, though the methodology used varies from research to research.

The essential part of knowing where things come from is not by looking at random phenomena, but rather by looking at the connections they have. Like a unique finger print, the unique path taken is evidence of the workings of the intelligent designer who uses these connections across the board. It is this unique signiture that we look at when we discern the single intelligencia.

Fibonacci pattern is the smoking gun which discloses the single intelligent Creator.

No logical argument can be made to say that the Fibonacci pattern is the only algorithmic path that could have been taken to establish order or that the Fibonacci pattern is the most efficient pattern used to arrive at order. Either way, it invalidates the Evolutionists premise of randomness or chaotic path to the order of life itself. In fact contrary to randomness we observe order from order, as opposed to order from chaos.

The basic framework of life was already designed to be perfect to begin with and allowance for fine tuning embedded within the process (plant). That is why from a wolf to a dog the variability is allowed, only within the constraint of the species. Notwithstanding this reasoning, the Fibonacci DNA pattern remains unchanged as the framework for life.

Now it comes down to the reasoning as...

to say that the Fibonacci pattern is the only algorithmic path that could have been taken to establish order or that the Fibonacci pattern is the most efficient pattern used to arrive at order. Either way, it invalidates the Evolutionists premise of randomness or chaotic path to the order of life itself. In fact contrary to randomness we observe order from order, as opposed to Evolutionists order from chaos.

Earlier you posted this: "Saved by science is your descriptor.

As a general comment not personally directed to you. I like to have a go at interpreting it like....

Saved by chance maybe in case of Evolution Theory?

It may also be saved by Chaos, if that makes sense at all!"

I told you I did not understand what you were trying to say. After two or three requests you finally came up with the lengthy post featured at the top of this one. It appears to be a rephrasing of your basic argument.

I was not asking for a rephrasing of your basic argument. I was asking what the short four line post above meant. Restating your basis argument does not achieve that end.

I have no idea why you introduce, apparently our of nowhere and with no apparent connection to your basic argument the statement "Saved by science is your descriptor."

I don't understand what that statement means. I can make some guesses and none of them appeare relevant to the discussion we are having in this thread.

The subsequent three lines do nothing to clarify your intent.

 

[Kylie]

I did not say that you are not thinking, rather your bias prevents you from looking intuitively to intellegence behind complicated order. Your bias is towards order from chaos and you are unwilling to consider that the complicated path towards order, through consistent and interconnected patterns are authored by intellegencia.

Relying on intuition is a lousy way to determine what is true. Intuition would tell you that weight makes things fall faster. Intuition would tell you that the solution to the Monty Hall problem is 50%.

What are the probabilities anyway?

Why don't you tell me the variables and then we can get started...

To you, it appears 0%. Why?

I wouldn't say that it is 0%. If I am shown good solid evidence, I will be happy to change my position. Unfortunately, no one can give me a sound reason to do so.

No, that is not true!

Then please show me where you have justified your claim that your position that repeating patterns must equal conscious intelligence behind it all.

I am saying that your claim negates intellegence and that you never apply the consistent and repeated paths taken towards order as having an intellegence. This one intelligence has left signiture marks everywhere. I am saying that it is not OK for you to ignore intellegence. You need to atleast consider intellegence in your deductive reasoning, otherwise you appear to me as a religious person holding onto dogma.

I will not ignore intelligence. You, however, don't seem to realise that you have not provided sufficient evidence that there is an intelligence involved.

You see. You sound like a religious person to me!

And what, pray tell, about the phrase, "Evolution does not describe where matter came from," is religious in nature?

Apparently the Evolution theory is solely based on the most inefficient paths, before A PATH is found. Now if there is A Path to Evolution, then why is the signiture fibonnici pattern showing up every, from the finite to the infinite.

Because it's an efficient way of doing things?

Are you claiming that the fibonnici pattern is the most efficient path that could be taken?

Sure, why not?

It's probably more complicated than that, but it will do for basics.

If so, then that flies in the face of evolution theory, because where is the randomness or the multitude of chaotic Paths taken?

I've said many times that evolution is not random.

And don't assume that means there's an intelligence behind it, because there are plenty of ways to get non-random results without having an intelligence do it.

If you cannot find evidence for evolution theory in nature, then it fails to meet evolutionist doctrinal dogma.

Luckily then there's a mountain of evidence. Literally huge amounts of evidence, all supporting evolution.

You see, in Evolution there would be organisms that reach a goal more efficiently in an environment, yet the same organism in time and space may be superseeded by another, which is more efficient. Those organisms have taken different paths to reach order of efficiency in their time, so show us the evidence of embedded algorithmic paths that are numerous and found qualifiably and quantifiably throughout nature?

Sure. Happens all the time. For instance, many of the native animals in Australia, well adapted to fit their environment, but then an introduced species comes in and drives the native animals to the point of extinction.

And easily explainable by evolution.

Please do not tell me that only one efficient embedded algorithm exists across the board and throughout time and space.

You are the one going on about algorithms...

Again, you fail to see that over time the path taken that was efficient then, may not be efficient now.

No, I understand that perfectly. For example, the woolly mammoth, very well adapted, but was unable to cope with changes in its environment and so died out. Or neanderthal man, again, unable to compete with humans when humans spread. Just two out of many cases where an organism that was well adapted to fit its environment died out because it wasn't able to adapt to changes.

This means that another intelligence, like the example of the first and second engineer would establish two paths, one more efficient than the other. As a result two signature patterns exist which inform us of a more than one embedded algorithmic path taken towards the solution/order.

Please tell me how you have discounted all other options. Do you think that getting better and better and better at something is always going to be an improvement?

Why should the eyes of the zebra become so good that they can spot a lion 3 kilometers away? Why should the cheetah evolve so it can run at 100 kilometers an hour? Both of these are overkill. The lion three kilometers away is no threat, so why bother about it? A speed of 100 kph is much faster than any prey animal can run, so a lower speed will add only an insignificant time to the length of pursuit. And the costs of these developments will far outweigh any advantage they confer.

So you presented two intelligence agents, the first and second engineer. Why can you not see that only one single embedded algorithmic path is found in our material universe, that is unaffected by time and space and remains consistent?

But evolution IS affected by time and space. Environments change over time. Animals move throughout space. And they will face new challenges every time they do.

Does this not highlight to you a single intelligencia, or a single Engineer who has used the same path consistently throughout time and space?

You seem to be fixated on this idea, and you also seem to be constantly trying to fit all the evidence into this picture. Don't decide on the conclusion and try to find evidence to support it. That's a bad way of reaching the truth.

Are you saying that only ONE efficient embedded algorithmic path exists?

No, that would be you...

That would dicredit the evolution theory.

But I never said it, did I?

Or are you saying that there is no random and no chaotic paths taken, because there is only one efficient path that could have been taken?

There are many efficient paths. We have fish, we have mammal versions of fish in the form of dolphins. We have bird versions of fish in the form of penguins. We have deer, we have marsupial versions of deer in the form of kangaroos. Nature has developed many ways of filling the same niches in different environments. If there is a living to be made, say, eating grass, then some organism will evolve to fit that niche. And that form may be quite different in different areas of the world, such as the deer and kangaroos I mentioned before.

In this case, evolution theory is done for, because there should not have been millions of millions of misses before a hit.

But evolution doesn't work that way.

You obviously don't actually understand evolution. Why don't you try familiarising yourself with it before dismissing it?

If it took such a long time for an efficient path to order to be realised, then we should see an infinite array of embedded algirithmic paths taken throughout nature. But why is only one path scientifically observable and measurable?

And what path is that?

Because the other inefficient paths taken million of million of years to find in establishing order did NOT exist. Therefore the religion of evolution is busted.

There have been many lines of descent in evolution which have led to extinction because the organisms were not efficient enough at making a living.

On the contrary!

Begging the question is when an assumption is used as one of the premises.

You have made the assumption that there is a creator, you have made the assumption that there is only a single algorithm... Certainly looks like you are begging the question to me!

Yes, there is!

You haven't come close to showing it. All you've done is use your misunderstanding of evolution to say that you don't think it could work. So you are compiling both the argument from incredulity with a strawman.

Because it is truth. You know as the saying goes, "can you handle the truth?".

It's still condescending.

Sometimes truth needs to be delivered with a conviction that may appear to be condescending, but deep down in the heart it is for strengthening and edifying that individual. I guarantee you that you have my utmost respect.

You talk to me about something you do not understand, you dismiss it without understanding it, you tell me that I am guilty of the very thing that you are doing...

You do not seem to be respecting me...

Are you serious! How can you say that?

Because it is truth. You know as the saying goes, "can you handle the truth?".

See? It goes both ways, pal.

Evidence is the consistent embedded algorithmic path found in matter and throughout the universe, that is the Fibonacci signiture.

Is that going to be your one trick pony? Much like AV with his embedded age, or dad with his different past state (speaking of which, haven't seen him around for a while.)

In any case, the Fibonacci sequence is NOT found everywhere in nature.

Fibonacci Flim-Flam.

Are you saying that the Fibonacci path, is the only efficient path to order?

Hmmmmm...........I am waiting for a sincere reply and not a dogmatic one.

Since nature often doesn't even use it (see my link above), obviously not.

If you were to consider the same process over time, would you see the exact same path taken to sift the smaller ones amongst themselves and the larger ones amongst themselves.

No.

I hope that you would say that there would be a multiple paths to the same order. No particulate is the same shape or size and if you look at it microscopically you would find different arrangements amongst the smaller ones, everytime you did the test.

What does this mean?

It means that you failed to exactly replicate the first test, resulting in multiple paths, which would suggest different attempt.

Agreed. I'm glad you agree with me that there are many paths in nature to the most efficient result.

Now when we consider the Fibonacci signiture pattern found in DNA, not only is it the same across the board in all sprectrum of life, but it is consistently reproduced every time new life comes into being.

I've already shown it is not.

Now if you being a very intelligent person is unable to replicate the attempts of obtaining the exact same path taken for the layering of particulates, then how can you discount an intellegencia that does this exactly to the DNA finite matter everytime and without fail?

Are you actually comparing the random movement of a box sorting stones by size to the replication of DNA?

Your example further illustrates that there must exist an intelligence exhibiting the same consistent path over and over again.

Random shaking of box sorts stones by size, therefore God?

REALLY?

If our DNA did not have the Fibonacci pattern consistently every time, then we may or may not be walking and breathing prototypes and that no living entity would exhibit the human that has stayed consistent throughout time and space.

Why do you assume that it must be the result of a creator and not simply an efficient way of doing things, arrived at just as the stones always arrive in their sorted layers - without intelligence?

Do we have a Creator?

I have seen no evidence to suggest that we have a creator. You certainly have not been able to provide any.

Evolution theory is just a religious dogmatic book that is all!

• Evolution is not a book.
• Evolution has no holy text.
• Evolution has no holy people.
• Evolution has no dogma which can never be challenged.
• Evolution has no rites or ceremonies.
• Evolution is not based on faith.

Evolution is not a religion. Although, I once again find it very amusing that you try to make evolution look bad by claiming it is just a religion like your beliefs. If religions are so bad, does that mean your religion is bad as well?

Which further supports intelligencia as described above.

Wow, you really were serious?

Let me spell it out to you:

The sorting of particles by size due to random motion is NOT evidence for intelligence.

You would not be able to sort the same small particulates the same way on every attempt without fail. Every attempt will be different and if this was so with DNA, atomic arrangements and chemical molecule ratios, then every attempt would yield a prototype and that no prototypes are the same in matter.

Wow, you really think it requires every single piece to be in the same exact location?



It will always have the same result in that the smallest pieces will always be at the bottom, the largest pieces will always be at the top, and the other pieces will be sorted through based on their size.

We are talking about Fibonacci pattern found in paths leading to consistently repeated and sustained life.

Oh, you mean like this?

Oh wait! That shell doesn't match the blue lines!

I guess you're wrong!

This is not a sifting through sand grains, but is a configuration and creation of life. You can throw sand in a box all you like, the result is still sand. The Fibonacci pattern is what leads to a consistent and repeated path for the conversion of matter to life and there is a big difference between what I have been discussing and your throwing sand in a box or cereal in a box experiment.

Once again, the Fibonacci spiral is NOT found everywhere, as I have demonstrated several times already in this response.

So when ever you attempted this exercise you would yield a different pattern and a different path. If Fibonacci sequence and ratios found in DNA were infinitesimally changed then you would not yield a human being consistently.

Once again, the ratio could just be an efficient way of doing things that evolution stumbled upon ages ago. You have NOT shown why that is not the solution, you just make the conclusion that it has to be the result of intelligence because you can't conceive of it being any different. In short, argument from incredulity.

This pattern plays a role in the conversion of matter to a lifeform. If you can find over attempts then show us those patterns.

Fraid note.

Now in the Christian Bible it says repeatedly the following......

Everything that God (Intellegencia) made was perfect from the beginning.

Like how that picture of the shell I posted perfectly matches the spiral? Oh wait, it didn't...

If a claim exists like this before humanity was technologically converse then now as a technologically converse society, we have proven that that claim to be scientifically true, because life only shows one efficient embedded algorithmic path for the conversion of matter to life forms.

Yeah. Claiming that a deity made things to be perfect. So technical.

I like your humour!

Well, you seem to have such a jolly for the idea. Are you telling me there's MORE THAN ONE ALGORITHM?

Everything has a path to order and must be scientifically observed and measured, quantifiably and qualifiably.

And evolution does it.

Order comes from intelligence friend, everytime and without fail.

My shaking box full of stones of different sizes always being sorted so that the large ones are on top and the smallest are on the bottom would like to disagree with you.

Whilst you have demonstrated order with the sand particulates, you failed to understand that the conversion of matter to life is not a random and chance phenomena, otherwise everytime an attempt is made, there would be a change in the embedded signiture pattern and in this regard we see no change. One Fibonacci signitured pattern which is seen from the finite to the infinite

My sand analogy does demonstrate that order can come WITHOUT an intelligence making it happen.

God is Perfect.
God is NOT ordered! God IS Order!
God is NOT loving! God IS Love!

Buzzwords. They sound impressive but ultimately mean nothing.

The source is never the action, just like the bulb that transmits light is NOT the action of light itself.

Um, actually you are wrong. Lightbulbs DO actually produce light. They do not just transmit it from some other location.

No two intersections are the same. Yet civil engineers go of engineering drawings of the same copy of the intersection. The final product has different paths, depending on the lead civil engineer.

Yet our DNA make-up has the same Engineer! So go figure.

Once again you are begging the question.

Are you going to deny it and force me to point out that you are assuming there is a creator in order to show there is a creator?

I took time to reply to you. I have only good feedback for you and that is that your heart's conviction will lead you to the truth of the matter, for I have only laid the seed, for you to scrutinise what you have been taught and told.

Yeah, when it comes to finding out the truth of things, I only care about one thing - evidence. If I can't back up my position, then it's just an opinion, not fact.

 

[USincognito]

if you say so. i have not seen any evidence so far.

Of course you haven't.

 

[Kylie]

But that would leave us with nothing to do but agree!

Oh, we can't have that!

 

[USincognito]

I would suggest not using the word "theory" to mean hypothesis, or unproven.

Theory in scientific knowledge means proven via experiment.

Oh great. Yet another person lecturing us who doesn't know what they're talking about. Nothing is ever proven in science nor is there such a thing as scientific proof.

No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”


One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.


Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

Further random mutation destroys information not the other way around.

Fascinating claim. Wrong, but fascinating. Here are four different papers showing that whole genome duplication in a stem agnathan (jawless fish) populaiton and subsequent mutation led to the variety of globin genes found in modern vertebrates.

2005
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314
2007
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/9/1982.short
2011
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/04/molbev.msr207.short
2013
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790312002709