Originally posted by dj2becker
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

You said

If Starman had just used a random amount of Alphabetical letters there would have been no intelligence contained in his post. But the fact that the Alphabetical letters posted by Starman were arranged into words that have meaning clearly shows that they contain more intelligence than they would have had Starman simply posted gibberish.

Do you believe internet posts contain "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge"? What does it mean to "contain" this capacity?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say that the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge evolved from something that did not have the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge?

I believe so; it may depend on how you define knowledge.

Originally posted by dj2becker
That was my human definition of intelligence. God is not human thus the you cannot attribute human intelligence to Him. God is the greater source of intelligence.

Does God have intelligence or not? Can God acquire knowledge? If he's omniscient, then he cannot acquire knowledge, and therefore has no intelligence.

If you disagree with this, then you are being totally illogical.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Can you please define information? You're changing the subject.

"Information is something different from matter. It can never be reduced to matter. The origin of information and physical matter must be investigated separately."
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/dna/dnamiracle3.php

Originally posted by dj2becker
"Information is something different from matter. It can never be reduced to matter. The origin of information and physical matter must be investigated separately."
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/dna/dnamiracle3.php

So I know what information is not, what it cannot be reduced to, and how one cannot investigate it's origin. That's not a definition.

What objective criteria can we use to determine if the amount of information has increased or decreased in DNA? We need this clarified if you want your claim that "information cannot increase without intelligent intervention" to mean anything whatsoever.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You said

[b]If Starman had just used a random amount of Alphabetical letters there would have been no intelligence contained in his post. But the fact that the Alphabetical letters posted by Starman were arranged into words that have meaning clearly shows that they contain more intelligence than they would have had Starman simply posted gibberish.[ ...[text shortened]... "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge"? What does it mean to "contain" this capacity?

That is only the dictionary deffinition. It cannot be used in all cases.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Does God have intelligence or not? Can God acquire knowledge? If he's omniscient, then he cannot acquire knowledge, and therefore has no intelligence.

If you disagree with this, then you are being totally illogical.

That was my human definition of intelligence. God is not human thus the you cannot attribute human intelligence to Him. God is the greater source of intelligence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
That is only the dictionary deffinition. It cannot be used in all cases...That was my human definition of intelligence. God is not human thus the you cannot attribute human intelligence to Him. God is the greater source of intelligence.

All right. Can you define the word 'intelligence' for me please? Apparently you didn't get it right the first time.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
All right. Can you define the word 'intelligence' for me please? Apparently you didn't get it right the first time.

I would say that "intelligence" is the capability of portraying thought and reason in a stuctured and logical manner.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you wish to have tangible evidence of something intangible?

Rephrasing what I asked before, there needs to exist exchange particles for any forces god used to create the universe with.

Predicting the properties of these particles is probably the only way you can apply the scientific method to your hypothesis that god created the universe or if anything even could create the universe.
The next available gauge symmetry is SU(4) with 15 exchange particles , SU(5) has 24 SU(N) has N^N-1 ( using the ^ to denote 'raised to the power of' )

I hope that gives you some idea to the problems associated with developing a Grand Unification Theory. because you not only need to predict the exchange particles to raise your hypothesis to the degree of certainty that is required for it to become a Theory : you also have to find them.

A daunting task I might add.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Rephrasing what I asked before, there needs to exist exchange particles for any forces god used to create the universe with.

Predicting the properties of these particles is probably the only way you can apply the scientific method to your hypothesis that god created the universe or if anything even could create ...[text shortened]... become a Theory : you also have to find them.

A daunting task I might add.

Rephrasing what I asked before, there needs to exist exchange particles for any forces god used to create the universe with.

So these forces are not required for evolution to create the universe?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Rephrasing what I asked before, there needs to exist exchange particles for any forces god used to create the universe with.

So these forces are not required for evolution to create the universe?
[/b]

No they arent because the interactions of them instantiates the things that produce them. So they are entirely contained in 4-space .

You are talking about at least 5-space .. and that needs extra dimensional forces and the associated Bosons

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Rephrasing what I asked before, there needs to exist exchange particles for any forces god used to create the universe with.

So these forces are not required for evolution to create the universe?
[/b]

Evolution is not a scientific theory that has anything to do with the "creation" of the universe (assuming it was created) so your question really makes no sense.

Originally posted by dj2becker
What do you think caused the new information? Do you believe that mutations can cause new information?

According to Dr Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book:

‘All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level ...[text shortened]... ion and not to increase it.'

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp

WARNING - THIS POST CONTAINS MATERIAL PASTED FROM ANOTHER WEBSITE. IT CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL WORK OF HENRY MAUSTRAUSER.

Your highly qualified scientist is a creationist through and through who fails to keep his religious bias out of his research, as the following extract explains:



Not by Chance. Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution[1], Dr. Lee M. Spetner offers its readers interesting pieces of information from molecular biology and adjacent fields of science. Unfortunately, rather than limit his discourse to scientific arguments, Spetner's book contains passages which introduce the extraneous question of the compatibility of science with religious dogma.


Spetner introduces the above mentioned question at the very beginning of his book. In thePreface (page ix) Spetner writes: "...I met the evolutionary theory in a serious way, and I found it hard to believe. It clashed not only with my religious views, but also with my intuition about how the information in living organisms could have developed."


This is a damning admission for a scientist. The latter is supposed to base his/her views only on facts established via a verifiable and reproducible procedure of an unbiased exploration. Religious views (i.e. beliefs) to which every scientist is, of course, fully entitled, are supposed to be kept aside from his/her scientific search for truth. As to intuition (often alternatively referred to as common sense) it has its legitimate place in research, but the problem with it is that it often leads different people into different directions, and as often as not leads nowhere. (I have described elsewhere situations where relying on common sense, i.e. on intuition, would lead to disaster – e.g. in the case of orbital flights [2].)


It can be assumed from the above passage that the motivation behind Spetner’s effort had been his desire to reconcile his religious beliefs with scientific evidence. In other words, Spetner seems to have had an agenda rooted in his religious beliefs, i.e., beyond the boundaries of science. A non-scientific agenda chosen a priori is something a scientist is supposed to avoid (although I am not trying to assert that scientists always succeed in completely avoiding ideological presuppositions).

From: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner.cfm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Evolution is not a scientific theory that has anything to do with the "creation" of the universe (assuming it was created) so your question really makes no sense.

Can anything come into being without being 'created' ?