My claim is that Materialism as described in this thread and as dutifully demonstrated by Snare and Racket is sociopathic in nature.
Posts by Perry
-
154Who Made The Code?
by Perry ina few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
-
-
-
154
Who Made The Code?
by Perry ina few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
-
-
Perry
Snare and Racket you have some similarities with sociopathy.
10 signs for spotting a sociopath
#1) Sociopaths are charming. Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following just because people want to be around them. They have a "glow" about them that attracts people who typically seek guidance or direction. They often appear to be sexy or have a strong sexual attraction.
See avatar
#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people . They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn't do. They are unbound by normal social contracts. Their behavior often seems irrational or extremely risky.See avatar and references to vulgarity and bestaility
#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others. This is why you will find many very "successful" sociopaths in high levels of government, in any nation.You are not ashamed of your absurdity
#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. They wildly exaggerate things to the point of absurdity, but when they describe it to you in a storytelling format, for some reason it sounds believable at the time.#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.
If you don't believe God exists why waste your time on threads such as this when you don't accept the premise and declare all scientists that do recognize the DNA code, as wrong and your far less plausible absurdity right?
#6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them. Their high IQs often makes them dangerous. This is why many of the best-known serial killers who successfully evaded law enforcement were sociopaths.You are no doubt very intelligent, when it suits your purposes.
#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving. They may feign love or compassion in order to get what they want, but they don't actually FEEL love in the way that you or I do.
#8) Sociopaths speak poetically . They are master wordsmiths, able to deliver a running "stream of consciousness" monologue that is both intriguing and hypnotic. They are expert storytellers and even poets. As a great example of this in action, watch this interview of Charles Manson on YouTube .
#9) Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.You are very good at attacking the messenger(s) and not the root of this discussion.
#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it! Charles Manson, the sociopathic murderer, is famous for saying, "I've never killed anyone! I don't need to kill anyone! I THINK it! I have it HERE! (Pointing to his temple.) I don't need to live in this physical realm..."I think this is your defining characteristic. Against all possible claims to sanity: You simply declare DNA is not a coding language, and you believe it so. It is truth for you.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html##ixzz2rAO4V4bA -
154
Who Made The Code?
by Perry ina few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
-
-
Perry
This is the problem that Snare and Racket has locked his brain up so tightly with ideological non-sense that it no longer functions properly:
How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old -- and there are fewer than 10 to the 18thPower seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! In other words, probabilities greatly favor those that believe an intelligent designer was responsible for originating even the simplest DNA molecules.
But never mind this problem, SnR has a priori - that forces acceptance of absurdity.
A few quotes:
Chemist Dr. Grebe: "That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code."
Researcher and mathematician I.L Cohen: "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear....Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution vs the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."
Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."
Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeng 747 from the materials therein."
Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no know n physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.
Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.
Dr Wilder-Smith is an honored scientist who is certainly well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What is his considered opinion as to the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal? "...an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA...is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information." " As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell. There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed it in a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice -- so that the cell builds itself from the information..."
-
154
Who Made The Code?
by Perry ina few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
-
-
Perry
you have called them liars for 6 pages....
That's hilarious I've quoted science sources from the beginning, and simply asked a question; one that you didn't like. The reality is that YOU ARE THE ONE that has in effect called far more educated people than yourself LIARS simply becasuse they observed a DNA CODE and called it such...that was their only crime that unleashed your disdainful condemnation.
To call this a code, is to misunderstand what just happened ! WE MADE THE CODE to differentiate things we observed....It doesn't mean it is a code laid down by someone!
Here you state that Codes, specifically referring to the DNA which virtually all scientists refer to as a code language EXCEPT YOU, only exists when someone observes it. You have referred to your own education as an appeal to authority. Yet, far more educated scientists disagree with YOU.
That assumption is based on out human perception that CODES and LANGUAGE are made by someone.
But, here because of the limiting nature of language, you are forced to assume that codes and language do in fact exist.... but only in the perception of someone. We can test that.
Can you name a code or language that is known to exist without anyone observing it? You'll get that one around 3am in the morning.
Here's another of your quotes about scientists who believe in a First Cause.
They can do science all day and go home and make love to Donkey's, the data they collate in the day still stands, and I for one will say no to El'Burro! ...Despite this it means jack shit to me.
Snare and Racket, in light of such filth, it is obvious that people, scientists, posters who are not like you are meaningless to you, especially if they ask questions that you feel with your superior world-view shouldn't be asking. If you talked like this in public face to face with real people, they would slap your face silly for speaking so sociopathic. But really when you are so deeply held captive to a concept, and proud of it, how could you not exibit forms of sociopathy like you do here?
Remember, this is your ideology - Materialism (that you so far haven't denied)
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories , because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. "- description by Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist
Forced to believe the absurd and proud of it.
-
154
Who Made The Code?
by Perry ina few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
-
-
Perry
Snare and Racket,
Were you aware that your mind-limiting materialist views are a minority among scientists? About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey by sociologists from Rice University.
Great Scientists who believed in God are manifold: Here's a partial list of some Noble Laureates just in the past hundred years:
PART I. Nobel Scientists (20-21 Century) Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist) Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?) Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?) Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?) Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?) PART II. Nobel Writers (20-21 Century) T.S. Eliot Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglo-Catholic (Anglican) Rudyard Kipling Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican Alexander Solzhenitsyn Nobel Laureate in Literature Russian Orthodox François Mauriac Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic Hermann Hesse Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian; Buddhist? Winston Churchill Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican Jean-Paul Sartre Nobel Laureate in Literature Lutheran; Freudian; Marxist; atheist; Messianic Jew Sigrid Undset Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic (previously Lutheran) Rabindranath Tagore Nobel Laureate in Literature Hindu Rudolf Eucken Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian (denomination?) Isaac Singer Nobel Laureate in Literature Jewish This is not to mention some of the greatest minds ever seen in previous centuries like Newton, Kepler, Bacon, Galelio etc. ; who were Christians.
Remember what Professor Lewontin has stated about Materialism.... statements which you do not deny but seem to welcome.
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes" ... materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Surely to any lover of freedom, phrases like "Forced" and "materialism is an absolute" are enemies to free-minds and free thought . The notion that keeps being repeated among comitted materialists is that only they are responsible for science; this is proved false by FACTS. The opposite is true, an assumption of a superior intellect drives many scientists to look for patterns, logic, and systems inherent in creation, which they indeed find.
You are certainly welcome to your own views, but they are in the MINORITY among the educated, as well as compared to the world's population in general.
-
92
NASA Identifies The Hand of God
by Perry init even has what looks like blood flowing from a palm wound.
article.
world-renowned astrophysicist robert jastrow, founding director of nasas goddard institute for space studies, explains the fear of faith many of todays scientists experience.. there is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause; [but] there is no first cause.
-
-
Perry
That statement seems a bit....paranoid
-
154
Who Made The Code?
by Perry ina few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
-
-
Perry
Cofty and Snare/Racket are cell-mates
-
154
Who Made The Code?
by Perry ina few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
-
-
Perry
Snare / Rackets' claims about the dna code not really being a code, and the information storage capacity just giving the appearance of such is marginalized by statements by many within his own camp:
Leading atheist Richard Dawkins himself admits:
“[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.” [The Blind Watchmaker, cited in my book Refuting Evolution, ch. 9]
We now know that is an understatement by many orders of magnitude. Nontheless relevent..
DNA information requires a complex decoding machine, the ribosome, but the instructions to build ribosomes are on the DNA - How Did That Just Happen?
And decoding requires energy from ATP, built by ATP-synthase motors, built from instructions in the DNA decoded by ribosomes … “vicious circles” for any materialistic origin theory, as leading philosopher of science Karl Popper put it (see also Self-replicating enzymes? A critique of some current evolutionary origin-of-life models). - How Did That Just Happen?
The non-Christian physicist Paul Davies points out:
“We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules…. Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system…. It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.”
He further writes:
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ” [Life force, New Scientist 163 (2204):27–30, 18 September 1999.
The curious denials put forth so far by Snare & Racket are easy to understand and account for once the underlying belief system is unmasked. Here's a well put description by Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist). He is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias...—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
What Professor Lewontin is actually admitting is that Materialists are in a mental prison, they fight tooth and nail to keep the bars in tact, from the inside.
-
154
Who Made The Code?
by Perry ina few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
-
-
Perry
Perry,
Very fine posting. Thank you for that.
Yet not surprising that many disagree with you!
" A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (philosopher - poet Paul Frederic Simon)
Truer words never spoken. I think the entire discussion can be summed up thusly:
Q: Who Made The Code?
A: What Code?
-
154
Who Made The Code?
by Perry ina few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
-
-
Perry
If you can quote me the papers that state as you said, I will look at them for their legitimacy.
Just deal with the 7 terabytes of data that Havard grads stuffed into one gram of DNA in the link I provided above.
That capability could not have happened by chance in trillions of years. You are just not dealing with the problem squarely.
Two of England’s leading evolutionist scientists, *Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe, working independently of each other, came to the same conclusion: The chance of life appearing spontaneously from non-life in the universe is effectively zero! (*Fred Hoyle and *C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space). One of these researchers is an agnostic and the other a Buddhist; yet both decided from their analyses that the origin of life demands the existence of God to have created it.
The London Daily Express (August 14, 1981) put the conclusion of these two scientists into headlines: "Two skeptical scientists put their heads together and reached an amazing conclusion: There must be a God." *Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe concluded in their book that the probability of producing life, anywhere in the universe from evolutionary processes, was as reasonable as getting a fully operational Boeing 747 jumbo jet from a tornado going through a junkyard (*Fred Hoyle, Science, November 12, 1981, p. 105).
These statements were made by top scientists decades ago. The (millions and billions of years did it) argument that you rely upon is becoming increasingly isolated and is already so far out of the realm of possibility as to warrant no serious consideration.
#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it! Charles Manson, the sociopathic murderer, is famous for saying, "I've never killed anyone! I don't need to kill anyone! I THINK it! I have it HERE! (Pointing to his temple.) I don't need to live in this physical realm..."