Yes, I realize that, but others may not. 
Anybody foolish enough to bother reading this thread can take their lumps. 
2 Likes
Understatement is a valuable skill. My wife and I consistently call any raging, flaming, rolling disaster “suboptimal.” After all, the observation that something obviously disastrous is a disaster is hardly ever really necessary anyhow. Meerkat’s attempts to simulate reason are a splendid example of suboptimality.
5 Likes
I think you are actually misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing that natural processes cannot explain these observations or that only intelligent designers can produce these effects, therefore, an intelligent designer did it.
Instead, I was using the paper to further support my argument that quantum phenomena, such as quantum/electron tunneling, is identical to mental phenomena in the mind.
Because I was not trying to use the paper to prove the existence of a universal common designer. Instead, the article argued that natural processes operates in the same manner as humans do.
Therefore, the paper supports my argument that quantum phenomena, such as quantum/electron tunneling, is identical to mental phenomena in the mind.
The difference is that one involves digital information and the other involves analog information.
Prove it then. Prove that RTB are willfully ignoring most of the data and lying about it.
Same here. Prove it. What relevant data did I not research but needed to be researched on to make my arguments coherent?
That’s complete bullcrap. You were trying to support the idea of a universal common designer with that paper, specifically mentioning the “engineering” of those redox centers. However, a careful reading of the paper shows the authors never had a universal common designer in mind. That’s a misrepresentation!
The paper supports no such thing.
What makes Patel’s genetic code digital/analog and other genetic code digital/analog?
Why not just cut out all the ambiguous “arguing” noone here seems able to recognize as such when you do it, and just say they are one and the same by definition?
We have reached the bottom layer of the abyss.
1 Like
#666 - the comment of the Beast? 
2 Likes
It’s bioturbation time! Definitely better than that other 'turbation time we’ve been witnessing.
3 Likes
This abyss has no bottom – it’s turtles all the way down.
3 Likes
Why bother?
RTB has zero credibility in the scientific community.
The only people who give them credibility are ‘low information’ Christians like yourself, who are largely ignorant of science – and who are in fact their target audience.
But then that raises the question of why bother with anything you have repeated over, and over again on this forum?
This certainly isn’t a thread for arguments the moderators take seriously – it is the thread they shunt comments into when they don’t want them gumming up other threads.
If a discussion on this thread does accidentally gets serious, they give its own thread (as happened here).
That you continue to belabor your point here on this thread, to universal dismissal, is proof positive that you have nowhere else to take your claims (at least nowhere where you’re not paying for at least the pretense of being taken seriously). This (however little ‘this’ is) is all there is for your ‘theory and model’, and this is all there will ever be.
2 Likes
The existence and nature of variants of the genetic code, for one.
But you’re a special case. You haven’t just failed to look at the data, you’ve also failed to read the sources you have cited.
Honesty about where information comes from is necessary before considering honesty about the contents of that information, which is necessary before discussing the information.
You’re still at step -1 of useful discussion.
4 Likes
Yes, I was using the paper to show that there are similarities between what nature produces in a biological context and what humans produce in order to justify how I define “universal common designer”. But, it was not to prove the existence of it. There is a difference.
Let me rephrase it then. The paper supports my argument that quantum phenomena, such as quantum/electron tunneling, is very similar to man-made inventions and machines.
The genetic code and quantum algorithms that Patel described are fundamentally different systems that operate at different scales and levels of complexity for several reasons.
Firstly, the genetic code operates at the molecular level, involving the interactions of nucleotides, amino acids, and proteins. In contrast, quantum algorithms operate at the quantum level, involving the manipulation of quantum states that describe the properties of subatomic particles. The scales at which these systems operate are vastly different, with the genetic code operating at a scale of nanometers and quantum algorithms operating at a scale of femtometers.
Secondly, the genetic code is a biological system that has evolved over billions of years through natural selection, while quantum algorithms are a relatively recent development in the field of quantum computing, which has only been actively researched for a few decades. The mechanisms by which these systems operate, their underlying principles and evolutionary histories, are therefore vastly different.
Thirdly, the levels of complexity of these systems are also different. The genetic code is a complex system that involves multiple layers of regulation and interaction, including transcription, translation, post-translational modifications, and protein-protein interactions. Quantum algorithms are also complex, but they are typically designed to solve specific computational problems using a small set of quantum gates and operations.
In summary, while there are some similarities between the genetic code and quantum algorithms, they are fundamentally different systems that operate at different scales, levels of complexity, and have evolved through different mechanisms.
Because, as I told you before, my argument is not based on tautologies but on identity theory. I was using the paper to show that there are similarities between what nautre produces in a biological context and what humans produce in order to justify how I define the universal common designer.
What do you mean? elaborate.
Oh please. That dismissal is merely motivated by personal and/or philosophical bias NOT scientific merit.
This entire block is probably[1] AI generated content.
99.8% probability, as judged by AI Content Detector | AI Detector | ChatGPT Detector - Copyleaks ↩︎
2 Likes
No.
If you don’t already know about variant genetic codes, that’s relevant data you haven’t researched. If you do know about them, you didn’t need to ask what I meant.
1 Like
@Tim points at @Meerkat_SK5 and laughs … and laughs … and laughs.
You poor deluded soul. 
What part of “universal dismissal” did you fail to comprehend?
The only Christian scientist who (AFAIK) has bothered to engage with you, @Mercer, is just as dismissive as all the atheist scientists, and the other Christian scientists on this forum want to have nothing to do with your claims, which clearly shows that this is NOT “merely motivated by personal and/or philosophical bias”.
That every scientist on this forum either dismisses your claims as worthless, or simply ignores you completely, clearly shows that your claims have no “scientific merit”.
That you keep coming back, only to be told repeatedly, that your claims are worthless, even after your claims were relegated to the-thread-where-bad-arguments-are-sent-to-molder-and-hopefully-eventually-die – is clear evidence that you cannot find a more receptive audience.
2 Likes
I am well aware that identiity theory is not a scientific theory, but science cannot even get off the ground without philosophy. So I don’t get the point of your objection.
I acknowledge that while the genetic code is universal, meaning that it is the same in almost all organisms, there are some exceptions and variations. But, you need to explain why this is relevant to the theory because it is possible that you just don’t understand the theory very well.
Again, It is not my theory or claims!!! This is the fundamental error that you keep making here. I am simply organizing previous works from Richard Owen, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, that have done most of the work already. Their works are well receptive and taken seriously by other researchers and have been for quite some time.
Moreover, there is no evidence of common descent in living or fossil organisms. There is nothing to infer from nature that would compel anybody to make this conclusion. The simulation of common descent is just in your mind and you guys are imposing it onto the data just like Darwin did in his day. All he did was modify Owen’s theory from common archetype to common ancestor and then assumed (like you guys do) that living organisms evolved from these ancestors.
It goes to show you this is just secular dogma that you guys are peddling on this forum.
So it’s not universal.
I only need to point out that it is “relevant data you haven’t researched”, which is what was requested.
1 Like
When I pointed out that your fine-tuning argument was indistinguishable from its philosophical counterpart, you insisted to make that distinction, insisted that your programme here was scientific. What was the point of that, I wonder, if you are so happy to retreat into philosophy, that’s apparently so vital to science, but only once it is completely clear to everyone involved, that the only times something less than laughably incompetent in matters of science appeared in your posts was when ChatGPT was the actual author.
1 Like
Ah, but you keep forgetting that in the words of Lewis Carroll:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
2 Likes