New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

I wouldn't start "confusing" the issue...
(arf, where do you get this stuff?)

arfa - "Anita" is in reality a biology professor from a very well known and high profile university in the united states - and an atheist - her book and her whole persona is in fact a joke and a parody of insane fundie christians

basically she's just taking the piss and taking the fundies for a ride.

if you get into the spirit of her posts from that viewpoint they are hilariously funny -and the fact that she's scamming money out of the fundies with her joke of a book is even funnier
 
What if a beneficial mutation means the lack of something, for instance a cave fish that doesn't have to expend the extra tissue on eyes? Is that still a gain of "information"?
 
“ Originally Posted by arfa brane
Bacteria can mutate into drug-resistant strains. This is is beneficial mutation, for bacteria. So there is a gain or at least, a transformation, of information (that's genetic information). ”

Originally Posted by synthesizer-patel
another bit of first class woo woo there anita - the crazy fundies you are imitating will just lap that up.

synthesizer-patel,

Firstly, in the post above you quoted arfa brane, but you responded to me. This is selective and poor reading on your part. I wouldn’t doubt that you use Old Spice for cooking! :)

Anita: can you give an example of "new" information, and of the process by which it got to be "new"? Or if you can't, can you justify the use of this term "new information", and what it's supposed to mean?

You appear to be conceding that DNA can be mutated, so does mutated DNA contain new information?

Thankyou

Hello arfa brane,

Tandem repeats/duplications and mutations do not add new information to the geno.

Tandem repeats are the result of duplicating already existing genetic information, and “mutations” alter existing genetic information (whether this genetic information is original or duplicated). Neither of them adds any new information.

Think about it this way... if I give someone a copy of a book that they already own, then they don’t have any new information, just a duplicate of information that they already had. Now, if I afterwards take a black marker and X-out some of the words or letters in the copy of the book I gave them, they still don’t have any new information, just a messed up copy of one of the books.

Hope that helps in logically understanding things.
 
synthesizer-patel,

Firstly, in the post above you quoted arfa brane, but you responded to me. This is selective and poor reading on your part. I wouldn’t doubt that you use Old Spice for cooking! :)

whoops! -I should have spotted that just from the fact that it made sense - something no-one expects from you you.

It may turn out to be a happy acident for you though - imagine the fun you can have with a double whammy like that in your confidence trick - you can not only lighten the wallets of a few religious extremists, but get them to inadvertently accept evidence that supports evolution when they think they are digesting information that refutes it :)
I guarantee no-one will notice - every fundie I've ever met is as utterly ignorant of the theory of evolution and of science in general as your alter-ego pretends to be
 
Last edited:
Anita M said:
Tandem repeats/duplications and mutations do not add new information to the geno.
Well, I guess you can say that copying existing information doesn't add anything new (except that there are extra copies). But surely a mutation is a change in genetic information?

If I have a book, and I change some of the words in it, that doesn't change any of the words?
The book looks exactly the same as it did before I changed some of the words?
I must be MAGIC!!

Or, I must be insane--I'll leave that one up to you, you probably know about such things.
 
Tandem repeats are the result of duplicating already existing genetic information, and “mutations” alter existing genetic information (whether this genetic information is original or duplicated). Neither of them adds any new information.

I have news for you, the story of life from a single cell to a human being is the result of exactly such errors and mutations. By themselves, they may not seem like much, and are mostly neutral, some harmful, but if they result in something even slightly better in terms of making an organism that sends copies of them into the future, presto-they are preserved. In this way mutations that are beneficial survive. And to you this seems like intelligence.

Mutations by themselves don't relate to what's going on in the world, but accidental mutations that survive do say something about the outside world and how it relates to what structure that mutation causes to be assembled.
 
Ah, I guess Anita's exhausted her C game, having failed with her A and B games and now she doesn't want to play any more. Or was it the fact I asked you to provide citations and references for your unjustified assertions Anita? At least have the honesty to say you can't back up your claims with reviewed published work.
 
Ah, I guess Anita's exhausted her C game, having failed with her A and B games and now she doesn't want to play any more. Or was it the fact I asked you to provide citations and references for your unjustified assertions Anita? At least have the honesty to say you can't back up your claims with reviewed published work.


Alphanumeric, all such citations and references asserting “evolution” are purely a form of prejudicial conjecture against creation. I didn’t fail any game!

All you’ve done is learn the “academic rules” of the game, which has allowed you to play better than most at this particular time.

However I will tell you that most evolutionists (including atheists) are just pawns in a game they don’t fully understand yet.

Evolutionists may play the game, but the Creationists knows the score! Not only do you not know the score, your not even sure what the game is (such as with abiogenesis). :)

Among other things that I excel at in this game, that’s the football of blocking and tackling. You know how that goes… some people try to find things in the game that don’t exist.
 
Well, I guess you can say that copying existing information doesn't add anything new (except that there are extra copies). But surely a mutation is a change in genetic information?

If I have a book, and I change some of the words in it, that doesn't change any of the words?
The book looks exactly the same as it did before I changed some of the words?
I must be MAGIC!!

Or, I must be insane--I'll leave that one up to you, you probably know about such things.


Hello arfa brane, I am enjoying our chat,

Let me give you something to think about that deepens the mystery since I sense you like spellbinders and can think outside the box. :)

This has to do with one particular book - the Bible, and a code that can be found in it unbeknownst to the men that penned it. This is the “Bible Code“. I’m sure you’ve heard of it. This special book (and it is special) bares testimony to the fact that it contains ALL the information humankind will ever need. So special is it that it contains and follows every outcome possible. It does this by including numerous words and phrases (even pictures) with different outcomes. Some may be opposing and others related. Simply put, the Bible Code is unbounded with numerous possibilities.

It has all the DNA instructions (and information) in it that it will ever need! This book has no X-outs, since there is no need for X-outs because the author is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-pervading), and omnipotent (all-powerful). It is the mastermind of pure genius!

The author of this Great Book (G-d) knows what we are going to do in advance since He is not bound by any sort of time, therefore He has already looked into the future to see what choices we have already made and therefore encoded it. G-d has already seen it all, in every possible scenario. For instance we can find a code that says that a asteroid will destroy the earth in 2012, and then we can find an opposing code that tells us that this asteroid will be annihilated. How does G-d know all this? Well I’ve said it before in this thread but I will repeat it again. Its quite simple… G-d has no beginning and no end. So the next question remains of where G-d came from? The answer is, He didn’t. He always was. To us humans the notion of time is linear so we cannot comprehend what it would be like without a beginning or end, eternal or infinite. For us time continually flows forward. But G-d is BEYOND any (and all) time. He has no beginning or end. He simply has always been and this is because He is outside of time. And it is extremely hard for us to understand and fully grasp this with our human concepts simply because we are governed by “time as well as matter”. And even though “time and matter” is physical to us, G-d is not confined by either. It was G-d who had created both “time and matter”. So “time and matter” began when G-d created the universe. Before that, G-d was simply existing and time had no meaning (except conceptually), no relation to Him. Therefore, to ask where G-d came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to G-d in the first place. Simply put, this is because time has no meaning with G-d in relation to who He is.

So one may ask, what is the reason for the “Bible Code” then?

The Bible Code is not there to tell us, or to predict the future. It is merely there as a testimony (or a witness) of G-d! He is the author and this is His book. THE CODES are solely from a DIVINE source that cannot be matched wits with. The sages tell us that if one letter where to be left out it would spell destruction for the whole world. This is backed by Matthew in the New Testament. Matthew 5:18 - I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Now aside from the “codes” that can be found, there is also another phenomenal feature about the Bible. This has to do with “prophesy”. These are not only encoded within the Bible Codes (found only after the fact), but they are outwardly mentioned/written and seen in plain sight within the Bible. One of the most triumphant and successful prophetic prophecies is concerning the Jewish Messiah - the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus.

The Jewish Messiah seems to be the centering and pivoting hinge in which all prophecies concerning Jesus in the Old Testament have come to pass in perfect fulfillment. Jesus had somehow managed to flawlessly synchronize with many of the old and new messianic prophecies. Not only did He synchronize, He is the only one who has seen to it that the prophecies were fulfilled (who but G-d can proclaim the future, let alone fulfill it - Jesus did just that)! Though some today still refute these prophecies and relegate them to fiction. However the laws of probability in this case cannot give us a reasonable explanation for how these prophecies were fulfilled, other than them being divinely inspired by G-d. There is no other book in the history of humankind that has fulfilled prophesies as the Bible does.

If you would like me to cite some of these prophesies, I would be glad to do so.

There is one other thing about the Bible Code… some people claim that these codes can be found in other literature. This is true they can be! They can be found within all/any other literature (notes, books, journalism, writing, building structures, artwork, and speeches. All such codes are contrived by the process of “conscious thought” because from this creative and spiritual source flows G-d (as I’ve explained in an earlier posts).

However, the codes that are found in the Bible are far more authentic than those found in any other literature. And this is the interesting thing about the Bible Code, that its not that you find these words and phrases, but WHERE YOU FIND THEM, and that they are found in the “CONTEXT” of where YOU WOULD EXPECT to find them, and what’s more, by conspiring with meaningful associated numbers. The regularity of finding these words and phrases and the “improbability” of finding them in certain places is beyond the scope of possibility. The closer the individual letters are to one another as well as their gamatria equivalent, the smaller the odds are of it being a coincidence, (like two or more acquaintances who unexpectedly run into each other on a street corner at a certain time), as well as the chances of words being grouped so tightly together, that they have actually been found to form and illustrate GRAPHIC PICTURES.

Additionally as I’ve said, you can find other codes in other books and texts, but these types of “correlations“ (in the Bible) that I mention cannot be found or matched in other texts. You can find one word or another in other text, but not finding these words to the extreme of “correlating” with other words in the proper context, or to have significant meaning related to the story. Nowhere in these other books and texts does it compare with the numerous and cohesive complex codes found in the Bible (namely the Hebrew Torah). (However, I am not completely ruling it out, that it could not happen or be found).

In my book I show some of these elaborate codes.
 
Last edited:
A Meyer said:
some people try to find things in the game that don’t exist.
Well, I suppose it must be reassuring to believe that you aren't doing that...

Your post is goddam priceless, a real shot in the foot. Have you heard of irony?

P.S. Still haven't seen your definition of new information. Erasing words from a book kind of does it, but you seem to believe that erasing words from a book doesn't change the book. That doesn't correspond to my everyday understanding of "changing information". I've written more than a handful of computer programs, and changing code is pretty much something you have to do, because it's very difficult to write the program you want in one sitting.
So in that case, program writers (and writers of books and manuscripts) usually change the code as a part of the writing process. Got it?

So are you sure the Bible is a one-off, written in one go by the head programmer?
I think it's far more likely today's version is just one of a long line of changed ones, after all, men have had several centuries to rewrite, interpret, improve, make more palatable, etc, this particular collection of books.
 
Last edited:
Your post is goddam priceless, a real shot in the foot. Have you heard of irony?

P.S. Still haven't seen your definition of new information. Erasing words from a book kind of does it, but you seem to believe that erasing words from a book doesn't change the book. That doesn't correspond to my everyday understanding of "changing information". I've written more than a handful of computer programs, and changing code is pretty much something you have to do, because it's very difficult to write the program you want in one sitting. So in that case, program writers (and writers of books and manuscripts) usually change the code as a part of the writing process. Got it?

So are you sure the Bible is a one-off, written in one go by the head programmer? I think it's far more likely today's version is just one of a long line of changed ones, after all, men have had several centuries to rewrite, interpret, improve, make more palatable, etc, this particular collection of books


Arfa brane, changing a code in a computer program follows along with possible outcomes (something that I’ve mentioned the Bible Code has). On one level it may appear to be changing to you, but on a higher level maybe its not truly changing at all.

You are also talking about man here which is limited, while I am talking about an all omniscient (all-knowing) Creator.

G-d the head programmer wrote (inspired through the holy spirit) the Bible (notably the Hebrew Old Testament) in such a way that the ends justify the means (with all such codes). However with Moses, He dictated directly.

How else can we explain the mechanism of the Bible Code?

Additionally (as I’ve said many times before) man cannot create a new thing that does not already exist (this applies to DNA). For instance my previous example of this was: A scientist said to G-d, "Look I created life". G-d said to the scientist. "How did you do that?" "Well boasted the scientist, I first got some chemicals". "First, said G-d, you must create the chemicals". ”

We cannot even create a new color in the rainbow. All we have ever been working with is previously existing information. This is quite evident in all of nature.

Some examples of these things are … Airplanes verses birds… Helicopter verses a dragon fly… What the sun and moon is to the wheel… As a solar panel creates energy so does a leaf… A spinning tops relationship with planetary rotation… A mirror verses a reflection on water… Or as a drop of water is to a magnifying glass… The kidneys as to a water filter… As do swimming fins and paddles have in common with the webbed feet animals… Or the invention of the suction cup to that of a octopuses… Smoke screen as a defense verses octopus ink… Fish hook and a bee stinger… Sonar associated with bats, dolphins and whales… Batteries and an Eel… Wiper fluid and tears… Windshield wiper and the eye lid… Dust filter and nostril hairs… Knife and incisor teeth… Armor and exoskeletons… Pliers to a lobster claw… A zipper and the linkages between barbs in feathers… Camouflage clothing verses a chameleon… A camera lens verses an eye… A microscope, or telescope is a extension of the eye… Microphone verses an ear drum… The pump verses a heart and its valves… Chemical solution to fix punctures in tires verses coagulants found in the blood… Antibiotic medicines verses the immune system… Plumbing system verses circulatory system… Ball joint verses shoulder and knee joints… Anesthetics verses venoms and poisons… Hypodermic needle verses snake fangs… Lawn aeration verses worms and moles… Telephone cables verses spinal cord and nervous system… The shovel as an extension of the hands and feet… An automobile as an extension of the feet… The bow and arrow to the development of gunpowder and firearms… And sonoluminescence is the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound. And last but not least the miniature machines, turbines, sliding clamps, miniature rotary motors that are being found inside the cell.

Everything that we will ever need (for life) was already there (programmed) from the instant of creation by an omniscient Creator that is not confined by anything our human intellect can understand. :)

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
 
Alphanumeric, all such citations and references asserting “evolution” are purely a form of prejudicial conjecture against creation. I didn’t fail any game!
Yes, reality has a 'form of prejudicial conjecture against creation.

You made claims about information in DNA, irreducible complexity and things in evolution having been disproved. I'm asking you to provide credible sources. Either scientists have published this work or creationists have written published (in journals!) work. Where are you getting your information from? If you admit its not from reviewed scientific work then you're admit to having little or no intellectual standards because you believe things without evidence (or in the face of evidence).

You fail.

However I will tell you that most evolutionists (including atheists) are just pawns in a game they don’t fully understand yet.
Owww, its a massive conspiracy!

You get your information from somewhere. If it was a reputable source, provide it. If it wasn't then you admit to having low standards of evidence. Is this logic too much for you?

Evolutionists may play the game, but the Creationists knows the score! Not only do you not know the score, your not even sure what the game is (such as with abiogenesis). :)
You really seem to struggle with this don't you? You have zero evidence for your claims. The fact scientists might not have all the answers now doesn't make your baseless claims more valid. Two people are asked a question. The fact the first person' doesn't know the answer doesn't have any bearing on whether the second person's answer is viable. How do you not understand that?

A scientist says "I don't know" because he realises he needs to provide plenty of evidence and investigation if he makes an kind of assertion. That's intellectual honesty. A creationist asserts things despite having no evidence. What makes an answer viable is evidence, not the simple assertion of the answer.

Among other things that I excel at in this game, that’s the football of blocking and tackling. You know how that goes… some people try to find things in the game that don’t exist.
Let me know when you can provide any evidence for your claims which aren't interpreting the bible. Let me know when you can provide any evidence for your assertions about science.

You admit you haven't got evidence for your assertions. You admit to intellectual dishonest.

If god exists I bet he's embarrassed by you.
 
P.S. Still haven't seen your definition of new information.

And you never will see it matey

numerous posters have requested her definition for well over 6 months, and she has always evaded giving an answer.
You've probably come the closest, although all you got was a weak analogy in the place of a firm definition.

here's the reason (and a 6 month old prediction wich turns out to be bang on the money):

The problem with the "no new information" stance is that if the religious fanatic who is quoting it is asked to define what they actually mean by "information" it invariably leads them to a position where numerous irrefutable biological examples of "new information" can be presented to them.

Thus they deliberately hide what is precisely meant by information and always refuse to define it - thus if examples are given prior to defining it they are able to hand-wave away the example by claiming it doesnt fit the criteria which they refuse to elaborate upon.

So Anita - would you care to give us a clear definition of what you mean by information?

Can you also give us a hypothetical example of what would be classed as new information?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2481785&postcount=317
 
It what point do we just throw up our hands and admit creationists are just nuts. They are idiots who will never understand the theory they hope to disprove. They don't want to understand it and come to terms with it's explanatory power. They have been programmed to believe a certain mythology and nothing will change their minds. It's sad really, human beings are full of potential and a great number of them have been trapped in an intellectual cul-de-sac.
 
It what point do we just throw up our hands and admit creationists are just nuts.

I don't agree - most have been brainwashed to think that even attempting to understand it - let alone determine its accuracy - will earn them eternal punishment.

The ones doing the brainwashing arent crazy either (although they do put on an excellent front) - their interest is in power, control, and (especially in Anita's case) making money from easy gullible marks.
 
You made claims about information in DNA, irreducible complexity and things in evolution having been disproved. I'm asking you to provide credible sources. Either scientists have published this work or creationists have written published (in journals!) work. Where are you getting your information from? If you admit its not from reviewed scientific work then you're admit to having little or no intellectual standards because you believe things without evidence (or in the face of evidence).

You get your information from somewhere. If it was a reputable source, provide it. If it wasn't then you admit to having low standards of evidence. Is this logic too much for you?

You really seem to struggle with this don't you? You have zero evidence for your claims. The fact scientists might not have all the answers now doesn't make your baseless claims more valid. Two people are asked a question. The fact the first person' doesn't know the answer doesn't have any bearing on whether the second person's answer is viable. How do you not understand that?

A scientist says "I don't know" because he realises he needs to provide plenty of evidence and investigation if he makes an kind of assertion. That's intellectual honesty. A creationist asserts things despite having no evidence. What makes an answer viable is evidence, not the simple assertion of the answer.

Let me know when you can provide any evidence for your claims which aren't interpreting the bible. Let me know when you can provide any evidence for your assertions about science.

Hello alphanumeric,

Anyone can point to a "peer review and clinical research". Science is a series of judgments, revised without ceasing.

As far as I am concerned it does not exist.

Oh, that Einstein, always skipping lectures... I certainly never would have thought he could do it - Hermann Minkowski
 
A Meyer said:
Science is a series of judgments, revised without ceasing.
Well, that isn't too bad a description. Scientists do make judgements based on what most people understand as evidence.
Science is evidential. For example the theory of electromagnetism is under constant review--not that long ago the idea of magnetic vector potential was thought to be a mere mathematical artifact. The Aharonov-Bohm effect appears to provide evidence that the artifact is actually a real, physical phemomenon.
The Standard Model is also constantly under review.

If an individual claims to have evidence (a.k.a. Anita), it should also be something that can be reviewed. Unfortunately, claims of the existence of evidence aren't evidence.
Evidence is something "everyone" can see or experience, like sticking your fingers in a live socket is evidence for the existence of electric power, etc.

If you don't light up, the socket is not providing evidence.
 
arfa,

did you notice how she completely ignored your request for a definition of information?

told you didn't I ? ;-)

Anita - in the absence of a definition of information from you, how about you tell us WHY you ignore every request to provide a definition?
 
Anyone can point to a "peer review and clinical research". Science is a series of judgments, revised without ceasing.
Yes, its constantly trying to improve itself, unlike religion. Creationists think the fact science is willing to say "Turns out we were wrong" is a down side. The fact fact contradicts the bible's claims about the way the world is means that the unwillingness to say "Turns out we were wrong" by some religious people is clear demonstration that some people don't care whether their beliefs are true or not.

And I didn't claim that journals were perfect. You made claims about DNA information, irreducible complexity, speciation and plenty more. I'm asking you what you're basing that on. Do you have any sources of information which present clear experimental evidence for their position, something which can be shown to others and repeated by others which justifies your position. When science says "Turns out we were wrong about idea X" it doesn't mean that science had 'faith' in X, as in order to be taken seriously the people who developed idea X were required to provide sound arguments, justification through reasoning and evidence and stand up to scrutiny.

You have claimed various things in science have been retorted and disproven. Where? By whom? What evidence did they provide? You complain the position of science can be 'revised' so journals and the evidence/arguments in them are not to be heeded yet you then provide zero evidence for your position. Science takes the positions it does based on reason and evidence. You take yours based on nothing. You made claims, you haven't said where those claims are presented, who made them and what reasoning and justification they provided.

Can you or can you not provide references to the work you claim has been done to retort evolution? If so then do so. If not then explain why anyone, including yourself, should take the position you do.
 
Back
Top