The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

self | January 26, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

It’s the way in which this world is ordered, that is, norms, standards, and consequences that gnostics detest.

Indeed. For them, somehow the world as ordered is an "objective evil." They try to escape it in every imaginable way possible.

In the "olden days" of not so very long ago, people of this inclination would likely have been diagnosed as having a psychopathological and/or sociopathical disorder and would have been detained in a safe place for the sake of their own personal safety and that of the larger society.

But nowadays, evidently frank insanity is a kind of badge of honor.... Irrationality is the new key to truth....

[TXnMA]

"At least their beliefs would not be handed down to the next generation."

The same proved to be true of the Shakers -- although they had many useful practical skills and ideas that should have been propagated...

[hosepipe]

[ Not sure the bible is specific on how this was accomplished- whether they remained angels or not ]

The mechanics(science) of many things in the bible are not detailed or explained..
As in spiritual possession.. What being possessed?..

What is "spirit/Spirit"?.. i.e. God, Angels, US, demons...
What "leaves" and "remains" when a human body dies?..

Gender seems so arbitrary.. incomplete.. primitive.. to me..
Could just be that gender is a second reality..
-OR- that gender speaks of something greater..
As an archetype(model) of something in us all..

Meaning; Maybe the female and male side of us all is spiritual reality..
That we're all greater than we seem.. all of us.. in many aspects..
EVEN (but not limited to) gender..

[CottShop]

[[That we’re all greater than we seem]]

We’re certianly greater than we realize- We only barely touch on the potential of our mind capabilities, that’s for sure.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I have a feeling this is at least part of the reason why so many scientists have such a huge problem with God. They want all the glory for their “discoveries.”

Yes. There are two kinds of science people to consider in this context. The ones who actualy do (or did) make a meaningful contribution to science, and the science-talking atheist, who is a parasite. The latter case is particularly interesting because we run into him frequently here. The science-talker is invariably a evolutionist and holds all the correct opinions: nothing can be proved, nothing is true, everything is relative, science can only falisfy things, materialism is synonymous with science, Christians are science-deniers, etc. The science-talker is much offended that Christians worship a Person who is not him. He says that we owe everything we have to science, and by implication, we owe veneration and worship to the science-talker. It's very astonishing and incredible to him that there should exist people who laugh at this and refuse to play along. He who talketh science bringeth us the words of enlightenment, howbeit we prostrate not and adore him? The science-talker is deprived of his rightful glory! Realizing that this is unlikely to ever change, a fuse in the science-talker's head blows, resulting in years spent posting anti-God and anti-Bible diatribes in whatever forum where there may be Christians hanging around.

[spirited irish]

Regarding the gnostic-Nassenes, Alamo Girl said, “At least their beliefs would not be handed down to the next generation.”

Spirited: Unfortunately, when gnosticism resurfaced prior to the Enlightenment, it returned as a fusion of all of the pre-Christian gnostic-cults. In addition, it had fused with openly satanic variants from India.

Theosophy is an example of satanic-gnosticism. Shortly after the UN was built, theosophists raised up a Luciferian-center called Lucifer Publishing, which would eventually be renamed Lucis Trust. Lucis Trust stands very near the UN and has been from its inception, intimately involved with the UN. They offer invocations monthly to the new ‘christ.’

Though the West’s deplorably decayed situation is most often compared to Weimar Germany and Germany under Hitler, a better comparison is to the USSR under Trotsky-Lenin-Stalin. Lenin and Trotsky were gnostics, Stalin was one as well, as was an unknown percentage of the Bolsheviks. Additionally, prior to the Revolution of 1917, Russia was a hotbed of sectarian and gnostic-cults. The gnostics in particular, were anxiously awaiting an apocalyptic-revolution that would utterly destroy the old order and usher in the new.

It was during the initial Trotsky-Lenin-Stalin regime that Nassene teachings were forcefully implemented. Divore and abortion were made easily attainable, the traditional family was forcefully attacked and almost destroyed, millions of children became wards of the ‘Mother-Father State,’ attacks were launched against the Biblical two-sex dichotomy with the intention of making androgyny the ‘new-norm.’ Churches and cathedrals were blasphemed, some became temples of atheism, and thousands of clergy were crucified-—literally.

The destruction unleashed was so catastrophic that Russia’s economy, culture, etc., were almost destroyed. After Lenin’s death Stalin took control and in an attempt at preventing the total destruction of Russia he took forceful steps to undo the worst of the gnostic-revolution. It’s because of this that America’s gnostic-New Left hates Stalin but reveres Lenin-Trotsky.

As we gaze upon the wreckage of America, we can see not only the immorality and subsequent chaos produced by gnosticism, but also its’ deadly outworkings upon the family,church, procreation, etc. America is a regime of gnostic-heresy.

[allmendream]

America is a “regime” of religious liberty not of gnosticism of any other religious ideology. As a nation our only national religious principle is religious liberty.

[hosepipe]

[ As we gaze upon the wreckage of America, we can see not only the immorality and subsequent chaos produced by gnosticism, but also its’ deadly outworkings upon the family,church, procreation, etc. America is a regime of gnostic-heresy. ]

WRONG.. the wreckage is because of socialism not gnostism..
Jesus never used the word or even the meme of heresy..
Heresy is a mental construct of the Sheep Pens..(John ch 10)..

Socialism murdered several hundred million people in the last hundred years..
and made billions more.... miserable..

For the next few years the socialists may be targeting BILLIONS to liquidate..
Because they are "warming" the earth..

Some people "think" non Roman Catholics are gnostics..
And others "think" all non orthodox are gnostics..
You know..... so-called "protestants"..

[Diamond]

Perhaps distinguishing different types of senders and receivers can help clarify the issue.

Types of Sender and Receiver

(a) Intelligent Sender and Intelligent Receiver

Clearly intelligent sender/receiver pairs exist, such as people.  The path between the sender and final target can, of course, involve intermediate sender/receiver pairs.  In addition, the message can be received and re-coded in various manners, preserving all or most of the original intended information.  Examples include the use of human translators or transmission across various media (voice radio waves tape recorder paper computer diskette).(b) Intelligent Sender and Non-Intelligent Receiver

Can an intelligent sender communicate with a non-intelligent receiver?  Sure.  Humans can interact with computers, for example.  The sender transmits a database query and the result is sent back.  The exchange can be interactive, such as working with a computer expert system.  Of course the message encoding (computer language) and additional infrastructure (hardware and communications devices) needs to be set up in advance by an intelligent agent.(c) Non-Intelligent Sender and Intelligent Receiver

Can a non-intelligent sender/receiver pair or sequence of pairs occur?  Certainly.  Automated production equipment can rely on a controller, which sends messages to on-line measuring devices to ensure the process is running as desired and corrective action can be taken.  Once again, this can only function if an intelligent agent, who knows the purpose of the system, sets up the whole arrangement.  The sender must be able to monitor the environment and interpret some kind of a signal.  The non-intelligent sender must then be able to automatically generate a message (e.g., ‘the pressure is rising’), which the receiver will be able to process (‘slow down the feed rate of X, increase the flow of cooling water, and send an alarm to Mrs Smith’).(d) Non-Intelligent Sender and Non-Intelligent Receiver

Now let’s consider an absolute extreme case.  The sender and receiver can only react mechanically.  Suppose the set-up must be fully automatic, meaning that when the sender or receiver is destroyed, a substitute has been provided for.

Compared to all the alternatives, this one requires the highest amount of intelligence from the agent who designed the system.  Eventualities need to be anticipated and all resources for repair and energy need to be prepared in advanced.  Do we find anything so enormously complex?  Yes—it is called life!

Careful analysis shows again and again that the process:  sender codes a message ® receiver decodes and uses the intended information, does not arise without the active involvement of a living intelligence at some point.  This has been systematically analyzed by Professor Gitt who showed that coded information cannot arise by chance.  Coded information obeys fundamental laws of nature, which in summarized form can be expressed as follows:^[72]
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

Cordially,

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for that insight, dear brother in Christ! How sad...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for this fascinating sidebar, dear brothers in Christ!

Whatever an angel might be in the spiritual realm, he must appear to be either male or female when on assignment here in the physical realm - or I suspect he'd stand out:

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. - Hebrews 13:2

To God be the glory!

[hosepipe]

Interesting subject to be sure.. is it possible for a "spiritual creature" to appear as whatever he/she/it wants to appear as... Possible?.. Shape shifters?..

Would (seem to) answer how a snake appeared in the Garden of Eden metaphor.. How Jesus walked on water.. and a good deal of other reported "happenings"..

Humans basic arrogance can/could assume all things happens on a scale of fleshly reality.. Effecting not only world view but understanding of physics and cosmology.. and even mathematics.. How could an ax head FLOAT(bible)?...

Gender may be illusionary.. or even allusionary...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so very much for sharing your insights on gnosticism and heresy!

Truly I hope the dispute is just a matter of semantics.

The sheep pens in John 10 are indeed an excellent metaphor for the theological boundaries of Judeo/Christian doctrines and traditions.

And of course, the more people add to and take away from the words of God - or the more they elevate particulars of their beliefs - the more walls they throw up between themselves, like sheep pens within sheep pens:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deuteronomy 4:2

And the sheep in these various pens do tend to yell over the fences calling the sheep in the other pens - or in the open pasture - names including both "heretic" and "gnostic."

Since I'm one of those who particularly enjoys the open pasture (Psalms 23) I've been called both - also "apostate" "Jesus freak" "cultist" and even "Satanic."

It never offends me to be called such things. I write it off as yet another manifestation of the "observer problem." Indeed for me it is all joy even though it comes from a brother or sister in the faith, a fellow sheep.

Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. - Matthew 5:11-12

There is only One Good Shepherd.

And I pray that on this sidebar, there is no intent to invoke the terms "gnostic" and "heresy" within the various sheep pens of the Judeo and Christian sheepfolds - but rather in the historical and cultural context of Western civilization.

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for that beautiful essay, dear brother in Christ! Indeed, it should help clarify things for all of us in the sidebar.

[hosepipe]

[ And I pray that on this sidebar, there is no intent to invoke the terms "gnostic" and "heresy" within the various sheep pens of the Judeo and Christian sheepfolds - but rather in the historical and cultural context of Western civilization. ]

LoL.. me too(prayer)... Humans are now and have been busily sorting themselves into sheep pens and sheep pens within sheep pens for millenia.. Its a wonderful thing.. Pure genius actually.. After fully being sorted and convinced indoctrinated and settled, comfortable and relaxed in a sheep pen.. denying their selection(choice) would be hard to do..

Is God(in his plan) awesome or WHAT?..

[CottShop]

interesting article- funny htough, in it he declares Shannon’s model is ‘irrelevent’ to the discussion of creation evolution debate’ (Haven’t read through it yet, but will be interesting to see why- it would seem to me that there can be no message with out an intelligent designer designing it for both sender and receiver).

I see Dawkins is tryign to use hte model to argue agaisnt the designer.

truman says [[To understand how much information transfer between sender and receiver is occurring it would seem that what is encoded in the message alone is only part of the picture. There are cases where the receiver benefits from a multiplier effect when the transmitted information is augmented with existing knowledge on the part of the receiver.]]

Very interesting point. I think though the macroevolutionst/naturalist will then try to use htis ‘multiplier effect’ to mean that message alone could have arisen naturally’ because when you factor in multiplier effects, the simple message being sent could have numerous meanings for the receiver, and ‘given enough numerous meanings, then somethign resembling metainfo’ ‘could have arisen’ over millions of years, especially given the fact that mistakes in the genome change the message. (This is why I was not 100% satisfied that the arguments for naturally occuring metainfo were sufficiently dispelled in my earlier posts in the William’s article posted by GGG)

Will postm ore later tonight regarding Truman’s article

[CottShop]

Let me just add that I think though, at this point, that it would actually require an even greater predesigned metainfo on the part of cells, systems and ulitimately species as a whole in order to ‘intelligently’ receive, decode and use messages that contained a multiplier effect message- pointing more strongly to the need for, and utilization of, anticipation on the part of metainfo to decode not only hte message, but info outside of hte actual message. (Not sure ‘outside of’ is hte correct term- as additional message within the message itself would have to be forknown by hte receiver- however, this very point is where the macroevo will argue variety of decoding could have evovled in a by gosh by golly manner of accidental results- not sure this is a valid line of argument though). Will have to think htis through a bit more- if osmeone has somethign to add, I’d appreciate it- might spark another line of htought for one of us.

[CottShop]

[[All sender-receiver members need to be on the same ‘wavelength’ before it is possible to determine what needs to be transmitted in the coded message.]]

Another good point that probably should be developped more- This ‘same wavelength’ statement indicates that both sender and receiver NEED to be PREDESIGNED to utilize the message being transmitted in the first place- IF the receiver doesn’t understand code, the message is useless, and the sender is sending out nothign but goobeldygook which the receiver won’t be able to decode and utilize- the fact that cells can and do receive and understand the message and even hte miltiplier effects of the message indicate a designed assembly right form the get go- For the receiver to have waited aroudn millions of years while the sender and the receiver ‘got hteir act together’ in order to get themselves o nthe ‘same wavelength’ while nature manipulated the message via mistake after mistake is ismply an unreasonable position to take- hte ‘species’ would die off in very quick order awaiting this synchronization of decoding ability for hte receiver. Especially so when it comes to more andm ore complex information. Every minute change in the genome code would have to then wait millions of more years while the receiver got it’s act together so that it could properly understand the message and miltiplier effect of hte message, while it went htrough the tedious process of ‘mistake to sensible code’ via mutations, and again, the whole system would simply die off in very short order.

[CottShop]

[[In general, information theory as discussed in Part 4, is based on sender-receiver notions which assumes the sender can intelligently or instinctively evaluate the needs of the receiver and act accordingly.]]

The further I read- the more profound this issue becomes- This evaluation on the part of hte sender really, very strongly, indicates, once again, that an intelligent agent causation foreknew the reciever woudl need an ‘intelligent’ sender which could anticipate how hte reciever would receive the message, and how it would react- ie: It doesn’t just simpyl send hte message, it also takes into account how hte receiver will interprete the message, and what actions the receiver will likely take when the message is received. Like i nthe Bee analogy in the link posted by diamond- the sender bee sends hte mssage knowing that an additional set of messages will be utilized by the receiver bees who must make hte determination abotu whether or not the journey to hte food source is worth the effort. This sender, message. receipt, interpretation, action sequence plays out even at the very lowest levels of life in a deterministic manner that shows very strong signs of an intelligent construction- not some arbitrary mistake driven process.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thanks for posting the TrueOrigin article. I haven’t read it yet, but I most certainly will (especially since it delves into Shannon information theory, which I know next to nothing about).

Having said that, I thought you two might be interested to know that Royal Truman and Peter Borger have teamed-up to write some excellent stuff for CMI’s Journal of Creation. Here are a few examples. All the best—GGG

Ultraconserved sequences pose megaproblems for evolutionary theory

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_8-9.pdf

Genetic code optimisation: Part 1

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_90-100.pdf

Genetic code optimisation: Part 2

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_84-92.pdf

The HAR1F gene: a Darwinian paradox

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_55-57.pdf