Linda: Have you read my previous posts?

I'm only asking you to respond to a single question so we can stay focused. I even bolded the question for you.

I'll repeat the question or you here:

How did this complex and sophisticated system of signaling molecules come to establish an encoding mechanism, a decoding mechanism, a suitable medium, and a protocol (a language of communication understood by both the encoder and the decoder)?


I'm engaged and have been. Let's have this discussion.


Have you read my post where I encourage people to question? Did you miss this?

I honestly get the impression (and have for quite a while) that you don't read the bulk of my responses.


OK, so me get this straight. You want me to refute entire websites and videos when you just told me that I was being disingenuous for asking the same of you.

Linda, it's important to know yourself before engaging a quest for the truth, otherwise, your personal desire will cloud your judgment. The evidence of clouded judgment is whey you hold conflicting beliefs simultaneously.


I've been engaged in plenty of evolutionary debates and it's amazing how often evolutionists take a sharp backturn by parroting this (probably from Wikipedia).

I have posted a well focused question in my previous post (and in this one) that keeps this discussion clean and sharp, but now that you've made this statement about alleles, let me ask you for clarification:

Do you believe that single-celled organisms developed into humans?

Do you believe that primordial soup evolved into single-celled organisms?

Based on all of your previous posts, it's logical to derive that you believe in both above.


Did you read it cover to cover several times?

What translation did you read?

The reason I ask is revealed in this video:

New Age Bible Versions

You statement also contradicts things you've said earlier, but I'll leave that alone for now.


Religion is a man-made system of tradition and has no relevance to truth.

I have sought truth all my life and it let me to the Bible, which is an amazing book that has foretold the future and authenticated it's Author thoroughly through gematria and other methods.

I have no interest in religion, although I use the word occasionally to help those who confuse truth and religion.

Number In Scripture by E.W. Bullinger


People use it as a religious book but it's actually an authenticated historical document.


As I said before, the Bible makes references to modern technology numerous times, and this was written in a time when they could not even imagine such things.

If you read the Bible several times, you would know this.

It also provides concepts that can only be explained with modern science. One of the many examples is possession. This can only be explained in a multi-dimensional universe which science clearly accepts now (at least 11 dimensions and as many as 30).

There are so many examples of this that I honestly wonder how you can claim to have read the Bible.


What's ironic in this statement is that you're contradicting yourself completely.

You have previously stated in another thread that the Bible and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. The statement you are making now is in direct contradiction with that previous statement.

Additionally, if you've read the Bible and actually understood it, you would know that the prophecies that have been foretold about numerous things, including the "mark of the beast" involve modern-day technology. You would also know that the Bible has no opposition or contradiction to modern science at all. None. It is a brilliant book of knowledge containing answers to make of life's questions.

Of course, there are Bible haters out there who falsely claim that the Bible opposes modern science. Believe them if you want to but I prefer to do my own research and not to put blind faith in anybody.

Also, If you've really read the Bible, you would know this. I don't mean to be offensive in any way, I simply don't understand how you can contradict yourself so directly unless my supposition about you holding multiple contradictory beliefs at the same time is true.

Remember, know yourself before venturing on a quest for truth.


No, evolution is a theory—a proposed truth—a claim, and according to what you've previously posted, the burden lies with the claim-maker. Again, you are diametrically contradicting yourself.

I am attempting to have a clear discussion focusing on only one question at a time.


As I stated previously, this is simply impossible because all parts of this signaling mechanism must be at the same time present for the system to work.

If only a small part of it is present, then it serves no purpose and is only a harmful mutation serving only as an energy drain to the organism and will be eliminated through natural selection.

So, it is simply impossible that this incredibly complex system involving the encoding of information, the transmission of information, and the decoding and implementation of that information through a suitable medium could have evolved bit-by-bit.

It's downright silly to believe this. There is no other logical way to think of it.


You have not explained how bilateral symmetry evolved. You are again simply piecing together quotes from another website that sound scientific but provide no explanation.

You are simply saying that it did happen...

You said...

"We can see the stages in the fossil record."

I say where? Show me. I'm not interested in living in blind faith.

Please show me where the encoder exists in the signaling mechanism but perhaps the language is missing.

Show me where, perhaps, the decoder exists but the medium is missing.

How about where the language exists but the encoder is missing.

You see, the problem with these assertions that you are parroting is that all parts of this system have to have knowledge of the other parts, otherwise, the system does not work and is a harmful mutation and will be eliminated.

To make this simple, I'll explain.

You cannot encode a message if you don't have a language to encode it to. The encoder has to know the language before it can encode a message in the language.

The same is true of the decoder. The decoder has to be built understanding the same language as both the encoder and the decoder, plus the physics of the language has to have a transport mechanism—a medium—suitable for the message to travel through so that the message can be delivered from the encoder to the decoder.

So, without knowledge of the language, both the encoder and the decoder are useless. Without a medium, the encoder, decoder, and language are all useless.

The point here is that if your designing a communication system, you have to develop all parts of the communication system with knowledge of the other parts and they must exist at the same time. If only a tiny part of a decoder is engineered incorrectly, then the message will not be properly decoded and it will get scrambled.

It is complete nonsense to believe that these incredibly complex communication systems could be mutated into existence bit-by-bit. I t not only contradicts fundamental evolutionary theory (elimination of harmful mutation via natural selection) but you fail to explain how such complex individual components could evolve if evolution is only made bit-by-bit.

Think about it carefully.

You simply must not fully understand what these websites you copy from are asking you to believe.

Furthermore, to imply that I am questioning the entire field of genetics is another debate tactic using misassociation to imply that I am saying something that I am not.

I love science. I always have.

The search for, understanding of, and utilization of knowledge is a wonderful and beneficial thing that I thoroughly enjoy and always will.

The problem is that evolution is not science. It's a grand magic show that is clearly ridiculous to those who are intellectually honest and don't have an agenda and don't have a pattern of self deception evidenced by internal simultaneous conflicting beliefs.

My only "agenda" (if you want to call it that) is to find truth, and if evolution were the best explanation for life, I would gladly accept it.

I have no bias against evolution and I have no bias for the Bible. I only share my observations with others.

My observation is that the Bible is prophetic, authenticating, and otherwise astounding and evolution is internally self-conflicting and deceptive through over-simplification. I have no question that those who invented evolutionary claims and continue to incessantly promote them are laughing their heads off at their own power to convince people that rocks turn into humans given enough time.

Genetics is an awesome area of science and I'm glad we're studying it. My rejection of evolutionary myth does nothing to discredit genetic sciences.

Evolution is a fable—a myth used to condition you for the coming global socialism. Nothing more.

Those who promote it know you better than you know yourself.


Where? Please show me.


Simple.

Because mutations are almost always harmful, and when they are beneficial (which honest evolutionists admit is astronomically rare), they are not always passed on plus the next 10 million harmful mutations often destroy the organism that received the benefit.

Additionally, you simply do not understand the roulette game.

Adding time to the equation does not add probability.

Let's be clear. We're talking not about time, we're talking about the total number of mutations that occur versus the number of beneficial mutations.

Any honest evolutionist that understands this should take serious pause at this point, not to mention the evolutionary population enigma, the lack of transitional forms, and numerous other anomalies that render evolution nothing more than fantasy.


You are clearly confusing the issue.

Here is a statement that I hope will help you find your error.

The player who gets the one good hand will not become rich playing against the other players.

Do you see the difference?

This is the statistic that applies to rock-to-human evolutionary claims.

We're not talking about the fact that probability states that a good hand will occur. Of course it will.

We're talking about the culmination of highly-complex mutations that require multiple complex disconnected parts requiring the same knowledge for its design—and the impossibility thereof.

The other fundamental problem is this:

For a signaling molecule system to be developed, it takes a lot more than a 52-card deck, or 52 bits of information, if you please. It takes millions of pieces of information to spontaneously arrange themselves at the same time with the precision of a modern microcontroller system.

Then, the spontaneously arranged system must contain an encoder, decoder, a language (or protocol) and a medium of transfer, and all this must exist at the same time.

If only part of this system exists, it would be useless and would only be worthless weight and energy expenditure putting the organism at a disadvantage (harmful mutation). The organism would then be eliminated because of its increased inefficiency through natural selection.

I hope you see how grossly over-simplified examples relating to card games do not apply to probability in this context. This oversimplification is only a device used to confuse you into believing something that would otherwise be considered rubbish.


What those you parrot are not telling you is that the experiments that supposedly support this conclusion are grossly mistaken, and they are also not telling you that the same processes that provide some suggestion of order also destroy the very order they claim to create.

Throw coins on the ground. You will find that some cluster of heads-up coins may exist. Throw again. You may or may not find another cluster this time, but in a difference location. Throw enough times and you will find that no pattern exists, hence no order.

The information necessary for replication is not simple and if people knew the complexity involved, plus the requirement that these exists simultaneously, they would laugh at these magical claims.

To attempt to make your example previously more suitable, let's take a deck with 10 trillion unique cards and attempt to have the same person get a full house 40 million times in a row. This is a far more realistic example of evolutionary claims.

You see Linda, new studies have come out that support the assertion that mercury in vaccines is safe. Of course, the studies that "prove" this are blatantly flawed but they are the only ones that get media attention. The studies that show the connections are conveniently ignored over and over again.

The same corrupt processes that occur in these blatantly flawed evolution studies are the same processes they want you to believe in so you accept the magic of evolution, and they will provide you with all the "evidence" you need to be (emotionally) convinced.

You see, common sense tells you never to play cards with such a huge deck and never to employ rules that require such low odds if you have any hope of winning.

These people are not being honest with you.

Now, I'm not saying that the parrots (other self-styled evolutionists) aren't being honest with you. No, they will defend their desire for evolution to the death. It is the originators of the false studies that commit crimes against the truth.


Sometimes you seem to be defending rock-to-cell evolution and sometimes you seem to be defending cell-to-man evolution. Which one do you believe in?

Also remember that a string of carbon atoms is a long, long, long way from the complex machinery of a single cell. The really have nothing to do with each other for several reasons.

These statements you read about these "naturally" occurring molecules are only meant to confuse you further, and they are doing a remarkable job.

Nevertheless, real science knows the vast difference between complex machines and strings of carbon based on known laws involving chemical binding and ions.


That's an interesting article because it relates to science in some respects (and I find science interesting), however, the relationship between genes and cells in this way does not lend any credibility to the claim that rocks became cells and cells became man. Again, these articles are written with assumptions embedded that attempt to lead the naive into accepting vast evolutionary assumptions.

Even Darwin believed that cells were pretty simple things. Now we know better.

Again, don't be taken in by the gross oversimplification, unless you want to be.

By the way, I didn't ask about how light is converted into electrical signals. I stated that it is converted in my explanation to you about the complexity of these devices.


You're not dealing with a naive person here Linda. I don't view complexity and blindly say God did it. I view the evidence without prejudice.

Actually, I look at natural processes and what we know about them and realize what I believe any reasonable person would, and that is that they don't make themselves. Rocks do not turn into men, no matter what amount of time they are given.

You can believe this if you want, but it is not science.


The concept here is that technology (like the human body) is built in layers that isolate and reduce complexity with each containing layer and that the interfaces are interdependent (but interfaces get simpler at higher levels, as an interesting aside). (This is the same model for complexity management that mankind uses).

Evolutionists look at the interfaces and say, "Ah, look how simple it is." An honest scientist looks at life and realizes that you don't define complexity by the interface between complex subunits.

The problem with explaining symmetry using signaling molecules in this regard (there are other types of problems with it) is that you're moving to containing layers but you're increasing complexity.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to simplify this explanation to make it easier to understand then I did previously.


I understand this about evolutionary myth, and this is why I used the word "beneficial" when explaining the laws of reduced complexity earlier in relation to beneficial mutations.

The examples stand firm and are unrebutted and show that believing in evolution (rocks turning into men given time) is like shooting yourself into space blindly and believing you're going to run into Alpha Centauri.

Linda, strings of carbon molecules do not draw true logic any closer to evolutionary myth. The law of physics that enable carbon strings and the laws claimed to exist by evolutionary myth are completely different. Your confusing the process (based on rules) with the substance. Big difference.

It's clear to me that natural processes to not turn rocks into humans. The problem with many humans is, however, that they allow their personal biases to cloud their thinking, this happens much more than you realize.

The art of logical thinking is something that I realized (as a child) was very important in order to find truth. I realized that the physical universe does not care how I feel about it. The laws employed there remain the same regardless of my emotions.

Clever deceptive people did, however, discover that emotions change people's perception of the physical universe, and they use this as much in advertising as in the incessant promotion of evolutionary myth.

To this end, I studied evolution, because it was so popular. I also studied the Bible (only after my interesting experience which I shared on another thread) and found that rock-to-man claims have no evidence to support them and that the Bible foretold the future in ways that no subjective author could have. Combined with gematria, embedded authentication, and several other factors, I realized that there was something very unique about this book.

After years of study, I continue to find astounding prophecies about the present time and many other profound evidences that the Bible was actually authored by the same intelligent entity who built the astounding technology we call "nature". This is a logical conclusion from someone without an agenda except to find truth, whatever it may be.

You will find that the theories about rocks turning into men are with malice, and as you grow in the knowledge about how science and people really work, I truly hope you realize that you have been lied to and I hope you have the humility to admit that you were wrong. Both are required for this realization.

I honestly believe that you allow your emotions and your own person desires to cloud your logic, and that combined with your lack of knowledge about complex systems is a dangerous combination in today's world, especially considering the amount of seduction that is currently available on demand and always ready to make you feel "right" and to validate all of your personal wishes.

Learn to separate your desires from your observations and you may begin to realize the absurdity in believing that rocks can turn into men over time.

Logically, we have a standoff, as you believe the websites you've been perusing are telling you the truth and I believe the logic and natural methods that are well established in science are telling the truth; And isn't this how I said debates of this type end, and that is, in deciding who you believe.