A code needs a coder.

HitchSlap · Oct 10, 2016

-57 said:
Biologos mentioned Stephen Meyers...They also asked if the genetic code is really a code.
Here's a 3 1/2 min long video that Meyers did to show one of the processes in the cell. The answer becomes obvious pretty quick....DNA most defiantly is a code.

What was in this video that convinced you DNA is a code?

-57 · Oct 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
What was in this video that convinced you DNA is a code?

Nope. It supports my position.
I don't know when I ever didn't believe DNA was a code.

HitchSlap · Oct 10, 2016

-57 said:
Nope. It supports my position.
I don't know when I ever didn't believe DNA was a code.

There was never a time you didn't understand DNA?

SteveB28 · Oct 10, 2016

-57 said:
Nope. It supports my position.
I don't know when I ever didn't believe DNA was a code.

There's part of your problem - you're "believing", rather than "investigating"....

juvenissun · Oct 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
I thought mutations were quite common. Isn't there something like 60-70 new mutations per human offspring?

What does these mutations do?

juvenissun · Oct 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Deoxyribonucleic Acid / Ribonucleic Acid

(FTR, I don't consider DNA/RNA to be "code" as creationists/IDists suggest.)

Why is DNA not a(?) code?

jayem · Oct 10, 2016

-57 said:
From biologos:

We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.

We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth. This is descent with modification which is not how the bible says God created.
but also as spiritual beings.....the question is when did this occur? Biologos would argue that sometime during human evolution God made the entire population spiritual beings. No where does the bible teach this. This concept adds to the Word of God.
God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image. Once again Biologos departs from the biblical authority and adds to the Word of God.
and calling us to an elevated position within the created order. The bible tells us God on day 6 created us in an elevated position...not called us out of the animal kingdom.

As I said, geneticist and biology professor Dennis Venema is a Christian. And he describes a mechanism whereby the genetic code could have appeared by natural, physiochemical processes. Which also supports my point in the other thread that many Christians have no problem with naturalistic evolution and biogenesis. And I'll give kudos to BioLogos.org for publishing his article.

HitchSlap · Oct 10, 2016

juvenissun said:
What does these mutations do?

See post #11

HitchSlap · Oct 10, 2016

juvenissun said:
Why is DNA not a(?) code?

IMO, it's biochemistry.

Resha Caner · Oct 10, 2016

Quid est Veritas? said:
Technically, to answer DNA is to beg the question since it is assuming that DNA arose from Natural Selection in a purely Naturalistic Materialist world. I assume the OP is inferring this is not the case.

Agreed. However, I think the "intelligent designer" thing an impossible riddle to solve.

Kenny'sID · Oct 10, 2016

DNA is not a code because that title is not convenient at the moment.

I've gone on in the past about the human eye as a for instance of being something so complicated, it could never come about on it's own (as if anything could ) but this cuts right to the chase...the code that makes it all possible.

Over the last several months, I've found that some don't like the use of common sense, they prefer evidence, even though common sense is one thing that allows us to see evidence. Though, for some, common sense may not tell what is most likely to be, it should at least tell them what is not likely to be, and it is so unlikely something so introkit as DNA came about without intelligence, or even that the odds are astronomical, they are simply impossible.

At least that's what common sense tells me.

JonFromMinnesota · Oct 11, 2016

I've gone on in the past about the human eye as a for instance of being something so complicated, it could never come about on it's own (as if anything could ) but this cuts right to the chase...the code that makes it all possible.

Biologists understand the evolution of the eye. Just because you do not, does not make what you are saying accurate.

Kenny'sID said:
and it is so unlikely something so introkit as DNA came about without intelligence, or even that the odds are astronomical, they are simply impossible.
At least that's what common sense tells me.

This isn't common sense. It's argument from incredulity. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make you correct.

Kenny'sID · Oct 11, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
This isn't common sense. It's argument from incredulity. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make you correct.

Oh brother.

Like I said, some people just aren't fond of common sense. Just because you don't have it, doesn't make me incorrect.

SteveB28 · Oct 11, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
Oh brother.

Like I said, some people just aren't fond of common sense. Just because you don't have it, doesn't make me incorrect.

"Common sense" is a meaningless term. It means something different to each person. What I find unusual, you might find commonplace; what I consider sensible, you might feel is illogical. Unfortunately, the term is often used to disguise the phrase "I just can't believe any other explanation".....as you are using it here.

SteveB28 · Oct 11, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
DNA is not a code because that title is not convenient at the moment.

I've gone on in the past about the human eye as a for instance of being something so complicated, it could never come about on it's own (as if anything could ) but this cuts right to the chase...the code that makes it all possible.

Over the last several months, I've found that some don't like the use of common sense, they prefer evidence, even though common sense is one thing that allows us to see evidence. Though, for some, common sense may not tell what is most likely to be, it should at least tell them what is not likely to be, and it is so unlikely something so introkit as DNA came about without intelligence, or even that the odds are astronomical, they are simply impossible.

At least that's what common sense tells me.

"Introkit"...!!??

And you want us to trust your common SENSE....??

SteveB28 · Oct 11, 2016

You do realise that the evidence from biology indicates that the 'eye' has evolved on at least 40 different occasions....?

.

Jimmy D · Oct 11, 2016

-57 said:
Can anyone present a sophisticated information filled code that wasn't written/created with intelligence?

I know it's already been answered but....

DNA

DNA is not comparable with computer code (if that's what you're getting at).

Chemical reactions are not 'code'.

The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes.

http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code

FrumiousBandersnatch · Oct 11, 2016

I don't have a problem with interpreting DNA as a code in the sense that JimmyD describes; a codon codes for an amino acid or a transcription stop. But calling it a code is just a human convenience.

It's not the same sort of code as computer code, such a fragile control system could not evolve; it's more like a set of templates - mutations in genetic code generally don't crash the program because there isn't really a program. Mutations change the proteins produced or how their production or expression is regulated. It's robust because it has evolved to be robust - fragile versions don't persist.

Kenny'sID · Oct 11, 2016

SteveB28 said:
And you want us to trust your common SENSE....??

Tell me, Steve, what exactly does a single misspelled word say about a person to you? I get that it would mean they don't have common sense in your mind...anything else?

And if you like, I can get into what indicates small mindedness to me, and how people will say the darnedest things when they have no other defense.

Kenny'sID · Oct 11, 2016

SteveB28 said:
"Common sense" is a meaningless term.

Like I said, some people don't like the term, and pretty sure that's because it gets in the way of their agenda. but going so far as to call it a meaningless term is a pretty far fetched way to try to make it go away.

Always tickles me how Atheists like to redefine words, but removing their meaning all together, is a new one on me.

A code needs a coder.

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Naturalist

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency