A code needs a coder.

[SteveB28]

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.

No, that will be enough.....you've demonstrated your limitations sufficiently.....

 

[SteveB28]

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.

No,it's meaningless because there's nothing 'common' about it and people will disagree as to whether it makes 'sense'....try to pay attention.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, that will be enough.....you've demonstrated your limitations sufficiently.....

My, sharp tonight, lol

No,it's meaningless because there's nothing 'common' about it and people will disagree as to whether it makes 'sense'....try to pay attention.

Maybe you can get them to remove the term from the dictionary? Let me know how that goes.

 

[SteveB28]

My, sharp tonight, lol



Maybe you can get them to remove the term from the dictionary? Let me know how that goes.

Good night.....

 

[PeterRobertson]

The question is meaninless until the definition of "code" is given. Without that, it all comes down to equivocation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, DNA

From Wikipedia:

Deoxyribonucleic acid is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.

Instructions imply an instructor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How did a process involving random mutations where the extremely rare random mutation that is considered as beneficial create such a complex code?

Through natural selection.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

No. DNA is known to be shaped, formed, changed, mutated,... by the processes of evolution. This is observable fact.

There is nothing in DNA that can't demonstrably be accomplished by these processes.

For DNA to satisfy, it would therefore require us to show that its existance began independant of a creator in entirety or has always existed.

A random new-born has some 50-ish mutations, yet nobody has ever observed any entities fiddling about with the genes during conception.

In fact, we know what these mutations are and how they occur. No "creators" required.

This is a tall order and frankly not possible to show.

Even running with that, this smells like a preparation for an argument from ignorance.

For even if the initial event solely was due to such a being, the rest arising materialistically, all else would still follow from this first act.

True. So, I guess all you would need to do is demonstrate that the first DNA strand was made by god - oeps, sorry, I mean "creator" / "designer".

Good luck with that.

The question as I understand it, rather asks this to either support DNA possibly being such a type of code or to undermine it if no other example can be given.

Why would there HAVE to be another example?

I would rather suggest Crystallisation or atomic energy states, although the idea of it being 'information filled code' is less clear cut.

It all depends on how you wish to define the words "information" and "code".
Usually, when biologists use those terms, they mean something very differently as opposed to when creationists use those terms.

Creationists, however, love to pretend as if they mean the same thing. Which is why they tend to draw terribly wrong conclusions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What does these mutations do?

Most do nothing at all.
Some do harm.
Some are beneficial.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is DNA not a(?) code?

Because in reality, it's just a complex molecule involved in a gigantic chemical chain reaction.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because in reality, it's just a complex molecule involved in a gigantic chemical chain reaction.

Is that more or is it less complex than a code?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It is a code by analogy. Not literally.
Literally, it is a molecule engaged in a chemical reaction.

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

And I'm sure people have lectured you in response to those rants, explaining how the evolution of the eye is actually very well understood.

Over the last several months, I've found that some don't like the use of common sense, they prefer evidence

Evidence trumps "common sense". Because one doesn't know what is sensible in advance.

"Common sense" didn't include the relativity of time.
"Common sense" didn't include black holes.
"Common sense" didn't include quantum mechanics.

New discoveries, more often then not, defy our common sense.

, even though common sense is one thing that allows us to see evidence.

False. Common sense allows to draw sensible conclusions based on the knowledge we actually have. Common sense can't account for the things we do not know.

For example, if you don't know what fire is, then common sense will not dictate that you'll hurt yourself if you put your hand in it.

So, when it comes to phenomena that we do not understand, "common sense" is NOT a pathway to understanding such phenomena. Instead, common sense will only lead to conclusions based on nothing but ignorance, concerning those phenomena.

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

Same thing.

Again: common sense is only usefull to draw conclusions about things you actually already know and understand.

You know what paper is and what it is made off.
You also know what fire is and how the heat can affect certain materials.

Knowhing and understanding those things, common sense will lead you to conclude that paper will burn if your put it in the fire.

If you do not know what paper is, then common sense will be useless until you understand the nature of paper.

, and it is so unlikely something so introkit as DNA came about without intelligence, or even that the odds are astronomical,

Arguments from incredulity, ignorance and complexity, are fallacious.

they are simply impossible.

This claim requires evidence.

At least that's what common sense tells me.

And I have just explained rather extensively why common sense is not usefull regarding things you do not know.

 

[LionL]

From Wikipedia:
Instructions imply an instructor.

Maybe.
My take on it is that God created the rules of Physics, Chemistry and Biology knowing that DNA would develop - and consequently life.
It's all conjecture though.

 

[Larniavc]

It has everything to do with science, religion, the visible and the invisible. The common sense that men have today will be destroyed soon. Then a new "common sense" will be discovered by all God's people but all of us will agree that we're not real people living in a real universe. Many scientists are beginning to believe this today.

Yes, yes, the sky is falling in.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is that more or is it less complex than a code?

Then what code?

I don't see the relevancy anyway.
Its complexity or simplicity doesn't change its nature.

You seem to be hinting towards the idea that the more "complex" something is, the least "likely" it is to be a natural phenomena. I don't see the logic in that at all, especially considering how many obviously natural things are extremely complex.

It also depends on what you mean by "complex". It's rather subjective, imo.
What is complex to you might be simple to me and vice versa.

I'ld define the "complexity" of a thing, by the amount of parameters involved.
I see no reason to state that "a lot of parameters = intelligent intervention".

Take a hurricane for example. LOTS of complexity in that thing. Not only in its workings once it is raging, but also in its formation. SO much complexity that it's close to impossible to accurately describe it in all its aspects.

But they form quite happily on their own, born out of complex circumstances of air pressures, winds, temperatures, etc etc etc.

Complexity is not a sign of "design" or whatever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Tree of Life that has been hidden from man since man woke up in a world is the computing technology that our Creator converted His thoughts with to make characters called people and beasts come alive on a simulated planet whirling around in a simulated universe. Very few scientists believe this might be possible but the Creator has been in contact with me in the Tree of Life for 37 years now. Once he got his characters to build the voice recognition software that computer programmers can use for speaking code ( thoughts converted to computer language ) into and build computer simulation games, it is what he needed to help me understand how he was able to take his thoughts and speak them into a simulation program called Eternal Life where all the characters will experience life forever.

So, I guess you took the red pill when you met Morpheus?

 

[Jimmy D]

Is that more or is it less complex than a code?

What code? How do you measure it's complexity?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The truth of how we were created is very scary to most people.

Tell me about it....
One just has to look at all the mental gymnastics going on in this thread, just to stick to some bronze age myth and resist 21st century biology.

 

[KCfromNC]

Is that more or is it less complex than a code?

Not necessarily.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And I'm sure people have lectured you in response to those rants, explaining how the evolution of the eye is actually very well understood.

The Wizard of Oz is a story that's well understood too, but that doesn't mean it happened.

Evidence trumps "common sense". Because one doesn't know what is sensible in advance.

"Common sense" didn't include the relativity of time.
"Common sense" didn't include black holes.
"Common sense" didn't include quantum mechanics.

New discoveries, more often then not, defy our common sense.

Include? Takes common sense to understand all those things, as well as to understand what may not be real/ only conjecture. Takes common sense to see what is true evidence and what is not. Sure, you'd like to do away with it as a necessity, it's required in almost everything we do. Hard to believe this is even an argument....or that the argument is any more than funny.

False. Common sense allows to draw sensible conclusions based on the knowledge we actually have. Common sense can't account for the things we do not know.

LOL...that's basically what I just said, yet you said it was false. I said nothing about accounting for things we don't know. This is one screwy conversation.

If you do not know what paper is, then common sense will be useless until you understand the nature of paper.

But we have the common sense to understand the nature of paper. Sorry, you just can't get rid of those facts on CS by talking a lot.

Arguments from incredulity, ignorance and complexity, are fallacious.

Please. Do all atheists take the same course?

This claim requires evidence.

It requires little more than common sense, and that is example of precisely why you work so hard to make common sense worthless for anything other than what supports your end.

And I have just explained rather extensively why common sense is not usefull regarding things you do not know.

You explained nothing, you only talked, and made little sense at that.