Read the question a little more carefully. At first glance it does appear to mean something different, but it is worded properly.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
A code needs a coder.
- Thread starter -57
- Start date
Read the question a little more carefully. At first glance it does appear to mean something different, but it is worded properly.
DNA. Lets for the moment assume that is a code, even though I do understand how some are going to have to insist it is not because it just won't work for them to admit a complex code in this case, so it will require redefining.
BTW, from the first def that came up in search...dictionary.com. But do continue to refute it.
DNA
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
1.
Genetics. deoxyribonucleic acid: an extremely long macromolecule that is the main component of chromosomes and is the material that transfers genetic characteristics in all life forms, constructed of two nucleotide strands coiled around each other in a ladderlike arrangement with the sidepieces composed of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose units and the rungs composed of the purine and pyrimidine bases adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine: the genetic information of DNA is encoded in the sequence of the bases and is transcribed as the strands unwind and replicate.
Compare base pair, gene, genetic code, RNA.
2.
the set of nongenetic traits, qualities, or features that characterize a person or thing:
Humility is just not in her DNA.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,784
- 52,876
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Aren't you the dude who cries "assumptions!" as your argument against pretty much any evidence you've been shown for the TOE?
You couldn't make it up.
Oh, I thought you had an answer, but you're just changing the subject...ok, carry on.
Upvote
0
TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
I meant "empirically understood".
Just google "evolution of the eye". But do make sure to use a computer that doesn't hold all your webbrowsing history, or google will serve you with a bunch of science denier links.
No.
Before Einstein, "common sense" lead you to believe that time is constant everywhere, at all times.
Before relativity, "common sense" didn't lead you to believe that something like a black hole could exist.
Before quantum mechanics, "common sense" didn't inform you that you could measure an object in place X, while it is showing up in place Y.
TODAY, it is "common sense" that a GPS satellite's internal atomic clock needs to run at a slightly different "speed" then those on earth, to account for the relativity of time or it will simply not work as it wouldn't be able to pinpoint your location with enough precision. But TODAY, that is only common sense, because we now UNDERSTAND that time is relative to the observer at different speeds.
If we could build GPS satellites before Einstein came up with relativity, they would have been off by several miles and nobody would have understood why.
Because, once again, common sense can only keep into account those things that you already know and understand.
Because (and perhaps print this statement out and hang it over your bed, to remind you every morning): contrary to popular belief, you do not know what is sensible in advance.
The only thing funny here, is how can't get such a simple, simple concept as "you do not know what is sensible in advance".
Again, if you don't know what fire is, then common sense will not lead you to believe that you'll get hurt if you put your hand in it. You'll have to find out by actually putting your hand in - or trying to do so. Common sense will not be able to lead you to that conclusion, without actually trying to put your hand in.
Why is this relevant?
Because that is exactly how you are using "common sense" here. You are taking things that you do not understand (by your own admission, with all that talk about how "complex" it is etc) and then try to draw conclusions about it based on "common sense".
No, that's not at all what you said.
You said that "common sense allows us to see evidence".
No.
"Common sense" allows you to draw conclusions about things you already know.
Fire = hot
Hand = hurts when to hot
Common sense: you'll hurt your hand if you put it in fire.
That is what "common sense" is.
If you don't know what fire is, common sense won't dictate that you'll hurt your hand. It really is that simple.
Once more: you do not know what is sensible in advance.
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.
You're using the term wrong.
We have the intellectual capacity to understand the nature of paper.
Common sense then, informed by that knowledge, allows us to conclude that paper will burn.
common sense
noun
1.
plain ordinary good judgment; sound practical sense
adjective
2.
inspired by or displaying sound practical sense
You can't form good judgement based on ignorance.
You can't display sound practical sense based on ignorance.
Logical fallacies are independent of ones religious beliefs or lack thereof.
We've been over this.
No. It's why I work hard to make you understand why common sense isn't helpfull when it is informed by ignorance.
eg: before Einstein, common sense lead to the conclusion that it is "impossible" for time to flow faster for some people relative to other people.
See?
Common sense leads me to conclude that it was a waste of energy, indeed.
Upvote
0
TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
No... the "it" in your sentence was DNA. Let me remind you of how the conversation went:
"it", thus being the DNA molecule
To which you replied "DNA".
So, substituting the "it"s etc for the words they represent, would mean your question is:
"Is DNA more complex then DNA?".
Something doesn't add up here.
But anyhow..................
There's nothing to redefine. It is factually correct that DNA is a molecule engaged in a chemical reaction.
It is being called a "code" as analogy by geneticists etc, since the make-up of the molecule "steers" the reaction it is engaged in. Not unlike any other chemical reaction, for that matter.
The analogy works better for DNA however, since there is so much variation of this molecule. And we know why that variation exists, btw. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with "creators" or "designers" or other badly disguised terms for "god".
I've already explained to you that the word "code" here does not mean, what you think it means.
It, for example, doesn't mean the same as in the sentence "C++ is a code".
Upvote
0
TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
When you ask a question and someone asks for clarification of your question, that does not equal "dancing around it".
In fact, it is directly addressing it. If you then refuse to clarify your question and the terms you use, you have only yourself to blame for not receiving any answers.
Either you are unwilling to clarify it for some mysterious reason
or
You don't really know/understand what you are asking yourself.
Upvote
0
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 29,263
- 20,767
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
So "CODE" means some kind of data structure in which useful information is embedded???
Upvote
0
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 29,263
- 20,767
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Makes no sense.
Thats like saying my light switch is a code. Its not. It has a position; but there's no other info embedded.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,784
- 52,876
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,784
- 52,876
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
I think we should savour this precious moment AV, I think we're in agreement about Tic Toc's claims.
Upvote
0
You need to pay closer attention, my reply was not to him asking for clarification, he asked for that in a prior post. It was to him saying he didn't know how to measure complexity. Most agree on what is complex and what is not...nothing complicated about it, so when, out of convenience, someone loses their ability to reason the simple, I naturally believe that equals dancing around it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
