A Riddle For Atheists - Evolutionists Can't Handle This One

[LittleNipper]

Demonstrably, obviously untrue. I mean, obviously untrue. If I kill a puppy, does that mean I created the puppy? If I smash a mailbox with a baseball bat, does that mean I created the mailbox?

And even if it were true, you've done nothing to prove the actual point in question - that only something's creator has the ability to destroy that thing.

I suspect you're trying to sound profound and mystical here, Nipper, but it just isn't working out for you...

You have only started a process by through which matter is converted back into energy.

 

[Dal M.]

You have only started a process by through which matter is converted back into energy.

All right, so I eat a plate of nachos, and my body converts it into energy. You're saying that this proves I created the nachos?

Please don't just respond with pseudo-aphorisms, Nipper. Actually explain your reasoning.

 

[cerad]

You made a funny!

Thanks. Some day I hope to be as funny as you. I just have this tendency to take myself too seriously. But once I get over that then I'll give you some competition.

 

[BrainHertz]

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

So is a conscious mind not known to science?

 

[Lucretius]

The argument is flawed because, as was pointed out earlier, the only examples of "intelligence" that codes things is human intelligence. You can't jump from human intelligence designs things, therefore things that look similar in nature have some vaguely defined intelligence. The analogy would be, humans are the only being known to design codes, so if we find codes in nature, they are the product of humans.

We don't know how any other intelligence works, if they think the way we do, or even if there IS any other intelligence. It's a blatant fallacy of equivocation to say human intelligence therefore vague non-human intelligence, if similar design to what human intelligence would expect from human intelligence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do we find DNA in Outer Space? Did we discover DNA on the Moon? Is DNA found in meteors? If not, it isn't a "natually occurring" phenomenon. It is quite unique to unique living things on this unique planet.

Life on Earth is natural, as is the Earth itself. Even human beings are natural.

 

[Nathan45]

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

DNA is quite demonstratably a molecule with a pattern. And yes it is also an information storage mechanism, it stores the information encoding itself in addition to encoding other information.

Furthermore, there is nothing special about an encoding mechanism encoding itself, high level computer programming languages do it.

For example, You can write a program in C that compiles into a program that compiles C programs. And the program you just created could compile itself just as well as the other compiler you used.

Furthermore, the first C compiler obviously wasn't written in C, it was written in some previous language... the original programming language is "machine code", which is simply a bunch of zeros and ones that correspond to logic circuits on the hardware level. Furthermore, you can't argue against logic circuits, because you would be arguing with a tautology. Logic circuits do what they do because that's the way they are connected together. If the circuit is mapped out in one way, the electricity will flow that way, period. Please don't argue this.

These logic circuits might be compared to the actual chemestry that is involved in DNA. Because that's all DNA is, a chemical that undergoes chemistry. ( which, naturally, is what chemicals do )

So if you're looking for God, you might start there ( Chemistry )... or maybe try physics. but that would require you to put up with numerous heretic scientists who know that your own presuppositions on the origin of life are completely bunk.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

1) Coded information is a subset of information
2) There are natural processes that create random information.
Conclusion: Any mechanism that can create random information has the potential to create coded information. I think I have demonstrated as much with my mockery of your Bible Code thread, if you ever read that.

Your assertion is false.

What we need to find is a mechanism of selecting between random information to determine what is useful and what isn't. That's what natural selection does. If something doesn't code for itself, it doesn't reproduce. If something doesn't code for something useful to it's own reproduction, it is less likely to reproduce.

If something codes for it's own destruction, it dies, and that code is no more until it randomly arises again somewhere else, only to meet the same quick fate as before... it may as well have never existed. But if, alternatively, something codes for it's own production, we will begin see many more of those things, will we not?

Of the set of all molecules, there are some which are very well suited to the production of themselves. Like DNA, for example.

To have abiogenesis what we need to discover is the simplest possible molecule or structure or chemical process that is capable of reproducing something similar to itself through natural processes. Once it can do that, it can mutate into all kinds of things through random processes, and the mutations can be selected for through natural selection.

Now, the odds of this one small molecule or structure spontaneously assembling by chance is not impossible, as new information is random.

What are the odds? You can't calculate the odds until you determine a good list of the simplest possible molecules capable of self-reproduction. Given billion years and millions of square miles of earth, among millions of stars among millions of galaxies, how long do you think it would take one of these arbitrarily simple molecules to appear from random chance, anywhere? But it only has to do so one time, anywhere, and then it spreads to everywhere it can reach.

So what are the odds? Actually, who cares. The odds, if they are ever calculated, are completely irrelevent because of the anthropic principle. Because we are here to discuss it, we know this much: we got here by some mechanism or another.

So unless you can also calculate the odds of some intellegent design creating life directly ex-nihilo, or show us another theory that fits the evidence and is possible, the odds of abiogenesis creating life are irrelevent.

Furthermore, as noted in the above, we're talking about abiogenesis not evolution, because evolution will occur in self-imperfectly-reproducing coded systems whether the coded systems that encode it were created naturally or ex-nihilo.

You can't marginalize natural selection from by invoking God, it happens whether you like it or not:

That which is fit to survive is likely to survive, that which is fit to reproduce is likely to reproduce. You are arguing with a tautology: To prove natural selection, all I need to do is show that there exists such a thing as something that is "fit" to survive and "fit" to reproduce and the answer is an emphatic "YES".

Done with this thread.

 

[Nitron]

I have one- DNA!

 

[Ganymede]

...If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one...

How about english, french, italian, spanish, german, dutch, etc, etc.

All languages that have occured naturally.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How about english, french, italian, spanish, german, dutch, etc, etc.

All languages that have occured naturally.

And in the case of Spanish, French, Italian, etc., we can even trace them to a common ancestor: Latin.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You're saying that this proves I created the nachos?

You created nachos???

*bows down to Dal M, almighty creator of the nacho*

 

[Vene]

And in the case of Spanish, French, Italian, etc., we can even trace them to a common ancestor: Latin.

And odds are good that Latin also evolved from another, more ancient language. Though I am unaware of what it was.
(Isn't a linguist)

 

[Westvleteren]

And odds are good that Latin also evolved from another, more ancient language. Though I am unaware of what it was.
(Isn't a linguist)

Italic. Then Indo-European.

Then Proto-Indo-European.

(Awesome! I got to use my graduate degree today! Put a gold star on the calendar...)

 

[Redac]

*bows down to Dal M, almighty creator of the nacho*

 

[Patashu]

If DNA is not a code, then scientists should stop calling it a code. They must be lying! And if scientists are lying about DNA code, they may be lying about evolution! Me thinks your stuck.

I'm not aware of any scientists who call DNA a code except in the metaphorical sense. Are you?

 

[Nathan45]

I'm not aware of any scientists who call DNA a code except in the metaphorical sense. Are you?

what are you talking about? it's called the Genetic Code, isn't it?

 

[BrainHertz]

I'm not aware of any scientists who call DNA a code except in the metaphorical sense. Are you?

I would certainly call it a "code" from an information theoretic point of view (I'm not a biologist...).

Then again, just about any sequence of events can be called a code also...

 

[ranmaonehalf]

The following information comes from Perry Marshall:

--------

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

i agree,:similarly
1) a hole in the ground is of binary language. 1full 0 empty. it is a code( binary), a language (not sure what kind), and a storage device (water or whatever you put in it)
2) all codes that we know of were made by a mind. therefore the hole was made by a consious mind.
3) god makes holes..


of course i geuss teh def of information my help

 

[ranmaonehalf]

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes we know of are created by a conscious human mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a human mind.


well that sounds better but i still see a flaw. at least i added what you intentionally left out.

Perhaps you can name a code that wasnt made by a human mind? Or perhaps an animal.

Oh and one more time, define information.

 

[Dal M.]

You created nachos???

*bows down to Dal M, almighty creator of the nacho*

While I don't recall creating nachos, I guess Nipper's claiming my ability to digest them proves that I was the meal's originator. Its... NachOriginator. Praise be to the NachOriginator!

Of course, if I'm going to start up a new religion here, I'll need an appropriate hat.