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

[Lord Emsworth]

The BIBLE screams GOD.

I certainly know who comes across as screaming.

 

[Nithavela]

Well, this depends on how you define code.

I would define code as "information being able to be interpreted without the actual subject of the information at hand". Like in, "apple" is the code word for some kind of fruit, and by the interpretation method of reading some of us have learnes, we are able to create the image of a piece of fruit in our mind without having to see one or having to have a picture of an apple, which of course is a form of code in itself, because a picture of an apple is not an apple... but I'm getting a little carried away here.

So, in simple words: A piece of information that can be interpreted is a code.

If this definition of code kinda fits your definition of code, then I would propose:

___---*** The Tree Rings! ***---___

The rings of a tree are occuring 100% naturally because trees grow slower during winter then during summer. They are encoding a lot of information, like the age of the tree or the length and intensity of every single winter and summer. You have to use your mind to interpret them, but you also need special enzyms to "read" the DNA.

This took me half a minute to figure out. the argument seems toppled to me. Good luck next time MandM.

 

[Blackmarch]

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.

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.

Perry Marshall

--------

If you agree with points 1 to 3 above, guess what......you are a creationist.

For more very interesting material from the author above check here:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

#2 can't be confirmed or disproven....

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, this depends on how you define code.

I would define code as "information being able to be interpreted without the actual subject of the information at hand". Like in, "apple" is the code word for some kind of fruit, and by the interpretation method of reading some of us have learnes, we are able to create the image of a piece of fruit in our mind without having to see one or having to have a picture of an apple, which of course is a form of code in itself, because a picture of an apple is not an apple... but I'm getting a little carried away here.

The difference is that code is abstract. When you write "apple" you can change the font, size, color, intensity, etc. of the word and it still has the same meaning. In DNA, you can not change the size of the bases or other attributes because it is the physical characteristics of DNA which produces the phenomena. I can't remember who said it, but here is my nugget of wisdom. Codes/Languages are written in ink. DNA is the ink. That is the difference. You don't have to chemically react with the newspaper to extract it's information, but that is exactly what one must do in order to extract information from DNA.

 

[Revelation1217]

It amazes me that anyone can look at DNA and still believe in the "theory" of evolution.

 

[UncleHermit]

It amazes me that anyone can look at DNA and still believe in the "theory" of evolution.

Why?

 

[Skaloop]

It amazes me that anyone can look at DNA and still believe in the "theory" of evolution.

It amazes me that anyone can look at all the natural evidence ever found and still believe in the myth of Creationism.

 

[Asimov]

It amazes me that anyone can look at DNA and still believe in the "theory" of evolution.

It amazes me that strawmen like this can still exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It amazes me that anyone can look at DNA and still believe in the "theory" of evolution.

As they say, put up or shut up.
DNA is evidence for evolutionary theory (for instance, one of the human chromosomes is almost exactly the same as two chimp chromosomes, complete with two centromeres and everything; Creationists can only consider this to be a quirk of the Creator, but evolutionists know better: the ancestors common to humans, but not to chimps, fused two of their chromosomes together, tip-to-tail).

 

[MoonLancer]

.

 

[MoonLancer]

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.

DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern---> it is a code---> a language---> All codes are created by a conscious mind---->there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.---Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

this is a classic example of a slippery slop fallacy. I thought the jumps were a tad large, but then i saw that you made tiny jumps within your own numbered fallacy. You almost fooled me into thinking it was a poorly executed fallacy... you sly dog.

DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern---> it is a code--->
Not all patterns are code

it is a code---> a language--->

code is not always a language

a language---> All codes are created by a conscious mind---->

like the signals animals make?

All codes are created by a conscious mind---->there is no natural process known to science that creates coded

DNA replication through natural selection

Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

right....

have fun with your fallacy. Don't fool yourself into thinking thats logic though.

 

[[serious]]

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.

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.

I'll give 3.
dna, rna, protein

 

[LittleNipper]

DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern---> it is a code---> a language---> All codes are created by a conscious mind---->there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.---Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

this is a classic example of a slippery slop fallacy. I thought the jumps were a tad large, but then i saw that you made tiny jumps within your own numbered fallacy. You almost fooled me into thinking it was a poorly executed fallacy... you sly dog.

DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern---> it is a code--->
Not all patterns are code

code is not always a language

like the signals animals make?

DNA replication through natural selection

right....

have fun with your fallacy. Don't fool yourself into thinking thats logic though.

DNA did not originate with natural selection.

 

[[serious]]

"DNA did not originate with natural selection."

the code contained in it did.

 

[quatona]

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.

DNA (if by all means you want to call it a code, that is).

 

[FishFace]

It amazes me that anyone can look at DNA and still believe in the "theory" of evolution.

Really? Have you ever looked at DNA? Do you realise what we find if we actually look?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

 

[AtheistPerson]

mapping out anything is not a code by the way...

 

[atomweaver]

DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern---> it is a code---> a language---> All codes are created by a conscious mind---->there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.---Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

this is a classic example of a slippery slop fallacy.

(emphasis mine)
Love the typo, BTW, intentional or not. Slippery slop, indeed...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

DNA did not originate with natural selection.

Debateable. The first genetic material is thought to be RNA, and only though the process of natural selection did DNA come about. That said, the information encoded in DNA did arise through natural selection, which is the whole point: information need not arise through concious input.

 

[MoonLancer]

(emphasis mine)
Love the typo, BTW, intentional or not. Slippery slop, indeed...

i cant tell your insulting my bad spelling or not but i guess it really doesn't matter.