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

[MandM]

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

 

[cerad]

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

Well, DNA contains coding and it's occurs naturally so I guess the proof has been toppled. That was pretty easy. Got any more?

 

[Patashu]

Is it for atheists or evolutionists? Make up your mind, MandM.

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.

It is not a code or language since to be one would require the usage of abstract symbols that can work in any medium that must be interpreted. DNA is not a code because it uses non-abstract symbols (molecules) that only work in one medium (they require the specific chemical interactions they're based on to work, thus they can only work in the medium of DNA molecules itself)
Calling DNA a code is like calling C2H4 + 3O2 = 2CO2 + 2H2O a code.

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

Luckily DNA isn't a code, ey?

*snip rest since it's now irrelevant*

 

[Blayz]

Well I am am convinced. You have clearly shown the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists...I mean, when you said "designer", thats who you meant, right? You certainly have given 0 evidence that its any one of the Xtian gods.

 

[Dal M.]

Ah. Argument by Strained Analogy. Nice one.

I'll do you one better, though:

1.) DNA is a highly complex encrypted code.
2.) Encryption was invented by human beings.
3.) Therefore, DNA was invented by human beings.

If you can work out what's wrong with my argument, perhaps you'll see what's wrong with yours.

 

[Sequim]

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.

The truth of your second premise---"all codes are created by a conscious mind"---is unsubstantiated. As for your

" there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. And there certainly is a known process by which coded information arises out of a natural process."​

DNA's natural origin has as much, and more basis, than does the simple assertion that it arose from the mind of a creator.



One theory is the RNA world hypothesis.

The RNA world hypothesis is a theory which proposes that a world filled with RNA (ribonucleic acid) based life predates current DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) based life. RNA, which can store information like DNA and catalyze reactions like proteins (enzymes), may have supported cellular or pre-cellular life. Some theories as to the origin of life present RNA-based catalysis and information storage as the first step in the evolution of cellular life.​

The RNA world is proposed to have evolved into the DNA and protein world of today. DNA, through its greater chemical stability, took over the role of data storage while protein, which is more flexible in catalysis through the great variety of amino acids, became the specialized catalytic molecules. The RNA world hypothesis suggests that RNA in modern cells, in particular rRNA (RNA in the ribosome which catalyzes protein production), is the evolutionary remnant of the RNA world.​

From: wikipedia:RNA_world_hypothesis​

Of course this doesn't rise to the level of fact, but it does mitigate your second premise, rendering it inadmissible.​

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, DNA contains coding and it's occurs naturally so I guess the proof has been toppled. That was pretty easy. Got any more?

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.

 

[Skaloop]

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.

Things that are indigenous/unique to Earth cannot be natural? Since when?

Is a cedar tree natural?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Nipper,
So, trees, humans, grass, dogs, cats, dolphins, whales, monkeys, apes, praying mantises are not naturally occuring?

(Nuts, Skaloop beat me.)

 

[LittleNipper]

Is it for atheists or evolutionists? Make up your mind, MandM.


It is not a code or language since to be one would require the usage of abstract symbols that can work in any medium that must be interpreted. DNA is not a code because it uses non-abstract symbols (molecules) that only work in one medium (they require the specific chemical interactions they're based on to work, thus they can only work in the medium of DNA molecules itself)
Calling DNA a code is like calling C2H4 + 3O2 = 2CO2 + 2H2O a code.

Luckily DNA isn't a code, ey?

*snip rest since it's now irrelevant*

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.

 

[Maxwell511]

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

I am still baffled at the mindset that considers the human mind not to be a natural thing and believe engineers and designers to be some sort of supernatural magical beings that hide in the woods during the day and come out at night to poof the next Xbox or something into existence.

Everything on this earth is the result of natural processes, whether it is a giraffe or a microwave.

I have never seen anything that was designed that came into existence by anything but natural processes of thought and natural processes of environmental manipulation.

Maybe it is just the Leprechauns that I know, maybe it is just them that can't design a pot to put their gold in, maybe there are Leprechauns that are in some way competent designers, maybe supernatural beings can actually design things. As yet though I have not seen it.

 

[cerad]

Do we find DNA in Outer Space?

Well, yes. Ever hear of the space stations?

Did we discover DNA on the Moon?

There is DNA on the moon. You don't think those wacky astronauts packed everything home do you?

Is DNA found in meteors?

I'm sure it will be. There have been a number of impacts between meteors and space junk so I'm sure some quantity has been transferred.

If not, it isn't a "natually (sic) occurring" phenomenon. It is quite unique to unique living things on this unique planet.

Well then it's a pretty good thing we have space travel.

 

[LittleNipper]

Nipper,
So, trees, humans, grass, dogs, cats, dolphins, whales, monkeys, apes, praying mantises are not naturally occuring?

(Nuts, Skaloop beat me.)

They exist on this planet, but it would seem they owe their existance to the miraculous and not the great DNA in the sky....

 

[LittleNipper]

Things that are indigenous/unique to Earth cannot be natural? Since when?

Is a cedar tree natural?

A cedar tree is natural thing because it was created as such. It didn't just pop into existance because that is simply what happens across the universe.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, yes. Ever hear of the space stations?

There is DNA on the moon. You don't think those wacky astronauts packed everything home do you?


I'm sure it will be. There have been a number of impacts between meteors and space junk so I'm sure some quantity has been transferred.


Well then it's a pretty good thing we have space travel.

You made a funny!

 

[Skaloop]

A cedar tree is natural thing because it was created as such. It didn't just pop into existance because that is simply what happens across the universe.

The change of matter into energy (and vice versa) happens all across the universe, so obviously matter and energy weren't created.

 

[LittleNipper]

The change of matter into energy (and vice versa) happens all across the universe, so obviously matter and energy weren't created.

They must have been created by GOD or one would be able to destroy either and not simply only be able to move it from one form to another and back again....

 

[Dal M.]

They must have been created by GOD or one would be able to destroy either and not simply only be able to move it from one form to another and back again....

How do you figure?

 

[LittleNipper]

How do you figure?

One cannot destroy what one didn't create.

 

[Dal M.]

One cannot destroy what one didn't create.

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...