Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?

[driewerf]

No, the only intelligence we know that creates codes are from intelligence

I am not very sure what the intended message was.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No, the only intelligence we know that creates codes are from intelligence

That doesn't make sense.

What "intelligence" are you referring to?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That doesn't make sense.

What "intelligence" are you referring to?

Humans, since that's the main type of code he focuses on to try and say that all codes are created.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

I'm still waiting on you to show me a natural, biological code that was created.

Since the default scientific position is that all codes arose naturally, then my demand is one you must fulfil, not the other way around. The onus is on you to show the opposite to the scientific consensus.

Still waiting for you to show a specific sequence or code that was not created by intel.
Then I will believe anything you suggest

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Still waiting for you to show a specific sequence or code that was not created by intel.
Then I will believe anything you suggest

And I'm waiting on you to show that the default position; that all sequences found in nature are not created but came about naturally, are actually the result of a creator creating those codes.

Can you do that, yes or no?

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

And I'm waiting on you to show that the default position; that all sequences found in nature are not created but came about naturally, are actually the result of a creator creating those codes.

Can you do that, yes or no?

I asked you first bud
It’s all you have to do
But I have sneaking suspicion you are defeated
Just a single example of a code forming naturally

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I asked you first bud
It’s all you have to do
But I have sneaking suspicion you are defeated
Just a single example of a code forming naturally

DNA. There we go, simple as.

Now show me a code that was created.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, the only intelligence we know that creates codes are from intelligence

Equivocation alert!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Equivocation alert!

That just made me check, and I got equivocation confused with tautology. Whoops.

 

[BCP1928]

That just made me check, and I got equivocation confused with tautology. Whoops.

Never mind, the whole line of argument about "codes" is a deliberate equivocation anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, I'll ask: can you show an example of a natural, organic code that was created? Yes or no?

Warden, correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're not questioning the code itself, right?

You're questioning how the code got here?

That is, created into existence vs evolved into existence?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Warden, correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're not questioning the code itself, right?

You're questioning how the code got here?

That is, created into existence vs evolved into existence?

No, you are correct.

And I would like the answer to come from him, since he is the one I'm asking, and not from you since you are not the person being asked.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I would like the answer to come from him, since he is the one I'm asking, and not from you since you are not the person being asked.

Fair enough.

Scientific inquiry can take a hike, can't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

As I've been saying, make a challenge thread on it.

So you can fail it?

(Most likely by way of accusing me to be a YEC or Last Thursday or Omphalos.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you can fail it?

(Most likely by way of accusing me to be a YEC or Last Thursday or Omphalos.)

Go make a challenge thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go make a challenge thread.

So you can define embedded age as "age without maturity," or some such bologna?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you can define embedded age as "age without maturity," or some such bologna?

Irony metre going off again.

But seriously, go make a challenge thread. Which is a nicer way of saying what I really want you to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

/thread

 

[Ophiolite]

Warden, correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're not questioning the code itself, right?

You're questioning how the code got here?

That is, created into existence vs evolved into existence?

The additional problem AV is equivocation surrounding the word "code". The use of "code" to describe the way sequences of nucleotides on a string of DNA lead to the formation of specific proteins is a convenience. It is not the same usage as when we speak of morse code, or secret message coded by a spy. Those are the product of conscious intent, where the code is a "real thing". Not so here, where the "real thing" is the chemistry that governs the formation of the protein as a consequence of the sequence of nucleotides.
[Now I don't expect you to accept that, because this is analagous to the Pluto situation. For some unaccountable reason you think calling Pluto a planet, then not calling it a planet, is somehow "wrong".]

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Why snowflakes? Do you think that the information in a snowflake can't have arisen naturally?

what information is in a snowflake?