TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
How not so? You may as well be asking me the same question about a computer program. The answer is the same either way.
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.
The difficulty of talking to Atheist
- Thread starter Colter
- Start date
You are the one who made the claim. It is up to you to support it.
Where is the evidence that things are programmed?
How so?
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Not so. He made an assertion that x could not be discerned from y. The burden is on him to explain why the assertion is legitimate.
Upvote
0
Because you wouldn´t know what "non-programmed" looks like. You are pretending to make a comparison, while at the same time you claim that there is no comparandum.
Upvote
0
That´s easy:
It´s not about x vs. y, it´s about x versus non-x. Since - according to you - non-x doesn´t exist there is nothing to discern x from, in the first place.
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Ever heard of DNA? It's code. Code is programmed. Ever heard of Monsanto? They use biological programming to alter seeds' original programming. They code traits that they find desirable into their seeds. And the seeds process their altered code according as they've been programmed to do.
Bioprogramming...biocomputing... these, and similar, sciences stand on the shoulders of pre-existing biological programming.
A computer program does what is is programmed to do, just like a seed does.
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
His post split the topic. The question you just now asked is not germane to his post. I address it in its own sphere.
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
No, I'm not comparing something that exists with something that does not. I am comparing two things that exist: biological processes and computer processes. They both exist. And their properties and characteristics are discernible, measurable and even predictable, insofar as the systems in which they exist and function are known.quatona said:
Upvote
0
What discernable properties and characteristics in biological processes indicate that they were programmed?
Upvote
0
You are begging the question. You need to establish that DNA is programmed before you can claim that all codes are programmed, or even show that DNA is a code any different than the codes used for every day molecules, such as the code for electron oribtals in single atoms.
Ever heard of the Erie canal? Men dug a route for a river. Does this mean that every path for every river was dug by men?
Also, Monsanto's manipulation is easily detected as a gross violation of a nested hierarchy. Evolution produces a nested hierarchy. Man made things like cars, art, and even computer programs do not fit into a nested hierarchy.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
They stand on the shoulders of already existing evolved systems.
A river flows downhill. Does that mean it is programmed?
2H2 + O2 ----> 2H2O
That's the code for the program for water. I guess water is coded, too?
Upvote
0
Of course you did it when you told us you could tell programming (from non-programming) from your knowledge as a computer programmer.
I am comparing two things that exist: biological processes and computer processes. They both exist. And their properties and characteristics are discernible, measurable and even predictable, insofar as the systems in which they exist and function are known.[/quote]
Well, you said "everything" was programmed, and you could tell that by comparing it to the field of your expertise - computer programming.
So a pile of rocks looks just as programmed as a computer program to you?
Anyway, "discernible, measurable and predictable" are not exclusive characteristics of a program, but - according to you - of "everything".
Thus, since - according to you - everything is discernible, measurable and predictable these characteristics don´t allow for concluding programming - unless you want to establish circular reasoning as a valid method.
On another note, all that you know about programming is about human programming. Even if assuming that a divine programmer exists there is no reason to assume that he does it like you do.
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
I will, once I verify that loudmouth and I are proceeding from some commonly understood framework.
Upvote
0
The framework we are working from is that you need to evidence that DNA is programmed. Simply pointing to other codes that are programmed does not evidence that all codes are programmed. I can show that all Mustangs are Fords, but that does not mean that all cars are Fords.
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Absolutely. It has identity within the system of our universe. It is part of the universe's programming. It performs the function of its design.quatona said:
I did not assert that "discernible, measurable and predictable" are the characteristics of everything. I asserted that both biological and computer processes possessed those characteristics.quatona said:
On the grounds of my immediately preceding comment, this is a straw man assertion. I have nothing to do with it.quatona said:
Such an assumption does not bear on one's ability to observe that programming is active the universe. In fact, the scientific method is about postulating expected (assumed) outcomeson the basis of observation. I would not claim, in the first place, that anything in the universe manifests characteristics of programming, were such manifestations not observable in the first place. But they certainly are.quatona said:
If/then, cause/effect, command/execute... these logical processes are observably the foundation of all programming, not just man-made programming. There is no guesswork about it. Plant a seed and, unless the conditions in which it is planted are incompatible with its programming, unless some other active process interferes with its programming, or unless its code is damaged or some necessary part of it missing altogether, it will grow.
I'd be curious to hear someone explain how a seed's germination is not evidence of programming.
Upvote
0
Based on what evidence? We need more than empty assertions.
Every molecule, atom, and fundamental sub-atomic particle can be represented as a code.
It is also about forming a null hypothesis, the conditions under which your hypothesis is falsified.
What observations, if made, would demonstrate that DNA was not programmed by an intelligence?
They are foundational to every physical interaction in the universe.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
