The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[Radrook]

Ok. Here's the full dictionary definition of "message" (bolding mine):

noun
1.
a communication containing some information, news, advice, request, or the like, sent by messenger, telephone, email, or other means.
2.
an official communication, as from a chief executive to a legislative body:
the president's message to Congress.
3.
Digital Technology. a post or reply on an online message board.
4.
the inspired utterance of a prophet or sage.
5.
the point, moral, or meaning of a gesture, utterance, novel, motion picture, etc.
6.
Computers. a warning, permission, etc., communicated by the system or software to the user:
anerror message ; a message to allow blocked content.

verb (used without object)
7.
to send a message, especially an electronic message.
verb (used with object)
8.
to send (a person) a message.
9.
to send as a message.


Not a single one of these is applicable to DNA. All of them refer to some type of communication. DNA is not communication or a means of communication. DNA is a molecule, shaped by the process of evolution.

So from your standpoint DNA communicates NOTHING to RNA and RNA responds to that NOTHING by means of carrying out the instruction of nothing. Sorry but that Mother Goose Father Rooster story just doesn't cut it.
-------------------------------------------------------

BTW

One of your bolded words below proves you wrong:

Communication
7.
Biology.

1. activity by one organism that changes or has the potential to change the behavior of other organisms.
2. transfer of information from one cell or molecule to another, as by chemical or electrical signals.
3. the definition of communication

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are listed as Christians and their denominations provided. A Christian is a believer in an ID.

So, is this then officially the end of your claim that the ID model is a scientific model which has nothing to do with religion, then?


And ps: this doesn't change the fact that Ken Miller would laugh in your face for calling him a believer in ID. In case you still haven't informed yourself on the Dover trial... Miller was the guy who, under oath, demonstrated that ID is not scientific, but just creationism in disguise. In other words, he testified against ID. Not for it.

You really need to stop being so dishonest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is understood as a given.

Really? I was under the impression that "the given" was that the ID model has nothing to do with religion, and everything with science.

But here you are, declaring that christians (and by extension, all theists by any chance?) are ID believers by default?

I think you should try to make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself.

Stop creating straw man arguments based on misunderstood meaning.

Says the guy who can't seem to decide if ID is a religious or a scientific model.

Now, you've fallen so low as to call "all christians" followers of your ID nonsense, eventhough that is so clearly and so demonstrably wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

List of Christian Nobel laureates
List of Christian Nobel laureates - Wikipedia

Disagree? Then you need to contact WIKI and inform them that they are wrong.

You need to stop lying that these people accept the ID model. It is simply not true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So from your standpoint DNA communicates NOTHING to RNA and RNA responds to that NOTHING by means of carrying out the instruction of nothing. Sorry but that Mother Goose Father Rooster story just doesn't cut it.

Communication is something that takes place between 2 concious entities with a brain.

DNA and RNA are engaged in a chemical reaction. That reaction just follows the laws of physics. Like any other reaction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So from your standpoint DNA communicates NOTHING to RNA and RNA responds to that NOTHING by means of carrying out the instruction of nothing.

Not in the sense that you are trying to pretend, no.

You were talking about the "message" as in what SETI is looking for. That is not the same kind of "communication".

It's yet another equivocation fallaciy

Communication
7.
Biology.

1. activity by one organism that changes or has the potential to change the behavior of other organisms.
2. transfer of information from one cell or molecule to another, as by chemical or electrical signals.
3. the definition of communication

Note that this describes the workings of biology.
It does not describe the "conscious communication of messages" as what SETI would be looking for.

Note also that those biology definitions do not mention the word "message".

 

[Radrook]

Communication is something that takes place between 2 concious entities with a brain.

DNA and RNA are engaged in a chemical reaction. That reaction just follows the laws of physics. Like any other reaction.

That isn't what the dictionary definition of communication tells us under the subheading of biology. So I will just stick with the dictionary definition and you stick to your personal one. OK?

 

[Radrook]

Not in the sense that you are trying to pretend, no.

You were talking about the "message" as in what SETI is looking for. That is not the same kind of "communication".

It's yet another equivocation fallaciy



Note that this describes the workings of biology.
It does not describe the "conscious communication of messages" as what SETI would be looking for. Also, it isn't equivocation since in biology it is referred to in that way. Maybe you should try writing your own biology terminology book.

Note also that those biology definitions do not mention the word "message".

It isn't necessary for the coded information being communicated to involve consciousness to be traceable to an intelligent designer. The fact that it is coded information alone is more than suffice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It isn't necessary for the coded information being communicated to involve consciousness to be traceable to an intelligent designer. The fact that it is coded information alone is more than suffice.

That is demonstrably false, as we have identified natural processes that can do exactly that, no "intelligence" required.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That isn't what the dictionary definition of communication tells us under the subheading of biology.

But it is what it means in the context YOU brought it up. Remember? SETI, does it ring a bell?

So I will just stick with the dictionary definition and you stick to your personal one. OK?

You know, when those dictionaries give you a list of definitions?
It means that the word can mean different things in different contexts.

When you use the word in context A, and then pretend as if the implications of context B also apply to A, then you are being dishonest.

 

[Radrook]

That is demonstrably false, as we have identified natural processes that can do exactly that, no "intelligence" required.

That they are doing so requires that they be programmed to do so by a mind. Your claim is similar to saying that machines functioning automatically and duplicating themselves automatically is evidence that nobody designed them. Of course you would never say such an absurd thing lest you be considered a candidate for the looney bin. However, when it comes to recognizing it in nature then it's A OK cuz then the designer might be God.

 

[Radrook]

That is demonstrably false, as we have identified natural processes that can do exactly that, no "intelligence" required.

Machines function on their own with nobody present required. What does that prove?

 

[Radrook]

But it is what it means in the context YOU brought it up. Remember? SETI, does it ring a bell?



You know, when those dictionaries give you a list of definitions?
It means that the word can mean different things in different contexts.

When you use the word in context A, and then pretend as if the implications of context B also apply to A, then you are being dishonest.

I keep explaining that the similarity is that if SETI receives coded info it concludes intelligent source and you keep maliciously garbling it to mean what you want it to mean.

 

[Radrook]

But it is what it means in the context YOU brought it up. Remember? SETI, does it ring a bell?



You know, when those dictionaries give you a list of definitions?
It means that the word can mean different things in different contexts.

When you use the word in context A, and then pretend as if the implications of context B also apply to A, then you are being dishonest.

The dictionary definition under biology is relevant to DNA-is it not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That they are doing so requires that they be programmed to do so by a mind.

No. You don't seem to be comprehending. What you call "programming", is exactly what the natural process of evolution does.

Not that I need to "defend" anything against such bare assertions, however.

Your claim is similar to saying that machines functioning automatically and duplicating themselves automatically is evidence that nobody designed them

It is not, because machines aren't natural biological organisms, subject to the laws and processes of bio-chemistry.

Of course you would never say such an absurd

Indeed, I wouldn't. So why you think it is relevant, is a mystery.

However, when it comes to recognizing it in nature then it's A OK cuz then the designer might be God.

So, when are you going to drop that silly argument that has been shown to be false countless times in the past few days alone?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Machines function on their own with nobody present required. What does that prove?

Nothing relevant, as machines aren't biological organisms subject to said process.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I keep explaining that the similarity is that if SETI receives coded info it concludes intelligent source

First of all, others here have already explained to you in great detail why that statement is not an accurate statement.

Secondly, you are talking about transmitted radio signals. Those ARE messages in context of communication from one mind to another.

Again, DNA is not like that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The dictionary definition under biology is relevant to DNA-is it not?

Yes. And not to the dictionary definition NOT under biology. Is it not?

 

[KCfromNC]

That is understood as a given.

Then why are you attempting to confuse Christian with "someone who supports 'scientific' creationism"?

 

[KCfromNC]

There are messages in DNA. You need to look up the definition of the word "message"
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

Your link doesn't support your claim. Why is that?