The great information debate

[Lincoln]

I'm sorry but I really did think you were on something. You keep going over the same ground and you do not seem to remember what I said before. I have answered all of your questions. There really is nothing more to say. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I'm sorry but I really did think you were on something. You keep going over the same ground and you do not seem to remember what I said before. I have answered all of your questions. There really is nothing more to say.

In order for a goal you need an intent. In order for an intent you need a receiver (presumably the same entity as the source). So, in order to say that DNA is a "code" independent of human intervention, you need to provide evidence of an intent that is independent of human intervention. Saying that we call it a "genetic code" is insufficient because that fails to show evidence of an intent independent of human intervention. Therefore, the only way that you can say that there is a code is to assume that God (or some other cosmic entity) is the end receiver, is the entity that provides purpose/intent. You must make this assumption prior to classifying DNA as a code (for without a goal there is no code), and this is a question-begging assumption.

But what do I know, I'm high. Apparently, once I'm as sober as you are, I'll realize that I don't actually need to provide evidence of intent in order to claim that there is intent. It'll be so ****ing obvious that I'll probably kick myself. C'est la vie.

[Lincoln]

You have created a problem in your mind that prohibits the existence of God regardless of the evidence (short of a miraculous appearance). I think that your are arguing from a belief system. Of course I do not claim to prove the existence of God but you evidently fail to consider any evidence that points in that direction.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You have created a problem in your mind that prohibits the existence of God regardless of the evidence (short of a miraculous appearance).

I haven't prohibited anything, other than your classifying DNA as "coded information" without admitting that you've assumed the existence of God. I've never said that God couldn't have used DNA to generate life. All I've said is that you can't call DNA "coded information" and expect to call that valid evidence of the existence of God, when you in fact cannot call DNA "coded information" without first specifying the intended receiver of said code. Since God is the only feasible receiver, your argument is therefore circular.

I think that your are arguing from a belief system.

Of course I do not claim to prove the existence of God but you evidently fail to consider any evidence that points in that direction.

What evidence? Your claim is that DNA is code. In order to call DNA code, you must assume that there is a goal, a receiver. The only feasible receiver is God. Therefore, your "evidence" of God's existence is invalid without the assumption that God exists.

[Lincoln]

Draw your own conclusions.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Draw your own conclusions.

That's a copout. You mask your beliefs as "evidence" in order to claim that we're ignoring facts (or that we're high ). Call your beliefs in DNA "beliefs", and stop pretending that your beliefs are valid evidence.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I don't know if you are purposely trying to evade or if you just forgot my previous responses in this thread. First whether DNA is "intended" to create life or not, it does. That happens to be a fact regardless of intent. Your example of zinc etc. does not 'create' anything close to a biological machine or any type of machine, natural or otherwise. Unless you define machine to be a snowflake or the movement of tides etc. there is no analogy in either the code aspect or the result. Now here is my case spelled out briefly again:

1. All known codes are the result of a mental process.
2. An intelligent mental source is present reality (we are all using one now).

So the beginning of the argument has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

3. A code from an unknown source exists that produces a viable biological machine.

4. Question: Where did the code come from along with the specified order of instructions within it?

Suggested answer:

Perhaps it came from an intelligent mental source like all other codes and specified information with a known source have.

Other possibilities:

Maybe there is an exception in the case of biological codes.

So the burden of proof is on the one who proposes an exception to that which is known and demonstrated repeatedly. If there is an exception then it must be proved. If I said that there is a planet in space somewhere that does not obey the law of gravity then I would have to prove my case. I have not made a circular argument and your preoccupation with "intention" only serves as a distraction.

The above is my case. I rest my case. It was nice discussing this with you though.

[Jack_www]

Realy all I ask of those who hold life has no intelligent cuase behind it to consider the facts of genic code, and that it having an intelligent cause is at least a very good possiblilty.
Again the basic agrument is:

All know codes have a an intelligent agent behind them.
DNA contains a code, the genic code
Thus that code most likely had an intelligent agent behind it.

I dont see how that is circular reasoning.
I could see how you could say it is bad agrument, because maybe there is a code that occurs naturally with out aid of an intelligent agent. But I cant see how it is circular reasoning.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
DNA contains a code, the genic code

You can't say that DNA is code without showing that there is an intelligent intended receiver for its product, life. A coded language requires both a source and an intelligent intended receiver.

I dont see how that is circular reasoning.

The only feasible intelligent intended receiver for life is God or some other cosmic entity, so the receiver is essentially the same as the source. You are therefore using circular reasoning to show that DNA has an intelligent source, because you presuppose the existence of an intelligent receiver that is equivalent to the intelligent source.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www

I cant speak for Lincoln, but that is not what get form reading his posts. He is using examples of codes that we know of, all of them had humans behind them. We have not found a code that is form a non intelligent scource, so what he is saying that all codes come form an intelligent scource, thus the genic code came form an intelligent scource, and I dont see how that is circular reasoning.

Then you are closing your eyes. DNA is not a human code. It has no discernable inteligent source. Thus not all codes have been shown to have an inteligent source. You are assuming that it has an inteligent source when you claim all codes have an inteligent source. That is circular reasoning.

[Ethelred]

We agreed (I think) that a code requires a goal.

No. You asserted that. You don't have an aggreement with the rest of us that the assertion is true.

We are the result of coded meaningful instructions that must have arisin by a mental source who could give them meaning. The other altertanitive is that the code and the logical order of information within it evolved naturally. I have not seen a whit of evidence that a code can originate naturally.

You have not given any evidence that it can't. I have shown how it could. Evidence that it did is not something that can be expected considering the time involved.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger
The worst kind of "atheist" is the kind who says "I don't like God, so I don't believe in Him," because obviously you can't dislike something without believing that it exists.

Those type of Atheists are the most likely to become fanaticly religious later from what I have seen.

[Ethelred]

1. All known codes are the result of a mental process.

False. DNA is a known code. There is no evidence that it is a result of a mental process. You are assuming it which. is circular.

2. An intelligent mental source is present reality (we are all using one now).

Which has nothing to do with DNA.

So the beginning of the argument has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

It has an assumption of an inteligence whether it is a god or not.

3. A code from an unknown source exists that produces a viable biological machine.

There a set of data that we call a code that produced a biological machine. The only visible source is the environment.

4. Question: Where did the code come from along with the specified order of instructions within it?

From the environment via evolution.

Suggested answer:

Perhaps it came from an intelligent mental source like all other codes and specified information with a known source has.

See answer given above.

So the burden of proof is on the one who proposes an exception to that which is known and demonstrated repeatedly. If there is an exception then it must be proved

DNA exists. There is no evidence that it had an inteligent source. There are other data sources that we humans decode to gain information about the universe. None of them, including DNA, have any evidence of an inteligent designer. These are not exceptions because they are standard when not dealing with human sources. You are simply claiming that all data sets that convey information to us have a designer. You haven't proved it and you have simply denied all evidence to the contrary.

I have not made a circular argument and your preoccupation with "intention" only serves as a distraction.

The circularity in your arguement has been shown many times. You claim all codes have a designer. That is an assumption since DNA has no known designer nor do the chemical properties of atoms or the decay products of electron/positron collisions or the energy levels of electrons in atoms. All of these things have spedific data that is logical to us and can convey data that humans convert to information. Untill you can show that DNA has a designer you may not claim that all codes have one. Yet that appears to be the heart of you arguement. Hence it is circular.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You have created a problem in your mind that prohibits the existence of God regardless of the evidence (short of a miraculous appearance).

You haven't presented any verifiable evidence. Neither has anyone else ever.

I think that your are arguing from a belief system. Of course I do not claim to prove the existence of God but you evidently fail to consider any evidence that points in that direction.

You are provably argueing from a belief system. The circularity has been shown.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Then you are closing your eyes. DNA is not a human code. It has no discernable inteligent source. Thus not all codes have been shown to have an inteligent source. You are assuming that it has an inteligent source when you claim all codes have an inteligent source. That is circular reasoning.

The agrument is using codes we already know of, all them being from humans, thus because all the codes we have seen come form intelligent agent(humans in pervious examples) genic code most likely had an intelligent agent behind it too.

Know you may think agrument is wrong, but is not circular reasoning. You could call it a fallacious argument, but it is not circular. Not all bad argument are circular. But I still think it is a valid argument. One would have a good case if we had code that occured naturally or that genic code is a exception to this rule, that you would have to prove, and I know that is what your goal is in this debate.