Tweet
Anyway it looks like I will have some more time to continue this debate at least today being as though we were rained out of work today. I suppose I should begin with Urban Ranger.
Quote:
“The remnants of a robotic car factory does show that it was built by an intelligence, due to our prior knowledge of robotics, cars, and factories. We know not of the same knowledge with regards to DNA.”
And how is that relevant to your case (if you indeed have one)? Of course we have prior knowledge of the intelligent design of information based machines. Our knowledge teaches us that they arise from intelligence. And DNA is the subject under discussion – that is the problem. You or I do not know how the code came into existence so of course we do not have the same knowledge in that regard. But that is true of most problems or they would not be problems. Why are you stating the obvious? And if we cannot use prior knowledge then science is useless. There is no need to reinvent the wheel before using them.
Quote:
“What are you muttering about? Mental source of what?”
The mental source that you are using to read this thread. Is it real or not? Does it really exist? If you do not believe that it does then I cannot prove anything to you because you cannot recognize the obvious.
Quote:
“"code" is in the strict definition given by Lincoln.”
I spelled out exactly what the code is and does on the other thread. I listed all of the 5 elements and that is the definition that I use throughout. The definition I use describes what it actually is. It is a coded language with statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics just like languages that are used by human beings and computers. Languages come about as the result of intelligent input unless you can prove an exception to the established rule.
Quote:
“First of all, this "known origin" quantification is a new one. You are not allowed to make any changes to the topics and/or issues of a discussion in the middle of it by the rules of any debate, at least not without the agreement of the other side.”
What are we pretending here or trying to find real evidence? I used the term to clarify a misunderstanding because someone twisted the meaning that I obviously intended.
“Thus far you have not shown one iota of evidence that remotely support your assertion. So far you have used fallacies in all your posts in this thread. You have evaded direct challenges.”
You are using the evidence now, i.e., an intelligent mental source that you yourself use to produce coded meaningful information for use both in human communication and in information based machines. Or do you simply plug a computer in and fill it with random static and hope that meaningful information comes into existence? That existing mental source is evidence of how codes come into existence regardless of the weight that you give that evidence. Also there is an entire history of codes and languages that provides evidence to support my assertion. Did you use the word “iota” simply for effect? And the only things I have evaded is questions that are irrelevant to the topic. I am not going to spam this thread with 6,000 years of the history of codes for example. Do your own research and use it to make your own case if you have one.
The debate as it now stands includes evidence to support my hypothesis and you do not even have a speculative credible argument yet to show that evolution made the code. So I am still waiting for your case to be presented? Where is it?
Quote:
“The remnants of a robotic car factory does show that it was built by an intelligence, due to our prior knowledge of robotics, cars, and factories. We know not of the same knowledge with regards to DNA.”
And how is that relevant to your case (if you indeed have one)? Of course we have prior knowledge of the intelligent design of information based machines. Our knowledge teaches us that they arise from intelligence. And DNA is the subject under discussion – that is the problem. You or I do not know how the code came into existence so of course we do not have the same knowledge in that regard. But that is true of most problems or they would not be problems. Why are you stating the obvious? And if we cannot use prior knowledge then science is useless. There is no need to reinvent the wheel before using them.
Quote:
“What are you muttering about? Mental source of what?”
The mental source that you are using to read this thread. Is it real or not? Does it really exist? If you do not believe that it does then I cannot prove anything to you because you cannot recognize the obvious.
Quote:
“"code" is in the strict definition given by Lincoln.”
I spelled out exactly what the code is and does on the other thread. I listed all of the 5 elements and that is the definition that I use throughout. The definition I use describes what it actually is. It is a coded language with statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics just like languages that are used by human beings and computers. Languages come about as the result of intelligent input unless you can prove an exception to the established rule.
Quote:
“First of all, this "known origin" quantification is a new one. You are not allowed to make any changes to the topics and/or issues of a discussion in the middle of it by the rules of any debate, at least not without the agreement of the other side.”
What are we pretending here or trying to find real evidence? I used the term to clarify a misunderstanding because someone twisted the meaning that I obviously intended.
“Thus far you have not shown one iota of evidence that remotely support your assertion. So far you have used fallacies in all your posts in this thread. You have evaded direct challenges.”
You are using the evidence now, i.e., an intelligent mental source that you yourself use to produce coded meaningful information for use both in human communication and in information based machines. Or do you simply plug a computer in and fill it with random static and hope that meaningful information comes into existence? That existing mental source is evidence of how codes come into existence regardless of the weight that you give that evidence. Also there is an entire history of codes and languages that provides evidence to support my assertion. Did you use the word “iota” simply for effect? And the only things I have evaded is questions that are irrelevant to the topic. I am not going to spam this thread with 6,000 years of the history of codes for example. Do your own research and use it to make your own case if you have one.
The debate as it now stands includes evidence to support my hypothesis and you do not even have a speculative credible argument yet to show that evolution made the code. So I am still waiting for your case to be presented? Where is it?
Comment