The great information debate

[Lincoln]

You are receiving the coded information now throughout you body. I guess it was intended for you!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You are receiving the coded information now throughout you body. I guess it was intended for you!

Can you show me a single example in which the output of coded information is the intended receiver of the same coded information?

I didn't think so.

[Lincoln]

Okay you won the dabate then, so long...

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Okay you won the dabate then, so long...

Bye, Lincoln. Come back when you have a valid argument. Until then, hide before the overwhelming might of the Rational Ones, because they will debunk your irrationality every time.

[Lincoln]

Okay, next time I come across a robot I will seek your advice so I know whether it is evidence of intelligent intervention or not.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Okay, next time I come across a robot I will seek your advice so I know whether it is evidence of intelligent intervention or not.

Fair enough. The Creationist-Bot ought to be sufficient evidence that sometimes robots can exhibit tendencies that only intelligent beings have previously shown even though they (the Creationist-Bots) are not actually intelligent. You actually prove my case, Lincoln.

[Lincoln]

Well glad I could be of some help to you.

[Boris Godunov]

Lincoln:

Does code ever change itself? Can a computer code alter itself without the programmer's consent?

I'll answer for you: No, it doesn't. Code can only do what it is programmed to do, nothing more. Any unexpected/unintentional output is soley do to human error in coding, not to the code doing something it's not told to do.

However, in DNA we see it changing. Mutations occur all the time, and we have solid evidence of DNA changing spontaneously. This alone disqualifies it as the kind of code you're comparing it to, since such mutations would be impossible. Code doesn't change itself.

This also puts Creationists in the untenable position that if God coded DNA like a programmer does a computer or a watchmaker makes a watch, then God messed up a lot and isn't perfect. Nothing else seems to explain why 99% of the animals he coded are now extinct.

Evolutionists will always have the strong ground here, because by observing random genetic mutation we can point to that is clear proof of natural selection at work. We can even deduce that since DNA has been mutating all along, that it can be traced back to those first few amino acids that happened to form the first DNA so many eons ago.

Cheers.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Anyway the term "broken record" comes from an era when music was recorded on a plastic disk.

Gee I have 160 of those. Catch is I don't have a record player at the moment.

When that happened to a record it was best to throw it out and get a new one that made sense. You do not even see a robot as an example of intelligent design so you are beyond the reach of logic. You might want to consider the other people on this thread who might want to answer some legitimate questions that have been raised before we reach the 500 post limit here.

He isn't asking for an non human inteligence which is what you gave. The question is what is the inteligent receiver for DNA. We aren't because we only of many lifeforms using DNA.

The fact is you are trying to define your way to proof of a creator. We call DNA a code because its a unique phenomana and code is the best word we have to label it with.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Lincoln:

Does code ever change itself? Can a computer code alter itself without the programmer's consent?

I'll answer for you: No, it doesn't. Code can only do what it is programmed to do, nothing more. Any unexpected/unintentional output is soley do to human error in coding, not to the code doing something it's not told to do.

However, in DNA we see it changing. Mutations occur all the time, and we have solid evidence of DNA changing spontaneously. This alone disqualifies it as the kind of code you're comparing it to, since such mutations would be impossible. Code doesn't change itself.

This also puts Creationists in the untenable position that if God coded DNA like a programmer does a computer or a watchmaker makes a watch, then God messed up a lot and isn't perfect. Nothing else seems to explain why 99% of the animals he coded are now extinct.

Evolutionists will always have the strong ground here, because by observing random genetic mutation we can point to that is clear proof of natural selection at work. We can even deduce that since DNA has been mutating all along, that it can be traced back to those first few amino acids that happened to form the first DNA so many eons ago.

Cheers.

Why would you assume that the creator withdrew his consent after initially creating the code? Some people believe in "directed evolution" so if they are right then you cannot say what is 'directed' and what is the result of random mutations and natural selection and what is the result of continued intervention by the initial creator of life.

And the answer of why there is extinction and corruption is not a problem if Jehova is the assumed God. Of course that is a different topic altogether which we can all go into on another thread if I ever get some more time for an extended discussion.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Gee I have 160 of those. Catch is I don't have a record player at the moment.



He isn't asking for an non human inteligence which is what you gave. The question is what is the inteligent receiver for DNA. We aren't because we only of many lifeforms using DNA.

The fact is you are trying to define your way to proof of a creator. We call DNA a code because its a unique phenomana and code is the best word we have to label it with.

First I must say that it is refreshing to read your more concise posts. It seems like you have altered your usual style here in answer to my request and I certainly appreciate the gesture.

I just bought a record player at a flea market for $10. and I even found a place where I can get replacement needles. Good luck on finding a player.

I am through arguing semantics. My case is clearly spelled out on this 400+ post thread. People are welcome to draw their own conclusions now. I really did not expect a clear resolution on this issue but I though it would make an interesting topic for debate.

One thing though I think is clearly shown here and that is, there is no reason to expect that 'evolution did it' and there is a strong suggestion that intelligent design was necessary. That to me is what the evidence shows on its face if we are to put aside our preconceived notions of the origin of life. If you do not agree then that is what makes the world go around.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
First I must say that it is refreshing to read your more concise posts. It seems like you have altered your usual style here in answer to my request and I certainly appreciate the gesture.

Can you say wishfull thinking? I thought you could.

You haven't been saying much that needed a reply.

I just bought a record player at a flea market for $10. and I even found a place where I can get replacement needles. Good luck on finding a player.

Last I saw they sell them at Fry's the cheapest was one hundred and I know if I bought one I would not get around to digitizing my LPs. The volume would stop me from even starting.

I am through arguing semantics. My case is clearly spelled out on this 400+ post thread. People are welcome to draw their own conclusions now. I really did not expect a clear resolution on this issue but I though it would make an interesting topic for debate.

The catch is most of your propositions are based on semantics. It is an interesting topic. Well to me anyway.

What your arguement boils down to is 'We have the word code and we use it for DNA therefor there must be a creator'.

One thing though I think is clearly shown here and that is, there is no reason to expect that 'evolution did it' and there is a strong suggestion that intelligent design was necessary.

No actually I clearly showed that evolution is all that is needed considering the time involved. You just always want more steps and I pointed out that it would take hundreds of pages of steps and then you would just call it speculation. Which of course is all it would be.

Nothing you posted showed that inteligent design is needed. It never answers anything anyway since there is still the question of how the designer came to be. There is absolutely no philosphical advantage to saying a designer always was when the same can be said for the Meta-Universe from which our Universe arose.

That to me is what the evidence shows on its face if we are to put aside our preconceived notions of the origin of life. If you do not agree then that is what makes the world go around.

I base my notions on the evidence. Not on wishfull thinking and a desire for an after life.

[Lincoln]

Quote:

"No actually I clearly showed that evolution is all that is needed considering the time involved. You just always want more steps and I pointed out that it would take hundreds of pages of steps and then you would just call it speculation. Which of course is all it would be."

Yes, evolution takes a lot of time and the entire idea of abiogenesis is speculation based upon the wishful thinking of atheists. It is hardly based on evidence. It is also based upon the notion that life existed without DNA or a code at some point. It is speculation based upon speculation that is all in the mind of the speculator. So I do not see how the notion of abiogenesis can be anything but wishful thinking. But you are welcome to call that evidence if you have a mind to.

[loinburger]

I really did not expect a clear resolution on this issue but I though it would make an interesting topic for debate.

I agree that it was interesting at first, but once you started arbitrarily dismissing arguments and resorting to ad hominems then the debate quickly degenerated. It's downright frustrating to have somebody like you make such glaring logical fallacies and then refuse to even acknowledge them.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Yes, evolution takes a lot of time and the entire idea of abiogenesis is speculation based upon the wishful thinking of atheists. It is hardly based on evidence. It is also based upon the notion that life existed without DNA or a code at some point. It is speculation based upon speculation that is all in the mind of the speculator. So I do not see how the notion of abiogenesis can be anything but wishful thinking. But you are welcome to call that evidence if you have a mind to.

The idea of a creator is pure speculation. There is not a drop of evidence for one.

Abiogenesis is indeed a area where one can only speculate for the simple reason that there is no evidence from over 3.8 billion years ago and there is no reason to expect to ever find evidence of the very first life. However self replication has been done in the lab. So it is possible taking it far beyond speculation about a creator.

None of the experiments involved DNA and there are virusus that have no DNA. There is no need for the DNA to ever have had a god create a code since DNA is not the decoder. The only thing that had to evolve a decoding to protein method is the Ribosome. When I showed how it might have happened your first responce was to dig up more things to show even though they had never been part of the debate. That looked remarkably like a retreat.