 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
"I haven't spammed this thread and you know it. You are losing your temper because you are beginning to think and its uncomfortable."
I said on another thread that I would like to be your friend. I have not changed my mind. I consider parsing my words out of context along with endless petty remarks about each line to be spam. And you have made me think throughout this thread. That is the good part. I do get irritated when someone tries to win a debate by using huge posts that are broken into tiny parts. But you have not seen me lose my temper. Anyway this has been fun and now we are going around in circles. Have a nice evening.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
No, you told a story that existed in your mind and even that imaginary scenario did not include how the code could arise. |
I sure did. It arose through evolution a well established principal and I gave a general way for it to happen.
quote:
You said earlier that the translation is simple. |
I did not. I said the code was simple.
quote:
I asked more questions so that you could see that it is not simple. |
You did it because I answered your questions.
quote:
And of course there are many more questions that exist whether I ask them or not. |
Of course. What was Clinton thinking of when got a hummer in the Oval Office for instance. All your questions where about things that came after the code.
quote:
It does no good to solve the problem of creating a strawman. |
I agree that is why I didn't do that. I notice you can't disprove a thing I said. You can only pretend I didn't say them and create new questions that you would only create if I had answered them.
quote:
We can all do that. |
Its against my principals. I only create them for satirical purposes.
You haven't proved that Jehovah has toes. All fathers have toes.
quote:
My questions are legitimate because they reflect the real problem that you cannot solve even in your mind. Now that is the bottom line. |
The bottom line is that I DID answer the question this thread is about. You then invented new ones to evade the truth. To be expected from the relentlessly obdurate.
The catch is that now your mind has been exposed to this. It will work on you when you sleep. At first you may be agitated just like you are now. Then you will either open your mind to reality or you will close it up so tight you will have great difficultly every thinking of anything except in religous terms.
quote:
Conclusion:
I have made a case for intelligent design. You have no case or evidence that the genetic code or the logical order of information contained in DNA arose by evolution or natural means. You have no case. |
You made a highly speculitive proposal that assumed the conclusion. I never made case for logical order in DNA because there is no such thing. The order is bio-chemical not logical. I made a very good case. Perhaps one of the best ever made. I know that sounds a bit over the top but have I never a seen a better model for how it could have happened.
Maybe I should get one of the books that takes Dr Behe apart. Then I might see a better job.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"I agree that is why I didn't do that. I notice you can't disprove a thing I said. You can only pretend I didn't say them and create new questions that you would only create if I had answered them."
I did not dispute what you imagined in your mind was reality. It could very well have happened that way. But you evaded the issue of the origin of the code and you proposed a process that does not reflect reality. You excluded the vital elements. You created a car without and engine or transmission. If you cannot solve the real problem then you have solved nothing. I can read abiogenesis scenarios like yours all day but they all do what you did. They exclude the evolution of the code and the logical instructions that are contained in it that produce a complicated mechanism. You made a blob of proteins that float around in a warm pond that exist only in your mind. Nice try though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I did not dispute what you imagined in your mind was reality. It could very well have happened that way. But you evaded the issue of the origin of the code and you proposed a process that does not reflect reality. |
I did NOT evade the origin of the code. I went over it twice in fact. The second time with a bit more detail. The code is entirely in how the ribosome transcribes the tRNA. There are other parts of the code that don't deal with the ribosome but it was the coding for proteins that you were asking about. The other few codons mark out sections in the DNA.
quote:
You excluded the vital elements. You created a car without and engine or transmission. |
I did no such thing. I dealt with a bare bones model of what the earliest stage of life might have been like when the code evolved. Only the code was in question. You added more questions for the simple reason that I did deal with the code.
quote:
If you cannot solve the real problem then you have solved nothing. |
I covered your real question. You invented new one for that very reason.
quote:
I can read abiogenesis scenarios like yours all day but they all do what you did. They exclude the evolution of the code and the logical instructions that are contained in it that produce a complicated mechanism. |
I evaded nothing. It simply is not possible to even guess at all the steps that might have occured over millions of years. Only a broad outline can be managed. As it is you have complained that my posts are too long. Make up your mind on that. I am not going to write a multi-volume text on this thread just for you. Pay me an advance and I will do a five hundred page book with a lot more detail and some nice pictures and I could use spell checker too. It would take a year or two.
quote:
You made a blob of proteins that float around in a warm pond that exist only in your mind. Nice try though. |
I made a blob of RNA, DNA and four structures and a way for a code to evolve. I did have to assume a cellular envelope that I think is reasonable. I never mentioned a warm pond. However I agree with Dr. Stanley Miller that is a likely item. Not a pond exactly but tide pools. Those give a constant change and still alows for retention of chemicals in the lowest parts of the pools.
The churning action of tides could create the lipid envelope from any fatty acids that might be around.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"I made a blob of RNA, DNA and four structures and a way for a code to evolve."
That is exactly my point. What you proposed led up to the point where 'a code could evolve'. The question was, how did the code evolve? I assumed that the way was already available for the sake of discussion. The whole topic of this thread was the origin of information and the code. Anyway, good night. I don't think I will be able to post again for a while because I will be out of town.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I have not had time yet to read through all the new posts yet, but one thing is that when it comes to the orgin of DNA, the genic code, and the translation process all you can do is speculate. Most of these ideas when it comes to the orgin of the genic code for example can not be tested, yet you believe that they are established facts, at least this is the felling I get form reading your posts. The fact is most of it is based on speculation, and none of you can point to an example of a code coming form a non intelligent scource. You cant use the genic code, because that is what we are debating, the orgin of the genic code.
Last edited by Jack_www on 28-04-2002 at 10:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Let's see here. I think we have gone over this stuff before a few times. My answers have not changed. |
Your answers have always been insufficient, Lincoln. You have yet to show me what the intelligent intended receiver for the DNA code is. A coded language requires an intelligent source and an intelligent intended receiver, and so far all you've done is blindly assert that there is an intelligent source for DNA without ever once showing an intelligent intended receiver. Show me an intelligent intended reciever for the DNA code, Lincoln, and stop avoiding the question.
quote:
Meaning is assigned by the originator of the code. A machine can use that mentally derived code and the information that it contains. |
A machine is simply a tool utilized by an intelligent intended receiver. Who is the intelligent intended receiver for the DNA code, Lincoln? Who or what is all of this life being created for, and why?
quote:
It contains information because it originated from a mental process. |
A coded language requires a source as well as an intelligent intended receiver, Lincoln. What is the intelligent intended receiver for the DNA code?
quote:
The receiver does not have to be intelligent unless the code was intended to be used for intelligent communication between people who must have had convention so that there can be mutual understanding. A code that exists for the purpose of interpretation by a machine or computer requires the appropriate parts of the machine to understand the code so that the mentally derived information can accomplish the desired goal. |
Whose desired goal? Who is the intelligent intended receiver who wants turtles or humans or bacteria or whatever? Who is all of this life being created for? Stop avoiding the question.
quote:
Which in that case is to make a particular machine or solve a particular problem. In the case of the genetic code I am proposing that it originated by a mental process and that intelligently derived information was fed into the intended life form. |
Who wanted the life form? Why did the mental process create the code? Who is the intelligent intended receiver?
[qutoe]The appropriate parts of the biological machinery understand the code[/quote]
Machinery doesn't understand anything, period. A computer doesn't understand its algorithms any more than "biological machinery" understands DNA. mRNA is not the intelligent intended receiver because mRNA is not intelligent. mRNA is a key fitting a lock, it is not a brain comprehending a language.
quote:
because it was designed to be used chemically using the laws of thermodynamics as tools just as a computer uses known laws to use intelligently derived information and produce a goal. |
Who desired the goal? Who is the intelligent intended receiver for all of this life? Are you saying that God created life for absolutely no reason whatsoever? If not, then who is all of this life being created for?
quote:
So, we have all the elements needed to make it both a code and real information. |
You don't have an intelligent intended receiver for this information. Who is the intelligent intended receiver? Car factories don't make cars for no reason whatsoever, they make cars because humans are the intelligent intended receivers for the cars. Nobody would design biological machinery to spew out life without intending the life for some purpose or for some intelligent intended receiver, any more than somebody would hold a conversation with a brick wall (brick walls, by the way, make poor receivers for information). Who wants all of this life? Who is the intelligent intended receiver?
quote:
The receiver is the biological machine just as the intelligent source intended. |
Biological machines aren't intelligent. A car isn't the intended receiver for the instructions given to the robots at the car factory, but rather the human who drives the car is the intended receiver. mRNA isn't intelligent any more than a car is intelligent. Who is the intelligent intended receiver for life, Lincoln?
quote:
It would not make it anymore real information if the intended receiver was a human or God himself. |
Why did God make life? Who is the intelligent intended receiver for life? For whom did God want to create humans, for example? For what purpose? To what end? Etc.
quote:
An intelligent thought process produces information. That source assigns whateve meaning he chooses. If the intended target accomplishes the goal then it is evidence of information. |
Who is the intelligent intended receiver for all of this life, Lincoln? Biological machinery is simply the method of producing the life. Who wants the life? Who is all of this life being created for? I'll ask it again since you've yet to answer me: Who is the intelligent intended receiver? You've given me receivers ("biological machinery"), but none of them are intelligent. Who is the intelligent intended receiver? Who is "life" being created for?
You can't have a language without an intelligent source and an intelligent intended receiver. You claim that DNA is a coded language. In that case, then who is its intelligent intended receiver? For whom is God creating life?
Please, this time, note the word "intelligent." If you say that the biological machinery is the intended receiver one more time then I will be forced to conclude that you are deliberately being obtuse. Biological machinery is not intelligent, Lincoln, and a coded language requires an intelligent intended receiver, therefore biological machinery cannot be the intelligent intended receiver for DNA because biological machinery is not intelligent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
And I am surprised to find out that you do not believe in the laws of thermodynamics, Ranger. That answers a lot of questions. I had no idea that law was "creationist crap". |
Lincoln, stop thrashing. Stop throwing strawmen out willynilly. Why do I need to believe in these laws? Really, they operate regardless whether I believe in them or not. They're not like a supernatural entity that requires belief.
I also did not say the laws themselves are creationist crap. If you read what I wrote, you should know what I referred to was the way you used the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is not applicable in an open system, which is what the earth is. I have explained this a zillion times to you before, Lincoln, it is not the first time you argued on the side of Creationism, and it is not the first time you threw that same old broken line out. 
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Maybe one of you can actually answer the question instead of pretending that I didn't answer yours because you don't like the answers. |
You did not answer my questions. I am still waiting for your answers. For starters:
1. Your alleged facts that supposedly accumulated for 5000 years that supposedly back you up.
2. Your own stance on mutation.
3. How does "nonsense" in DNA prove "corruption in life?"
4. How did this external intelligence that "programmed" DNA envolve?
5. How did my refutation of the watchmaker analogy use circular reasoning?
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
And I don't need to know the original state of life to know that corruption and decay exists in the universe and in all of life. Have you ever been to a grave yard? Nice try but the straws that you try to grasp continue to alude you. Maybe you are actually wrong. |
Amusing Lincoln, you actually slapped yourself with this one.
How do we know there is decay in graveyard? Because we have prior knowledge it. We know dead bodies decay. We have these facts.
The same cannot be said of DNA.
So stop using false analogies, Lincoln, it is getting really tiresome. Is it possible for you to reply once without having your answers steeped in logical fallacies?
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I know the possibility of a real live God is a dreadful idea to an atheist but sometimes reality is in order instead of evasion. |
Ugh, Begging the Question. Again. The existence of your god is the issue here. Stop pretending it is true.
Your entire point of this "intelligent design" business is supposedly an argument for your god.
Seeing how it is falling into pieces all around you, my suggestion for you is to gracefully accept defeat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I have not had time yet to read through all the new posts yet, but one thing is that when it comes to the orgin of DNA, the genic code, and the translation process all you can do is speculate. Most of these ideas when it comes to the orgin of the genic code for example can not be tested, |
Breaking your sentence for a good reason.
I pointed that out when I wrote it. If something takes millions of years to happen its really hard to come up with a way to carry out an experiment. It wouldn't convince people like Lincoln anyway because each time he is shown an experiment he says men are involved and they are the source of the change. This is typical of Creationists. Damned for not having lab tests and the lab tests are damned as being artificial. Thats dishonest.
quote:
yet you believe that they are established facts, at least this is the felling I get form reading your posts. |
Well then you didn't read them all that well. I said it was speculation. I said it couldn't be anything else. The closest thing I did to what you are saying is say that I didn't have anything that violates known laws and that it all fits within established natural principles. That things evolve is a fact. All but the most tightly shuttered minds admit it. The slightly less adamantine call it micro-evolution as if that means they made evolution go away. Micro or macro its all evolution. Change happens and it cannot not happen.
quote:
The fact is most of it is based on speculation, and none of you can point to an example of a code coming form a non intelligent scource. You cant use the genic code, because that is what we are debating, the orgin of the genic code. |
Well I can point to DNA unless someone can show a source besides the environment. The point being is that you can't use human codes to claim all codes have inteligence while you are calling DNA a code. You can only say all HUMAN codes have an inteligent source and that is inherent in their being human codes. DNA is not made by humans so it doesn't inherently have an inteligent source which has been Lincolns sole claim of evidence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I have not had time yet to read through all the new posts yet, but one thing is that when it comes to the orgin of DNA, the genic code, and the translation process all you can do is speculate. |
This is how science works. Science does not assert to be omniscient. Scientists acknowledge that there are many questions to which we don't have answers yet.
This was the same thing 100 years ago. Scientists knew even less back then. The periodic table wasn't filled. Ether was thought to exist as Newtonian physics held sway. We knew about radioactivity, but had no idea what caused it.
In those 100 years we filled in a lot of the blanks. So what if we don't know exactly how DNA arise?
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Most of these ideas when it comes to the orgin of the genic code for example can not be tested, yet you believe that they are established facts, at least this is the felling I get form reading your posts. |
Nobody who has posted on this thread believe those are facts. We know that they are still hypotheses. Did we say "This is how DNA came about?"
I don't think any of us told you that.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
The fact is most of it is based on speculation, and none of you can point to an example of a code coming form a non intelligent scource. |
What definiton of "code" do you use this time? If you are using Lincoln's definition, I concede that there is no example we can give you. Because by his definition, all codes have to be created by a mental process.
On the other hand, if you use the more conventional definition, there are lots of examples we can give you.
In a previous thread, I gave the example of bee dancing. Bees "dance" to convey information of honey sources to other bees of the same nest. This is a code.
What about the chemical signals that most, if not all, lifeforms use? For example, dogs urinate to outline territories.
A third example are various sorts of noises that animals make as means to convey information. Bird songs, for example.
A four example is the characteristic emission and absorption lines that various elements make on the spectrum of visible light when they are burned.
Want some more?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Urban Ranger,
Thanks for pointing out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not applicable on earth. I learn something new every day. And no, you don’t have to “believe in it”. You are welcome to pretend that it doesn’t exist if you want to.
Ranger’s questions:
1. Your alleged facts that supposedly accumulated for 5000 years that supposedly back you up.
2. How does "nonsense" in DNA prove "corruption in life?"
3. How did this external intelligence that "programmed" DNA evolve?
4. How did my refutation of the watchmaker analogy use circular reasoning?
My answers:
1. You can start with Egyptian hieroglyphics I suppose. I have done some of your home work for you. Here is an excerpt:
“...the first Egyptian dynasty the idea of writing developed in a pictorial script known as hieroglyphics. Most hieroglyphic signs are pictures of people, animals, plants or other things. There were about 750 signs in the hieroglyphic script.
Egyptian told stories about the creation of their world, and about their society using hieroglyphs.
Some hieroglyphs represented gods or goddesses that played a major role in their lives.
Being able to read and write were important for people working in Egyptian civil service...
http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/Ancie...Egypt/Egypt.htm
Now you will have to do the rest of the research on your own unless you are trying to prove your case based upon you own ignorance of history. If that is the case, then yes, You are ignorant of over 6,000 years of codes and languages (which must exist in coded form).
2. It is your theory that the present information in DNA is corrupted with introns that must be excised from the coded portion of DNA. That is corruption even by your definition. And your question is irrelevant to the topic. Did you forget to read the rules of the debate?
3. Evolution is your theory. That is your case to make. But first you must show your hypothesis of how meaningful information originated before life could exist. That is the topic. My case is, that the original programed information allowed for adaptation to the environment and corruptive influences.
4. I don’t remember what you said about that. But how is that applicable to the discussion here? If it does pertain, in your view, then you will have to re-post it.
loinburger,
Well at least we have boiled this debate down to one question. So I will answer it one more time.
A coded language does not have to have an intelligent receiver if it is intended by the intelligent source that created it to be received by a non-intelligent source. If I decide in my mind that I am going to throw a rock through a window then the fact that the rock is found inside the house with broken glass scattered about is evidence of intelligent intervention. A barn with a fresh coat of paint is evidence of intelligent intervention. You seem to be missing the point. I am claiming that there is evidence of a mental process because of the existence of a code. The intelligent or non-intelligent receiver is irrelevant. The intention of the code maker was to make life. It worked as it would appear and the code is exactly where it belongs – in life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Well at least we have boiled this debate down to one question. So I will answer it one more time. |
Alright, I just hope you answer it satisfactorily this time...
quote:
The intention of the code maker was to make life. It worked as it would appear and the code is exactly where it belongs – in life. |
Well, there you go. That's your circular logic, plain as day. You have assumed that life began for a reason (the Creator desired life), and used this premise in order to show that life was Created (the Creator, who desired life, is responsible for making the life He desired).
Now, imagine that there exists a robotic car factory that spits out cars, but that there is nobody around to drive them (that there is no intelligent intended receiver for the cars). The robotic car factory just keeps spitting out cars, pillaging the older models in order to glean resources for the new models. After being manufactured, these cars just sit there for a few decades collecting rust, until finally they are consumed by the factory. There is no purpose or intention to the system, no reason behind it. There isn't even an intelligent onlooker reveling in the beauty of the process--there is no intelligence involved in the system at all at this point. Perhaps an intelligence built the factory and then left it to its own devices, but if so then clearly this intelligence was deranged--who but a deranged mind would build a robotic car factory for no reason at all? This is the epitomy of irrationality.
Now, imagine for a moment that there is no end receiver for life, that there is no entity that is analogous to the humans driving away the cars. Imagine that either God doesn't exist, or that He simply doesn't care at all about us, about life in general. We are analogous to the cars being spit out by the car factory, the car factory is analogous to the DNA translation mechanism, and there is nothing that is analogous to the humans driving away the cars. Now, does it make any sense to conclude that God made life (i.e. that an intelligence made the car factory)? If He made life and then abandoned it, then He is deranged.
Don't you see the circularity of your reasoning now? You've presupposed that God cares about life, about us. Your entire argument relies on this prusupposition. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that either there is no God or that He simply doesn't care--your entire argument is invalidated by a simple alteration of your assumptions.
Prove to me that God cares about me, and you'll have a pretty good case for proving that He designed me. Otherwise, you've got nothing, other than the assumption that some nebulous entity personally cares about you. It's a nice thought, but it's not science.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Alright, I just hope you answer it satisfactorily this time...
Well, there you go. That's your circular logic, plain as day. You have assumed that life began for a reason (the Creator desired life), and used this premise in order to show that life was Created (the Creator, who desired life, is responsible for making the life He desired).
Now, imagine that there exists a robotic car factory that spits out cars, but that there is nobody around to drive them (that there is no intelligent intended receiver for the cars). The robotic car factory just keeps spitting out cars, pillaging the older models in order to glean resources for the new models. After being manufactured, these cars just sit there for a few decades collecting rust, until finally they are consumed by the factory. There is no purpose or intention to the system, no reason behind it. There isn't even an intelligent onlooker reveling in the beauty of the process--there is no intelligence involved in the system at all at this point. Perhaps an intelligence built the factory and then left it to its own devices, but if so then clearly this intelligence was deranged--who but a deranged mind would build a robotic car factory for no reason at all? This is the epitomy of irrationality.
Now, imagine for a moment that there is no end receiver for life, that there is no entity that is analogous to the humans driving away the cars. Imagine that either God doesn't exist, or that He simply doesn't care at all about us, about life in general. We are analogous to the cars being spit out by the car factory, the car factory is analogous to the DNA translation mechanism, and there is nothing that is analogous to the humans driving away the cars. Now, does it make any sense to conclude that God made life (i.e. that an intelligence made the car factory)? If He made life and then abandoned it, then He is deranged.
Don't you see the circularity of your reasoning now? You've presupposed that God cares about life, about us. Your entire argument relies on this prusupposition. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that either there is no God or that He simply doesn't care--your entire argument is invalidated by a simple alteration of your assumptions.
Prove to me that God cares about me, and you'll have a pretty good case for proving that He designed me. Otherwise, you've got nothing, other than the assumption that some nebulous entity personally cares about you. It's a nice thought, but it's not science. |
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. That is the way I see and reason on it, and I am sure that is the way Lincoln does too. Your questions on weather life has purpose and if Creator exists, does he care about me, would be good to disscuss, but I think we should do that in anther thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Do you really think that the remnants of a car factory do not prove intelligent design? That is prima facie evidence of intelligence. How can you use that as an analogy to prove your point. It really proves mine.
I have not presupposed that God cares about anything. I am not suggesting here that the intelligent mental source that I have asserted has any particular nature or feelings. I have personal beliefs in that regard but I am trying to seperate the faith factor from this debate so that it does stay on a scientific level.
If you conclude that God "is deranged" then maybe he is. Maybe he is full of hate or angry or vindictive or whatever. I don't see how the suggestion of an inteligent mental source and the argument that I have put forth here requires this intelligent force to care one way or the other. The only thing he needs to "care" about is the product that he designed, whether it works or not.
Quote:
"The intention of the code maker was to make life."
How is that anymore than a conclusion that I have drawn from the evidence? The proof is in the pudding. We agreed (I think) that a code requires a goal. It seems apparent to me that the goal has been reached. Life is not now a random glob of proteins but it is highly complex and diverse. 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.
On a side note to your personally. I didn't think that God cared much for me either at one time. And I am still not convinced that he loves all of mankind. Jehova obviously has no problem destroying his creation along with the women and children as he sees fit. One thing is painfully obvious to me if he is God, and that is that he indeed did curse this earth. But that is a topic for another thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
He is using examples of codes that we know of, all of them had humans behind them. |
He is using examples of codes that had humans behind them, but his examples also had an intention behind them as well. He rejects starlight as a code because there was no intention behind it. He rejects the transformation of Zinc and HCl into hydrogen and zinc-chloride because there was no intention behind it. He assumes that there is an intention behind life.
quote:
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. |
We have not found a code that is from a non-intelligent source that had any intention behind it. Starlight "encodes" the position of distant stars, but there is no intention behind the code. Zinc and hydrochloric acid "encode" their stable state (hydrogen gas and zinc-chloride), but there is no intention behind this "encoding." Lincoln and you have both assumed that there is an intention to the "encoding" of DNA, i.e. that some intellect had a purpose to making life.
quote:
Your questions on weather life has purpose and if Creator exists, does he care about me, would be good to disscuss, but I think we should do that in anther thread. |
If the Creator doesn't care at all about life, then He would be completely irrational if he made life anyway. You have assumed that life has a purpose, and you use this assumption to conclude that life has a creator.
Jack: Assume, for the moment, that life has no cosmic purpose. Assume, for the moment, that when you die you cease to exist--there is no afterlife, there is no reincarnation, there is only oblivion. Assume, for the moment, that if there is a God, that he not only doesn't love you, but he doesn't even care whether or not you exist, nor will he ever care.
Now, explain to me why God would create DNA if He didn't care at all about you, or any other living organism. Explain to me how DNA counts as "information" when, again going off of the assumption that God doesn't care about you, it was apparently created unintentionally.
Information requires an intent, Jack, and you and Lincoln have both been assuming all along that there is a cosmic intent (or purpose) to life, and you use this assumption to justify why life must therefore have a divine creator. In other words, you assume that there is a divine guardian or a divine receiver, and you use this assumption to justify a divine creator. That's justifying one divine being by assuming the existence of another, Jack, and that's circular reasoning.
If God did not intend to create life, if God didn't care at all about life, in other words if there were no intended reciever for life, then there would be no possible way to argue that DNA is information. If the products of DNA (life) are unintentional, then the encoding of DNA is unintentional.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Quote:
"Starlight "encodes" the position of distant stars, but there is no intention behind the code. Zinc and hydrochloric acid "encode" their stable state (hydrogen gas and zinc-chloride), but there is no intention behind this "encoding."
Please show how this is analogous to the genetic code and the logical order (specific sequence) of information contained in DNA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Do you really think that the remnants of a car factory do not prove intelligent design? That is prima facie evidence of intelligence. How can you use that as an analogy to prove your point. It really proves mine. |
If you believe that God is a blind idiot who would make something like Life unintentionally (maybe it was a cosmic fart?), then more power to you.
quote:
I have not presupposed that God cares about anything. |
If God didn't care about Life, then either He wouldn't have made it, or else He is a blind idiot.
quote:
I am not suggesting here that the intelligent mental source that I have asserted has any particular nature or feelings. I have personal beliefs in that regard but I am trying to seperate the faith factor from this debate so that it does stay on a scientific level. |
What you are suggesting is that the intelligent mental source had the intention of creating life. That presupposes an intent and a receiver. If in fact you are suggesting that the intelligent mental source accidentally created life, then you are admitting that DNA was no more a result of intelligent design than photons coming off of a distant star--there is no such thing as "accidental intelligent design." Either God designed DNA with the intent of creating life (in which case you presuppose an intent), or else DNA is the result of a cosmic fart (in which case you admit that no intelligence went into its creation).
quote:
If you conclude that God "is deranged" then maybe he is. Maybe he is full of hate or angry or vindictive or whatever. |
You are again presupposing an intent. If God created life in order to smite us (i.e. if God created life because He is hateful or angry etc.), then God created life for a reason (albeit not a particularly good one). Stop assuming an intent. If you assume that DNA was created unintentionally, then you have no argument for its being counted as information. If you assume that DNA was created intentionally, then you are assuming that there is a purpose to life.
quote:
I don't see how the suggestion of an inteligent mental source and the argument that I have put forth here requires this intelligent force to care one way or the other. The only thing he needs to "care" about is the product that he designed, whether it works or not. |
I've bolded the part where you presuppose an intent. In that statement you assume that God is the intelligent end receiver. It doesn't matter whether or not you assume that God made Life because he loves life or hates life, it doesn't matter what emotions or morals you ascribe to God--what matters is that you are assuming an intent, and that's where your argument is circular. You are assuming that God made life for God. Take away the assumption of a receiver, and you have no argument for a source.
quote:
How is that anymore than a conclusion that I have drawn from the evidence? The proof is in the pudding. We agreed (I think) that a code requires a goal. |
Again, I've bolded the part where you assume intent. You began with the assumption of a goal and derived the source from that assumption, then you say "Look, there is a source, there must be a code," and finally you use the conclusion that DNA is code (derived from your assumption that life has a goal, a purpose) in order to "prove" that life has a goal. Take away the goal, and you don't have a code.
quote:
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. |
Why is DNA a code at all?
quote:
On a side note to your personally. I didn't think that God cared much for me either at one time. And I am still not convinced that he loves all of mankind. Jehova obviously has no problem destroying his creation along with the women and children as he sees fit. One thing is painfully obvious to me if he is God, and that is that he indeed did curse this earth. But that is a topic for another thread. |
Agreed, a topic for another thread, but don't walk away thinking that I have a personal grudge against God or something. 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. All of that "Assume that god doesn't care about you" garbage wasn't to try to convince anybody that God doesn't like them, it was just to try to point out the circularity of the argument--I figured that it would get the point across better than "Assume that god doesn't exist."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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 has.
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.
Last edited by Lincoln on 30-04-2002 at 02:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
First whether DNA is "intended" to create life or not, it does. That happens to be a fact regardless of intent. |
True, but DNA doesn't have the goal of creating life unless somebody or something programmed that goal into it. A "goal" is a statement of intent. Therefore, without intent, you have no goal.
quote:
Your example of zinc etc. does not 'create' anything close to a biological machine or any type of machine, natural or otherwise. |
It's a difference in complexity, nothing more. They're both just chemical reactions, nothing more--until you assume intent.
quote:
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. |
The results of both are unintentional. I don't see why you're calling DNA (or its translation process) a machine: it's a chemical process, nothing more, nothing less. Except for its increased order of complexity, how are the chemical reactions fundamentally different between DNA translation and Zn+2HCl->ZnCl2+H2?
quote:
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. |
You bring God (or rather your presupposition of cosmic intent) up in your next point...
quote:
3. A code from an unknown source exists that produces a viable biological machine. |
How is it a code? Again, you've assumed that there is a purpose to life. Take away the assumption of purpose, and you have no goal, and you have no code.
quote:
4. Question: Where did the code come from along with the specified order of instructions within it? |
Irrelevant, since you haven't shown that it is a code. You need to prove that there is an intent before you can prove that there is a code--you cannot simply assume a code and then derive a goal from it. Prove that life was intended. Prove that someone, somewhere, had the "goal" of producing life.
You're still assuming intent.
quote:
So the burden of proof is on the one who proposes and exception to that which is known and demonstrated repeatedly. |
Agreed, once you prove that DNA is a code. Prove that DNA was intended to produce life.
quote:
I have not made a circular argument and your preoccupation with "intention" only serves as a distraction. |
How else can you say that DNA has the goal of producing life without assuming intent? "Goal" is an intent-driven word--you can't have a goal without an intent. Period. I'm hung up on intent because that's where the circularity of your argument comes in--you're calling DNA a code because it has the goal of producing life, but by saying this you have presupposed intent. Show me the intent. Show me the intelligent intended receiver for life. Show me the entity that wanted life. Without showing me the intelligent receiver, without showing me proof of a programmed goal, then you cannot claim that there is an intelligent source.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"how are the chemical reactions fundamentally different between DNA translation and Zn+2HCl->ZnCl2+H2?"
Because Guanine, Adenine and Uracil does not make asparatic acid. That codon only means asparatic acid. There is a code whether it is intended or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Quote:
"You don't have a code without a goal."
So there is proof of a goal then because obviously a code does exist. That is why they call it the genetic code and not the genetic chemical reactions. They do not just use the term as hyperbole.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
And around and around we go... I have a feeling that you are high on something.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-04-2002 09:03
|