 |
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
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.
Last edited by Lincoln on 30-04-2002 at 06:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
2. An intelligent mental source is present reality (we are all using one now). |
Which has nothing to do with DNA.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
4. Question: Where did the code come from along with the specified order of instructions within it? |
From the environment via evolution.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Thanks for pointing out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not applicable on earth. I learn something new every day. |
Another strawman.
I never said it doesn't work on Earth. I said it doesn't work with Earth in its entirety as part of a natural sytem.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
And no, you don’t have to “believe in it”. You are welcome to pretend that it doesn’t exist if you want to. |
Again, this is not what I said. It always amuses me when creationist can so boldly twist other peoples words even when these words are in plain sight.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
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?
1. You can start with Egyptian hieroglyphics I suppose. I have done some of your home work for you.[snipped] 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. |
1. It's not my homework; it's not my case tp make. But I am not surprised that you tried to pull crap like that, even if it is so minor. You asserted you have these facts, you will need to present them.
2. Your facts are selective and do not include all the codes discovered in nature. Including, no less, the genetic code.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
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? |
It doesn't fly, Lincoln. For three reasons:
1. Nonsense is not my theory. It is a fact. If you want to dispute it, be my guest. I reckon your chance of sucess approaches zero.
2. When I asked you the same question the first time, you accepted that the presence of nonsense in DNA is a fact. "Corruption" is your own baby. I did not invent it.
3. My question is extremely relevant. For if each species was created, it is implausible that worthless junk is found in genetic material. OTOH, evolution explains it beautifully.
By rules of ANY formal debate, you have already lost, many times over. So stop thrashing, Lincoln, when everything is in plain sight and there is no room for you to even wiggle.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
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. |
That is not the topic. The topic is for you to establish DNA requires an intelligent mental process, which thus far you have failed to demostrate.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
My case is, that the original programed information allowed for adaptation to the environment and corruptive influences. |
So are you admitting that this so called "corruption" is your assertion?
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
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. |
It started in the original "Evolution should not be part of the Game" thread as part of the "evidence" for the Christian god. Seeing how this thread is a continuation of that, and you made some blanket statement on how all refutations of the watchmaker analogy uses circular reasoning there, I feel that it is proper for you to explain how your statement applies to my refutation. You are free not to anwser it, it will be left as part of the evidence of you not able to address direct challenges.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
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. |
Yet another false analogy. We know that houses are built. We know that glass windows are not normally shattered. We know that rocks should not be found inside houses. We know nothing of this sort with regards to DNA.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
A barn with a fresh coat of paint is evidence of intelligent intervention. |
Another false analogy.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I am claiming that there is evidence of a mental process because of the existence of a code. |
That's a tautology, since you defined code as product of a mental process.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Urban Ranger, I just wanted to address some of things you bring up in your post, because I am short on time right now. The "junk" in DNA might be use for something else that we dont know about yet, I have read this in the many articles I have read on DNA. Lincoln has been saying that he believes that all codes come form an intelligent agent, thus genic code could have been result of intelligent agent, and he has not ruled out the possiblity that you say happened, that it occured on its own.
Really when we try to find the orgin of the genic code, there is nothing wrong to look at codes humans made. In fact I would think that would be very helpfull, and since these are the only codes we know of. Just because humans are behind it we can't look at them in our search for the orgin of genic code? What is wrong with looking at things that we know had intelligent cause just becuase we might not know the orgin of DNA, when that is what we are trying to find out??? That does not sound right to me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
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. |
Not all are from humans though and you and Lincoln keep saying all codes. It is the basis of the claim that all codes have an inteligence. Not all do. DNA is not the only example that has been given of non-human codes. Its just that Lincoln insists they don't count. They do. He says they aren't codes for reasons that ALL apply to DNA as well.
quote:
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. |
True but this arguement happens to be circular. At least the version Lincoln is useing. He is quite consistant in claiming all codes have an inteligent source. ALL not all human codes. It is inherent that all human codes would have a inteligent source at some point so he must show a non-human code that has an inteligent source to avoid circularity. Yes I know he can't do that but thats his problem.
Both I and Loinbuger have given examples of data sets with code-like properties and no sign of an inteligent source. DNA being the most obvious of course but that is what we are discussing. Spectrum lines are specific and logical and code for information. Lincoln is also engaged in argument by definition. He defined codes as having a goal. He defined codes as haveing a sender and a reciever. This is fine for human codes but it has no aplicabitlity to DNA which is not a human code.
quote:
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. |
Well we do have such 'codes' so Lincoln's arguement is invalid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
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. |
An inductive argument is strong if there are a lot of evidence (e.g. true examples). It is weak if there is little evidence. It fails if there is just one counterexample - and we have given you lots of counterexamples.
Of course, the definition of "code" we used for our examples is not the same as that of Lincoln's. But as I point out, the way Lincoln "proves" his case is by definition, by ignoring all codes due from non-intelligent sources.
Another thing is, his argument is at best inductive but he's framing it like it is a deductive argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Know you may think agrument is wrong, but is not circular reasoning. |
It is circular because he was begging the question:
1. Intelligence is required to create codes
2. Codes are evidence of intelligence
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
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. |
The first goal of this debate is for Lincoln, and perhaps you, to establish that the genetic code is the same as the kind of "codes" he defined.
Neither of you have provided any evidence or argument on this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I must say that the atheists here on this thread are really grasping for straws in order to escape the obvious. Here are a few examples:
Urban Ranger wants me to post here the entire 6,000 year history of codes and languages before he will believe any evidence regarding the mental process that is involved in all codes with a known origin.
All of the atheists (except perhaps the ones who have not posted recently) here do not even believe what all of biology and the entire scientific world believes (except for a few fanatic atheists) that there really is a genetic code.
There are some computer programmers on this thread who design codes (in their mind) for the specific purpose of entering them into a machine to accomplish a goal. Yet they deny that the DNA code could do likewise without an “intended intelligent receiver”. They are the only ones on earth evidently who would question the existence of a coded language found on another planet as to its intelligent source.
They have tried every type of diversion from tangents to the 2nd law of thermodynamics to huge irrelevant posts that parse complete trains of thought into one line sections with cute or irrelevant comments after each one.
They go round and round pretending that they have forgotten previous answers.
They refuse to consider any evidence whatsoever that even hints at the possibility that an intelligent designer is behind any portion of life regardless of evidence.
They concentrate their efforts on trifles and semantics, e.g., “DNA is a known code” therefore when I say that all known codes require intelligent intervention I am supposed to pretend that I cannot make any analogy because DNA is now in existence so that settles it!
What utter tripe.
Like I said, I rest my case. You can all argue over the gnats and swallow a camel if you have a mind to. You have proved yourselves to be fanatics in spite of your assertions otherwise. You are welcome to your faith.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
There are some computer programmers on this thread who design codes (in their mind) for the specific purpose of entering them into a machine to accomplish a goal. Yet they deny that the DNA code could do likewise without an “intended intelligent receiver”. |
That's the most obtuse statement I've ever seen, Lincoln.
Do genetic algorithms have an intended intelligent receiver? They sure as hell do--the programmer. No programmer would ever program a genetic algorithm that failed to give any output. That output is then read by the intended intelligent receiver.
Why is this so goddamn hard for you to understand? If DNA is analogous to genetic algorithms (i.e. if DNA has a source), then it must produce a desired output, it must have an intended intelligent receiver! No receiver, no code, no evidence of a source! You've presupposed the existence of a receiver, Lincoln! Get that through your head: You've presupposed the existence of a receiver!
1. Using your definition of coded language, there must be an intended intelligent receiver! If you disagree, then give me a single example of a coded language that does not have an intended intelligent receiver!
2. Therefore, failing a counterexample for (1), we can conclude that if there is no intended intelligent receiver, there cannot be a code!
3. Therefore, in order to conclude that DNA is code, you must first have evidence of an intended intelligent receiver for its output (life)!
4. God is the only feasible intelligent intended receiver for life!
5. Therefore, you have presupposed the existence of God as receiver in order to give evidence of God as source!
Oh, but draw your own conclusions, of course, regardless of how glaringly inaccurate they are! Better yet, tell us that we're being the irrational ones, despite all evidence to the contrary!
Unbelievable. Un****ingbelievable. You're apparently content with wallowing in ignorance, Lincoln, so more power to you, but I am most displeased at the way you inaccurately brand anybody who disagrees with you as "irrational" when this is clearly a case of the kettle calling the porcelain black. You realize that's all you're doing, right? I mean, you haven't provided a shred of valid evidence to support your claim, in fact your very definition of a "code" defeats your entire argument because your definition is the one that requires the intelligent intended receiver. You're arguing from belief, calling it truth, and calling us heretics. Shame on you. Your hypocrisy is so thick it could probably be cut with a knife.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Maybe we should end this debate. All we do is go around and around in circules covering the same stuff over and over again, also it seems that many are getting a little tick off too because of this. loinburger the major objection you have is that genic code does not have intelligent receiver. Well other parts of the cell do recieve the code and use it to make protiens in the cell, but it is not intelligent. Codes computer use to talk to each other so to speak are something that might come close to this. The other examples you have given about chemical reactions, and slarlight, those are not codes, at least I dont think of them of codes, I never had in the past, and never heard anyone say they were codes untill now. It was good while it lasted, I know that we will never see eye to eye any time soon, oh well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2002 04:29
|