 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
Quote:
"You need an intelligent end receiver to call it a "code" under your definition, otherwise you don't have pragmatics. I'm still waiting for a valid counterexample."
No, there only needs to be an intelligent source in order to assign meaning. If the code is intended for use by a machine then the intention is satisfied if the machine works. This is pragmatics pure and simple. Anyway we have gone over this about 4 or 5 times so why waste more thread space going over it again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
The point is not the watchmaker argument but what evidence is proof of intelligent design whatsoever. Etheired answered the direct question with the word, "No,. .." |
What question was that? The robot question? I said that robots don't grow. Therefore from the robot we know a inteligence was involved.
DNA evolves and that is provable. It doesn't need a maker to have an increase in information. You are trying to treat it as a if had a known inteligent maker and you must prove that first. That it has data useful to the life form is not in question. That an inteligence must be involved is.
quote:
This has nothing to do with any analogy of a watchmaker at all. The point is that no evidence whatsoever will lead someone with a preconceived belief system to even admit an obvious inferrence of intelligence by the discovery of a robot. A logical answer to the question would have began with: "Yes", but..." |
No the logical answer is the one I REALY gave. You analogy is not relevant to DNA. No anology depending on humans or aliens, which is the same thing, can be directly applied to DNA. At the very least you must at least prove relevance. All you did with the alien code is bring up another civilization than a human one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Quote:
No, there only needs to be an intelligent source in order to assign meaning. If the code is intended for use by a machine then the intention is satisfied if the machine works. This is pragmatics pure and simple. Anyway we have gone over this about 4 or 5 times so why waste more thread space going over it again. |
The DNA code isn't intended for use by a machine. It isn't intended for use in the human sense in the first place. The only pragmatic thing going on is that the ribosome is using the data in the DNA. The ribosome is what decides what it means. Not the DNA, the DNA doesn't have a care at all about what it means.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
So Etheired, you cannot even admit that you made a mistake. I think we should move on. There are only 79 posts left on this thread and I want to let you all make your case before the thread is closed. I have already rested my case and it has been repeated several times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
So Etheired, you cannot even admit that you made a mistake. I think we should move on. There are only 79 posts left on this thread and I want to let you all make your case before the thread is closed. I have already rested my case and it has been repeated several times. |
How about you quote this alleged mistake. I notice that I get accused of saying things that I didn't at a rather excessive rate. I also notice that you chose to claim I said 'no' without quoting it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Originally posted by Lincoln:
Not if that language was found in the inner workings of a robot that was determined to work fine as the result of that programmed language. That would still be evidence of intelligent life even if the intended receiver of that language was an information based machine. Would that be the case? Yes__ No__
loinburger's answer:
No, the alien race would be the end receiver for the robot's work, just like a human user is the end receiver for a program's output. Find another example.
edit: Sorry Etheired. I thought you made that response. I edited it and put in loinburger's name.
Last edited by Lincoln on 05-05-2002 at 04:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Actually I made a mistake. It got loinburger confused with Etheired.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
The DNA code isn't intended for use by a machine. It isn't intended for use in the human sense in the first place. The only pragmatic thing going on is that the ribosome is using the data in the DNA. The ribosome is what decides what it means. Not the DNA, the DNA doesn't have a care at all about what it means. |
Well the DNA code happens to be in a biological machine. So there is no reason to believe that it had another purpose. And yes, it is pragmatics when the information actually works as it does when translated by the ribosome.
The entire system is necessary for the information in DNA to be useful but I don't see how that proves that it doesn't work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
No, there only needs to be an intelligent source in order to assign meaning. |
I've asked you for an example of a code that doesn't require a receiver. In fact, I've asked you for this about a dozen times now. You obviously don't have an example of such a code, Lincoln, or at the very least you haven't yet provided an example of a code that doesn't require an intelligent intended receiver.
Give me one example of a coded language that has no intended receiver, Lincoln. You've been avoiding this question for over a hundred posts now, it's about time that you answered it.
quote:
If the code is intended for use by a machine then the intention is satisfied if the machine works. |
Who is supposed to receive the output from the machine? Your continued ignorance is extremely frustrating, Lincoln. Give me an example of a program in which there is no intelligent receiver for its output, or in which there is no output for the program. Give me an example of a single coded language that has no intelligent intelligent receiver.
Guess what: You can't! You haven't come up with an example, and you never will! All you'll ever be able to do is blatantly misinterpret my posts in the hopes that your bald-faced lies will save you.
quote:
This is pragmatics pure and simple. Anyway we have gone over this about 4 or 5 times so why waste more thread space going over it again. |
You've ignored my point at least 4 or 5 times, probably more. You've yet to provide a single example of a coded language that does not have an intelligent intended receiver, nor have you yet said what the intelligent intended receiver for DNA is. Why have you avoided my question for over a hundred posts now, Lincoln? Could it be that you have no viable answer to my question, and use ad hominem attacks when you find yourself short on evidence?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Have you ever heard of a broken record?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Anyway the term "broken record" comes from an era when music was recorded on a plastic disk. If the record cracked then the same line kept repeating itself, e.g., "intelligent receiver, intelligent receiver, intelligent receiver"... etc.
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
You are receiving the coded information now throughout you body. I guess it was intended for you!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Okay you won the dabate then, so long...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Well glad I could be of some help to you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
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
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2002 03:10
|