Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

DNA is proof of a designer.

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:27:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.

You wanna bet they don't. genius?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:41:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:27:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.

You wanna bet they don't. genius?

I'll take that bet, and you will lose. What information is conveyed by the structure of a snowflake? The answer is none. It is nothing more than an ordered arrangement of molecules. DNA, on the other hand, is a literal code as defined under Shannons communication model. That is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Anyone who takes the time to independantly research the subject will arrive at the same conclusion.

Start with Yockey, perhaps the worlds formost scientist in Bioinformatics :
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Can a snowflake do any of this? The answer is no. There is no meaningful information present. FAIL.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:43:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:41:16 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:27:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.

You wanna bet they don't. genius?

I'll take that bet, and you will lose. What information is conveyed by the structure of a snowflake? The answer is none. It is nothing more than an ordered arrangement of molecules. DNA, on the other hand, is a literal code as defined under Shannons communication model. That is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Anyone who takes the time to independantly research the subject will arrive at the same conclusion.

Start with Yockey, perhaps the worlds formost scientist in Bioinformatics :
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Can a snowflake do any of this? The answer is no. There is no meaningful information present. FAIL.

What is the shape of a snowflake?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:48:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:43:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:41:16 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:27:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.

You wanna bet they don't. genius?

I'll take that bet, and you will lose. What information is conveyed by the structure of a snowflake? The answer is none. It is nothing more than an ordered arrangement of molecules. DNA, on the other hand, is a literal code as defined under Shannons communication model. That is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Anyone who takes the time to independantly research the subject will arrive at the same conclusion.

Start with Yockey, perhaps the worlds formost scientist in Bioinformatics :
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Can a snowflake do any of this? The answer is no. There is no meaningful information present. FAIL.

What is the shape of a snowflake?

It doesn't matter what shape it is. It doesn't communicate any meaningful information. Does it?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:56:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
Anything you can follow to reconstruct an event is a code. The marks on a roadway, damage to vehicles, and resting position of vehicles after an accident is a "code" if you want to be that loose with the definition.

2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
Not at all. If lightning strikes a tree, splits the trunk and causes the tree to fall and roll down a hill, the limbs on the tree will leave a pattern of gouge marks in the soil. This pattern can be compared to the limb placement on the tree and the path of the tree, thusly, re-traced. That's a "code" which is not designed.

3) DNA is proof of design.
False. Do you think your turds are a code? Can we examine them to reconstruct your meals? Can we determine nutrients in which you are deficient and decode vital information about the health of your colon and even the bacterial fauna and relative populations in your digestive tract? We can extract a host of various forms of information from your fecal matter. So in that respect, it's as much a code as is DNA. The only difference is that your body doesn't utilize your feces to reconstruct your digestive processes.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

You've been refuted (for the third time in less than 12-hours.)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LeMatt
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:58:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Hmm, so I assume you are referring to the codes we write? Even so, technically not true, I could set a program up so that it writes random code. And even if it were true, you are saying all code we make is designed, how does that mean "code" in nature is designed? The code we read from DNA can simply form over millions of years, with increasing complexity, this is no argument that hasn't already been debunked.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:01:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.

You IDIOT! Snowflakes contain MASSIVE amounts of information. Why do you think no two are alike? The environmental factors in which snowflakes can form are so diverse, that it would be nearly impossible for any two to form in the same manner. So each snowflake can tell us about the temperature, wind-speed, relative charges, pollutants, humidity, barometric pressures, and a host of other things about the environment in which it formed. It is a complete history of its own formation, molecule by molecule. And there are about 10^18 molecules in a single snowflake.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:09:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:56:54 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
Anything you can follow to reconstruct an event is a code. The marks on a roadway, damage to vehicles, and resting position of vehicles after an accident is a "code" if you want to be that loose with the definition.

I do not. When I say code, I'm referring to things such as a programmers code, or the code humans use to communicate with one another. DNA is a code, in the same sense that any language is a code. It contains instructions for creating proteins. among other things, that have a purpose. Every biological process is governed by this code. So your first example is a fail.

2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
Not at all. If lightning strikes a tree, splits the trunk and causes the tree to fall and roll down a hill, the limbs on the tree will leave a pattern of gouge marks in the soil. This pattern can be compared to the limb placement on the tree and the path of the tree, thusly, re-traced. That's a "code" which is not designed.

Once again, you are using an improper definition of code.

3) DNA is proof of design.
False. Do you think your turds are a code? Can we examine them to reconstruct your meals? Can we determine nutrients in which you are deficient and decode vital information about the health of your colon and even the bacterial fauna and relative populations in your digestive tract? We can extract a host of various forms of information from your fecal matter. So in that respect, it's as much a code as is DNA. The only difference is that your body doesn't utilize your feces to reconstruct your digestive processes.

This is completely absurd.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

You've been refuted (for the third time in less than 12-hours.)

You have refuted nothing.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:13:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:58:53 AM, LeMatt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Hmm, so I assume you are referring to the codes we write? Even so, technically not true, I could set a program up so that it writes random code.

But YOU wrote the program that writes the code. The code did not write itself. And that program follows instructions for writing this code. Do you see the contradiction?

And even if it were true, you are saying all code we make is designed, how does that mean "code" in nature is designed? The code we read from DNA can simply form over millions of years, with increasing complexity, this is no argument that hasn't already been debunked.

There is no scientific that support this theory. If there is, I'd like to see it.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:16:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)

There is no such thing as "fact," in science. That which is accepted as truth is generally expressed as a "theory." A theory is the explanation of a truth that is generally accpeted among those who are considered the "experts, in their respective fields.

2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )

This is weak. A "code" can be derived from any repeatable pattern. When ice forms in a burst, you get snowflakes. Within a single snowflake, you might find hundreds of repeated patterns. These are caused by "conditions" that are just right for the spontaneous creation of all of these patterns. Since we have no way of determining how DNA was originated, there is no way to tie DNA to "design," except by a gigantic, unsubstantiated leap of faith. All known codes are designed, because all known codes are human.

3) DNA is proof of design.

If DNA is proof of design, and you are following premises 1 and 2, you have only led the reader to assume that DNA was written by humans, since all known codes are also of human construct. Codes are also written within the parameters of the environment within which they are created. They follow specific rules of syntax, and those rules do not change. Neither do they "accommodate" any error. DNA passes errors down from generation to generation, many times unchecked.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Regurgitating old (already-refuted) arguments does nothing to improve an untenable position. The DNA=code=ID argument is not original. Neither is it accurate.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:20:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

I do not. When I say code, I'm referring to things such as a programmers code, or the code humans use to communicate with one another. DNA is a code, in the same sense that any language is a code.

So you are saying that each language was designed?
And when yous say designed, you mean "intentionally created with a specific purpose in mind"?
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:23:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:01:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.

You IDIOT! Snowflakes contain MASSIVE amounts of information. Why do you think no two are alike? The environmental factors in which snowflakes can form are so diverse, that it would be nearly impossible for any two to form in the same manner. So each snowflake can tell us about the temperature, wind-speed, relative charges, pollutants, humidity, barometric pressures, and a host of other things about the environment in which it formed. It is a complete history of its own formation, molecule by molecule. And there are about 10^18 molecules in a single snowflake.

You are the idiot. The molecules in a snowflake are nothing more than random arrangements, caused by environmental factors. It is not something that was designed as a means of communicating information, like DNA does.

DNA is a literal code and not simply a metaphor, or analogy, but is a literal code as verified by scientific method. All Biology textbooks, Medical Dictionary"s, and Peer Reviewed scientific literature reflect these findings. In fact The entire scientific field of Bioinformatics is based on DNA being a literal code and not simply a metaphor or analogy. It meets all strict requirements of Gitts and Shannons Communication Models. In addition, it meets the definition of langauge as defined by Zipf"s law.

A snowflake does not meet any of these definitions. And they do not communicate, in any meaningful way. DNA is a language. This is a scientific fact. Why don't you try to refute that, instead of playing in the snow?
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:28:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:41:16 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:27:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.

You wanna bet they don't. genius?

I'll take that bet, and you will lose. What information is conveyed by the structure of a snowflake? The answer is none. It is nothing more than an ordered arrangement of molecules. DNA, on the other hand, is a literal code as defined under Shannons communication model. That is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Anyone who takes the time to independantly research the subject will arrive at the same conclusion.

Start with Yockey, perhaps the worlds formost scientist in Bioinformatics :
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Can a snowflake do any of this? The answer is no. There is no meaningful information present. FAIL.

http://aconservativelesbian.com...

This link, from Yockey's own daughter, shows that you are abusing science (one about which it is clear that you know very little). Any formulation of an idea that you have already accepted on faith has no place in the world of science. That which is accepted of faith no longer has any claim on reason, science, or logic. It is faith. Quit trying to tie it to science. The supernatural is not the realm of science, and science is not the realm of the supernatural. Science will never prove or disprove your deity. They are mutually exclusive, and all religion has ever done is hijack the findings of intellectually honest people for the purposes of trying to fit the discoveries of these people to those beliefs that have already been accepted.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:33:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Premise 2 is just false. Since we already know of a method that codes arise non-intelligently, and that is by self-replication.

Guess what? Every single life form self-replicates, ergo tonnes of code is produced every day non-intelligently, must more than code that is produced intelligently.

Another nail in the coffin is that almost every time a decently long piece of DNA (such as the human genome) replicates, then errors within the replication process produce brand new novel segments of DNA each time, and that is before we even get into recombination and other meiotic processes.

Ergo this argument is debunked due to a false premise 2.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:40:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:16:27 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)

There is no such thing as "fact," in science. That which is accepted as truth is generally expressed as a "theory." A theory is the explanation of a truth that is generally accpeted among those who are considered the "experts, in their respective fields.

But those theories are accepted as fact, unless they are somehow proven to be wrong.

2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )

This is weak. A "code" can be derived from any repeatable pattern. When ice forms in a burst, you get snowflakes. Within a single snowflake, you might find hundreds of repeated patterns. These are caused by "conditions" that are just right for the spontaneous creation of all of these patterns. Since we have no way of determining how DNA was originated, there is no way to tie DNA to "design," except by a gigantic, unsubstantiated leap of faith. All known codes are designed, because all known codes are human.

I addressed this earlier. My argument is that DNA is a language. DNA communicates with the parts of a cell, that are themselves created by DNA. Patterns are just that. They cannot communicate in any meaningful way. They are static. Devoid of any thought. DNA is a language, as defined by Shannon's Law. The examples you gave are not. And intelligence is required to create these languages.

3) DNA is proof of design.

If DNA is proof of design, and you are following premises 1 and 2, you have only led the reader to assume that DNA was written by humans, since all known codes are also of human construct. Codes are also written within the parameters of the environment within which they are created. They follow specific rules of syntax, and those rules do not change.

Yes they do. Why do you think we are constantly adding new words to the dictionary? Why do you thing the rules of grammar have changed over the years?

Neither do they "accommodate" any error. DNA passes errors down from generation to generation, many times unchecked.

These errors are caused by environmental factors. If a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, it interferes with the development of the fetus, causing birth defects. Radiation and exposure to toxic chemicals can do the same.

And it doesn't have to be human intelligence. Since humans could not have designed the Language of DNA, someone else did. That someone can only be non human. That someone is God.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Regurgitating old (already-refuted) arguments does nothing to improve an untenable position. The DNA=code=ID argument is not original. Neither is it accurate.

They have not been refuted. They have been challenged. I'm not aware of any PROOF that refutes any these arguments.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:40:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:09:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:56:54 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
Anything you can follow to reconstruct an event is a code. The marks on a roadway, damage to vehicles, and resting position of vehicles after an accident is a "code" if you want to be that loose with the definition.

I do not. When I say code, I'm referring to things such as a programmers code, or the code humans use to communicate with one another. DNA is a code, in the same sense that any language is a code. It contains instructions for creating proteins. among other things, that have a purpose. Every biological process is governed by this code. So your first example is a fail.
I hate it when the inferior side of any argument is so stupid that rather than starting to see that they're losing, they just dig themselves in more deeply. An tracker can tell you that foot-prints are a code which can be decoded. That's how a tracker manages to track. You insistence that DNA is a code in a respect different than a turd, or a set of footprints, or the evidence at an accident scene, only helps to demonstrate your ignorance in regard to what DNA is, and how it works, as well as a failure to understand how other natural coding systems work. A snowflake tells us so much about how it was constructed, and the environment in which it formed, that your hard drive would not be able to hold all of the data, even if the operating system resided on a separate storage device. The biggest difference is that a snowflake doesn't come with a replication machinery. But then, neither does DNA. The machine to read that code resides separately from the DNA itself. And if we analyze this type of metabolic code, we find that DNA is simply one version. An older version is RNA. A still older version is TNA. None of this - in any way - indicates any kind of intelligent agent. In fact, it tells us just the opposite. Do you need a code in order to make your coffee in the morning? Or do you use a combination of memory and intellect?

A cell used DNA for memory, but because there is no intelligence involved, every single step has to be encoded in the DNA. You can write down the instruction "open coffee can", and you will understand from memory and intellect, how to complete that task. The reproductive machinery in a cell can't do that. Every single miniscule step in the process must be written into the code, simply because there is no intelligence involved.

2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
Not at all. If lightning strikes a tree, splits the trunk and causes the tree to fall and roll down a hill, the limbs on the tree will leave a pattern of gouge marks in the soil. This pattern can be compared to the limb placement on the tree and the path of the tree, thusly, re-traced. That's a "code" which is not designed.

Once again, you are using an improper definition of code.
Bullcrap. I write code, moron. I can show you codes that you'd never know were codes at all.
IlIIlIIlIllIIlIIIllIlIIlIllIllllIlllIlII
Go ahead, idiot. Decode that!


3) DNA is proof of design.
False. Do you think your turds are a code? Can we examine them to reconstruct your meals? Can we determine nutrients in which you are deficient and decode vital information about the health of your colon and even the bacterial fauna and relative populations in your digestive tract? We can extract a host of various forms of information from your fecal matter. So in that respect, it's as much a code as is DNA. The only difference is that your body doesn't utilize your feces to reconstruct your digestive processes.

This is completely absurd.
Nope, there's nothing absurd about it at all. If you think I'm wrong, ask a doctor. Ask a biologist. Decoding the information in scat is one of their primary tools.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

You've been refuted (for the third time in less than 12-hours.)

You have refuted nothing.
Do you think if you puff your chest out, people won't know that you're both lying, and bluffing?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:43:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:28:01 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:41:16 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:27:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.

You wanna bet they don't. genius?

I'll take that bet, and you will lose. What information is conveyed by the structure of a snowflake? The answer is none. It is nothing more than an ordered arrangement of molecules. DNA, on the other hand, is a literal code as defined under Shannons communication model. That is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Anyone who takes the time to independantly research the subject will arrive at the same conclusion.

Start with Yockey, perhaps the worlds formost scientist in Bioinformatics :
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Can a snowflake do any of this? The answer is no. There is no meaningful information present. FAIL.

http://aconservativelesbian.com...

This link, from Yockey's own daughter, shows that you are abusing science (one about which it is clear that you know very little). Any formulation of an idea that you have already accepted on faith has no place in the world of science. That which is accepted of faith no longer has any claim on reason, science, or logic. It is faith. Quit trying to tie it to science. The supernatural is not the realm of science, and science is not the realm of the supernatural. Science will never prove or disprove your deity. They are mutually exclusive, and all religion has ever done is hijack the findings of intellectually honest people for the purposes of trying to fit the discoveries of these people to those beliefs that have already been accepted.

How about staying on topic. DNA is a language. All languages are the result of intelligence. You have yet to refute this.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:49:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:40:13 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I'm not aware of any PROOF that refutes any these arguments.

And there you go. That is the sum total of your argument... you're "not aware". In other words, you're declaring that your ignorance makes you correct. The fact of the matter is that those opposing you here are demonstrating that they ARE aware of that which you are not aware. And we're attempting to explain it to you. But it's not the truth that you're after. You just want everyone to accept everything you say - even when we know what you're saying is patently absurd. But that's not happening, so you're getting angry, frustrated and defensive. And this is why you can't learn. You don't want to know.

Because if you learned what we have already learned, you'd realize that you're wrong. So instead you rest on your ignorance, as though that defeats our lack of ignorance.

It isn't that you want to know the truth. You want to remain blind to the truth, even if you have to fight to do so.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:50:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:33:02 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Premise 2 is just false. Since we already know of a method that codes arise non-intelligently, and that is by self-replication.

Guess what? Every single life form self-replicates, ergo tonnes of code is produced every day non-intelligently, must more than code that is produced intelligently.

It replicates, based on our genetic code, which is a language. It guides the incredibly complex process of of a developing fetus. It tells what type every cell should be and where it should be located. The complexity is mind boggling. You can believe that all of this happened by chance. People with any common sense know differently.

Another nail in the coffin is that almost every time a decently long piece of DNA (such as the human genome) replicates, then errors within the replication process produce brand new novel segments of DNA each time, and that is before we even get into recombination and other meiotic processes.

Ergo this argument is debunked due to a false premise 2.

This is nothing more than your opinion. You provided no evidence. DNA is a language. This is a fact. Language can only arise through the efforts of will and intelligence. So. Who created the language of DNA?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:54:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:43:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:28:01 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:41:16 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:27:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:25:41 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:10:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Just like snowflakes.
genius.

Snowflakes do not contain information. You can do better than that.

You wanna bet they don't. genius?

I'll take that bet, and you will lose. What information is conveyed by the structure of a snowflake? The answer is none. It is nothing more than an ordered arrangement of molecules. DNA, on the other hand, is a literal code as defined under Shannons communication model. That is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Anyone who takes the time to independantly research the subject will arrive at the same conclusion.

Start with Yockey, perhaps the worlds formost scientist in Bioinformatics :
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Can a snowflake do any of this? The answer is no. There is no meaningful information present. FAIL.

http://aconservativelesbian.com...

This link, from Yockey's own daughter, shows that you are abusing science (one about which it is clear that you know very little). Any formulation of an idea that you have already accepted on faith has no place in the world of science. That which is accepted of faith no longer has any claim on reason, science, or logic. It is faith. Quit trying to tie it to science. The supernatural is not the realm of science, and science is not the realm of the supernatural. Science will never prove or disprove your deity. They are mutually exclusive, and all religion has ever done is hijack the findings of intellectually honest people for the purposes of trying to fit the discoveries of these people to those beliefs that have already been accepted.

How about staying on topic. DNA is a language. All languages are the result of intelligence. You have yet to refute this.
This has been refuted numerous times in just a few posts. Are you not paying attention?

Turds, footprints and snowflakes are all just as much a "language" as DNA. They can be used to reconstruct a series of steps yet they are not the steps themselves. That's what a code is, and a code requires a "language" - an agreed upon set of symbols to take the place of concepts and ideas. And we know that snowflakes, turds and footprints were not intelligently fashioned as a language, but when one learns to read any set of evidences - intended as such or not - one can re-construct the concepts, ideas and events which went into producing those evidences. That's really what science is all about - learning to read the language of fossils, the language of quantum particles, the language of physical interactions, and the language of biological chemistry.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:56:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:49:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:40:13 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
I'm not aware of any PROOF that refutes any these arguments.

And there you go. That is the sum total of your argument... you're "not aware". In other words, you're declaring that your ignorance makes you correct. The fact of the matter is that those opposing you here are demonstrating that they ARE aware of that which you are not aware. And we're attempting to explain it to you. But it's not the truth that you're after. You just want everyone to accept everything you say - even when we know what you're saying is patently absurd. But that's not happening, so you're getting angry, frustrated and defensive. And this is why you can't learn. You don't want to know.

Because if you learned what we have already learned, you'd realize that you're wrong. So instead you rest on your ignorance, as though that defeats our lack of ignorance.

It isn't that you want to know the truth. You want to remain blind to the truth, even if you have to fight to do so.

The truth is that DNA is a complex language. This is a scientific fact. All languages are the result of intelligent design. You can twist the facts, but you can't get around this simple fact. And you call me ignorant.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:58:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

In case you missed my first reply, I ask again.

In another post you wrote :"When I say code, I'm referring to things such as a programmers code, or the code humans use to communicate with one another. DNA is a code, in the same sense that any language is a code."

So you are claiming that every language was designed? Meaning that every language was intentionally created with a specific purpose in mind?
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:01:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:58:59 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

In case you missed my first reply, I ask again.

In another post you wrote :"When I say code, I'm referring to things such as a programmers code, or the code humans use to communicate with one another. DNA is a code, in the same sense that any language is a code."


So you are claiming that every language was designed? Meaning that every language was intentionally created with a specific purpose in mind?

Language would not exist without symbols to convey it's meaning. These are artificial constructs, created by man. So, yes. That is exactly what I'm saying
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:09:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:01:46 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:58:59 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

In case you missed my first reply, I ask again.

In another post you wrote :"When I say code, I'm referring to things such as a programmers code, or the code humans use to communicate with one another. DNA is a code, in the same sense that any language is a code."


So you are claiming that every language was designed? Meaning that every language was intentionally created with a specific purpose in mind?

Language would not exist without symbols to convey it's meaning. These are artificial constructs, created by man. So, yes. That is exactly what I'm saying

So you're saying that unless it's designed by man - or through intelligence - it's not a language?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:13:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:01:46 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:58:59 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

In case you missed my first reply, I ask again.

In another post you wrote :"When I say code, I'm referring to things such as a programmers code, or the code humans use to communicate with one another. DNA is a code, in the same sense that any language is a code."


So you are claiming that every language was designed? Meaning that every language was intentionally created with a specific purpose in mind?

Language would not exist without symbols to convey it's meaning. These are artificial constructs, created by man. So, yes. That is exactly what I'm saying

Wait, so you are saying that... language couldn't exist without writing? Am I reading that correctly?
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:14:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:01:46 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:58:59 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

In case you missed my first reply, I ask again.

In another post you wrote :"When I say code, I'm referring to things such as a programmers code, or the code humans use to communicate with one another. DNA is a code, in the same sense that any language is a code."


So you are claiming that every language was designed? Meaning that every language was intentionally created with a specific purpose in mind?

Language would not exist without symbols to convey it's meaning. These are artificial constructs, created by man. So, yes. That is exactly what I'm saying

But are you claiming that some day somebody decided to create English, or German, or Spanish, or any language?

Language is simply a form of communication. Communication is not a man made construct, it is not even unique to humans.
My dog uses language to communicate, much less complex, and it doesn't write anything, but it's still a language. Was that created as well?

Human language is simply more complex, as are our brains and thus our capability to use such complex language. Both are a product of evolution.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:14:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:50:12 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:33:02 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:08:31 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
1) DNA is a literal code (A scientific fact)
2) All known codes are designed. (A repeatable observation )
3) DNA is proof of design.

I challenge anyone to refute this.

Premise 2 is just false. Since we already know of a method that codes arise non-intelligently, and that is by self-replication.

Guess what? Every single life form self-replicates, ergo tonnes of code is produced every day non-intelligently, must more than code that is produced intelligently.

It replicates, based on our genetic code, which is a language. It guides the incredibly complex process of of a developing fetus. It tells what type every cell should be and where it should be located. The complexity is mind boggling. You can believe that all of this happened by chance. People with any common sense know differently.

None of this is relevant, I demonstrated that there are mechanisms by which code is produced non-intelligently. For premise 2 to be true it needs to be true without exception, I gave a glaring exception.

Another nail in the coffin is that almost every time a decently long piece of DNA (such as the human genome) replicates, then errors within the replication process produce brand new novel segments of DNA each time, and that is before we even get into recombination and other meiotic processes.

Ergo this argument is debunked due to a false premise 2.

This is nothing more than your opinion. You provided no evidence.

DNA is produced by self-replication (meiosis, mitosis). Basic biochemistry.

DNA is a language. This is a fact. Language can only arise through the efforts of will and intelligence. So. Who created the language of DNA?

This is irrelevant, your argument, and specifically premise 2 doesn't contain this qualifier, which I have already falsified, ergo this argument has failed, it is as simple as that.