Has nature ever created a code?

1352 posts / 0 new

Tue, 10/23/2018 - 22:56

(Reply to #241) #242

Randomhero1982

I've asked so frequently now for any of them to demonstrate one causal link that would lead to the god hypothesis and not one will broach the question.

Every cause an effect stems from nature, no magical bearded cosmic sage is required.

Tue, 10/23/2018 - 22:56

(Reply to #242) #243

Randomhero1982

Absolutely spot on!

I've asked so frequently now for any of them to demonstrate one causal link that would lead to the god hypothesis and not one will broach the question.

Every cause and effect stems from nature, no magical bearded cosmic sage is required.

Wed, 10/24/2018 - 00:08

(Reply to #243) #244

Sheldon

Yeah ok, but what about stuff

Yeah ok, but what about stuff you can't explain then uh?

Godunit, now prove he never, I dare you. You just don't want to be moral, that why you hate God innit.
-------------------------

Wow it's painful to put myself in the mindset that produces that kind of apologetics, actually physically painful, and I've lived in almost constant pain now for over 30 years, so I have a reasonably high threshold as well.

Wed, 10/24/2018 - 07:14

#245

tbowen

I did mention several times

I did mention several times that the order of nucleotides is arbitrary and not dependent upon chemistry, so you continue to tell me it’s just simply chemistry. Do you not see your error? How bout those sequences?

Wed, 10/24/2018 - 10:46

(Reply to #245) #246

David Killens

@J N Vanderbilt III

"I did mention several times that the order of nucleotides is arbitrary and not dependent upon chemistry, so you continue to tell me it’s just simply chemistry. Do you not see your error? How bout those sequences?"

The order is not arbitrary. That order is established by what is basically hit-and-miss (evolution). The earliest organisms began extremely simple, they did not even have DNA. When there was a change (mutation) it either did one of three things. There was no effect, it killed the host, or it was beneficial to survival, and that mutation was spread by propagation. If a nucleotide was out of sequence, the host died. period. It did not propagate, end of that line.

This process has been going on for literally billions of years and over multiple billions of generations. Change may be slow, but over such a vast amount of time, it does happen. For every positive change, there may be a thousand changes that did not work, and killed the host.

Wed, 10/24/2018 - 07:53

#247

LogicFTW

J N Vanderbilt III: 2+2 = 5

J N Vanderbilt III: 2+2 = 5 therefore god!
AR regulars: Uh no 2+ 2 = 4.
J N Vanderbilt III: no 2+2 = 5, in certain special cases 5 really means 4, therefore god!
AR regulars: uh okay, fine but your argument is nonsensical, we all know 2+2 = 4 and it has nothing to do with god.
J N Vanderbilt III: but since 2 + 2 = 5 that proves my god!
AR regulars: You cannot do that and expect us to take you seriously, it is nonsensical.
J N Vanderbilt III: It doesn't matter because I proved 2+2 = 5 that means I am right about god!
AR regulars: 'sigh' How did I get involved in this argument, it is like arguing with a lunatic, I am done here wasting my time.
J N Vanderbilt III: I win! God is real!

... well congratulations you won the 1 contestant foot race.

Now if only the standard of evidence needed to convince theist there is no god was as low as this VERY low bar, we could all sit around the campfire and laugh about it.
"Remember when some people believed in various incarnations of sky fairies?"
Yeah I do, people sure were gullible back then!
What did they believe in unicorns and leprechauns too?
... sometimes! You would not believe the stuff apologist would come up with to defend their old bearded man fantasy's
*Huge fit of laughter*

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Wed, 10/24/2018 - 11:22

#248

Sheldon

Sat, 10/20/2018 - 13:40

Sat, 10/20/2018 - 13:40
J N Vanderbilt III "I challenge anyone to point out a code, other then DNA, that is created by nature."

So you already claim we have one code nature created.

Now, how many codes can you demonstrate objective evidence to show had a supernatural cause?

Otherwise by your own admission, it's nature 1 and fictional deities nil.

Sat, 10/27/2018 - 10:46

#249

tbowen

You have not and seemingly

You have not and seemingly cannot show that any undirected chemical process has the power to produce functional or even biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Instead you attack me

Sat, 10/27/2018 - 14:46

(Reply to #249) #250

Sheldon

"You have not and seemingly

"You have not and seemingly cannot show that any undirected chemical process has the power to produce functional or even biological information"

"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Sat, 10/27/2018 - 15:07

(Reply to #250) #251

Sapporo

You have not and seemingly

You have not and seemingly cannot show that any undirected chemical process has the power to produce functional or even biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Instead you attack me

The issue here is that you assume that any process that gives something we consider information must be intelligently designed. That is your problem, not ours.

As I said earlier in this thread (and others have said similar):

Your contention is that codes created by the rules that define nature must have been designed by some intelligence.

My view is that such codes are created by the rules that define nature.

What the argument is really about is whether or not we believe nature to have been created by some intelligence.

Any system is defined by its rules - it would be wrong to infer intelligence based purely on your aesthetic appreciation of one permutation over another.

It is meaningless to describe something that acts of its agency (contrary to the laws of nature)...so what exactly are you are you asking? Again, given that everything acts according to the laws of nature, the whole debate is really about whether or not the laws of nature had a creator.

Tue, 10/30/2018 - 12:52

(Reply to #251) #252

jamessc

All that we need to show is

All that we need to show is that it is feasible for undirected chemical processes to produce biological molecules and then self-replicating molecules (probably ribozymes) and then the first cells and then you have "functional and biological information".

I'm sorry for jumping into the conversation so late but have you or anyone else gathered evidence that strongly indicates that abiogenesis is infeasible?

Sat, 10/27/2018 - 11:00

#253

Randomhero1982

Because you cannot

Because you cannot demonstrate a causal link to a designer or whatever you want to believe in.

To simply claim that a gap in your scientific knowledge must equate to a deity is a god of the gaps fallacy.

Sat, 10/27/2018 - 15:16