This is a website I happened by chance to come upon while perusing the topic of evolution on HowStuffWorks

>>> i just joined it this evening and i must say this guy has a unique insight into the topic >>> evolutionists, atheists & other interested parties,

Please drop your comments on this topic which borders on the crucial topic of 'The Origin Of Life'

This is the website: Cosmic Fingerprints & FRDB

Woo. This is something else. The chap said he discussed with atheists as regard DNA being a code&a language&none of them could counter his claims that it wasnt formed by a mind. After 300 posts&4 months of discussion they all ran off. Woo, i urge the theist&deist to careful review the contents of these sites. Thumbs up uyi. Over to the site

uyi, this is real good, keep it up. more of such site, to help follow follow people for niga

The guy effectively mirrors my reasons for believing in God. Richard Dawkins and his contemporaries have never convinced me of the initial creation of life. I can believe it getting better and better but it starting outta nothing is stretching it too far. I remember it being said that believing God created everything begs the question, "who created God?". I think one may treat this in two ways: say "I do not know" which does not mean in any way that you're wrong or ask in return "what was before the big bang?". The stuff for the big bang was highly unstable and couldn't have just been like that since time immemorial. Stephen Hawkings says whatever was before the big bang has no bearing on what is now. True, but that doesn't answer the question.

Passing through.

Uyi Iredia: Passing through.

good to bring it up, hope our great thinkers can help

@ deadtosin: Cool.

I read Emusan piece on another thread about information, could this be part of what emusan was trying to emphasisie?

^^^Correct.

This is too bad. Bad market for atheist, if 30 atheists have cant solve this riddle, silently allow it into oblivion, speaks volume. Hmm meeting them on their own turf is great.

dead2sin: This is too bad. Bad market for atheist, if 30 atheists have cant solve this riddle, silently allow it into oblivion, speaks volume. Hmm meeting them on their own turf is great.

That nigga seems to be making up a definition for "code" and conveniently attaching both language and DNA to this definition. He's playing with words, and that has no bearing in useful, applied science. His riddle is of course utterly ridiculous, not least because there are other codes in nature that clearly arose naturally,

Human language is one of them. There is little doubt also for example that birdsong encodes meaning even if only in mate selection. It codes for fitness in the mate selection game.

He even acknowledges that a language can be a code in his own framing of the so called riddle!

The first part of his "argument" - that DNA is a code is certainly correct. In a sense it is the coded fitness function for that organism. It is indeed a storage mechanism - of information about the organisms evolutionary inheritance.

But as he apparently recognizes himself there are other codes in nature and these therefore must by definition occur naturally.

The man is an idi0t.

^^^ are you picking holes in what he said or you are solving the riddle?

dead2sin: ^^^ are you picking holes in what he said or you are solving the riddle?

What kinda dirty riddle be that? You can just as well replace the word "mind with "human" in that illogically phrased BS of a riddle

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by HUMANS; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a HUMAN.

Oya, go ahead, help me disprove the above...nonsense

While you're at it, you can also pls help solve this Theist Riddle

1. Your god is a supernatural being; it is a spirit, with absolutely no evidence to support its existence, and a bigger problem of how it itself got created if it does indeed exist.

2. All supernatural beings are created by, and exist only in, human imaginations; there is no natural or supernatural process known to science which can create them or a place for them to exist.

3. Therefore your god was created by, and exists only in, human imaginations.

If you can provide an empirical example of a supernatural being which exists outside of the human imagination (and can prove it), you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

This is so much fun! Here's another one:

1. Humans are a form of life.

2. All life evolved naturally; there is no process known to science by which a god could create life.

3. Therefore, humans evolved naturally.

If you can provide an empirical example of a form of life that was created by a process of a god (and can prove it), you've toppled my proof. All you need is one. (It would also be nice if you'd describe the process used. I am sincerely curious.)

Mudley313:

What kinda dirty riddle be that? You can just as well replace the word "mind with "human" in that illogically phrased BS of a riddle

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by HUMANS; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a HUMAN.

Oya, go ahead, help me disprove the above...nonsense

easy.

this is false:

Mudley313:
2) All codes are created by HUMANS;

As I've pointed out before, this Marshall guy merely confuses words. To say DNA is a code is to make a category mistake and with that, his entire enterprise fails.

Mudley313:

What kinda dirty riddle be that? You can just as well replace the word "mind with "human" in that illogically phrased BS of a riddle

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by HUMANS; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a HUMAN.

Oya, go ahead, help me disprove the above...nonsense

Being human is not enough to create code, being a conscious and intelligent human is what is necessary. That said the attribute is what needs to be picked out since humans, being a product of their DNA, demands an explanation. Simply put, your conclusion is invalid given that it doesn't strictly follow from the premises (it should be 'designed by humans') and we know that humans did not design themselves since their intellect doesn't measure up.

thehomer: As I've pointed out before, this Marshall guy merely confuses words. To say DNA is a code is to make a category mistake and with that, his entire enterprise fails.

This happens to be a profound folly on the part of the people he debated. I might post the links where he rebutted the talk of DNA not being a code amongst other counter-arguments. The behaviour of the DNA molecule wrt a cell fits the definition of code given below:

code (k d)
n.
1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of
laws.
2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure
or conduct: a traffic code.
3.
a. A system of signals used to represent letters or
numbers in transmitting messages.
b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain
arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages
requiring secrecy or brevity.
4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions
to a computer; a computer program.
5. Genetics The genetic code.
6. Slang A patient whose heart has stopped beating, as in
cardiac arrest.

The DNA molecule's behaviour fits definition 2, 3 & 5. If you state its just a molecule, then any OS on Android, Apple devices et al aren't codes but just molecules_ions to be precise.

F00028:

easy.

this is false:

If it is false, Perry's argument will be shown flawed by comparison. Mudley simply changed a phrase within the syllogism which Perry has since modified.

@ Mudley: The only other codes in Nature are derived from DNA. It is safe to assume the same of humans since our code-making ability is ultimately derived from the DNA via our brains.

Uyi Iredia:

This happens to be a profound folly on the part of the people he debated. I might post the links where he rebutted the talk of DNA not being a code amongst other counter-arguments. The behaviour of the DNA molecule wrt a cell fits the definition of code given below:

code (k d)
n.
1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of
laws.
2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure
or conduct: a traffic code.
3.
a. A system of signals used to represent letters or
numbers in transmitting messages.
b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain
arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages
requiring secrecy or brevity.
4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions
to a computer; a computer program.
5. Genetics The genetic code.
6. Slang A patient whose heart has stopped beating, as in
cardiac arrest.

The DNA molecule's behaviour fits definition 2, 3 & 5. If you state its just a molecule, then any OS on Android, Apple devices et al aren't codes but just molecules_ions to be precise.

2. DNA is not a rule but a molecule.
3. DNA is not a signal representing letter or numbers. In fact, letters are used to represent DNA in communication.
5. I merely an assertion that is yet to be demonstrated.

Wrong again with respect to software. Operating systems are actually codes. Or can you see the operating system date under a microscope?

There are four laws to creation. I mean laws that can never be broken or defied unlike other laws that exist in the bible and other unnecessary books.

1. You all exist!

And will always exist in this form or another. Everything that will ever exist already exist; we are all eternal,no beginning,no end.
Non existence doesn't exist. That is the first law

2. The One is the All,the All are the One.

The One is The All, The All are The One -- every, seemingly separate thing is made up out of The One, and The One knows itself as The One and as all the things it makes up.

3. What you put out is what you get back!

4. Everything will change except the first three laws.
Everything changes except the first three laws. The reason it is framed that way is to that you can understand that means that even the fourth law changes. And when change changes what does change become? That which does not change, which is the first three laws. So the forth law gives birth to the first three, which gives birth to the forth, and it is, in that sense a circle of perfection, and that is all there is.


Therefore we are the creators of this present reality. This reality is an illusion, all the things we see around us are not real. Just make believe from our brain.

In a nut shell,there is no creator deity. If there is,who created this mysterious deity? All we can see is ourselves in different forms. The Bible has been used as a mind controlling tool for a long time and most of us think it is a book to be taken seriously. All of its contents were stolen from the black Egyptians. Don't we have enough evidence of that?

Mudley313: While you're at it, you can also pls help solve this Theist Riddle

1. Your god is a supernatural being; it is a spirit, with absolutely no evidence to support its existence, and a bigger problem of how it itself got created if it does indeed exist.

2. All supernatural beings are created by, and exist only in, human imaginations; there is no natural or supernatural process known to science which can create them or a place for them to exist.

3. Therefore your god was created by, and exists only in, human imaginations.

If you can provide an empirical example of a supernatural being which exists outside of the human imagination (and can prove it), you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

This is so much fun! Here's another one:

1. Humans are a form of life.

2. All life evolved naturally; there is no process known to science by which a god could create life.

3. Therefore, humans evolved naturally.

If you can provide an empirical example of a form of life that was created by a process of a god (and can prove it), you've toppled my proof. All you need is one. (It would also be nice if you'd describe the process used. I am sincerely curious.)

Premise 2 in both syllogisms are false. Premise 1 in the first syllogism also has falsities. In the first syllogism, the first premise ignores the evidence presented from Nature and that God is, like. energy, presumed uncaused. In the second premise, God is assumed a being that can be created, a presumption contrary to the understanding of God as uncaused. If I switch God with evolution in your argument, with some modifications, I should have a syllogism.

Premise 2 in the second syllogism isn't substatiated, we can't observe universal common descent and ID is a process known to science by which God could create life. Put simply God arranged subsisting matter into primordial lifeforms.

Uyi Iredia:

Premise 2 in both syllogisms are false. Premise 1 in the first syllogism also has falsities. In the first syllogism, the first premise ignores the evidence presented from Nature and that God is, like. energy, presumed uncaused. In the second premise, God is assumed a being that can be created, a presumption contrary to the understanding of God as uncaused. If I switch God with evolution in your argument, with some modifications, I should have a syllogism.

Premise 2 in the second syllogism isn't substatiated, we can't observe universal common descent and ID is a process known to science by which God could create life. Put simply God arranged subsisting matter into primordial lifeforms.

Have you got evidence?

This is the basis of Perry's argument. I hope Uyi Iredia is ready to actually defend them.

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

1. Implicitly admits that DNA is a molecule. DNA is not a code because it is a physical molecule. Codes are abstract. It is not a language because again it is physical molecule not a means of communication between two people. Saying it is an information storage mechanism contributes nothing to the discussion because one can even say that the moon is an information storage mechanism.

2. We can go further to say that all codes are created by humans. There is no other entity known that creates coded information.

3. Even if I accepted his (1) it would mean that DNA was created by humans.

thehomer:

2. DNA is not a rule but a molecule.

I didn't say DNA is a rule. The behaviour of the DNA follows rules. The genetic code is a rule, a central one.

thehomer:
3. DNA is not a signal representing letter or numbers. In fact, letters are used to represent DNA in communication.

The nuclueobases (purines and pyrimidines) are signals within the cell to make an amino acid. You confuse the language with which we code (represent) the DNA for the DNA.

thehomer:
5. I merely an assertion that is yet to be demonstrated.

Willful and pitiable ignorance. I need not refer you to books by Creationists and ID'sts, read books by evolutionists. Hubert Yockey, Richard Dawkins etc Or read Genetics for dummies, it's available online.

thehomer:
Wrong again with respect to software. Operating systems are actually codes. Or can you see the operating system date under a microscope?

I anticipated your worn-out argument on DNA being a molecule. It so happens you also can't see a DNA's date under a microscope. Your question is asinine. Operating systems are merely ions in a certain transistors microprinted on a silicon wafer.

ifeness:

Have you got evidence?

What definition of evidence are you working with ?

thehomer: This is the basis of Perry's argument. I hope Uyi Iredia is ready to actually defend them.



1. Implicitly admits that DNA is a molecule. DNA is not a code because it is a physical molecule. Codes are abstract. It is not a language because again it is physical molecule not a means of communication between two people. Saying it is an information storage mechanism contributes nothing to the discussion because one can even say that the moon is an information storage mechanism.

2. We can go further to say that all codes are created by humans. There is no other entity known that creates coded information.

3. Even if I accepted his (1) it would mean that DNA was created by humans.

1. Not at all. All codes are merely physical molecules. Human language too. If codes are abstract, the same applies to DNA, the mapping of nucleobases to amino acids follows no known natural precedent outside the biocosm.

2. No. Dead humans, brain-damaged or nascent humans can't make codes. It's an attribute of humans, namely conscious intellect. Also, the human DNA which begs the question of our intellect, demands an explanation.

3. I suspect you'll prefer this as an answer to the idea of God doing it. In any case, your conclusion is invalid given that it ignored Perry's premises.

Uyi Iredia:

I didn't say DNA is a rule. The behaviour of the DNA follows rules. The genetic code is a rule, a central one.

You said code was defined as a rule. If DNA is a code, then it is being defined as a rule but obviously, it isn't a rule, it is a molecule.

Uyi Iredia:
The nuclueobases (purines and pyrimidines) are signals within the cell to make an amino acid. You confuse the language with which we code (represent) the DNA for the DNA.

Wrong. The bases aren't signals, they're molecules. We can refer to them as signals just as we can refer to DNA as a code for our models of what happens in cells to be easily comprehensible. To put it another way, crystals grow due to interactions of different forces. In the same way that DNA does what it does due to the interactions of different forces.

Uyi Iredia:
Willful and pitiable ignorance. I need not refer you to books by Creationists and ID'sts, read books by evolutionists. Hubert Yockey, Richard Dawkins etc Or read Genetics for dummies, it's available online.

And now rather than demonstrating the evidence for what you're claiming, you've decided to wail and gnash your teeth when pressed for specifics. You need to learn how to carry out a conversation.

Uyi Iredia:
I anticipated your worn-out argument on DNA being a molecule. It so happens you also can't see a DNA's date under a microscope. Your question is asinine. Operating systems are merely ions in a certain transistors microprinted on a silicon wafer.

As usual, your childish behaviour precedes you and you exacerbate it with dense questions. Did anyone say DNA has a date? Or don't you think operating systems have dates? Turn on your phone or computer and look for the date it displays. You're demonstrating a failure of understanding both DNA and the software you're trying to compare it with. Operating systems aren't ions. This is another one of your category errors. They're actually codes.

Uyi Iredia:

1. Not at all. All codes are merely physical molecules. Human language too. If codes are abstract, the same applies to DNA, the mapping of nucleobases to amino acids follows no known natural precedent outside the biocosm.

So what is the physical molecule that represents the word "go"? You have no idea of what you're talking about. How can DNA be abstract when it can be seen under a microscope? Or are bacteria too codes? What you're saying is that molecules can be represented as abstractions. That doesn't make molecules abstract. The formation of carbon from stars has follows no known natural precedent outside of space.

Uyi Iredia:
2. No. Dead humans, brain-damaged or nascent humans can't make codes. It's an attribute of humans, namely conscious intellect. Also, the human DNA which begs the question of our intellect, demands an explanation.

This is the sort of useless response I've come to expect from you. Are you trying to say codes aren't created by humans? Or that humans can't create codes? The sun too demands an explanation. What is your point? How does anything you've said here refute the fact that humans create codes?

Uyi Iredia:
3. I suspect you'll prefer this as an answer to the idea of God doing it. In any case, your conclusion is invalid given that it ignored Perry's premises.

Really you need to learn how to have a discussion. I didn't ignore his premises, I showed that his premises were flawed. Then I pointed out that even if some were true, his conclusions would still be flawed.

dead2sin: I read Emusan piece on another thread about information, could this be part of what emusan was trying to emphasisie?

Absolutely yes! I remember everything went the way it was @Uyi's link.

Actually, is not nature itself that confused me in believing in God Almighty but God has manifested Himself to me. I was just trying to let our freethinker to know the hand of God in our universe.


Shalom!