Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[australopithecus]

false. the very fact that life exists, is evidence that god exists. its a straigthforward conclusion.

Only if you ignore all the contrary evidence.

 

[nemesiss]

LIfe comes always only from life, as past eur said. Aft er 150 years, he has still not been proven wrong.

This coming from someone who believes a sky-testicle created the first human from dirt.
way to fail at life!

false. the very fact that life exists, is evidence that god exists. its a straigthforward conclusion.

your mom had sex, i had sex, therefor i f***ed your mom. its a straightforward conclusion.

Informal Warning - Let's have some civility please.
-AW

 

[Japhia888]

false. the very fact that life exists, is evidence that god exists. its a straigthforward conclusion.

Only if you ignore all the contrary evidence.

you mean the success of abiogenesis theory ?

 

[Japhia888]

If you quote utter shite like AiG, shite that has been debunked a thousand times, .

if you can present coded information, which occured naturally, you can state above confidently. As long as you cannot present empirical proof of it, your above assertion is empty and pointless. So far you have nothing on hand.

 

[Japhia888]

you forget to mention that life to happen needs information in the first cell, which is not a property of mat ter /energy. information is always property of a mind.

This is not true and not proven. Furthermore, you failed to answer my question as to whether Non-coding DNA was a code too?

In all biological literature DNA is cited not as metamorhical , but a literal code, with the blueprint of the organism it represents. Non coding DNA has non functional codes too.

 

[australopithecus]

you mean the success of abiogenesis theory ?

I mean the evidence that strongly supports the various theories of abiogenesis. FYI, calling something a 'code', doesn't make it a code. It just means you're drawing a comparrison between two distinct things and commenting on how they have similar properties. I can do the same with snowflakes and buildings and call them both architechture. Doesn't mean an intelligent architect makes snowflakes, does it?

 

[Japhia888]

you mean the success of abiogenesis theory ?

I mean the evidence that strongly supports the various theories of abiogenesis. FYI, calling something a 'code', doesn't make it a code. It just means you're drawing a comparrison between two distinct things and commenting on how they have similar properties. I can do the same with snowflakes and buildings and call them both architechture. Doesn't mean an intelligent architect makes snowflakes, does it?

DNA is the coded representation of YOU, for example. This representation is like a computer program, or a book. DNA is called in ALL biological literature literally as code, and IS therefore a code, a language. Its not somethink alike . Not accepting it fits your wish, maibe, but does not correspond to reality.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I mean the evidence that strongly supports the various theories of abiogenesis. FYI, calling something a 'code', doesn't make it a code. It just means you're drawing a comparrison between two distinct things and commenting on how they have similar properties. I can do the same with snowflakes and buildings and call them both architechture. Doesn't mean an intelligent architect makes snowflakes, does it?

DNA is the coded representation of YOU, for example. This representation is like a computer program, or a book. DNA is called in ALL biological literature literally as code, and IS therefore a code, a language. Its not somethink alike . Not accepting it fits your wish, maibe, but does not correspond to reality.

Your definition of a code is a product of intelligence. This is clearly not the definition scientists who refer to DNA as a code are using. You are strawmaning them.

 

[RichardMNixon]

If you quote utter shite like AiG, shite that has been debunked a thousand times, .

if you can present coded information, which occured naturally, you can state above confidently. As long as you cannot present empirical proof of it, your above assertion is empty and pointless. So far you have nothing on hand.

And if DNA is the only such [overextended metaphorical] "code?" Why does lightning need to strike twice? If it was the only example of something occurring, does that mean it can't? Does it in anyway invalidate the evidence supporting this conclusion? I also see you don't expect the same standard of yourself either; that is, could you present coded information, which came from god? Can you present empirical proof of god "coding" things?

On the other hand it's easy to mistake chance for design, it's pattern recognition, ironically a product of evolution. I work with zeolites in my research, they're very precisely arranged aluminosilicate crystals. Can you tell me which of these three pictures must be synthetically created in the lab and which forms spontaneously in nature? Can you explain how the "code" that forms natural zeolite is different from the "code" that makes up DNA?

 

[borrofburi]

I mean the evidence that strongly supports the various theories of abiogenesis. FYI, calling something a 'code', doesn't make it a code. It just means you're drawing a comparrison between two distinct things and commenting on how they have similar properties. I can do the same with snowflakes and buildings and call them both architechture. Doesn't mean an intelligent architect makes snowflakes, does it?

DNA is the coded representation of YOU, for example. This representation is like a computer program, or a book. DNA is called in ALL biological literature literally as code, and IS therefore a code, a language. Its not somethink alike . Not accepting it fits your wish, maibe, but does not correspond to reality.

False. It is metaphorical (you are, however, correct that it is not "metamorhical").

Also, dna is NOT the coded representation of me; you could clone me a hundred times and not once would you produce me.


Why do you continue to fail, ignore, and generally avoid the questions that I and the flying bastard have asked on multiple occasions?

EDIT: and you STILL haven't answered my question: please rigidly demonstrate how to tell the difference between a "code" that has "intelligence" behind it and a "pattern" that doesn't have intelligence behind it.

 

[australopithecus]

DNA is the coded representation of YOU, for example. This representation is like a computer program, or a book. DNA is called in ALL biological literature literally as code, and IS therefore a code, a language. Its not somethink alike . Not accepting it fits your wish, maibe, but does not correspond to reality.

You're arguing semantics. DNA is no more a code than the arrangement of atoms in a diamond is a code, and all DNA is merely an arrangment of atoms. DNA is refered to as a code because it is a nice short hand analogous to the function DNA performs, but not unsurprisingly, you take this far too literally. If DNA is a code, then any arrangement of atoms that behave in a way that infers design is a code too. So crystals and snowflakes must have an intelligent designer because these structures couldn't possibly emerge through anything other than intelligence...

 

[borrofburi]

Stuff

You didn't answer my question; instead you copy pasted some answers in genesis shit that makes an entire argument with the key word "clearly", as in the argument "since ___ is clearly true I am clearly right".

Wow I was in a really bad mood yesterday... Let me clarify this a bit more, or, perhaps more precisely, demonstrate the AiG's fallacy:

Since the DNA code of all life-forms is clearly within the UDI definition

No. This is precisely what I reject, question, and require to be demonstrated. This logically amounts to "DNA was clearly designed" in an argument that is trying to prove that DNA has to be designed. It is assuming the conclusion to prove the conclusion and is simply yet another circular argument and yet another failure of yours to understand one of the most simplistic logical fallacies.

So even if I grant your method of determining whether something originated from an intelligence, you have yet to show that DNA really does lie within this definition.

Even more of a problem I still reject this definition... But I guess we can get to that later.



Also you still have yet to answer this post:

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you simply ignore posts that you find inconvenient, making absurd claims of superiority while failing to even attempt to address the questions raised?

All your arguments are god of the gaps arguments (we don't understand something therefore god did it), arguments from incredulity (I can't explain this therefore no explanation exists therefore god did it), and arguments from ignorance (prove me wrong!) as well as just ignorant arguments (namely your failure to understand basic logic, basic information theory, and basic evolutionary biology (and, evidently, from AW's posts, basic astro-physics and astronomy)):
-kalaam: we don't know the precise details of the beginning of the universe therefore god did it
-fine tuning: our models have problems, therefore god created the universe
-abiogenesis: we don't know the precise details of RNA-DNA formation therefore god did it
-DNA: I am incredulous at the idea that DNA is just a molecule operating by chemical rules and it seems extra special, therefore god did it (this one also relies heavily on the frankly dishonest fallacy of equivocation)
-moral arugment: I can't understand how social morality could evolve, therefore god did it (this one is primarily an argument from incredulity)


Moreover all your arguments fall prey to a circular logical fallacy of the form:
1) god did it
2) therefore god exists
which presumes, in the antecedent, the conclusion

 

[kenandkids]

"Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God."

I honestly can't think of a worse explanation than god. It is a concept that doesn't hold water, top to bottom it's full of logical and philosophical holes.

 

[pjnlsn]

DNA is the coded representation of YOU, for example. This representation is like a computer program, or a book. DNA is called in ALL biological literature literally as code, and IS therefore a code, a language. Its not somethink alike . Not accepting it fits your wish, maibe, but does not correspond to reality.

I wonder if you might explain, how exactly does dna come to have 'intended purpose' or 'meaning'? Syntax, sure. expected action, perhaps. The other two, I just don't see it at all....

Of course if DNA doesn't fall within this UDI definition of information, then everything you're saying falls apart, doesn't it? Something you should be aware of.

 

[Squawk]

If you quote utter shite like AiG, shite that has been debunked a thousand times, .

if you can present coded information, which occured naturally, you can state above confidently. As long as you cannot present empirical proof of it, your above assertion is empty and pointless. So far you have nothing on hand.

A beach, a lump of dogshit, the frequency of vibration of any particular atom.

That would be three different items with inherent coded information. So err, did they occur naturally?

 

[borrofburi]

DNA is the coded representation of YOU, for example. This representation is like a computer program, or a book. DNA is called in ALL biological literature literally as code, and IS therefore a code, a language. Its not somethink alike . Not accepting it fits your wish, maibe, but does not correspond to reality.

I wonder if you might explain, how exactly does dna come to have 'intended purpose' or 'meaning'? Syntax, sure. expected action, perhaps. The other two, I just don't see it at all....

Of course if DNA doesn't fall within this UDI definition of information, then everything you're saying falls apart, doesn't it? Something you should be aware of.

It's worse than that: even if DNA does fall within this UDI definition he's still left with a fallacious circular argument.

I would explain how he'd probably argue, but my speculation is really not worth it.

 

[dav37777777]

simply put ...it is always better to follow what one believes to be the truth in light of the evidence at hand.

 

[Story]

In all biological literature DNA is cited not as metamorhical , but a literal code, with the blueprint of the organism it represents. Non coding DNA has non functional codes too.

It may have scattered deactivated "codes", but as they've undergone many mutations that make them useless, they no longer represent the same thing they did before, besides most of non-coding DNA represents nothing.

You still avoided the question as to whether non-coding DNA was a code, not whether parts of it could be codes, but whether the thing as a whole is a code.

When you answer that, I have another question. Did you know that DNA randomly polymerizes (forms) in nature? Is that a code too?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Why do you ignore the fact that the universe doesn't run on pure chance, Japhia?

i have not seen any, so far. we dont know yet, is not a better answer. its actually no answer at all.

You have not seen any event which shows that the universe does not run on pure chance?
I guess if I shove my foot up your ass that must be pure chance too then.

So having just dug yourself in deeper, I have changed the question to reflect the latest can of worms you opened up.
What about my other questions?

Where in the process of chemical transcription is the literal code, Japhia?
Why do you continuously post from sources that have been proven to be wrong or lying, Japhia?
Why can't you count back from now into infinity, Japhia?
Why are you ignoring that people have given you a better explanation than God, Japhia?
Why do you believe that the universe runs purely on chance, Japhia?
Why do you run away when you are confronted with your fallacies, Japhia?

And above all... Why aren't you answering these questions, Japhia?

 

[DeusExNihilum]

"Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God."

I honestly can't think of a worse explanation than god. It is a concept that doesn't hold water, top to bottom it's full of logical and philosophical holes.

/thread

IMO.