The atheist's riddle

[borrofburi]

Another thread about a question asked by my intelligent creationist debating partner, I ask these in separate threads because I believe they are issues deserving addressing. I don't need help in the debate I am having, I will win because I win debates, I ask these questions because I find the answers I have for the specific questions asked aren't as great or readily accessible as I would like them to be (i.e. I ask them in hopes of purifying my arguments to crystal clarity).


I do admit that I think that trying to disprove this theory is a snipe hunt; I *am* a creationist, after all; but it is not impossible if they are indeed wrong. Unlike trying to prove that an invisible dragon doesn't exist in someone's basement, this theory is disprovable with a single counter-example to premise #2. Perhaps I could prove that a dragon exists, but none that can be found are invisible. This would not disprove the statement about an invisible dragon. Whereas if anyone can provide an example of abstract code arising from a natural (non-intelligent) process, one would honestly disprove the riddle.

So, the atheist riddle seems to be the idea that codes are languages, languages are designed, DNA is a code/language, therefore DNA is designed, or something like that, it's been rather hard to nail down what exactly it is, or to summarize many thousands of words. How precisely would you go about attacking this in an actual debate? I've seen some discussion on the topic, which are dismissive of it, and rightfully so (I can see it's problems readily), however in an actual debate one cannot be so dismissive, and I am curious as to the specific language and the specific path you would use to respond in a debate.

Also helpful would be someone more clearly defining what precisely their argument is.

 

[IrBubble]

Well, you could mention the evolution of languages, that languages evolve not through intelligent design (tolkiens languages excluded) but through a natural process of people trying to understand eachother.

Also, how DNA first arose, we don't know.

 

[theatheistguy]

I will win because I win debates

Please lose this attitude before you continue debating anymore. This is the attitude held by most creationists and results in the feeling of talking to an ignorant brick wall.

I do admit that I think that trying to disprove this theory is a snipe hunt; I *am* a creationist, after all; but it is not impossible if they are indeed wrong. Unlike trying to prove that an invisible dragon doesn't exist in someone's basement, this theory is disprovable with a single counter-example to premise #2. Perhaps I could prove that a dragon exists, but none that can be found are invisible. This would not disprove the statement about an invisible dragon. Whereas if anyone can provide an example of abstract code arising from a natural (non-intelligent) process, one would honestly disprove the riddle.

To this I have to ask what they define as 'abstract code'? Are they wanting to find 'Yahweh dun it - 4000BC' written in the genes?

As for the rest of this, IrBubble has said it pretty well in that indeed languages have evolved. As for codes, most use numbers and letters and therefore use the already evolved language, but also must be agreed upon by multiple people otherwise the code is rendered useless. I mention this agreement because there is no single intelligence inventing anything, and input from several people will alter and will change it - evolve it.

And although we don't know how DNA arose, as IrBubble said, we now have naturally recreated RNA in the lab (what we believe allowed DNA to arise) see: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

 

[borrofburi]

Please lose this attitude before you continue debating anymore. This is the attitude held by most creationists and results in the feeling of talking to an ignorant brick wall.

NOU.

It is true, I could win pretty much any debate with the majority of people, I've been doing it nearly 12 years now, about half of which I've spent vast amounts of time seriously debating. I could win a debate as a creationist or a flat-earther, or any number of ridiculous opinions, sacrificing varying levels of logic and intellectual honesty for rhetoric. I don't though, and you are right to chastise me for a perceived attitude that "I will win regardless of the cost", however that is not who I am.

I said it because it was simpler and shorter to say than "because I have a good idea of how to proceed despite my language and strategy being muddier than I like and I already have seen and exposed many many flaws in his stated positions and various attacks and defenses so far" (and because even that's not precisely what I mean) and I tend to be vastly too verbose as it is. I was trying to save my readers time.


EDIT: "sacrificing varying levels of logic and intellectual honesty for rhetoric"
That reminds me of the scene from "thank you for smoking" in which nick naylor is teaching his son debating tactics with the example of chocolate vs. vanilla, which is well worth watching.

 

[e2iPi]

Whereas if anyone can provide an example of abstract code arising from a natural (non-intelligent) process, one would honestly disprove the riddle.

The concept of DNA as an "abstract code" has always bothered me. DNA is nothing more than a self-replicating molecule with defined chemical properties which are a result of well understood physical processes. The terms "genetic code" and "genetic information" should be understood as an abstraction. The fact that we examine DNA and ascribe meaning to it post hoc in no way implies that meaning was built into the system initially.
To me, the the "atheist riddle" has the exact same validity as the argument that there are physical "laws" therefore there must be a lawgiver. It's a non sequitur.

Sorry if this argument seems dismissive as well, but is there any other way to respond to a nonsensical argument?

i^2

 

[Squawk]

DNA is referred to as a code simply because humans impose such an explanation onto it. In reality it is simply a structure of amino acids that happen to do things when put into a given sequence.

If I mix milk, eggs and flower together and add a little heat I end up with pancakes. Do it a bit differently and I end up with yorkshire pudding. Add in a bit of sugar and I get a cake. Does this mean that eggs, milk, flower and sugar are part of a code? Hell no, they are just substances that, when mixed together in certain ways, have differing results.

The same for DNA. It's a chain of 4 amino acids that, when combined in various orders, produce various other substances. Think of DNA as a recipe rather than a code.

 

[borrofburi]

Sorry if this argument seems dismissive as well, but is there any other way to respond to a nonsensical argument?

No, I think this is the path to take in dealing with this. I'm trying to think of the proper creationist response, but I can't seem to posit it. I suppose I shall find out, however the concept of "code is an abstraction" coupled with analogy "natural laws therefore a lawgiver" is really quite sound.

 

[Squawk]

coupled with analogy "natural laws therefore a lawgiver" is really quite sound.

Which part of that is sound? Based on what precedent? It's almost as bad as stating "everything has a beginning" when all the evidence suggests this is not the case. Indeed AFAIK NOTHING has a beginning, its just a different from of energy.

 

[borrofburi]

Which part of that is sound? Based on what precedent? It's almost as bad as stating "everything has a beginning" when all the evidence suggests this is not the case. Indeed AFAIK NOTHING has a beginning, its just a different from of energy.

That's the point! If you're dealing with an honest person who has some critical thinking skills, they can easily see that "natural law" is an abstraction, and that the argument "natural law therefore a lawgiver" IS flawed, and from there they can analogically see that "code therefore codemaker" is just as flawed for the same reasons!

Of course this won't work if your conversational partner is either not honest or incapable of critical thought, but those two being satisfied, the analogy allows for significant clarity of communication.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The concept of DNA as an "abstract code" has always bothered me. DNA is nothing more than a self-replicating molecule with defined chemical properties which are a result of well understood physical processes. The terms "genetic code" and "genetic information" should be understood as an abstraction. The fact that we examine DNA and ascribe meaning to it post hoc in no way implies that meaning was built into the system initially.
To me, the the "atheist riddle" has the exact same validity as the argument that there are physical "laws" therefore there must be a lawgiver. It's a non sequitur.

Sorry if this argument seems dismissive as well, but is there any other way to respond to a nonsensical argument?

i^2

Well, it is the same way that any crystal forms from a "blueprint" based on the way molecules interact with one another. It isn't a "language" or "code" any more than the way Legos connect with one another is a language.

 

[e2iPi]

It isn't a "language" or "code" any more than the way Legos connect with one another is a language.

That has got to be one of the best analogies I've ever seen for DNA. Mind if I steal that some time, Joe?
i^2

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That has got to be one of the best analogies I've ever seen for DNA. Mind if I steal that some time, Joe?
i^2

Heck yeah, knock yourself out!