Has nature ever created a code?

761 posts / 0 new
Last post
xenoview's picture
@jnv3

@jnv3
Are you saying that god created life? If so, then what objective evidence do you have that god is real?

Sapporo's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: Sapporo

J N Vanderbilt III: Sapporo your question is a bit confounding but I will say that if you think existence is comprised of just 3 dimensions you are missing the boat

Can you define this boat?

LostLocke's picture
First, we know there are (at

First, we know there are (at least) 4 dimensions, not 3. 3 spatial, 1 temporal.
Second, you can't just say there are more dimensions, you have to be able to demonstrate it in some way.

Rivka's picture
Hint hint everyone, J N

Hint hint everyone, J N Vanderbilt III just proved he knows nothing about genetics...

Sapporo's picture
Theists often say atheists

Theists often say atheists are narrow-minded for not considering the supernatural, but I find it is more the case that theists are narrow-minded for not considering explanations that are plausible.

arakish's picture
Saporro: "Theists often say

Saporro: "Theists often say atheists are narrow-minded for not considering the supernatural, but I find it is more the case that theists are narrow-minded for not considering explanations that are plausible."

And I feel ole jnv3 is the poster child for this one.

Rivka: "Hint hint everyone, J N Vanderbilt III just proved he knows nothing about genetics..."

And a poster child for this one. You go girl.

He just cannot grasp that nature creates NO codes. Us humans apply the codes, letters, words, names, etc. to provide a framework in order to better understand the complexities of nature. And another of my sayings when I answered someone who stated: "The complexity and diversity of life had to have had a Creator.

I can easily see where by natural selection you can have infinite complexity from infinite diversity through infinite combinations. NOT Intelligent Design. — Arakish

I have a very good layman's understanding of the Theory of Evolution and genetics to make that statement. I shall be the first to admit I ain't no expert, but my knowledge is evidently infinite compared to jnv3.

And another of my sayings:

Searching for knowledge and learning is what it means to be human instead of a religious robot being force fed the data. There is no shame in being self-taught, seeking knowledge and learning. The only shame is not seeking in the first place.

rmfr

EDIT: fixed blockquote tag

Sheldon's picture
"He just cannot grasp that

"He just cannot grasp that nature creates NO codes. Us humans apply the codes, letters, words, names, etc. to provide a framework in order to better understand the complexities of nature."

Precisely, and of course this would make all codes natural anyway, certainly in the sense he is applying the word natural here, since they are derived from a product of evolution namely humans.

What we have no evidence for and he has failed to demonstrate any evidence for is any intelligence that creates codes outside of The natural material universe.

He is and has been from the start using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, or God of the gaps arguments to try and reverse the burden of proof. Implying firstly that DNA is a code, and secondly that it couldn't occur naturally.

Of course when he's asked to evidence this last assertion he can't, but can onlycrepeat his argument from ignorance fallacy by challenging anyone to fulkyvevidence how DNA originated. Hence a gap in scientific knowledge he's trying to insert his fictional deity into.

A clear example of irrational such arguments are is tgat you can replace his deity with literally anything and the arguments can't rationally be any less valid. This means if it were valid it would literally evidence anything you wanted it to.

Intelligence is required to create codes, human intelligence didn't create DNA. Therefore it required a greater intelligence, therefore omniscient Pixies created DNA.

Not very compelling is it, but try getting him understand the argument is no different rationally if you change Pixies to a deity. It's still can argument from ignorance fallacy either way.

Sheldon's picture
J N Vanderbilt III, have you

J N Vanderbilt III, have you come up with a single example of a code yet that isn't a product of the natural material universe?

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for anything more than the natural physical universe.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Sheldon, the sequences ARE

Sheldon, the sequences ARE the code, you seem to ignore also that these sequences are arbitrary not just chemistry, and replete w decoding apparatus. What other then intel is capable of this?

xenoview's picture
@jnv3

@jnv3
Are you saying that god created life? If so, what objective evidence do you have that god is real?

Sheldon's picture
I've ignored nothing, it was

I've ignored nothing, it was your OP and I answrted it precisely, as have many others. No surprise you've ignored the answers as they're not the goddidit with magic assumption you're looking for.

"What other then intel is capable of this?"

I don't know what you mean, but if you're bas8ng any assertion on not knowing this answer, then by definition that is argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Now...what objective evidence can you demonstrate that anything more than the physical material universe exists?

Can you cite a single example of a code created outside of that natural material universe, and demonstrate objective evidence for the claim with a precise and detailed explanation how you claim this happened.

You still don't seem to grasp that disbelieving your completely unevidenced assertion for a supernatural deity creating everything using unexplained magic, is not a claim or assertion.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity or deities, it is not an opposite belief or claim.

Science only asserts as valid what it can objectively demonstrate empirical evidence to support.

The existence of the natural material universe, that all living things evolved, the existence of evolved intelligent or sentient animals including human animals, the existence of purely natural phenomena, these are all objective facts.

Codes are just a human concept, as arakish has explained multiple times. They're no more objectively real than other human concepts like money, we create these things as tools to help us understand and function in the reality of the material world and universe.

If we don't knowing something exists as it does, then rationalky we can assert nothing from this ignorance.

Avant Brown's picture
The OP cites a code that is

The OP cites a code that is created by nature, and then says their point is that codes are only created by intelligence and not by nature.

I think this comment from page 1 reveals how ironically delicious the OP is.

One can tell the OP probably didn't think things through nearly thoroughly as one may think things through.

Sheldon's picture
Humans create codes, humans

Humans create codes, humans evolved like all living things, as part of nature. Ipso facto codes occur as part of the natural material world. Complexity abounds within nature and evolution has produced it again and again. There is no evidence that evolution is anything but a purely natural and insentient phenomenon.

The thread OP is yet another argument from ignorance fallacy, a God of the gaps polemic, pointing to an ostensible gap in our knowledge and implying a deity must be in there HIDING. It seems theists are not the least phased with all the other gaps like lightning tsunamis earthquakes intelligent animals like humans etc etc that it already tried and failed to locate any deity in.

Every time we understand how somethingworks it is always a purely natural phenomenon. Not once has supernatural causation turned out to be remotely evidenced or valid. The best theists can do is point at things we dont fully understand and exclaim aha! Goddidit...movingtheir claim each time the gap is closed and no deity is revealed.

Sheldon's picture
Once again here is the

Once again here is the original claim from the OP:

J N Vanderbilt III
"The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence."

You mean humans, unless of course you can demonstrate any objective evidence for a single code created by an intelligence other than human?

So humans create codes. Is that your point all along? If so I concur. Anything else is fallacious assumption.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Sheldon

Sheldon
sequences are not a man made construct, you don’t like to call them codes as in your word play.
Fact is ,order of nucleotides is arbitrary and you have no explanation for them

I also see you stating evolution as a fact, and this is something you’ve observed?

arakish's picture
@ jnv3

@ jnv3

"I also see you stating evolution as a fact, and this is something you’ve observed?"

I have. But you shall ignore this like the childish, spoiled brat you are. And I still say you are liar. Caught you lying about me and that is why you are pissed at me. Childish, spoiled brat.

I saw this animal first appear about 20 to 25 years ago. But you probably won't remember it since you weren't even born yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/mutant-crayfish-clones-europe.html

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/self-cloning-mutant-crayfish-are-taking-over-europe-but-really-no-big-deal

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/attack-of-the-crayfish-clones/552236/

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
I have called codes codes

I have called them codes from the start, so this latest lie is as baffling as the rest of your verbiage? The post you're responding to has the word code in at least 4 times?

"Fact is ,order of nucleotides is arbitrary and you have no explanation for them"

Correct but moot, since I never claimed to have an explanation for them, what's your point?

"I also see you stating evolution as a fact, and this is something you’ve observed?"

Learn to read then, as I said scientific fact, and science has observed evolution yes, and you havve been given multiple links to the research.

Did you observe a deity create everything/ How about virgin births, or resurrection of Jesus, did you observe any of those? Nice double standard you are creating.

Species evolution through natural selection is an objective scientific fact, denying this in light of the scientific evidence is no different to the denials and claims of flat earthers.

Now one more time as you keep ignoring it:

Once again here is the original claim from the OP:

J N Vanderbilt III
"The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence."

You mean humans, unless of course you can demonstrate any objective evidence for a single code created by an intelligence other than human?

So humans create codes. Is that your point all along? If so I concur. Anything else is fallacious assumption.

Sheldon's picture
ME: "You mean humans, unless

ME: "You mean humans, unless of course you can demonstrate any objective evidence for a single **code created by an intelligence other than human?" So humans create **codes. Is that your point all along? If so I concur. Anything else is fallacious assumption."

J N Vanderbilt III "sequences are not a man made construct, you don’t like to call them codes as in your word play.
Fact is ,order of nucleotides is arbitrary and you have no explanation for them"

Baffling? I quite specifically said codes, and you mention sequences, then lie that I am playing word games? It was a verbatim quote from your OP as well?

Humans absolutely create codes, so all in all your post is dishonest gibberish.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
What ever I saw above,

What ever I saw above, totally ignored, waste of time
No se comunicará

arakish's picture
jnv3: "What ever I saw above,

jnv3: "What ever I saw above, totally ignored, waste of time"

Only problem is once seen, always seen. If I told you not to think of elephants, the first thing you do is think elephant.

Είσαι ψεύτης

rmfr

xenoview's picture
@jnv3

@jnv3
Since you have avoided my questions about objective evidence for god, that means your god is not real.

Sheldon's picture
Once again here is the

Once again here is the original claim from the OP:

J N Vanderbilt III
"The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence."

You mean humans, unless of course you can demonstrate any objective evidence for a single code created by an intelligence other than human?

So humans create codes. Is that your point all along? If so I concur. Anything else is fallacious assumption.

Ignore it all you want, it's what creatards always do when their verbiage is challenged, I have come to expect nothing else. You ignoring it is precisely the point I wanted to make.

arakish's picture
Yep. jnv3 fits both. He is

Yep. jnv3 fits both. He is ignorant (ig•nur•unt) and ignorant (ig•nor•unt).

rmfr

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
How many times do I have to

How many times do I have to tell you Sheldon I Am stating that codes come from intelligence only, even if I can’t pinpoint the source. the wind the rain seismic shifts do not create codes and by codes I mean sequences sequences sequences and obviously no human created the sequences in DNA

arakish's picture
@ jnv3

@ jnv3

Proof of your lack of knowledge.

Wind, Rain, and Seismic Shifts do have sequences.

Go back to school and quit skipping classes.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"How many times do I have to

"How many times do I have to tell you Sheldon I Am stating that codes come from intelligence only, even if I can’t pinpoint the source. "

Do you really need someone to point out how asinine it is to make a claim for a single source in the same sentence you admit you don't know the source?

" by codes I mean sequences.....and obviously no human created the sequences in DNA"

That's a rather pointless straw man argument, as no one claimed they did? You keep claiming only intelligence creates codes, so demonstrate some objective evidence for any code created by an intelligence other than humans? Simply pointing to DNA and stating humans didn't create it tells us nothing about it's origins. Humans create electricity all the time, but they don't create lightning, does this mean lightning has a supernatural cause? Religions certainly thought so until it was objectively evidenced to be an entirely natural phenomena. That was a god of the gaps polemic, as is yours.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Xenoview I may not have the

Xenoview I may not have the objective Evidence you’re looking for but a lot of logic is in place to tell us there is a God

Sheldon's picture
"a lot of logic is in place

"a lot of logic is in place to tell us there is a God"

Yet you have demonstrated none? Only an endless repetition of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

arakish's picture
Totally concur. As said, he

Totally concur. As said, he is ignorant (ig•nur•unt) and ignorant (ig•nor•unt).

rmfr

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
So w all your questioning my

So w all your questioning my intel assertions, you are saying that the code /sequences in dna, which are arbitrary, along with a decoding mechanism and error correction was developed how?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.