Has nature ever created a code?

744 posts / 0 new
Last post
Senta Christine's picture
Only SOME Christians beleive

Only SOME Christians believe Jesus is God. Most d not. Jesus himself said he was not God and that there is only ONE perfect who is God.

CyberLN's picture
You are making a lot of

You are making a lot of assertions about what others believe. Show your work. Where are you getting these numbers?

Cognostic's picture
OMG! How many times are you

OMG! How many times are you guys going to go around in a circle with these DNA is a Code Creationists?

"The core argument of Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer."

HE IS WRONG!!!!!
"This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code that a computer instruction is a code, and that the term 'code' is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses."

END OF DISCUSSION!!! (OPEN a frigging BOOK)

https://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
So the reality is you CANNOT

So the reality is you CANNOT come up w a code done by nature.
The functional sequences of the nucleotides are profound in such a way that useful translation occurs, not dumb rocks flying around but genuine TRANSLATION!
There are NO properties of chemistry that dictate the order of these sequences!!! It's not merely chemistry any more then the ink in a book is just chemistry.
They both convey information. Arbitrarily~~~

Randomhero1982's picture
Wow, you're a special kind of

Wow, you're a special kind of spastic.

Probably cultivated over years and years in a secret lab, somewhere in Kentucky.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Thats about the typical

Thats about the typical response from a blank minded athiest, no cerebral reply.

Sapporo's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: Thats

J N Vanderbilt III: Thats about the typical response from a blank minded athiest, no cerebral reply.

Are you criticizing god, or nature?

Randomhero1982's picture
Its not required when you OP

Its not required when you OP is irretrievably stupid.

Cognostic's picture
RE: J N Vanderbilt III

RE: J N Vanderbilt III "Thats about the typical response from a blank minded athiest, no cerebral reply."

YES!!!! You finally got it. Atheists minds are blank!!! Congratulations! Our knowledge goes as far as it can with facts, skeptical thinking, science, pragmatism, and then when we get to the end, we honestly say "I DON'T KNOW!" There is a GAP in knowledge and understanding. YES!!! A blank spot." We do not fill it with Gods, miracles, angels, devils, heavens, Hell, magical prayers or magical thinking. We do not fill it with bible verses, Church dogma or iron age mythology. IT IS BLANK. And the only way to put something in that space is with reason, logic, pragmatic experimentation, empirical data, and evidence that can be validated. Absent that..... WE ARE BLANK MINDED AND STILL WAITING FOR THE EVIDENCE YOU WILL GIVE US FOR YOUR GOD. Still waiting.............

Cognostic's picture
Saying it, does not make it

Saying it, does not make it so. It is a chemical reaction. No brain, No translation.
"Nucleotides may have one, two, or three phosphate groups covalently linked at the 5' hydroxyl of ribose. These are referred to as nucleoside mono-, di-, and triphosphates, respectively (Fig. 12-39). Starting from the ribose, the three phosphates are generally labeled α, β, and γ. Nucleoside triphosphates are used as a source of chemical energy to drive a wide variety of biochemical reactions. ATP is by far the most widely used, but UTP, GTP, and CTP are used in specific reactions. Nucleoside triphosphates also serve as the activated precursors of DNA and RNA synthesis,"

Chemical interactions explain it all!!! READ A BOOK!

http://www.bioinfo.org.cn/book/biochemistry/chapt12/bio7.htm

Sheldon's picture
By your own criteria you gave

By your own criteria you gave an example of a case produced by nature in your OP. You claimed DNA is a case, and it's entirely natural?

Why do you keep ignoring this contradiction you're making?

Sapporo's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III
If you cannot think of anything "done" by nature, that is your problem, not ours.

Algebe's picture
@JN Vanderbilt: Thats about

@JN Vanderbilt: Thats about the typical response from a blank minded athiest, no cerebral reply.

And you seem to typify the theist tendency to latch onto a particular mantra of belief, and to avoid arguments that are outside of that narrow comfort zone.

I suggested that human language was a naturally evolved encoding-decoding system. Language is used by intelligence but was not created by it. Do you have any response?

Tin-Man's picture
@Algebe Re: To JNV - "Do

@Algebe Re: To JNV - "Do you have any response?"

...*sound of crickets chirping*...... *lightbulb suddenly comes on above head*.... Hey! Crickets chirping. A code made by nature!.... *clapping excitedly*.... Yay me!!!

Algebe's picture
@Tin-Man: sound of crickets

@Tin-Man: sound of crickets chirping

Do you speak cricket? I know a few words of sheepese. It sounds just like people praying and singing hymns. They just keep on bleating even while they're being fleeced and butchered.

Tin-Man's picture
@Algebe Re: "Do you speak

@Algebe Re: "Do you speak cricket?"

I tried once before, but I could never figure out how to make that sound by rubbing my legs together. All I got out of it was a nasty rash and a trip to the chiropractor.

Algebe's picture
@Tin-Man: never figure out

@Tin-Man: never figure out how to make that sound by rubbing my legs together

Maybe you should try it in yoga pants (if you don't mind going to hell).

David Killens's picture
Oh geez, there's a mental

Oh geez, there's a mental image that will scar me for months. I need a stout pour of Bourbon. Screw it, don't even give me a glass, just start an intravenous.

Tin-Man's picture
@David and Algebe

@David and Algebe

Aw, hell! I'm gonna be laughing all night about this one!.... Bwaaaaaa-haaaaaa-haaaaaa......

Cognostic's picture
Have you tried smearing KY

Have you tried smearing KY Jelly on your legs and then using bubble wrap? I have had some success talking to crickets with that but I had to spend long hours in the gym strengthening my upper thighs. You know. KY and Pop Rocks might do the job as well?

Sapporo's picture
I challenge anyone to point

I challenge anyone to point out anything that has no creator, other then nature, that is intelligent. The point here is that intelligent things are not created. I think my argument must be true, because I came up with it.

Cognostic's picture
Well, Damn! I have to ask

Well, Damn! I have to ask myself, when has Sapporo ever been wrong? I can't think of a time so I am bound by tradition to believe you in this matter as well.

Randomhero1982's picture
Absolutely spot on!

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

Randomhero1982's picture
Absolutely spot on!

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.

Sheldon's picture
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.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
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?

David Killens's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@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.

LogicFTW's picture
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.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Sheldon's picture
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.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
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

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.