Has nature ever created a code?

743 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon'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"

"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Sapporo'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

The issue here is that you assume that any process that gives something we consider information must be intelligently designed. That is your problem, not ours.

As I said earlier in this thread (and others have said similar):

Your contention is that codes created by the rules that define nature must have been designed by some intelligence.

My view is that such codes are created by the rules that define nature.

What the argument is really about is whether or not we believe nature to have been created by some intelligence.

Any system is defined by its rules - it would be wrong to infer intelligence based purely on your aesthetic appreciation of one permutation over another.

It is meaningless to describe something that acts of its agency (contrary to the laws of nature)...so what exactly are you are you asking? Again, given that everything acts according to the laws of nature, the whole debate is really about whether or not the laws of nature had a creator.

jamessc's picture
All that we need to show is

All that we need to show is that it is feasible for undirected chemical processes to produce biological molecules and then self-replicating molecules (probably ribozymes) and then the first cells and then you have "functional and biological information".

I'm sorry for jumping into the conversation so late but have you or anyone else gathered evidence that strongly indicates that abiogenesis is infeasible?

Randomhero1982's picture
Because you cannot

Because you cannot demonstrate a causal link to a designer or whatever you want to believe in.

To simply claim that a gap in your scientific knowledge must equate to a deity is a god of the gaps fallacy.

arakish's picture
Has Nature Ever Created a

Has Nature Ever Created a Code?

No. Man does to create framework to better understand how something works.

rmfr

Randomhero1982's picture
That's a good point, nature

That's a good point, nature simply is.

It is we humans that label adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine... giving it an apperance of structure and so fourth...

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Has Nature Ever Created a

Has Nature Ever Created a Code?

No. Man does to create framework to better understand how something works.

rmfr

Exactly, it’s takes a mind to do so. Curious, did the Dna decoding mechanism evolve at the same time the coding mechanism did? And what about the error correction that exists?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Again, if DNA is a code, then

Again, if DNA is a code, then all information is a code; making the word meaningless.

The "DNA code" is a human constructed code to represent the molecules of a strand of DNA with letters.

I often play cards with my friends, and when we don't have time to finish a game, we write down what cards are in our hands. Like 4s = 4 of spades. That is a code. The cards themselves are not a code.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
We are talking about

We are talking about sequences which you purposely omit in your thinking. Sequences are code just as the ink is on a document, sure it’s all chemicals but the sequence is key, complex and specific.

Randomhero1982's picture
You are privelleging your

You are privelleging your position as a pattern seeking primate.

If there was only self replicating cells alone on this planet right now, the concepts of DNA and Code would be utterly meaningless.

We, as humans notice patterns and label things in order to better understand said phenomena.

arakish's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: "We are

J N Vanderbilt III: "We are talking about sequences which you purposely omit in your thinking. Sequences are code just as the ink is on a document, sure it’s all chemicals but the sequence is key, complex and specific."

And you are still wrong. Read my previous post. Man applies a code in order to create a framework to better understand how something works.

As Random said, "Nature just is."

Us dumb ass apes are the ones who applies the codes. Also Nyarlathotep gave a perfect example with playing cards.

rmfr

EDIT: P.S. — Hey Cognostic, we have another black hole... how many does that make now?

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
“Man applies a code in order

“Man applies a code in order to create a framework to better understand how something works.”

So what you’re saying is all the books ever written and computer programs ever put into motion are only for our understanding? This is preposterous on its face, I think you need to do some critical thinking and stop ignoring sequences, ones that produce ideas and mammals and fish and philosophers

Randomhero1982's picture
Blimey....

Blimey....

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Tin-Man's picture
Re: JNV - "So what you’re

Re: JNV - "So what you’re saying is all the books ever written and computer programs ever put into motion are only for our understanding? This is preposterous on its face..."

Oh.... wow....*double face palm*.... *grooooooan*....

arakish's picture
Hey Tin-Man

Hey Tin-Man

Can I borrow your hands for a few seconds? It is the only way I can think of to do the ultimate facepalm.

Just get behind me so no one can see ya. Then I can get the quadruple facepalm.

I'll reciprocate.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Do you have a single example

Do you have a single example of codes being produced by anything supernatural?

We know the material physical universe exists, and we know DNA exists (even if it isn't strictly speaking a code), we also know all life evolved and so ipso facto DNA evolved. If you're going to add a requirement to that process then it's incumbent on you to demonstrate objective evidence for it.

Ignoring this just shows your thread is specious nonsense based on an argument from ignorance fallacy.

arakish's picture
jnv3: "So what you’re saying

jnv3: "So what you’re saying is all the books ever written and computer programs ever put into motion are only for our understanding?"

And you just answered yourself. Albeit with an interrogative.

rmfr

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
I was hoping for a cerebral

I was hoping for a cerebral comeback but I’m met with desperate lack of responses, and I am to infer that computer programs were created for our understanding which has nothing to do with all important sequences, a red herring, congratulations to you atheists

arakish's picture
jnv3: "I was hoping for a

jnv3: "I was hoping for a cerebral comeback but I’m met with desperate lack of responses, and I am to infer that computer programs were created for our understanding which has nothing to do with all important sequences, a red herring, congratulations to you atheists"

You are answering your own question. English must not be your primary language. Nor your secondary language, nor your tertiary...

Notice the BOLD text in your own statement...

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Kudos for your patience here,

Kudos for your patience here, but this one is as blinkered as they come.

A whole thread predicated on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that contained an inherent contradiction from the very first post, and no amount of explanations can dent the mahogany shield around the part of his brain that is meant for reason and critical thinking.

He's basically asking "show one code in nature, other than DNA, that wasn't created by my unevidenced deity, using unexplained magic?"

Yet sees no problem, even when it's explained to him again and again and again...

arakish's picture
Thanks Sheldon.

Thanks Sheldon.

I actually got a good laugh from what you wrote. Kudos to you too.

rmfr

LogicFTW's picture
No, let us all take the time

@JN vanderbilt

No, let us all take the time to congratulate you and your extraordinary ability to read but not comprehend. Over, and over, and over again.

Your entire argument is simply re-arranging of word definitions to suit your unsupported argument that is made in argument that your sky fairy exists.

Let us again congratulate you and your ability to argue for the existence of something by trying to imply the existence of something else, not with proof, but with re-arranging word definitions. That takes a special kind of extreme self rationalization.

It is roughly akin to a homeless guy living on the street, pointing to his fake (not even working!) rolex watch and saying "I am rich! not poor" And then we all try to point out that the Rolex watch is obviously fake, and the homeless guy just ignore it all and continue to argue "I am rich see my watch??"

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          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
" congratulations to you

" congratulations to you atheists"

Thanks, speaking on behalf of "us atheists" that means a lot.

Now can you demonstrate any objective evidence for a deity?

Only you seem to have nothing but argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Wow, that was a FAST COS!

Wow, that was a FAST COS! (Change of subject)

But anyhow have you an answer for my last inquiry?

arakish's picture
jnv3: "But anyhow have you an

jnv3: "But anyhow have you an answer for my last inquiry?"

Yes, see below, or look above for the same response.

jnv3: "I was hoping for a cerebral comeback but I’m met with desperate lack of responses, and I am to infer that computer programs were created for our understanding which has nothing to do with all important sequences, a red herring, congratulations to you atheists"

You are answering your own question. English must not be your primary language. Nor your secondary language, nor your tertiary...

Notice the BOLD text in your own statement...

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
J N Wontlearntoreadever.."Wow

J N Wontlearntoreadever.."Wow, that was a FAST COS! (Change of subject)

But anyhow have you an answer for my last inquiry?"

Yes, please feel free to read any one of the dozens I've posted that litter this thread.

Now. can you demonstrate any evidence for a deity?

Randomhero1982's picture
Can you demonstrate ONE

Can you demonstrate ONE causal link that takes us from a natural explanation of 'X' phenomena to a supernatural explanation?

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
I refuted that nonsense if

I refuted that nonsense if yours, tell me how a computer program is created for the purpose of my understanding. Wtf that has to do w sequences?

Randomhero1982's picture
I refuted that nonsense if

I refuted that nonsense if yours, tell me how a computer program is created for the purpose of my understanding. Wtf that has to do w sequences?

Bollocks have you, not one of you lot have even attempted to demonstrate that one causal link that follows a chain of natural occurances and verifiably place a supernatural phenomena.

It is vital to the question because you clearly think codes exist outside of natural phenomena and they do not, it is how humans perceive things.

Everything follows natural paths and consequences without the need to envoke a magical cosmic wizard.

Unless you can demonstrate one exists, hence the offer to demonstrate a causal link... it should be easy enough.

And none of you can.

arakish's picture
jnv3: "I refuted that

jnv3: "I refuted that nonsense if yours, tell me how a computer program is created for the purpose of my understanding. Wtf that has to do w sequences?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1c9g2z4sSM

rmfr

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.