Has nature ever created a code?

1352 posts / 0 new
Last post
tbowen's picture
If you are so sure that that

If you are so sure that that assembly instructions Can be produced by Mother Nature, then do give just one example, that’s all you need do to convince me that I’m off my rocker

Sheldon's picture
Show 1 post of mine where I

Show 1 post of mine where I made any such claim, tut tut, that 9th commandment taking a pasting again. I am sure only that all living things evolved, and since DNA is living I'd need some objective evidence demonstrated to show that it is unique among all living things in having been created by a supernatural deity.

It was your assertion that every example we have of codes are designed, you have now dishonestly tried to move the goal posts by making the same claim, but twisting your wording from codes to assembly instructions. However the same question I have asked you still applies, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for a code or assembly instructions being created by any deity or anything supernatural, or outside of the natural material universe?

Of course you just keep ignoring the question, and we all know why, as the purpose of argumentum ad ignorant fallacies like the one you predicated this thread on, is to reverse the burden of proof, and so you have no intention of answering questions at all. Merely posing specious question you know no one can answer, and pretending this validates your superstitious religious beliefs.

This behaviour is both dishonest and cowardly, this hardly portrays your beliefs in a very good light, but it's your call I suppose if you want to be this dishonest.

Why not show some integrity for once, and admit you no more know how DNA originated than any one else.

arakish's picture
jnv3: "to convince me that I

jnv3: "to convince me that I’m off my rocker"

You were never on it. So what's your point. Also avoidance ain't gonna get you anywhere.

What about My Challenge?

rmfr

Sapporo's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: If you

J N Vanderbilt III: If you are so sure that that assembly instructions Can be produced by Mother Nature, then do give just one example, that’s all you need do to convince me that I’m off my rocker

You already gave one example you thought qualified: DNA.

Sheldon's picture
Tue, 11/20/2018 - 22:33

Tue, 11/20/2018 - 22:33
Sheldon "Demonstrate some objective evidence for a single code created by intelligence outside of the natural material world?"

Wed, 11/21/2018 - 03:17
Sheldon "Science may not know exactly how DNA evolved or originated."

Wed, 11/21/2018 - 08:52
J N Vanderbilt III "If you are so sure that that assembly instructions Can be produced by Mother Nature,"

Your mendacity is relentless. Now you stated in your OP:

" I challenge anyone to point out a code, other then DNA, that is created by nature. "

Do we have even one example of a code created outside of nature? If not then that's a pretty stupid question.

Then again stupidity and dishonesty are what I have cone to expect from creationists.

tbowen's picture
codes ARE instructions,

codes ARE instructions, blueprints whatever you call it. And it’s dishonest to accuse me of moving goalposts on that. I’m not going to budge in asking you to demonstrate that assembly instructions can be produced by Mother Nature , and we know you can’t
Just like you are asking me to show a deity which I’ve told you that logic points to it even though it’s not visibly manifest in our 3D world.
Maybe you would take a stab at which evolved first, dna coding sequences or the cell’s ability to decode them.Oh perhaps they both evolved at the same time!!!!!!!!’

Sheldon's picture
Can you demonstrate any

" I’m not going to budge in asking you to demonstrate that assembly instructions can be produced by Mother Nature , and we know you can’t"

I've already shown this repeatedly, humans create codes, human were produced by and are part of nature, ipso facto nature has produced codes.

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for one single example of a code or assembly instructions created by anything supernatural or a deity? No you can't, and the rest is just coloured bubbles.

Evolution is an objective fact, we know all living things evolved, and we know all living things contain DNA. None of this involves any claim by me, merely an observation of the objective facts. You keep saying nature can't produce codes, but since both codes and nature exist you will need to evidence your claim that something outside of the natural physical universe is needed, and we already know you can't

You're adding a fictional deity, that you can't evidence at all, using supernatural magic you can't explain at all.

Nothing about that is rational, it's woeful vapid flimflam.

arakish's picture
jnv3: "And it’s dishonest to

jnv3: "And it’s dishonest to accuse me of moving goalposts on that. I’m not going to budge in asking you to demonstrate that assembly instructions can be produced by Mother Nature , and we know you can’t."

jnv3, see if the below seems familiar...

Shifting the Burden of Proof: One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

Argument from Ignorance: 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. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four:

  1. true
  2. false
  3. unknown between true or false
  4. being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

The above two definitions are the Great Wiki. Thus, you can look them up yourself.

These below definitions are from the Rhetological Fallacies PDF I keep telling you download so you can see your illogcal assumptions.

Ad Hoc Rescue: Trying to save a cherished belief by repeatedly revising the argument to explain away problems.

Biased Generalizing: Generalizing from an unrepresentative sample to increase the strength of your argument.

Confirmation Bias: Cherry-picking evidence that supports your idea while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Lie (Religious Absolutists favorite tactic): An outright untruth repeated knowingly as if fact.

Suppressed Evidence: Intentionally failing to use significant and relevant information which counts against one’s own conclusion.

Unfalsifiability (another favorite tactic by Religious Absolutists): Offering a claim that cannot be proven false, because there is no way to check if it is false or not.

And there are more. Remember, YOU were the one who made the claim of codes in nature being derived from an outside intelligence. The burden of proof is on you. And do not forget My Challenge.

rmfr

Sapporo's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: codes ARE

J N Vanderbilt III: codes ARE instructions, blueprints whatever you call it. And it’s dishonest to accuse me of moving goalposts on that. I’m not going to budge in asking you to demonstrate that assembly instructions can be produced by Mother Nature , and we know you can’t

You were the one who created the concept of codes...you were the one who also claimed there is a creator outside nature. You are the one who needs to prove your claims.

Cognostic's picture
There is there a word that

There is there a word that demonstrates less knowledge and understanding of a subject than "ignorance." This would be a fine time to use it. (Checking the thesaurus.) How about any of these.

It's utterly bewildering the illiterate disregard and blind callowness theists have for the observable facts of science. As they wander through the foggy shallows of their simple daily lives in an unconscious stupor of naivete, one wonders as to the cause or this mental incapacity at grasping basic understandings of educational concepts. Can we assume a simple lack of education or is it just empty-headedness born of obtuse denseness that leads them to simple incomprehension? The vagueness of the absolute cause may forever keep us in nescience. So, this too, like so many other curiosities found in our pragmatic existence, must be set aside until future research and more advance methods of understanding are able to shine light on the subject. Until then, it is up to the intelligent among us to simply say, "I don't know" and leave the ignorant to "God done it."

Sheldon's picture
"a word that demonstrates

"a word that demonstrates less knowledge and understanding of a subject than "ignorance."

There isn't officially, but I'm nominating a new one "creatard".
Awarded to creationists who go above and beyond the vapid dimwitted verbiage their beliefs demand.

As in the unabashed display of overarching ignorance on a wide range of topics including evolution epistemology and informal logic, that this thread's author has displayed repeatedly.

So we have a recipient. I bet I know what his response will be as well. Short odds really, given it's been the same every single time he's posted.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
There are no codes in nature,

There are no codes in nature, we as a species assign patterns as 'codes', it's what we've evolved to do.

Give the premise that there were no humans on Earth tomorrow, would the microbes, aminos and so fourth still exist? yes.
Would the concept of 'codes' still exist? no.

Codes are merely concepts we as humans assign to structures and patterns in order to make sense of them.

To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

But if we want to name types of codes we 'see' in nature, sure.. DNA, RNA, MRNA, Numbers, Letters, Words, in fact pretty much everything.

So if you wish to be literal, no, there are no actual codes in nature.
But if you think wishfully then sure, a human could successfully envisage everything in the universe as code(s).

Sheldon's picture
So someone desperate to

So someone desperate to believe a deity from a bronze age superstition was real say, and couldn't demonstrate any objective evidence for it, might leap on the concepts of codes within nature as a sign an intelligent creator produced them in the way humans produce codes? Insisting intelligence was required for them because humans use intelligence to create codes.

When in fact they're creating a rule about human intelligence being required to produce codes, but then immediately breaking this 'rule' using a special pleading fallacy to insist a supernatural non human intelligence created things like DNA, without demonstrating any evidence.

Offering common logical fallacies like the author of this thread has done, such as special pleading, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and argumentum ad populum, known logical fallacies, then absurdly assertinghis claim is logical.

Nothing that contains a logical fallacy can be asserted as rationally true. Yet he keeps ignoring this and repeating the same fallacious claim.

Creatard nominated and awarded for the thread's author then, for willful unabashed ignorance in defence of unevidenced superstition.

tbowen's picture
You have your logic and I

You have your logic and I have mine and you ignore my question and retort w your own, just going in circles.
So try this, which evolved first, dna coding sequences or the cell’s ability to decode them. Or perhaps they both evolved at the same time???????

Sheldon's picture
It's an objective fact that

It's an objective fact that all living things evolved, and that all living things contain DNA. It's also a fact that natural phenomena exist. So what are you adding to these facts to explain the existence of DNA, and RNA, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim? What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or anything supernatural?

You have not answered a single question since you've been here. just endlessly repeated the same argument from ignorance fallacy, and you have proved yet again you don't even know what rational means, let alone understand the principles of validation required for something to be logically valid.

"You have your logic and I have mine"

Fucking hilarious fair play....do you really not know how stupid that claim is, or why?

arakish's picture
@ jnv3

@ jnv3

Still too cowardly to accept my challenge? Remember, you were the one who came here with your claims. Now prove them or shut the hell up.

Formal Challenge: Either provide objective hard empirical evidence to back up your claim that DNA was formed by an intelligent entity, or admit you are spewing mental diarrhea.

And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.

rmfr

Sapporo's picture
I would have thought it

I would have thought it obvious that if something exists, it is because the laws of nature allow it.

Sapporo's picture
Nothing is created in nature:

Nothing is created in nature: things are only transformed.

Cognostic's picture
FFS - 500 posts and still

FFS - 500 posts and still wasting time with comments like "You have your logic and I have mine."
This is the moronic post of the week. (logic: The definition of logic is a science that studies the principles of correct reasoning. ) Someone is not correct and with a statement like the one above, I'm fairly certain I know who.

tbowen's picture
I have told you Sheldon,

I have told you Sheldon, multiple times that the existence of a deity can be deduced by logic and again exists outside our 3D world, right now science cannot prove that but the logic is there

Now try answering about whether or not dna codes evolved at the same time as the cells ability to translate

arakish's picture
@ jnv3

@ jnv3

Still too cowardly to accept my challenge? Remember, you were the one who came here with your claims. Now prove them or shut the hell up.

Formal Challenge: Either provide objective hard empirical evidence to back up your claim that DNA was formed by an intelligent entity, or admit you are spewing mental diarrhea.

And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"I have told you Sheldon,

"I have told you Sheldon, multiple times that the existence of a deity can be deduced by logic"

Yes you have, and you're wrong, and have failed to do so obviously. You don't even know what common logical fallacies like argument ad ignorantiam are and your whole thread is predicated on just such a fallacy, as i have told you MULTIPLE TIMES.

I already answered your question on DNA, more than once, my answer won't change if you keep repeating the question.

Now how about you Nasser a question for once:

1) What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or anything supernatural?
2) Please demonstrate one example, **with objective evidence, of a code created by intelligence - other than human or as part of the natural material world?

Sapporo's picture
I said this a month or so ago

I said this a month or so ago in this thread, but I notice no one has been able to provide any proof of such an example:

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.

tbowen's picture
Arakish, until you can be a

Arakish, until you can be a human being, don’t bother communicating w me

arakish's picture
jvn3: "Arakish, until you can

jvn3: "Arakish, until you can be a human being, don’t bother communicating w me"

I am being human. You are being human making assertions and demanding that we agree with your assertions. I am being human and demanding that you prove those assertions. If you cannot prove your assertions, then kindly admit you are wrong.

Thus, I still say:

Formal Challenge: Either provide objective hard empirical evidence to back up your claim that DNA was formed by an intelligent entity, or admit you are spewing mental diarrhea.

And remember this: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Ad hominem fallacy now, a

Ad hominem fallacy now, a change but still fallacious. You have nothing from the start, and now are reduced to petty name calling. I think you're about done here aren't you?

arakish's picture
@ jnv3

@ jnv3

I guess you forgot about these two posts back-to-back.

arakish

Has Nature Ever Created a Code?

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

And then this one.

Randomhero1982

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...

DNA is NOT a code created by an intelligence. An intelligence applied a code so it could be better understood.

You really need to study up on the two subjects of Abiogenesis and Evolution.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
18 pages and he still hasn't

18 pages and he still hasn't grasped his whole argument is predicated on a fallacy in informal logic, and is still claiming his argument is a rational proof of a deity. I think we have left wilful ignorance behind some time ago now, and are dealing with rank dishonesty.

Cognostic's picture
NO! the existence of a deity

NO! the existence of a deity can NOT be deduced by logic and again YOU HAVE NO FRIGGING IDEA what exists outside our 3D world. Anything you say about it is an absolute guess. You do not get to deduce blue universe creating bunnies, magical flying sky daddies, or anything else.

tbowen's picture
I'd say quite YES, a deity

I'd say quite YES, a deity can be deduced from logic, You choose to word your way around the logic.
Still wondering if the cell's ability to code nucleotides into sequences evolved simultaneously as it's ability to decode into proteins?

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.