Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
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.
Donating = Loving
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@J N Vanderbilt III
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.
what is the rule of the order of nucleotides that nature governs?
Fact: there is NO chemical property that governs the specific order of nucleotides.
So the big question is, what ordered the nucleotides in the particular sequences that they are in that constructs proteins which are highly functional?
It is the distinct chemical properties of compounds that allow sequences to be replicated.
@J N Vanderbilt III
"So the big question is, what ordered the nucleotides in the particular sequences that they are in that constructs proteins which are highly functional?"
Trial and error created these orders. When life first appeared, it was very simple. Over the aeons, mutation and growth brought about change. If a mutation/change was not harmful to the odds for survival and reproduction, it survived. The more beneficial that change was for survival, the more likely it would survive and propagate. If that change was not beneficial, the creature probably died or did not propagate.
It took a lot of time and a heck of a lot of generations. But when you consider that life has approximately four billion years to develop and each year could deliver hundreds of generations, those numbers add up.
So there was a "rule" directing change and evolution. But it was not a deity, it was, as many have said, "natural selection"
Define natural in that context.
NATURAL
My definitions:
adjective
Good enough for you?
rmfr
No, none of them are even close to adequate, especially used in that context. It is vague and it means nothing. I envision a group of male stoners sitting around high saying "Duuuude, it just happened naturally" Yeah sure it did.
Then I guess you are a hopelessly lost cause. If the actual definition as the word was is not sufficient, then I guess that the definition you have is "Whatever I want anything to be."
I would still look into getting a refund for the degree. They taught you nothing and you ain't learned nothing. Damned shame.
rmfr
natural
adjective
1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
You know you can Google word definitions, right?
That is still not an adequate definition for something you are claiming is the cause of literally everything.
"I said that because I assumed you would say DNA is created by nature. But if it is, then surely there must be some other code that is created by nature as well, that is what I am asserting." "The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence."
I don't see any actual argument that you're making, here. Couldn't I just as easily say "If only intelligence creates codes, wouldn't an intelligent creator have made far more than 1 or 2 examples of it in the universe? Wouldn't we see codes all over nature? But we don't, so obviously the few examples we have were actually nature-made." How does the number of codes seen in nature have any bearing on how they came about?
When we represent DNA like: C,G,A,T; that is a code designed to represent 4 distinct molecules. The molecules themselves are not a code.
Exactly, We primates are the ones that decided to call these molecules adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine...
We could have just as easily had called them Dave, Rupert, Lister and Smeghead.
"The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence."
The real point here is that recurring and repeating sequences,even of slightly variable consistency, can be identified and interpretated, as a code, BUT only by intelligence.
RNA and DNA do not interpret code, they replicate sequences.
edited
Only garden fairies can create tomatoes.
"Only garden fairies can create tomatoes."
Brilliant. I'll lay odds he has no idea why it's brilliant though.
@Kat Re: "Only garden fairies can create tomatoes."
Ah-haaaaaa...... So THAT explains all the fairy poop around the base of my wife's tomato plants!.... *snaps fingers*... Mystery solved! Thanks, Kat!
The more we learn about DNA the more we realize that the people who think it was made that way on purpose by a 'designer'... Don't think very highly of the competence or intelligence of this designer.
Basically you want to say a god made DNA this way on purpose, you're saying that god is a complete moron.
@Blinknight Re: "Basically you want to say a god made DNA this way on purpose, you're saying that god is a complete moron."
Blink wins!..... *handing over a blue Ribbon*....
Explain in what way specifically that you think anyone is saying that God is a complete moron for making DNA this way.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Again.
Nature exists, and the physical material universe exists, so if you're going to add a fictional deity using unexplained magic then you have the burden of proof.
You've also contradicted yourself, by claiming nature doesn't create codes, then immediately say except DNA. Though strictly speaking DNA isn't a code.
"The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence."
Except for DNA you mean, as you claimed in your OP? Explanations of how the universe functions ONLY show natural causes, never supernatural. Again if you're going to add a deity to what we can objectively evidence, then you will have to demonstrate objective evidence for it, argument form ignorance fallacies won't do I'm afraid.
Conscious higher intelligence does not require magic. What would require magic is everything appearing out of nothing without the use of any intelligence.
More proof of you are a Religious Absolutist.
rmfr
"Conscious higher intelligence does not require magic. "
Oh good, then you can accurately explain how you are calming it created everything?
"What would require magic is everything appearing out of nothing without the use of any intelligence."
I have no idea if something can come from nothing, I don't even know if nothing is possible, but I would love to hear your explanation of how you claim to know that exactly? You are claiming to know what all the best experts in the related fields of science don't, you're just a less literate version of Breezy.
A lot of them do know it, they just can't prove it.
The Absolute Secret to DNA: "Yet, it’s the same process. This molecule, when in the presence of that molecule, will bond and make this new molecule." It’s just chemistry and nothing more.
DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that “stand for” something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend. It is a set of chemicals which are nonthinking, and have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution. DNA is just a very, very, very complicated molecule that happens to be capable of facilitating incredibly complex sets of chemical reactions.
DNA is not a “code” in the normal sense of the word. We call it a code because doing so gives us an easy way to think of the process by which a strand of DNA is responsible for the building of a living thing.
https://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/
“It is the distinct chemical properties of compounds that allow sequences to be replicated.“
You do see that you are either missing my point or avoiding it. I stated that there is no chemical properties in dna that govern the highly ordered sequences. So the puzzle is how we’re they arranged? And if you can, point out where nature has rendered a code that gets translated.
@J N Vanderbilt III
"And if you can, point out where nature has rendered a code that gets translated."
The Atlantic mid-ocean ridge. On each side are mirror images of the magnetic polarities imprinted when the lava cooled. When those magnetic polarities get translated, they yield a wealth of information.
@J N Vanderbilt III
You are still abusing commonly accepted word definitions. It is okay all of us do it all the time, but when you are asking for precise definitions and explanations you need to use very precise wording and definitions.
You cant demand example of "code" in nature after erroneously defining dna as "code." You essentially created a new use for the word code that is not the commonly accepted definition of code, then challenged us to find other examples of "code" within nature using the original definition as it is commonly understood.
Beyond this, while DNA is amazing, and still not fully understood even though great advancements have been made in understanding, it is not the most spectacular form of complexity. The human brain takes complexity to a whole new much greater level, if you wanted to make an argument about complexity = intelligent design, (btw one of the most tired and oldest religious apologist argument that we see time and time again around here.)
When you consider we have RNA and other signs of a more simple forms of dna that preceded it, the answer here is actually well understood and obvious to anyone not trying to make the "god lie" work. A billion plus years of evolution pushed by efficiency getting countless trillions of chances to evolve to be better and you realize pretty quick that the "intelligent design" seeming aspect of dna is simply the forces of efficiency given enormous amount of tries and trial and error to get right. If DNA suddenly appeared with no precursor in the space of a few years, that would be an argument for some sort of outside intelligent design, a billion plus years of evolution not so much.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ 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. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Things that are good at replicating tend to prosper. It isn't mysterious that compounds that are good at replicating continue to do so.
Pages