|
Author
|
Topic: Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
Message 39 of 220 (322231)
06-16-2006 11:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 10:21 AM
|
|
Re: fallacycop
These examples are not codes. I just explained this a few minutes ago, read some of the previous posts. The theory holds
How? It is as much information in a code as DNA. How about the information in water molecules?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:21 AM | | tdcanam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 11:37 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 40 of 220 (322232)
06-16-2006 11:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by tdcanam
06-16-2006 10:49 AM
|
|
Re: inductive reasoning
Finding an ancient language written in stone would only push the problem back further. Who encoded the DNA of those individuals?
No evidence that ANYBODY did. It was due to variation of duplication followed by a filter of natural selection.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by tdcanam, posted 06-16-2006 10:49 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 60 of 220 (323143)
06-19-2006 7:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by tdcanam
06-19-2006 7:36 AM
|
|
It seems to me your reasoning is that 1) A code is created by a concious mind 2) DNA is a code therefore God Others disagree. For example, given your premise that 'A code is created by a concious mind', you have yet to show that DNA is a code by that definition. Or, if DNA is a code, you have yet to demosntrate that your premise is correct. It looks like you want to DEFINE God into existance. But, to do so, you have to use the logical fallacy of equivication.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by tdcanam, posted 06-19-2006 7:36 AM | | tdcanam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by tdcanam, posted 06-19-2006 8:07 AM | | ramoss has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 66 of 220 (323212)
06-19-2006 10:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by tdcanam
06-19-2006 8:07 AM
|
|
Well, your definition of a code is 'a code is put there by a conscious mind'. OK. You then declare DNA is a code.. and therefore a conscious mind put it there. Given the premise that 'a conscious mind' put in the code, demonstrate that by THAT definition, DNA is a code. Your declaration does not make it so. Give evidence for it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by tdcanam, posted 06-19-2006 8:07 AM | | tdcanam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by tdcanam, posted 06-20-2006 7:01 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 85 of 220 (324229)
06-21-2006 7:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by tdcanam
06-21-2006 6:53 AM
|
|
Re: consider them read
There is only one type of code that we can question wether or not it has conscious origins, DNA. The point here is not that DNA is proof of a god, it is just evidence of the possiblity of ID.
No, it is not evidence of possible I.D. It doesn't rule I.D. out either, but it is just a semantics game you are playing. We have enough envidence to know that variation, followed by the selectitive pressures can create 'complexity'. That is different than an intelligent design.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by tdcanam, posted 06-21-2006 6:53 AM | | tdcanam has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 90 by tdcanam, posted 06-21-2006 8:39 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 110 of 220 (324782)
06-22-2006 8:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by tdcanam
06-22-2006 7:06 AM
|
|
Re: paisano
Yes, we know what you said. However, given the definition of 'Code' that you are using, please show evidence that DNA is a 'CODE' as you define it. You made the claim that DNA is a code using the definition you provided. Prove it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by tdcanam, posted 06-22-2006 7:06 AM | | tdcanam has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 193 of 220 (325635)
06-24-2006 10:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by jar
06-23-2006 5:36 PM
|
|
Re: start and stop condons
One essential part that the writer of the OP said of a code is that a code has to be 'created by a concious mind'. That is being disagreed with. Now, if that tidbit is removed, then DNA might be a code. If that tidbit is there, then there is no evidnece that DNA is a code, because there is no evidence it was 'created by a concious mind'.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by jar, posted 06-23-2006 5:36 PM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 197 by Jon, posted 06-24-2006 4:57 PM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 194 of 220 (325636)
06-24-2006 10:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
06-24-2006 9:53 AM
|
|
Re: Everyone, esp. Percy
Pardon, I will have to disagree with you slightly. The Theory of evolution (describing how and why evolution happens) is a theory that will never be a fact. The fact that the evoulution happens is observable. Just like the difference between gravity and the theory of gravity. Throw a rock out the window, it will fall to the ground. THe theory of gravity trys to explain WHY the rock falls to the ground.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 191 by Percy, posted 06-24-2006 9:53 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 201 of 220 (326131)
06-25-2006 1:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
06-25-2006 12:47 PM
|
|
Re: Percy
The one thing I am sure you will agree on. No matter if you call DNA a 'code' or 'encoded information', it is a logical fallacy to assume that DNA is a code, and all codes were created by a concious mind, therefore DNA was created by a concious mind.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 200 by Percy, posted 06-25-2006 12:47 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 202 by Percy, posted 06-25-2006 3:02 PM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 637 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 207 of 220 (326398)
06-26-2006 10:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
06-26-2006 9:33 AM
|
|
Re: Levels of Abstraction
The 'sorting allgorithem' is natural selection based on success in reproduction. If a certain variation of DNA leads to better success for the oraganism to pass on that sequence of DNA to it's offspring, then that gene is 'sorted for'.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by Percy, posted 06-26-2006 9:33 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2