coded information in DNA

It's funny I used to think the same way when I was copying some author for a French redaction. I always received bad marks from it (because I sucked, not because the teacher saw that I plagiarised). Some years later, I finally understood that the reason I received bad marks was because I didn't understand the author or the subject, that's the reason I couldn't write a good redaction: I couldn't use those authors' texts in the right context. I think that it's maturity that allowed me to see that.When you grow older and have more experience, you will see that when you really understand a text, you will be able to express it in your own words, there's no such thing as a "perfect way" to express an idea. Depending on the context, there's always a different way to express an idea in order to be better understood. You can either simplify the idea, use analogies or detail the idea more, detail some parts more while simplfying other parts if you want to highlight the parts revelant to the discussion, etc.....You will notice that other members didn't copy paste their arguments to counter yours, they used their own words because they actually have an understanding of the subject.

I feel that the definition of code here seems to obfuscate this discussion more than it helps it. Remember that we are supposed to discuss whether DNA could have originated naturally or not but most of the discussion ended up being about the definition of codes while it should have been a secondary subject.It would be more meaningful for you to try to rebute the different natural scenarios that could have given rise to DNA. Arguing about codes feels like arguing 100 years ago that humans can only reproduce through sex because it's the only way known at that time. The fact that you've only seen babies born after sex doesn't mean it's the only way.
So even if you were right about DNA being a code and not gravitation and all the stuffs you discussed about, the fact that all the codes you have seen being produced were the results of intelligence wouldn't mean there are no other way of producing codes.That's why I feel this debate obfucates this discussion more than it helps it and that you should debate the different abiogenesis scenarios proposed instead.Edited by Son, : No reason given.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

First, please use the reply button, it will make discussion easier to follow. As for the possible explanations, Ichineumon presented some in this message: http://EvC Forum: coded information in DNA -->EvC Forum: coded information in DNAThose are the ones you should try to rebute by explaining why they are impossible. Those can prove that formation of DNA is not impossible through natural means even though we may never know which explanation is correct. Since the debate is about the plausability of abiogenesis anyway, it's not a problem.
We could argue that 100% of our experience tells us that the supernatural explains nothing so if we go down that route, the debate will go sterile fast.
By your logic, I would have been right to argue 200 years ago that man can never go to the moon because 100% of our experience men can't go the moon. That's why I said it's useless to argue through this route: it shows nothing.The default position if you don't know should be "I don't know but I'll keep looking for a solution". That's the scientific method and it excludes supernatural because supernatural explains nothing.
If you want to know why, just look how Islam went from one of the most advanced civilization of their time to 3rd world country.
The Incoherence of the Philosophers - WikipediaYour method of looking for things has been shown to be unreliable historically that's why scientific method excludes it. Edited by Son, : No reason given.

First, use THE REPLY BUTTON. Then I suppose you are arguing for the creation of the "first DNA", right? Because natural processes do produce DNA (through replication and mutation).
What I was arguing is that it was pointless to argue this because it doesn't follow logically. Moreover, it can be argued that minds can't form without DNA, meaning that DNA was needed to create the mind that created DNA, which is absurd.
That's why there are experiences and theories of abiogenesis. Those are the ones you should address, if you are right, it shouldn't be hard to disprove them.
By the way, Islam tried supernatural thinking in the middle age and that's why they are thirld world countries while they had the most developped science before that. That's why science don't use magical thinking.

The only conclusion you can reach with: "no natural causes are known" is that we don't know and we must keep looking for it. If we had invoked God everytime we didn't know something, we would still be in the Middle-Ages. You can arrive at the conclusion you did, but not through science but through religion or philosophy. And you can only arrive at this conclusion if you ignore the different abiogenesis scenario proposed.

I've tried to tell WordBeLogos that this discussion about whether DNA are codes is pointless, but he doesn't seem to get what I'm saying. Maybe I'm expressing myself unclearly (I'm from France).