Proof of god via DNA and evolution

[vortexring 0]

I've came across an interesting debate:

"The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one." Perry Marshall


The online debate can be read here:

http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=135497

Further to the debate, Mr Marshall says:

"After more than 500 messages on the board, the atheist position is forced to insist, against decades of well-established scientific literature and every convention in the field of biology, that DNA "isn't really a code." And yet things like pebbles and snowflakes somehow are.

A number of people on the atheist side have called them on this, but even the moderator continues to insist that I'm foolish for taking all those biology books literally. How very interesting that the atheist position cannot accept one of the most fundamental definitions in modern science, once the implications become clear: If DNA is a code, then we have every reason to believe that it is designed."


Also:

"Another thing you'll quickly see on the infidels forum is extreme hostility. The gentleman who invited me to the forum asked his colleagues to be polite, but as you see many were not. (At some points, he wasn't all that polite either.) One guy said, "If you quote Yockey one more time I'll claw your eyes out." One participant had his posts heavily edited by the moderator and was eventually kicked off. These guys hate intelligent design and everything it stands for. The contempt for religious ideas and religious people, especially Christians, is palpable.

But again, the infidels failed to put so much as a dent or scratch in my argument. Because the greatest failure of materialism is that it simply cannot explain the existence of information! Decades ago this would have seemed like an odd and abstract argument, but living in the digital information age as we do now, with computers and credit cards and cell phones, even a child can easily grasp it."

And:

"On this discussion board I rigorously demonstrated that an Intelligent Designer is the only availalable explanation for the genetic code in DNA. I did so in the same manner that we assert the truth of other scientific theorems, like the laws of thermodynamics. But I couldn't get a congregation of hard-core atheists to accept it - which goes to show that Dale Carnegie was right: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Here, atheists show themselves to be just as devout in their beliefs, and just as steadfast in the face of reason, as the adherents of any world religion."

http://celestialmechanic.com/iidb.htm

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[beowulf 1]

Quote

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

That is a huge assumption of which you have nothing to support it with.

Your whole arguement boils down to 'it's so complicated that god must have done it' you need more then that to support this bull shit.

[normiss 806]

I thought that of the very first one:

Quote

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

[beowulf 1]

yeah well I chose what I thought was the biggest.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

The entire argument put up by this quack is based upon one statement, "All codes are created by a conscious mind", an unsubstantiated claim at best.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[vortexring 0]

That is a huge assumption of which you have nothing to support it with.

Your whole arguement boils down to 'it's so complicated that god must have done it' you need more then that to support this bull shit.

Oh for fucks sake. It isn't MY assumption. Neither is it MY argument.

Why not, instead of gobbling out the word 'bullshit', click the link to the debate and challenge the man making the assertion? It isn't mine. Didn't I make that relatively clear?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

The entire argument put up by this quack is based upon one statement, "All codes are created by a conscious mind", and ubsubstantiated claim at best.

Go and tell him then.

edit: Seriously.

Further edit: "But to whoever says I'm wrong, I say: Log on to the Infidels forum, step into the ring with me and prove I'm wrong. Note: Before you do this, do your homework. (I've done mine.) Carefully read every single post and make absolutely sure you're not just repeating what somebody else has already said.

After more than 500 messages on the board, the atheist position is forced to insist, against decades of well-established scientific literature and every convention in the field of biology, that DNA "isn't really a code." And yet things like pebbles and snowflakes somehow are.' Perry Marshall

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

'(1) The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.

Much effort has been made to discredit this statement, unsuccessfully. This statement is fully and explicitly supported in virtually all of the scientific literature since the 1960's.

(2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

Much effort has been expended to discredit this statement as well. Assertions have been attempted that gravity, snowflakes, magma flows and the like are codes. But none accurately conforms to Shannon's communication model. Most of the examples cited do not contain an encoding system, and none contain a decoding system.

(3) Therefore DNA came from a mind.

The objection to this statement has been that the conclusion is reached inductively. Complaints have been lodged that inductive reasoning is inherently unreliable. But we do observe that the laws of thermodynamics and in fact the majority of known scientific laws are determined inductively and not deductively. If you wish to throw out inductive reasoning, then we can discard almost all scientific knowledge and start all over again and use rocks and sticks to make fire.

Thus we have, right here on the Infidels discussion forum, after more than 300 posts, robust evidence that life was intelligently designed.

It is not possible for me to persuade people to believe in God if they do not want to; that is not my job. But one can hope that some will follow the evidence, wherever it leads.' Perry Marshall

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kelpdiver 2]

The entire argument stems by a deliberate misunderstanding of the word 'code.'

If we're going to be so open, there are a lot of codes, including natural processes.

Colors are codes - underwater, a lot of creatures have prominent colors that mean "I'm poisonous, don't eat me." With birds, colorful means "I'm a good man to mate with."

Animals use codes (language) to communicate with each other, to warn of danger.

Many of these codes are explained by the theory of evolution, and do not require the existence of a God.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

The entire argument stems by a deliberate misunderstanding of the word 'code.'

If we're going to be so open, there are a lot of codes, including natural processes.

Colors are codes - underwater, a lot of creatures have prominent colors that mean "I'm poisonous, don't eat me." With birds, colorful means "I'm a good man to mate with."

Animals use codes (language) to communicate with each other, to warn of danger.

Many of these codes are explained by the theory of evolution, and do not require the existence of a God.

I define "Coded information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium.

Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans. Other examples include, yes, Bee waggle dances. Bird songs. Whale songs. And ant communication by pheromone.

Since all the above are derivatives of DNA, my challenge to naturalists is to cite a single example of coded information that occurs naturally - outside the realm of life, outside the realm of DNA. All you need is one example.

Perry Marshall

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[beowulf 1]

If you didn't want to debate this argument here then why post it??!

[vortexring 0]

Quote

If you didn't want to debate this argument here then why post it??!

Debate? What's there to debate? First of all, it isn't my argument. I posted it through interest; An assertion upon which no atheist can topple?

I provided a link to a long online debate, which you didn't even bother your arse to read, to even skim read; yet within minutes your gobbling out the word 'bullshit'.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[TrophyHusband 0]

i don't want to go to another site and read 300-500 posts and then jump in their debate, so i'll just throw this out to whoever here agrees with this guy, or at least whoever feels like shooting holes in my logic.

if, as he says, it takes a mind to create a code, then i say it takes a mind to decode it as well. i would like to know what mind was inside my wifes uterus decoding this to build my children. if it was the same mind that created the code, why would he need a code in the first place?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[beowulf 1]

500 posts and no one could convince a deist that their bullshit is wrong?! and that's supposed to be impressive????!!
That's funny!

[vortexring 0]

Quote

i don't want to go to another site and read 300-500 posts and then jump in their debate, so i'll just throw this out to whoever here agrees with this guy, or at least whoever feels like shooting holes in my logic.

if, as he says, it takes a mind to create a code, then i say it takes a mind to decode it as well. i would like to know what mind was inside my wifes uterus decoding this to build my children. if it was the same mind that created the code, why would he need a code in the first place?

I've sent Mr Marshall an e-mail inviting him along to defend his assertions here, as it isn't my argument, therefore it isn't my place to answer for him. All I can say is that the answers he's made to similiar questions are hopefully on his online debate for you, if you can get the time.

He did say this though:

'When sperm meets egg, and a new cell and its DNA are formed according to the rules of genetics - that's encoding.

When the cell divides and forms limbs and organs - that's decoding.

The plans and ideas necessary for this process are stored as coded information in the DNA.

Therefore DNA is a code and an encoding / decoding mechanism.'

Perry Marshall

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Go and tell him then.

edit: Seriously.

Further edit: "But to whoever says I'm wrong, I say: Log on to the Infidels forum, step into the ring with me and prove I'm wrong.

You presented his argument here and are defending it, so it stays here.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Since all the above are derivatives of DNA, my challenge to naturalists is to cite a single example of coded information that occurs naturally - outside the realm of life, outside the realm of DNA. All you need is one example.

So now your (his) defense is a tautology whereby all coding examples are the same one (DNA). Quite convenient.

DNA is no more a code than NaCl is a code for sodium chloride.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

That is a huge assumption of which you have nothing to support it with.

Your whole arguement boils down to 'it's so complicated that god must have done it' you need more then that to support this bull shit.

I am not sure but, did you not just support his argument? Or maybe the claims of those arguing against him at least?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[vortexring 0]

It stays here? Er, that's the intention.

I've sent him an e-mail explaining what I've done; and inviting him to come along, so hopefully he may well do so. (I'm sure he'll be impressed by the counter-arguments provided here; such as some mong screeching bullshit. Nat!)

Anyway, hope you enjoy reading the debate and challenging Mr Marshall; whether it can be here, or there.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[rushmc 23]

Quote

That is a huge assumption of which you have nothing to support it with.

Your whole arguement boils down to 'it's so complicated that god must have done it' you need more then that to support this bull shit.

Oh for fucks sake. It isn't MY assumption. Neither is it MY argument.

Why not, instead of gobbling out the word 'bullshit', click the link to the debate and challenge the man making the assertion? It isn't mine. Didn't I make that relatively clear?

Yes you did but, you inadvertantly pushed those here to support his claim.

(I am playing devils advocate before any of you choose to get out the flame throwers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

you have to admit, where you believe him or not, he has framed the debate in a way which makes it hard for him to loose.

Good debating tactic, if not honest.

A tactic seen regularly on this and many sites if I might add.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I posted it through interest; An assertion upon which no atheist can topple?

Fucking bull-shit.

Who says no atheist has toppled his argument? He does. Of course that's what he's going to say, he's never going to admit defeat, he's too fond of his precious argument.

What he's basically doing is argument from definition. It's meaningless toss.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

Quote

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one." Perry Marshall

Same garbage as in the other thread based on the same guy right?

It's all garbage or at the very least a fallacious syllogism.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Good debating tactic, if not honest.

Transparent to those who realise what he's doing, impressive looking to those who agree with the idea he's trying to prop up. No surprise who got sucked in by it...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,008]

>If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
>occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

I'll give you two - one seen in nature and one thought experiment.

First, pulsars. Pulsars send out regular pulses of electromagnetic radiation. (More accurately, they send out rotating beams that look like pulses to a stationary observer.) Because they are repetitive in frequency and width, as they pass through interstellar mediums they can encode information about that medium. For example, interstellar gas density and turbulence both affect pulsar beam scattering. Thus, once the signal arrives at Earth, it is a very regular signal with encoded information.

Second, a thought experiment. Take hundreds of magnets, half of them red, half green. Now put them in a bag and shake them up. Take them all out of the bag and put them on a wooden table. You'll note that they stick together in irregular clumps of varying sizes.

Now go through and throw out every clump that does not contain four magnets stuck together. Of those, throw out every clump that is not red-green-red-green.

When you are done, see if there is a code or a pattern to what you have left. You will find that there is a definite pattern - all the remaining magnets will be red-green-red-green in groups of four. Random physical forces, and the process of selection, has created a coded pattern from disorder.