Who Made The Code? (page 13)

jgnat

This is what a DNA strand looks like:

DNA Strand

All the various models and codes you see, Perry, are representations of this molecular strand.

DNA

trust me jgnat, he has no concept of what we are on about, he wants to believe DNA is a book of some kind because we have assigned the 5 nucleotides the letters ATCG and U, if we had assigned them dots and dashes, he would be claiming god has sent us a morse code message....

"message begins pause lets all do the conga pause follow me to the pause for effect dance CABBAgE"

Oh dear we seem to have a nonsense deletion mutation!

Apognophos

Perry, why are you still using your computer? Clearly you didn't read my post. I also provided an answer to your post before you even made it, further proof that you didn't read (or at least, understand) my post. Here's the relevant bit, copy-pasted from my prior post, about materialism:

We would not have modern technology if people did not think this way. The very fact that you can interact with us on this forum is due to materialists who built computers and networks. Some of them may have believed in God, but none of them relied on that belief to figure out the universe. They started with the assumption that everything in this universe, whether created by intelligence or not, would be understandable if examined. That's what materialism means. It means, not assuming that God formed cells with his bare hands, but that a natural process formed them. That doesn't mean God didn't design the process; it just means assuming that we can understand what he, or the universe, made.

So the number of scientists who "believe in God" (I put this in quotes because many of those scientists were not Christian but simply believed there was some higher impersonal intelligence out there, i.e., not the Bible's God) is irrelevant because the topic of this discussion was whether DNA could come about on its own or not. When scientists try to understand evolution, they check their theistic/deistic beliefs at the door because they are not useful in the laboratory.

Perry

you have called them liars for 6 pages....

That's hilarious I've quoted science sources from the beginning, and simply asked a question; one that you didn't like. The reality is that YOU ARE THE ONE that has in effect called far more educated people than yourself LIARS simply becasuse they observed a DNA CODE and called it such...that was their only crime that unleashed your disdainful condemnation.

To call this a code, is to misunderstand what just happened ! WE MADE THE CODE to differentiate things we observed....It doesn't mean it is a code laid down by someone!

Here you state that Codes, specifically referring to the DNA which virtually all scientists refer to as a code language EXCEPT YOU, only exists when someone observes it. You have referred to your own education as an appeal to authority. Yet, far more educated scientists disagree with YOU.

That assumption is based on out human perception that CODES and LANGUAGE are made by someone.

But, here because of the limiting nature of language, you are forced to assume that codes and language do in fact exist.... but only in the perception of someone. We can test that.

Can you name a code or language that is known to exist without anyone observing it? You'll get that one around 3am in the morning.

Here's another of your quotes about scientists who believe in a First Cause.

They can do science all day and go home and make love to Donkey's, the data they collate in the day still stands, and I for one will say no to El'Burro! ...Despite this it means jack shit to me.

Snare and Racket, in light of such filth, it is obvious that people, scientists, posters who are not like you are meaningless to you, especially if they ask questions that you feel with your superior world-view shouldn't be asking. If you talked like this in public face to face with real people, they would slap your face silly for speaking so sociopathic. But really when you are so deeply held captive to a concept, and proud of it, how could you not exibit forms of sociopathy like you do here?

Remember, this is your ideology - Materialism (that you so far haven't denied)

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories , because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. "- description by Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist

Forced to believe the absurd and proud of it.

snare&racket

Perry

This is the problem that Snare and Racket has locked his brain up so tightly with ideological non-sense that it no longer functions properly:

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old -- and there are fewer than 10 to the 18thPower seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! In other words, probabilities greatly favor those that believe an intelligent designer was responsible for originating even the simplest DNA molecules.

But never mind this problem, SnR has a priori - that forces acceptance of absurdity.

A few quotes:

Chemist Dr. Grebe: "That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code."

Researcher and mathematician I.L Cohen: "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear....Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution vs the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeng 747 from the materials therein."

Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no know n physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.

Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.

Dr Wilder-Smith is an honored scientist who is certainly well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What is his considered opinion as to the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal? "...an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA...is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information." " As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell. There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed it in a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice -- so that the cell builds itself from the information..."