Modern Christians can easily take it as metaphor. It describes the basic situation of guilt and sin entering into the world, but the snake doesn't have to be literal. This also goes for Adam and Eve themselves. Some Christians believe they were literal people, others think they're archetypes for early humans.
Posts by A Ha
-
21Is Christianity contingent on belief in a talking snake?
by cobweb inthis is a question mainly for those who are christian as i myself am not:.
to what extent is christianity contingent on a belief in the book of genesis.
i know there are some christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the adam and eve story too.
-
-
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
A Ha
A Ha, welcome to a debating forum. That's what one does in a debate. You bring up an objection to my argument. I attempt to overcome the objection. You state your point. If I disagree, I say so and give you the reason, and so forth. Some arguments will be good, others bad, and some in between.
You seem to be defending your dishonesty as "that's what one does in a debate." That isn't what I do. I attempt to make good arguments, and if I get an argument or fact wrong, I'm happy to acknowledge it and I'll never use it again.
But you remind me of Cofty. He likes to state his case. Beware if anybody disagrees with him. Then you will be accused of many things, including dishonesty. You are doing exactly the same thing.
I've accused you of dishonesty because I pointed out an error in your argument half a dozen times and each and every time you just ignored it and changed your definition. When I pointed out the problem with your new definition, you went back to the first definition. Rinse and repeat. If you were making your best argument and made a mistake, that's fine and I wouldn't accuse you of dishonesty for making a mistake. But when you are shown the error and just repeat it, what is that besides dishonesty? I'm not sure why you're playing the persecution card now, after you've admitted you use underhanded tactics in a debate.
If you feel that DNA is not part of an information system, that's your problem.
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but how am I supposed to change my mind when your argument is inconsistent and fails even by your unique definitions? You gave a novel definition of information and I said, 'OK, let's work with that definition, but here's a problem with it...' and your response has been equivocation after equivocation.
And this is why I view discussions of evolution vs. creation important.
If you view it as important, then treat the discussion with the respect it deserves. Don't use arguments you know to be fallacious. If a problem with your argument is pointed out to you, fix the problem (and, optionally, acknowledge the error and resolve not to repeat it).
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
A Ha
A Ha, why are you stuck on this one definition of sender/receiver? There's obviously a problem with my and your definition of "intelligent."
I'm not stuck on one definition. I'll use the term whichever way you like, but you must stick to one definition. You don't get to use it one way when talking about the sender, and another way when talking about the receiver. That's called equivocation, and it's dishonest. Do you imagine your God wants you to use dishonest arguments? Can He do no better?
I gave you the example of artificial intelligence or AI, which you ignored.
There was nothing to address. There are only two reasons to use an example of AI. One is to claim that this definition of intelligence fits the situation better than any other definition one might find, which would be a silly thing to say. The other is to try to make a deductive argument, but I did you a favor in not treating it like that, because it's a terrible argument. If you really want to make the deductive argument, go ahead, but don't say I didn't warn you.
Dictionaries list various definitions for various usages and contexts. When using a dictionary to define a word, you choose the most appropriate definition for the context. You don't get to choose multiple definitions and change at will. Again, that's called equivocating, and it's dishonest.
On top of that, when shown the inconsistency of your argument, you tried to use a meaning of "intelligence" that doesn't appear in any dictionary (the nonsense about intelligence means to "conserve and multiply its species"). You just made that one up out of thin air.
Strictly speaking, a non-animate object cannot be intelligent. Yet a machine, i.e., a computer can intelligently translate a sentence from one language into another. What else should one call it?
Following a program. Programmers use the terms smart and dumb to connote certain functions, but they chose those words to differentiate between relatively basic and advanced functionality. It would be silly to try to use intelligence as it's used in computing to describe volitional agency when there are much better definitions available.
Some define "intelligent" as being able to solve problems. In this life you need to be intelligent to survive. Amoeba is "intelligent" enough to protect itself and move away from danger. It is intelligent enough to recognize unfavorable conditions and form a cyst around it to survive.
Well at least you were honest enough to put scare quotes around the word. Amoeba's are merely reacting to stimuli; they do not have an intelligent mind moving them around.
So getting back to your claim of an intelligent sender and intelligent receiver for this wonderful UI that you've made up, are you referring to the intelligence of a volitional mind, or are you referring to the intelligence of a mindless automaton reacting to stimuli. Pick one.
Bottom line, behind it all there's a hugely intelligent intellect that did the programming.
This is what I've been trying to get you to demonstrate, but you keep confusing yourself by switching definitions mid-sentence.
Here's a Dictionary definition of the word intelligent. Look at 1, 3 and 4:
Pick one of those definitions for the context of your definition of information, and don't make up your own, a la "conserve and multiply its
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
A Ha
I'm understanding the point very well. You tried to say claim that DNA was an actual code, and according to your made-up definitions of information, that meant it must have an intelligent sender. When shown that by that same made-up definitions, DNA must also have an intelligent receiver, you changed your definition such that "intelligence" carried some nonsense meaning of "helps it replicate." When told that this would mean your intelligent sender was no longer necessary, you changed your definition back... then changed it again.... then changed it again... and on and on. You have repeatedly equivocated on the meanings of words and of which definitions you're using, and when called out on it by multiple people, you've simply ignored it and gone back to the previous definition.
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
A Ha
So you have been trying to argue that an intelligence (as in actual intelligence; an intelligent agent) is necessary for replication, but now you recognize that an intelligent agent is not necessary. Excellent.
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
A Ha
and having an intelligent sender and receiver.
When the DNA of an amoeba replicates, who or what is the intelligent receiver?
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
A Ha
Intelligent in the sense that it does the work required.
You are changing definitions again. Earlier you argued that DNA required a volitional intelligence behind it, therefore, God. You argued that "in the sense that it does the work required" was not good enough, but you're trying to drop it when challenged about volitional intelligence on the receiving end. If you are adopting this non-volitional definition again, then a volitional intelligence is not necessary on either the sending or receiving end, and your argument for the necessity of a God in the case of DNA dies.
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
A Ha
Vidqun - "An evolutionist/atheist is indeed a rather nasty piece of work. No accountability, no morality, no ethics."
Well, f**k you very much.
Yeah, that's some pretty regressive, 1950s-type rhetoric. Only a small segment of the theist population even tries to make that argument anymore.
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
A Ha
A ha: Sender, DNA. Reciever, ribosome. Instruction: Assembly of protein. You as the living organism would be receiving the benefit of protein assembly. In the end you would be the receiver.
According to your definitions, the recipient must be intelligent. A strand of DNA, RNA, mRNA, etc.. are not able to understand the code.
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
A Ha
Here are the various problems with your claims. Even granting your made-up notion of UI:
c) If information is to be understood, the particular code must be known to both sender and recipient. (your words)
Cosyntics (code + syntax): Code employed and code understood. (your words)
Symantics: Communicated ideas and understood meaning. (your words)
Summary
There can be no UI without a code.
There can be no UI without a sender. -- [and an intelligent receiver]
Any given chain of UI points to a mental source. -- [and a mental destination]
There can be no UI without volition (will). -- [volition of both sender and receiver.]By your own definition, DNA does not qualify as UI.