jonbellion:
no the burden of proof lies on YOU that makes the god claim
I never said god doesn't exist
My definition of god is not even an immaterial being
The first cause could have been anything. You have just decided that god is the perfect name. Not to mention you put God out of materialistic scrutiny so how would you expect god to be proven
Languages have developed over thousands of year(if not millions).
DNA has also evolved over millions of years from single celled animals that had simple DNA structures to more complex animals that had complex DNA. If any god Created DNA why wouldn't it just make it complex from the start. It underwent various natural processes overtime to become what it is now There are actually a lot of complex structures that have come into place with natural processes like snowflakes and send dumes
And the miller uray experiment was able to produce amino acids one of the fundamental building blocks of life
Because you don't know doesn't mean you should stamp your ignorance with god
Not like the diestic god is not probable it is way more likely than the thiestic version of god but a god that is completely outside of nature and impossible to prove would make people like me apathetic towards it

the Miller Uray experiment needed INTELLIGENT scientists to carry it out

UyiIredia:


Not just dolphins but babies. And the reason babies and dolphins can't produce codes is because they are not as intelligent as the average adult human. Not at all, indeed human intelligence makes codes but his argument is careful to isolate the quality humans possess that allows them to make codes. So the conclusion and premise you forward is moot.

I wonder if the livescience article I posted under my argument that shows dancing bees communicate via codes Is not showing

UyiIredia:


No. Evolution starts when there is a living thing with DNA. Abiogenesis is the thesis that seeks to explain how life and its DNA originated. The thesis is a failed one only upheld because of the materialistic paradigm ruling science.

Hardly a failed one, there is strong evidence for abiogenesis. If it was failed, it would have been discarded already, there are no sentiments in science.

LightandDarkness:


Hardly a failed one, there is strong evidence for abiogenesis. If it was failed, it would have been discarded already, there are no sentiments in science.

actually the milley Urey experiment ended up making abiogenesis unlikely

http://creation.mobi/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

A realist who thinks nature is the cause of DNA evolution... Great!!

jonbellion:
naw baby
I'm a realist

Omudia:
A realist who thinks nature is the cause of DNA evolution... Great!!

first of all do you even acknowledge evolution

Blogthug:
p 1. All codes of known origin is a product of intelligence (empirical observation)
p 2. The DNA is a code
p3 .therefore the DNA is a product of intelligence

Deductive logical inference

for those that would think all codes of known origin are produced by only humans :
http://www.livescience.com/3812-dancing-bees-speak-code.html

please avoid Strawmaning my Argument as u attempt to refute p1 and 2 , if u can't u should concede to the argument and prolly become and Atheist that believes in ID if that's even possible lol, good luck Atheist

This is why I ended up being a deist instead of an atheist. When you look at the universe, you can't but agree that it is a creation. The chance of earth rotating and revolving 24/7, 365 day per year by accident is 1/99999999999999999999999999....

Everything you see is magnificently and divinely designed and created by the creator

Blogthug:


actually the milley Urey experiment ended up making abiogenesis unlikely

http://creation.mobi/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

double post

Blogthug:


actually the milley Urey experiment ended up making abiogenesis unlikely

http://creation.mobi/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

How so exactly, that article (opinion piece really) is long

KingEbukasBlog:

Numbers , sets , properties etc .

Are these 'Living Entities'?

lastkingsman:


This is why I ended up being a deist instead of an atheist. When you look at the universe, you can't but agree that it is a creation. The chance of earth rotating and revolving 24/7, 365 day per year by accident is 1/99999999999999999999999999....

Everything you see is magnificently and divinely designed and created by the creator

Add 07034362071 to join Nigerian union of deists whatsapp group

LightandDarkness:

How so exactly, that article (opinion piece really) is long

so u won't read a peer reviewed paper coz its long? no wonder u are an atheist

Obviously, but not Darwin's.

jonbellion:
first of all do you even acknowledge evolution

UyiIredia:


That is not a blunder. Educate yourself.

What are genetic codes? Are they not same as codons or base sequence...

Now,, read your comment again "genetic code codon" same as "codon codon" or "base sequence codon" which is same as molecular blunder

adepeter26:

What are genetic codes? Are they not same as codons or base sequence...

Now,, read your comment again "genetic code codon" same as "codon codon" or "base sequence codon" which is same as molecular blunder

I forgot to put a comma after the genetic code. Hope that clarifies things.

LightandDarkness:


Hardly a failed one, there is strong evidence for abiogenesis. If it was failed, it would have been discarded already, there are no sentiments in science.

There are sentiments in science. That's why I made mention of the current materialistic paradigm.

UyiIredia:


I forgot to put a comma after the genetic code. Hope that clarifies things.

Lol

Blogthug:


Add 07034362071 to join Nigerian union of deists whatsapp group

I have contacted you

Blogthug:


so u won't read a peer reviewed paper coz its long? no wonder u are an atheist

1. Thats hardly a "peer reviewed paper", I don't see it published in any journal unless creation ministries internation suddenly became nature.

2. I'm busy, they could simply have stated their point succintly, i guess a desire for short arguments makes you atheist.

LightandDarkness:


1. Thats hardly a "peer reviewed paper", I don't see it published in any journal unless creation ministries internation suddenly became nature.

A scientific work doesn't have to be peer reviewed to be good. Since creationism is considered pseudoscience their work can never be accepted for peer review in any mainstream science journal. The same for intelligent design.

LightandDarkness:

2. I'm busy, they could simply have stated their point succintly, i guess a desire for short arguments makes you atheist.

There are several points against the Miller-Urey experiment which includes

• a poor simulation of natural factors: for instance, excluding the extreme heat and radioactivity supposed to prevail in early earth.
• intelligent intervention: stopping the reaction at the right time to acculate products and prevent it overheating into tar.
• racemic mixture output: life exclusively uses left-handed amino acids while the amino acids produced in the experiment have left and right-handed amino acids.
• little output: the concentration of amino acids was minute, and many amino acids were produced in very little concentrations.

The even more powerful point is that although the points I have stated should convince any reasonable, objective person that the Miller-Urey experiment does not substantiate abiogenesis, they aren't necessary. The more crucial argument is that even if we assume that Miller-Urey is correct and somehow early earthe made amino acids, it isn't sufficient to prove abiogenesis because you have to explain how amino acids polymerized into proteins and how other organic chemicals like lipids, DNA, RNA etc were assembled into the first living being.

UyiIredia:


A scientific work doesn't have to be peer reviewed to be good. Since creationism is considered pseudoscience their work can never be accepted for peer review in any mainstream science journal. The same for intelligent design.



There are several points against the Miller-Urey experiment which includes

• a poor simulation of natural factors: for instance, excluding the extreme heat and radioactivity supposed to prevail in early earth.
• intelligent intervention: stopping the reaction at the right time to acculate products and prevent it overheating into tar.
• racemic mixture output: life exclusively uses left-handed amino acids while the amino acids produced in the experiment have left and right-handed amino acids.
• little output: the concentration of amino acids was minute, and many amino acids were produced in very little concentrations.

The even more powerful point is that although the points I have stated should convince any reasonable, objective person that the Miller-Urey experiment does not substantiate abiogenesis, they aren't necessary. The more crucial argument is that even if we assume that Miller-Urey is correct and somehow early earthe made amino acids, it isn't sufficient to prove abiogenesis because you have to explain how amino acids polymerized into proteins and how other organic chemicals like lipids, DNA, RNA etc were assembled into the first living being.

great points , using Urey's experiment as evidence for abiogenesis will be a presuppositional fallacy , mind u, even Darwin's theory of evolution was published in a book and not in a reviewed paper, but the creation site reviews their articles before publishing on their journal

Blogthug:
p 1. All codes of known origin is a product of intelligence (empirical observation)
p 2. The DNA is a code
p3 .therefore the DNA is a product of intelligence

Deductive logical inference

for those that would think all codes of known origin are produced by only humans :
http://www.livescience.com/3812-dancing-bees-speak-code.html

please avoid Strawmaning my Argument as u attempt to refute p1 and 2 , if u can't u should concede to the argument and prolly become and Atheist that believes in ID if that's even possible lol, good luck Atheist

The key premise stated all codes of a known origin are products of intelligence. Your minor premise merely stated that DNA is a code and it did not go further to state if DNA had a known origin.

The minor premise ought to find its validity to the extent the major premise allows. Therefore your conclusion is wrong

Kay17:


The key premise stated all codes of a known origin are products of intelligence. Your minor premise merely stated that DNA is a code and it did not go further to state if DNA had a known origin.

The minor premise ought to find its validity to the extent the major premise allows. Therefore your conclusion is wrong

I clearly stated Deductive logical inference , I doubt u understand what that means? syllogism : All know C is product of I, if D is C therefore D is is a product of I , the conclusion is inferred from all available evidence. it's like all kids of known birth have mothers, john is a kid therefore John has mother , hope u get it now

Blogthug:
p 1. All codes of known origin is a product of intelligence (empirical observation)
p 2. The DNA is a code
p3 .therefore the DNA is a product of intelligence

Deductive logical inference

for those that would think all codes of known origin are produced by only humans :
http://www.livescience.com/3812-dancing-bees-speak-code.html

please avoid Strawmaning my Argument as u attempt to refute p1 and 2 , if u can't u should concede to the argument and prolly become and Atheist that believes in ID if that's even possible lol, good luck Atheist

Your argument fails rather obviously.

p1. All codes of knownn origin are a product of human intelligence.
p2. DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code. Codes are symbolic representations not molecules.
Therefore, your argument is unsound.

Note that bee communication is not code in this sense. All you're doing is failing by equivocation.

Kay17:


The key premise stated all codes of a known origin are products of intelligence. Your minor premise merely stated that DNA is a code and it did not go further to state if DNA had a known origin.

The minor premise ought to find its validity to the extent the major premise allows. Therefore your conclusion is wrong

Well said. That is one of the flaws I earlier suggested.

thehomer:


Your argument fails rather obviously.

p1. All codes of knownn origin are a product of human intelligence.
p2. DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code. Codes are symbolic representations not molecules.
Therefore, your argument is unsound.

Note that bee communication is not code in this sense. All you're doing is failing by equivocation.

Nevertheless, his conclusion is correct.

Blogthug:


I clearly stated Deductive logical inference , I doubt u understand what that means? syllogism : All know C is product of I, if D is C therefore D is is a product of I , the conclusion is inferred from all available evidence. it's like all kids of known birth have mothers, john is a kid therefore John has mother , hope u get it now

Deductive reasoning doesn't guarantee the truthfulness of the conclusion rather it ensures its logical validity.

I think the key proviso "known origin" used in your major premise ought to follow up to the conclusion

Kay17:


Deductive reasoning doesn't guarantee the truthfulness of the conclusion rather it ensures its logical validity.

I think the key proviso "known origin" used in your major premise ought to follow up to the conclusion

coz u think doesn't make it so, all codes of known origin have been observed to be a product of intelligence Morse, binary, bee codes , if DNA is a code then it's inferred deductively to be one as well, except u can refute the first premise by citing a code of known origin produced sans intelligence

UyiIredia:


Well said. That is one of the flaws I earlier suggested.

that's not a flaw, except u can name a code of known origin produced sans intelligence , if u can't then the conclusion is inferred and the argument is valid

thehomer:


Your argument fails rather obviously.

p1. All codes of knownn origin are a product of human intelligence.
p2. DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code. Codes are symbolic representations not molecules.
Therefore, your argument is unsound.

Note that bee communication is not code in this sense. All you're doing is failing by equivocation.

who says it's not a code, you? do u even understand the meaning of codes? or what makes sometime a code? u should research on that first

Blogthug:


who says it's not a code, you? do u even understand the meaning of codes? or what makes sometime a code? u should research on that first

Yes me, and the dictionary. You want me to do your work for you for some reason. If you think all communication is code, then you need to actually show it to be the case. e.g is one person waving at another person code for something? How about someone nodding their head in agreement? Or are birds nests also code? How about lions stalking their prey? Is that code too?

Something you dont' seem to understand is the fact that something can be represented as code e.g a DNA sequence of physical molecules, doesn't make the molecules code. The molecular sequence comes first. The notion of a code is imposed by humans for ease of understanding.

So, you need to do the work to show that all communication is actually code.

@op,

These are your words: "All codes of known origin is a product of intelligence"..........................................................What about the genetic code that gives rise to "Down's syndrome?