₦airaland Forum

Sinequanon can't you open a thread without listing out people who you have disagreements with?

UyiIredia:
Actually, DNA has a code. I have already referred you to an article that cements this point. You are yet to rebut my argument, instead you argue over the fact that DNA has a code. Which is the silliest argument I have ever encountered.

Do you have flint for eyes?...There is a difference between "DNA has a code" and "DNA operates like a biological code"...
What I am rebutting is your insistence that the biological code is from "god" which you are yet to prove...

I don't equate a "code" to a "biological code"...because though they are used interchangeably to portray DNA's function...it has been misunderstood as though the chemicals themselves are "codes" and not molecules with biochemical potential that act as one...do you understand?

UyiIredia:
The arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA helix is what makes up the code. The extract you posted details how decoding of the genetic code is done and it is certainly a process God made. That said, if you want to still evade the argument by arguing whether the DNA has a code I should question your intelligence. Because that is a well-established fact.

You have to first prove that a "god" exists,before labelling how the genetic code operates as a handiwork of "god"...
You can question my intelligence all day...DNA is a molecule....that under certain conditions,operates as a biological code....that's it..

UyiIredia:
Go and read the article I referred you to earlier.

I have... can you tell me what any of it has to do with artificial codes...
Here is an extract;
"The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded
within genetic material ( DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into
proteins by living cells . Biological decoding is accomplished by the
ribosome , which links amino acids in an order specified by mRNA,
using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to
read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time."

What part of this process can you verify to be from a mind?

The picture below is a segment of a DNA molecule...can you identify the "code" within it?

UyiIredia:
Seriously, if you don't understand that your body's DNA has a code I must question your ability to comprehend my argument given your ignorance of a solid fact.

All you have to do is tell me how you deduced deoxyribonucleic acid to contain a code..do acids contain codes?
We only term DNA a code because it acts like one....the same way an eye is termed a biological camera...

UyiIredia:
Read up the 'genetic code' article in Wikipedia.

So because it's been termed a code for biology...you equate it to a computer code?

UyiIredia:
First, I said NOT ALL ancients believed in a flat earth and noted that some actually believed in a round earth. The fear of sailing to the edge of the earth was peculiar to some sailors in Europe. Certainly not Columbus. In fact, the greater fear was on of being lost at sea. And someone had to have set the properties and behaviour of the universe.

Consider life on earth. Living things run on codes embedded in their DNA. Codes are indicative of conscious agents since conscious agents eg humans make them and natural processes (such as the weather, the oceans, land etc) can not make them. The existence of living things therefore is basis to know there is a Creator. Let's start from here.

Can you list those codes embedded in DNA? and are proteins codes?

UyiIredia:
Ancients believed in a round earth. You are seriosuly misinformed if you think everyone believed ina a flat earth. In any case, the existence of the universe AND LIFE IN IT certainly evidences the existence of God. The universe can't possibly be infinite, its existence is tentative on laws and such laws and the present of sentient beings cement the fact of God's existence. It ain't my fault you engage in wilful ignorance.

Then educate that "willful ignorance" with accurate knowledge....not assertions like the bolded.

And ancients did in fact believe in a flat earth....sailors would often fear sailing on the "edge of the earth" and common folk would often fear the sun not "rising"...
Most of our current terminologies were set from those false concepts...
Same with how we refer to years as A.D or B.C,despite no valid evidence of "jesus".

And the laws of the universe are general statements that expresses the properties and/or behaviour of it at certain conditions...

philfearon:
How does any of what you wrote above justify the fact that Your Good God ordered them to take Young virgin girls as sex slaves? Which of your great excuses will justify this unsavory and savagery act?
It wasn't enough that Your God killed their people,he also made them objects of men Sexual satisfaction!!!
Your God loves immorality...I can still show u where your God says its OK to have sex with underaged kids(11yrs and below)...
Stop defending him bro,He doesn't deserve it!!!

When you back a theist into a corner they abandon defending their "holy book"..

UyiIredia:
The existence of the universe and life in it cement the existence of God. Ancients unquestionably believed in God and it is a belief globally-held till present times; the recent climb in atheists notwithstanding.

The existence of the universe tells you nothing about "god/gods"..

"god/gods" are merely labelled on the existence of the universe....to provide a supernatural explanation...

And because ancients believed in "god/gods" doesn't mean we should too nor that it's factual...ancients believed in a lot of absurd things...from human sacrifices...to a flat earth...to dragons....to chimera's etc

Rest assured I know where you're coming from...you cannot explain your existence...therefore "god did it" right?..

sinequanon:
There comes a point in a debate where you just have to be prepared to agree to disagree.

I have explained what I find ambiguous in your usage of the word "true". You disagree, but you don't address my explanation. You simply reassert your position using bold font, as if that is some sort of argument. What follows, evades addressing the my explicit explanation of what is ambiguous. In fact, you just repeat the word under question ("true" ), which is circular . So further discussion is pointless, until you have addressed the point. We can't debate using words we don't agree on.

Is "scientifically true" equivalent to "universally true"?

If you think it is, then you are using true in a universal sense, which means it must be 100% true.

If not, you are using true in a contextual sense -- relative to, or in the context of, science.

You are providing a false dichotomy where truth either implies "scientific truth" or "universal truth"..despite that I had already given you how I used the term as....it is best I refrain from this discussion because you seem to either dodge questions or equivocate terms..

sinequanon:
Science has a relative truth. Science doesn't claim any empirical fact to be 100 per cent true.

Can you give a "relative truth" science offers?
And science does not claim an empirical fact to be 100% true because of cartesian philosophy(subset of science)..

Science defines a system and standard of "credibility" (which involves many human factors), by which it asserts a fact to be "scientifically true". It is a relative "scientific truth" and is particular to science except to the dogmatist, who will try to apply it universally.

Is there an accurate model of understanding where human factors are not involved?
And can you expatiate on the bolded?

The role of philosophy is to keep this in check. Philosophy is not trying to offer objectivity. It avoids the arbitrary leap from "confidence" to "universal objectivity" that science indulges.

Seeing that you understand that science never claims an empirical fact as 100% true...how can you say it makes a leap from confidence to universal objectivity?

Before modern scientific methodology was formalized, philosophers not only hypothesized about the "physical world", but established their asseertions.

Correct...and no method of verification was used to fact-check those assertions.

Yes we can.

Okay....all you have to do then is devise a method of verifying aristotelian gravity..

I have discussed the word true, which you are using in ambiguous ways. You originally defined it as "tested" -- in which case it is only as good as the imperfect testing mechanism. Now you are trying to use it in a more universal sense. Philosophy is there to prevent such creep in meaning.

I have not used those words ambiguously...we need to be able to test views so that they could be falsified...or proven true...that's it.
And can you identify any process that rivals the scientific method in predicting future data or verifying the validity of a subject?

Again, you have taken a scientific term outside of its domain. Accuracy in science is predicated on a number of assumptions (statistics is the most presumptive branch of applied mathematics). You are now applying the notion universally. Philosophy is there to prevent this misuse.

Then you misunderstood me....accuracy in the sense I used there was to indicate that a sufficient level of consistent points is needed to validate knowledge.

Philosophy probes the basis of any system of knowledge.

Correct...my point however is,can it accurately do so without an objective method of its own..

If you choose to accept the assumptions of a system, philosophy hands over to the system. But philosophy recognizes that it is a choice and ensures that you don't lose sight of the fact that your assumptions are not universal, and you cannot start applying your "knowledge" universally (e.g to discredit other forms of knowledge which may not be based on your assumptions)

Without philosophy, science becomes a religion.

How does philosophy ensure anything and with what method?
Can one use philosophy to revise scientific principles?
You haven't still explained what role a philosopher would have in giving an accurate account of the natural world?

honourhim:
Bro you spoke within the limit of your knowledge so thats for you and your co-travellers. We ve argued this over and over again but like i said we are two parallel lines that cannot meet on this issue except you begin to see the other side of life- the spiritual. God is very real. I am not saying God may be real, I am saying that God is very real.

You keep saying "god is real"....but you can't demonstrate it to be true...is there knowledge that cannot be shown to be factual in any sense?

UyiIredia:
God has actually been established to be factual for millenia now. Deists aren't religious (at least not in the usual sense) so out goes your point that only religious people believe in God.

Really...can you tell me how "god" has been established as factual?...and being religious in the case I used is to be a theist/believer...

honourhim....it's best you know that atheists do not backup a "no god" claim....because "god" has never been established to be factual....so the claims of "god" are only asserted by religious people...

sinequanon:
The purpose of philosophy is not to prefer a particular truth system or to verify its arguments. That would be the job of the "truth" system, itself. Philosophy is more about making you aware that your "truth" system is not universal, that your assumptions are assumptions and how your concept of truth relates to those assumptions.

Philosophy would also help you confine the activities of your truth system to your truth system, and not misapply them to something else.

So, for example, it is philosophically incorrect to use notions of scientific validity, verification, and error margins in dealing with epistemology. Philosophy probes science, not the other way round.

In summary, philosophy is more about awareness of context than preference or "proof" (which is a type of strong preference or conviction).

I am not referring to subjective "truths" but an objective one that can be understood and/or tested by all(which philosophy can't offer)..

Take for example the philosophical explanation to gravity,aristotelian gravity...this philosophical explanation is purely an untestable assumption...

We cannot know or test it to be true...compared to the naturalistic explanation to gravity...newtonian gravity.

Accurate knowledge is practical,deductive and/or atleast can be shown to be true..

And in the quest for knowledge(epistemology),accuracy is an asset....otherwise the knowledge proposed or acquired cannot be known to be true but only speculated about..

And can you explain how philosophy probes science based on knowledge that it can know to be true?

sinequanon:
Scientists can get trapped in the language they use, and naively argue round in circles. They frequently do.

Philosophers examine the nature of the problem and the assumptions and predicates. They can introduce supplementary questions and thought experiments to draw attention to inadvertent irrationality and circularity.

I'd say that philosophers, psychologists and anthropologists are far more important in this discussion than scientists.

In many ways, philosopher is to scientist as manager is to technician.

So how does a philosopher verify if his/her postulates as true?...does philosophy have an error margin?...or method to dismiss untestable ideas??

sinequanon....what insight can a philosopher have on the subject?

ammyluv2002:
I don't need evidence to know my Creator exist...

I don't need evidence to know my fairy god-mother exist too...

Isn't it bigotry that you can't even stand the fact that someone doesn't think like you?
I mean what bugs you specially about atheists,and not lets say muslims?..
Is it because muslims are "peaceful"?

Isn't it bigotry that you can't even stand the fact that someone doesn't think like you?
I mean what bugs you specially about atheists,and not lets say muslims?

Proffdada:
spirit powers consciousness, brain stores events and activities of consciousness, brain is subject of spirit

So if one is at brain death,he/she should still be conscious,no?
Reality goes against your premise....so a "spirit" is not tied to consciousness.... ..

.....

How people like this escape psychiatric revision is beyond me..

As the header suggests....why is it that one can use its own logic against it...
Why is this?

How is it that the christian "god" is omnipresent and at a specific place("heaven" ) at the same time?

How is the christian "god" merciful and just(at the same time) when mercy is the suspension of justice?

How is the christian "god" supposedly existing before an existence?

How can it be unchanging when it also has subjective views?

How can it be omniscient and leave no trace of new knowledge in its supposed works?

Proffdada:
cuz brain dead = no spirit

Are you implying that the brain is synonymous with what you call "spirit"?

If you base your faith on the unknown....you become ridiculed when it is understood...just a friendly advice.

BossTtdiamonds:
If you believe in me, you should believe that any action I take, I take based on facts that have been substantiated/proven to be true by my person.
So davien, do you truly believe in me, or tis' is just one of the quips you make so there's somethin' to laugh at?
So have I portrayed intolerance and absurdity, and on what grounds do you justify such actions to be intolerant and absurd??

Are you not obligated to uphold the biblical laws which include the scrutiny of homosexuals...the view of women as "under a man" and other intolerant views?
And the view I have of you is not that you have any factual knowledge of "god"(otherwise you'd present it)....it is a view of pity.
Pity because for someone to believe a man could walk on water without being the tiniest bit skeptical,is very shocking.

BossTtdiamonds:
I definately cannot be offended by those who don't believe in god.. So far they believe in God...
#NoteTheDifference...
Those who believe in God are guided by the morals God has placed on us. Nevertheless the issue of morality is a different study on it's own..as there are individuals who believe in God but still act immoral anyways...tis' on its own is because of the Choice attribute God gave us i.e. The ability to choose btw Good and Evil..
Hope I answered your question.. Now anwer mine..

If you cannot understand that an atheist does not believe in "god",then this conversation is over....
I can't keep running around in circles explaining atheism to you.