It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by squiz
No, what you've done is misapplying Godel's statementsedit on 18-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
The bottom line IMO. If you claim god exists, back it up. Inferring gods existence, assuming his existence or interpreting phenomena as needing his existence, seems the best anyone can come up with.
The only thing always missing when proof for god is offered, is any genuine proof for god itself.
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by MrXYZ
That's quite a strawman there MrXYZ. No one has said that. You made it up all by yourself. Well done.
Let me ask YOU a question, since you are so up on Godels work.
Is the universe illogical and inconsistent, or is it logical and consistent?
I await your answer.edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by squiz
Ha, your mind truly baffles me. Super natural is a term of ignorance, when the mechanisms of a supposed super natural effect are known it then becomes natural so it was never super natural to begin with. It's a relative term to current understanding. And no it has not been falsified by "super natural cause" . What does that even mean? If we could falsify it with a "super natural cause" then that in itself is proof of "super natural cause". We'd be stuck in an infinite loop without anyway way to resolve it. How can something be falsified with an unknown?
And nobody has been able to falsify the origin of code with a super natural cause.
You keep stating this like every person in the world understands this as being common sense and without flaw. This statement means absolutely nothing. It literally has no meaning. You and emdc2 rest your whole idea on the concept of DNA being too complex to appropriate itself into a hereditary mechanism on its own, and try to use Godel and information theory to prove your point. Like I said, this is absurd, philosophical drivel that takes an arbitrary quantitative approach to researching molecules and turns it into a description inherent to the molecules themselves. Does the fact that we say "2 plus 2 equals 4" imply that numbers were intended to be described in English?
Originally posted by squiz
Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop.
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs
And nobody has been able to falsify the origin of code with a super natural cause.
That was your great refutation.
Sorry buddy, you can't falsify anything with the unknown. You can replace it with intelligence if you like, it then becomes completely false.
That's not so hard is it?
Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop.
Is it God? I don't know. What IT is I do not know. This I cannot deny.
I only address valid points, and sometimes MrXYZedit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by edmc^2
So there's only one logical answer - the Creator must be uncreated - always existing. Otherwise the alternative is nothing created everything.
So the real question is - which one make sense?
Like I said before - if we can accept things that are beyond our understanding like "quantum entanglement", black holes, event horizon and many more phenomenon.
Why is it hard to accept an always existing supernatural Being?
Know what I mean?
Originally posted by squiz
Sorry buddy, you can't falsify anything with the unknown. You can replace it with intelligence if you like, it then becomes completely false.
Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop.
I only address valid points, and sometimes MrXYZ :lol
Originally posted by uva3021
You keep stating this like every person in the world understands this as being common sense and without flaw. This statement means absolutely nothing. It literally has no meaning.
Originally posted by squiz
Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop.
Originally posted by Barcs
I've been trying to tell you this for the past 20 pages. You are appealing to the unknown claiming an intelligence is responsible for DNA, with no evidence to indicate this intelligence even exists. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
Nope. Logic does NOT demand this and I've clearly explained it in several posts that you have chosen to ignore. I'm not repeating it again. Logic is based on facts,
You can't just dismiss a counter point as invalid in a debate without demonstrating why and you've ignored just about every one that I made. I completely dissected your "DNA code came from intelligence" argument, and the logic (lack of logic really) behind it.
You have not provide any evidence to suggest DNA is non physical. It is a man made code, based on the structure and arrangement of the atoms. Your entire argument has been an appeal to the unknown, but now that I say you can't prove your side either, you get up in arms about it as if you can prove it... but you can't. It's just wishful thinking. Your method of inference is invalid as I clearly already showed. If you can't argue against this fact without changing the topic or ignoring counterpoints then repeating your original claim, you have nothing.
For the last time:
I do not know the origin of DNA code
YOU do not know the origin of DNA code
and you have no clue how science actually works. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm actually enjoying it a great deal that believers try to now justify their belief with word games and semantics...
Please share some of these facts. What's clear is you for some reason take pride in cherry picking from abstracts and from scientists who believe the exact opposite of what you claim (Please quote more Szostak).
Originally posted by squiz
It's a statement of fact. Computer scientists know it. electrical engineers know it as far as information systems go. Information scientist know it. Even Origin of life researchers have commented on this problem. The origin of life problem is an origin of information problem. The meaning is clear as day.
There is no chemical or physical reason why the a particular arrangement that creates codons should dictate a particular polypeptide. It is symbolic.
It's not an argument form complexity, it' as simple as can be.The statement is not meaningless. That's just denial.
edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)
There is no chemical or physical reason why the a particular arrangement that creates codons should dictate a particular polypeptide. It is symbolic.
The relationship between law and chance in the early evolution of life is the guiding theme of this provocative study. The author explores modern ideas about the origin of life from the standpoint of philosophy of science, emphasizing the contribution made by information theory.
Küppers asserts that all life phenomena are steered by information and that this information is already defined materially in a universal form at the level of the biological macromolecule. The question of the origin of life turns out to be the question of the origin of biological information
Information and the Origin of Life takes up the fundamental problems of whether and, if so, to what extent the origin of semantic information during evolution can be explained as a general phenomenon within the framework of physics and chemistry. The results could have far-reaching consequences for such fields as the philosophy of mind and artificial intelligence.
Bernd-Olaf Küppers has long focused his attention on basic questions of natural science and the philosophy of science at the borders of physics, chemistry, and biology. He has been engaged since 1971 in research at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, and from 1979 to 1984 he held lecture courses in philosophy at the University of Göttingen
The last universal common ancestor of contemporary biology (LUCA) used a precise set of 20 amino acids as a standard alphabet with which to build genetically encoded protein polymers. Considerable evidence indicates that some of these amino acids were present through nonbiological syntheses prior to the origin of life, while the rest evolved as inventions of early metabolism. However, the same evidence indicates that many alternatives were also available, which highlights the question: what factors led biological evolution on our planet to define its standard alphabet? One possibility is that natural selection favored a set of amino acids that exhibits clear, nonrandom properties-a set of especially useful building blocks. However, previous analysis that tested whether the standard alphabet comprises amino acids with unusually high variance in size, charge, and hydrophobicity (properties that govern what protein structures and functions can be constructed) failed to clearly distinguish evolution's choice from a sample of randomly chosen alternatives. Here, we demonstrate unambiguous support for a refined hypothesis: that an optimal set of amino acids would spread evenly across a broad range of values for each fundamental property. Specifically, we show that the standard set of 20 amino acids represents the possible spectra of size, charge, and hydrophobicity more broadly and more evenly than can be explained by chance alone.
"All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter. "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software."
The digital and biological worlds are becoming interchangeable, he added, describing how scientists now simply send each other the information to make DIY biological material rather than sending the material itself.
Originally posted by squiz
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
The bottom line IMO. If you claim god exists, back it up. Inferring gods existence, assuming his existence or interpreting phenomena as needing his existence, seems the best anyone can come up with.
The only thing always missing when proof for god is offered, is any genuine proof for god itself.
And that's the best you can come up with?