It's called a conversation.
We know why you have to keep those from developing.
:darwinsm:
You're going to prove that something might be true?
Awesome. :chuckle:
Real Science Radio in Portsmouth UK with Genesis Expo
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
We know why you have to keep those from developing.
You're going to prove that something might be true?
Awesome. :chuckle:
gcthomas
New member
I know you only pretend to understand logic so you get to throw out mock intellectual snipes, but you don't have to make it so obvious.
You: All codes are designed, DNA is a code, therefore DNA is designed.
Me: I only need to show that one of your first two statements are not by necessity true and your logic fails.
You: Emoticon mock.
Are you sure you want a conversation? You don't seem to want to engage rationally.
Please, engage with the challenge to your own logical claim. If my summary above is wrong, spell of your logic more clearly. If it is accurate, stop being so petulant and respond thoughtfully.
(have you got sorted on the differences between code and cypher yet?)
gcthomas
New member
gcthomas
New member
DNA is a cipher, not a code: there is no code book for the translation. It is processed simply by an algorithm, a mechanical process.
Now tell me all algorithms need a maker.
DNA is a cipher, not a code: there is no code book for the translation. It is processed simply by an algorithm, a mechanical process. Now tell me all algorithms need a maker.
We're not talking about the method by which it is processed.
We're talking about where the code came from.
All codes need a code maker.
DNA is a cipher, not a code: there is no code book for the translation. It is processed simply by an algorithm, a mechanical process.
Now tell me all algorithms need a maker.
Interesting, what is the difference between a code and an algorithm? You aren't suggesting that Stripey and others have stumbled upon the word "code" and define it a certain way to meet their agenda are you. Heavens, that would be misrepresenting something.
We expect nothing less from you. Stripe.
6days
New member
Stripe, you are correct. That is pretty simple logic. So, its always amusing, but never surprising that evolutionists argue DNA is not a code. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html). Yet even evolutionists call it a codeStripe said:
dictionary definition of 'CODE' "a system of signals or symbols for communication" (that's exactly what DNA is)
Or
"genetic code"
Wikipedia "The*genetic code*is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA*or*mRNA*sequences) is*translated*intoproteins*by living*cells."
Bill Gates said:
University of Washington said:
*Yockey shows that the coding process in DNA is exactly the same as in mathematical *and Electrical Engineering.Hubert P. Yockey said:
Nature said:
Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago said:
(textbook) Cell Biology and Genetics [/quote said:
So...... yes DNA is a code.*
Yes....codes require a code maker.
Evolutionists can't give a single example of symbolic relationships / codes ever occurring except by design.
God's Word tells us WHO that designer is.
Awesome. :thumb:
gcthomas
New member
Idiots.
Try a proper search.
https://startpage.com/do/search?q=code+vs+cipher+
How do you guys ever find anything reliable on the Web?
For your info, dictionaries are not good sources of technical definitions, only for finding common usage. No surprise that it reinforces your common usage of the word code! Did neither of you search for cipher?
Try a proper search.
https://startpage.com/do/search?q=code+vs+cipher+
How do you guys ever find anything reliable on the Web?
For your info, dictionaries are not good sources of technical definitions, only for finding common usage. No surprise that it reinforces your common usage of the word code! Did neither of you search for cipher?
We're not playing your silly semantic game.
DNA is a code. Codes require a code maker.
You replacing "code" with "cipher" is a red herring and would not affect the corresponding challenge.
gcthomas
New member
If you remember, I started with specific conceptions. It was you who insisted on the simplistic linguistic pseudo logic.
You have still to demonstrate your claim that all codes require a designer. Without that your logic fails to prove anything.
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: As stated, an exercise in the LEAST exertion would have confirmed what is unnecessary (they voice their concern yet report his tenure as fact among other easily researchable data (* formerly Portsmouth Polytechnic ).
I have no idea who this guy is, but to attack what seems beyond question instead of the content you might disagree with is dishonest and character assassination with prejudice. Be responsible or don't post? Just a thought :think: I'm kind of tired of lame unfounded attacks (no matter who is doing it). Provide your own research or leave it be as inane and shouldn't have been typed out loud irresponsible thought in your head.
Lon
Well-known member
You are in a mood today
Well, a cipher is the way to understand code. It is often associated with what would otherwise be incomprehensible but is a code, but purposefully obscured. All code makes sense or it isn't.
It has to, to provide meaning. For example: we can set a monkey at a typewriter. He will never type a novel. The 'code' isn't. We can form some meaningful observations about his/her typing gobbledy-gook that would be meaningful to other observers. Such wouldn't be a 'cipher' though, it'd be rather a way of making sense out of nonsense. There are scientists who often confuse the difference between 'meaningful' data surrounding what is meaningless or vise-versa.
If, however, there is a code, it must have been coded. "If" there is such a thing as self-coding, it has never been observed, merely speculated, and that is itself, a hard-sell. Evolutionists may not like that, but it is what is being passed and it is counter to religious as well as logical claims (equally valid in society as valuable and human in experience and make-up). "Is this true?" or "I'm not sure I believe that" are friends to scientists. Creationists are better friends to scientists than the dupes and drones out there. Science demands inspection for progress, which is also evidenced by design and purpose, science uses and embraces the very thing it may not agree/denies actually exists! Someone actually had to design the monkey's typewriter. The analogies, themselves, require a maker.
-Lon
6days
New member
GC. ...evolutionists often try define things in a way that fits their belief system. For example Richard Dawkins commonly instructs that things have 'the appearance of design, but don't refer to it as designed.' *They obviously don't want people to think that designed things may have a designer. *
Likewise Dawkins and Talk Origins instructs their followers that the DNA code...is not a code. They obviously don't want their fellow believers to think that the DNA code, may have a code maker.*
But....The DNA code....is a code! It's the same as the language of computer codes. (But far more sophisticated with having meta data / meta programming). Yet, people aren't arguing that 1's and 2's are not a computer *code. People don't argue that the Morse Code should be called the Morse cipher. People don't argue that languages are not a true code. The words code, language, information all apply to DNA, and all those words imply intelligence. Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project called DNA "our own instruction book". *Again it's a term that implies intelligence.*
Likewise Dawkins and Talk Origins instructs their followers that the DNA code...is not a code. They obviously don't want their fellow believers to think that the DNA code, may have a code maker.*
But....The DNA code....is a code! It's the same as the language of computer codes. (But far more sophisticated with having meta data / meta programming). Yet, people aren't arguing that 1's and 2's are not a computer *code. People don't argue that the Morse Code should be called the Morse cipher. People don't argue that languages are not a true code. The words code, language, information all apply to DNA, and all those words imply intelligence. Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project called DNA "our own instruction book". *Again it's a term that implies intelligence.*
gcthomas
New member
Whichever natural code I suggest, you will say Goddidit.
I suggested DNA as a natural code (to use your preferred style). No, it's a code so Goddidit.
How about the honey bee waggle dance? Goddidit?
Animal calls encode information. Created or naturally occurred?
How about Frauenhoffer lines that encode composition information about many stars like a bar code? Natural coding or Goddidit?
I suggested DNA as a natural code (to use your preferred style). No, it's a code so Goddidit.
How about the honey bee waggle dance? Goddidit?
Animal calls encode information. Created or naturally occurred?
How about Frauenhoffer lines that encode composition information about many stars like a bar code? Natural coding or Goddidit?