Real Science Radio in Portsmouth UK with Genesis Expo

[6days]

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?

Bee waggle, animal calls etc are forms of communication....evidence of intelligence.

 

[gcthomas]

Bee waggle, animal calls etc are forms of communication....evidence of intelligence.

Bees created the waggle dance using intelligence? What signs do bees show of any sort of problem solving intelligence day to day? And how did the bee genius communicate the details of her new communication system to the other bees all around the world? You sound silly claiming bee intelligence.

And you left off the very unintelligent stars using code to communicate their composition to us. Who invented the one to one mapping used in that code?

 

[Stripe]

If you remember, I started with specific conceptions. It was you who insisted on the simplistic linguistic pseudo logic.

No. You started with an ignorant troll:

Rosevear could never have been a university lecturer or professor.

Then when presented with evidence, you tried to make the discussion about something else. 6 said DNA is evidence of a designer, to which you said there are two types of code:

Since DNA is not an arbitrary code, but a functional one, evolution applies to progenitor codes.

Clearly an attempt to avoid dealing with the issue: Codes require a code maker.

Trying to muddy the waters by introducing different kinds of codes does not deny the fact that a code — regardless of whether it is functional or arbitrary — needs a code maker.

Not to mention that you've since flip-flopped, asserting that DNA is not a code.

You have still to demonstrate your claim that all codes require a designer. Without that your logic fails to prove anything.

I don't need to demonstrate my claim. It just needs to be testable and falsifiable.

Science. Learn how it works. :up:

 

[Stripe]

What signs do bees show of any sort of problem solving intelligence day to day?

A lot more than you, it seems.

Perhaps most surprising to the scientists was how quickly the bumblebees learned from their trial and error method. Before this study, such sophisticated learning was "thought to be something only larger-brained animals were capable of," says Lars Chittka, a behavioral ecologist at Queen Mary, University London and another member of the team.

You sound silly denying bee intelligence.

And you left off the very unintelligent stars using code to communicate their composition to us. Who invented the one to one mapping used in that code?

So if something moves, it is a code? :AMR:

Can you tell us something that is not a code?

 

[gcthomas]

A lot more than you, it seems.

Perhaps most surprising to the scientists was how quickly the bumblebees learned from their trial and error method. Before this study, such sophisticated learning was "thought to be something only larger-brained animals were capable of," says Lars Chittka, a behavioral ecologist at Queen Mary, University London and another member of the team.

You sound silly denying bee intelligence.


So if something moves, it is a code? :AMR:

Can you tell us something that is not a code?

Trial and error learning is not the same thing as developing an arbitrary symbolic code. Do you still not have the wit to understand that?

Frauenhoffer lines directly encode the quantum behaviour of the ions in star atmospheres. The encoding is not arbitrary, since the lines are produced by a process, so no code book is required. The mechanism/algorithm does the translation.

DNA translation in to proteins is not arbitrary, since the amino acids that match the produced RNA is determined by the chemical properties of the amino acids and DNA bases, so no code book required. The mechanism/algorithm does the translation.

If DNA is a code, so are Frauenhoffer lines. If you are claiming bee intelligence is sufficient to design a symbolic code with a code book translation in their brains, then how much lower intelligence is necessary to 'design' a non symbolic code without a code book?

Is that the level of creator intelligence you are claiming codes are evidence for?

 

[Stripe]

Trial and error learning is not the same thing as developing an arbitrary symbolic code.

Shifting the goalposts is a logical fallacy.

Frauenhoffer lines directly encode the quantum behaviour of the ions in star atmospheres. The encoding is not arbitrary, since the lines are produced by a process, so no code book is required. The mechanism/algorithm does the translation.

DNA translation in to proteins is not arbitrary, since the amino acids that match the produced RNA is determined by the chemical properties of the amino acids and DNA bases, so no code book required. The mechanism/algorithm does the translation.

If DNA is a code, so are Frauenhoffer lines. If you are claiming bee intelligence is sufficient to design a symbolic code with a code book translation in their brains, then how much lower intelligence is necessary to 'design' a non symbolic code without a code book?

Is that the level of creator intelligence you are claiming codes are evidence for?

Can you name something that isn't a code?

 

[gcthomas]

Can you name something that isn't a code?

DNA is not a code in the strict sense. The bee is not a code.

Care to answer my questions now, if you can?

 

[Stripe]

DNA is not a code in the strict sense.

We're not interested in your silly semantic games. To the extent that it is a code, it requires a code maker.

The bee is not a code.

Well, that's a relief.

 

[Lon]

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?

Of course God did it. Think of "god" as creator,maker of the code. Such may not be a personal deity to begin with, but you have to recognize, logically, something makes things. There is no escape from that.

In the end, we are talking about whether that 'something' is sentient but get on page where you can. It is JUST as bad when an agnostic/atheist/evolutionist denies what is obvious and logical as it is conversely. Science has been great about figuring out how God-did-it or even good guesses when it isn't quite right. It is too bad God doesn't play a bigger role in science discovery. It'd actually foster greater science. All century changing innovations in science have been by those who are deists.

 

[gcthomas]

We're not interested in your silly semantic games. To the extent that it is a code, it requires a code maker.

Well, that's a relief.

Repeated assertion without evidence. You don't really get this conversation lark, do you?
:loser:

 

[Stripe]

Repeated assertion without evidence.

All I need is for my assertion to be testable and falsifiable. You don't really get this science lark, do you?

 

[gcthomas]

All I need is for my assertion to be testable and falsifiable. You don't really get this science lark, do you?

You don't seem to have answered any questions arising from my answers to you.

Frauenhoffer lines clearly encode information from the origin stars. They are easy to translate, and clearly contain information.

Did the stars have the intelligence to create the code? Is it a case of you dismissing all counter examples without thought? Will you reject this as Lon did , with a quick Goddidit?

Go on, join in. It is boring having a discussion where you contribute nothing. Of you can't answer, just say so.

 

[Stripe]

You don't seem to have answered any questions arising from my answers to you.

That's because you are desperate to talk about anything but the evidence 6 outlined.

Frauenhoffer lines clearly encode information from the origin stars. They are easy to translate, and clearly contain information.

Which is a description that can be applied to everything that moves. Can you name something that does not "encode information"?

Did the stars have the intelligence to create the code?

No. It's not a code. It is data that has been analysed. A code might have been developed by which to analyse later data. People made that code.

 

[gcthomas]

So your claim is not falsifiable after all, despite your claims. You simply reject all challenges without thought.

Why do you object to the idea that information encoding, and therefore your simple idea of codes, are indeed widespread in nature? Especially if you widen the definition of codes so it is loose enough to include DNA.

They don't need a designer if bees are clever enough to construct one!

 

[Jonahdog]

So your claim is not falsifiable after all, despite your claims. You simply reject all challenges without thought.

Why do you object to the idea that information encoding, and therefore your simple idea of codes, are indeed widespread in nature? Especially if you widen the definition of codes so it is loose enough to include DNA.

They don't need a designer if bees are clever enough to construct one!

But you miss the point. His god designed and created the bees. Although, how the bee survived The Flood is beyond me. Must have been some hives on those floating vegetation mats because I think "The Standard Flood Model" does not provide for taking insects on the boat.

 

[Stripe]

So your claim is not falsifiable after all, despite your claims.

Nope. show us a code that does not have a code maker.

You simply reject all challenges without thought.

Nope. Answered sensibly.

Why do you object to the idea that information encoding, and therefore your simple idea of codes, are indeed widespread in nature?

I don't.

Especially if you widen the definition of codes so it is loose enough to include DNA.

Who is widening anything?

DNA fits the dictionary definition and even evolutionists call it a code.

They don't need a designer if bees are clever enough to construct one!

:darwinsm:

You are so easily confused.

 

[gcthomas]

Why did you reject the Frauenhoffer line code?

 

[Stripe]

Why did you reject the Frauenhoffer line code?

Where did you get your mind-reading powers?

I'd ask for your money back. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

Where did you get your mind-reading powers?

I'd ask for your money back. :up:

Should I repeat the question using shorter words?

Anyway, if you haven't rejected the Frauenhoffer lines code, then your junior school logical 'proof' falls at the first hurdle.

 

[Stripe]

Should I repeat the question using shorter words? Anyway, if you haven't rejected the Frauenhoffer lines code, then your junior school logical 'proof' falls at the first hurdle.

Nope. As explained.