Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

Yes, the Genetic Code is Evidence for Intelligent Design

-
EvoTARDs are so predictable. Show them evidence for ID and all they do is whine and deny. However they will never step up and demonstrate physicochemical processes can produce what ID says was designed. Case in point-> the genetic code.

We say the genetic code is evidence for ID for the simple and scientific reasoning as follows:

1- In all of our experiences and observations codes always originate from intelligent agencies. Codes have the attributes of work and counterflow. And those attributes have been used for centuries to detect design.

2- No one would even know how to model nature producing a code. Such a thing would be like saying nature can produce computer codes.

3- Therefor it is safe to infer an intelligent agency produced a code when we do not know the who did it.

Science 101. And that inference can be refuted if someone ever steps up and actually demonstrates that nature can produce it.

posted by Joe G @ 8:14 AM  

39 Comments:

  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Replace "intelligent agencies" with "people" for more honesty / accuracy, chubs.

     

  • At 10:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! @ the cupcake. Can't refute the claim so attempt distractions. Typical but still lame.

     

  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Not really, chubs. Science likes precision, you don't. When we're honest and precise about the class of entities, it all falls down. I didn't need to refute your claim, I clearly improved it.

     

  • At 12:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Your position doesn't have any precision nor accuracy, cupcake. And when we are honest and precise about entities necessity and chance cannot produce codes, so you lose, as usual.

     

  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    and there we have it again. Chubs (original cupcake, was so upset he went back and changed his old post, and lied) defeated again so he has a little cry and a whine about evolution.

     

  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, and here we have it again. Richie the cupcake cannot form an argument and thinks his ignorance and cowardice refutes something.

    The OP stands, unrefuted. Richie teh cupcake is a confused TARD.

     

  • At 1:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW, dikhead, the attack on evolutionism was in the OP and there isn't anything you can do about it but whine.

     

  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Waaaah waaaaah poor old chubs. Has his premises corrected, has a good cry.

     

  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! More cowardly spewage from Captain Coward. How does cupcake's "correction" affect my argument? It doesn't. It just exposes his desperation.

     

  • At 4:12 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You are so dense. No really. It would affect (a, not e) your argument like this :

    3- Therefor it is safe to infer an PEOPLE produced a code when we do not know the who did it.

     

  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! No moron, if people could not have done it then we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Mother nature doesn't magically get the ability to produce codes just cuz people weren't around.

    Dipshit

     

  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    That's a problem for you if you're honest with your premises (You aren't of course, because you are Joe.)

     

  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What problem? That you are an ignorant dipshit? That is your problem, cupcake.

    3.1 million dollars if you could just refute my premises and show that nature can produce the genetic code. I know you won't be submitting anything.

     

  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I've already corrected your premises, chubs, to something more honest. You don't have $3.10, and I don't see anyone with deeper pockets co-opting your tragic argument.

     

  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You didn't correct anything, cupcake. And I am not the one offering the 3.1 million dollars, ole ignorant coward.

    OK so Richie admits he is an ignorant coward and cannot form an actual argument against my OP.

     

  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We say the genetic code is evidence for ID for the simple and scientific reasoning as follows:

    1- In all of our experiences and observations codes always originate from intelligent agencies. Codes have the attributes of work and counterflow. And those attributes have been used for centuries to detect design.

    2- No one would even know how to model nature producing a code. Such a thing would be like saying nature can produce computer codes.

    3- Therefor it is safe to infer an intelligent agency produced a code when we do not know the who did it.

    Science 101. And that inference can be refuted if someone ever steps up and actually demonstrates that nature can produce it.

    Safe and sound, especially from the likes of Richie the cupcake Hughes.

     

  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Already been corrected, chubs. You holding onto it after the fact is typically creationist.

     

  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What correction, cupcake? Are you saying that humans are not intelligent agencies? Thios is all your "correction" has wrought:

    1- In all of our experiences and observations codes always originate from humans and other animals. Codes have the attributes of work and counterflow. And those attributes have been used for centuries to detect design.

    2- No one would even know how to model nature producing a code. Such a thing would be like saying nature can produce computer codes.

    3- Humans and other animals could not have produced the genetic code so therefor it is safe to infer some other intelligent agency produced the genetic code

    You still lose, cupcake.

     

  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie Hughes, self-proclaimed inventor of "cupcake" as an insult and "BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" as an internet mocking reply.

     

  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Can you show me where I claimed to invent cupcake? Link? Of course you can't , because it's one of your many lies. What is true is you changed your blog history to try and support your lies, but being below average IQ got caught. It's also true that your word choice is informed by those smarter than you - you are an intellectual and emotional child.

     

  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, Richie, by you attacking me for not being original for mocking you with your spewage, you are saying that you were being original by using it.

    So by your logic you are the unoriginal, intellectual and emotional infant.

    Nice own goal, cupcake

     

  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    That doesn't follow at all. And you can't provide a link. Caught lying again. It's funny it bothers you so much you lied and changed your blog. What a mentally impoverished child you are.

     

  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of course it follows. You cannot call someone else unoriginal for mocking you while you are being unoriginal in your attempt to insult. But I understand that your low IQ doesn't allow you to grasp such subtleties of life.

    What's funny is watching you choke on the arguments for Intelligent Design. What is even funnier is watching you squirm when asked to support evolutionism.

    You are the epitome of a mentally impoverished child.

    Two own goals and it's only morning. Richie Cupcake Hughes meltdown in progress...

     

  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    The mocking was for taking something leveled at your porky self and then using the age old playground "No you are" in your generally stunted level of discourse. It was funny because it hurt you so much you went back and changed your blog history to suggest you used it first between us, but you didn't and you got caught lying (again) because the internet is one of the many, many, many things you don't understand. Why do you think we spot your every sock after so few posts? Because you're a retard with a tiny vocabulary and no imagination.

     

  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Little Richie Hughes finds himself on the pitch, in his school shorts, shirt and tie, with the ball at his feet and twelve meters from the goal. He is wondering what the fuck is happening as no one has ever passed him the ball and he was watching the birds setting off for the south. He is snapped back to reality by overwhelming shouts for him to kick the ball with some yelling for him to kick it in the goal. Little Richie has never had the ball before let alone score a goal! So all at once he turned and with his mightiest of kicks Little Richie scored, only to have his best friend knock him down for kicking the ball past him for an own goal.

    From thence on Richie was a cupcake and his friends let him know it every day.

     

  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Richie you are easily mocked as you aren't in any position to insult anyone.

    And my claim was that I have been using "cupcake" as an insult since before the internet. You went all hissy-fit and acted as if you invented it. Then I played with you some more and now look at you. This is pure entertainment.

    What's funny is watching you choke on the arguments for Intelligent Design. What is even funnier is watching you squirm when asked to support evolutionism.

    You are the epitome of a mentally impoverished child, Richie

     

  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    DNA is NOT a code.
    It is more of a template, and not a very good one either, because it often makes mistakes.

    Although vernacular language sometimes uses the word 'code' to describe DNA, it is no more scientifically correct to say that 'DNA is a code for living organisms', than it is to say that 'H2O is a code for glaciers'.

    So implying that DNA requires a designer because it is 'a code' is jumping to an unwarranted conclusion from the basis of a false premise.

     

  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I did not say that DNA was a code. Please learn how to read.

    Try again...

     

  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You are splitting semantic straws, because everyone knows that genes are made of DNA.

    However, if it makes you more comfortable for me to say that 'genes are not codes', or that 'a genome is not a code', then so be it; but it still makes no difference to the meaning of what I wrote, leaving my point still standing and awaiting a response.

     

  • At 3:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are clueless. What you wrote and what you are saying have nothing to do with the OP. The genetic code is the transcription of mRNA from DNA AND the translation of that mRNA into proteins. mRNA codons represent amino acids. They do not become them via some physicochemical process.

    Grow up

     

  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Well it doesn't matter WHICH part of the process you want to tie your definition to, my point STILL stands that the so called 'genetic code' is NOT a code for living organisms, anymore than 'water' is a code for glaciers.

    And, of course, it in no way implies the existence of any kind of 'designer', anymore than water does.

    Those are the REAL points of my first post, that STILL await a response.

     

  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Biochemistry textbooks say the genetic code is a code in the same sense that the Morse code is a code. H2O makes the glacier, moron. Nucleotides do not make the amino acids.

    You are just an uneducated fool.

     

  • At 6:35 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes, yes, yes.
    I know that the genetic code is called a code, but at whatever point of transcription or translation you mention, it's still a matter of chemicals working as templates, whether you like it or not.

    But even if I conceded that it IS a code, you're STILL not addressing my main query:

    How does ANY of this genetic process imply the existence of a 'designer'?

     

  • At 7:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is called a code because it is a code. The OP explains why it is evidence for a designer. Read it.

     

  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Ha Ha!
    No, your post does NOT supply ANY scientific evidence for a 'designer' of the 'genetic code'.

    The ONLY thing your post supplies is a string of logical fallacies.

    Number 1) is just an argument from ignorance.
    Just because the cause of something doesn't fit with our other experiences and observations, it doesn't mean it can't exist as a cause for an observed phenomena.

    You're asking observed reality to conform with our limits of knowledge, and that is NOT scientific.

    And the VERY SAME argument can be used to refute a 'designer', because all of our 'experiences and observations' have never given us direct evidence of a 'designer'.

    2) The same fallacy.
    So what if 'noone would even know how to model nature using a code'?

    Why would you try to limit the universe to the limits of our capabilities?

    And who said that nature can't produce computer codes?

    Humans are nature aren't we?
    So nature HAS produced computer codes after all!

    3) Therefore it is NOT safe to infer a 'designer' from such flimsy and fallacious premises.....ESPECIALLY without providing ANY possible mechanism, timing, or independent lines of supporting evidence to show such an intervention by an outside agency.....

    ....Because Science 101: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

    And you AIN'T GOT IT.

    All you 'got' is the extraordinary claim, and just like Bigfoot, mere 'possibilities' aren't good enough for science.

    A 'designer' is not a phenomena that is observed, can be tested, or remain the only inference available.

    We KNOW that natural chemical processes exist, but we have ZERO evidence of ANY such possible external 'designer' for life on Earth.

    So UNTIL we do, we are unable to use a hypothetical entity to explain or account for ANYTHING if there is no evidence that such an entity exists, or has EVER existed.

    Thus it REMAINS a hypothetical.

     

  • At 9:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Number 1) is just an argument from ignorance.

    And yet it is based on all of our knowledge. Every experience, every observation confirms it.

    Humans are nature aren't we?

    We exist in nature but so do our cars, and we know that nature didn't produce them.

    3.1 million dollars if you can just support your claim- but we know you will never attempt to collect it

     

  • At 2:18 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    * It doesn't matter WHAT we know, have experienced, or have observed.
    There is still NO good reason to assert that a 'genetic code' cannot exist without some kind of conscious designer.
    Especially since you are UNABLE to show any mechanism for such a conscious intervention, or any timing of such an intervention by an external agent.

    Furthermore, there is no 'law of nature' that says a 'code' is the inevitable product of intelligence.
    How do you account for the pheromone 'codes' of insects?
    Are you saying that insects are intelligent?

    * The word 'nature' is a loaded and subjective word anyway, which has zero scientific meaning.
    You may think that cars are not 'natural' because we made them, but is a birdnest or a silk coccoon not 'natural' because they were made by living organisms?

    Are those structures not 'designed' if they don't require intelligence to build?

    I want you to actually answer those questions.

    * Support my claim?
    What claim?..........I haven't made any claim!

    I'm here because I noticed YOUR bizarre claims about ID!

    YOU are the one making the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that some kind of conscious 'designer' entity is responsible for our existence, and yet you have supplied ZERO scientific evidence for such an entity.

    YOU are the one who bears the onus of proof for YOUR positive claim, and until you provide that proof, you can be dismissed as a totally deluded goofball with either an overactive imagination, or worse, an idealogical agenda.

    Which WOULD account for why you are just schlepping around, ranting on some obscure blog instead of accepting a Nobel Prize.

    Surely that reality of your situatiom must give you SOME pause for thought,..hmm?

     

  • At 7:32 AM, Blogger Shazzbot said…

    @tsopmocful
    Hello, I'd like to respond to your comment on ID. Please don't take this response as harsh or offensive, I really don't mean that.
    "* It doesn't matter WHAT we know, have experienced, or have observed."
    Yes it does. Science relies heavily and progresses based on experiences and observations. And science has been rather successful.
    "There is still NO good reason to assert that a 'genetic code' cannot exist without some kind of conscious designer"
    YES THERE IS an amazingly good reason to consider that.
    1st. Whenever we tracked a code to its origin, we always ended up with intelligence as its ultimate source.
    2nd. There is absolutely no evidence of any alternative cause, whether material or immaterial.
    While, PHILOSOPHICALLY ,in general, it would be fallacious to say that "Intelligence is the only possible cause of a genetic code" based only on facts 1 & 2(A general philosopher will say "But that doesn't mean that there is no other , yet unknown, cause of codes), but in terms of the philosophy of SCIENCE, it's not fallacious at all. It's valid.
    For example, let's take the facts that the universe is expanding and also let's look at the concept of atoms.
    Universal expansion : Astronomers concluded this based on the fact that they'd seen something akin to the "Doppler Effect" (but for light), they didn't (and don't) see the universe expanding DIRECTLY. Based on our observations, such effects come solely from the fact that the source of the sound(and, in this case, light) is either moving closer or away(away, in this case). But hey, we could've easily said "But that doesn't prove that the movement of the light's source is the only possible explanation, what if there's an unknown cause behind this?" and voila! no cosmic expansion! See where I'm going?
    As for the case with atoms : We don't perceive them (yes, not even via a microscope), but they are such an elegant explanation for the higher properties of matter and its behavior that virtually no scientist doubts that atoms exist. But hey, anyone could've said "But what if there's a different, yet unknown, lower-level cause?" and voila! no atomic theory! The case is the same with the relationship between intelligence and genetic code(well, any code in general).
    "
    YOU are the one making the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that some kind of conscious 'designer' entity is responsible for our existence, and yet you have supplied ZERO scientific evidence for such an entity."
    We don't need to have separate evidence for an entity. If we can scientifically conclude that an object requires at least one designer, then it's clear that at least 1 designer MUST exist. Separate evidence isn't needed.
    Also, if by this "entity" you mean God, I strongly disagree. I believe that current scientific knowledge unequivocally points to a Creator. The consensus? Probably not, but the consensus, while reliable(otherwise we'd be screwed), isn't infallible by any stretch of the imagination.

     

  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Shazzbot said…

    Again, some further remarks.
    "Especially since you are UNABLE to show any mechanism for such a conscious intervention, or any timing of such an intervention by an external agent"
    That's probably true, at least as of yet. We don't know scientifically how to establish this or that mechanism. We don't know the "HOW", but that absolutely doesn't mean that we cannot know the "WHAT".
    We may not know HOW the Designer created such a genetic code,but we can, scientifically, know that at least one Designer WAS involved.
    "Furthermore, there is no 'law of nature' that says a 'code' is the inevitable product of intelligence."
    IF by saying "law of nature", you mean something that the scientific consensus considers a "law", I agree. The consensus doesn't exactly consider it a law, but, based on current scientific knowledge, it is legitimate to establish such a law.
    "How do you account for the pheromone 'codes' of insects?
    Are you saying that insects are intelligent?"
    I really don't see what the problem is here. Codes are the method of communication. Now, it may be the case that the insects don't really have "minds"("souls" so to speak), but in such a case it can easily be explained by saying that the Designer(s) preordained their parts and installed a code as a way of communication between them. Just like programmers can establish codes(with appropriate coding and decoding standards) for communication between machines. That means that, while the machines are USING the codes as methods for communication, they are NOT responsible for the origin of such codes.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "* The word 'nature' is a loaded and subjective word anyway, which has zero scientific meaning."
    Well, I think I have to agree. I haven't read a proper dictionary definition of what that means as of now. Also, there are, as we intuitively know, multiple meanings. But for the sake of OUR discussion let's say that "nature" is the material world its phenomena. (as offered by thefreedictionary)
    "You may think that cars are not 'natural' because we made them, but is a birdnest or a silk coccoon not 'natural' because they were made by living organisms?"
    Well, by the definition I provided above, all of those are natural.
    "Are those structures not 'designed' if they don't require intelligence to build?"
    IF you're talking about your previous examples - bird nest and cocoon , then, if those creatures really don't have minds, then I can explain this phenomena in a way as I explained previously. So, based on that, both the nest and the cocoon are ultimately designed.
    You see, while we may not see an intelligence getting DIRECTLY involved into the creation of something, that doesn't mean that it isn't ultimately required.
    For example, cars are (to a large extent) not the direct product of human minds - pre-programed machinery is involved. But to say that they(minds) were not the ultimate cause of cars is preposterous , of course!
    I hope I've added something to the discussion. Please don't respond with insults.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home