My arguments against religions
Offline I posted these on a website because people where really getting "all up in the face" of the blogger.
The blogger had posted some information trying to explain that DNA wasn't code and the description given was for laymen purposes.
Anyway... here are my arguments
P1 - Code is created by a humans
P2 - Humans perfect their code by checking for errors in the code
P3 - Code that has no errors has been perfected
C1 - Perfect code can be created by humans
P1 - DNA is said to be a code
P2 - DNA has errors
P3 - DNA is not perfected
C2 - DNA is not created code
P1 - There is a theory which was called "The Big Bang" for non-scientific individuals
P2 - Big bangs make loud noises
P3 - There was no loud noises during "The Big Bang"
C3 - "The Big Bang" is not an explosion
P1 - DNA was explained to non-scientific individuals as being code
P2 - The term code is used by "creationists" has proof their god exists
P3 - Needing proof of anything means you don't have faith in it.
C4 - "Creationists" who need proof of their god's existence have no faith in their god
P1 - "Creationists" want DNA to be code so they can prove their god exists.
P2 - If DNA is code that was created then it must be from a "god" or a "creator"
P3 - "Creationists" have not provided proof it was their "god"
C5 - Their "god" did not create DNA because they have not provided proof that their god exists.
- Login to post comments
My only thoughts on this are regarding perfect code. The performance of code, even fully debugged, is subject to the system it is running on which is also potentially subject to other inter-related systems.
A piece of code that is "perfect" for 5 months might break on month 6 when a system update is applied. A completely static system still changes eventually as data driven applications create increasing requirements, and process driven applications are only as good as the protocols in which they communicate with which are subject to constant updates if not for performance reasons then for evolving security concerns.
On the subject of your apologetics though, you could probably easily herring and derail the ID discussion into a FC debate and state that code does not require a coder, since code can create code. If code can create code, and DNA is code, then DNA could have been created by another code and not necessarily by a coder.
I agree about the system, but if the system does not change, stays the same, then the code is perfect. I say this because I come from a AS400 and Mainframe background. I was a system operator for ten years before switching over on a permanent basis to Novell and Microsoft.
AS/400's and Mainframes almost never changed and code always remained the same. The head programmer for one of the companies I worked for had code in the system which was running for over twenty years, completely unchanged. It ever crashed. Never burped. It always worked.
My point about the code is that DNA is flawed. It copies bad code. This leads to an imperfect programmer which goes against the ideals of the followers. Sure, they will say it is part of the "master plan" but I disagree because that is an assumption.
The issue with DNA being called code is that the original media reports called it DNA code. If the scientists who were being interviewed said a different word then it wouldn't be an issue. This is just like the "big bang". There was no "bang". It was an expansion, like blowing up a balloon.
DNA is a chemical based change which reacts to variables of the environment that it is in; it doesn't have a structure that you have "if then" or "goto" statements. In this sense I think religious people need DNA to be called code to verify their belief. They have no faith so the substitute with science.
I see where you're coming from on the static systems, but eventually they become obsolete. Since external hardware is always changing, it's only a matter of time before the bank or manufacturing system etc. requires an upgrade which necessitates a rewrite of code or potentially breaking code even if it remained on the z series path in your example.
Not to say that it's not possible or won't ever exist - to create a closed static system that wouldn't require updates, but the nature of economics and moore's law tells us over time the previous code will deprecate.
I will try to better articulate what I meant to illustrate. If you compare DNA to computer code, then organisms are to DNA as computer hardware is to code. DNA as a code is adaptable to various hardware (plant life, animals, etc) whereas computer code must be specifically written or translated to meet hardware. Code you write on an AS/400 cannot be ported over to a Solaris SPARC box without a rewrite or recompile.
So in many stages the code requires human intervention to continue functioning, and is not simply perfectly adaptable. This even applies to low level assembly which is independent of OS but differs in instruction set on different CPU architectures.
Since we're on the subject, my handle by the way - ax - is shorthand for the assembly AX register. I am beneath your kernel.
You're absolutely right on this. I'm not sure how you can explain this in layman's though.
On a side note, I find it pretty interesting how many of us here are technology enthusiasts. I'm taking notes on these things.
Though I get the feeling no one else will join our conversation on this one. :/
I have had people tell me : DNA is a language and the only thing that can create a language is intelligence. DNA is not a "language" in the term that they are thinking of. Now I have never heard arguments about DNA being a code, that is a fairly new one to me.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I was wondering about your name....
So going back to DNA. It's just a very poor, last ditch effort for people who say they believe in god, but don't have a drop of faith, trying to justify their belief system. Every one who knows DNA, knows it isn't actually code. It isn't a language. It wasn't written.
Sure, information in the sense of chemical is transferred, but if I say "DNA copies itself" I'm actually committing a fallacy. DNA doesn't copy itself. To say it "copies itself" implies that DNA has intelligence. It doesn't. It is a reaction to chemicals.
Also, as I've pointed out previously, the whole "DNA is code" is a flawed premise because DNA is not some perfect item created by intelligence. It copies flaws (or mistakes) which signifies to me a lack of intelligence. If I look at DNA logically and say "if I were to have created this" why would I want to copy flaws? why would I want to have failures during the copying (some thing creationists never bring up). Logic tells me that there are better ways to make DNA.
All true. I think your counterarguments are sound. Maybe you could illustrate to your opponents in laymans the rules and definitions for what is defined as code (without the perfect). That might be enough to show them the error in this ID spin-off.
I'd have to think about it for a while. I usually think it ways which related to the subject foremost in my mind. I had thought this stuff up years ago when I was debating with another person who claimed they had proof that "god" existed. The first thing I saw was the fallacy of the "intelligence" portion. After a while they weren't interested in debating, only improving their fallacy just enough that they could go out on the talk circuit to make some cash.
Calling DNA code has become an misnomer just like the 'big bang' has become a common term, people think it's true because people use it all the time. It's like calling a meteor a "shooting star".
Technically by definition one could say DNA is code, but definitely not synonymous with computer code. Off the top of my head I can't think of any simple ways to illustrate this. If you come up with something I'd be curious to hear it, I could definitely reuse such an example in the future.
I believe the term "code" is misused. The word, code, itself is not what theists want it to be: a language.
A code is a rule for converting a piece of information into another object or action, not necessarily of the same sort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_(disambiguation)
DNA is not a rule. It does not function in such a manner.
I concur. This is one of those times that scientists kick themselves for not using a better analogy when communicating their findings to the public.
DNA isn't a code like Morse, it's a plethora of chemical reactions.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yes, and when I bring up those chemical reactions to theists they tell me that those reactions happen in a specific manner. They are reacting in a code like way so that the cells know how to divide, etc.
But I have argued that DNA is a strand of information which (with many other variables) reacts to, but does not COMMUNICATE to cells what they should form. It's ambiguous to the cell as it does not know that the cell exists nor was it formed to fit the cell as a piece of a puzzle. It is billions of years of trial and errors, I believe, on multiple planets, asteroids, moons, etc, where these variables have come together to create life.
I do not believe that carbon based life forms are the only forms of life in the Universe. I can't prove other wise. I have no information to support my opinion. I merely see life as being more versatile than we think it is; and this has already been proved in the last thirty years given that they have found life living in hot springs in 200 degree water, down at the bottom of the ocean with no light, sulfuric acid water and in non-oxygen environments.
So who are we to say that "life" must survive under our conditions? To say so would be ignorant and unwise. Life can survive in many different conditions still unknown to us.
And another item I've notice about theists...
They can't seem to make up their minds if it is a "code" or a "language". It can't be both which is why I know they are confused and grasping at straws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GeneticCode21-version-2.svg
Some things are simply harder to rationalize with words than others.
@ digitalbeachbum
Indeed. You said it well.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Using the term code is still the dumbest thing ever said by any real, legitimate scientist. I'd like to know who first told a reporter, "DNA is like code..."
I should go back in time and kick them in the balls before they said it.
When they ask why I kicked them in the nads I'll reply, "That's for the last four decades of my life and having to deal with theists telling me DNA is code and that an "intelligent designer" invented it..."
To which their reply will be, "What the fuck is an intelligent designer"?
And I will close with, "Exactly!" and then teleport back to my rightful time.
I think I know how you could explain it in separate terms now.
DNA is a biological molecule. DNA replication is a chemical process. The observed patterns that occur during the chemical process from start to end state are predictable based on the sequence of chemical compounds that comprise the DNA structure.
To better understand which patterns result in a particular end state after replication, scientists have created a symbolic language to identify the arrangement of different components in DNA. Genetic code is a reference to this language and the process of "coding" and "encoding" within this context is a perception created and used by these scientists to explain the chemical process in terms of their predefined symbols.
"Genetic code" is therefore a generalization used by scientists to help rationalize the chemical process in a way that is easier for them to work with, however, at the level this process actually occurs, the direct interaction is between compounds not symbols. Since any state of matter, its' constituents, reactions and processes can be represented symbolically, all physical reactions can be defined in terms of a coding language.
This simplification occurs as a result of limited human perception.
I think I figured out this whole DNA code issue.
DNA code was actually created by humans. Yes humans!
“The structure of DNA was discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick. George Gamow postulated that a three-letter code must be employed to encode the 20 standard amino acids used by living cells to encode proteins. With four different nucleotides, a code of 2 nucleotides could only code for a maximum of 42 or 16 amino acids. A code of 3 nucleotides could code for a maximum of 43 or 64 amino acids.”
Crick, Francis (1988). “Chapter 8: The genetic code”. What mad pursuit: a personal view of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books. pp. 89–101.
It was human scientists who said "hey we need to code this to understand it"
So what they did is take the functionality of DNA and then made a code. This code was used to keep track of the DNA and the possible outcomes.
Thus, DNA CODE was invented.
Now, I've seen all this talk about how there is "cellular language" and I'm <palmface> like, WTF is wrong with you people? Do you lack that much faith in your religion that you need to twist reality so that it justifies what you wish was true? That's not faith, that's ignorance.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Nailed it.
I've been compiling alot of info from our discussions here and hope to market it on the web a bit soon. My idea is still far from reality, but hopefully I'll eventually get a chance to ask some of these people this same question.
a description of XNA, RNA and DNA as biochemical ecosystems in which the fittest gene structures replicate and survive. It's a curious, curious thing. Of that there is no doubt.
Nevertheless, we are all fundamentally made of porridge for breakfast, thai for lunch and fish for tea. There's no consumption of supernatural ether required to drive life's molecular systems.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I failed with the fallacy of four. When I was typing this stuff up I wanted to include more information than I needed. I need to rebuild each of these with only three terms.
P1 - Code is created by a humans
P2 - Humans perfect their code by checking for errors in the code
C1 - Perfect code can be created by humans
P1 - DNA is said to be a code created by an intelligent mind
P2 - DNA has errors
C2 - DNA is not created code by an intelligent mind
P1 - The Universe is said to have started with "The Big Bang"
P2 - Big explosions make no loud noises in outer-space
C3 - "The Big Bang" is not really a "Bang"
P1 - The term code is used by "creationists" has proof their god exists
P2 - Needing proof of anything means you don't have faith in it.
C4 - "Creationists" who need proof of their god's existence have no faith in their god
P1 - If DNA is code that was created then it must be from a "god" or a "creator"
P2 - "Creationists" have not provided proof it was their "god"
C5 - Their "god" did not create DNA because they have not provided proof that their god exists.
How's this one?
P1 - Code requires intelligence for usage
P2 - "DNA code" has no intelligence
C1 - DNA is not a code
Hey "ax" I always enjoy reading you. You're a smart one. I rarely find intelligent posters with "theist" badge.
To the subject.
Perfection is not a subject, it's completely relative. Perfection is only a human standpoint quality, thus it is biased. We are far from knowing the whole picture to start with.
"A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type."
Human DNA on it's 46 chromosomes has the necessary information to create a full grown human being. Thus for all intents and purposes DNA is a code. It possesses compressed and compiled information.
DNA is prone to have errors but that doesn't mean that's a "bad" thing. One may argue that the possibility of these errors actually allow species to be more versatile and adapt. Once again we are putting our personal biased standpoint into "errors" and "perfection".
The Big Bang produced incredible shock waves. Sound is a shock wave in air molecules. The big bang may be impossible to hear but it was an explosion... although an odd one.
Some creationists (whoever those are) tend to make the bridge between all this and a "God". There is no reason for this. As there is no reason for atheists to start argue against a God using these premises.
DNA evolved, it was not puffily created. Evolution is creation but without the puff...
God is a meaningless discussion and unimportant one to nothingness that we are in scale.
If there is such a thing as a God, given the structure of reality, it is beyond the meager human intelect. Most arguments from both theists and atheists are pure speculations.