Thread: Intelligent Design and Information Theory

How can you tell that ALL CODES are created by a concious mind? If you look anywhere else, like for example... at nature. A trees leaves have apattern, which can be interpreted as a code, or a language. The concious mind does not neccesarily create the code, but it can find something that is interpreted as a code. So, in DNA, it might be a pattern, but you think it's a code, because you can interpret it that way.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Okay, this is the central thesis of my argument:

• I will point out that DNA is not a just a molecule with a patter; it’s a language, code, and a information storage mechanism.

A language is a dynamic set of visual, auditory, or tactile symbols of communication and the elements used to manipulate them.

DNA is not used to communicate. There is no sender and no recipient. There is no purpose or intent. DNA is not a language. It is a pattern of molecules.

Define information. If your definition of information excludes the element of communication, then you would have to indicate what you actually mean by information and where you draw the line to non-information. Do you use information simply as a synonym to matter organized in non-entropic ways? If so, you will find a number of problems when claiming that this is an exclusive property of life, apart from the fact that the line drawn is again purely arbitrary.

• All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is currently no natural process know to science that creates coded information.

I know one. It's called the human. The human is a natural process. Define "natural". How do you figure that all codes are created by a conscious mind? This is a logical fallacy, even if the premises were true. {All known codes are created by a conscious mind, hence all codes are created by a conscious mind. <- This is an illegal operation.}

• In light of the above two statements, DNA takes the position consistent of designed efforts that only a conscious mind can create.

This is untrue because the previous two statements are at best unclear, at worst wrong and nonsensical.

If you can provide any empirical example of a language or a code that occurs naturally, then my argument has been refuted.

English. Sorry to see you lose. Good luck next time.

I agree with SomeGuy.

Take for example strata in geology, they have encoded information about earth's and life's past.

Animals too have developed systems of communication, and you would agree they're not conscious as we are and so they didn't "design" anything.

He means in nature. Natural languages don't include English. It was created by a human.

Okay, I'm gonna do a nice big lengthy post on all of this concerning Evolution, but as I'm in work, I can't devote much time in gathering citation and constructing the argument.

Some good posts already though.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I agree with SomeGuy.

Take for example strata in geology, they have encoded information about earth's and life's past.

Animals too have developed systems of communication, and you would agree they're not conscious as we are and so they didn't "design" anything.

Thanks for agreeing.

Animals are concious. My dog barkes when you step on his tail. He whines when he has to crap. And by natural, he doesn't mean something that comes naturally--oh look! 12:34 ON MY SIDE!-- he means something in nature, like a river or the lines in rocks. They aren't codes, but thaty can be translated into english by someone who gives each kind of crack a sound or a letter.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

He means in nature. Natural languages don't include English. It was created by a human.

This is an arbitrary distinction based on the useless concept of anthropocentrism. Humans are natural. Prove me wrong.

Also, English wasn't "created". It evolved naturally as a means of communication.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Thanks for agreeing.

Animals are concious. My dog barkes when you step on his tail. He whines when he has to crap. And by natural, he doesn't mean something that comes naturally--oh look! 12:34 ON MY SIDE!-- he means something in nature, like a river or the lines in rocks. They aren't codes, but thaty can be translated into english by someone who gives each kind of crack a sound or a letter.

I meant they're not conscious as we are. You don't see a bear designing a hunting weapon or a car, their language came about naturally.

You could say the same for human language, but I'm guessing intelligence influenced the development of our communication.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I meant they're not conscious as we are. You don't see a bear designing a hunting weapon or a car, their language came about naturally.

You could say the same for human language, but I'm guessing intelligence influenced the development of our communication.

The dogs' intelligence influenced the development of his communication.

I know humans are natural, but if you look at the timing of things...

earth was created\dinos\cavemen\humans\then english

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

I know humans are natural, but if you look at the timing of things...

earth was created\dinos\cavemen\humans\then english

And this brings you to the conclusion that...

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I meant they're not conscious as we are. You don't see a bear designing a hunting weapon or a car, their language came about naturally.

But it came about natu=rally. So, it's not natural, but they figured it out.

Originally Posted by Korittke

And this brings you to the conclusion that...

english came after humans, so humans created it. Therefore, it is natural that we would make one, but the language itself is not in nature.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

english came after humans, so humans created it.

Implied premise: If A happens after B, B created A. You see any problems with that?

Therefore, it is natural that we would make one, but the language itself is not in nature.

The capability to speak is encoded in our genes so yes, it is natural even by the most conservative standards.

Yes the ability to speak is natural, but looking at the amount of languages, english is devised by humans, so it isn't natural. The ability to speak it is, but english itself is not natural.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Yes the ability to speak is natural, but looking at the amount of languages, english is devised by humans, so it isn't natural. The ability to speak it is, but english itself is not natural.

"English itself" is just the description of a plethora of phenomena occurring withing the human social sphere. "English itself" doesn't exist as a sovereign entity, independent of humans speaking and documenting it.

Also, please define "natural" (still).

The mental framework required for lingual cognition, along with the physiological adaptations of certain features (the larynx, etc) to enable the reproduction of complex sounds have all come about through natural processes. Languages themselves are simply manifestations of these traits within us.

What i'm trying to say, bluefinger.

Natural in the sense that it is in nature, like the outdoors. Or that it came when the earth came. Instead, we created english, and all the other languages, so they are man-made, not natural.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

What i'm trying to say, bluefinger.

Natural in the sense that it is in nature, like the outdoors. Or that it came when the earth came. Instead, we created english, and all the other languages, so they are man-made, not natural.

So anything that has to do with humans is non-natural. Why? Also, if you put "non-human-related" everywhere you've put "natural", most of your arguments are "X isn't natural because it isn't natural."

No, because food has to do with humans. I'm saying that to what humans create

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

No, because food has to do with humans. I'm saying that to what humans create

So human shit is not natural? That's odd.

With our hands, out of things. Ex. rubber bands

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

With our hands, out of things. Ex. rubber bands

What about guys who lost their hands in 'Nam?

Also, how do I create English with my hands, out of things?

You know what I'm saying.