Strict materialism/naturalism is proven false

Claim. What objective evidence do you have for the existence of any deity?

I think you need to go back to school on Science and biology. Start watching PBS.

I covered that with my example of a tree and examining it’s rings. I can offer many example, the ice in glaciers in Greenland offer information on the history of weather.

The reversing magnetic evidence on the seafloor and Mid-Atlantic ridge confirm the reversing magnetic poles of this planet and help confirm plate tectonics.

All information not requiring an intelligent being.

Your god is questionable on intelligence, over 98% of human DNA is junk.


97% of DNA, is becoming clear that it is far from being junk as it turns out to be responsible not only for the regulation, maintenance, and reprogramming of genetic processes but it also contains highly mobile segments of DNA called transposons that can fabricate copies of themselves and then move to different sites on the genome with varying effects, including possibly disabling genes and activating inactive genes.

also rings of the tree result from chemical activity that produces the rings based on the chemical environment. but DNA is different, it is a language which tells the environment what to do

1 Like

You have no understanding of Darwinian Natural Selection. So your go to alternative is Design. Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with Science. In fact they are irrelevant.

@JC1432 You created a thread to discuss DNA. You have migrated that argument into this separate thread. I have locked responses pertaining to DNA. If you desire to discuss DNA, it is found at

Please Help! Trying to understand how information/instructions in DNA are not intelligence based


OH FUCK, Can we get off the fucking DNA already. Go argue with a biologist. DNA is analgous to a code. End of the fucking discussion.


Is it unreasonable for me to expect people who claim that X is proven; to be able to provide a proof?

1 Like

You’ve already made your agenda abundantly clear in several other threads, namely, that you’re here to propagandise for your imaginary cartoon magic man.

As for your blather about refutation, I performed this very task with respect to a previous Gish Gallop of assertions you posted here, in case you failed to notice this.

Oh, and apparently, you failed to take note that we already have relevant categories to work with here, namely the concrete and the abstract, without introducing superfluous terms motivated by the desire to cast apologetic spells to conjure a cartoon magic man into existence.

You might want to factor in here in addition, that for several abstract concepts, there exist concrete instantiations thereof, which rather buggers your apologetics.


I devoted a complete new thread to destroying this apologetic blather. Including a complete dissertation on why creationist canards about “information” are precisely that - canards.

1 Like

Chainsaw?.. CHAINSAW?!?.. And Dave?!?.. :open_mouth:… Dammit! I thought you said I was gonna get that role so I can use my AXE! I’ve even been working on my “Jason Breathing” technique. Listen… “Chi-chi-chiiii… Cha-cha-chaaa… Chi-chi-chiiii… Cha-cha-chaaaa…” See? Bet that shit gave you chills just hearing it. So, exactly when were you going to notify me of the change, asshole?


DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ? DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?

By Patrick Lockerby | July 6th 2009

Stephen C. Meyer is an intelligent design advocate and a co-founder of the Discovery Institute.

The core argument of Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer.

This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code that a computer instruction is a code, and that the term ‘code’ is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.

Men take the words they find in use amongst their neighbours; and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixed meaning; whereby, besides the ease of it, they obtain this advantage, That, as in such discourses they seldom are in the right, so they are as seldom to be convinced that they are in the wrong;

John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book III, Chapter X.

Before leaping to any conclusions based on our use of the word ‘code’, we must, if we are to be scientific, first define ‘code’.

A code is a member of the class ‘symbols’. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word ‘pharmacy’. We can use the symbol ‘pharmacy’ in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term ‘pill-farm’ to mean ‘pharmacy’. We now have a secondary label ‘pill-farm’ which is a second-level symbol for ‘pharmacy’. ‘Pharmacy’ in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.

By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. ‘And so forth’ is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as ‘et cetera’. We now abbreviate it to ‘etc.’, a second level coding.

A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.

In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: ‘1’ and ‘0’. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.

As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.

When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.

Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The ‘assembly’ part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.

DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words ‘guanine’, ‘adenine’, ‘thymine’ and ‘cytosine’ are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.

For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.

A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these ‘codes’.

A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.

DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end state from an initial state.

To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.

Concluding remarks:

Anyone who already believes in intelligent design will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer’s book.
Anyone who believes in a rigorous approach to science will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer’s book.

I conclude that no value is to be obtained from Stephen Meyer’s book by any thinking person.

Edit: further reading
More articles in the debate about whether or not DNA is “really” a code. - a highly recommended read!


Kinda hard to prove it when it’s all inside his (her?) head. Burden of proof is still on him (her?), no matter how hard they (ah, much better) try to push the hallucinations onto the rest of us. Also, extraordinary evidence and all that. Still can’t cough it up. I do enjoy the sub par attempts at intellectualism. Jc falls very, very, very short.

Oh! One more thing, Einstein’s definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results. I can only say, (ahem), sorry dude, until and unless you have extraordinary, compelling and DIFFERENT and NEW evidence , please stop tossing up the same, tired “proofs” of the immaterial. Read: gods. Oh, sorry, in your case it’s only YOUR god, as you have discarded all others as insufficiently proven… exactly as has been splained to you time and again, about yours.

If this is not in the right place, my apologies, having digit issues with my thumbs.

1 Like

Yea, Tin What in the fuck is your problem man. Same ole fucking shit in every post you make. Every atheist on the site has told you the same damn shit. When are you going to get it through that pointy head of yours? Your sub par attempts at intellectualism belong on some Christian forum where they can be better appreciated. We don’t fucking need your kind around here. You give a bad name to the place. What are the real Christians going to think when they log in and see the shit you have been spreading? You are an embarrassment to theists everywhere. And Einstein was correct, 'Artificial intelligence is no intelligence at all 'Garbage in garbage out." Sue the moron that programmed you.

Nobody loves you!

1 Like

Now Tin may know he has a heart… 'cause it’s breaking…

Und ich würde Professor Doktor Einstein über Wahnsinn genauso zuhören, wie ich Doktor Jung über Physik zuhören würde.


1 Like

He can’t, voided his warranty after he tried to use that aftermarket graphics card. Didn’t realize no one actually wants to see a human in HD up close.

Which brings me a thought…… if god(s) answered prayers, wouldn’t there be a lot less ugly people around?


Who is this “Sue” of which you speak?

1 Like


So you’re saying you don’t believe in Kyle? (Carrots be unto him.) FOR SHAME, you Kyleless heathen! Those who forsake Kyle (CBUH) will be banished to the World of Underhare, where they will forever be forced to wallow in the Pit of Perpetual Bunny Poop Pellets! However, accept Kyle (CBUH) as your Blessed Creator, and you will avoid such a hopeless fate! Praise Kyle! (CBHU)


Dammit, Cog, how many times do I have to tell YOU? Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day. I’m just trying to maintain a steady average.

If only it were that easy. I was suppose to borrow Straw Boy’s brain the day I went in for my upgrade, but he had an emergency Physics meeting to attend. As a result, I ended up signing a liability waiver without realizing it. On the plus side, though, ever since then I’ve been undefeated when playing Pong.

This coming from a mangy mobile flea motel with a rolling pin up his ass. :roll_eyes: Hmmm… :thinking:

(Edited for emotional therapy.)

Uh, no…my clock reflects “military” time, ergo although it is indeed nonfunctional, it depicts the correct time ONCE a day…meanwhile as I shift on my sanitary pedestal, I am reminded of something I cannot remember due to the circumventions of various entities as diverse as mule hair. And so I wallow alone…

Edition of sedition

1 Like