Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Me thinks you're mistaken.
No I am not. That is one of the core arguments religion enthusiests argue about in the creation and evolution debate.

They believe 10,000 years vs the 4.5-5bil evidence shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

"The genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam through Noah to Abraham. Young Earth creationists interpret these genealogies literally, including the old ages of the men. For example, Methuselah lived 969 years according to the genealogy. Differences of opinion exist regarding whether the genealogies should be taken as complete or abbreviated, hence the 6,000 to 10,000 year range usually quoted for the Earth's age"

There are plenty of straight up christians who believe this too, since it is a literal understanding from the bible's old testament.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
No I am not. That is one of the core arguments religion enthusiests argue about in the creation and evolution debate.

They believe 10,000 years vs the 4.5-5bil evidence shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

"The genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam through Noah to Abraham. Young Earth creationists interpret these genealogies literally, including the old ages of the men. For example, Methuselah lived 969 years according to the genealogy. Differences of opinion exist regarding whether the genealogies should be taken as complete or abbreviated, hence the 6,000 to 10,000 year range usually quoted for the Earth's age"

There are plenty of straight up christians who believe this too, since it is a literal understanding from the bible's old testament.
You're convoluting two things...genealogies and the age of the earth.

Young earthers assume two things to arrive at their conclusion...that the genealogies are complete/accurate and that creation occurred literally within a 6 earth day period. Young earthers are literalists. Most scholars interpret the creation story as allegory.

To my knowledge there is nothing in any version of the bible that says the "Earth has only been around for 10,000 years".
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
You're convoluting two things...genealogies and the age of the earth.

Young earthers assume two things to arrive at their conclusion...that the genealogies are complete/accurate and that creation occurred literally within a 6 earth day period. Young earthers are literalists. Most scholars interpret the creation story as allegory.

To my knowledge there is nothing in any version of the bible that says the "Earth has only been around for 10,000 years".
I'm pretty sure you're correct. It is a belief that young earthers have incorporated into their overall belief system but it's not written into any Bible of which I'm aware.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I think our ability to create things has come about through trial and error over the last 10,000 - 20,000 years; the largest expansion of which in modern times happening as a result of the Industrial Revolution.
.
Where I am getting at is the potential to create things.

If thinking and creativity wasn't present in humans, we wouldn't be able to do any of it.

I agree - trail and error helped us improve upon our creativity, it didn't give us the ability. The ability has to be there before any trails can take place.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,149
936
126
It's not unscientific at all; there are small groups of scientists who do concern themselves with things not observable or currently beyond our ability to observe. The larger body of scientists are concerned with what is observable and verifiable. We can't "see" gravity but we can see it's effect on things all around us. That it is a force and is real is a matter of fact; how and why it works in the way it does is one of the things we're studying, that's why it's the "theory" of gravity.
So are you telling me that information and intelligence aren't observable and quantifiable?

We can observe DNA and come to the conclusion that it's a code can't we? And since no known natural process generates codes, we can still arrive at a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence.

I believe you already had the DNA is a "code" discussion with Cerpin Taxt and a few others in a previous thread. My knowledge of the subject pales in comparison to theirs so I choose not to debate your further points.
Thats fine, but my arguement with Cerptin Taxt was hardly a debate. The guy panicked to such a degree when confronted with the reality that DNA was a code (and with all the implications of such), that he then went on to deny whats considered a brute fact in contemporary Science..
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
So are you telling me that information and intelligence aren't observable and quantifiable?

We can observe DNA and come to the conclusion that it's a code can't we? And since no known natural process generates codes, we can still arrive at a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence.



Thats fine, but my arguement with Cerptin Taxt was hardly a debate. The guy panicked to such a degree when confronted with the reality that DNA was a code (and with all the implications of such), that he then went on to deny whats considered a brute fact in contemporary Science..
Well in some people it is hard to discern by looks alone. It becomes observable as you listen to them talk, read things they've written, etc. As far as things that may or may not be outside our universe, I don't have a problem with people theorizing about what's out there. To me, if you can't observe or otherwise detect "x", how can you quantify it? Using something that's undetectable or unknowable as a means to control people is pretty sick.

I have no opinion as to whether or not DNA is a code. I think it is code-like but not necessarily a code.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Judaism says the Earth is 5772 (+250 - 0) years and 6 days old. We say it like that because there have been between 5772 and 6022* years from Adam onwards, but we have no idea what God considered to be a day. The same word for day is used for the first 6 as for the rest afterwards, but that is simply due to there being no word for a God-day. These days could be 24 hours long, or they could be a trillion years long, we simply have no way of knowing. We DO know that, after Adam started walking around that a day was a man-day and therefor 24 hours.



*It is believed that the Earth will toil under man for a 6 thousand years and then get to rest under God for a thousand years. This will be the millenial reign of the Messiah (which is also where Christians get the 1000 year reign of Jesus from after He returns). Therefor we are know we have not yet passed the 6000 years from Adam mark yet.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Judaism says the Earth is 5772 (+250 - 0) years and 6 days old. We say it like that because there have been between 5772 and 6022* years from Adam onwards, but we have no idea what God considered to be a day. The same word for day is used for the first 6 as for the rest afterwards, but that is simply due to there being no word for a God-day. These days could be 24 hours long, or they could be a trillion years long, we simply have no way of knowing. We DO know that, after Adam started walking around that a day was a man-day and therefor 24 hours.



*It is believed that the Earth will toil under man for a 6 thousand years and then get to rest under God for a thousand years. This will be the millenial reign of the Messiah (which is also where Christians get the 1000 year reign of Jesus from after He returns). Therefor we are know we have not yet passed the 6000 years from Adam mark yet.
Rest under God? No thanks. He can stay at a Red Roof Inn; it'll be kinda like going back to his birthplace. I share my bed only with my wife.

So will Jesus return as the hippie-ish white dude with long hair that most European descendants have become accustomed to or as an dark-skinned, curly headed guy that was born in the Middle East? And will he be bringing his wife Mary Magdalene with him? And what about the twelve guys he used to hang out with an awful lot, at least more than any manly-man should or would; will they be back as well?
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,149
936
126
To me, if you can't observe or otherwise detect "x", how can you quantify it? Using something that's undetectable or unknowable as a means to control people is pretty sick.
Like I said, DNA is a code (specifically the sequence of base pairs) and it's both observable and quantifiable. It is singularly the greatest piece of evidence bar none in favor of a Creator.

Other evidences such as the fine tuning in the Universe don't have the same impact that DNA does, because as miraculous as they are, they cannot compare to the mind boggling complexity and specified order of a living creature...

I have no opinion as to whether or not DNA is a code. I think it is code-like but not necessarily a code.
Oh dude come on. Why is it that seemingly reasonable and intelligent people can become incredulous when faced with a fact that goes against their a priori philosophical beliefs?

Cerptin Taxt was the same way. I quoted dictionaries, encyclopedias, college text books, professors that specialize in information theory, and no matter what was said, Cerptin Taxt held to his own simple minded view of DNA....because he didn't want to believe.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Like I said, DNA is a code (specifically the sequence of base pairs) and it's both observable and quantifiable. It is singularly the greatest piece of evidence bar none in favor of a Creator.

Other evidences such as the fine tuning in the Universe don't have the same impact that DNA does, because as miraculous as they are, they cannot compare to the mind boggling complexity and specified order of a living creature...



Oh dude come on. Why is it that seemingly reasonable and intelligent people can become incredulous when faced with a fact that goes against their a priori philosophical beliefs?

Cerptin Taxt was the same way. I quoted dictionaries, encyclopedias, college text books, professors that specialize in information theory, and no matter what was said, Cerptin Taxt held to his own simple minded view of DNA....because he didn't want to believe.
Not this stupid shit again. DNA is not a code, or at the very least, when DNA is referred to as a code it does not mean the same thing as a code in the linguistic sense. In the linguistic sense, a code is a series of arbitrary symbolic designators used as a stand in for normal language. If I use "xdr" as a stand in for "the", the meaning is identical to if I use "qop" as a stand in for "the". Try swapping in adenine for cytosine in a genetic code and see what happens. Were it a true code, it shouldn't make a difference. Instead, as it is not a code, but instead an ordered chemical reaction, everything goes to shit. Considerable effort was made to drive this point into your impressively armored skull, a pity it didn't take.

Hell, even the dictionary link you posted had a separate dictionary entry specifically for genetic code, expressly because it didn't fit under any other code definition.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,149
936
126
Not this stupid shit again. DNA is not a code, or at the very least, when DNA is referred to as a code it does not mean the same thing as a code in the linguistic sense.
Ah, you again :D

You were the one I asked to define what a code was, to which you replied,"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."

This is the definition taken from the Wiki entry on Code.

I remember I burst out laughing when I pointed out to you that the same entry you used to define what a code is, included "genetic code" in the entry as well.

Biological organisms contain genetic material that is used to control their function and development. This is DNA which contains units named genes that can produce proteins through a code (genetic code) in which a series of triplets (codons) of four possible nucleotides are translated into one of twenty possible amino acids. A sequence of codons results in a corresponding sequence of amino acids that form a protein.
So tell me, is Wiki being dishonest by referring to a genetic code as an actual code?

In the linguistic sense, a code is a series of arbitrary symbolic designators used as a stand in for normal language. If I use "xdr" as a stand in for "the", the meaning is identical to if I use "qop" as a stand in for "the". Try swapping in adenine for cytosine in a genetic code and see what happens. Were it a true code, it shouldn't make a difference.
Why shouldn't it make a difference? Genetic codes rely on rules just like language and other forms of code. Without rules, chaos ensues..

Hell, even the dictionary link you posted had a separate dictionary entry specifically for genetic code, expressly because it didn't fit under any other code definition.
And the wiki entry that you posted did not differentiate between a genetic code and any other form of code.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,316
5,395
126
Like I said, DNA is a code (specifically the sequence of base pairs) and it's both observable and quantifiable. It is singularly the greatest piece of evidence bar none in favor of a Creator...
Why is DNA being a code evidence of a creator?
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Because all known codes are generated by intelligent agents. There is no natural process(s) yet discovered that generates codes.
Err, that's just not true. DNA came about though evolution.

Just because YOU don't understand how it happened, doesn't mean biologists don't.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,316
5,395
126
Because all known codes are generated by intelligent agents. There is no natural process(s) yet discovered that generates codes.
Pretty much most chemistry is "code", if you are using the definition you appear to be using.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,149
936
126
Err, that's just not true. DNA came about though evolution.

Just because YOU don't understand how it happened, doesn't mean biologists don't.
Hate to disappoint you (who am I kidding, I LOVE to dissapoint you!), but the theory of evolution has no explanation for the origin of DNA or of Life in general..

In fact, the theory of evolution doesn't even attempt to explain where DNA came from, so I don't know where you got that notion from.

As far as I know, the only Scientific attempt at explanation for the origin of Life was abiogenesis.....and that didn't turn out too well..
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,039
2,280
136
Err, that's just not true. DNA came about though evolution.

Just because YOU don't understand how it happened, doesn't mean biologists don't.
that seems to modus oprerendi for some christians. if they don't understand something, god did it or they flat out deny it happened.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
that seems to modus oprerendi for some christians. if they don't understand something, god did it or they flat out deny it happened.
And they always say bullshit like "Something this complex must be created'

Then where did god come from?!

Game set and match to the atheists. Every. Single. Time.

We haven't lost a debate to the religious nutters in 50 years.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,149
936
126
Pretty much most chemistry is "code", if you are using the definition you appear to be using.
How do you figure? Codes tend to have specific information, that possess meaning or semantics....like a language. The information in the sequence of base pairs or codons, determines all the characteristics of a particular organism for instance, and how to built it from scratch..

I'd read up on this a bit more if I were you..
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,149
936
126
Then where did god come from?!
LOL you guys are funny. This question assumes that God or the Creator is material in nature. All material phenomena has a cause, but you can't have an infinite regression can you? That would be illogical and ridiculous..

So the Primal Cause had to have been immaterial in nature, and thus not subject to causality.

So basically, God didn't come from anywhere. It has always been, and always will be since it's the origin of all phenomena.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
LOL you guys are funny. This question assumes that God or the Creator is material in nature. All material phenomena has a cause, but you can't have an infinite regression can you? That would be illogical and ridiculous..

So the Primal Cause had to have been immaterial in nature, and thus not subject to causality.

So basically, the big band singularity didn't come from anywhere. It has always been, and always will be since it's the origin of all phenomena.
Fix that for you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY