Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?

Thurston-howell-III said:

No, the only intelligence we know that creates codes are from intelligence

Click to expand...

I am not very sure what the intended message was.

Thurston-howell-III said:

No, the only intelligence we know that creates codes are from intelligence

Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense.

What "intelligence" are you referring to?

The IbanezerScrooge said:

That doesn't make sense.

What "intelligence" are you referring to?

Click to expand...

Humans, since that's the main type of code he focuses on to try and say that all codes are created.

Thurston-howell-III said:

Still waiting for you to show a specific sequence or code that was not created by intel.
Then I will believe anything you suggest

Click to expand...

And I'm waiting on you to show that the default position; that all sequences found in nature are not created but came about naturally, are actually the result of a creator creating those codes.

Can you do that, yes or no?

Thurston-howell-III said:

I asked you first bud
It’s all you have to do
But I have sneaking suspicion you are defeated
Just a single example of a code forming naturally

Click to expand...

DNA. There we go, simple as.

Now show me a code that was created.

Thurston-howell-III said:

No, the only intelligence we know that creates codes are from intelligence

Click to expand...

Equivocation alert!

Ophiolite said:

Equivocation alert!

Click to expand...

That just made me check, and I got equivocation confused with tautology. Whoops.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

That just made me check, and I got equivocation confused with tautology. Whoops.

Click to expand...

Never mind, the whole line of argument about "codes" is a deliberate equivocation anyway.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Again, I'll ask: can you show an example of a natural, organic code that was created? Yes or no?

Click to expand...

Warden, correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're not questioning the code itself, right?

You're questioning how the code got here?

That is, created into existence vs evolved into existence?

AV1611VET said:

Warden, correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're not questioning the code itself, right?

You're questioning how the code got here?

That is, created into existence vs evolved into existence?

Click to expand...

No, you are correct.

And I would like the answer to come from him, since he is the one I'm asking, and not from you since you are not the person being asked.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

And I would like the answer to come from him, since he is the one I'm asking, and not from you since you are not the person being asked.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Scientific inquiry can take a hike, can't it?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

As I've been saying, make a challenge thread on it.

Click to expand...

So you can fail it?

(Most likely by way of accusing me to be a YEC or Last Thursday or Omphalos.)

AV1611VET said:

So you can fail it?

(Most likely by way of accusing me to be a YEC or Last Thursday or Omphalos.)

Click to expand...

Go make a challenge thread.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Go make a challenge thread.

Click to expand...

So you can define embedded age as "age without maturity," or some such bologna?

AV1611VET said:

So you can define embedded age as "age without maturity," or some such bologna?

Click to expand...

Irony metre going off again.

But seriously, go make a challenge thread. Which is a nicer way of saying what I really want you to do.

/thread

AV1611VET said:

Warden, correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're not questioning the code itself, right?

You're questioning how the code got here?

That is, created into existence vs evolved into existence?

Click to expand...

The additional problem AV is equivocation surrounding the word "code". The use of "code" to describe the way sequences of nucleotides on a string of DNA lead to the formation of specific proteins is a convenience. It is not the same usage as when we speak of morse code, or secret message coded by a spy. Those are the product of conscious intent, where the code is a "real thing". Not so here, where the "real thing" is the chemistry that governs the formation of the protein as a consequence of the sequence of nucleotides.
[Now I don't expect you to accept that, because this is analagous to the Pluto situation. For some unaccountable reason you think calling Pluto a planet, then not calling it a planet, is somehow "wrong".]