dream_weaver Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 There is a certain irony to it, Harrison. All that time and effort poured into seeking for intelligence out there, and coming here to parrot his findings, only to have his feathers ruffled. In concept formation, it takes at least three elements to work with. Two or more similar blues look different among themselves. Add yellow or red as a foil, and suddenly the similarity between the blues leap to the foreground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWanderer Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 >>>I was trying to be civil with you. By posting that I'm a pig and that you hope I rot in hell? You must be chairman of the Welcoming Committee in Galt's Gulch. >>>You still haven't explained what pattern in nature could exist without being the product of a mind. Lots of them. Blades of grass form patterns that are not intentional from a mind; smoke swirls from a lit cigar form patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; clouds form patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; sand on a beach forms patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; boiling oil can form convection patterns in the geometrical shape of a hexagon that are not intentional from a designing mind; sugar crystals in the form of "rock candy" forms a pattern that is not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; water crystals in the form of ice form patterns that are not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; all crystals, in fact, are regular repeating patterns of something called the "unit cell", repeating over and over, and completely predictable from the nature of the atoms of the given substance and how they interact with the atoms of their environment; erosion from wind and weather forms patterns in mountains that are not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; many more. Not a single one of these examples has anything in common with the statement: "Let '—' mean the English letter 'T'." That's not a pattern; that's a code. The assignment of meaning between two arbitrarily chosen symbols in two different sets of symbols is the essence of a code, and it has nothing to do with patterns. Since you've been so civil, I may as well ask: anything else I can help you with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 >>>I was trying to be civil with you. By posting that I'm a pig and that you hope I rot in hell? You must be chairman of the Welcoming Committee in Galt's Gulch. Yes, and I stand by those statements. If you'd like to rehash that conversation then send me a message. I will not defile the public domain with it. >>>You still haven't explained what pattern in nature could exist without being the product of a mind. Lots of them. Blades of grass form patterns that are not intentional from a mind; smoke swirls from a lit cigar form patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; clouds form patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; sand on a beach forms patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; boiling oil can form convection patterns in the geometrical shape of a hexagon that are not intentional from a designing mind; sugar crystals in the form of "rock candy" forms a pattern that is not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; water crystals in the form of ice form patterns that are not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; all crystals, in fact, are regular repeating patterns of something called the "unit cell", repeating over and over, and completely predictable from the nature of the atoms of the given substance and how they interact with the atoms of their environment; erosion from wind and weather forms patterns in mountains that are not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; many more. Not a single one of these examples has anything in common with the statement: "Let '—' mean the English letter 'T'." That's not a pattern; that's a code. The assignment of meaning between two arbitrarily chosen symbols in two different sets of symbols is the essence of a code, and it has nothing to do with patterns. Since you've been so civil, I may as well ask: anything else I can help you with? Yes. Research the reasons why RNA functions the way it does. If you truly have any desire whatsoever to gain knowledge then I'll be happy to explain it to you in greater detail, afterwards. Until then you can check your premises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA http://www.rna.uni-jena.de/rna.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 (edited) Patterns aren't formed in 'nature', they are described by a sentient being. Codes are created to facilitate communication between sentient beings, in the case of the DNA code what are the sentient agents(plural)? Edited May 12, 2013 by tadmjones Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.