:-)

i did not claim such words are accurate. they are still similar in describing the process. I don't think scientists chose those words to describe things randomly. there must be a reason for their choice. those words chosen and being explained in biology books. so you cant just claim its subjective choice of words and therefore it is unscientific.

thanks for correcting my mistake about guinea pigs Actually when I tried to read about the word origin; there are many theories about it and its contraversial. one of them is your theory that might be right.
okay lets say that we know that guina pigs similar to pigs. and a DNA similar to a computer code. biology translation is similar to book translation. they are not accurate but similarity is there.
and I know that scientists chose the words to describe protein synthsis objectively because it has similar meaning to the real ones. and because of that; it makes solid ground to claim that it indicates intelligence.if you have any objections. then show me why those words are not similar to the real things or why scientists are unscientific to choose these words metaphoricaly

so there is no computer code because we assigned 0 and 1 to 0V and 5V respectively.

relevant topic :
DNA could be used to store data more efficiently than computers, scientists find

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...ists-find.html

DNA is a chemical structure. Everything there is based on chemical processes, which do not require any intelligence. That's it.
Computer codes are codes because we actually programmed them, we gave them specific patterns. Nobody did that with DNA.

Yes, I can claim giving names is at least partially subjectively chosen by someone, naming things is subjective in general. This is also a property of human languages. And the scientists who use those terms realize they are not literal but symbolic. So they blow off your ideas at the very start.

Lots of things look like something else or as if they were related to something.
Only verification shows if this is only a feeling or not.
Just like with guinea pigs and millions of other things and processes named after something else we already know so we can understand stuff easier.

If you want to plow on with them same argument over and over, I am off this topic as it really started to bore me.
I would love to talk about something completely else instead.

Computer language also consist of electricity and it works based on physical laws. Does that also mean that it is not designed.? A computer anti-virus would also work to protect the computer by itself without our continuous involvement.

You were all asserting all this time that scientists were using those words symbolically without citing any reliable source for your claim. That is why this debate would be a mess if there were no common ground of definitions or resources.

Fortunately this time, I had found probably the best authority in this topic. Professor Hubert P. Yocke; a physicist and information theorist. he published the book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, and the publisher is Cambridge University press. In his book, he demonstrated that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process found in the science of digital communication and in mathematical definitions such as Shannon theorem that is used in Electrical Engineering. I recommend that you read his book as he describes scientifically why DNA by mathematical definition is a code. In his book he said.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory ( Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”

[Computer language also consist of electricity and it works based on physical laws. Does that also mean that it is not designed.? A computer anti-virus would also work to protect the computer by itself without our continuous involvement.
- Computer programs require men to actually exist, we know that. There are electricity and physical laws involved, and we know we are involved as well. There is intention and there is clear purpose, and in that design there is no space for anything random.
DNA behaves in a particular way because of chemical-biological reasons.
We actually do not need an agent hiding behind "intelligent design" to explain that. We just need biology and chemistry.
There is no intention there but just natural functions.

You were all asserting all this time that scientists were using those words symbolically without citing any reliable source for your claim. That is why this debate would be a mess if there were no common ground of definitions or resources.
Fortunately this time, I had found probably the best authority in this topic. Professor Hubert P. Yocke; a physicist and information theorist. he published the book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, and the publisher is Cambridge University press. In his book, he demonstrated that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process found in the science of digital communication and in mathematical definitions such as Shannon theorem that is used in Electrical Engineering. I recommend that you read his book as he describes scientifically why DNA by mathematical definition is a code. In his book he said.
- So you found a guy who is actually a scientist and supports your statements. This is not a new deal. Scientists tend to agree and disagree with each other when debating commonly accepted facts. So good job you managed to find someone who actually sides with you.
I am sure that when looked from a specific perspective, you may find something resemble something else. The questions arise: Is looking at it from that perspective a good idea? Does it really prove anything?
Therefore, like I said before, you are not resenting evidence, but just an argument.
And I can easily produce arguments for and against anything. You name it.
Btw, recently I have found a believer of god who debunks intelligent design. And he is a prominent scientist. Does it prove anything to you? Just watch it if you like:


I am wondering, though, and this would begin another discussion, why are so many people of science atheists or agnostics?These are people who get closer to data than I and, I suppose, you do. How come so many of them look directly at DNA, and draw conclusions without mentioning god or intelligent design? Is it a trend? Is it because they are culturally or mentally ignorant, uninformed or filled with fallacious ideas? Or is it because they are honest about it?

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory ( Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.
- I agree, but they are misleading if you take them out of context and put them in a context they don't belong to. And this is exactly what you are doing here. And your argument for that is: Because DNA is similar to a code/information/language.
It is in a way, thus the terms were coined - and that's it. But nobody except people who have a clear agenda to prove something which is the core of their lives, actually claims those terms should be treated the way you treat them.

as if the universe can create it self !!

and he say there is no evidence for the existance of the God

what a poor judgement .

I honestly don't know the source of the universe.
I just disregard arguments lacking solid grounds.

But how come you have a problem with the universe creating itself and you don't have even a bigger problem with the existence of god, not to mention his omnipotence and omniscience?

We can explain what happens inside a computer using physical laws without involving the designer in the explination. Our knowledge that computers are designed is not enough to make a general statement about other types of information. You were not there when life began


DNA is not SIMILAR to information. DNA actually is information. However, DNA is similar with a computer code or a book and that what was my argument about it and it is not out of context as you insist to claim. Maybe you thought that I claimed they were identical and that's would be your problem of understaning. Or Maybe you thought that I claimed DNA can be translated and read like a novel. That would be funny.

Earlier I thought that you might have a point that those terms were coined that way because they are similar. But you were totally wrong, it was coined that way because actually it was based on mathmatical difinition of information as stated by Professor Hubert P. Yocke. This is neither subjective choice of words nor controversial, but is a brute fact that DNA contains information

I will be speculative here
Some do form conclusions and by difinition they wont be athiests/agnostic anymore and probably you wont know about them since they are not public figures. And some would keep it to themselves because they dont want to influence others or create problems for themselves. Others might have fallacious arguments especially if they are really anti religion. Maybe others are unsure and still searching. Or maybe is just a convenient choice for them.

:And I will be factual
The problem you mentioned here - of not being willing to change beliefs/standpoints because of the group and the power of conformism and simply convenience, is proven to have been common in religions, not among atheists or secular people in general.
So the fact you mentioned it is pretty ironic.
I have met plenty of people coming from religious backgrounds, including Muslims, who confessed to be afraid of leaving Islam because of how their families would react.
So Muslims have much more to lose when leaving Islam than atheists, atheists don't punish leaving atheism with death for instance. Yet we still observe more and more people leaving it which has nothing to do with convenience.

Don't talk about the qualities of the universe or logic before you recognize that angels and god don't live in it and have nothing to do with it. And before you realize that your beliefs are based on blind faith and wishful thinking.

You are emotionally attached to your religion which clouds your minds and makes it too difficult to see what is logical and what is not - therefore, you have no problem with accepting god.
But the problem remains anyway.

You are afraid of talking about god even with a potential believer of god, and that shows your insecurity.

The chances god has anything to do with your religion are so low that it is illogical to be a Muslim, even if god really exists.

There is always an attachment to some authority figure no matter what belief system you have. Athiest as well are not excluded from this rule. Militant athiests for example have their own figures that they follow and defend such as Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris. When you get attached to such figures, you would think those figures are always saying the truth and you would be blind of their blunders. Therefore, it is also possible for athiests to not change their position regarding something because of their blind trust of the authority figures they are following. I personally dealt with someone who claims to be agnostic and he said by the end of our discussion that he is free to believe whatever he wants and its okay since there are many beliefs around the world.
So conformism can also be found among athiests. Because you would not want to deal with the possibility of your authority figure being wrong. It is out of your comfort zone. And for that; they would throw faulty argument like: they are scientists and they know better then us. Or they would say that many scientists are athiests so athiesm probably must be right. Any athiest reading those statements will have a feeling of pressure to not betray the trust of many scientists and becoming a religious fool again.
Read about sth called confirmation bias. The right way to avoid bias is through debates so that it is possible challenge any hidden assumptions someone would have.

There is always an attachment to some authority figure no matter what belief system you have. Athiest as well are not excluded from this rule. Militant athiests for example have their own figures that they follow and defend such as Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris.
- I had been an atheist before I first heard of those figures. Same with many other atheists that I have known. Many of them come from religious environments, which requires rejecting authority, including god, prophets, and sometimes family members. Atheists may agree with much of what R. Dawkins says, but it doesn’t mean he is free from criticism from us. He is no guru or prophet. Not like your beloved Muhammad who obviously was so awesome that he could not lie or be misguided, could he? Now answer me, is there a chance Muhammad the prophet was wrong at least at some points?
- Atheism doesn’t mean obedience like your religion. Atheism doesn’t tell you to follow anything or anyone, it is simply rejecting the idea of god since there is no evidence for any. Atheism doesn’t promise anything to you. And it doesn’t threaten you with anything.
Religions, on the other hand, do it all the time. They tell you to believe or you may/will get punished. And if you do, you will receive eternal life in heaven.

I personally dealt with someone who claims to be agnostic and he said by the end of our discussion that he is free to believe whatever he wants and its okay since there are many beliefs around the world.
- If he claimed that, I am cool with the statement, as he is really free to believe what he wants. At least among secular people. With religious ones around it is not that easy.

So conformism can also be found among atheists. Because you would not want to deal with the possibility of your authority figure being wrong. It is out of your comfort zone.
- Other people are not authority to me. And I would love to see how wrong they are.
Like I said before:
Atheism doesn’t create comfort zones or conditions for conformism. Religions do.
Like before, you are speaking in general about something that may appear anywhere, while I am giving you specific mechanisms your religion uses to manipulate people. Mechanisms which are not in atheism.

It is possible for atheists not to change their positions because of conformism, but it is many times more possible religious people will undergo that.

And for that; they would throw faulty argument like: they are scientists and they know better then us. Or they would say that many scientists are athiests so athiesm probably must be right. Any athiest reading those statements will have a feeling of pressure to not betray the trust of many scientists and becoming a religious fool again.
- That is still nothing compared to a religious guy who may fear the same plus being rejected by his family or possibly going to hell.
- I do think that people who study something know about it more than me in general. Also scientists don’t apply emotions in their studies like

Read about sth called confirmation bias. The right way to avoid bias is through debates so that it is possible challenge any hidden assumptions someone would have.
- Most religious people have been born in religious families where they tell them god is real and they should believe in it. So they are seriously biased just at the start while they should search first before believing.
- And since you mentioned confirmation bias, do you not find it shameful that your fellow with the sword avatar ignores my propositions on the basis of my disbelief in god? Do you agree with him on this?
- I don’t feel I need to read about it, I am willing to discuss anything with anyone without excuses.