Creationist argument about DNA and information

[MikeG]

...........If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe will end—the ‘heat death’ of the universe...........

So what? This is no argument for either god-magicced-it or big bang, or for anything else. Talking about how the universe might end says nothing about how it began.

 

[Daniel]

Annnoid & Daniel are disagreeing. Why don't we all just edge backwards toward the door -- slooooowly! -- and leave them cosily together.

We only have a slight disagreement, which I think will be cleared up pretty quickly.

I found the vast majority of 'Annnnoids' posts: insightful, cogent, well thought out, and articulate.

regards

 

[MikeG]

.......I found the vast majority of 'Annnnoids' posts: insightful, cogent, well thought out, and articulate.........

.........but wrong.

 

[Daniel]

...........If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe will end—the ‘heat death’ of the universe...........

So what? This is no argument for either god-magicced-it or big bang, or for anything else. Talking about how the universe might end says nothing about how it began.

The Entire Point is the Universe had "A BEGINNING".

The 2 Choices for it's Cause: Nature vs Intelligent Design/GOD.

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, states: Nature/Natural Law can't create Matter/Energy. Ergo....

If you conclude "Nature"/Natural Law as The Cause... you are in Direct Violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. A "Science Denier" as it were.

You're also in Direct Violation of literally thousands of Validated Experiments of Quantum Mechanics, we can discuss here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304638


fyi - the 'big bang' isn't a Scientific Theory.

regards

 

[turingtest]

Annnoid & Daniel are disagreeing. Why don't we all just edge backwards toward the door -- slooooowly! -- and leave them cosily together.

Sloooooowly , I said!

Good idea; that sort of amusement value is about all that's left for this thread.

I take comfort from knowing that venues like this one are the only places these folks can flourish- at the end of the day into all foreseeable tomorrows, science (the real thing) will still progress, the TOE will still be taught in schools; and the Flat-Earthers like Daniel who want to turn back the clock, and the smoke-blowers like annnnoid who would like to obscure its face so time can't be told, can revel in the Internet illusion that their few are multitudes, but not much else. Whatever balm that may be for their smug self-rectitude I can cheerfully grant them- it's as meaningless a circle as their arguments.

 

[Daniel]

Good idea; that sort of amusement value is about all that's left for this thread.

I take comfort from knowing that venues like this one are the only places these folks can flourish- at the end of the day into all foreseeable tomorrows, science (the real thing)...

Thanks for the Color Commentary. And Sir, by the substance of your posts in this thread, you wouldn't know what REAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

the TOE will still be taught in schools; and the Flat-Earthers like Daniel

1. TOE, what's that?

2. Flat-Earthers?? I'm afraid the President of that Society, is one of your cohorts: Daniel Shenton (evolutionist).


regards

 

[Shalamar]

Thanks for the Color Commentary. And Sir, by the substance of your posts in this thread, you wouldn't know what REAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

He's talking about science, not 'Danielscience'.

1. TOE, what's that?

The Theory of Evolution, of course. You know; actual science.

 

[abaddon]

The Entire Point is the Universe had "A BEGINNING".

The 2 Choices for it's Cause: Nature vs Intelligent Design/GOD.

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, states: Nature/Natural Law can't create Matter/Energy. Ergo....

If you conclude "Nature"/Natural Law as The Cause... you are in Direct Violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. A "Science Denier" as it were.

You're also in Direct Violation of literally thousands of Validated Experiments of Quantum Mechanics, we can discuss here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304638


fyi - the 'big bang' isn't a Scientific Theory.

regards

What caused your god?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The Entire Point is the Universe had "A BEGINNING".

People who actually study it for a living seem less sure than you do on this point. Why would that be? In any case, it probably did. At least our bit of it anyway.

The 2 Choices for it's Cause: Nature vs Intelligent Design/GOD.

How have you worked that out? This is your assumption.

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, states: Nature/Natural Law can't create Matter/Energy. Ergo....

Ergo you have a problem. Even if what you say is true the 1st Law applies to the Universe. It's not a given that it applies to whatever it is that wasn't the Universe before the Universe existed and there was no space, no time, etc.

If you conclude "Nature"/Natural Law as The Cause... you are in Direct Violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. A "Science Denier" as it were.

Not at all. The truth is we don't know if and how the Universe came into existence but we do no there is no positive evidence in favour of a creator and no reason to suspect anything other than natural processes were at work. Everything is natural so far. There's nothing supernatural so far. At worst we should simply say 'we don't know but we're working on it'

fyi - the 'big bang' isn't a Scientific Theory.

And you're the authority on that are you?

 

[annnnoid]

Good idea; that sort of amusement value is about all that's left for this thread.

I take comfort from knowing that venues like this one are the only places these folks can flourish- at the end of the day into all foreseeable tomorrows, science (the real thing) will still progress, the TOE will still be taught in schools; and the Flat-Earthers like Daniel who want to turn back the clock, and the smoke-blowers like annnnoid who would like to obscure its face so time can't be told, can revel in the Internet illusion that their few are multitudes, but not much else. Whatever balm that may be for their smug self-rectitude I can cheerfully grant them- it's as meaningless a circle as their arguments.

Is it worth pointing out that it is you folks who are constantly repeating that life, the universe, and everything follows the laws of physics? Not that there is anything remotely controversial about it. I doubt that anyone would dispute this innocuous conclusion.

…but this invariably begs the question: Does everything that you folks constantly insist follows all these laws / rules…actually follow all these laws / rules???

IOW…do the laws exist? Do scientists create the laws…or are they discovered?

It is always with some chagrin that I observe the reaction to this blue-whale-in-the-room question.

…silence! Nobody makes a peep. Not cause nobody knows the answer. It’s quite obvious that nobody knows the answer (though some, like Perpetual Student, have actually had the conjones to argue in favor of this premise).

The reason nobody makes a peep is because of what it implicates. Apart from the questions about what kind of phenomenology ‘information’ even has….rules implicate intelligence. By every reasonable interpretation of such phenomena…that is the unavoidable conclusion.

…so…you’ll all go as far as categorically insisting that everything follows rules, but as soon as Sally over in grade two asks the obvious question:

“Do the rules exist?”…you all behave as if we’re suddenly talking about witchcraft! Woo….woo….woo! Get out the garlic, find the silver bullets, unpack the hammer and stakes.

Note to the under-educated: It’s your woo.

 

[marplots]

Is it worth pointing out that it is you folks who are constantly repeating that life, the universe, and everything follows the laws of physics? Not that there is anything remotely controversial about it. I doubt that anyone would dispute this innocuous conclusion.

I think it's the other way around. The laws of physics follow the universe. That's what makes the laws so useful.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Is it worth pointing out that it is you folks who are constantly repeating that life, the universe, and everything follows the laws of physics? Not that there is anything remotely controversial about it. I doubt that anyone would dispute this innocuous conclusion.

…but this invariably begs the question: Does everything that you folks constantly insist follows all these laws / rules…actually follow all these laws / rules???

IOW…do the laws exist? Do scientists create the laws…or are they discovered?

It is always with some chagrin that I observe the reaction to this blue-whale-in-the-room question.

…silence! Nobody makes a peep. Not cause nobody knows the answer. It’s quite obvious that nobody knows the answer (though some, like Perpetual Student, have actually had the conjones to argue in favor of this premise).

The reason nobody makes a peep is because of what it implicates. Apart from the questions about what kind of phenomenology ‘information’ even has….rules implicate intelligence. By every reasonable interpretation of such phenomena…that is the unavoidable conclusion.

…so…you’ll all go as far as categorically insisting that everything follows rules, but as soon as Sally over in grade two asks the obvious question:

“Do the rules exist?”…you all behave as if we’re suddenly talking about witchcraft! Woo….woo….woo! Get out the garlic, find the silver bullets, unpack the hammer and stakes.

Note to the under-educated: It’s your woo.

I'm obviously missing the profundity of your question as on the face of it this seems trivial.

'Rules' are the descriptions we give to the physical interactions of things. No intelligence is implicated in a rock rolling down a hill. The rock nor the hill need to know about gravity in order for the rules to be followed.

 

[Daniel]

People who actually study it for a living seem less sure than you do on this point.

People like who?

Why would that be?

Because their pseudo-science priests looking for a pay-check.

How have you worked that out?

Simple Reasoning, it took less than a Planck Time.

To refute, Please list the Choices other than: "Nature"(unguided) vs Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided)...?

Ergo you have a problem. Even if what you say is true the 1st Law applies to the Universe. It's not a given that it applies to whatever it is that wasn't the Universe before the Universe existed and there was no space, no time, etc.

Then you MUST BELIEVE "Something came from Absolutely Nothing", Naturally. If so, welcome to Nonsensical Blind Faith Religion.

The truth is we don't know if and how the Universe came into existence.

So we don't know IF the Universe came into existence?? Where are you ??

Yes, WE DO KNOW "The Cause", it's called Logic. Nothing can be The Cause of itself because that would mean it Existed prior to it's Existence...Logical Seppuku.
For finite things to EXIST (Universe/Us), there must be ("Necessary Condition") an Eternal Un-Caused Cause...The "Ontological Primitive".

but we do no there is no positive evidence in favour of a creator

Save for all I've posted.

Everything is natural so far.

Factually Incorrect: "Information" isn't...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

Neither are: Truth, Knowledge, Logic, Mathematics, Ideas/Thoughts, et al. Post the Natural Laws that govern each...?

What's the Chemical Formula for TRUTH??

Shake up a can of Pepsi and Sprite...which one is TRUE or are they both False??

And you're the authority on that are you?

Yes, I surely am.


regards

 

[ComfySlippers]

I'm obviously missing the profundity of your question as on the face of it this seems trivial.



'Rules' are the descriptions we give to the physical interactions of things. No intelligence is implicated in a rock rolling down a hill. The rock nor the hill need to know about gravity in order for the rules to be followed.

"Rules", "Laws" and "Information". Simple words that can be used in more than one way, often as analogies.

Members of the world's Cults of Absurdities don't have much in the way of adult reasoning skills when trying to make their silly beliefs sound plausible. They have to play childish word games.

It's best to sit back and laugh at them. The only thing they excel at is making themselves sound like complete dingbats.

 

[annnnoid]

I think it's the other way around. The laws of physics follow the universe. That's what makes the laws so useful.

…of course they do. But that wasn’t the point...and if you look back, that is also not how it is represented.

“Reality follows the laws of physics.”

That is how it is represented. It is ass-backwards of course, but that doesn’t seem to stop just about everyone (including innumerable scientists) from describing it thus.

…but, as I said, that’s not the point. The point is…only a complete idiot could fail to note the immeasurable range and application of these ‘laws’. They describe and predict just about everything…from the smallest to the largest…with almost infinite precision and accuracy.

…and not only does nobody know why, or how…nobody has a clue!

And the ONLY reason no-one asks the question “do we create these laws, or do we discover them?”…is also because nobody has a clue how to answer it.

We certainly cannot definitively say that the laws do not exist (or that there is not some fundamental and explicit relationship between the laws and reality). In fact…all the available evidence (see above) suggests the exact opposite. Not to mention…is any scientist with a gram of intelligence going to argue that it’s all merely a grand coincidence?

Not bloody likely!

…but despite the massive amount of circumstantial evidence, there is no empirical evidence. Nobody has ever either located a ‘law’ of physics or even begun to explain the relationship between neural and cognitive activity (…how the ‘laws’ are created by physics).

There are really only two simple conclusions to be drawn from all this. One…the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that rules are somehow fundamental to the existence and function of reality.

…and rules invariably implicate intelligence. Intelligence on the scale of a universe implicates you-know-what!

The second conclusion is that there is an indisputable empirical relationship between ‘physical’ reality and the conceptual reality we call these laws. Whether anyone will ever be able to accurately adjudicate it is unanswerable…but the relationship does exist. IOW…some day it might be possible to determine what manner of physical reality specifically generates what manner of law. Of course, a rabbit hole immediately appears since physical reality itself is described by …laws. Maybe by then some manner of new paradigm will have introduced itself (…or Itself).

I'm obviously missing the profundity of your question as on the face of it this seems trivial.

'Rules' are the descriptions we give to the physical interactions of things. No intelligence is implicated in a rock rolling down a hill. The rock nor the hill need to know about gravity in order for the rules to be followed.

The question of whether the rules are discovered or created is probably the biggest there is. You just don’t hear about it cause no one has a clue either how to answer it or what the answer may be.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

To refute

It's not my job to refute your baseless unproven assertions. You support your premises otherwise you got nothing.

 

[annnnoid]

"Rules", "Laws" and "Information". Simple words that can be used in more than one way, often as analogies.

Members of the world's Cults of Absurdities don't have much in the way of adult reasoning skills when trying to make their silly beliefs sounds plausible. They have to play childish word games.

It's best to sit back and laugh at them. The only thing they excel at is making themselves sound like complete dingbats.

...excuses, denial, obfuscation...simple words that get used far too much.

The simple fact is that the laws of science are vast, innumerable, and function extremely well. No 'analogies' were used when referencing the theory that forms the basis of the internet, or modern medicine, or space flight, or or or or or. The list is, literally, endless. Your argument is just plain stupid. Science uses laws. Very specific, very explicit, very clear, and very reliable. Any science that uses analogies will last as long as it takes to ignore it.

 

[ComfySlippers]

...excuses, denial, obfuscation...simple words that get used far too much.



The simple fact is that the laws of science are vast, innumerable, and function extremely well. No 'analogies' were used when referencing the theory that forms the basis of the internet, or modern medicine, or space flight, or or or or or. The list is, literally, endless. Your argument is just plain stupid. Science uses laws. Very specific, very explicit, very clear, and very reliable. Any science that uses analogies will last as long as it takes to ignore it.

By "analogy" I meant using a word to make something easier for non-experts to understand. This is, for the most part, helpful. Unfortunately, as is seen here, the followers of crazy like to take analogies literally as they think it proves their fairy tales are real.

 

[Daniel]

It's not my job to refute your baseless unproven assertions.

They're irrefutable, that's why it's suddenly not your job.

regards

 

[RussDill]

Then you MUST BELIEVE "Something came from Absolutely Nothing", Naturally. If so, welcome to Nonsensical Blind Faith Religion.

Really, for someone who is so quick to yell "straw man", you sure have quite the closet full of them. I'm not aware of any widely accepted cosmological theories that claim that "something came from absolutely nothing". That isn't what the Big Bang is, it's the sudden expansion and cooling of a very hot/dense/uniform bit of spacetime.

Really, it's quite sad how you keep pulling out the same strawmen and "imploding" them, and not even through evidence, through quotes and bald face declarations.

Can you please explain how a conclusion within rational discourse could be reached if the only method is to paste quotes that agree with your point? We can all post quotes from any number of people on any number of points. Who wins? The one with more quotes?