Creationist argument about DNA and information

[RussDill]

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.

I for one, was very sad to learn that atoms were not actually made of plum pudding.

 

[Daniel]

Really, for someone who is so quick to yell "straw man", you sure have quite the closet full of them.

Yes, and I'm tripping over all of the Examples you've provided to SUPPORT your Ipse Dixit Baseless Assertion Fallacy here.

I'm not aware of any widely accepted cosmological theories that claim that "something came from absolutely nothing".

Stephen Hawking the Crowned Grand Poobah of Science and the Pinnacle of Intellectual Atheistic Elitism states, (The Grand Design):

"Because there is a Law such as Gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Aware of it now?? (btw, Save for the "Many Worlds Interpretation" in QM, that statement has to be the Dumbest thing I ever heard !)

That isn't what the Big Bang is...

I never said it was anything other than a Fairytale. Crocheting is more Scientific.

...it's the sudden expansion and cooling of a very hot/dense/uniform bit of spacetime.

Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd you get Space?

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?

Hey professor, I use a variation of Parenthetical Citation. Heard of it? It's practiced everyday from 5th Grade to the Supreme Court and is USED EXTENSIVELY in Scientific Literature in SUPPORT of Claims. Irrespective that this format isn't conducive to posting "Works Cited" pages... I don't want my posts longer than War and Peace, so I post "Quotes" with the appropriate CITATION attached minus a Works Cited or Bibliography.

By the mere fact that you brought this up, is alone a Screaming Testimony that you've never reviewed Scientific Literature!!! You wouldn't know what "actual" Science was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.
Thanks for Illustrating this FACT for us...but we already knew

We can all post quotes from any number of people on any number of points. Who wins? The one with more quotes?

Thanks!!! Keep a Hammerin away @ the c4 Fire

Priceless.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Krauss's point is that what we refer to as "nothing" (empty space) actually does have properties. It is "stuff." It even has mass.

Of course, you will not understand this.

nuance.dll not found
a word has only one meaning
beep boop

 

[RussDill]

Krauss's point is that what we refer to as "nothing" (empty space) actually does have properties. It is "stuff." It even has mass.

Of course, you will not understand this.

nuance.dll not found
a word has only one meaning
beep boop

Bah, actually reading the book or context of a quote? Who needs that!?!? So long as the quote *could* be interpreted to support my position, time to blast away!

 

[marplots]

(some stuff snipped we agree on)

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.

I thought it was generally accepted that we discover them.

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!

Pretty likely, actually. Isn't that the point of the Anthropic Principle?

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.

Does reality have a function? Aside from that, we only have the one reality to work with, so it's not surprising it appears to work in one consistent manner. If it didn't, wouldn't we be asking why it happened that it didn't follow rules? Whatever reality we find ourselves in, we'd have the same question anyhow.

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

I'm not sure how you mean this. If evolution is true, then intelligence itself emerges from "rules." I don't think it's required for regular patterns to arise, and that's the only requirement to get descriptive "rules."

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).

You don't have to go that deep. Even if you suspect that there are underlying mechanisms invisible to our inspection (the unanswerable part) we can still look at higher levels and claim to know something about how the regular patterns emerge - what I am calling the "laws."

For example, I can propose Marplot's Law of winter which tells me it will always be colder in the winter months than in the summer months. Later on, some sharper investigator can figure out this law rests on the orbit of the earth around the sun (and the axial tilt of the planet). Now, we can try to go further and see if that too rests on other laws, but we don't have to, to know that Marplot's Law of winter was a good and useful law, resting on a firm foundation. No intelligent creator needed.

It's only when you stretch the arguments until they reach the boundaries of current understanding that the temptation is to invoke a higher power as a space filler. But if the universal intelligence isn't needed for Marplot's Law, why should we be the least troubled by that fact? And why should we expect the situation to change going forward?

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.

I'll go with discovered.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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.

We create mathematical models that describe and predict the behavior of the universe. However, those models are a discovery of how the universe behaves.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

The biggest there is? You sure about that? It never comes up around my dinner table and I don't know anyone who makes a living from studying it.

It may have some legs in philosophical circles but that's because philosophers like to argue over what words mean and pretend they are doing something useful.

 

[steenkh]

Stephen Hawking the Crowned Grand Poobah of Science and the Pinnacle of Intellectual Atheistic Elitism states, (The Grand Design):

"Because there is a Law such as Gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Aware of it now?? (btw, Save for the "Many Worlds Interpretation" in QM, that statement has to be the Dumbest thing I ever heard !)

And if you think something is dumb, then it is proved wrong, right?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

regards

Suddenly?

You support your assertions. You haven't.

If you want to start from 'irrefutable' logic then you have to use actual proper logical arguments.

Goddidit is not equivalent to the negation of 'occurred naturally'.

So Premise 1 should read: Either the universe occurred naturally or it did not occur naturally

Now your work is to show that 1. The Universe did not occur naturally and 2. That 'did not occur naturally' means that 'Goddidit'

If your argument for 1 is that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics forbids it then you are actually going to have to show that. Not simply assert it.

Incidentally the 1st Law is based on the same science that gives us the Theory of Evolution and The Big Bang and other things you object to so it would be nice to know why you accept one but not the others. It would also be interesting to know why you assume it applies to whatever the hell it is we are talking about when we talk about 'before the Universe existed'. The same goes for logic for that matter.

You have said several times I believe that science relies on cause and effect. How do you have cause and effect without time?

Incidentally if you have actually read Krauss you will see that he puts forward a plausible theory of the creation of our Universe that requires no energy and no matter. I'm pretty sure he's familiar with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics also. Unlike yourself though he's humble enough to admit that he doesn't know if it's true. If your statements of absolute knowledge on what did and didn't happen at the beginning of the Universe make Krauss look humble then that's pretty good going in the hubris stakes. Especially from someone posting badly formatted creationist hogwash on an internet messageboard.

 

[Daniel]

Stephen Hawking the Crowned Grand Poobah of Science and the Pinnacle of Intellectual Atheistic Elitism states, (The Grand Design):

"Because there is a Law such as Gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

And if you think something is dumb, then it is proved wrong, right?

When was it ever proved right?

"Create itself" That means it Existed PRIOR to it's Existence. ahhh, to call this Incoherent Absurdity is insulting to Incoherent Absurdity.

He didn't even say GRAVITY, he said because there is a "Law of Gravity". Oh my, ahhh, aren't Scientific Laws immaterial descriptions of what we observe? How can a Scientific Law exist without existence of the thing that's being described and the one describing it?

I suggest he embark on 13th Century Alchemy...the tenets are more sound.

Also, has the Laws of Motion ever CAUSED a Billiard Ball to roll across a table?

And, don't you have to have @ least 2 masses for gravity? Where'd he get the masses...from nothing?


regards

 

[MikeG]

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

Well why are you wittering on about its end? What possible contribution to the conversation about its beginning does its end have? And why the hell are you talking about that anyway in a thread about DNA, which has sweet FA to do with the origins of the universe?

 

[Daniel]

You support your assertions. You haven't.

You wasted all this time arguing nonsensical minutia, when all you had to do to DISPROVE: Nature (unguided) vs ID/GOD (Guided) as the ONLY 2 Choices, was to simply provided a 3rd Viable Option.

Go ahead....?

If you want to start from 'irrefutable' logic then you have to use actual proper logical arguments.

Guided vs Unguided is a Logical Argument, there are no other choices...It's a True Dichotomy.

Goddidit is not equivalent to the negation of 'occurred naturally'.

Then what is the 2nd/3rd/4th/5th ect options to SUPPORT your nonsense here...?

If your argument for 1 is that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics forbids it then you are actually going to have to show that. Not simply assert it.

I did, 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Nature/Natural Law can't create or destroy Matter/Energy. Voila!

Incidentally the 1st Law is based on the same science that gives us the Theory of Evolution and The Big Bang...

1. Equivocation Fallacy: "same science".

2. Actually it's not: Ya see we "EXPERIENCE" the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The theory of evolution (whatever that is ) and big bang... nobody has ever experienced; Ergo, these two are "Just So" Stories NOT Science.

3. Scientific Laws..."describe", The WHAT/IS...often expressed mathematically.

Actual Scientific Theories..."explain", The HOW (Mechanisms/Process).

See the difference?

...and other things you object to so it would be nice to know why you accept one but not the others.

Because I don't Equivocate (Fallacy).

We don't "ACCEPT" things in REAL SCIENCE we Hypothesis TEST. "Accepting" is for: Propaganda States, 2nd Grade Story Time, Political "science", and blind-faith religions.

It would also be interesting to know why you assume it applies to whatever the hell it is we are talking about when we talk about 'before the Universe existed'. The same goes for logic for that matter.

Before the Universe?? Well the Universe is Space/Matter/Energy/Time. So Logically how on Earth can you even ask the status of Time or Matter before it even EXISTED??

"Before" the Universe is Non-Sequitur Fallacy on Steroids, Logically.

Incidentally if you have actually read Krauss you will see that he puts forward a plausible theory of the creation of our Universe that requires no energy and no matter.

Well I may have missed some because I was laughing really hard. Has he proposed it without SPACE?

I'm pretty sure he's familiar with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics also.

Apparently not.

Unlike yourself though he's humble enough to admit that he doesn't know if it's true.

Krauss is humble?? Yes and Pol Pot was a member of the church choir.

If your statements of absolute knowledge on what did and didn't happen at the beginning of the Universe

We know what didn't happen with 100% Certitude; Ergo...we know what did. (SEE: 2 Choices above)

Especially from someone posting badly formatted creationist hogwash on an internet messageboard.

Color Commentary Op-Ed.

Did I miss any Comma Splices?


regards

 

[Darwin123]

Yes, and I'm tripping over all of the Examples you've provided to SUPPORT your Ipse Dixit Baseless Assertion Fallacy here.






[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/AUFN_LawrenceKrauss.jpeg/220px-AUFN_LawrenceKrauss.jpeg[/qimg]


Stephen Hawking the Crowned Grand Poobah of Science and the Pinnacle of Intellectual Atheistic Elitism states, (The Grand Design):

The fact that you claim something so ridiculous is proof that you have never reviewed the scientific literature.

Stephen Hawking was never crowned anything. He is not the grand Poobah of Science. I don't think he is the pinnacle of intellectualism or elitism. Most scientists do their work without referring to Stephen Hawking in any way. He doesn't deal with every aspect of science, let alone physics.

When I was a physicist employed working on technology, I never used anything that Hawking wrote. However, I am interested in his work on an entertainment and general education level. He uses much of the scientific knowledge that I am familiar with. I have no confidence that he is always or even usually right. I can generally follow the logic of what he is saying, but this does not prove he is right. However, I conjecture his work has a little potential of growing into something useful.

I don't know anything for sure, except that yo are full of bunk.

Hawking is an atheist. Many of the hypotheses that he presents contradicts the existence of a personal god or Gods.

He is a popular popular physicist who presents interesting physical hypotheses to the public. He has skill in mathematics and physical theory.

Hawking's main specialization is general relativity, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Some of his hypotheses involve cosmology, which is the state of the universe a very long time ago.

His statement about the universe coming into existence from nothing does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics. The universe coming into existence is not the same as matter and energy coming into existence. According to his theory, the appearance of positive energy is balanced by the appearance of negative energy in equal amounts. The two quantities, positive and negative, cancel each other out. Given this cancellation, the universe contains the same TOTAL amount of energy at all times. Thus, the TOTAL remains balanced at all times.

The universe in his book corresponds to the INHOMOGENEITY of energy in the universe. Some regions of the universe have an excess of positive energy, and some have an excess of negative energy. Different regions in the universe have different values for energy density. Without INHOMOGENEITY, objects like ourselves could not exist. Hence, the INHOMOGENEITY is equivalent to the universe.

This is not a physical hypothesis that I would swear to. I can assert that his work doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics as tested repeatedly by scientists on earth and space.

Chemists and physicists have investigated and used thermodynamics for a long time. However, his theory does fit some of the observations of the large scale structure of the universe. I don't know much about the large scale universe, so I can't give an authoritative opinion about the validity of his theory.

Keep ranting! Rudeness is more reliable than mathematics when it comes to physical reality!

 

[Daniel]

Well why are you wittering on about its end?What possible contribution to the conversation about its beginning does its end have?

Well if something has "An End"; Ipso Facto means it's not Eternal...i.e., it has a Beginning. I was merely establishing that the Universe had a Beginning.

And why the hell are you talking about that anyway in a thread about DNA

Because I was challenged by "turingtest"...


"So you are, indeed, switching standards for your proof of creation to whatever it needs to be to prove it".


regards

 

[hecd2]

Color Commentary Op-Ed.

Did I miss any Comma Splices?


regards

I've asked before: what are color commentaries and comma splices?

 

[abaddon]

Well if something has "An End"; Ipso Facto means it's not Eternal...i.e., it has a Beginning. I was merely establishing that the Universe had a Beginning.





Because I was challenged by "turingtest"...


"So you are, indeed, switching standards for your proof of creation to whatever it needs to be to prove it".


regards

What caused your god, Daniel?

 

[hecd2]

Well if something has "An End"; Ipso Facto means it's not Eternal...i.e., it has a Beginning. I was merely establishing that the Universe had a Beginning.

The so-called "heat death" of the universe is not an end. Temperature and usable energy only approach zero asymptotically.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You wasted all this time arguing nonsensical minutia, when all you had to do to DISPROVE: Nature (unguided) vs ID/GOD (Guided) as the ONLY 2 Choices, was to simply provided a 3rd Viable Option.

Go ahead....?

You still don't understand that you have to back up YOUR assertions?

Guided vs Unguided is a Logical Argument, there are no other choices...It's a True Dichotomy.

Yes you are right. But that's not what you have been arguing.

Then what is the 2nd/3rd/4th/5th ect options to SUPPORT your nonsense here...?

Since I don't claim to know the answer I don't know. The problem is NEITHER DO YOU.

I did, 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Nature/Natural Law can't create or destroy Matter/Energy. Voila!

Asserting something isn't the same as demonstrating it to be true.

1. Equivocation Fallacy: "same science".

2. Actually it's not: Ya see we "EXPERIENCE" the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The theory of evolution (whatever that is ) and big bang... nobody has ever experienced; Ergo, these two are "Just So" Stories NOT Science.

'We' experience evolution every time someone or something gives birth. We never experience the conditions prior to the Big Bang so you don't know what applies and what doesn't.

3. Scientific Laws..."describe", The WHAT/IS...often expressed mathematically.

Actual Scientific Theories..."explain", The HOW (Mechanisms/Process).

See the difference?

Completely irrelvant.

Because I don't Equivocate (Fallacy).

We don't "ACCEPT" things in REAL SCIENCE we Hypothesis TEST. "Accepting" is for: Propaganda States, 2nd Grade Story Time, Political "science", and blind-faith religions.

How have you tested your hypothesis about the creation of the Universe?
What experiment have you done?
What were your independent variables?

Or do those things only matter when you don't like the results?

Before the Universe?? Well the Universe is Space/Matter/Energy/Time. So Logically how on Earth can you even ask the status of Time or Matter before it even EXISTED??

I didn't. Reading not your strong point?

"Before" the Universe is Non-Sequitur Fallacy on Steroids, Logically.

And therefore trying to look at cause and effect is pointless. And therefore trying to claim something caused the Universe to exist is nonsense.

Well I may have missed some because I was laughing really hard. Has he proposed it without SPACE?

No space. No time. No matter. No energy. No nothing. That's as close as I can remember to his exact words without looking them up.

Apparently not.

Because you're the authority on that? I forgot. You learned it in Bible Class right? After the bit about Noah's Ark.

Krauss is humble?? Yes and Pol Pot was a member of the church choir.

Reading comprehension really not your strong point.

We know what didn't happen with 100% Certitude; Ergo...we know what did. (SEE: 2 Choices above)

The thing you haven't yet demonstrated but keep claiming you are 100% certain about. I think your Bible class teacher wasn't very good at science.

 

[MikeG]

........I was merely establishing that the Universe had a Beginning..........

Does anyone dispute that? Perhaps, rather than do your normal routine of repetition, you could just accept that no-one disputes that the universe had a beginning, OK? No need to waste another half a page of forum space with repeating something we all agree on.

 

[jimbob]

If evolution wasn't true, why did the creator create so much evidence for it?