Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Shalamar]

What on Earth??

Scientific Laws "Natural Laws" are Immaterial Descriptions of WHAT we Observe/Experience; they are often expressed Mathematically. (Read: ABSTRACT)

"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science."
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

How on Earth can you have Scientific Laws "Natural Laws" without the Ones Describing them??

"Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are -- they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality -- the laws of physics -- only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science."
Paul Davies: "Taking Science on Faith", November 24 2007

Moreover...

Have you heard of Quantum Mechanics, by chance? C'mon over to the thread and explain how in the world you can have a Universe "MATTER" without the 'Necessary Condition' (Antecedent) ---- Observers !!

This motif...

"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."---
Martin Rees, Astrophysicist

YIKES!!

regards

Argument by Incredulity, and Ignorance. A lot of Ignorance.

 

[RussDill]

"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."---
Martin Rees, Astrophysicist

Wait, I thought you believed cosmology to be not an actual science. Why are you quoting a cosmologist to try and prove your point?

And anyway, this is another quote that you have already been told means something other than what you assume it means. This quote is commentary on the anthropic principle, in fact it comes from an article entitled, "The Anthropic Universe". Really, if you are going to keep copy/pasting quotes you have been already told are wrong, do you even view this an honest discussion?

 

[jimbob]

^^(ETA #1381) I'd add "argument by wordgames, sophistry, and bluster", Shalamar

 

[Daniel]

Splitting the two questions and considering them separately dodges the point of the questions. I'm hoping you weren't aware of that.

Then why did you Split Them?? LOL. Did you do it to DODGE the point?

Aren't they Inherently "Split" when there are "TWO" Questions??

Why choose the Pyramids as an example, when Pyramids ( or watches, to quote the original "argument" you are paraphrasing) are man-made objects? Why not choose a non-manmade object, such as a grain of sand or a rock?

Maybe because we are dealing with the Underlying Theme of this Entire Thread , The 2 Choices: "Nature" (Unguided) vs Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided).
Ring a Bell?

Answer: because of you pick up a rock and ask "Who built this, and how was it built?", it would be a stupid question.

Really?? Well go ahead, who/what Built (CREATED) the rock....?

Let's see how "SILLY" it is!

btw, "The How" is irrelevant.

Your example only works if you choose a manmade artefact, which stands out from its natural surroundings because it is manmade.
It is therefore a silly, and rather dishonest argument.

Your ignorance is not justification to float a conjured caricature of another's INTENT.


regards

 

[hecd2]

First of all…I did not claim that nature requires intelligence to create it, I said there is very convincing evidence that implicates the existence of intelligence in / as reality. Nature isn’t created by intelligence…it is intelligence. There is evidence to support the conclusion that nature / reality IS information. There is evidence to support the conclusion that the ‘laws of physics’ exist in /as nature / reality. There is indisputable evidence that supports the conclusion that ONLY intelligence can generate ‘laws of physics.’

It may well be an equivocation to claim that the ‘laws of physics’ are both how we describe nature AND nature itself…but, as I said…it is generally agreed that the ‘laws of physics’ are, in fact…discovered. And if reality is, in fact, some manner of ‘information’, then it is ‘information’ within which these laws of physics occur and out of which they are resolved by the consciousness / intelligence we call human beings.

The laws of physics are, themselves, referred to as ‘information’ (a rather vaguely defined term but to the degree that we ‘know’ what it means, no one is going to dispute this conclusion […meaning…the statement “the laws of physics are not information” would be regarded as normatively incoherent]). So…the information of the laws of physics are derived from the information of reality.

Nobody, of course, has ever actually explicitly identified a ‘law of physics’ anywhere in reality. But there are few who doubt that they somehow occur there if for no other reason than everything seems to implicate this very conclusion. We derive them from the reality of neural / cognitive activity (which itself can be regarded as a direct function of them). Everything follows them. Everything can be described by them. Everything can be predicted by them. There are skeptics who are posting on this very thread who go further and insist that they literally exist in reality.

If they exist in / as reality…or, at the very least (as ALL the evidence seems to suggest)…they seem to exist in /as reality…then that, by definition, implicates intelligence. Every paradigm of logic and reason that we possess generates the conclusion that something with the capacity to generate meaning of that degree of complexity cannot be anything but intelligent.

…simple as that.




If you agree that the laws of physics are discovered (the consensus amongst skeptics), if you agree that everything (as we know it) follows, is described by, and can be predicted by…the laws of physics…(also the consensus amongst skeptics) then it is impossible to come to any other conclusion but that the evidence suggests that the laws of physics are instantiated in nature. And given that it is turning out that ‘nature’ is, in fact some manner of information…and the laws of physics themselves are that very thing (to the degree they can be described as having any variety of inherent phenomenology)…this all seems entirely consistent.

….nature is the laws of physics.

If this is accurate…then it is impossible to come to any other conclusion but that nature is intelligent.

What is interesting…is that this conclusion is not entirely unintelligible. There is evidence throughout history of human beings recognizing the ‘intelligence’ in everything around them. IOW…our own intelligence seems to possess within it the emergent capacity to recognize the intelligence of the world we occupy.

This conclusion cannot, of course, be empirically confirmed. But then again, there isn’t a single statement within the epistemology of science that can be empirically confirmed either.

…it’s all faith. We accept that our intelligence provides us with these insights and abilities. Nobody has yet come within light years of explaining how any of it happens.

Equivocation, be it ever so prolix, is still equivocation. Your claim can be summarised thus: "The laws of physics (our description of how nature behaves) are only ever generated by intelligent agents. There seem to be regularities in how nature actually behaves which we call the laws of physics, and therefore nature is or arises from intelligence."

The fact is that the two instances of the term "laws of physics" in the claim above do not refer to the same thing. So the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises because you are equivocating between the two instances.

 

[Daniel]

Wait, I thought you believed cosmology to be not an actual science.

Not "believed", "FACT"....demonstrably Illustrated numerous times.

Why are you quoting a cosmologist to try and prove your point?

Well he's a "Hostile Witness" (Atheist) and you 'think' he's a scientist.

And anyway, this is another quote that you have already been told means something other than what you assume it means. This quote is commentary on the anthropic principle, in fact it comes from an article entitled, "The Anthropic Universe".

And....? What does it mean other than what he plainly says?? (lol)

Really, if you are going to keep copy/pasting quotes you have been already told are wrong, do you even view this an honest discussion?

That I've been Told, eh? How about more of the SHOWING of the HOW and the WHY, I'm wrong??

Again, your ignorance is no justification for a conjured baseless caricature of my INTENT.

regards

 

[tsig]

There are plenty of conventional paradigms in which the laws of physics exist without being created and without any sort of intelligence. Why do you insist otherwise?

So he can sneak in god thru the back door.

 

[jimbob]

Equivocation, be it ever so prolix, is still equivocation. Your claim can be summarised thus: "The laws of physics (our description of how nature behaves) are only ever generated by intelligent agents. There seem to be regularities in how nature actually behaves which we call the laws of physics, and therefore nature is or arises from intelligence."

The fact is that the two instances of the term "laws of physics" in the claim above do not refer to the same thing. So the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises because you are equivocating between the two instances.

Oops, when I mentioned bluster and sophistry, I missed equivocation...

 

[tsig]

Equivocation, be it ever so prolix, is still equivocation. Your claim can be summarised thus: "The laws of physics (our description of how nature behaves) are only ever generated by intelligent agents. There seem to be regularities in how nature actually behaves which we call the laws of physics, and therefore nature is or arises from intelligence."

The fact is that the two instances of the term "laws of physics" in the claim above do not refer to the same thing. So the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises because you are equivocating between the two instances.

If we accept his argument that we know nothing and can know nothing then the basis for his argument vanishes as well as all human knowledge. It cuts itself off at the knees.

 

[tsig]

I think you're missing the point. Grain of sand, rock, snowflake…makes not the slightest difference. The argument always ends up being the same.

What it simply comes down to …is that many of you somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

IOW…We derive them (the laws of physics) from the reality of neural / cognitive activity (which itself can be regarded as a direct function of them). Everything (to the degree that we can adjudicate everything) follows them. Everything can be described by them. Everything can be predicted by them.

It is thus reasonable to conclude that ‘they’ somehow exist in /as reality (the skeptic consensus is that they are ‘discovered’). And…since the ONLY thing we know of with the capacity to generate / comprehend a ‘law of physics’ (let alone all of them) is something called ‘intelligence’…therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that ‘intelligence’ is itself somehow instantiated in reality.

…and I’m afraid if we’re talking about ALL the laws of physics…whatever ‘intelligence’ that is involved easily gets elevated to the status of whatever a God is…by definition.

I see, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.".

 

[tsig]

Not "believed", "FACT"....demonstrably Illustrated numerous times.





Well he's a "Hostile Witness" (Atheist) and you 'think' he's a scientist.




And....? What does it mean other than what he plainly says?? (lol)





That I've been Told, eh? How about more of the SHOWING of the HOW and the WHY, I'm wrong??

Again, your ignorance is no justification for a conjured baseless caricature of my INTENT. regards

It appears as though your intent is to preach a fundamentalist doctrine of creationism. You do this by ridiculing things you don't understand. Regurgitating undigested chunks of text is not the way to make an argument.

 

[Daniel]

Is that you all you are left with? A child's response?

1. Is English your first language?

2. I have a little more, let's start here (Post the Fairytale wickering of these molecules all Natural like in the first place)...

To hold a Materialist/Realist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?

Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then @ the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.

Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

Go ahead....? Let's review your "Adult" response...?

You are a laugh

Coming from someone who's Foundation Corner-Stone, Pillars of his "Belief" System are....

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.

3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.

How would you characterize this ??

Have you heard of the phrase: "People in Glass Houses..." by chance??

regards

 

[MikeG]

........
Coming from someone who's Foundation Corner-Stone, Pillars of his "Belief" System are....

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.

3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.

How would you characterize this ??

Have you heard of the phrase: "People in Glass Houses..." by chance??

regards

As you don't have the first idea about science, how about WE tell YOU what science is all about, rather than rely on your makey uppie straw-man version of (Daniel)science? Huh?

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Parroting a lie of a cartoon caption from Martin Rees, Anthropic Universe

...
This motif...

of parroting a lie by quote mining an uncited source, Daniel, as you would know if you did not ignore people !
17 March 2016 Daniel: Parroting a lie: a cartoon caption from Martin Rees, Anthropic Universe, New Scientist (6 Aug 1987), 46 !


YIKES!!!! Someone please quote me so Daniel has a chance to learn how badly he is being lied to!!!!

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: An opinion article from Paul Davis is his opinion = argument from authority

...Paul Davies: "Taking Science on Faith", November 24 2007

Over the years Paul Davies has been asking a question, Daniel, and getting rational answers! "Why the laws of physics are what they are" is more a question for philosophers not scientists. His opinion article (Taking Science on Faith) is his opinion !
24 March 2016 Daniel: An opinion article from Paul Davis is his opinion - citing it is an argument from authority!
In this case the authority is not correct. The faith that scientists have is that the universe does not lie to us and that we can abstract what it tells us in mathematics. GR is a mathematical abstraction of what we know about gravitation, QM is a mathematical abstraction of what we know about small particles, etc. Scientists know that these laws can be overturned. Scientist expect that they will be overturned in some cases, e.g. the Standard Model.
Then there is the problem of Davies emphasizing "rationality" and "order". As an expert in cosmology and quantum field theory he should know that the universe does not match our concepts of "rationality" and "order". Look at the "non-rational" (from our perspective) things that happen in QM such as the particles having both wave and particle properties or the non-causal quantum eraser: 15 March 2016 Daniel: 'A non-causal quantum eraser' experiment found that the choice of measurement even by an imaginary intelligent observer cannot be transmitted to the detector.

 

[ComfySlippers]

of parroting a lie by quote mining an uncited source, Daniel, as you would know if you did not ignore people !

17 March 2016 Daniel: Parroting a lie: a cartoon caption from Martin Rees, Anthropic Universe, New Scientist (6 Aug 1987), 46 !


YIKES!!!! Someone please quote me so Daniel has a chance to learn how badly he is being lied to!!!!

Waste of time.
If a person is gullible enough to fall for creationist claptrap, trying to explain the basics of anything to them is pointless.

You can't have a meaningful discussion with people who think that one of their main gurus, Kent Hovind, talks sense, really really does have a realy real PhD from really real degree issuer Patriot Bible University.

It's still funny watching them though.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: The ignorant assertion that a scientist Martin Rees is not a scientist

Well he's a "Hostile Witness" (Atheist) and you 'think' he's a scientist.

Well that is a quite dumb statement because Martin Rees is in fact a scientist, Daniel. You know this because you are citing him as if he was an authority on science !
24 March 2016 Daniel: The ignorant assertion that a scientist Martin Rees is not a scientist!
Martin Rees

Martin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, FRS, FREng, FMedSci[2] (born 23 June 1942) is a British cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995[3][4] and was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge from 2004 to 2012 and President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010.[5]

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Why would Martin Rees being an atheist make him a "Hostile Witness"

Well he's a "Hostile Witness" (Atheist) and you 'think' he's a scientist.

24 March 2016 Daniel: Why would Martin Rees being an atheist (he is agnostic not an atheist) make him a "Hostile Witness" in a thread about science?

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Why would anyone being an atheist prevent them from being a scientist

Well he's a "Hostile Witness" (Atheist) and you 'think' he's a scientist.

Wow - this sentence just keeps on giving!
24 March 2016 Daniel: Why would anyone being an atheist prevent them from being a scientist?
Can only Jehovah's Witnesses be scientists ?
Can only Buddhists be scientists ?

 

[Reality Check]

Waste of time.
If a person is gullible enough to fall for creationist claptrap, trying to explain the basics of anything to them is pointless.

I happen to be an optimist.
If someone is intelligent enough to read the Bible then they should be intelligent enough to read the source of a quote and see that it is the caption of a cartoon from an irrelevant article. The question then is whether they are honest enough to admit that their source committed a lie by quote mining and not use it anymore. Thus:
17 March 2016 Daniel: Parroting a lie: a cartoon caption from Martin Rees, Anthropic Universe, New Scientist (6 Aug 1987), 46 !

Someone please quote me so Daniel has a chance to learn how badly he is being lied to!!!!