Creationist argument about DNA and information

[annnnoid]

This is where you go wrong. It's nonsense.

Why...cause you say so!

Go pick up your physics book. Now tell me any possible way that either the book or its contents could have been created by something that does not possess intelligence.

Someday you may understand that if you make a claim without any kind of an argument to back it up your claim is worthless.

 

[ehcks]

Why...cause you say so!

Go pick up your physics book. Now tell me any possible way that either the book or its contents could have been created by something that does not possess intelligence.

Someday you may understand that if you make a claim without any kind of an argument to back it up your claim is worthless.

DNA is not a book.

Why do you keep trying to compare a series of chemical reactions to a tool created by humans?

 

[Border Reiver]

Well Occam's Razor violations speak to multiplying entitIES beyond necessity. ONE is NECESSARY in this instance.

Which one? Why that one when there are so many to choose from?

 

[MikeG]

......Go pick up your physics book. Now tell me any possible way that either the book or its contents could have been created by something that does not possess intelligence.

Sorry, but trying to back up a ridiculous claim with a ridiculous example is ridiculous.

Someday you may understand that if you make a claim without any kind of an argument to back it up your claim is worthless.

Indeed. Worthless and ridiculous.

 

[jimbob]

It's like the Enlightenment never happened. Daniel, and Annnoid, please look at the evidence that people were able to understand in the 19th Century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buckland would be a good place to start - being a theologian who ended up being convinced of Old Earth Creationism by the evidence that he saw.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

2. "eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd" (Please identify the Information for us first then continue, Thanks)

<snip>

I have it on reliable authority - i.e. from an Intelligent Agent - that there is another message in this string of apparently random characters: "ey haft ye 42 yerith"

IOW, a mystic had a vision that it is Daniel channeling Douglas Adams, but as is so often the case with mystics and those-who-channel, the message is a little garbled. That leaves it somewhat open to interpretation; perhaps a loose gloss would be something like "I have the answer to "42""

 

[steenkh]

So a Textbook Argument from Ignorance Fallacy...

??? This was no argument. I said that there is something we do not know, and you call that a fallacy??

Argument to The Future Fallacy with a Cherry on Top Hypothetical wrapped in another Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: "we shall not know".

And again! You have got fallacies on your mind! How is your reading comprehension? You either did not understand what I wrote, or you did not understand the description of the fallacies.

1. Which Specific Fallacy is that??

I do not care. You are the expert, look it up yourself.

2. Please SUPPORT "Your" mistaken Baseless Assertion Fallacy..."that self-replicating proteins can only be formed through DNA, and that is mistaken."

Well, I did only point to a flaw in your own argument where you - baselessly - claimed that self-replicating proteins can only formed by the use of DNA. It is true that we only know of examples where DNA is involved, but it is still a fallacy to claim that it must necessarily be so. How exactly will you defend that claim?

And Again....

SHOW...??? Show a "Functional" Protein wickering itself together from AA's "Naturally" Spontaneously...?

Well, it is your fallacious claim, so you should show that it is not possible. You were so kind as to provide a description of the Argument/Appeal to Ignorance: "an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it." In other words: if I cannot provide you with an example of 'a "Functional" Protein wickering itself together from AA's "Naturally" Spontaneously', it is a fallacy to argue that your claim that it is not possible must then be true.

So "Na'ahh" is your retort? Riveting! How Scientific of you.

Do you understand the Concept of SUPPORTING what you say by chance?

So the Sun, eh? Ok, you conduct this Experiment and Validate your claim...

Wait till summer and take a trip to Majorca Spain . Stop eating for 1 week, you may drink water we don't want you to Vapor Lock . Lay out in the Sun (without 'Sun Block') in skivvies from 9am-5pm each day. At the end of the week, have you (and your skin) increased or decreased in Entropy?

After your stay @ a Local Medical Facility, report back with your results.

Is this drivel supposed to be a demonstration the 2nd LoT prevents abiogenesis?

I'd like to see a Scientific Theory without a wisp of a prayer even formulating an actual Formal Scientific Hypothesis Let alone TESTING it!

It would be tantamount to showing Married Bachelors.

Well, I am looking forward to seeing the Formal Scientific Theory of Goddidit tested in the laboratory too!

Well Occam's Razor violations speak to multiplying entitIES beyond necessity. ONE is NECESSARY in this specific instance.

You yourself demanded parsimony and referred to Occam, and now - when it suits you - you switch to demanding that the least parsimonious theory should be chosen, solely because a blatant breach of everything we know about nature can be summed up in an entity with a three letter name! Perhaps you should try to understand Occam's argument, rather than shoe-horn the definition of "entity" into such a narrow definition.

By your standards, "intelligent falling" would be a better theory of gravity than Relativity, because it is the only one to have an "entity" in it!

1. Who?? Find it....Found what?

Scientists who research abiogenesis.

2. Argument from Ignorance Fallacy (SEE: 'many' above)

What argument?

3. I think I see the problem. You're having difficulty with discerning between "Science" and "Just So" Stories; allow me to assist, it's all in the 'Method'...
Science --- 'Method': The Scientific Method

"Just So" Stories --- 'Method': Imagination.

A pity for you that there are so few Danielscientists in the world!

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>
Go pick up your physics book. Now tell me any possible way that either the book or its contents could have been created by something that does not possess intelligence.

The book was likely printed, and bound, by machines; in some "print shops", the process is done entirely by machines. Those machines do not possess intelligence (or perhaps you think they do?)

Re contents: AFAIK, no physics textbook (the content thereof) has yet been produced entirely by machines; however, there are certainly books about physics whose content has been produced by machines (the fact that they are hard to read, and full of 'mistakes', and sold mostly to people who do not know what they are actually buying, does not negate the fact that their content was created by something which does not possess intelligence).

Machines 2, annnnoid 0.

Someday you may understand that if you make a claim without any kind of an argument to back it up your claim is worthless.

Indeed.

 

[annnnoid]

DNA is not a book.

Why do you keep trying to compare a series of chemical reactions to a tool created by humans?

Where have I once mentioned DNA?

Sorry, but trying to back up a ridiculous claim with a ridiculous example is ridiculous.

Indeed. Worthless and ridiculous.

There are people (besides me) on this very thread (all of whom have substantial scientific credentials) who have insisted that the laws of science are an explicit response to and reflection of equivalent laws ‘in nature’.

Laws of science are generated…EXCLUSIVELY…by intelligent agents.

…you have yet to even begin to demonstrate how the exact same thing can be generated ‘in nature’ …WITHOUT intelligent agents.

All you do is gasp…”…but that’s ridiculous”.

Ridiculous! A very impressive argument. Get back to me when you actually have one.

It's like the Enlightenment never happened. Daniel, and Annnoid, please look at the evidence that people were able to understand in the 19th Century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buckland would be a good place to start - being a theologian who ended up being convinced of Old Earth Creationism by the evidence that he saw.

ALL the evidence suggests that the ‘laws of science’ are a DIRECT response to and reflection of the ‘laws of nature’ (taken metaphorically…or literally).

ALL OF IT! Including every statement made here that attacks my position.

The ‘laws of science’ are generated EXCLUSIVELY by intelligent agents.

…how is it possible to conclude that anything else could have generated the ‘laws of nature’ when the ONLY paradigm we have is: intelligence creates laws...period?

Unless, of course, like all good skeptics…you just ignore the evidence.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

So the Sun, eh? Ok, you conduct this Experiment and Validate your claim...

Wait till summer and take a trip to Majorca Spain . Stop eating for 1 week, you may drink water we don't want you to Vapor Lock . Lay out in the Sun (without 'Sun Block') in skivvies from 9am-5pm each day. At the end of the week, have you (and your skin) increased or decreased in Entropy?

After your stay @ a Local Medical Facility, report back with your results.

<snip>

I have evidence - from an Intelligent Agent - that I sometimes morph into an ("intelligent") olive tree, somewhere in Spain.

A full week there, with cloudless skies, is pure heaven for me! I don't recall whether, in such a week, I have been visited by a farmer with a degree in the plant equivalent of "medicine" (for individuals of the species Homo sap.), but if I had, I'm pretty sure she would have found me in rude health.

How does the saying go? Houses for curses?

 

[jimbob]

The book was likely printed, and bound, by machines; in some "print shops", the process is done entirely by machines. Those machines do not possess intelligence (or perhaps you think they do?)

Re contents: AFAIK, no physics textbook (the content thereof) has yet been produced entirely by machines; however, there are certainly books about physics whose content has been produced by machines (the fact that they are hard to read, and full of 'mistakes', and sold mostly to people who do not know what they are actually buying, does not negate the fact that their content was created by something which does not possess intelligence).

Machines 2, annnnoid 0.


Indeed.

I think it is worse than that. If I am understanding the claim correctly, they are saying that the mere existence of laws of nature proves a deity.

I don't think it is possible to conceive of any universe that doesn't have anything governing the behaviour of systems within it, whether those are unintelligent natural laws, or direction by (an) intelligent (and maybe supernatural) agency.

 

[JeanTate]

Where have I once mentioned DNA?

If you didn't, why are you hijacking this thread? After all, the title is "Creationist argument about DNA and information"

<snip>

Laws of science are generated…EXCLUSIVELY…by intelligent agents.

Ignoring the hype, exaggeration, etc, this may be true today.

However, at least some of the "laws of mathematics" have been generated by ... machines!

IIRC, not only can a range of mathematical theorems be 'proof checked' by machines, but some can actually be generated by them.

And, again IIRC, there is actually work underway (at Google? IBM?) to develop a machine which can create hypotheses, check them against observational/experimental results, and 'publish' them.

Are these machines "intelligent agents"?

 

[jimbob]

It's like the Enlightenment never happened. Daniel, and Annnoid, please look at the evidence that people were able to understand in the 19th Century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buckland would be a good place to start - being a theologian who ended up being convinced of Old Earth Creationism by the evidence that he saw.

ALL the evidence suggests that the ‘laws of science’ are a DIRECT response to and reflection of the ‘laws of nature’ (taken metaphorically…or literally).

ALL OF IT! Including every statement made here that attacks my position.

The ‘laws of science’ are generated EXCLUSIVELY by intelligent agents. …how is it possible to conclude that anything else could have generated the ‘laws of nature’ when the ONLY paradigm we have is: intelligence creates laws...period?
Unless, of course, like all good skeptics…you just ignore the evidence.

Either you are willfully misunderstanding or you are misunderstanding.

Science aims to uncover how parts of the universe behaves. It produces models that are approximations which describe how parts of the universe operates and as our knowledge increases, the accuracy and valid range increases.

The laws of nature are nothing more than how the universe behaves.

You seem to think that the existence of a universe that has laws of nature is evidence of an intelligence. I can only conceive of universes where something governs the behaviour of systems, whether the governing is unintelligent or not.

I would like to know what your alternatives are - because otherwise you are saying that the mere existence of the universe is proof of a deity, which seems silly. And certainly gets one no closer to any particular deity.

 

[annnnoid]

The book was likely printed, and bound, by machines; in some "print shops", the process is done entirely by machines. Those machines do not possess intelligence (or perhaps you think they do?)

Re contents: AFAIK, no physics textbook (the content thereof) has yet been produced entirely by machines; however, there are certainly books about physics whose content has been produced by machines (the fact that they are hard to read, and full of 'mistakes', and sold mostly to people who do not know what they are actually buying, does not negate the fact that their content was created by something which does not possess intelligence).

Machines 2, annnnoid 0.

Indeed.

My first thought was: “…how old are you?”

…honestly. It’s no wonder you have avoided responding. Based on this…you simply don’t have anything to say.

There is literally barely a single word in either of these two paragraphs that could not be demolished by an elementary school critical thinking class.

…so I’m going to leave it and see if you can actually come up with something deserving of a SCIENCE THREAD on an international skeptics forum.

I think it is worse than that. If I am understanding the claim correctly, they are saying that the mere existence of laws of nature proves a deity.

Is it ever possible for you folks to actually read what I write.

Here’s a clue: I SAID NO SUCH THING!

I don't think it is possible to conceive of any universe that doesn't have anything governing the behaviour of systems within it, whether those are unintelligent natural laws, or direction by (an) intelligent (and maybe supernatural) agency.

So ‘something’ governs the behavior of the systems. Wow. Progress. And you even go so far as to admit that it could possibly be ‘intelligent’. How on earth could you have ever come to such a conclusion I wonder?

The question is not whether or not there is something ‘intelligent’…the question is how it could NOT be…given that the ONLY thing we know with any capacity to generate ‘laws’ IS intelligence!

…notice the word ‘ONLY’. If you know of something else (and I wouldn’t waste your time with Jean Tate’s embarrassing example)…do let me know what it is

If you didn't, why are you hijacking this thread? After all, the title is "Creationist argument about DNA and information"

I…answered…this…question…before.

…because this thread is about what constitutes evidence in support of the creationist paradigm. Meaning…is there evidence for intelligent agency in this universe.

The ONLY possible answer (the one that you all keep doing everything but insisting is correct)…is YES!

Ignoring the hype, exaggeration, etc, this may be true today.

However, at least some of the "laws of mathematics" have been generated by ... machines!

IIRC, not only can a range of mathematical theorems be 'proof checked' by machines, but some can actually be generated by them.

And, again IIRC, there is actually work underway (at Google? IBM?) to develop a machine which can create hypotheses, check them against observational/experimental results, and 'publish' them.

Are these machines "intelligent agents"?

Y…E…S!

Are they ‘human beings?’

N…O!

All your argument does is further support the conclusion that ONLY intelligence has the capacity to generate such things as mathematics / laws.

Of course…there is the slight qualification when it comes to machine intelligence:

Who built the machines?

 

[jimbob]

Annnoid, I am saying it is possible to conceive of (i.e. imagine) a universe which is governed by an intelligent agency.

You seem to be conflating two things.

So far, only humans, or systems built by humans can propose rules of system-beaviourthat explain observations. That is not the same as saying that the behaviour of the system needs an intelligence to prescribe it as opposed to describe it.



Arguing otherwise is "undergraduate 'shadows in the cave' pot-fuelled cod-philosophy"

 

[turingtest]

Either you are willfully misunderstanding or you are misunderstanding.

Science aims to uncover how parts of the universe behaves. It produces models that are approximations which describe how parts of the universe operates and as our knowledge increases, the accuracy and valid range increases.

The laws of nature are nothing more than how the universe behaves.

You seem to think that the existence of a universe that has laws of nature is evidence of an intelligence. I can only conceive of universes where something governs the behaviour of systems, whether the governing is unintelligent or not.

I would like to know what your alternatives are - because otherwise you are saying that the mere existence of the universe is proof of a deity, which seems silly. And certainly gets one no closer to any particular deity.

Daniel is under-thinking the whole thing; annnnoid is over-thinking it. Interesting how two different approaches result in the same "answer"- which, of course, is no answer at all, just a substitute for one; it's almost as if they're not really two different approaches at all.

 

[jimbob]

Annnoid, please describe a universe which has nothing governing the behaviour of systems within it... In fact, please tell me how you would even describe anything as a system in such a universe.

If you can't - how can you say that the fact that, in our universe, systems tend to behave in certain ways is evidence of a guiding intelligence?

 

[jimbob]

Daniel is under-thinking the whole thing; annnnoid is over-thinking it. Interesting how two different approaches result in the same "answer"- which, of course, is no answer at all, just a substitute for one; it's almost as if they're not really two different approaches at all.

And why not Buddha? Or the Fates?

 

[turingtest]

And why not Buddha? Or the Fates?

If Daniel were an Indian or an ancient Greek, I have no doubt he'd be arguing for one of the two. Annnnoid...I dunno. I read his stuff, and for some reason, all I can think is "party on, Garth!"

ETA:

 

[Daniel]

Well, it is your fallacious claim, so you should show that it is not possible. You were so kind as to provide a description of the Argument/Appeal to Ignorance: "an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it."

1. There is no Flaw.
2. There is no Fallacy.

My Argument is GOD; Intelligent Agency is the Necessary Condition for the Existence of Life and The Universe.

Your Argument is: "Nature"/Natural Law is the Necessary Condition for the Existence of Life and The Universe.


Following? Ya see the 2 choices?

My Claim is...

A. "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !

Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...

"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...

B. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?


Listen Closely: To SUPPORT "your" position of Nature/Natural Law as 'The Cause' for LIFE..... "YOU" must provide EVIDENCE for A and B @ a Minimum!! I'm only asking for a single "Functional" Molecule LIGHT YEARS AWAY from LIFE, for goodness sakes.

...you should show that it is not possible.

My goodness gracious. How on Earth can I show you evidence of the Absence of Something??

Isn't the Absence of " IT "....The Evidence of ABSENCE !!!
Judge: Present your Case....

Daniel: Slopelgerts Do Not Exist!!
steenkh: Show evidence!!
Daniel: Slopelgerts Do Not Exist!! The Prosecution Rests.

Judge: steenkh, show Slopelgerts to refute Daniel.

steenkh: It's an Argument from Ignorance.

Judge: rotflol. Bailiff!!!!

Well, I am looking forward to seeing the Formal Scientific Theory of Goddidit tested in the laboratory too!

Well there professor, to accomplish this (Show you "The How" Mechanism/Process...a Scientific Theory) can you please provide me a Time Machine...?

The What/Is is the Compelling Factor in the Matter. Here's your Argument, You're Sally...

Harry: "Look @ those Amazing Pyramids!!"

Sally: "HOW were they built??"

Harry: "I have No Idea."

Sally: "Therefore, the Wind/Waves/Erosion/Gravity constructed them!"


regards