Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Reality Check]

Nonpareil points out a quote mine of Leonard Susskind in a YouTube video

The above sound bite is only a small portion of an interview with Susskind (who is, by the way, an atheist) from the short documentary "Are We Real?". You can watch the entire thing here, and you will note that a solution to the problem is given just after the bit that you presented out of context: multiverse theory. Susskind himself says "we don't need a fine tuner" at 25:22.

Nonpareil has gone to the trouble of identifying yet another quote mine by Daniel, I will add it to the list .
2 May 2016: Nonpareil points out a quote mine of Leonard Susskind in a YouTube video (fine tuning does not need a fine tuner!)

 

[Perpetual Student]

2 May 2016 Daniel: A list of lies, fantasies and delusions about "the evidence for his creation fairy"!

1. The laws of thermodynamics do not state that a creation fairy exists.
2. The laws of physics ad chemistry do not include a creation fairy.
3. The "laws of information" are a delusion. Information theory is a big area that has no creation fairy.
4. Quantum Mechanics does not include any creation fairy.
5. 2 May 2016 Daniel: Ignorance of or lying about the Law of Biogenesis
6. If fine tuning exists then it is not evidence for a creation fairy.
7. A delusion about imaginary "Irreducible and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity" is not evidence for a creation fairy.
8. An imaginary "Law of Cause and Effect" is not evidence for a creation fairy.
9. The existence of random things (truth, mathematics, etc.) is not evidence for a creation fairy.
10/ Common sense tells a rational, knowledgeable person that there is no evidence for a creation fairy.

 

[Daniel]

Daniel: eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtrsqrefd tgofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskz

There is nothing to elucidate. The string is gibberish.

Really?? What are you missing to DECODE i.e., Translate 'The CODE' and EXTRACT the Information...

CODES:
"We repeatedly consider the following scenario: a sender (say, A) wants to communicate or transmit some information to a receiver (say, B). The information to be transmitted is an element from some set X . It will be communicated by sending a
binary string, called the message. When B receives the message, he can decode it again and (hopefully) reconstruct the element of X that was sent. To achieve this, A and B NEED TO AGREE on a code or description method BEFORE communicating." {emphasis mine]
Grunwald, P., Vitanyi, P ; Algorithmic Information Theory; p. 10, 14 Sept 2005
http://www.illc.uva.nl/HPI/Algorithmic_Complexity.pdf

It says "meet me at joes for drinks" (every 4th letter )

Now your post and position is "Gibberish", and I'm being kind.

1. Information content is a concrete mathematical value, Daniel.

2. It is determined by the number of possible states of a given entity (such as an ASCII character, as above, or a chemical in a DNA strand), versus the actual state.

1. Really...who said? Shannon?

2. How on Earth can a Letter have a mathematical value without an Intelligent Agent designating it to be so? And what on Earth is Mathematics gonna tell you for goodness sakes?? You're sure not gonna show up @ joe's looking @ equations!!
Knowledge of the Message and it's Purpose have nothing WHATEVER to do with "Signal Space" or it's contrived 'Bit Value' nonsense (-log₂ P).
It's tantamount to assigning colors SSN#'s

Of course, Shannon Information Or Komolgrov Complexity have nothing to do with Function Sequence/Specified Complexity...

"As Abel and Trevors have pointed out, neither RSC nor OSC, or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life [5]. FSC includes the dimension of functionality [2, 3]. Szostak [6] argued that neither Shannon's original measure of uncertainty [7] nor the measure of algorithmic complexity [8] are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6]"
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

Your position is an unmitigated disaster and is nothing more than a clumsy Straw Man (Fallacy). Assign a 'bit value' to that!

oy vey

 

[Nonpareil]

Really?? What are you missing to DECODE i.e., Translate 'The CODE' and EXTRACT the Information...

<snip pointlessness>

It says "meet me at joes for drinks" (every 4th letter )

Now your post and position is "Gibberish", and I'm being kind.

Well, no. It's not. The fact that you are still trying to play pointless gotcha games does not, in any way, affect the actual argument presented. It does not alter the definition of information or in any way act as support for your idea that information requires an intelligent agency.

It is, in fact, an entirely pointless instance of the red herring fallacy.

Try again.

1. Really...who said? Shannon?

No. It is the actual definition of information used in the context of information theory. Please do not play stupid time-wasting games.

2. How on Earth can a Letter have a mathematical value without an Intelligent Agent designating it to be so?

Why should it need one? Information content does not require an intelligent agency to create it any more than gravity requires an intelligent agency to set its precise value.

Watch the videos. This is not complicated.

And what on Earth is Mathematics gonna tell you for goodness sakes??

How much information is contained in a given string or other entity.

Watch the videos. This is not complicated.

Knowledge of the Message and it's Purpose have nothing WHATEVER to do with "Signal Space" or it's contrived 'Bit Value' nonsense (-log₂ P).
It's tantamount to assigning colors SSN#'s

You didn't ask about messages or purposes. You asked about information content.

Of course, you don't understand the difference between those things, because you don't understand what those terms actually mean, so you didn't realize that you were equivocating pointlessly. But I'm not particularly concerned with holding your hand to walk you through the entire topic. I am content to allow you to post gibberish and deal with it as it comes.

Of course, Shannon Information Or Komolgrov Complexity have nothing to do with Function Sequence/Specified Complexity...

And the Gish gallop begins. None of the above have anything to do with the conversation in hand; you are simply attempting to run the conversation around in circles rather than deal with points that you cannot coherently handle.

Also, since you appear to have forgotten it, specified complexity does not exist. It is a nonsense term made up by William Dembski that has no grounding whatsoever in actual science.

"Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6]"
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

Your position is an unmitigated disaster and is nothing more than a clumsy Straw Man (Fallacy). Assign a 'bit value' to that!

I have no idea what you think the above quote is supposed to disprove about my position, particularly considering that you very obviously do not actually understand what my position is, but it doesn't particularly bother me - because, you see, I actually do understand the above.

Those curious can take a look here. In short, the article in question is concerned with a specific sub-measure of information content in the field of molecular biology, and deals with means of measuring information content that produce different results from "raw" bit counts because certain redundant pieces of information can be represented by fewer bits than would otherwise be necessary. You can read a bit more on the finer details of the idea here, but they're not really important, as they don't in any way contradict what I said above, despite Daniel's claim to the contrary. It is a refinement of information theory, not a rejection of it.

It's also worth noting that the article still makes no mention of Functional-Sequence Complexity, which Daniel is trying very hard to equate with the idea of specified complexity, as requiring an intelligent agency in order to exist.

And we can add the straw man fallacy to the list of logical fallacies that he doesn't understand the meaning of as well.

So, essentially, it's just more of the disconnected, worthless gibberish with no actual content, peppered with more out-of-context quotes that don't actually say anything that supports his pet ideas.

Why am I even bothering with this?

 

[Daniel]

No, I think I'm right on target with my argument,

You're not even on the Range.

Doesn't what you just posted contradict your opinion that DNA is information and information has to come from an intelligent source?

Ahhh, Nope.

If we can replicate and make changes to it artificially then why would environmental factors affecting change not be considered evolutionary change?

1. So if I have a page of Information (Recipe) and replicate it (Xerox) then make changes to it; Therefore...I've solved the Mystery of where the Information came from in the first place?

2. The same reason it can't be called "Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon Change"...it doesn't EXIST!

Because science is an evolving field...

Now you have "Science" evolving (lol). Reification Fallacy...

"Science" doesn't: evolve, swim, say, run, talk, do the hokey pokey ect, it's not an Entity or a Result, and it's not ALIVE; it's merely a Method of Inquiry, The Scientific Method.

usually one doesn't choose sources over 5 or 6 years old to cite.

oh brother

So far you haven't falsified the theory of evolution.

Well it's the Acme of Foolishness to even attempt to falsify Complete Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacies). It's tantamount to telling you that: Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes are responsible for creating dark matter via throwing pixie dust in a black hole behind the Crab Nebula; THEN asking you to Falsify it...?
And if you can't; Therefore, it Must Be TRUE!!

I think you have the appeal to fallacy claim backwards

Really...How so?

...no the laws of thermodynamics haven't changed but they don't contradict the theory of evolution in anyway that I can see.

1. Well my retort with the Laws of Thermodynamics was focusing on their Codification DATE and Juxtaposing your trainwreck Appeal to Age Fallacy with that Immutable Fact. That's probably why you're confused and floated this Red Herring Fallacy.

Red Herring Fallacy-- This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first.
http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Red-Herring.html


2. Well go ahead and post the Scientific Theory of evolution AND the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so as TO SUPPORT your Ipse Dixit, Red Herring Fallacy?? (Novel Idea, eh? )

I just linked you several articles about genetics and what mutations resulted in what affects on the human genome. What didn't you understand?

Here let me "link you" to this: Begging The Question (Fallacy)--- in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Ergo, where'd you get Genes? Start here...

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...

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

I think I've done that at least 8 times already in this thread...

So you've posted the Scientific Theory of evolution 8 Times, eh?

We want the one that isn't currently in the Woodshed getting Bludgeoned and Eviscerated.

No one accepts your Null Hypothesis as true, it should be the other way around since natural causes can alter genes.

Probably because "ALTERING GENES" wasn't the Argument...

Read this slowly....

Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Code/Software.

So drop your conjured Straw Man Fallacy and it Resolves by itself.

Straw Man (Fallacy)--- when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

I believe I'm swimming just fine, thank you. Evidently it is conceptually possible to get DNA/RNA/proteins naturally, the efficiency of early forms of protein synthesis would be increased dramatically by the catalysis of peptide bond formation.

1. So you're getting Functional RNA from rRNA ?? Where'd you get rRNA?? You may need to devote some time to the Begging The Question Fallacy I defined and "Linked" above.

2. Increased from ZERO ya mean...

Of the ~500 Amino Acids (AA's) known, 23 of them are Alpha Amino Acids. All Life requires and exclusively uses 20 Essential Alpha AA's.

1. Please show (CITE Source) of the "Natural" Formation of ALL 20 Essential Alpha AA's from their "Building Blocks"....? (This is ONE of the dirty little secrets you never hear about, it's really quite mind numbing...but they know they can 'Whistle Past The Graveyard', because of the utter ignorance and "Blind" Faith of their target audience).

2. We could in-effect stop right here, but where's the fun in that.

3. Once you get all of the Alpha AA's "Naturally" (and...you won't), they exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed. But LIFE exclusively uses Left-Handed Amino's (There are Exceptions but not material and outside the scope of our discussion). To be "Functional" Proteins, you not only need their Primary Structure (Proper Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif. ONE "right-handed" AA in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat.
In EVERY SINGLE OOL Paper with AA's/Proteins (and SUGARS---we'll get to that), take a look @ "Materials and Methods" Section ... their other dirty little secret, you'll find EVERY-SINGLE TIME the word "PURIFICATION" or equivalent. Because they **sequestered**---if Proteins, then left-handed AA's are chosen...if Sugars, then right-handed ones are chosen, before they even start on their "a priori" fairytale.
**This is Investigator Interference and PROVES the need for Intelligent Agency!

4. The DeltaG for Polymerization of AA's to form Polypeptides is "Positive" i.e., Non-Spontaneous.

5. Peptide Bond Formation is "Condensation Reactions". Ahhh, That is....Peptide Bonds won't form IN WATER, from both a Thermodynamic and Kinetic point of view... Peptide Bonds won't form between two AA zwitterions, this is the form AA's are found in Aqueous Environments.

You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than attempting even a cogent explanation of how this could be in the Galactic Universe of Possibility, let alone actually Physically/Chemically forming a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein, "Naturally"!!
AND...This is even before we discuss: Primary Structure, Sunlight which destroys AA's (and Nucleo-Bases), pH, Cross Reactions, Brownian Motion, Hydrolysis, Mono-Bi Functional Molecules, and Oxidation.

Since we see this reaction catalyzed by rRNA in present-day cells...

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

that shouldn't be hard to understand. Say you start with a crude peptidyl transferase ribozyme...

Hmmm, well Ribozymes are a part of Ribosomes. And Ribosomes are RNA + "Functional Protein" Complexes. Where'd you get the Functional Proteins... since it takes Ribosomes and Ribozymes Already Existing to make "Functional Proteins" in the First Place??

Is this like the Space Shuttle giving birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant?

...over time this grows larger. It then acquires the ability to position charged tRNAs accurately on RNA templates. That would eventually lead to the development of the ribosome. Instead of utilizing just 4 amino acids, the ribosome can now use 20 making it more versatile and suitable as a mechanism for carbon based life forms to flourish here on Earth. This is why your Null Hypothesis fails.

So you conjure an Incoherent "Just So" Story employing nearly the Entire Catalog of Logical Fallacies and a Biochemistry Acumen that would send Freshman Biochem Majors into the ER to get resuscitated from Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher Syndromes, THEN CONCLUDE: "This is why your Null Hypothesis fails".

Well my Null Hypothesis has nothing to do with the Hardware 'Physical Molecules' , it has to do with INFORMATION...

Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Code/Software.

So here, we're not attempting to discover the mysteries of the Paper and Ink Molecules love..we're looking for The Author of War and Peace !!

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa 55:8-9)

So according to this scripture neither one of us can falsify any hypothesis regarding DNA.

Well when your Bible Exegesis Acumen is compiled from evolutionists-r-us sites, it strains credulity well beyond the breaking point.

Not really, why do you think so? You do realize Christianity borrowed themes from pagans and Zoroastrianism right?

Start another thread if you wanna discuss other trainwrecks.

I wouldn't compare Historical Documentation with the Scientific Method

I don't, thanks.

So you've spoken of physics, the bible, god's will, natural laws, etc... as if these things are all separate entities when in my mind they aren't. We are the whole of creation all rolled into one big ball of enfolded dimensions. I think we are all of one being living under the illusion that we are separate beings. If that is the case then we create ourselves making evolution simply a process for growth and not in contradiction with the concept of WE or US as creators.

Well everyone has an 'Opinion'.

And if the many worlds theory is correct

What on Earth?? The REALLY scary part is you actually think this most: Un-Parsimonious, Occam's Razor Bludgeoning, Argument from Complete and Utter Ignorance ever presented in the History of Reason is a "Scientific Theory"; well, you have more 'pressing concerns' than a Null Hypothesis.

L. Ron Hubbard and Aleister Crowley both said that the quickest way to make money, gain power, control, ets... is to create religion

Thanks for posting of satan worshipers thoughts to wrap things up, I'm guessing as a Cherry On Top??

Christianity is not a 'religion' love.

Or they could have simply been schizophrenics.

Or simply...NOT.


regards

 

[Daniel]

Why am I even bothering with this?

You're telling me? You were compromised before you even started, then you posted... and it went Downhill in a BIG HURRY (pyroclastic flow-like) from there.

Thanks for the Canvas

regards

 

[Nonpareil]

Now you have "Science" evolving (lol). Reification Fallacy...

Failure to understand what you read once again. "Evolve" was, in this context, very clearly used in the sense of changing over time - which, yes, science does.

Your constant inability to understand what is said to you, coupled with your overconfidence in your decidedly lacking ability to play the fallacy gotcha game, makes this much harder than it needs to be.

Well it's the Acme of Foolishness to even attempt to falsify Complete Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacies).

The theory of evolution is not based on an argument from ignorance. You either do not understand what that fallacy is or do not understand the theory of evolution. Likely both.

2. Well go ahead and post the Scientific Theory of evolution AND the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so as TO SUPPORT your Ipse Dixit, Red Herring Fallacy?? (Novel Idea, eh? )

Oh, so it's just another case of a creationist not understanding what the second law of thermodynamics actually says, or how it applies to evolution. I thought as much.

Here's a hint, Daniel: the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. Earth is not a closed system.

Here let me "link you" to this: Begging The Question (Fallacy)--- in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Ergo, where'd you get Genes? Start here...

You still don't understand what begging the question means. Funny, given that you actually linked to a decent source.

Evolutionary theory does not beg the question of where genes come from. It does not care where genes come from. Where genes come from has no bearing on evolutionary theory, any more than the theory of stellar fusion and the origins of iron atoms have to do with blacksmithing.

Please at least do enough research to know what the theory of evolution actually deals with before trying to argue against it.

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!

Straw man. And he's wearing painfully poor wording to boot.

The modern theory of abiogenesis does not claim that DNA spontaneously generates (there are those erroneous connotations again) from nothing. It deals with extraordinarily simple chemical compounds forming under certain conditions (amino acids in the Miller-Urey experiment and so on, for example) to produce more and more complex units, all the way up to DNA and other biological constructs.

It's a fairly straightforward concept, obeys all the laws of chemistry, and is supported by literally all the evidence that we have. Saying "nuh-uh", or pointing out that we don't yet know all the details, is not a sufficient rebuttal to this.

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

I would explain the genetic algorithm at this point, but I am afraid that your head would explode.

Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Code/Software.

This remains a nonsense proposition based on your failure to provide coherent definitions of the terms in question.

Information manifestly can be, and is, created by "natural law" all the time. Codes and software, despite your attempts to equivocate, are not the same thing, and whether or not they can be created without intelligent direction is entirely dependent on the definition you use for them.

For any definition which applies to DNA or the like, there is no requirement for an intelligent agency.

You're telling me? You were compromised before you even started, then you posted... and it went Downhill in a BIG HURRY (pyroclastic flow-like) from there.

Thanks for the Canvas

regards

Running away from points that you cannot answer is also not a particularly convincing form of argumentation.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You're telling me? You were compromised before you even started, then you posted... and it went Downhill in a BIG HURRY (pyroclastic flow-like) from there.

Thanks for the Canvas

regards

Daniel, you have rendered the canvas devoid of reason. Your knowledge of science is demonstrably superficial; your grasp of evolution is childlike; your understanding of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, etc. is impoverished and convoluted. Even your understanding of Christian theology is suspect.
Everyone here knows you hold a losing hand and a bankrupt position. The more you rant; then deeper the hole you dig for yourself.
I suggest you just accept your naïve beliefs for what hey are: the primitive superstitions of Bronze Age goat herders that have been passed down to you by equally naïve brainwashed victims -- not unlike those addicted to astrology, ouija boards and numerology. Go lick your wounds and accept your lot. No one here is fooled in the slightest.

 

[Jodie]

You're not even on the Range.

Enlighten me. Simply repeating the same thing over and over again is not the way to go about that.

Ahhh, Nope.

Well yes it did, according to what I understand, you are saying that DNA is the information. If the DNA changes, be that through artificial or environmental factors, then the information also changes.

1. So if I have a page of Information (Recipe) and replicate it (Xerox) then make changes to it; Therefore...I've solved the Mystery of where the Information came from in the first place?

Where it came from doesn't affect how you see it working today. Those changes that you made to the recipe will either improve the taste or ruin it. It might take you several trial runs with altering that recipe to get it right, but in the end, the best dish wins the cook off.

2. The same reason it can't be called "Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon Change"...it doesn't EXIST!

If we renamed the Theory of Evolution God's Cookbook would it be more palatable?

Now you have "Science" evolving (lol). Reification Fallacy...

"Science" doesn't: evolve, swim, say, run, talk, do the hokey pokey ect, it's not an Entity or a Result, and it's not ALIVE; it's merely a Method of Inquiry, The Scientific Method.

I can see why you'ld say that using sources from 20-30 years ago but science does build upon itself. We have an old saying where I grew up,
"Even blind hogs can find acorns if they root long enough". Some people are like hogs that just pretend the acorns aren't there because they taste too bitter.

oh brother

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 7:6

Well it's the Acme of Foolishness to even attempt to falsify Complete Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacies). It's tantamount to telling you that: Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes are responsible for creating dark matter via throwing pixie dust in a black hole behind the Crab Nebula; THEN asking you to Falsify it...?
And if you can't; Therefore, it Must Be
TRUE!!

I don't see any difference in the Christian concept of the creator versus your analogy.

Really...How so?

Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information denial sets in when the information seeks you out and blindsides you. At this point, you no longer question your beliefs. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it reinforces and strengthens them instead. Over time, this make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true.

1. Well my retort with the Laws of Thermodynamics was focusing on their Codification DATE and Juxtaposing your trainwreck Appeal to Age Fallacy with that Immutable Fact. That's probably why you're confused and floated this Red Herring Fallacy.

No, I didn't have an issue with the age of the second law of thermodynamics. I was saying that it isn't in conflict with the theory of evolution.

Red Herring Fallacy-- This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first.

I don't recall bringing the second law of thermodynamics up so I think it's your red herring. We call that projection in psychology (now that's my red herring).

2. Well go ahead and post the Scientific Theory of evolution AND the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so as TO SUPPORT your Ipse Dixit, Red Herring Fallacy?? (Novel Idea, eh? )

To use the cooking analogy, you take the grease the fried chicken was cooked in and add a couple of tablespoons of flour. You stir the flour/grease mixture over heat until it browns and it's smooth with no lumps. Quickly add a cup of water and stir vigorously and within 1-2 minutes you will have chicken gravy. We all know that oil and water won't mix but the heat and the addition of flour makes it an amalgamation. A new state of equilibrium has been reached between the three ingredients. We all know that you can't un-mix the gravy once made because it's not reversible.

So going back to the very beginning when you were asking about these chemical reactions that we only see in cells, I think you forgot that it's entirely possible to sequester the right building blocks if one type has an affinity for water, but the other doesn't. So through each reaction you eventually get a protein dominated world that lead to us and all other living creatures, God's Recipe, if you will. And it is indeed finger licking good.

Here let me "link you" to this: Begging The Question (Fallacy)--- in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Ergo, where'd you get Genes? Start here...

See God's Recipe above.

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!

Never say never, there is some research out there that indicates you could be wrong. I could be wrong too. Two wrongs do not make a right.

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 !

Viroids and Prions:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3ioWBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&dq=where+do+viruses+come+from?&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO4PLXxrrMAhWB6iYKHaa5ARMQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=where%20do%20viruses%20come%20from%3F&f=false

"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.

That was in 1993 but you ought to read up on the latest HIV research.

Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...

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

According to Krauss...we came from nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEMjipW_rvI

So you've posted the Scientific Theory of evolution 8 Times, eh?

We want the one that isn't currently in the Woodshed getting Bludgeoned and Eviscerated.

There is only one and you seem to be the only one beating it.

Probably because "ALTERING GENES" wasn't the Argument...

It is if you are discussing the Theory of Evolution.

Read this slowly....

Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Code/Software.

So drop your conjured Straw Man Fallacy and it Resolves by itself.

You own the Null Hypothesis therefore it's your Straw Man Fallacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs

Straw Man (Fallacy)--- when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

http://www.britannica.com/topic/projection-psychology

1. So you're getting Functional RNA from rRNA ?? Where'd you get rRNA?? You may need to devote some time to the Begging The Question Fallacy I defined and "Linked" above.

2. Increased from ZERO ya mean...

Of the ~500 Amino Acids (AA's) known, 23 of them are Alpha Amino Acids. All Life requires and exclusively uses 20 Essential Alpha AA's.

1. Please show (CITE Source) of the "Natural" Formation of ALL 20 Essential Alpha AA's from their "Building Blocks"....? (This is ONE of the dirty little secrets you never hear about, it's really quite mind numbing...but they know they can 'Whistle Past The Graveyard', because of the utter ignorance and "Blind" Faith of their target audience).

2. We could in-effect stop right here, but where's the fun in that.

3. Once you get all of the Alpha AA's "Naturally" (and...you won't), they exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed. But LIFE exclusively uses Left-Handed Amino's (There are Exceptions but not material and outside the scope of our discussion). To be "Functional" Proteins, you not only need their Primary Structure (Proper Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif. ONE "right-handed" AA in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat.
In EVERY SINGLE OOL Paper with AA's/Proteins (and SUGARS---we'll get to that), take a look @ "Materials and Methods" Section ... their other dirty little secret, you'll find EVERY-SINGLE TIME the word "PURIFICATION" or equivalent. Because they **sequestered**---if Proteins, then left-handed AA's are chosen...if Sugars, then right-handed ones are chosen, before they even start on their "a priori" fairytale.
**This is Investigator Interference and PROVES the need for Intelligent Agency!

4. The DeltaG for Polymerization of AA's to form Polypeptides is "Positive" i.e., Non-Spontaneous.

5. Peptide Bond Formation is "Condensation Reactions". Ahhh, That is....Peptide Bonds won't form IN WATER, from both a Thermodynamic and Kinetic point of view... Peptide Bonds won't form between two AA zwitterions, this is the form AA's are found in Aqueous Environments.

You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than attempting even a cogent explanation of how this could be in the Galactic Universe of Possibility, let alone actually Physically/Chemically forming a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein, "Naturally"!!
AND...This is even before we discuss: Primary Structure, Sunlight which destroys AA's (and Nucleo-Bases), pH, Cross Reactions, Brownian Motion, Hydrolysis, Mono-Bi Functional Molecules, and Oxidation.


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


Hmmm, well Ribozymes are a part of Ribosomes. And Ribosomes are RNA + "Functional Protein" Complexes. Where'd you get the Functional Proteins... since it takes Ribosomes and Ribozymes Already Existing to make "Functional Proteins" in the First Place??

Is this like the Space Shuttle giving birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant? ng

So you conjure an Incoherent "Just So" Story employing nearly the Entire Catalog of Logical Fallacies and a Biochemistry Acumen that would send Freshman Biochem Majors into the ER to get resuscitated from Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher Syndromes, THEN CONCLUDE: "This is why your Null Hypothesis fails".

Well my Null Hypothesis has nothing to do with the Hardware 'Physical Molecules' , it has to do with INFORMATION...

Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Code/Software.

So here, we're not attempting to discover the mysteries of the Paper and Ink Molecules love..we're looking for The Author of War and Peace !!

I wouldn't use that metaphor to describe the creator. You don't have to look hard to find him/her, just look in the mirror. That said, you have repeatedly said that DNA is the information, therefore the hardware (molecules) should also be information.You keep discounting the Theory of Evolution because you don't have a clear cut answer as to how molecules became DNA, yet DNA is information, so your conclusion was that a creator did it ??? I don't suppose you've ever heard of the concept of the autopilot.

Well when your Bible Exegesis Acumen is compiled from evolutionists-r-us sites, it strains credulity well beyond the breaking point.

Your divinely inspired goat herders wrote that scripture so take it up with the creator if you have a problem with it.

Start another thread if you wanna discuss other trainwrecks.

Belief is belief, what theory did you base your idea that everything is derived from a creator? The bible certainly isn't proof of that.

What on Earth?? The REALLY scary part is you actually think this most: Un-Parsimonious, Occam's Razor Bludgeoning, Argument from Complete and Utter Ignorance ever presented in the History of Reason is a "Scientific Theory"; well, you have more 'pressing concerns' than a Null Hypothesis.

So far it hasn't been proven to be mathematically incorrect, is not math a type of information?

Thanks for posting of satan worshipers thoughts to wrap things up, I'm guessing as a Cherry On Top??

Well they were right, look at the Catholic Church and it's history. Islam and Judaism are other examples. Christians weren't saints either.

Christianity is not a 'religion' love.

Historically speaking it is: Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Martin Luther's push for protestant reformation, however, with the Evangelical movement I'm sure it has evolved into what it is today.

Or simply...NOT.

Statistically speaking, more than likely.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

Daniel, how is DNA like software or programming code?

1. It's not "LIKE" Software/Information... it "IS" Software/Information. Software is Information. Just because the word "Software" is connotatively associated with Computers (we're not computers) doesn't render null or preclude it's DENOTATIVE Meaning...Information.

2. It was in the reply to the post you 'Dodged' with your offering of: "Amen Brother! Hallelujah!"

...

"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {emphasis mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/1...e-of-life.html

"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410

"Genes are not analogous to messages; genes are messages. Genes are literal programs. They are sent from a source by a transmitter through a channel (Fig. 3) within the context of a viable cell. They are decoded by a receiver and arrive eventually at a final destination. At this destination, the instantiated messages catalyze needed biochemical reactions. Both cellular and extracellular enzyme functions are involved (e.g., extracellular microbial cellulases, proteases, and nucleases)." {emphasis mine}
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29



As posted roughly 25 times in this thread...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

There are NO Physico-Chemical links between the " CODE " and Amino Acid or Instruction. The Laws of Physics/Chemistry contain NO Symbolic Logic Functions.

DNA/RNA ect are merely "The Medium" that conveys the Message, The Ink and The Paper. It's not The Author of the Message.

"Nucleotides and their triplet-codon "block codes" represent each amino acid. Genes are informational messenger molecules specifically because codons function as semantic physical symbol vehicles. A codon "means" a certain amino acid. The instantiation of prescriptive information into biopolymers requires an arbitrary reassortment potential of these symbol vehicles in the linear sequence. This means that sequencing is dynamically inert. If the sequence were ordered by law-like constraint, the sequence would manifest monotonous redundancy of monomer occurrence. There would be little or no uncertainty at each decision node. Uncertainty (contingency: freedom from necessity) is required in a physical matrix for it to serve as a vehicle of descriptive or prescriptive information."
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29


regards

This is all irrelevant, Daniel.

And I'm pretty sure you know why.

You see, in many posts, in this thread and others, you have insisted that the Scientific Method must be followed, for any result to have scientific merit.

And you have been clear, in a great many posts, on what constitutes "the Scientific Method" (and what doesn't). Things like independent and dependent variables.

In this post of yours, the one I'm quoting, you quote-mine, presenting material which seems to be consistent with your idea that DNA is software/information/code/whatever.

Yet none of your quotes contains a report of objective, independently verifiable research concluding that DNA is software/information/code/whatever!

And you certainly have not shown, in detail, that any such research adheres to your strictures re "the Scientific Method".

Why?

Why do you continue to post this sort of thing, and ignore the most basic, the most essential aspect, namely showing - in detail - that your sources have conducted research with adheres to your strictures re "the Scientific Method"?

Don't you see that all your hard work is for naught, if you don't perform this most basic, most essential of checks?

Oh, and for avoidance of doubt, you cannot rely upon what's generally accepted as scientific research, if only because you have declared geology, astrophysics, ecology, and no doubt many more fields to not adhere to your strictures re "the Scientific Method".

You must establish veracity etc independently.

By yourself.

 

[turingtest]

This is all irrelevant, Daniel.

And I'm pretty sure you know why.

You see, in many posts, in this thread and others, you have insisted that the Scientific Method must be followed, for any result to have scientific merit.

And you have been clear, in a great many posts, on what constitutes "the Scientific Method" (and what doesn't). Things like independent and dependent variables.

In this post of yours, the one I'm quoting, you quote-mine, presenting material which seems to be consistent with your idea that DNA is software/information/code/whatever.

Yet none of your quotes contains a report of objective, independently verifiable research concluding that DNA is software/information/code/whatever!

And you certainly have not shown, in detail, that any such research adheres to your strictures re "the Scientific Method".

Why?

Why do you continue to post this sort of thing, and ignore the most basic, the most essential aspect, namely showing - in detail - that your sources have conducted research with adheres to your strictures re "the Scientific Method"?

Don't you see that all your hard work is for naught, if you don't perform this most basic, most essential of checks?

Oh, and for avoidance of doubt, you cannot rely upon what's generally accepted as scientific research, if only because you have declared geology, astrophysics, ecology, and no doubt many more fields to not adhere to your strictures re "the Scientific Method".

You must establish veracity etc independently.

By yourself.

Daniel's escape clause for all this is simply to declare his hypothesis "The Null Hypothesis"; in DanielScience, this means never having to say he's wrong, because, for him, it means he bears no burden of falsifiability, so he can just skip all the requirements for research and testability. When, of course, in real science, it's especially the proponent of a hypothesis (null or not) who bears that burden; otherwise, all you have is a prophet proclaiming a faith.

Daniel doesn't like being told he's just practicing a religion, and, in a way, I agree. He's certainly not a very good Christian if he insists on either limiting his god or reading its mysterious mind; after all, he's doing one or the other if he says that either god couldn't have or wouldn't have used evolution ("what's that!?!?!?!?") to get results.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I may have mentioned this already and it may be common knowledge at this board so ignore this if so.

The David Abel that Daniel has cited multiple times is one of the most prolific writers for the Discovery Institute. He's also a total fraud that claims to be the head of a fictitious institute. He claims to be part of the "biological research division" of Longview Press, which apparently is his own one person operation. Note that address of Longview Press tracks back to a vanity PO box and that the images come from a stock image site. He also claimed at one time to have a million dollar prize foundation that had access to the like of Freeman Dyson on the judging panel.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Functional sequence complexity is an extension of Shannon Information

Of course, Shannon Information Or Komolgrov Complexity have nothing to do with Function Sequence/Specified Complexity..

This is a usually irrelevant, ignorant and delusional (about "Specified Complexity") statement from Daniel.
3 May 2016 Daniel: Functional sequence complexity is an extension of Shannon Information to include functionality as reading the abstract makes obvious !
There is none of the creationist/IDiot delusion of "Specified Complexity" in the cited paper.

 

[JeanTate]

Sure, No Problem (for the 35th time in this thread alone)...

The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Information/Software/Code.

If you can't Falsify the Null, then your position and World-View are circling the drain @ light speed...

The Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/Software/Code.

The Null or 'Default Position' is accepted unless you can Validate the Alternative Hypothesis. Savvy?? Go ahead...?
You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!!

<snip>

Game on!

I created some code this morning, using Python. It is, obviously, software.

I am part of Nature, including all trillion or so bacteria, archaea, etc that forms my microbiome.

Ergo, Nature (e.g. me) can create information, software, and code.

 

[annnnoid]

Another interpretation of Annnoid's claims is that since the universe does not behave in an inherently unpredictable and chaotic fashion then its behaviour must be prescribed by intelligence. Even if the premise is true (and it seems to be, at least above the quantum scale) then the conclusion does not follow. It is a non-sequitur.

Perhaps you should actually read the claims instead of constantly misrepresenting them.

The issue is very very very far from JUST that the universe does not behave in inherently unpredictable and chaotic ways. Though thank you for once again confirming the obvious.

…the issue…as I have pointed out countless times, is that the universe can be modeled, represented, described, and predicted, to a fantastically comprehensive degree of precision by the l.o.p.

…and no one, not you nor anyone else has a freakin clue how or what the explicit relationship is between the l.o.p. and the l.o.n. (or if there even is one)!

…but it is most indisputably the case that it certainly looks like there is one (an explicit relationship). And it is not only the case…but it is the case to the degree that you, me, and just about everyone else on this planet entrust our very lives to this utterly inexplicable conclusion.

Thus…it is entirely reasonable to hear it said that…’the laws of nature caused this that or the other’ when, in actual fact, nobody has ever come within light years of empirically locating anything remotely resembling an actual ‘law of nature’ (despite perpetual student’s insistence that such a thing does, in fact, exist in some mathematical form or other).

But…that is what it looks like! And it not only looks like it…it looks like it to the degree that we trust our very lives to this conclusion. Billions of times every single day.

So the conclusion that the l.o.p. are somehow instantiated in reality (as the l.o.n.) is circumstantially supported by very very very substantial amounts of evidence.

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.

It’s almost embarrassing to read these persistently feeble objections….”but that’s not what we mean by the word ‘law’..." (who…cares!)….”but what about dolphins and wombats…do they not possess an ‘intelligence’ capable of creating a metaphorical law of physics” (we’re talking about an ‘intelligence’ capable of the instantiated reality of the sum-total of the laws of physics here...what a fish can or cannot comprehend is demonstrably irrelevant)….etc. etc.

I mean…you all keep repeating the arguments yourselves but you simply refuse to connect YOUR own dots.

The laws of physics themselves are an product of intelligence

The consistency of events may imply a structure that the events occur in…

Human beings write the laws of physics according to what the universe reveals to us.

…the laws of physics that you find in textbooks are indeed the product of intelligence

A l.o.p., however poorly, or well, expressed, however exactly it matches all relevant observations or not, is the creation of something which 'has intelligence'.

It is the word law as used in science - a behavior of the universe that has overwhelming evidence to support it.

…all your words. I could very easily dig up dozens of others.

IOW…according to YOUR arguments…’intelligence’ AND ONLY INTELLIGENCE creates the l.o.p. The l.o.p. somehow exist in reality as the l.o.n. Since ONLY intelligence creates such things…some manner of ‘it’ (intelligence) is implicated in reality.

…and…if we’re talking about an intelligence that creates actual laws (the cause of what happens)(which could easily be regarded as software / code / operating instructions) instead of just models, whatever ‘intelligence’ is involved easily and immediately gets elevated to whatever a God is.

By…definition!

 

[Nonpareil]

…the issue…as I have pointed out countless times, is that the universe can be modeled, represented, described, and predicted, to a fantastically comprehensive degree of precision by the l.o.p.

…and no one, not you nor anyone else has a freakin clue how or what the explicit relationship is between the l.o.p. and the l.o.n. (or if there even is one)!

That's not an issue. That's just you failing to understand the concept of models again.

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.

There is no reason to believe that the laws of physics (or nature, or l.o.n., or whatever your semantic game is calling them at the moment) required an intelligent agency to put them in place. Any argument to the contrary is bare assertion on its face.

 

[annnnoid]

That's not an issue. That's just you failing to understand the concept of models again.

You'd have to be deaf blind dumb and stupid to insist that there is no relationship (or nothing but metaphor) between the mathematical model that describes what is in this picture and whatever-it-is that is actually in this picture (perpetual student...for one...insists that the 'math' actually exists!).

…but according to you it is not an issue. Suffice it to say that there likely isn’t a scientist on the planet who wouldn’t give their first-born to find out what that relationship actually is! Not surprisingly…you are not a scientist.

There is no reason to believe that the laws of physics (or nature, or l.o.n., or whatever your semantic game is calling them at the moment) required an intelligent agency to put them in place. Any argument to the contrary is bare assertion on its face.

…except for the simple fact that EVERYONE here never stops insisting that the l.o.p. could not be created by anything BUT something that is intelligent.

Tell you what Nonpareil…why don’t you waste a few moments of your life and actually read the arguments before you go sticking your foot in your mouth again.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You'd have to be deaf blind dumb and stupid to insist that there is no relationship (or nothing but metaphor) between the mathematical model that describes what is in this picture and whatever-it-is that is actually in this picture (perpetual student...for one...insists that the 'math' actually exists!).

[qimg]https://deae89a72d2f97fc67dc-8512833177f375bfc9e117209d1deddc.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/bzPlIEBdJm_1401657036629.jpg?rasterSignature=71257a005ca1073318cac43d931d24bf&theme=Five%20Seven%20Five&imageFilter=false[/qimg]

…but according to you it is not an issue. Suffice it to say that there likely isn’t a scientist on the planet who wouldn’t give their first-born to find out what that relationship actually is! Not surprisingly…you are not a scientist.

…except for the simple fact that EVERYONE here never stops insisting that the l.o.p. could not be created by anything BUT something that is intelligent.

Tell you what Nonpareil…why don’t you waste a few moments of your life and actually read the arguments before you go sticking your foot in your mouth again.

I never said. "The math actually exists" and I'm not sure what that might even mean. I have observed that that universe behaves mathematically at all levels and in every observable aspect.
There are some physicists that have gone a step further (Tegmark) and stated that the universe is mathematics. The rationale being that if one considers a particle (like an electron) there is a mathematical isomorphism between the particle's behavior and the mathematical model describing it -- hence the electron is its mathematical description.
In any case, mathematical behavior is demonstrably part of the fundamental nature of the universe; there is no need to postulate creation fairies who like mathematics to account for this nature.
Mathematics is merely an extension of logic; there is no it reason to expect the universe to behave illogically.

 

[hecd2]

Perhaps you should actually read the claims instead of constantly misrepresenting them.

The issue is very very very far from JUST that the universe does not behave in inherently unpredictable and chaotic ways. Though thank you for once again confirming the obvious.

Nah - you just repeat my paraphrase of your claims using ten times the number of words but not adding any additional meaning or sense.

…the issue…as I have pointed out countless times, is that the universe can be modeled, represented, described, and predicted, to a fantastically comprehensive degree of precision by the l.o.p.

Is that the issue? That doesn't demonstrate that the universe needs an intelligent creator.

…and no one, not you nor anyone else has a freakin clue how or what the explicit relationship is between the l.o.p. and the l.o.n. (or if there even is one)!

Or is that the issue? But that doesn't demonstrate that the universe needs an intelligent creator either.

…but it is most indisputably the case that it certainly looks like there is one (an explicit relationship). And it is not only the case…but it is the case to the degree that you, me, and just about everyone else on this planet entrust our very lives to this utterly inexplicable conclusion.

Now you start to set up the fallacious conflation between what you are calling the laws of physics (our description of the universe's behaviour, descriptive by definition and created by intelligence) and what you call the laws of nature (the universe's behaviour, not necessarily requiring intelligence.) What's more your statement here does not follow in a chain of logic from the previous two statements above.

Thus…it is entirely reasonable to hear it said that…’the laws of nature caused this that or the other’ when, in actual fact, nobody has ever come within light years of empirically locating anything remotely resembling an actual ‘law of nature’ (despite perpetual student’s insistence that such a thing does, in fact, exist in some mathematical form or other).

Rephrase it: this, that and the other happens and that's how nature behaves. That removes the temptation to conflate the two instances of the term "law" (laws of physics and laws of nature which are not the same thing) on which your fallacious reasoning depends.

But…that is what it looks like! And it not only looks like it…it looks like it to the degree that we trust our very lives to this conclusion. Billions of times every single day.

In other words the universe doesn't act in an unpredicatble or chaotic fashion. It has taken you lots of spurious words to get there.

So the conclusion that the l.o.p. are somehow instantiated in reality (as the l.o.n.) is circumstantially supported by very very very substantial amounts of evidence.

And this where you go completely wrong because the laws of physics are our description of how nature behaves. They are not "instantiated" in reality as the laws of nature, any more than my description of a piece of rock (which description requires intelligence) is "instantiated" in the properties of the piece of rock (which is not an intelligent creation). Yours is a classic case of confusing the map and the territory.

And a misuse of the word "instantiate". If you were using it correctly you'd be claiming that the way nature behaves is one instance of the laws of physics you find in textbooks. And that is utter baloney.

IOW…according to YOUR arguments…’intelligence’ AND ONLY INTELLIGENCE creates the l.o.p. The l.o.p. somehow exist in reality as the l.o.n. Since ONLY intelligence creates such things…some manner of ‘it’ (intelligence) is implicated in reality.

No - just no.

 

[jimbob]

annnoid - your argument seems to boil down to "there is a universe, therefore creator".

You might disagree, but you haven't explained what a universe could be without something governing how things behave in such a universe. I contend that it is impossible to even conceive of such a universe, so your basing your assertion on the existence of a feature that is common to every conceivable universe.