Creationist argument about DNA and information

annnnoid said:
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!).
Click to expand...

I didn't say that there is no relationship.

You still don't understand what a model is.

annnnoid said:
…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.
Click to expand...

Equivocating between people addressing the mathematical representations of the system (the model, as above) and the system itself will not get you anywhere. One is a representation created by an intelligent agency. The other has absolutely no evidence which indicates that it requires the existence of one.
 
Nonpareil said:
I didn't say that there is no relationship.

You still don't understand what a model is.



Equivocating between people addressing the mathematical representations of the system (the model, as above) and the system itself will not get you anywhere. One is a representation created by an intelligent agency. The other has absolutely no evidence which indicates that it requires the existence of one.
Click to expand...

Yes, If I draw a picture of a Donald Trumpa stone, that implies I have (a warped) intelligence, it doesn't imply that Donald Trumpa stone is intelligent.
 
annnnoid said:
…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).
Click to expand...

I imagine you become upset whenever description occurs.

When the day dawns and your friend says, "The sun's up!" Do you wonder at their magic to raise a star?

Do mirrors clone you?

If you read the label on a medicine, do you generate its potency?

I should ask you to cease any describing you may have under-way concerning our planet and human suffering. We simply cannot risk such a powerful cause of effects!
 
Donn said:
I imagine you become upset whenever description occurs.

When the day dawns and your friend says, "The sun's up!" Do you wonder at their magic to raise a star?

Do mirrors clone you?

If you read the label on a medicine, do you generate its potency?

I should ask you to cease any describing you may have under-way concerning our planet and human suffering. We simply cannot risk such a powerful cause of effects!
Click to expand...

And if you draw a unicorn it means that unicorns are intelligent (as well as existent).
 
jimbob said:
And if you draw a unicorn it means that unicorns are intelligent (as well as existent).
Click to expand...

Because one is tracing an actual lon unicorn with your lop pencil. One's native intelligence entirely an echo resounding from a concave skull.

I think that's why he uses so... many.. dots: To join 'em.
 
jimbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

More poetically "The heavens declare the glory of god,"
 
annnnoid said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I can't tell if people in this thread are interpreting your arguments correctly or not. It seems to be the case that what you are saying could either be mostly correct or mostly incorrect depending on how you mean it.


…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.
Click to expand...
This is a good example; I don't know what you are trying to say. What is an l.o.p.? I assume that everyone would have to include me and I don't know whether it does or not. Once I understand what you mean, I can say whether or not I agree with that assertion.

Information (as Shannon uses the term) can be created by non-intelligent processes. However, not all information can be created this way. For example, you are never going to find a duplicate of the Oxford English dictionary created by non-intelligent processes.
 
Whatever the case might be it doesn't seem to make a difference in the here and now as to whether we were a happy accident or purposefully designed. It's like arguing about different routes to get to the same destination and whether we should bike, drive, or take a bus to get there.
 
The whole argument that DNA is a code (which I agree it is.) and therefore it is evidence of a creator is an argument from ignorance. One cannot arbitrarily assign an explanation. Just because man writes code for computer programs does not mean that code can't be the result of natural happenstance.

Usually in most theologies they portray the God character as perfect. At the bare minimum the three dominant monotheistic religions do. Since the discovery of DNA, I have seen Religions now suggest that DNA is God's programming language.
If this is true, God is a horrible and or cruel sick programmer. There is a purpose for cleft palates, autism, cancer or the countless diseases and birth defects?

No, it is nature's code and requires no actual design.
 
acbytesla said:
If this is true, God is a horrible and or cruel sick programmer. There is a purpose for cleft palates, autism, cancer or the countless diseases and birth defects?

No, it is nature's code and requires no actual design.
Click to expand...

While starting a new file is popular, the flesh-editor is brutal and Ctrl-Alt-Pain is sadistic!
 
Daniel said:
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!!





It is until you Falsify it :D . (SEE: The Null Hypothesis Above :thumbsup: )





Factually Incorrect. Email 'Biology Online' and petition them to change their definitions.





Really, show where...?





1. There are no actual Scientific Theories of Abiogeneis, you can't even formulate a Viable Scientific Hypothesis for goodness sakes.

2. So The Law of Biogenesis has been falsified, eh? Ok, show Life from Non-Life...? :boggled:





As a rule of thumb: please don't attempt to float Baseless "bare" Assertion Fallacies and expect them to carry any veracity whatsoever.





Yes I am well aware on both counts.





1. That doesn't prove your feebly contrived 'out of context' previously and still Baseless claim above, AND...

2. Postulating the Most: Un-Parsimonious, Occam's Razor Bludgeoning, Complete and Utter Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) ever presented in the History of Reason...isn't a solution; it's a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher.





Yes, besides the 'Fine-Tuning' itself :thumbsup:





Sorry yes, it's right on point as illustrated. And "Na'ahh" isn't a rebuttal, save for on a 2nd grade playground.





Well Fine-Tuning does Implicate someone doing the 'TUNING'... it's like the "Necessary Condition" (Antecedent).


Texas Sharpshooter, eh :rolleyes: ? I suppose one of your Texas Ranger's was the 'multiverse' implosion, right? We can knock that on off the Firing Line. :thumbsup:


regards
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I'm new to this thread but I can't help jumping in with both feet. Daniel seems to be getting things backwards. The proper null statement or the default statement would be that nature or natural law can create information code as it is evident in DNA since eternity. This code is a natural process and does not require intelligence at all. The hypothesis that this code demonstrates design would be the alternative hypothesis.

Also, there are many hypothesis based on abiogenisis. Some which have been demonstrated.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Just like you're avoiding his.
Click to expand...

You mean the whole true Scotsman fallacy that Daniel insists in a valid critique, despite teh fact that there are huge areas of science and scientific theory that Daniel' false dichotomy just excludes?

I am sorry Mr Astrophysicist you aren't using a 'scientific theory' about star formation and nucleation because Daniels says "You theory lacks a kilt?"

Do you really thing that astrophysics isn't a science and doesn't use scientific theories?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom