Creationist argument about DNA and information

[JeanTate]

<snip>

I didn't, Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!<snip>

Maybe so.

However, you have yet to establish - using methods consistent with the many "Scientific Method" posts you have written - that DNA contains/is/whatever CODE/Information/Software.

Unless and until you do that - in an objective and independently verifiable way - all your rants/words/bombast/CAPS/bold/highlights/colors/etc are for naught.

As it stands, right now, you haven't even gotten to first base.

For avoidance of doubt: you have been crystal clear that, within your own paradigm of what science is (a paradigm that is radically different from that of millions of scientists, both today and over the past century or three), geology and astrophysics are not science (to take just two examples). Therefore, you cannot use results from methods you are scathing in your criticism of to establish that DNA contains/is/whatever CODE/Information/Software.

You must start from scratch - your own definitions - and show the validity of the conclusion. And whatever experimental results you cite, you must be prepared to show - in detail - how these are consistent with your definitions.

oy vey

Indeed.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

IOW…you are saying the relationship between the paradigm we refer to as Fibonacci and whatever is in this picture

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

…is nothing more than a complete and utter coincidence. Poetry…IOW.

<snip>

ISF members with a better grasp of mathematics than I have are welcome to amend/improve/whatever my comments here.

@annnnoid: you're made this point about an apparent relationship between the Fibonacci sequence^WP (I guess that's what you mean by "the paradigm we refer to as Fibonacci") and the arrangement of plant structures in the image. Many times. In many different posts.

Leaving aside the false dichotomy (there are many possible views of the relationship as other than "the l.o.p. instantiate the l.o.n." and "a complete and utter coincidence"), have you considered that:

* there are an infinite number of integer sequences which have as close a relationship with the apparent arrangement of plant structures in the image (as the Fibonacci sequence)?

* the Fibonacci sequence has an extremely poor relationship, matching the apparent arrangement only for a trivially small number of its initial values (certainly far less than a hundred, much less a million)?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Except each time you measure a circle it will add up to something not equal to 2×pixr. This is guaranteed by both the uncertainty principle, and the non-flatness of space. So mathematics models reality very accurately, more accurately than we can measure. But any further relationships are conjecture. Mathematics exist everywhere in reality because that's how we model reality.

Of course, you are correct, but the ubiquitousness of π cannot be denied. Even in non Euclidean geometries with constant curvature, where the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius depends on the radius of the circle, that ratio approaches π as the radius approaches 0.
Even when formulating the uncertainty principle (σ_xσ_p ≥ h/4π) we require pi.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

...Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!

No. Chemical interactions occur without non-natural intervention. When these scale up into complex systems after significant time, mayflies who were not there to watch the whole time may think it was all magic. Not the case. To make that easier, let's just say we can see natural processes at work that affect DNA ("the code") all the time, from viruses (virii) to UV light to radiation to ongoing evolution. Don't tell me we have too many programmers spoiling the broth? This is no way to properly engineer intelligently, gosh!

You, human, were only born yesterday. Get over it.

You only have TWO explanations: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD -Guided).

No. At least four: those two, natural agents and solipsism. Natural agents would mean someone is running a simulation. I doubt it, but it's an option. I only wish the last - it's all my imagination - were true, though, since I could then rearrange some results I find irksome.

The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...

No. There is no source for the laws of physics outside nature; they are regularities in nature as described by human observers. They work, but are subject to ongoing refinement. By humans.

Read this carefully... "We repeatedly consider..."

No. Loose metaphor does not a proof make.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

When quoting, remember another one as caution: "Garbage in, garbage out."

 

[acbytesla]

Argument from Ignorance, eh? Well what you just wrote contains "Information" the same as a "CODE"...are you an Intelligent Agent? Err...Voila

You seem to be offended by the term ignorance. This is not the same as stupid. The argument from ignorance means that you filled in a component of your argument with something you can't prove or is unknown. That I can write and decipher some codes still does not prove that DNA is information that requires a consciousness to conceive or comprehend. In fact if anything it proves that it doesn't.

I didn't, Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!! I have Literally Trillions of pieces of evidence that grow veraciously/Exponentially every single day with every word/symbol created for communication.
Tell ya what, why don't you take any post on this forum and show ONE POST "Information" that is a result of Display Pixels conspiring with a Keyboard to post a message....? (This is the foundation of your World-View, btw)

You only have TWO explanations: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD -Guided).
The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

Read this carefully...

You really need to start learning biology, chemistry, evolution from sources other than creationist web sites. (Why did I know you would use the debunked idea of Irreducible Complexity?) Oh well.

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

Show The "Nature" Transmitter and The "Nature" Receiver agreeing with each other with ZERO Intelligent Input, THEN sending messages....?
This is tantamount to Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules getting together with gravity and Authoring War and Peace!

Well SHOW One then, EVER....??

My answer would be DNA. Natural processes have been interpreting this code and constructing life according to it for billions of years. A tree, a flower, bacteria and every living entity all construct themselves with this code NATURALLY without any provable link to anything other than biological conditions. That you can count hundreds even hundreds of thousands of man made codes does not mean that this naturally occurring code is the result of a plan. Your argument is inherently flawed as it calls for speculation. It is an example of the inductive reasoning fallacy.

 

[steenkh]

Argument from Ignorance, eh?

You pride yourself with your extensive knowledge of fallacies, and yet you do not know what an argument from ignorance is?

I didn't, Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!

How are you going to prove that? DNA is a good example of code that is not created by an intelligent agent, so you are stopped in your tracks before you even started.

Your own dictionary definition noted that code was used about DNA, and that it was not the same usage as when used about computer codes, remember?

You remind us increasingly of the black knight ...

 

[Daniel]

No. Chemical interactions occur without non-natural intervention.

Say what?

Chemistry (Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins et al) are merely "The Medium" for conveying Information, much like Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules --- and just like them, they don't Author War and Peace/Technical Instruction Manuals or Blueprints.

To make that easier, let's just say we can see natural processes at work that affect DNA ("the code") all the time from viruses (virii) to UV light to radiation...

Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd you get DNA? The Physical Molecule and the Information...?

Your argument here is tantamount to somebody asking you where a Boat came from, and your response is: that the wind and waves affect the boat.

to ongoing evolution.

"evolution", what's that? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

No. At least four: those two, natural agents and solipsism.

So we have, as "The Cause" for Us and The Universe:

1. Nature (Unguided)
2. Intelligent Design (Guided)

3. Natural Agents?? What on Earth is this AND, wouldn't this be "Nature"?
4. Solipsism ?? So only your mind exists --- that Caused the Universe and Us? And you're thinking this is a coherent response?

There is no source for the laws of physics outside nature

1. So the Laws of Physics Caused Themselves?? That means, they existed prior to their existence.

Or

2. Nature caused the Laws of Physics, right? What Caused "Nature"...? SEE: the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Can you show the Laws of Motion Causing Billiard Balls to roll across tables...?

No. ;they are regularities in nature as described by human observers.

Yes, that's what Scientific Laws (Natural Laws) are.

No. Loose metaphor does not a proof make.

So you're saying this is a Metaphor...

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

For what, pray tell??


regards

 

[jimbob]

My position, which could not have been plainer from the outset, and which I have stated again and again is this: the explicit relationship is that the laws of physics are our descriptions of the behaviour of reality. The laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive.

It is a fact that a Fibonacci sequence describes the arrangement of leaves in some plants (and appears elsewhere in nature), but beyond that I have no idea what point you are trying to make with it.

I suspect that this is the answer

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.

or this

A while ago I posted: "Am I the only one here who finds this sort of undergraduate, 3am, pot-fuelled solipsistic, shadows-on-the-walls-of-the-cave intellectual meandering both boring and pointless?" is that what you remember?

 

[jimbob]

This is a very ill defined and confused statement. Please try to describe what you mean by "laws of nature" and "laws of physics." Then define what you mean by "more advanced."
As far as we can tell, the universe has a regular and predictable way of behaving. The (so-called) laws of physics (mathematically) describe this behavior.
Are our current equations a final and comprehensive description of the universe? We already know that they are not. Will we ever get there? Maybe and maybe not.
All of this is irrelevant to the question of the existence of creation fairies.

I think it is worse than this. I don't think it is possible to conceive of a universe where systems are not governed by something - either laws of nature, or the fickle whims of supernatural entities.

If there are neither, then there is no system.

 

[Daniel]

You pride yourself with your extensive knowledge of fallacies, and yet you do not know what an argument from ignorance is?

I know what it is. There are thousands of examples from you and your cohorts in this thread alone.

You posted another one attached to a Special Pleading Fallacy below.

How are you going to prove that?

You just did by writing this sentence and every word/symbol you ever created. OR did Display Pixels conspire with a Random Keyboard to post your response?

Post the Law of Physics that governed the construction and meaning of this sentence...

"It put's the lotion in the basket"....?

DNA is a good example of code that is not created by an intelligent agent, so you are stopped in your tracks before you even started.

1. Argument from Ignorance and Special Pleading Fallacy.

2. So you're argument is: DNA/Information is not Intelligently Designed because it's not Intelligently Designed, eh?

Your own dictionary definition noted that code was used about DNA, and that it was not the same usage as when used about computer codes, remember?

ahhh, Say what?

You remind us increasingly of the black knight ...

ad hominem (Fallacy)


regards

 

[Daniel]

I think it is worse than this. I don't think it is possible to conceive of a universe where systems are not governed by something - either laws of nature...

The Laws of Nature (Scientific Laws) don't "Govern" anything, they are merely our "Descriptions" of Phenomena we Observe; e.g., The Laws of Motion don't "Govern" Billiard Balls rolling across a Table, they simply describe it.


regards

 

[hecd2]

I know what it is.

No, you obviously don't.

How are you going to prove that? (Daniel: Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!)

You just did by writing this sentence and every word/symbol you ever created. OR did Display Pixels conspire with a Random Keyboard to post your response?

Here's another word that Daniel doesn't understand - "prove"

Post the Law of Physics that governed the construction and meaning of this sentence...

"It put's the lotion in the basket"....?

Not worth talking to a guy who doesn't know how to use apostrophes.

1. Argument from Ignorance and Special Pleading Fallacy.

2. So you're argument is: DNA/Information is not Intelligently Designed because it's not Intelligently Designed, eh?

Nah - the aruments is that you haven't begun to show that DNA is Intelligently Designed. Not even begun.

ad hominem (Fallacy)

Another fallacy that you don't understand. Is there anything that you do understand?

Not worth talking to - you have exactly nothing, and anyone who has followed this thread and the others you've posted in can see how badly you've been whupped. All bluster and no content.

 

[tsig]

Except each time you measure a circle it will add up to something not equal to 2×pixr. This is guaranteed by both the uncertainty principle, and the non-flatness of space. So mathematics models reality very accurately, more accurately than we can measure. But any further relationships are conjecture. Mathematics exist everywhere in reality because that's how we model reality.

Oh, and geez, the Fibonacci sequence from annnnddddddd over and over. I'm not sure how else a growing spiral would come out.

I'm not sure why a plant growing in the natural world would not follow the natural laws.

 

[Daniel]

You seem to be offended by the term ignorance.

I'm not, especially since I haven't used any.

Also, try to restrain yourself from attempting to 'divine' what I'm thinking unless you have Special evo Mind Powers. If that's the case, Let's TEST your Acumen....what's my favorite color?

That I can write and decipher some codes still does not prove that DNA is information that requires a consciousness to conceive or comprehend.

1. So are you an Intelligent Agent?

2. As soon as you say "INFORMATION" The Consequent, you instantly and invariably imply by "Necessity" The Antecedent ---- Intelligent Agency.

In fact if anything it proves that it doesn't.

So the fact that you can write and decipher codes proves it takes no Intelligence to write and decipher codes ?

You really need to start learning biology, chemistry, evolution from sources other than creationist web sites.

1. I suppose this is another one of those invoking Special evo Mind Powers scenario's, eh?

2. "evolution", what's that?? Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

3. Genetic Fallacy: is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

4. And this coming from someone who posted that this should be the Null Hypothesis:

"...nature or natural law can create information code as it is evident in DNA since eternity."

It's tantamount to Pol Pot giving advice to the Dalai Lama regarding Peace and Harmony.

You really need to start @ 5th Grade General Science.

(Why did I know you would use the debunked idea of Irreducible Complexity?) Oh well.

Really "de-bunked", eh? I don't know how many times I've responded to this Baseless 'bald' Assertion Fallacy in this thread alone by challenging the purveyor to start a New Thread "Irreducible Complexity Hogwash" and even suggested to contact Kenneth Miller (lol), and his mind-numbing Straw Man Fallacy, and have 'them' join the Party. I think I said something to the effect of: "I'll get Medieval !!"

My answer would be DNA. Natural processes have been interpreting this code and constructing life according to it for billions of years.

1. Really?? Show the Natural Process for this...

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

Show the Physico-Chemical links between the " CODE " and Amino Acid or Instruction....?

What Physical Law "governs" DNA Translation...?

2. Begging The Question Fallacy: 'Billions of Years'. Please Scientifically Validate; i.e., Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiments that validate/CONFIRM your fairytale claim here...? Highlight the "Independent Variables" used in the TESTS....?

It is an example of the inductive reasoning fallacy.

How so...?



regards

 

[Daniel]

No, you obviously don't.

Not worth talking to a guy who doesn't know how to use apostrophes.

Nah - the aruments is that you haven't begun to show that DNA is Intelligently Designed. Not even begun.

Not worth talking to - you have exactly nothing, and anyone who has followed this thread and the others you've posted in can see how badly you've been whupped.

So basically "Na'ahh" is your Argument (mixed with some ad hominem Fallacies and appeals to punctuation-rotflol btw: Errr...BANKRUPT)? You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance.

Well @ least it's better than that trainwreck Incoherent "De-coherence" nonsense -- that got Bludgeoned to Death, you floated in the QM Thread.

Yes, I've been "whupped" just like the Patriots "whupped" the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XX.


regards

 

[Donn]

You just did by writing this sentence and every word/symbol you ever created. OR did Display Pixels conspire with a Random Keyboard to post your response?

Random drips somehow coalesce at sea level. If your cup runneth over, it will soon settle. In these moments of magnificent complexity there were limitations that sorted random haphazard inputs and left a level ocean of liquid on output.

As a CPU can math, so can rude matter. Increment: an atomic bond. Decrement: some reduction. As a CPU can decide, so can dull matter. Compare which is larger: filtration. As a CPU can spool through memory, so dead matter can seek. Jump not zero some address: the filtrate reaches a weight which overcomes resistance, a part gives; the filter shifts; new feed is input.

The whole world is gestalt computing; simultaneous chains of atomic operations flow as energy from sunlight slowly ebbs. The long chains of chaos and sorting, of step-wise shuffling and intersected decision, of changes of phase and symmetry, of density, size, shape, all click click click under innocent compulsion to simply be what they are.

Revulsion may send your mind from this clock-work. A blind anger, a deep jolt of fear, may raise your defences; however — pause a moment. That horror is the curse of purpose. To concede your accomplishments to chaos is instinctual anathema: why strive when there is no dividend; if any fool could do thus and say the same? Therefore what you do must have purpose; to bulwark the lazy.

This curse puts purpose before all else and so it becomes before all else. It is a curse for its extremity. Without it we are free to bracket spans of time as meaning important to us. We can call our life worthwhile; our day a bad one, or a great one. Without purpose always pushed to the very edges, it becomes a friend at hand.

Taking this purpose to frame humanity we can can speak of wonder; feel awe; no longer yoked. Purpose is here, in the room. It speaks of compassion; of wisdom; of lessons; of struggle and victory. It tells us the work that is man is man's work. It links us to the blind blocks of matter and gives us offset.

In a very real sense, as dust leaves marks where books stood, the display pixels have conspired with random keystrokes to write this post.

Lift your mind and focus into the great distance. There in the past are the rustling dunes of matter all cascading and piling, a metaphor of the blind machines holding momentary form and vanishing to vary; shapes on a wall shadow-chanced light. That randomly sorted inheritance has produced this human who produced this post.

The post is created by dumb nature — In one view.

Tighten the brackets and choose a personal span; the panic subsides. In this warmer view, purpose is warmer too.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not, especially since I haven't used any.

Yes in fact you do over and over again. Every time you assert that just because you can point to thousands of conscious driven man made codes that nature's code requires a consciousness. It's based entirely on assertion and speculation. To posit a scientifically vaild hypothesis one must propose something that is falsifiable. And your hypothesis is not.

Demanding that anyone prove or disprove a non-falsifiable component is at its essence, folly.

And what I'm not going to do is address your Gish Gallop of Creationist nonsense. Feel free to create a separate thread for each and every argument.

 

[Nonpareil]

I didn't, Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!! I have Literally Trillions of pieces of evidence that grow veraciously/Exponentially every single day with every word/symbol created for communication.

The existence of written messages is not evidence that information, or even codes and software, can only exist as the result of an intelligent agency's actions.

Again, "information", "software", and "code" do not all mean the same things, despite your attempts to equivocate between them. And information, at least, demonstrably can exist without intelligent intervention. Whether or not the other two can comes down to how you define them - which you have failed to do, presumably because you don't actually have a coherent definition.

And regardless of how you define them, DNA is just chemicals. There is no evidence whatsoever for the idea that certain chemical constructs can only exist as a result of an intelligent agency's intervention. In fact, the entire field of chemistry directly contradicts that idea.

Your "argument" is based on leaving terms undefined so that you can falsely equivocate between them, as well as a false comparison and non sequitur assertion.

It is not particularly compelling.

The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information

These do not contain any requirement for the existence of a god.

and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity or specified complexity.

No one cares about what you consider to be "common sense".

Show The "Nature" Transmitter and The "Nature" Receiver agreeing with each other with ZERO Intelligent Input, THEN sending messages....?

This does not happen.

DNA, and all associated reactions, are just chemicals doing what chemicals do. There is no "agreement", and no consciously-created "message" being transmitted.

"evolution", what's that? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Have a basic overview.

Not that I expect it to do any good, mark you.

1. So the Laws of Physics Caused Themselves??

You assume that the laws of physics require a cause.

This has not been established.

You just did by writing this sentence and every word/symbol you ever created.

No, he didn't. This is a blunt non sequitur. Your conclusion (that information only arises from intelligent agencies) does not follow from your premise (written messages are created by intelligent agencies in this thread).

Post the Law of Physics that governed the construction and meaning of this sentence...

Tell me what brand of hammer you used to breathe this morning.

And, because I am fairly confident that the above will go right over Daniel's head: his question is a category error. The laws of physics have nothing to do with semantics, except in the most absolutely pedantic and worthless sense regarding the fact that they obviously still hold sway over the conscious entities responsible for semantics.

1. Argument from Ignorance and Special Pleading Fallacy.

It is neither of those things.

You do not understand what the fallacies you accuse others of actually mean.

ad hominem (Fallacy)

Case in point. You are still wrong. The ad hominem fallacy is "you are wrong because you are ugly", not "you are wrong and you are ugly".

2. As soon as you say "INFORMATION" The Consequent, you instantly and invariably imply by "Necessity" The Antecedent ---- Intelligent Agency.

You have not established that an intelligent agency is a necessary antecedent to information.

1. Really?? Show the Natural Process for this...

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

Show the Physico-Chemical links between the " CODE " and Amino Acid or Instruction....?

Please show the physico-electric links between individual bits in a computer and any given video game.

 

[Daniel]

Yes in fact you do over and over again. Every time you assert that just because you can point to thousands of conscious driven man made codes that nature's code requires a consciousness. It's based entirely on assertion and speculation.

ALL "Information" is only ever ever sourced via Intelligent Agency, without Exception!

Nature's not Intelligent or Sentient: ERGO...it can not source Information.

To posit a scientifically vaild hypothesis one must propose something that is falsifiable. And your hypothesis is not.

Yes it is, by Validating/Confirming the Alternate Hypothesis (AGAIN):

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

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

It's quite simple and elegant, SO Go ahead....?

Demanding that anyone prove or disprove a non-falsifiable component is at its essence, folly.

It's surely Falsifiable; We got Nature and we got "Information", SHOW !!

And Please show how "Nature"--- Matter and Energy can Produce "Information"---neither Matter or Energy...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

Is Nature, Supernatural ??

And what I'm not going to do is address your Gish Gallop of Creationist nonsense.

Anecdotal Caricature Stereotype Fallacies are not coherent arguments or positions.


regards

 

[Nonpareil]

ALL "Information" is only ever ever sourced via Intelligent Agency, without Exception!

Prove it.

You might start by providing us with a coherent definition of "information".

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

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

Still equivocating, still wrong about what the null hypothesis is.