Creationist argument about DNA and information

[JeanTate]

<snip>

Here's the problem as I see it with this. The Christian statement is always and forever non-falsifiable as is the second half of the atheist statement as the time is indefinite.

No, I think the entire atheist statement is non-falsifiable. So both sides of this is just mental masturbation.

It hardly needs saying, but ... the statement by "Atheist" is a creationist strawman, a parody even.

There's only one 'side' in the original quotation ...

 

[acbytesla]

It hardly needs saying, but ... the statement by "Atheist" is a creationist strawman, a parody even.

There's only one 'side' in the original quotation ...

I agree. Actually, you don't require the Christian label either. They are irrelevant.

 

[acbytesla]

Not really.
Creationists make crap up, Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago, and man didn't have dinosaurs as pets.

If anyone wants to mentally masturbate over that, go for it.

I think you miss my point. You can and can not prove the statements. So what's the point?

 

[Border Reiver]

<snip>

Daniel if you're not too busy in the quote mines perhaps you might get around to answering this question:

"If we are to believe in a creator, which of the hundreds of creator deities should we believe did it, and why should we believe that one in preference to all others?"

 

[acbytesla]

Daniel if you're not too busy in the quote mines perhaps you might get around to answering this question:

"If we are to believe in a creator, which of the hundreds of creator deities should we believe did it, and why should we believe that one in preference to all others?"

No...No...No.... Now you stepped in it. .

 

[ComfySlippers]

No...No...No.... Now you stepped in it. .

Everyone's been stepping in this giant dinosaur turd of a thread for ages.
Give him a dictionary and a lollipop.

 

[Border Reiver]

No...No...No.... Now you stepped in it. .

That's around the tenth time I've asked that question.

Daniel has never answered it.

Personally, I think he lacks the conviction of his faith to answer.

 

[steenkh]

I guess Daniel didn't know what to say to my comparison of primordial goo to chicken gravy.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

That's around the tenth time I've asked that question.

Daniel has never answered it.

Personally, I think he lacks the conviction of his faith to answer.

I know how you feel.

I'm still waiting for an answer as to how Parrot Fish violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, so Daniel can unveil his astonishing "CheckMATE!"

It's been so long that my chessboard is gathering dust, so I've started a game of Risk with the Grand Poobah and the woolly mammoth.

 

[acbytesla]

I know how you feel.

I'm still waiting for an answer as to how Parrot Fish violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, so Daniel can unveil his astonishing "CheckMATE!"

It's been so long that my chessboard is gathering dust, so I've started a game of Risk with the Grand Poobah and the woolly mammoth.

He probably is mistaking checkmate for stalemate.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Daniel]

That isn't relevant to this thread.

Well, then go talk to acbytesla for bringing it up.

Again, not relevant. How many more unrelated things are you going to pepper your posts with? Why are you posting in this thread?

So: Daniel -- "That's right, Information is Semiotic; neither Matter or Energy"....is irrelevant to a thread on Information ??

Is hydrogen and hydroxyl Bond Force Constants irrelevant to Water?

In knowledge theory...

What on Earth is this?

1. It's not a Scientific Theory.

"The theory of knowledge is one of the most central areas of philosophy.'
https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/V500-8

2. We're not discussing Philosophy here, this is IRRELEVANT not only in this thread but in this Forum: Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology. Do you see Philosophy here??

information is only useful if it is relevant.

So back to the same refuted narrative, eh?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with agreed upon definitions. It is not related to meaning or convention.

So "Na'ahh" x 2 is your defense? Riveting!

I could try to give the formal description but you don't have a background in this area so I don't know how much good that would do.

1. Empty appeal to feigned credulity.

2. Do you have Special Mind Powers? Let's TEST your Blind Conjecture Acumen ...what's my favorite color ?

You've missed the bulls eye by about a parsec.

Sure and Pol Pot was a Humanitarian.

1. Let me see if I get this straight.

2. You post something that has no bearing on this thread, the thread that I started.

3. I point out that your post is not related and you suggest that I'm making a strawman argument.

4. How exactly does that work?

1. That's a 'Bridge Too Far' for you I'm afraid.

2. Sure, Information has no bearing on Information.

3. Yes you did with your Straw Man/False Comparison Fallacy...

barehl: "You can get similar sorting of materials naturally, such as when gravel and sand are sorted by the action of water. This is not by an intelligent agent. This nevertheless is still an increase in information and it requires energy from the water."

You're comparing this...

with this...

It's beyond absurd. Can you liberate the "Information" from either please...? What is each Communicating To You ?

Post the Convention and Medium please...? @ the same time, you may want to familiarize yourself with some ICD-10 Codes (F-99)

this thread is not about complexity.

Well since you brought it up, (which shockingly, you are still unaware of) SEE: your trainwreck gravel/sand/water analogy; Ergo...YOU are off topic.

Start your own thread if you want to talk about complexity.

Start your own in the Philosophy Forum Mr. Knowledge 'theory'.


regards

 

[Perpetual Student]

Daniel:
Your bankrupt notions have been exposed as naïve folly; you have been personally embarrassed through your own dearth of logic; your knowledge of science has been found to be lacking.
I suggest you attempt to reclaim your self esteem by licking your mental wounds by finding a thread where you can exchange snappy non-sequiturs with mentally damaged creationists.

 

[Daniel]

As I said before, I think we create our own universe. I don't think there is a biblical God programming DNA software to create us or anything else. I posted this information in another thread but it seems relevant here. Daniel, have you heard of Biocentrism? Biocentrism's view is that life creates the universe instead of the other way around and it isn't an accidental byproduct of the laws of physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe

Really?? Then you Unwittingly Pummel your own Argument...

It also looks like the Schrodinger's observer dependant behavour applies to macroparticles as well. In a study done by Gerlich et. al., they found that compounds as large as 430 atoms had no real existence until observed. It seems that only when the mind sets the scaffolding in place, can they be thought of as having duration or a position in space. It verifies previous experiments that indicated that even the knowledge in the experimenter's mind was sufficient to convert possibility to reality.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n4/full/ncomms1263.html

This is 100% Correct.

So...

"WHO" collapsed The Wave Function INITIALLY via Observation/"Knower"-- Creator of the 'which-path' Information to CREATE REALITY... "Matter"--- Then Life from it --- for Beings to EXIST that have Minds??
Better still, WHO created "The Wave Function" so as to able to "COLLAPSE IT"....??

You and Martin Rees suffer from the same disease...

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

It's called "Hammering The c4 Fire".

Caveat: However, I think Professor Rees' statement here was more 'Tongue in Cheek'


regards and Thanks

 

[Nonpareil]

"WHO" collapsed The Wave Function INITIALLY via Observation/"Knower"-- Creator of the 'which-path' Information to CREATE REALITY... "Matter"--- Then Life from it --- for Beings to EXIST that have Minds??
Better still, WHO created "The Wave Function" so as to able to "COLLAPSE IT"....??

As I mentioned when Jodie made this same post in another thread: you do not understand quantum mechanics. The experts still do not fully understand quantum mechanics. What, exactly, these results mean, and how to interpret the various observer-dependent effects of systems in the field, are still up in the air.

Anyone attempting to use quantum mechanics to support any sort of argument in an online discussion is spouting one hundred percent pure, Grade A, USDA-approved horse ****. And this is without getting into the whole thing about you not understanding what "observation" means in the context of quantum mechanics.

But this is all rather beside the point, since it comes down to the same issue in the end.

You claim that the universe must have had a cause. There is no evidence for this being true. Your claim is dismissed.

You also have yet to even attempt to provide a coherent definition of "information", "message", "code", or "software" which mandates the existence of an intelligent creator, let alone show how it applies to DNA, but at this point I believe it's fairly clear that you are both incapable of and uninterested in doing so.

 

[Jodie]

Really?? Then you Unwittingly Pummel your own Argument...



This is 100% Correct.

So...

"WHO" collapsed The Wave Function INITIALLY via Observation/"Knower"-- Creator of the 'which-path' Information to CREATE REALITY... "Matter"--- Then Life from it --- for Beings to EXIST that have Minds??
Better still, WHO created "The Wave Function" so as to able to "COLLAPSE IT"....??

You and Martin Rees suffer from the same disease...

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

It's called "Hammering The c4 Fire".

Caveat: However, I think Professor Rees' statement here was more 'Tongue in Cheek'


regards and Thanks

Us as a whole, then we split off into these tiny pieces that give us the illusion of leading a separate existence.

 

[RussDill]

At least Daniel has cut out the majority of his QM rambling and settled onto a simple and self contradicting proposal. He claims that experiments have proven that a conscious knower is required. And thus for the universe to exist, there must have been an initial knower.

Three problems. The first is that if God is sufficient as a knower for purposes of quantum effects, human observers are not only not required for certain quantum outcomes, they can have no effect as there is already an omniscient observer.

The second is that if a knower was necessary at the creation of the universe for it to function, then the same would be true today. If you don't observe something, then quantum mechanics would not work. Unobserved things would not follow the laws of physics.

The third of course being that it's based on a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics at just about every level.

 

[Perpetual Student]

At least Daniel has cut out the majority of his QM rambling and settled onto a simple and self contradicting proposal. He claims that experiments have proven that a conscious knower is required. And thus for the universe to exist, there must have been an initial knower.

Three problems. The first is that if God is sufficient as a knower for purposes of quantum effects, human observers are not only not required for certain quantum outcomes, they can have no effect as there is already an omniscient observer.

The second is that if a knower was necessary at the creation of the universe for it to function, then the same would be true today. If you don't observe something, then quantum mechanics would not work. Unobserved things would not follow the laws of physics.

The third of course being that it's based on a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics at just about every level.

 

[Jodie]

Creationism is just a mechanism to debunk Evolution because the supporters get hung up on the very first act of creation so attribute that to intelligent design. They never ask who created the creator, following their line of logic, they should.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Creationism is just a mechanism to debunk Evolution because the supporters get hung up on the very first act of creation so attribute that to intelligent design. They never ask who created the creator, following their line of logic, they should.

The line of logic you refer to would indubitably necessitate a creator for the creator, which would necessitate another creator for that creator, etc.
We would have an infinite regression of creators, which brings up the question, with so many creators to banter with and among, why bother creating this confusing universe?