Creationist argument about DNA and information

[JeanTate]

Moral of the story: it's a waste of time trying to have a grown up conversation with a creationist. You'd have more success talking to a deaf artichoke.

Coming from someone who's Foundation Corner-Stone, Pillars of his "Belief" System are....

Amazing.

Daniel is the (world's leading?) mind reader!?!

Irrespective of what CS believes, Believes, has a "Belief" System, ...

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

Does any reader know what Daniel means by this? Is it, perhaps, some version of "books cannot be formed by the constituent atoms and molecules randomly assembling"?

2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.

Ignoring the really strange meaning you get if you take Daniel's "it's" literally, is this simply (?) a weird misunderstanding of some cosmological models?

3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.

OK, I'm stumped; what does "wickers together" mean?

I would be somewhat cautious casting Baseless Aspersions of others Mental Acuity/Faculties when tied to those shroom-induced coma's.

Huh? "shroom-induced" presumably means something like "caused by (eating) mushrooms", but what's "coma's"?

Perhaps English is not Daniel's mother tongue?

 

[acbytesla]

I really feel sorry for Daniel. As this is exactly the nonsense type arguments presented by the creationists/intelligent design proponents as an alternative to Evolution/Abiogenisis/Big Bang. It epitomizes how threatened they feel about the actual science process. I wonder if this is how Daniel's predecessors in the Middle Ages when people started suggesting that the Earth possibly, then probably then did actually revolve around the Sun as opposed to scripture? Back in those days they weren't as tolerant as David is today. Those were the good old days when you could burn scientists at the stake for being heretics for challenging their beliefs.

 

[jimbob]

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

FIFY

 

[Darwin123]

Does any reader know what Daniel means by this? Is it, perhaps, some version of "books cannot be formed by the constituent atoms and molecules randomly assembling"?

You are perhaps confused by his use of the words 'coma' and 'wicker'?

Coma is a state of unconsciousness, usually lasting a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma
‘In medicine, coma (from the Greek κῶμα koma, meaning "deep sleep")[1] is a state of unconsciousness in which a person: cannot be awakened; fails to respond normally to painful stimuli, light, or sound; lacks a normal wake-sleep cycle; and does not initiate voluntary actions.[2] A person in a state of coma is described as being comatose. Typically, a distinction is made in the medical community between a coma and a medically induced coma, the former is generally understood to be a result of circumstances beyond the control of the medical community, while the latter is generally understood to be a means by which medical professionals may allow a patient's injuries to heal in a controlled environment.’

Wicker is a type of weaving, with a very stiff material.

Gee, I still don't know what he meant!

 

[ComfySlippers]

...
Does any reader know what Daniel means by this? Is it, perhaps, some version of "books cannot be formed by the constituent atoms and molecules randomly assembling"?
...

It's a very easy to understand game.
Daniel simply repeats the same twaddle he's read from creationist gurus over and over again.
It's disheartening to see people still engaging with him, he really has zero interest in discussion, as pointed out thousands of posts ago.

Imagine you're a four year old, and have been handed a dictionary.
Listen as it is explained to you that words such as "Author", "Information", "Code", "Program" etc. can be used in different ways.
Try to understand when it is explained to you what an analogy is, or how we sometimes use familiar words to make understanding a complex principle a little easier to visualise.
As you wipe the ice cream off your chin, you are now inside a creationist's brain. Clueless.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Hint for Daniel:
"It's" is a contraction for "it is." "Its" is the possessive adjective for it.
In general -- 's at the end of a word indicates a possessive -- not a plural (except for it).
On the other hand, this may far too subtle a distinction for a creationist. Good luck!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Hint for Daniel:
"It's" is a contraction for "it is." "Its" is the possessive adjective for it.
In general -- 's at the end of a word indicates a possessive -- not a plural (except for it).
On the other hand, this may far too subtle a distinction for a creationist. Good luck!

It just occurred to me that Daniel will have to correct all his cut and paste sources to deal with the above advice -- assuming he does understand it. That may be a big job for someone not accustomed to independent thinking.

 

[ComfySlippers]

It just occurred to me that Daniel will have to correct all his cut and past sources to deal with the above advice -- assuming he does understand it. That may be a big job for someone not accustomed to independent thinking.

Yes. The endless Cut&Paste without understanding what is being pasted. Quite embarrassing really.

More importantly, you misspelled "paste", but as I'm sure you understand the actual meaning of the word you are forgiven

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yes. The endless Cut&Paste without understanding what is being pasted. Quite embarrassing really.

More importantly, you misspelled "paste", but as I'm sure you understand the actual meaning of the word you are forgiven

Thanks -- corrected! Let's see if Daniel can do the same.

 

[Donn]

Cut and past. A neat phrase for creationist strategy.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[barehl]

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

Repeating a statement over and over, even with bolding and caps does not make it true.

A coin sorter is obviously made by an intelligent agent, namely humans. They sort coins by size. A sorted grouping of coins contains more information than a group of coins that is not sorted. You don't get something for nothing; anything that increases information costs energy.

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.

Your primary mistake is attempting to lump all kinds of information together and claim that they are all directly related to an intelligent agent. This is clearly false.

What Shannon did was to relate information to energy. Basically, it takes energy to create information and information can save you energy. A simple example of this is how long it takes you to look up something in a sorted list versus a random list. With a sorted list you can do a binary search. So, the average time to find anything is log(2) N. For a random list, in contrast, you have to search every item so the average time is halfway through the list or 1/2 N. It should be obvious that with any list longer than four, a sorted list takes less energy to search. Why? Because it contains more information.

Shannon's theory only relates information to energy. So, if you are trying to draw a connection between information and intelligence, you need a different theory. There are partial concepts in this area in epistemology and in education theory.

 

[JeanTate]

Hint for Daniel:
"It's" is a contraction for "it is." "Its" is the possessive adjective for it.
In general -- 's at the end of a word indicates a possessive -- not a plural (except for it).
On the other hand, this may far too subtle a distinction for a creationist. Good luck!

It's got bacon in it? It's been a while since I had bacon!

So, also "it has".

Let's see ... A (shroom induced or not) coma's a nasty thing; as a serious condition, coma's been written about since, well, since bacon!

Bacon? It's existed since ... forever; it's eternal, and its existence cannot be questioned.

 

[barehl]

In order to show that DNA requires an intelligent agent, you have to first show a relationship between information and intelligence. You can't just wave your hands and claim that it's true. So, how would you do this?

First, as I've already mentioned, information can be created by non-intelligent actions so a general statement about information gets you nowhere. What you need to do is show that a subset of all information is bounded by a direct relationship with intelligence.

Second, you have to show that the information content in DNA is within this subset. That would similarly restrict the information to an intelligent agent.


Many people have intuitions or assumptions along these lines which are stated in a formal way. For example, when it was stated that a watch would imply an intelligent agent, that person was claiming that a watch requires a type of information that cannot be found outside of an intelligent context. You could make similar claims about finding a book or a motor or a number of other objects. But here's the problem. If someone says that a watch implies intelligence and therefore so does a flower, what they've done is skip the step of defining what type of information the watch contains that makes it necessarily related to intelligence. And, because there is no definition, it's impossible to see if this also applies to a flower.

 

[Daniel]

Actually "Na'ahh" is the status quo position.

Yea, I noticed. It's quite laughable.

I don't need evidence to prove a negative.

A. This isn't a negative: Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/CODE/Software...it's called an Alternative Hypothesis.

B. 1 - 4 = -3 VOILA

Also "You can't Prove a Negative"....is a NEGATIVE!! So if you could prove it true, Then Therefore...it couldn't be true!

Moreover, any proposition P is logically equivalent to "not-not-P" (The Law of Double Negation)

Also, I can Prove that I'm not an Amoeba.

It's: you can't prove/disprove an Argument from Ignorance NOT you can't prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim Always and forever.

There is more Proof of this; "Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!!" Than the nose on your face for goodness sakes. Ready...

Every single last WORD/SYMBOL used for communication in the History of the WORLD!! VOILA

You are Making a Claim whether Implied or Explicit with your World-View: "Nature/Natural Law CAN create Information/CODE/Software!! SO, Go ahead...?

I can no more prove there isn't a creator than you can prove there is one.

Really? Well...

1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics:

1LOT: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant; Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy.
2LOT: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe will end—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
Alexander Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One: The Search For Other Universes" (Hill & Wang, 2006), page 176

"How big was the original phase-space volume W that the Creator had to aim for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics and with what we now observe? ....
This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10¹²³."
Prof. Roger Penrose: The Emperor’s New Mind; p 343, 1989

Conclusion: There was a beginning, there was Creation. Matter/Energy/Space can't create itself; ergo...GOD.


The Laws of Quantum Mechanics:

1) every double-slit experiment, 2) every delayed choice experiment, 3) every quantum eraser experiment, 4) every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3, show exactly the same results - if the 'which-path' information is known or can be known, no interference; if the 'which-path' information is not known or can't be known, there is interference.

No Interference = Matter Exists
Interference = No Matter, "Wave-Like" behavior.

No Interference = "A Knower"...of the 'which-path' Information.

Conclusion: To Create the Universe "Matter/Energy", there MUST have been "A Knower"....FIRST, GOD.


Laws of Information.

Information is neither Matter/Energy; it's Semiotic. Information is the sine qua non of "LIFE". Information is ONLY ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!
All "Life" contains DNA. A teaspoon of DNA contains enough information to stack a pile of books from here to the moon and back 500 times.

Conclusion: Intelligent Agency created "Life", GOD.

VOILA

You know a tiny bit of science and then think you can assert to a bunch of skeptics that you have a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis for proving there is a God. If you did, it would be groundbreaking news worthy of a Nobel Prize.

1. That's a Procedural Argument not one of Substance.

2. The Null Hypothesis is already established.

3. Ironically, it is you and your Materialist/Realist cohorts that would receive a Nobel Prize to Validate your World-View (it's currently SCIENTIFICALLY FALSIFIED; See every DCQE and 'Non-Locality' Experiment --- in the Literal Thousands); whereby Invalidating Idealism (Christianity), it's right here waiting for you...

Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)....

A Nobel Prize is being offered: All you have to do is...

Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.

I'll monitor the Presses.

Your World-View is Checkmated 6 ways from Sunday from here to Christmas; Phlogiston is more tenable.

You woulod be famous as well as a millionaire

Don't need Fame or Money, I already have my Prize It was Absolutely FREE, Paid in FULL!
It can be yours also, SEE: Romans 10:9.


regards

 

[Daniel]

Thanks for making all chemical references so far.

So another "DODGE" eh?

Yes, I gave you the ink/paper/glue molecules...let's watch them author War and Peace.

Yes, I gave you the Copper and Iron Ores...let's watch them form the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 Space Shuttle engine.

This author is a quack.

ad hominem (Fallacy)

Sure, a pop-sci work stressing the functional, not physical. What else is new?

Yes, That's Dr. Craig Venter --- Mr. "Pop-Science"

I'd go back and find the first author's definition of a bit and use it against you, but I have work to do today. Perhaps later.

I can't wait.


regards

 

[Nonpareil]

There is more Proof of this; "Information/CODE/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!!" Than the nose on your face for goodness sakes. Ready...

This remains demonstrably false using any coherent definition of "information", and fallacious equivocation using any coherent definition of "code" or "software". And even if it weren't, this still would not establish that DNA requires an intelligent agency. It would only establish that most information comes from intelligent agencies, not that they are necessary.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true.

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe will end—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

...And?

I thought you were trying to argue that the first and second laws of thermodynamics required a creator entity. Neither of the laws themselves stipulate that.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
Alexander Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One: The Search For Other Universes" (Hill & Wang, 2006), page 176

"How big was the original phase-space volume W that the Creator had to aim for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics and with what we now observe? ....
This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10¹²³."
Prof. Roger Penrose: The Emperor’s New Mind; p 343, 1989

Conclusion: There was a beginning, there was Creation. Matter/Energy/Space can't create itself; ergo...GOD.

Stop trying to quote-mine, Daniel. Penrose is an atheist, and the segment you pulled was deliberately hyperbolic.

Beyond that, "the universe had a beginning" is not equivalent to "the universe had (or required) a creator".

The Laws of Quantum Mechanics:

1) every double-slit experiment, 2) every delayed choice experiment, 3) every quantum eraser experiment, 4) every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3, show exactly the same results - if the 'which-path' information is known or can be known, no interference; if the 'which-path' information is not known or can't be known, there is interference.

No Interference = Matter Exists
Interference = No Matter, "Wave-Like" behavior.

No Interference = "A Knower"...of the 'which-path' Information.

Conclusion: To Create the Universe "Matter/Energy", there MUST have been "A Knower"....FIRST, GOD.

This is gibberish based on a complete lack of understanding of how quantum mechanics and observation actually work.

The Null Hypothesis is already established.

Yes.

It is the exact opposite of what you believe it is, because, again, you do not understand what the null hypothesis is or how it is determined.

Ironically, it is you and your Materialist/Realist cohorts that would receive a Nobel Prize to Validate your World-View (it's currently SCIENTIFICALLY FALSIFIED; See every DCQE and 'Non-Locality' Experiment --- in the Literal Thousands)

You also don't understand what the terms "realism" and "materialism" mean, apparently.

whereby Invalidating Idealism (Christianity)

Or "idealism", or "Christianity".

ad hominem (Fallacy)

Pointing out that a given author lacks the necessary expertise to make a particular judgment is anything but the ad hominem fallacy.

Stop trying to play the gotcha game.

Yes, That's Dr. Craig Venter --- Mr. "Pop-Science"

Also an atheist, despite his use of the terms like "software" and "code" to describe DNA. And he is an expert in the field.

It's almost as though your idea that code necessitates an intelligent agency isn't actually grounded in any sort of science, and is completely rejected and ignored by anyone who knows a damn thing about the subject.

 

[barehl]

Really? Well...

1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics:

I really don't see how that was related to this thread. The laws of thermodynamics don't constrain information.

If you want me to explain this then you need to understand the concept of relevance in terms of information. Here's an image from a CBS ad. I can identify the figure on the left as Abby Sciuto from NCIS, the middle figure is Frank Reagan from Blue Bloods, and the figure on the right is Alicia Florrick from The Good Wife. This information is not in the image. I can identify the figures because I have seen the shows. In other words, it's relevant to me. If we showed the same image in many parts of the world, they would not recognize the images as being characters from TV series. Many might guess that the figures are a family with mother, father and daughter rather than unrelated characters. Therefore, information isn't useful in terms of intelligence unless it is relevant to a particular agent (such as me). For example, if I had a book written in Latin it wouldn't be useful to me since I can't read Latin. Secondly though, the fact that information is relevant does not imply origin. So, even though I recognize the characters, I did not create them and have nothing to do with the production of these shows.

Next you need to understand that the ability to assign abstraction or categorization also does not suggest origin. A good example of this is the game of Yachtze. The rolls of the dice are random. There is no intelligence behind the patterns. Yet, the whole point of the game is finding categories within the patterns such as two of a kind or three of kind or a full house. So, the fact that I can assign an abstract classification does mean that the item was necessarily related to intelligence; we are capable of assigning classifications to patterns that generated randomly.

 

[barehl]

Yes, I gave you the ink/paper/glue molecules...let's watch them author War and Peace.

Yes, I gave you the Copper and Iron Ores...let's watch them form the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 Space Shuttle engine.

Excuse me but I've already covered this. Unless you can define what information is in a Space Shuttle engine or in the book War and Peace then you cannot apply it to other things to see if they imply intelligence. That hasn't changed since I posted it.

 

[Daniel]

I really feel sorry for Daniel.

Appeal to Emotion (Fallacy) and juvenile feigned credulity.

As this is exactly the nonsense type arguments presented by the creationists/intelligent design proponents as an alternative to Evolution/Abiogenisis/Big Bang.

1. Generalized Sweeping 'hand-wave' dismissal Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

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

3. "evolution/abiogenisis/big bang" -- Crocheting is more Scientific than those "Just So" Stories COMBINED!

4. Nonsense. Ahh you believe Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...I'm just spit-balling here but perhaps you need to Recuse Yourself??

It epitomizes how threatened they feel about the actual science process.

1. Threatened?? More like suffering from Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher Syndrome.

2. Why don't you elucidate that "actual" Scientific Process for us....?

I wonder if this is how Daniel's predecessors in the Middle Ages when people started suggesting that the Earth possibly, then probably then did actually revolve around the Sun as opposed to scripture?

One too many Neil 'smokin de-grass' Tyson Specials, eh? Or was it the Discovery Channel or Nat Geo ?

Those people (Galileo, Copernicus) 'suggesting'... were Creationists.

Errr, The RCC doesn't = Christian, it's a Clumsy Equivocation Fallacy. Check Revelation 17 to see her demise. And I don't think Claudius Ptolemaeus wrote a Book in the Bible

Back in those days they weren't as tolerant as David is today. Those were the good old days when you could burn scientists at the stake for being heretics for challenging their beliefs.

Yep (lol) "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey". I may need to create a New Category other than "wiki/google scientist" --- a "Fox Network Special Scientist".

So Giordano Bruno was a Scientist, eh? Can you post some of his Experiments...? Or, you talking about the Scientific Method-LESS Science??

Can you tell us EXACTLY WHAT got this 'scientist' executed...?


regards

 

[Daniel]

Cut and past. A neat phrase for creationist strategy.

Copy and Paste, eh? Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does Copy and Paste have to do with the Veracity of the Message? Would it be better if I typed it out?
Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)..?

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure), and Hydrogen Bonding".
Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Copy and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.
Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Copy and Pasted??
Would the students dismiss it out of hand due to lack of credibility?
I understand though, you have no coherent SUPPORT for any position, so you're reduced to feebly conjuring inane improprieties, right?

This is Tantamount to saying: Your Case is Refuted because you: wrote it in German, submitted it on Legal Paper (wrong Stationary), used 'Word Pad" instead of "Microsoft Word", it's in Blue Ink rather than Black, used the wrong Font, Folded it, ad nauseam.

I mean, R-Ya-Kiddin me ?

Why'd you even post


regards