Powerful counter-apologetics by Jeff Lowder

[Rumraket]

As you can see, none of these hypotheses predict biological information.

So what ?!! its common in science that things are not predicted, but postdicted, that is , reality forces theories to be adapted . Science is far from able to predict everything. Most things are actually just discovered. Would you argue that the temperature of the cosmic microwave background is not 2.7k, because it was not predicted ?

You're confused. Did you forget what you asked?

YOU are the one that asked why Jeff Lowder says biological information is equally unlikely on theism and naturalism.

I simply answered why that is: Because none of them predict biological information. A priori the probability is 0 on both hypotheses.

1. All known codes we know the origin of, were intelligently designed BY HUMAN BEINGS.
2. The genetic code/DNA is a code.
3. Therefore the genetic code/DNA was designed by God.

Why not:

All known instructed coded complex information can be tracked back to a intelligent cause.
DNA stores CSI.
Therefore, the information stored in DNA requires a intelligent cause.

Why not that instead? Because it's guilty of the same logical fallacy. The fallacy of exclusion. It violates the principle of total evidence. And once this evidence is included, the argument contains a contradiction.

Premise 1: All known instructed coded complex information can be tracked back to a intelligent human cause.
Premise 2: DNA stores CSI.
Premise 3: DNA was not created by humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, the information stored in DNA requires a intelligent human cause.

That argument now contains all the relevant evidence and premises, but this results in the argument containing a contradiction. So the argument is invalid.

Sorry.

What dumb arguments you stick to, Mikkel.

Desperated much by the evidence, that refutes your wishful world view ?

Yes, that must be the explanation for why I keep bothering trying to explain basic logic to the physical manifestation of ignorance. Lunacy given form. The rape-child of when Dunning met Kruger.

Yes what dumb arguments I stick to. Me and my irrational insistence on correctly abiding by the rules of valid inductive and deductive logic.

"Desperated" I am. Listen to me you should not. - Retard Yoda

 

[Rumraket]

Sorry, information or codes or whatever you want to call it, does not mean God had to create it. It just doesn't. All arguments you have ever tried to make that attempted to reach this conclusion were logically invalid arguments.

Your alternative is chance, or physical necessity....

Yes. How do you know it wasn't due to chance and/or physical necessity?

Please show the argument in correct logical form.

 

[Elshamah]

Biological systems are self-replicating - mechanical/electronic systems are not.

So what ? That does not change the fact that information stored in dna compares to information as in this sentence, stored in a computer, a morse code etc. All have a intelligent origin.

Green flies reproduce parthenogenetically, for example - whereas most other members of the animal kingdom produce through males and females randomly combining their DNA.

It's just chemistry - no "intelligent mind" required.

that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the issue in question.

And you're still touting Meyer's "CSI" nonsense - there's no such thing.

Kindest regards,

James

Go back to basic biology class my friend. You have no clue about biology by making such an assertion.

Or have a education here :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1281-dna-stores-literally-coded-information?highlight=code

 

[Rumraket]

Biological systems are self-replicating - mechanical/electronic systems are not.

So what ? That does not change the fact that information stored in dna compares to information as in this sentence, stored in a computer, a morse code etc. All have a intelligent origin.

Please prove with a valid logical argument that the information in DNA have "a intelligent origin".

 

[Elshamah]

I simply answered why that is: Because none of them predict biological information. A priori the probability is 0 on both hypotheses.

Agreed. I am confused. What does that even mean ? And what significance in context of the brute fact that biological systems require instructional information on various levels for life to be able to emerge, evolve, and diversify?

Premise 1: All known instructed coded complex information can be tracked back to a intelligent human cause.
Premise 2: DNA stores CSI.
Premise 3: DNA was not created by humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, the information stored in DNA requires a intelligent human cause.[/i

That argument now contains all the relevant evidence and premises, but this results in the argument containing a contradiction. So the argument is invalid. ]

Bollocks. That is a irrelevant point.

All you have to do, is to compare the possible origin of CSI to the alternative mechanisms that you have on hand.

And then, it becomes evident that they do not cut your cake, Mikkel

Sorry.

 

[Elshamah]

Please prove with a valid logical argument that the information in DNA have "a intelligent origin".

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of com from a intelligent mind
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA comes from a intelligent mind, and 0% inference that it is not.

DNA stores coded information. All codes com from intelligence. Therefore, DNA comes from a mind.

 

[Rumraket]

Please prove with a valid logical argument that the information in DNA have "a intelligent origin".

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of com from a intelligent mind
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA comes from a intelligent mind, and 0% inference that it is not.

DNA stores coded information. All codes com from intelligence. Therefore, DNA comes from a mind.

Allow me to facepalm my skull inside out.

 

[Elshamah]

Allow me to facepalm my skull inside out.

yeah. I know you do not like reality. It does not fit your preconceived views and the mechanisms you wish were responsible are unable, uncapable, impotent and impossible to explain our origins.

 

[Rumraket]

I simply answered why that is: Because none of them predict biological information. A priori the probability is 0 on both hypotheses.

Agreed. I am confused. What does that even mean ? And what significance in context of the brute fact that biological systems require instructional information on various levels for life to be able to emerge, evolve, and diversify?

The significance is that the mere existence of biological information is neither an argument FOR or AGAINST naturalism.

And stop using terms you don't know what mean. For example, "brute fact". What you're claiming is a brute fact here is anything but brute, and probably not even a fact (of any sort, brute or otherwise).

Christ, you're an idiot.

Premise 1: All known instructed coded complex information can be tracked back to a intelligent human cause.
Premise 2: DNA stores CSI.
Premise 3: DNA was not created by humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, the information stored in DNA requires a intelligent human cause.

That argument now contains all the relevant evidence and premises, but this results in the argument containing a contradiction. So the argument is invalid.

Bollocks. That is a irrelevant point.

No it isn't. You can't just declare the truth irrelevant. Do you not care about the truth? I guess you don't.

Here's the problem: You are cherry picking information and leaving out evidence that goes against your conclusion. That is dishonest. It means when you use your argument, you are knowingly saying something you know is not the WHOLE TRUTH. And you know that IF you told the WHOLE TRUTH it would undermine your desired conclusion. That means you LIE when you tell your argument.

Aren't Christians supposed to care about truth? I was a Christian once, I was told to always tell the truth. I was told that the Christian God literally COMMANDED that humans should tell the truth:

Exodus 20:16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

This is supposedly the literal words of God, written in stone.

You fucking hypocrite.

All you have to do, is to compare the possible origin of CSI to the alternative mechanisms that you have on hand.

Yes, please do that. How do you calculate the probability of biological information on theism? How do you know what a God would do? How many biospheres have you seen Gods create? None, you have seen God create none at all. Then how do you calculate the probability that God would design biological information? You can't, you do not have access to the relevant information that would even make it POSSIBLE to do an estimation.

Once again, basic logic comes in the way of your evangelism.

Sorry.

 

[Rumraket]

Allow me to facepalm my skull inside out.

yeah. I know you do not like reality. It does not fit your preconceived views and the mechanisms you wish were responsible are unable, uncapable, impotent and impossible to explain our origins.

How come it is not obvious to you that I am facepalming because the very same argument demonstrated to be logically invalid, you just brainlessly copy-paste in it's original form right after?

Why? What is wrong with you? Why don't you care about facts or logic? What has happened to you?

Please show this discussion to everyone you know. If you have children, please show it to them too.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Biological systems are self-replicating - mechanical/electronic systems are not.

So what ? That does not change the fact that information stored in dna compares to information as in this sentence, stored in a computer, a morse code etc. All have a intelligent origin.

You believe that - that doesn't mean that that is the case.

We know the origin of computers, Morse code, sentences, etc = human beings.

We know that DNA is not the result of human beings.

We have no evidence that DNA is the result of any being(s), therefore, we can't claim that it is due to any being(s).

We have evidence that DNA is the result of biological - natural - processes.

Green flies reproduce parthenogenetically, for example - whereas most other members of the animal kingdom produce through males and females randomly combining their DNA.

It's just chemistry - no "intelligent mind" required.

that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the issue in question.

On the contrary, it shows that there is empiric evidence that life-forms are the result of natural processes - ergo, naturalism.

And you're still touting Meyer's "CSI" nonsense - there's no such thing.

Kindest regards,

James

Go back to basic biology class my friend. You have no clue about biology by making such an assertion.

Or have a education here :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1281-dna-stores-literally-coded-information?highlight=code

Again, on the contrary, I've posted about Dembski's (not Meyer's - my mistake ) drivel before - remember?

I cited Elsberry/Shallitt, and Schneider.

Not to mention my own background in the IT/Computing sector.

"CSI" is a made-up term to insert God into the mix - it fails miserably.

Kindest regarfs,

James

 

[Elshamah]

The significance is that the mere existence of biological information is neither an argument FOR or AGAINST naturalism.

False. Its powerful evidence of the requirement of design and intelligence, and against natural mechanisms.

Stop being arrogant. I know precisely what they mean.

Christ, you're an idiot.

That argument now contains all the relevant evidence and premises, but this results in the argument containing a contradiction. So the argument is invalid. ]

Bollocks. That is a irrelevant point.
No it isn't. You can't just declare the truth irrelevant. Do you not care about the truth? I guess you don't.

Here's the problem: You are cherry picking information and leaving out evidence that goes against your conclusion. That is dishonest. It means when you use your argument, you are knowingly saying something you know is not the WHOLE TRUTH. And you know that IF you told the WHOLE TRUTH it would undermine your desired conclusion. That means you LIE when you tell your argument.

Aren't Christians supposed to care about truth? I was a Christian once, I was told to always tell the truth. I was told that the Christian God literally COMMANDED that humans should tell the truth:

Exodus 20:16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

This is supposedly the literal words of God, written in stone.

You fucking hypocrite.


Once again, basic logic comes in the way of your evangelism.

Sorry.

Stop your pathetic drivel. Its annoying. Face reality and the brute fact, that we see information on several levels operating and required to permit life. Thats strong evidence that a creator is the only and most rational explanation for the origin of life and biodivesrity.

 

[Elshamah]

We know the origin of computers, Morse code, sentences, etc = human beings.

We know that DNA is not the result of human beings.

We have no evidence that DNA is the result of any being(s), therefore, we can't claim that it is due to any being(s).

We have evidence that DNA is the result of biological - natural - processes.

Show me one example of instructional information as stored in dna that has not intelligence as origin, and you got me.

 

[Dragan Glas]

We know the origin of computers, Morse code, sentences, etc = human beings.

We know that DNA is not the result of human beings.

We have no evidence that DNA is the result of any being(s), therefore, we can't claim that it is due to any being(s).

We have evidence that DNA is the result of biological - natural - processes.

Show me one example of instructional information as stored in dna that has not intelligence as origin, and you got me.

You're still assuming that DNA, and anything in Nature, is the result of intelligence based on humans being responsible for human-made things.

Show that DNA is only explainable by intelligence - that's what you have to do to show that there's a better explanation than Nature, which is the default.

That means you have to first prove supernaturalism.

1) Prove that a supernatural creator-entity - whether individual or group - exists;
2) Having proven 1), prove that said creator-entity is the one you claim it to be;
3) Having proven 1) and 2) above, prove that said entity had anything to do with physical reality.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

- Apples are fruits only known to come from trees.
- Oranges are fruits.
- Therefore oranges can only come from orange trees!

 

[MarsCydonia]

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of com from a intelligent mind
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA comes from a intelligent mind, and 0% inference that it is not.

DNA stores coded information. All codes com from intelligence. Therefore, DNA comes from a mind.

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of come from an intelligent mind.
3. All intelligent minds that we know of are human minds.
4. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA comes from a human mind, and 0% inference that it is not.

 

[Rumraket]

The significance is that the mere existence of biological information is neither an argument FOR or AGAINST naturalism.

False. Its powerful evidence of the requirement of design and intelligence, and against natural mechanisms.

I already know you believe this. But just saying it doesn't force it to become true.

You have tried to prove it true with an inductive argument. But that argument was shown to be logically invalid. So you are no further than where you set out from in the beginning.

You have still not managed to prove, by correctly using logic, that information/codes/DNA is "powerful evidence of the requirement of design and intelligence, and against natural mechanisms".

Stop being arrogant. I know precisely what they mean.

That cannot be true, since the way you used the term "brute fact" "that biological systems require instructional information on various levels for life to be able to emerge, evolve, and diversify"- commits a category error. In fact, it contradicts the conclusion you are trying to reach.

A brute fact is an inexplicable fact. Something that is just true for no reason.

Yet you have advanced multiple arguments that claim that for life to be able to "emerge, evolve and diversify" it requires "instructional information on various levels", because of the various observed properties of living organisms you infer to be necessarily, by their nature, dependent on it.

You're not only using a term you don't know what means, you're using it incorrectly (surprise!) and such that you are contradicting yourself.

It's probably even wrong. Life probably doesn't require "instructional information on various levels" to be able to "emerge, evolve and diversify".

I think you couldn't possibly compress any more mistakes and fallacies into your usage of the term "brute fact" than you already have. You have done something amazing I didn't even think was possible before.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

.

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

Is there code involved in the formation of every snowflake, no matter how elaborate? Is there code in the formation of a crystal? Is there code involved when energy applied to some molecules spontaneously results in larger, more "complex" molecules?

your comparison is invalid. It requires just matter and energy to make snowflakes.

Very good. It also, then only requires matter and energy to make crystals, complex molecules from simpler ones, ... do you see the point yet? Where do you draw the line as to when matter and energy are no longer sufficient? How do you make that determination? Can you demonstrate that such a line exists?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Please prove with a valid logical argument that the information in DNA have "a intelligent origin".

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of com from a intelligent mind

1. Technically not true. We only call it a "code" because it's easier to understand in our minds.
2. False. DNA, which you call a code, does not come from an intelligent mind.

 

[Visaki]

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of com from a intelligent mind
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA comes from a intelligent mind, and 0% inference that it is not.

DNA stores coded information. All codes com from intelligence. Therefore, DNA comes from a mind.

1. The God is a god.
2. All gods we know the origin of come from a human mind.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that God is an invention of a human mind, and 0% inference that it is not.

Yeap, seems legit. And funny.

Also; Put on headphones, find relaxing Tibetian praying bowls and waterfall track in youtube, lean back and chill Rumracket. We (well, me) don't want you banned because you get too upset about some nitwit.

Also; I see Elshamah hasn't answered my query about his definition of "code[d]". I think I know why this is.