Powerful counter-apologetics by Jeff Lowder

[Elshamah]

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.

Why is it default ?

by nature, you mean chance, or physical necessity.

As said, it has NEVER been observed, that chance produces coded instructional information.
In the mean time, we know intelligence does it all the time.

That means you have to first prove supernaturalism.

Nope.

 

[Elshamah]

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.

You are wrong at point 4.

We know minds are independet from physical bodies.

Near Death experience , evidence of dualism

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1284-near-death-experience-evidence-of-dualism?highlight=dualism

What comes first, mind or matter?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1380-what-comes-first-mind-or-matter

 

[Elshamah]

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.

So you try now to squibble about the meaning of what BRUTE fact means.

I don't. If you mind, just cancel the word brute, and let just the word fact.

Well, when you can show me life that does not depend on genetic information, let me know.

 

[Elshamah]

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?

Nope. It requires additionally information. Thats the salient difference.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

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?

Nope. It requires additionally information. Thats the salient difference.

That isn't a difference. That's an assertion, nothing more. What is this "additional information"? Where did you draw the line between what we observe to happen naturally and where we appear to observe it naturally but there's an invisible information injector behind the curtain?

 

[WarK]

We know minds are independet from physical bodies.

Near Death experience , evidence of dualism

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So someone's hallucination is the best evidence you can get for your position? Congratulations.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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.

Why is it default ?

Nature exists: therefore, anything that occurs in Nature is almost certainly of natural origin.

And please note that anything that pre-exists humans is even more certain to be of natural origin, since human intelligence can't be used to explain anything prior to humans.

by nature, you mean chance, or physical necessity.

As said, it has NEVER been observed, that chance produces coded instructional information.

In the mean time, we know intelligence does it all the time.

Humans have only been around for a short while in terms of the age of the universe. Man-made things for even a shorter period of time.

We can't claim that Nature can not produce "coded instructional information".

That means you have to first prove supernaturalism.

Nope.

Yes, you do.

If I claimed that there's a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, I'd have to prove that.

However, if I claimed that a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow was due to a leprechaun, I'd have to first prove that leprechauns exist, before proving that there's a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Understand?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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.

You are wrong at point 4.

We know minds are independet from physical bodies.

No, you don't - you believe that minds are independent of physical bodies.

That's not the same thing as "knowing".

Near Death experience , evidence of dualism

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1284-near-death-experience-evidence-of-dualism?highlight=dualism

What comes first, mind or matter?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1380-what-comes-first-mind-or-matter

All belief - not knowing.

None of that is proof of dualism - the default is monism.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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?

Nope. It requires additionally information. Thats the salient difference.

Matter and energy are information.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Elshamah]

Nope. It requires additionally information. Thats the salient difference.

That isn't a difference. That's an assertion, nothing more. What is this "additional information"? Where did you draw the line between what we observe to happen naturally and where we appear to observe it naturally but there's an invisible information injector behind the curtain?

Well, if you think you know more than mainstream science, shall be it.

DNA contains codified information

DNA is an information carrying molecule. It carries the genetic code “engraved,” you might say, in its structure. Its “alphabet” consists of the four bases that pair together forming rungs on a spiral ladder, as the molecule’s shape might be likened to. The precise sequence of the bases as one ascends the ladder is what determines the information contained. The DNA in a human genome (separated into 23 chromosomes) contains about 3 billion rungs–or base pairs–and thus 3 billion coded instructions. That’s enough information to fill 1000 encyclopedic volumes. Two genomes–one from each parent– make up the normal 46 chromosome complement of human somatic (body tissue) cells. So each somatic cell contains in its DNA two similar but not identical sets of coded information totaling about six billion instructions. 1

http://www.cogmessenger.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Mystery_of_Life_Origin.pdf


The algorithmic origins of life

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/79/20120869

Although it has been notoriously difficult to pin down precisely what is it that makes life so distinctive and remarkable, there is general agreement that its informational aspect is one key property, perhaps the key property. The unique informational narrative of living systems suggests that life may be characterized by context-dependent causal influences, and, in particular, that top-down (or downward) causation—where higher levels influence and constrain the dynamics of lower levels in organizational hierarchies—may be a major contributor to the hierarchal structure of living systems. Here, we propose that the emergence of life may correspond to a physical transition associated with a shift in the causal structure, where information gains direct and context-dependent causal efficacy over the matter in which it is instantiated. Such a transition may be akin to more traditional physical transitions (e.g. thermodynamic phase transitions), with the crucial distinction that determining which phase (non-life or life) a given system is in requires dynamical information and therefore can only be inferred by identifying causal architecture. We discuss some novel research directions based on this hypothesis, including potential measures of such a transition that may be amenable to laboratory study, and how the proposed mechanism corresponds to the onset of the unique mode of (algorithmic) information processing characteristic of living systems.

Paul Davies 1

"We propose that the transition from non-life to life is unique and definable," added Davies. "We suggest that life may be characterized by its distinctive and active use of information, thus providing a roadmap to identify rigorous criteria for the emergence of life. This is in sharp contrast to a century of thought in which the transition to life has been cast as a problem of chemistry, with the goal of identifying a plausible reaction pathway from chemical mixtures to a living entity."

In a nutshell, the authors shift attention from the "hardware" – the chemical basis of life – to the "software" – its information content. To use a computer analogy, chemistry explains the material substance of the machine, but it won't function without a program and data. Davies and Walker suggest that the crucial distinction between non-life and life is the way that living organisms manage the information flowing through the system.
"When we describe biological processes we typically use informational narratives – cells send out signals, developmental programs are run, coded instructions are read, genomic data are transmitted between generations and so forth," Walker said.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1310-dna-contains-codified-information


Information in DNA, evidence of a intelligent cause

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2270-information-in-dna-evidence-of-a-intelligent-cause

"All *life forms* definitely must have an enormous amount
of information to keep all their structures functioning."
~ Vincent Maycock

1. No information can exist without a code.

2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

5. No information can exist without a transmitter.

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

8. No information can exist without a will.

These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has 'ever' been found.

 

[Elshamah]

Nature exists: therefore, anything that occurs in Nature is almost certainly of natural origin.

There is no certainty of that.

We can't claim that Nature can not produce "coded instructional information".

We cant claim either that flying potatoes do not exist on neptun.

 

[Elshamah]

Matter and energy are information.

Kindest regards,

James

You still do not get that the issue is about CODED information ?!!

 

[MarsCydonia]

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.

You are wrong at point 4.

We know minds are independet from physical bodies.

You missed it. Care to try again?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Nature exists: therefore, anything that occurs in Nature is almost certainly of natural origin.

There is no certainty of that.

You missed the important qualifier.

It means that Nature is almost certainly the cause for anything that occurs in Nature - human intelligence is only a explanation for man-made things. We have no evidence of any other intelligences - if they exist, they are almost certainly of natural origin, like humans, ie "aliens".

We can't claim that Nature can not produce "coded instructional information".

We cant claim either that flying potatoes do not exist on neptun.

If they do, they're almost certainly of natural origin - to claim otherwise, you'd have to prove the existence of the intelligent agent first.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Matter and energy are information.

Kindest regards,

James

You still do not get that the issue is about CODED information ?!!

You still don't get that "coded" information doesn't require intelligence - you're assuming order equals design: it doesn't.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

1. No information can exist without a code.

In a certain sort of way this in itself implies codes are unavoidable natural entities. In so far as information exists, it is symbolically informative. For example, some snow flake structures are only produced at certain temperatures and humidities. In this sense, the physical structures of the snow flakes are informative about he environment in which they formed. You could say they are symbols that can be "read" and you'd get information about the local conditions.

Look at this graph:

As you can see, the physical conditions affect what structures the snow flakes produce. This means you can "read" about the environmental conditions that were when the snow flakes formed.

In other words, if you really believe that no information can exist without a code, then your definition of code is so broad it contradicts your claim that codes require conscious intention to set up, since you also claim that simple structures (such as snowflakes) can form without intelligence to guide it.

And since snowflakes are intrinsically informative structures, analogous to the "symbols" one would find in the genetic code for translation into proteins, you have effectively refuted yourself already with your opening premise.

In fact, here is the "snowflake code":

Game over. Thank you for playing.

2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

Snow flakes.

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

Snow flakes.

4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

All processes are amenable to statistical analysis, whether stochastic or completely deterministic. Neither option has any bearing on whether information can exist or not.

Where are you getting this shit? Who told you these manifest falsehoods?

5. No information can exist without a transmitter.

What the hell does that even mean? What is the definition of a transmitter you are using? Are snowflakes transmitters?

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

Snow flakes.

7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

That's the same as the shit above, and wrong for the same reasons.

Snow flakes.

8. No information can exist without a will.

Really? Do you believe God is intervening to physically assemble water molecules into snow flakes when they form?

These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has 'ever' been found.

Literally all of them are false, and multiple counterexamples are known. LOL.

You live in opposite-land. Where everything is opposite to the real world.

 

[Rumraket]

So I googled and found the source for that ridiculous list of demonstrable falsehoods. Of course it's from a creationist who just made it up. There is no proof that any of it true, he just claimed it out of nowhere:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html

What's worse, it's flatly contradicted by extremely successful theories of information such as Shannon's theory of information.

Gitt describes his principles as "empirical", yet the data is not provided to back this up. Similarly, he proposes fourteen "theorems", yet fails to demonstrate them. Shannon, in contrast, offers the math to back up his theorems. It is difficult to see how Gitt's "empirical principles" and "theorems" are anything but arbitrary assertions.

Neither do we see a working measure for meaning (a yet-unsolved problem Shannon wisely avoided). Since Gitt can't define what meaning is sufficiently to measure it, his ideas don't amount to much more than arm-waving.

By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.

If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information. We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source. We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so.

 

[Elshamah]

It means that Nature is almost certainly the cause for anything that occurs in Nature

What must be explained , is the origin of nature, in the first place.

 

[Elshamah]

You still don't get that "coded" information doesn't require intelligence

James

To write a book, no author is required ?

Kind regards

 

[Elshamah]

1. No information can exist without a code.

In a certain sort of way this in itself implies codes are unavoidable natural entities. In so far as information exists, it is symbolically informative. For example, some snow flake structures are only produced at certain temperatures and humidities. In this sense, the physical structures of the snow flakes are informative about he environment in which they formed. You could say they are symbols that can be "read" and you'd get information about the local conditions.

Look at this graph:

As you can see, the physical conditions affect what structures the snow flakes produce. This means you can "read" about the environmental conditions that were when the snow flakes formed.

In other words, if you really believe that no information can exist without a code, then your definition of code is so broad it contradicts your claim that codes require conscious intention to set up, since you also claim that simple structures (such as snowflakes) can form without intelligence to guide it.

And since snowflakes are intrinsically informative structures, analogous to the "symbols" one would find in the genetic code for translation into proteins, you have effectively refuted yourself already with your opening premise.

In fact, here is the "snowflake code":

Game over. Thank you for playing.

2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

Snow flakes.

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

Snow flakes.

4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

All processes are amenable to statistical analysis, whether stochastic or completely deterministic. Neither option has any bearing on whether information can exist or not.

Where are you getting this shit? Who told you these manifest falsehoods?

5. No information can exist without a transmitter.

What the hell does that even mean? What is the definition of a transmitter you are using? Are snowflakes transmitters?

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

Snow flakes.

7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

That's the same as the shit above, and wrong for the same reasons.

Snow flakes.

8. No information can exist without a will.

Really? Do you believe God is intervening to physically assemble water molecules into snow flakes when they form?

These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has 'ever' been found.

Literally all of them are false, and multiple counterexamples are known. LOL.

You live in opposite-land. Where everything is opposite to the real world.

You have a point here. Conceded. I think the author forgot to differentiate between information, and coded information.
Put everywhere, were it says information, coded in front, and then do your analysis again.

You can try as much as you want, Mikkel.

Genetic information stored in DNA is rocksolid evidence of intellgence as causal agent of it.