Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[TheFlyingBastard]

I'm sorry but they're not saying "universe" in the sense of "all their is"; they're saying "universe" in the sense of "all that we can observe right now". It really is an unfortunate limitation of the english language that we don't have two different words for these two different concepts.

say that to all cited secular scientists, mentioned here, which don't agree with you :

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time

"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University

"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University

"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan

I wanted to email some (or all) of these people. But was a bit disappointed.

First of all there's Stephen Hawking. I hope you realize why I wouldn't just shoot him an email.
Hawking says that "before the big bang" is a meaningless term if we take it that the universe has started at that point. In fact, he later makes a point about two kinds of time, "real time" and "imaginary time". Real time is time as we experience it. "Imaginary time" is a different kind of time, not subject to the laws of physics.

Hawking made this point when he said: "There's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end. This would mean that the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of physics."

He also wrote: "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries."

With that in mind - that the universe might have well existed before the mathematical beginning in a different form, exactly as we already told you - we're going to march on.

Second is Tom Parisi, a "Media Relations specialist" who in this quote threw out that scientists often say x. So his quote is worthless.

Third is Stuart Robbins, a graduate student in astrophysics at the Case Western Reserve University. Despite his text not at all belying what borrofburi already mentioned (making your rebuttal worthless to begin with) I've shot him an email requesting clarification as to what he meant by "the beginning of the universe". I have to give you some chance, right?

Fourth is Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, who were kinda quotemined here (apologists quotemining? Gasp! Say it isn't so!). In the very same article, they say: "This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation."

Fifth is my fellow Dutchman, dr. Ben van der Pluijm, a Professor of... Geology. Not the best person to ask about this kind of stuff, now is it?

---

Also, why have you not answered my earlier post? Do you always give a wrong answer and then stick your fingers in your ears? Are you really that dishonest?
Or is it perhaps that you have no grasp of the material you are wielding? (Which we have already seen so many times in this thread.)

 

[ron baker]

I consider it implausible , our universe to exist in past eternity,

I'll generally agree with that.

... With God however it is entirely different. I believe God existed, as already explained as well, not in time back without beginning, but in a timeless eternity. How i imagine this, i have explained as well. there is no problem with the second law , and neither with philosophical implications.

With God all things are possible. The sun going around the earth. Unicorns. Anything.

The big bang does not mark the beginning of "everything there is"; it marks the beginning of the universe as we know it.

say that to all cited secular scientists, mentioned here, which don't agree with you :

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

That's a biased and misrepresentive sample.

I'm sorry but they're not saying "universe" in the sense of "all their is"; they're saying "universe" in the sense of "all that we can observe right now". It really is an unfortunate limitation of the english language that we don't have two different words for these two different concepts.

Yes. I promote the word "cosmos" for what if anything may be beyond the currently observable universe.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time

That is a biased and misrepresentative sample. In his latest book he says, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." He goes on to say that our universe may be one of a huge number of universes.

What is interesting is that in that view "a law such as gravity" has the role of an uncaused first cause.

you have again, no point whatsoever.

You are in error.

Consider also:
http://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang (scroll down to "Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory")

All honest, deliberate scientists will acknowledge that talk about before the BB is speculation at this time.

Moreover I reject BOTH premises of the kalam cosmological, and, quite frankly, find it a laughable argument.

Since you love your copy pasta, here's a quick refutation of the first premise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHXXrFf2Zy0
Another similar point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9DLcTfYBcQ

feel free to think about it as however it pleases you.

You've also been offered other refutations of Kalam. Have you no counter refutation?

--
rb

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This is my final response until you answer a few questions:
(1) would you want to know if you're wrong? (this is NOT a trivial question)
(2) is what you believe falsifiable ("the confirmed body of jesus christ" is NOT falsifiable, there is NO possible way for this to happen (the body will have decayed by now) especially not to your satisfaction (it's not like the actual hair of jesus was preserved so we could do a DNA check))?
(3) If there were a conflict between science and your beliefs which would you choose/believe?
(4) do you believe that "god did it" is *always* superior to "I don't know"?
(5) do you accept that "I don't know" can be the best answer?

I hope you are not holding your breath for those answers. I am still waiting for the first question I asked to be answered from him.
I think the only way he can answer a question is if he can copy and paste it from his "virtual library", no matter how wrong his answer is shown to be.

 

[borrofburi]

This is my final response until you answer a few questions:
(1) would you want to know if you're wrong? (this is NOT a trivial question)
(2) is what you believe falsifiable ("the confirmed body of jesus christ" is NOT falsifiable, there is NO possible way for this to happen (the body will have decayed by now) especially not to your satisfaction (it's not like the actual hair of jesus was preserved so we could do a DNA check))?
(3) If there were a conflict between science and your beliefs which would you choose/believe?
(4) do you believe that "god did it" is *always* superior to "I don't know"?
(5) do you accept that "I don't know" can be the best answer?

I hope you are not holding your breath for those answers. I am still waiting for the first question I asked to be answered from him.
I think the only way he can answer a question is if he can copy and paste it from his "virtual library", no matter how wrong his answer is shown to be.

Ah, it was you.... I thought it was story that had a few simple questions and refused to proceed until they were answered. I decided you had the right idea, (but thought it was story) and looked through several pages of the thread looking for that list of questions to add to my own... but eventually gave up... Probably too late now, maybe I'll be able to add them in, in a later response.

 

[Japhia888]

I'm sorry but they're not saying "universe" in the sense of "all their is"; they're saying "universe" in the sense of "all that we can observe right now". It really is an unfortunate limitation of the english language that we don't have two different words for these two different concepts.

say that to all cited secular scientists, mentioned here, which don't agree with you :

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time

"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University

"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University

"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan

I wanted to email some (or all) of these people. But was a bit disappointed.

First of all there's Stephen Hawking. I hope you realize why I wouldn't just shoot him an email.
Hawking says that "before the big bang" is a meaningless term if we take it that the universe has started at that point. In fact, he later makes a point about two kinds of time, "real time" and "imaginary time". Real time is time as we experience it. "Imaginary time" is a different kind of time, not subject to the laws of physics.

Hawking made this point when he said: "There's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end. This would mean that the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of physics."

He also wrote: "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries."

With that in mind - that the universe might have well existed before the mathematical beginning in a different form, exactly as we already told you - we're going to march on.

Second is Tom Parisi, a "Media Relations specialist" who in this quote threw out that scientists often say x. So his quote is worthless.

Third is Stuart Robbins, a graduate student in astrophysics at the Case Western Reserve University. Despite his text not at all belying what borrofburi already mentioned (making your rebuttal worthless to begin with) I've shot him an email requesting clarification as to what he meant by "the beginning of the universe". I have to give you some chance, right?

Fourth is Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, who were kinda quotemined here (apologists quotemining? Gasp! Say it isn't so!). In the very same article, they say: "This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation."

Fifth is my fellow Dutchman, dr. Ben van der Pluijm, a Professor of... Geology. Not the best person to ask about this kind of stuff, now is it?

---

Also, why have you not answered my earlier post? Do you always give a wrong answer and then stick your fingers in your ears? Are you really that dishonest?
Or is it perhaps that you have no grasp of the material you are wielding? (Which we have already seen so many times in this thread.)

hey, wait a minute. I have just copied a small part. Please write to ALL of them :

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

 

[Japhia888]

(1) would you want to know if you're wrong? (this is NOT a trivial question)

of course. what counts it the truth. is reality. is what really stands behind the courtine.

(2) is what you believe falsifiable ("the confirmed body of jesus christ" is NOT falsifiable, there is NO possible way for this to happen (the body will have decayed by now) especially not to your satisfaction (it's not like the actual hair of jesus was preserved so we could do a DNA check))?

if something can be falsified, no belief is needed anymore. it substitutes empirical knowledge.

(3) If there were a conflict between science and your beliefs which would you choose/believe?

since theism is in a other category than science, no conflict can exist.

(4) do you believe that "god did it" is *always* superior to "I don't know"?

it depends, on what question applied.

(5) do you accept that "I don't know" can be the best answer?

it depends again, to what question.

DNA is not "by definition" a "code" as you have defined it, else you are saying "by definition DNA is a message from god" and then using that to prove god's existence (which is circular, and a second fallacy).

i have not said that dna is a message from god.

what i have said , is :

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

This ignores (1) natural selection (2) chemical realities. I can do the same (actually worse, because it's even more complex) with the order of the molecules in a crystal.

one more time. natural selection does not apply to abiogenesis.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

This is downright asinine: you defined information as being impossible to create by natural mechanisms, and then you challenge me to provide you something that fits this definition via natural mechanisms. You've assumed your conclusion, of course I can't challenge your argument in any other way than to point out the fallacy.

there is no fallacy. there is only someone trying to avoid the obvious, stepping away on the side line.

I've told you numerous times, according to INFORMATION THEORY (you know, actual science), the organization of molecules in a crystal is information.

http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html

What is coming to light through the application of information theory is there are actually two kinds of order. The first kind (the snowflake's) arises from constraints within the material the thing is made of (the water molecules). We cannot infer an intelligent cause from it, except possibly in the remote sense of something behind the natural cause. The second kind, however, is not a result of anything within matter itself. It is in principle opposed to anything we see forming naturally. This kind of order does provide evidence for an intelligent cause.

our uniform experience is that it takes an intelligent agent to generate information, codes, messages. As a result, it is reasonable to infer there was an intelligent cause of the original DNA code. DNA and written language both exhibit the property of specified complexity. Since we know an intelligent cause produces written language, it is legitimate to posit an intelligent cause as the source of DNA.

 

[ron baker]

hey, wait a minute. I have just copied a small part. Please write to ALL of them :

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

LOL. Burden bait.

--
rb

 

[DepricatedZero]

:facepalm:

 

[Story]

Its not, since its a matter of philosophy and metaphysics, and as such, there is no fallacy to think about the subject, and to try to find the best answer to the question.

Your entire argument is based on what we don't know, not what we do. We do not know what determined exactly these fundamental forces. You're saying because we don't know, then obviously god did it.

No, i am not aware of this. The second premise of the kalaam cosmological argument stands quit firmly :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/evidence-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-t199.htm

The second premise of the kalam cosmological argument is supported by both philosophical and scientific arguments. Arguments under the former category involve showing that the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible. If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist. Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite. From a scientific perspective, the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology. The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology. Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm

Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which "from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand". More evidence that supports the universe is a closed system :
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html


That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The Big Bang marking the beginning of the universe is amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."


http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

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 (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big_Bang_came_from_a_singularity_where_did_the_singularity_come_from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/

Stephen Hawking writes, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

Before I refute this, I'm inclined to ask if you have read anything that opposes these concepts at all? You're displaying a very distorted understanding of how time itself works.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

There is evidence to suggest that debunking something just makes people believe it more...

I'm interested to know specifically what you're referring to here. Are you talking about the backfire effect or are you referring to something else?

not only because it's hard to change your beliefs

This bit is very crucial... Even when I am perfectly open minded to something (and there's no egoism involved), it still takes a LONG time and a LOT of effort to convince me. The reason for this is not necessarily dogmatism or stubbornness; rather there are two primary reasons conversations do NOT affect immediate change (at least in me): (1) just because I can't refute position A in the moment does not make position A correct (2) just because I can't refute position A does not make position A correct (i.e. others might be able to refute it, so I have to do plenty of research).

Is this really the problem with creationists? Consider this gem:



"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree," said by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species.

He didn't need to do any further research than what he had already done to see that his implication with this quote is false. All the context he needed was right there yet this guy still couldn't concede his position. For all I know, he still hasn't...

This is sadly not an exception. He's not the dumbest creationist I could find. Instead, he's pretty typical. He knows what he wants to be true and he's desperate to somehow show that his desires are not wrong. I don't think he's being philosophically conservative. I don't see how he can think that there is some kind of refutation that could validate his claim and he just hasn't come up with it yet. He just plain wants his claim to be true and can't admit that he's simply wrong...

 

[Daealis]

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

...there are actually two kinds of order.... The second kind, however, is not a result of anything within matter itself. It is in principle opposed to anything we see forming naturally. This kind of order does provide evidence for an intelligent cause.

DNA is just a polymeric nucleic acid. Nucleic acids are made out of basic gasses and sugar. These compounds form long chain in nature, all by themselves. These are not the only kind of chemical compound to polymerize in natural enviroments. Acting randomly. Creating long chains. Multiplying naturally. I'm confused as to what is the point that this becomes unnatural and requires a god to intervene? Perhaps when there is two separate strands of polymers? Four? A dozen? A hundred? When a few of them produce an error in the strand and thusly create new "information"? Or perhaps you're trying to pin the whole god acting on the illusive point where the multiplying chemicals can be called life?

Yes, that is the point of "we don't know yet", you can stick a deity of your choice in there for the time being. We'll let you know when it has to move to another unknown area of science.

The problem with your claims of "unnatural information" is that you can't point to a certain formation of crystals, certain strand of polymerized chemicals or a certain bit of ANYTHING with certainty and just go "this requires a god and that does not".

It's all just an arbitruary line drawn in by someone who reached the limit of his understanding of the matter and gave up.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

hey, wait a minute. I have just copied a small part. Please write to ALL of them :

Nah, you've had your chance. Five is a nice sample too with 2 parts quote mining, 2 parts subquoting... and all of em irrelevant.
Well, I got my response back from Mr (Dr?) Robbins. I've asked him if I can paste the email to these forums.
Let's just say he's not happy about his opinion being misrepresented the way your source has done, Japhia.

DNA is not a code, by the way. That's called a metaphor. I can also call it a recipe and it would be just as valid.

Also, you still didn't correctly answer my post above. In case you forgot, here was my post:

You start counting at now, back into infinity.

Your answer?

.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Okay, I have received permission to post the email correspondence up.
It starts with my email. The second email is his answer. Note that this email is left unedited with the exception of the removal of my own name (replaced with a simple " <> " at every instance).

Goodday, mr Robbins,

With all the research you've got going on I bet you've got plenty of stuff to do, so first of all I'd like to thank you for reading this email.

Myself and a few friends are involved in a discussion on the universe. In this discussion, one of the participants have quoted you as saying: "The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything."
Due to the content of the discussion I'd like to focus on the start of the sentence, specifically on the phrase "the universe's birth". The central question is here what you meant by "the universe".

By this, do you mean the birth of the universe *as we know it now* or does this also consist of everything pre-Planck?
Is it, according to you, possible that the universe has always existed in one form or another? What is your opinion on this matter?

Thanks in advance and best regards,

<>.

---

This was his answer:

---

<>,

I'm not entirely sure why, but that particular quote of mine has definitely gotten around the internet. If I could, I would prefer to revise it to "model of what happens just after the universe's birth ..." It's a key point, and it is one that I address in my blog post on a straw man argument of the big bang ( http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/misconception-big-bang-describes-the-formation-of-the-universe/ ).

What it means, and to answer your question, is that the Big Bang explains what happened to our current universe, the one in which we exist today, just after it formed, where "just after" is starting from 1 Planck time. It does not mean to describe HOW it happened before that or anything that happened before that. It has long been thought that pretty much by definition we cannot know anything that happened before it because that information would have been destroyed. Though I have heard recent rumblings among some that it may be possible to discern some information about something that may have previously existed, that remains far from a mainstream or testable idea.

Beyond what I have stated above, I prefer not to speculate because anything I say would be simply that -- speculation, and not based on any actual observations nor theory.

- Stuart

 

[mirandansa]

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

(2) is just ignorance on your part:



We do have experiment-based ideas of how DNA as "a code" could form through natural processses.

what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing?

They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

Incidentally, i have just talked about negentropy on another thread that can address your question:

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5220&start=200

Molecules don't need an "intelligent designer" to form into a living organism; as i mention just below, they are already collectively intelligent, and they need only a natural counter-entropic force that brings about order of information, according to which to behave, and which does actually exist.

What is coming to light through the application of information theory is there are actually two kinds of order. The first kind (the snowflake's) arises from constraints within the material the thing is made of (the water molecules). We cannot infer an intelligent cause from it, except possibly in the remote sense of something behind the natural cause. The second kind, however, is not a result of anything within matter itself. It is in principle opposed to anything we see forming naturally. This kind of order does provide evidence for an intelligent cause.

our uniform experience is that it takes an intelligent agent to generate information, codes, messages.

And you have a wrong notion of intelligence to begin with, mistaking it for some kind of abilities to cogitate and plan. Ever heard of plant intelligence, swarm intelligence, etc.? Plants don't cogitate, but they exhibit intelligence. Even particles do:

When an electron leaves an atom, they mutually exchange information; the nucleus "knows" an electron has left, and the electron "knows" it has left the orbit, and they will subsequently behave in accordance with that shared information.

As a result, it is reasonable to infer there was an intelligent cause of the original DNA code.

Right, chemicals were intelligent; they knew how to behave in accordance with the laws of physics. So they needed no help from a "designer" in creating a larger organising system out of themselves.

DNA and written language both exhibit the property of specified complexity.

A human body and a galaxy both exhibit properties of specified complexity; are they the same thing? No.

You are ignoring the limitations of your analogy. For one thing: written languages follow Zipf's law for their semantic elements (lexemes), while DNA doesn't.

 

[borrofburi]

(2) is what you believe falsifiable ("the confirmed body of jesus christ" is NOT falsifiable, there is NO possible way for this to happen (the body will have decayed by now) especially not to your satisfaction (it's not like the actual hair of jesus was preserved so we could do a DNA check))?

if something can be falsified, no belief is needed anymore. it substitutes empirical knowledge.

Please explain.

 

[Story]

<>,

I'm not entirely sure why, but that particular quote of mine has definitely gotten around the internet. If I could, I would prefer to revise it to "model of what happens just after the universe's birth ..." It's a key point, and it is one that I address in my blog post on a straw man argument of the big bang ( http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/misconception-big-bang-describes-the-formation-of-the-universe/ ).

What it means, and to answer your question, is that the Big Bang explains what happened to our current universe, the one in which we exist today, just after it formed, where "just after" is starting from 1 Planck time. It does not mean to describe HOW it happened before that or anything that happened before that. It has long been thought that pretty much by definition we cannot know anything that happened before it because that information would have been destroyed. Though I have heard recent rumblings among some that it may be possible to discern some information about something that may have previously existed, that remains far from a mainstream or testable idea.

Beyond what I have stated above, I prefer not to speculate because anything I say would be simply that -- speculation, and not based on any actual observations nor theory.

- Stuart

Interesting read. Stuart claims that creationists like Japhy confuse the Big Bang model with the formation of the universe, in much the same way creationists confused abiogenesis and evolution.

This clearly depicts a need for a huge face palm moment for all of us. :facepalm:

 

[Japhia888]

DNA is not a code, by the way. That's called a metaphor. I can also call it a recipe and it would be just as valid.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

its funny that even Dawkins disagrees with you :

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

 

[Japhia888]

Okay, I have received permission to post the email correspondence up.
It starts with my email. The second email is his answer. Note that this email is left unedited with the exception of the removal of my own name (replaced with a simple " <> " at every instance).

Goodday, mr Robbins,

With all the research you've got going on I bet you've got plenty of stuff to do, so first of all I'd like to thank you for reading this email.

Myself and a few friends are involved in a discussion on the universe. In this discussion, one of the participants have quoted you as saying: "The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything."
Due to the content of the discussion I'd like to focus on the start of the sentence, specifically on the phrase "the universe's birth". The central question is here what you meant by "the universe".

By this, do you mean the birth of the universe *as we know it now* or does this also consist of everything pre-Planck?
Is it, according to you, possible that the universe has always existed in one form or another? What is your opinion on this matter?

Thanks in advance and best regards,

<>.

---

This was his answer:

---

<>,

I'm not entirely sure why, but that particular quote of mine has definitely gotten around the internet. If I could, I would prefer to revise it to "model of what happens just after the universe's birth ..." It's a key point, and it is one that I address in my blog post on a straw man argument of the big bang ( http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/misconception-big-bang-describes-the-formation-of-the-universe/ ).

What it means, and to answer your question, is that the Big Bang explains what happened to our current universe, the one in which we exist today, just after it formed, where "just after" is starting from 1 Planck time. It does not mean to describe HOW it happened before that or anything that happened before that. It has long been thought that pretty much by definition we cannot know anything that happened before it because that information would have been destroyed. Though I have heard recent rumblings among some that it may be possible to discern some information about something that may have previously existed, that remains far from a mainstream or testable idea.

Beyond what I have stated above, I prefer not to speculate because anything I say would be simply that -- speculation, and not based on any actual observations nor theory.

- Stuart

" just after it formed " indicates what to you ? indeed, the Big Bang theory does not explain, what happened in the first moment of planck time. neither did i make this assertion.

 

[ron baker]

,


<>,

I'm not entirely sure why, but that particular quote of mine has definitely gotten around the internet. If I could, I would prefer to revise it to "model of what happens just after the universe's birth ..." It's a key point, and it is one that I address in my blog post on a straw man argument of the big bang ( http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/misconception-big-bang-describes-the-formation-of-the-universe/ ).

What it means, and to answer your question, is that the Big Bang explains what happened to our current universe, the one in which we exist today, just after it formed, where "just after" is starting from 1 Planck time. It does not mean to describe HOW it happened before that or anything that happened before that. It has long been thought that pretty much by definition we cannot know anything that happened before it because that information would have been destroyed. Though I have heard recent rumblings among some that it may be possible to discern some information about something that may have previously existed, that remains far from a mainstream or testable idea.

Beyond what I have stated above, I prefer not to speculate because anything I say would be simply that -- speculation, and not based on any actual observations nor theory.

- Stuart

" just after it formed " indicates what to you ? indeed, the Big Bang theory does not explain, what happened in the first moment of planck time. neither did i make this assertion.

Dodging the point.

Robbins' statement is yet another falsification of the assertion that the scientific community makes definite claims of there being nothing before the BB.

--
rb

 

[Story]

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

Quote mining extravaganza!

Nevertheless, whether you would like to believe that DNA is a code or not, there is a known mechanism of which it could have come about by natural laws, this contradicts information theory.

Furthermore, information theory uses inductive logic which isn't always accurate, especially in this case where we now know that there is a way it could have come about naturally.

" just after it formed " indicates what to you ? indeed, the Big Bang theory does not explain, what happened in the first moment of planck time. neither did i make this assertion.

We do have an idea what happened in the first moment of planck time, but not before that. Your argument is that before that first moment of planck time god decided all the fine-tuned constants, which is based on the idea that the purpose of the universe is to make things.