The flaws in Intelligent design

[Bear Wild]

Well ill be dammed. You agree the DNA code is literally a code.

Hey dan, you hear that from fox? He said YES to my question about the code being literal.

You gonna get him for that?

You know fox, dan thinks DNA code is mediphor.

I got an idea, how about me and you gang up on him about that? Lol

The word code is a metaphor not DNA. You missed that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I read his quotes. The verbatum quotes from yokey

So you are just running with sound bytes and have no context for them. That sounds about what I would expect.

 

[Jollybear]

Ok, i got 3 bars on my phone despite it being plugged in. Plus its late. Ill respond tomorow.

Goodnight youl.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The word code is a metaphor not DNA. You missed that.

Fortunately, I did not miss it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well ill be dammed. You agree the DNA code is literally a code.

Hey dan, you hear that from fox? He said YES to my question about the code being literal.

You gonna get him for that?

You know fox, dan thinks DNA code is mediphor.

I got an idea, how about me and you gang up on him about that? Lol

Clearly you did not understand what he posted.

Describing it as code is a metaphor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you remember all the arguments, debates and discussions we had with creationists on the old Topix forum. Do you remember how often the creationists would lose the arguments and declare victory. It was pigeon chess.

It amazes me how that has not changed, despite a change in venue. I know it should not, but even in the face of recognizing that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink, I still am in awe at how many thirsty horses there are and how strongly they refuse to drink.

I suppose I was expecting a better class of creationist here and have been disappointed to find that they are the same here as anywhere I have been in the past.

At least the trolling is minimized here. There are some trolls at Topix that are so annoying as to make the site intolerable. Of course they were the dregs of other sites. For example the global warming deniers that got kicked off science site after science site and thought that it was part of a grand conspiracy. At least with some of them I did force myself to understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Sometimes to argue with people that know nothing one does have to learn more than one knew before. That keeps it from being a stagnant process.

 

[Polymath257]

Information comes from intelligence. All evidence and experience reveal that.

This is false. Most information comes from causal events that do not have any intelligence around at all. If 'A' causes 'B', then the existence of 'B' is information bout 'A'. No intelligence required.

No experience reveals the oposite. Period.

This seems to be your basic mistake.

Chance creating coded information to create all complex life forms is nill.

Well, that is your belief. Can you support it?

 

[Polymath257]

So matter and energy interacting is going to create information for life?

Yea, i dont BUY it.

But hey, let me give ya big hug

Yes, life *is* matter and energy interacting. ALL information is matter and energy interacting also.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so you agree that there is LITERALLY a code in DNA?

Which definition of 'code'? If you are only using the information thoery definition, yes, there is a code in going from DNA to protein. But the information thoery definition doesn't require intelligence to form a code. All that is required is information transfer. And that is commonplace. Even light going from one place to another counts as a code in that sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you know the difference between acting honest and being honest? If so, tell me.

Also, no, i did not make up that francis callins said the evidence tips toward God.

Francis callins two quotes

"COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence."

Also

"COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.

One more

"Because I do believe in God's creative power in having brought it all into being in the first place, I find that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation."

A hell one more

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.

Another

"COLLINS: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation."

God vs. Science, Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins interviewed by D. Cray | Inters.org

For Pete's sake, it's Francis Collins.

That has been bothering me for several pages now.

Sorry, carry on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, you clearly refered to me.

Heres the context >

"Jollybear---"Francis callins admits he cant prove it, but he did say the evidence tips in favor of God."

Then you said this >

"Yes. You said this. So, he stated his belief and recognizes that he has no evidence that can support that belief. He and I are alike in that."



I gave you quotes from callins showing he DOES consider there to be evidence for God.

Collins fully accepts evolution. Apparently he just thinks it was designed by God. Notice how he never says that he can demonstrate God's involvement in any of it though. He doesn't include any God(s) in the scientific papers he writes either.

You, on the other hand, seem to be basically declaring evolution to be false, and then using the words of a person who accepts it to back you up. For some reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, collins then. Who really cares. Im not weorried about being accurate spelling while debating. Im in a hurry to cut to the chase here. Youl waste so much time beating around the dam bush.

Understandable, but you really should spell names correctly so that the people in the discussion with you can properly look them up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The evidence for intelligence is in our world. It is there. You just dont see it. I see it. If you dont see it, oh well.

What. Is. It?

 

[Jollybear]

Collins fully accepts evolution. Apparently he just thinks it was designed by God. Notice how he never says that he can demonstrate God's involvement in any of it though. He doesn't include any God(s) in the scientific papers he writes either.

You, on the other hand, seem to be basically declaring evolution to be false, and then using the words of a person who accepts it to back you up. For some reason.

I never said evolution is false. So, for the clear record, no evolution is not false.

 

[Jollybear]

This is false. Most information comes from causal events that do not have any intelligence around at all. If 'A' causes 'B', then the existence of 'B' is information bout 'A'. No intelligence required.

Theres no proven examples where information does not come from intelligence. Theres no proven exceptions. So, DNA is assumed to be that exception.

Well, that is your belief. Can you support it?

Yes, under controlled conditions, chance has been shown to not exist, let alone play any roles.

Here > The Not So Random Coin Toss

"statistician Persi Diaconis started to wonder if the outcome of a coin flip really is just a matter of chance. He had Harvard University engineers build him a mechanical coin flipper. Diaconis, now at Stanford University, found that if a coin is launched exactly the same way, it lands exactly the same way."

Theres youtube videos showing this as well.

Yes, life *is* matter and energy interacting. ALL information is matter and energy interacting also.

Iife and information is more then just matter and energy, its organized and intelligent.

Which definition of 'code'? If you are only using the information thoery definition, yes, there is a code in going from DNA to protein.

Oh yea!, yea!, yea! You just said it had a code in it. Yea! Thats what im talkin about! . Now your looking more like hubert yokey.

But the information thoery definition doesn't require intelligence to form a code.

And thats whats assumed. That goes against our experience.

All that is required is information transfer. And that is commonplace. Even light going from one place to another counts as a code in that sense.

Not the same thing. Light is a wave and a particle. It dont have a code like whats in DNA.

 

[Polymath257]

Theres no proven examples where information does not come from intelligence. Theres no proven exceptions. So, DNA is assumed to be that exception.

Once again, information comes from every causal interaction. So any causal interaction not involving an intelligence (which is most of them) produces information that did not come from an intelligence.

That means that DNA is NOT the only exception. If anything, the exceptions are the times when information *does* come from an intelligence.

Yes, under controlled conditions, chance has been shown to not exist, let alone play any roles.

Here > The Not So Random Coin Toss

"statistician Persi Diaconis started to wonder if the outcome of a coin flip really is just a matter of chance. He had Harvard University engineers build him a mechanical coin flipper. Diaconis, now at Stanford University, found that if a coin is launched exactly the same way, it lands exactly the same way."

Theres youtube videos showing this as well.

Yes, coins are classical items. They generally obey causality, although with sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

But, in the quantum world, there are actually, legitimately, uncaused events and randomness.

Iife and information is more then just matter and energy, its organized and intelligent.

Once again, intelligence isn't necessarily involved. Most life is not intelligent at all (plants, fungi, most invertebrates, etc).

Matter *can* and *does* often self-organize. Life is a good example of that.

Oh yea!, yea!, yea! You just said it had a code in it. Yea! Thats what im talkin about! . Now your looking more like hubert yokey.

And thats whats assumed. That goes against our experience.

Not the same thing. Light is a wave and a particle. It dont have a code like whats in DNA.

It carries information. That is enough for it to be a code according to information theory. It encodes information via reflection, refraction, and other interactions. The information *can* be decoded by optical devices.

Or do you think that light doesn't carry information? And most of the information it carries information that is not the product of an intelligence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Theres no proven examples where information does not come from intelligence. Theres no proven exceptions. So, DNA is assumed to be that exception.

You are not using a consistent definition of "information". There are natural cases of information arising, but by claiming those are not information then by the same definition DNA is no information either. You need a working definition of "information" that you will stick to. Please note, a working defintion.

Yes, under controlled conditions, chance has been shown to not exist, let alone play any roles.

Here > The Not So Random Coin Toss

"statistician Persi Diaconis started to wonder if the outcome of a coin flip really is just a matter of chance. He had Harvard University engineers build him a mechanical coin flipper. Diaconis, now at Stanford University, found that if a coin is launched exactly the same way, it lands exactly the same way."

Theres youtube videos showing this as well.

Some is not all. Even if you can show a coin flip not to be random, and the lengths that one has to go to indicates that a regular coin flip is random, there are other examples of clearly random events. The timing of a nuclear decay for example.

Iife and information is more then just matter and energy, its organized and intelligent.

And you evidence for this is . . . ?

Not the same thing. Light is a wave and a particle. It dont have a code like whats in DNA.

Light is different from DNA but that does not mean that it is not information under the right circumstances too. Not even all DNA is "information". It can be synthesized in the lab. Do you think that DNA has information in it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Once again, information comes from every causal interaction. So any causal interaction not involving an intelligence (which is most of them) produces information that did not come from an intelligence.

That means that DNA is NOT the only exception. If anything, the exceptions are the times when information *does* come from an intelligence.




Yes, coins are classical items. They generally obey causality, although with sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

But, in the quantum world, there are actually, legitimately, uncaused events and randomness.




Once again, intelligence isn't necessarily involved. Most life is not intelligent at all (plants, fungi, most invertebrates, etc).

Matter *can* and *does* often self-organize. Life is a good example of that.




It carries information. That is enough for it to be a code according to information theory. It encodes information via reflection, refraction, and other interactions. The information *can* be decoded by optical devices.

Or do you think that light doesn't carry information? And most of the information it carries information that is not the product of an intelligence?

Light is carrying information to me every time I open my eyes.

The creationist urge to take a single example that they do not fully understand and then apply it universally is one I see frequently. Thus coin tossing not being completely random due to weight differences between the two sides, suddenly and without reason, becomes there is no random chance in the universe. Priceless.

 

[Polymath257]

Light is carrying information to me every time I open my eyes.

The creationist urge to take a single example that they do not fully understand and then apply it universally is one I see frequently. Thus coin tossing not being completely random due to weight differences between the two sides, suddenly and without reason, becomes there is no random chance in the universe. Priceless.

It isn't just the difference in weight. Coins are big enough that quantum randomness is minimal. That means that a *sufficiently accurate* initial condition can give rise to a pre-determined outcome.

Of course, things like air currents have to be controlled also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Light is carrying information to me every time I open my eyes.

The creationist urge to take a single example that they do not fully understand and then apply it universally is one I see frequently. Thus coin tossing not being completely random due to weight differences between the two sides, suddenly and without reason, becomes there is no random chance in the universe. Priceless.

many creationists have an all or nothing to anything that they have a problem with.