The great information debate

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well at least we have boiled this debate down to one question. So I will answer it one more time.

Alright, I just hope you answer it satisfactorily this time...

The intention of the code maker was to make life. It worked as it would appear and the code is exactly where it belongs – in life.

Well, there you go. That's your circular logic, plain as day. You have assumed that life began for a reason (the Creator desired life), and used this premise in order to show that life was Created (the Creator, who desired life, is responsible for making the life He desired).

Now, imagine that there exists a robotic car factory that spits out cars, but that there is nobody around to drive them (that there is no intelligent intended receiver for the cars). The robotic car factory just keeps spitting out cars, pillaging the older models in order to glean resources for the new models. After being manufactured, these cars just sit there for a few decades collecting rust, until finally they are consumed by the factory. There is no purpose or intention to the system, no reason behind it. There isn't even an intelligent onlooker reveling in the beauty of the process--there is no intelligence involved in the system at all at this point. Perhaps an intelligence built the factory and then left it to its own devices, but if so then clearly this intelligence was deranged--who but a deranged mind would build a robotic car factory for no reason at all? This is the epitomy of irrationality.

Now, imagine for a moment that there is no end receiver for life, that there is no entity that is analogous to the humans driving away the cars. Imagine that either God doesn't exist, or that He simply doesn't care at all about us, about life in general. We are analogous to the cars being spit out by the car factory, the car factory is analogous to the DNA translation mechanism, and there is nothing that is analogous to the humans driving away the cars. Now, does it make any sense to conclude that God made life (i.e. that an intelligence made the car factory)? If He made life and then abandoned it, then He is deranged.

Don't you see the circularity of your reasoning now? You've presupposed that God cares about life, about us. Your entire argument relies on this prusupposition. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that either there is no God or that He simply doesn't care--your entire argument is invalidated by a simple alteration of your assumptions.

Prove to me that God cares about me, and you'll have a pretty good case for proving that He designed me. Otherwise, you've got nothing, other than the assumption that some nebulous entity personally cares about you. It's a nice thought, but it's not science.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by loinburger


Alright, I just hope you answer it satisfactorily this time...



Well, there you go. That's your circular logic, plain as day. You have assumed that life began for a reason (the Creator desired life), and used this premise in order to show that life was Created (the Creator, who desired life, is responsible for making the life He desired).

Now, imagine that there exists a robotic car factory that spits out cars, but that there is nobody around to drive them (that there is no intelligent intended receiver for the cars). The robotic car factory just keeps spitting out cars, pillaging the older models in order to glean resources for the new models. After being manufactured, these cars just sit there for a few decades collecting rust, until finally they are consumed by the factory. There is no purpose or intention to the system, no reason behind it. There isn't even an intelligent onlooker reveling in the beauty of the process--there is no intelligence involved in the system at all at this point. Perhaps an intelligence built the factory and then left it to its own devices, but if so then clearly this intelligence was deranged--who but a deranged mind would build a robotic car factory for no reason at all? This is the epitomy of irrationality.

Now, imagine for a moment that there is no end receiver for life, that there is no entity that is analogous to the humans driving away the cars. Imagine that either God doesn't exist, or that He simply doesn't care at all about us, about life in general. We are analogous to the cars being spit out by the car factory, the car factory is analogous to the DNA translation mechanism, and there is nothing that is analogous to the humans driving away the cars. Now, does it make any sense to conclude that God made life (i.e. that an intelligence made the car factory)? If He made life and then abandoned it, then He is deranged.

Don't you see the circularity of your reasoning now? You've presupposed that God cares about life, about us. Your entire argument relies on this prusupposition. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that either there is no God or that He simply doesn't care--your entire argument is invalidated by a simple alteration of your assumptions.

Prove to me that God cares about me, and you'll have a pretty good case for proving that He designed me. Otherwise, you've got nothing, other than the assumption that some nebulous entity personally cares about you. It's a nice thought, but it's not science.

I cant speak for Lincoln, but that is not what get form reading his posts. He is using examples of codes that we know of, all of them had humans behind them. We have not found a code that is form a non intelligent scource, so what he is saying that all codes come form an intelligent scource, thus the genic code came form an intelligent scource, and I dont see how that is circular reasoning. That is the way I see and reason on it, and I am sure that is the way Lincoln does too. Your questions on weather life has purpose and if Creator exists, does he care about me, would be good to disscuss, but I think we should do that in anther thread.

[Lincoln]

Do you really think that the remnants of a car factory do not prove intelligent design? That is prima facie evidence of intelligence. How can you use that as an analogy to prove your point. It really proves mine.

I have not presupposed that God cares about anything. I am not suggesting here that the intelligent mental source that I have asserted has any particular nature or feelings. I have personal beliefs in that regard but I am trying to seperate the faith factor from this debate so that it does stay on a scientific level.

If you conclude that God "is deranged" then maybe he is. Maybe he is full of hate or angry or vindictive or whatever. I don't see how the suggestion of an inteligent mental source and the argument that I have put forth here requires this intelligent force to care one way or the other. The only thing he needs to "care" about is the product that he designed, whether it works or not.

Quote:

"The intention of the code maker was to make life."

How is that anymore than a conclusion that I have drawn from the evidence? The proof is in the pudding. We agreed (I think) that a code requires a goal. It seems apparent to me that the goal has been reached. Life is not now a random glob of proteins but it is highly complex and diverse. We are the result of coded meaningful instructions that must have arisin by a mental source who could give them meaning. The other altertanitive is that the code and the logical order of information within it evolved naturally. I have not seen a whit of evidence that a code can originate naturally.

On a side note to your personally. I didn't think that God cared much for me either at one time. And I am still not convinced that he loves all of mankind. Jehova obviously has no problem destroying his creation along with the women and children as he sees fit. One thing is painfully obvious to me if he is God, and that is that he indeed did curse this earth. But that is a topic for another thread.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
He is using examples of codes that we know of, all of them had humans behind them.

He is using examples of codes that had humans behind them, but his examples also had an intention behind them as well. He rejects starlight as a code because there was no intention behind it. He rejects the transformation of Zinc and HCl into hydrogen and zinc-chloride because there was no intention behind it. He assumes that there is an intention behind life.

We have not found a code that is form a non intelligent scource, so what he is saying that all codes come form an intelligent scource, thus the genic code came form an intelligent scource, and I dont see how that is circular reasoning.

We have not found a code that is from a non-intelligent source that had any intention behind it. Starlight "encodes" the position of distant stars, but there is no intention behind the code. Zinc and hydrochloric acid "encode" their stable state (hydrogen gas and zinc-chloride), but there is no intention behind this "encoding." Lincoln and you have both assumed that there is an intention to the "encoding" of DNA, i.e. that some intellect had a purpose to making life.

Your questions on weather life has purpose and if Creator exists, does he care about me, would be good to disscuss, but I think we should do that in anther thread.

If the Creator doesn't care at all about life, then He would be completely irrational if he made life anyway. You have assumed that life has a purpose, and you use this assumption to conclude that life has a creator.

Jack: Assume, for the moment, that life has no cosmic purpose. Assume, for the moment, that when you die you cease to exist--there is no afterlife, there is no reincarnation, there is only oblivion. Assume, for the moment, that if there is a God, that he not only doesn't love you, but he doesn't even care whether or not you exist, nor will he ever care.

Now, explain to me why God would create DNA if He didn't care at all about you, or any other living organism. Explain to me how DNA counts as "information" when, again going off of the assumption that God doesn't care about you, it was apparently created unintentionally.

Information requires an intent, Jack, and you and Lincoln have both been assuming all along that there is a cosmic intent (or purpose) to life, and you use this assumption to justify why life must therefore have a divine creator. In other words, you assume that there is a divine guardian or a divine receiver, and you use this assumption to justify a divine creator. That's justifying one divine being by assuming the existence of another, Jack, and that's circular reasoning.

If God did not intend to create life, if God didn't care at all about life, in other words if there were no intended reciever for life, then there would be no possible way to argue that DNA is information. If the products of DNA (life) are unintentional, then the encoding of DNA is unintentional.

[Lincoln]

Quote:

"Starlight "encodes" the position of distant stars, but there is no intention behind the code. Zinc and hydrochloric acid "encode" their stable state (hydrogen gas and zinc-chloride), but there is no intention behind this "encoding."

Please show how this is analogous to the genetic code and the logical order (specific sequence) of information contained in DNA.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Do you really think that the remnants of a car factory do not prove intelligent design? That is prima facie evidence of intelligence. How can you use that as an analogy to prove your point. It really proves mine.

If you believe that God is a blind idiot who would make something like Life unintentionally (maybe it was a cosmic fart?), then more power to you.

I have not presupposed that God cares about anything.

If God didn't care about Life, then either He wouldn't have made it, or else He is a blind idiot.

I am not suggesting here that the intelligent mental source that I have asserted has any particular nature or feelings. I have personal beliefs in that regard but I am trying to seperate the faith factor from this debate so that it does stay on a scientific level.

What you are suggesting is that the intelligent mental source had the intention of creating life. That presupposes an intent and a receiver. If in fact you are suggesting that the intelligent mental source accidentally created life, then you are admitting that DNA was no more a result of intelligent design than photons coming off of a distant star--there is no such thing as "accidental intelligent design." Either God designed DNA with the intent of creating life (in which case you presuppose an intent), or else DNA is the result of a cosmic fart (in which case you admit that no intelligence went into its creation).

If you conclude that God "is deranged" then maybe he is. Maybe he is full of hate or angry or vindictive or whatever.

You are again presupposing an intent. If God created life in order to smite us (i.e. if God created life because He is hateful or angry etc.), then God created life for a reason (albeit not a particularly good one). Stop assuming an intent. If you assume that DNA was created unintentionally, then you have no argument for its being counted as information. If you assume that DNA was created intentionally, then you are assuming that there is a purpose to life.

I don't see how the suggestion of an inteligent mental source and the argument that I have put forth here requires this intelligent force to care one way or the other. The only thing he needs to "care" about is the product that he designed, whether it works or not.

I've bolded the part where you presuppose an intent. In that statement you assume that God is the intelligent end receiver. It doesn't matter whether or not you assume that God made Life because he loves life or hates life, it doesn't matter what emotions or morals you ascribe to God--what matters is that you are assuming an intent, and that's where your argument is circular. You are assuming that God made life for God. Take away the assumption of a receiver, and you have no argument for a source.

How is that anymore than a conclusion that I have drawn from the evidence? The proof is in the pudding. We agreed (I think) that a code requires a goal.

Again, I've bolded the part where you assume intent. You began with the assumption of a goal and derived the source from that assumption, then you say "Look, there is a source, there must be a code," and finally you use the conclusion that DNA is code (derived from your assumption that life has a goal, a purpose) in order to "prove" that life has a goal. Take away the goal, and you don't have a code.

The other altertanitive is that the code and the logical order of information within it evolved naturally. I have not seen a whit of evidence that a code can originate naturally.

Why is DNA a code at all?

On a side note to your personally. I didn't think that God cared much for me either at one time. And I am still not convinced that he loves all of mankind. Jehova obviously has no problem destroying his creation along with the women and children as he sees fit. One thing is painfully obvious to me if he is God, and that is that he indeed did curse this earth. But that is a topic for another thread.

Agreed, a topic for another thread, but don't walk away thinking that I have a personal grudge against God or something. The worst kind of "atheist" is the kind who says "I don't like God, so I don't believe in Him," because obviously you can't dislike something without believing that it exists. All of that "Assume that god doesn't care about you" garbage wasn't to try to convince anybody that God doesn't like them, it was just to try to point out the circularity of the argument--I figured that it would get the point across better than "Assume that god doesn't exist."

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Please show how this is analogous to the genetic code and the logical order (specific sequence) of information contained in DNA.

DNA is a molecule that undergoes specific chemical transformations, zinc and hydrochloric acid are molecules that undergo specific chemical transformations. Unless you assume an intent to DNA ("DNA is intended to create life while zinc and hydrochloric acid aren't intended to do anything in particular"), then they're analogous--DNA is more complex than zinc or hydrochloric, sure, but ultimately it's just a molecule.

[Lincoln]

I don't know if you are purposely trying to evade or if you just forgot my previous responses in this thread. First whether DNA is "intended" to create life or not, it does. That happens to be a fact regardless of intent. Your example of zinc etc. does not 'create' anything close to a biological machine or any type of machine, natural or otherwise. Unless you define machine to be a snowflake or the movement of tides etc. there is no analogy in either the code aspect or the result. Now here is my case spelled out briefly again:

1. All known codes are the result of a mental process.
2. An intelligent mental source is present reality (we are all using one now).

So the beginning of the argument has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

3. A code from an unknown source exists that produces a viable biological machine.

4. Question: Where did the code come from along with the specified order of instructions within it?

Suggested answer:

Perhaps it came from an intelligent mental source like all other codes and specified information with a known source has.

Other possibilities:

Maybe there is an exception in the case of biological codes.

So the burden of proof is on the one who proposes an exception to that which is known and demonstrated repeatedly. If there is an exception then it must be proved. If I said that there is a planet in space somewhere that does not obey the law of gravity then I would have to prove my case. I have not made a circular argument and your preoccupation with "intention" only serves as a distraction.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
First whether DNA is "intended" to create life or not, it does. That happens to be a fact regardless of intent.

True, but DNA doesn't have the goal of creating life unless somebody or something programmed that goal into it. A "goal" is a statement of intent. Therefore, without intent, you have no goal.

Your example of zinc etc. does not 'create' anything close to a biological machine or any type of machine, natural or otherwise.

It's a difference in complexity, nothing more. They're both just chemical reactions, nothing more--until you assume intent.

Unless you define machine to be a snowflake or the movement of tides etc.. There is no analogy in either the code aspect or the result.

The results of both are unintentional. I don't see why you're calling DNA (or its translation process) a machine: it's a chemical process, nothing more, nothing less. Except for its increased order of complexity, how are the chemical reactions fundamentally different between DNA translation and Zn+2HCl->ZnCl2+H2?

1. All known codes are the result of a mental process.
2. An intelligent mental source is present reality (we are all using one now).

So the beginning of the argument has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

You bring God (or rather your presupposition of cosmic intent) up in your next point...

3. A code from an unknown source exists that produces a viable biological machine.

How is it a code? Again, you've assumed that there is a purpose to life. Take away the assumption of purpose, and you have no goal, and you have no code.

4. Question: Where did the code come from along with the specified order of instructions within it?

Irrelevant, since you haven't shown that it is a code. You need to prove that there is an intent before you can prove that there is a code--you cannot simply assume a code and then derive a goal from it. Prove that life was intended. Prove that someone, somewhere, had the "goal" of producing life.

You're still assuming intent.

So the burden of proof is on the one who proposes and exception to that which is known and demonstrated repeatedly.

Agreed, once you prove that DNA is a code. Prove that DNA was intended to produce life.

I have not made a circular argument and your preoccupation with "intention" only serves as a distraction.

How else can you say that DNA has the goal of producing life without assuming intent? "Goal" is an intent-driven word--you can't have a goal without an intent. Period. I'm hung up on intent because that's where the circularity of your argument comes in--you're calling DNA a code because it has the goal of producing life, but by saying this you have presupposed intent. Show me the intent. Show me the intelligent intended receiver for life. Show me the entity that wanted life. Without showing me the intelligent receiver, without showing me proof of a programmed goal, then you cannot claim that there is an intelligent source.

[Lincoln]

"how are the chemical reactions fundamentally different between DNA translation and Zn+2HCl->ZnCl2+H2?"

Because Guanine, Adenine and Uracil does not make asparatic acid. That codon only means asparatic acid. There is a code whether it is intended or not.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Because Guanine, Adenine and Uracil does not make asparatic acid. That codon only means asparatic acid. There is a code whether it is intended or not.

You don't have a code without a goal.

Goal:
The purpose toward which an endeavor is directed; an objective. See Synonyms at intention.

[Lincoln]

Quote:

"You don't have a code without a goal."

So there is proof of a goal then because obviously a code does exist. That is why they call it the genetic code and not the genetic chemical reactions. They do not just use the term as hyperbole.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
So there is proof of a goal then because obviously a code does exist. That is why they call it the genetic code and not the genetic chemical reactions. They do not just use the term as hyperbole.

We use the term "code" because humans assign meaning to the data--I've never claimed that humans aren't able to glean information from DNA. In this case, humans are assigning the goal: "understanding genetics." Humans are not assigning DNA the goal of "creating life."

Who assigned the original goal? Who is the intelligent intended receiver? Who assigned the intent?

[Lincoln]

And around and around we go... I have a feeling that you are high on something.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
And around and around we go... I have a feeling that you are high on something.

Your argument is still circular, and now you're being an ass. I expected better.

Prove that a goal was intended (without using an inane argument by definition ("We call it a code, so there must be an intended goal!"), proving God's existence is not simply a matter of claiming that He exists by definition). Resort to asinine ad hominem attacks again and you're permanently going on my ignore list; if you can't prove your point, then just admit it without being an *******.