The great information debate

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Thanks for pointing out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not applicable on earth. I learn something new every day.

Another strawman.

I never said it doesn't work on Earth. I said it doesn't work with Earth in its entirety as part of a natural sytem.

Originally posted by Lincoln
And no, you don’t have to “believe in it”. You are welcome to pretend that it doesn’t exist if you want to.

Again, this is not what I said. It always amuses me when creationist can so boldly twist other peoples words even when these words are in plain sight.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Ranger's questions:

1. Your alleged facts that supposedly accumulated for 5000 years that supposedly back you up.
2. How does "nonsense" in DNA prove "corruption in life?"
3. How did this external intelligence that "programmed" DNA evolve?
4. How did my refutation of the watchmaker analogy use circular reasoning?


1. You can start with Egyptian hieroglyphics I suppose. I have done some of your home work for you.[snipped] Now you will have to do the rest of the research on your own unless you are trying to prove your case based upon you own ignorance of history.

1. It's not my homework; it's not my case tp make. But I am not surprised that you tried to pull crap like that, even if it is so minor. You asserted you have these facts, you will need to present them.

2. Your facts are selective and do not include all the codes discovered in nature. Including, no less, the genetic code.

Originally posted by Lincoln
2. It is your theory that the present information in DNA is corrupted with introns that must be excised from the coded portion of DNA. That is corruption even by your definition. And your question is irrelevant to the topic. Did you forget to read the rules of the debate?

It doesn't fly, Lincoln. For three reasons:

1. Nonsense is not my theory. It is a fact. If you want to dispute it, be my guest. I reckon your chance of sucess approaches zero.

2. When I asked you the same question the first time, you accepted that the presence of nonsense in DNA is a fact. "Corruption" is your own baby. I did not invent it.

3. My question is extremely relevant. For if each species was created, it is implausible that worthless junk is found in genetic material. OTOH, evolution explains it beautifully.

By rules of ANY formal debate, you have already lost, many times over. So stop thrashing, Lincoln, when everything is in plain sight and there is no room for you to even wiggle.

Originally posted by Lincoln
3. Evolution is your theory. That is your case to make. But first you must show your hypothesis of how meaningful information originated before life could exist. That is the topic.

That is not the topic. The topic is for you to establish DNA requires an intelligent mental process, which thus far you have failed to demostrate.

Originally posted by Lincoln
My case is, that the original programed information allowed for adaptation to the environment and corruptive influences.

So are you admitting that this so called "corruption" is your assertion?

Originally posted by Lincoln
4. I don't remember what you said about that. But how is that applicable to the discussion here? If it does pertain, in your view, then you will have to re-post it.

It started in the original "Evolution should not be part of the Game" thread as part of the "evidence" for the Christian god. Seeing how this thread is a continuation of that, and you made some blanket statement on how all refutations of the watchmaker analogy uses circular reasoning there, I feel that it is proper for you to explain how your statement applies to my refutation. You are free not to anwser it, it will be left as part of the evidence of you not able to address direct challenges.

Originally posted by Lincoln
If I decide in my mind that I am going to throw a rock through a window then the fact that the rock is found inside the house with broken glass scattered about is evidence of intelligent intervention.

Yet another false analogy. We know that houses are built. We know that glass windows are not normally shattered. We know that rocks should not be found inside houses. We know nothing of this sort with regards to DNA.

Originally posted by Lincoln
A barn with a fresh coat of paint is evidence of intelligent intervention.

Another false analogy.

Originally posted by Lincoln
I am claiming that there is evidence of a mental process because of the existence of a code.

That's a tautology, since you defined code as product of a mental process.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Know you may think agrument is wrong, but is not circular reasoning.

If you presuppose the existence of a Creator in defining the "goal" for DNA, then you have used circular logic in concluding that a Creator is the source for DNA.

[Jack_www]

Urban Ranger, I just wanted to address some of things you bring up in your post, because I am short on time right now. The "junk" in DNA might be use for something else that we dont know about yet, I have read this in the many articles I have read on DNA. Lincoln has been saying that he believes that all codes come form an intelligent agent, thus genic code could have been result of intelligent agent, and he has not ruled out the possiblity that you say happened, that it occured on its own.

Really when we try to find the orgin of the genic code, there is nothing wrong to look at codes humans made. In fact I would think that would be very helpfull, and since these are the only codes we know of. Just because humans are behind it we can't look at them in our search for the orgin of genic code? What is wrong with looking at things that we know had intelligent cause just becuase we might not know the orgin of DNA, when that is what we are trying to find out??? That does not sound right to me.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Lincoln ... has not ruled out the possiblity that you say happened, that it occured on its own.

Good one Jack.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www

The agrument is using codes we already know of, all them being from humans, thus because all the codes we have seen come form intelligent agent(humans in pervious examples) genic code most likely had an intelligent agent behind it too.

Not all are from humans though and you and Lincoln keep saying all codes. It is the basis of the claim that all codes have an inteligence. Not all do. DNA is not the only example that has been given of non-human codes. Its just that Lincoln insists they don't count. They do. He says they aren't codes for reasons that ALL apply to DNA as well.

Know you may think agrument is wrong, but is not circular reasoning. You could call it a fallacious argument, but it is not circular. Not all bad argument are circular.

True but this arguement happens to be circular. At least the version Lincoln is useing. He is quite consistant in claiming all codes have an inteligent source. ALL not all human codes. It is inherent that all human codes would have a inteligent source at some point so he must show a non-human code that has an inteligent source to avoid circularity. Yes I know he can't do that but thats his problem.

Both I and Loinbuger have given examples of data sets with code-like properties and no sign of an inteligent source. DNA being the most obvious of course but that is what we are discussing. Spectrum lines are specific and logical and code for information. Lincoln is also engaged in argument by definition. He defined codes as having a goal. He defined codes as haveing a sender and a reciever. This is fine for human codes but it has no aplicabitlity to DNA which is not a human code.

But I still think it is a valid argument. One would have a good case if we had code that occured naturally or that genic code is a exception to this rule, that you would have to prove, and I know that is what your goal is in this debate.

Well we do have such 'codes' so Lincoln's arguement is invalid.

[Urban Ranger]

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.

1. The remnants of a robotic car factory does not prove intelligent design, since "intelligent design" has a very specific meaning in the context of evolution vs creationism.

2. The remnants of a robotic car factory does show that it was built by an intelligence, due to our prior knowledge of robotics, cars, and factories. We know not of the same knowledge with regards to DNA. This is the zillionth time I am repeating this If you still ignore this point the only conclusion that we can draw is you have admitted defeat.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"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.

1. The sequencing of DNA is part of the code (see the definition below), not above or in addition to it.

2. The are both codes in the sense that they contain data, but this data must be translated.

Definition of the genetic code:

the biochemical basis of heredity consisting of codons in DNA and RNA that determine the specific amino acid sequence in proteins and appear to be uniform for all known forms of life

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Now here is my case spelled out briefly again:

1. All known codes are the result of a mental process.

This is per your definition. Not a definition widely accepted.

Originally posted by Lincoln
2. An intelligent mental source is present reality (we are all using one now).

What are you muttering about? Mental source of what?

Originally posted by Lincoln
3. A code from an unknown source exists that produces a viable biological machine.

Here is, again, the Fallacy of Equivocation

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

Here, "code" is in the strict definition given by Lincoln.



Conclusion:

The argument fails because of inherent fallacies.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
The agrument is using codes we already know of, all them being from humans, thus because all the codes we have seen come form intelligent agent(humans in pervious examples) genic code most likely had an intelligent agent behind it too.

An inductive argument is strong if there are a lot of evidence (e.g. true examples). It is weak if there is little evidence. It fails if there is just one counterexample - and we have given you lots of counterexamples.

Of course, the definition of "code" we used for our examples is not the same as that of Lincoln's. But as I point out, the way Lincoln "proves" his case is by definition, by ignoring all codes due from non-intelligent sources.

Another thing is, his argument is at best inductive but he's framing it like it is a deductive argument.

Originally posted by Jack_www
Know you may think agrument is wrong, but is not circular reasoning.

It is circular because he was begging the question:

1. Intelligence is required to create codes
2. Codes are evidence of intelligence

Originally posted by Jack_www
But I still think it is a valid argument. One would have a good case if we had code that occured naturally or that genic code is a exception to this rule, that you would have to prove, and I know that is what your goal is in this debate.

The first goal of this debate is for Lincoln, and perhaps you, to establish that the genetic code is the same as the kind of "codes" he defined.

Neither of you have provided any evidence or argument on this.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Urban Ranger, I just wanted to address some of things you bring up in your post, because I am short on time right now. The "junk" in DNA might be use for something else that we dont know about yet, I have read this in the many articles I have read on DNA.

I do not deny there is some function to nonsense DNA, such as acting as stop codons. The point is not as much as why there are stop codons but why is there so much gibberish in the genetic code.

Creationism is hard pressed to explain this, while evolution does it beautifully.

Originally posted by Jack_www
Really when we try to find the orgin of the genic code, there is nothing wrong to look at codes humans made.

There are some similarities, but concluding from these similarities that genetic code also requires intelligence is an untenable position.

Originally posted by Jack_www
In fact I would think that would be very helpfull, and since these are the only codes we know of.

This is false. You are simply ignoring the mass of examples we have given you.

Originally posted by Jack_www
What is wrong with looking at things that we know had intelligent cause just becuase we might not know the orgin of DNA, when that is what we are trying to find out??? That does not sound right to me.

What is the point?

What is the point of looking at a watch when you want to find out how cells come about?

[Lincoln]

I must say that the atheists here on this thread are really grasping for straws in order to escape the obvious. Here are a few examples:

Urban Ranger wants me to post here the entire 6,000 year history of codes and languages before he will believe any evidence regarding the mental process that is involved in all codes with a known origin.

All of the atheists (except perhaps the ones who have not posted recently) here do not even believe what all of biology and the entire scientific world believes (except for a few fanatic atheists) that there really is a genetic code.

There are some computer programmers on this thread who design codes (in their mind) for the specific purpose of entering them into a machine to accomplish a goal. Yet they deny that the DNA code could do likewise without an “intended intelligent receiver”. They are the only ones on earth evidently who would question the existence of a coded language found on another planet as to its intelligent source.

They have tried every type of diversion from tangents to the 2nd law of thermodynamics to huge irrelevant posts that parse complete trains of thought into one line sections with cute or irrelevant comments after each one.

They go round and round pretending that they have forgotten previous answers.

They refuse to consider any evidence whatsoever that even hints at the possibility that an intelligent designer is behind any portion of life regardless of evidence.

They concentrate their efforts on trifles and semantics, e.g., “DNA is a known code” therefore when I say that all known codes require intelligent intervention I am supposed to pretend that I cannot make any analogy because DNA is now in existence so that settles it!

What utter tripe.

Like I said, I rest my case. You can all argue over the gnats and swallow a camel if you have a mind to. You have proved yourselves to be fanatics in spite of your assertions otherwise. You are welcome to your faith.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Urban Ranger wants me to post here the entire 6,000 year history of codes and languages before he will believe any evidence regarding the mental process that is involved in all codes with a known origin.

"...All codes with a known origin".

What determines whether a code's origin is "known" or not? Obviously, codes originated by human beings on the planet Earth within the last 6000 years tend to have origins that are better "known" than codes which originated billions of years ago. But does this mean that the origin of the absorption-line code of spectrographic analysis is being arbitrarily labelled as "unknown", whereas Egyptian hieroglyphics are being arbitrarily labelled as "known"?

This does sound rather like the argument of a city-dweller who insists that because everything around him is built by humans, trees must also be built by humans. In the Universe as a whole, even the data stored in all the DNA in all the organisms that have ever lived on Earth is rather insignificant. And the same applies to all the information stored in every book or database devised by humanity.

As far as we can determine, in the Universe as a whole, intelligence accounts for very little.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I must say that the atheists here on this thread are really grasping for straws in order to escape the obvious.

I was going to say creationists, but...

All of the atheists (except perhaps the ones who have not posted recently) here do not even believe what all of biology and the entire scientific world believes (except for a few fanatic atheists) that there really is a genetic code.

I "believe" in the genetic code. However there is no evidence of a Coder.

They are the only ones on earth evidently who would question the existence of a coded language found on another planet as to its intelligent source.

You do understand that that would be an entirely different case?

...They go round and round pretending that they have forgotten previous answers.

Are you talking about creationists? It looks like it.

They refuse to consider any evidence whatsoever that even hints at the possibility that an intelligent designer is behind any portion of life regardless of evidence.

Please indicate where this evidence of intelligent designer is.
Personally I love the idea of a Creator who made everything, however no evidence seems to prove this. But I still want to belive. (I love the idea of flying a TIE fighter too,sigh, I wanna shoot some rebel scum)

...when I say that all known codes require intelligent intervention I am supposed to pretend that I cannot make any analogy because DNA is now in existence so that settles it!

I don't understand why it is so hard to realise the basic consept of information?

You have proved yourselves to be fanatics in spite of your assertions otherwise. You are welcome to your faith.

Thank you, but after reading everything you wrote here I must admit that I'm still an Atheist Fanatic. Your examples don't make sense. They are irrational. I guess you can never see it for yourself.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
There are some computer programmers on this thread who design codes (in their mind) for the specific purpose of entering them into a machine to accomplish a goal. Yet they deny that the DNA code could do likewise without an “intended intelligent receiver”.

That's the most obtuse statement I've ever seen, Lincoln.

Do genetic algorithms have an intended intelligent receiver? They sure as hell do--the programmer. No programmer would ever program a genetic algorithm that failed to give any output. That output is then read by the intended intelligent receiver.

Why is this so goddamn hard for you to understand? If DNA is analogous to genetic algorithms (i.e. if DNA has a source), then it must produce a desired output, it must have an intended intelligent receiver! No receiver, no code, no evidence of a source! You've presupposed the existence of a receiver, Lincoln! Get that through your head: You've presupposed the existence of a receiver!

1. Using your definition of coded language, there must be an intended intelligent receiver! If you disagree, then give me a single example of a coded language that does not have an intended intelligent receiver!
2. Therefore, failing a counterexample for (1), we can conclude that if there is no intended intelligent receiver, there cannot be a code!
3. Therefore, in order to conclude that DNA is code, you must first have evidence of an intended intelligent receiver for its output (life)!
4. God is the only feasible intelligent intended receiver for life!
5. Therefore, you have presupposed the existence of God as receiver in order to give evidence of God as source!

Oh, but draw your own conclusions, of course, regardless of how glaringly inaccurate they are! Better yet, tell us that we're being the irrational ones, despite all evidence to the contrary!

Unbelievable. Un****ingbelievable. You're apparently content with wallowing in ignorance, Lincoln, so more power to you, but I am most displeased at the way you inaccurately brand anybody who disagrees with you as "irrational" when this is clearly a case of the kettle calling the porcelain black. You realize that's all you're doing, right? I mean, you haven't provided a shred of valid evidence to support your claim, in fact your very definition of a "code" defeats your entire argument because your definition is the one that requires the intelligent intended receiver. You're arguing from belief, calling it truth, and calling us heretics. Shame on you. Your hypocrisy is so thick it could probably be cut with a knife.

[Jack_www]

Maybe we should end this debate. All we do is go around and around in circules covering the same stuff over and over again, also it seems that many are getting a little tick off too because of this. loinburger the major objection you have is that genic code does not have intelligent receiver. Well other parts of the cell do recieve the code and use it to make protiens in the cell, but it is not intelligent. Codes computer use to talk to each other so to speak are something that might come close to this. The other examples you have given about chemical reactions, and slarlight, those are not codes, at least I dont think of them of codes, I never had in the past, and never heard anyone say they were codes untill now. It was good while it lasted, I know that we will never see eye to eye any time soon, oh well.