|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 1:38:15 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
If, however, I have simplistic understanding EDUCATE ME!
Don't be so condescening or mean as to not explain what you knwo and I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 1:44:41 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
If there is semantic meaning in nature -- WHAT IS IT SAYING? That we are all digestive tubes seeking other digestive tubes to consume and metabolize??
DNA is not semantic, nor does it exhibit syntax. Those are gross misuages of the words as understood by linguists.
If DNA is code, why isn't it studied by linguists???
Symbolizing something requires a REDUPLICATION of the REFERENT.
Does life or DNA have a REFERENT??
DNA simply provides a template onto which molecular structures are built -- but not in the mind of anything, simply AS IT IS -- this is NOT redulplication. It simply is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 4:47:15 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Nothing is more certain than that information systems do not and cannot arise without intelligence.
Repeating the assertion does not substitute for the missing argument of which this is supposed to be the conclusion.
quote:
Please explain to us, through precise random mutations and ns steps, how symbolic code with syntax, semantics, error detection, cut, copy, paste, translation etc. can be produced without intelligence. The very word 'code' implies intelligence. Information itself is metaphysical.
I don't need to. You are the one asserting the certainty that information cannot arise without intelligence. Please provide the logical argument and/or evidence to back up your assertion The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 10:21:34 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Following this initial investigation, then, what further questions and investigations can be posed?
Perhaps you will not believe me when I say I have probably more respect for ID than it deserves. Your very answer proves you have not nearly enough respect.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 10:25:47 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
What answer?
You are the same person as Carico, no?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 10:30:45 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Repeating the assertion does not substitute for the missing argument of which this is supposed to be the conclusion.
I don't need to. You are the one asserting the certainty that information cannot arise without intelligence. Please provide the logical argument and/or evidence to back up your assertion The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.
Sorry but the facts are there. You cannot demonstrate a CCIS arising out of chaos by any chemical pathway.
It is a well know axiom of knowledge that language and code require intelligence by their very nature. Asking for proof of this only demonstrates a poor conception of the facts.
Again - Let's see you explain just one coded info system that arose by accident. I expect facts. I expect clear precise steps from mutation to mutation to information storage, cut, copy, paste, translation etc. all the way to DNA/RNA life building instructions. If you can do this congratulations - Nobel prize. If not - stop arguing against first truths.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 10:35:02 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Also there is no need to explain how the designer arose at all.
Both the design and designer are inferred logically - how the designer arose is entirely irrelevant.
It's very relevant!
What we're trying to do here is explain complexity. That's what the theory of evolution by natural selection succeeds at. You'd disagree with that, because of what you consider to be gaps, but that doesn't excuse you from explaining how the necessary complexity of the designer arose.
The caption to this cartoon is basically what I'm saying to you:
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3.gif
1st, not it is not relevant. It's like saying that one cannot infer a car was designed unless knows how the designer came to be. It's patently incorrect.
2nd, that very cartoon actually illustrates Darwinism extremely well. Just call the pic "Darwinists explain life"
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 10:46:27 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Embedded
Can you define a unit of complexity? Is it a "complexon"? What does it look like?
Can you describe a system an artificial (or any) system that has some minimal complexity? That is to say, if one single "complexon" were to be removed or changed the system would no longer be complex?
Is the sum of "complexons" greater than the complexity of its parts?
The reason I ask is this: I hear quite a bit about complexity and CCIS and whatnot but I have never heard a formal concrete definition of what they are and how to measure them. Do you know?
If something is complex then surely there is some point, by sucessive removal of parts, that it becomes non-complex, no?
Information theory answers much of what you ask. I suggest you look it up.
As for DNA, it's information content is indeed greater than the sum of it's material parts.
Why didn't you simply look complexity up? Google define:complexity and read.
# The quality of being intricate and compounded; "he enjoyed the complexity of modern computers"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# In general usage, complexity often tends to be used to characterize something with many parts in intricate arrangement. In science there are at this time a number of approaches to characterizing complexity, many of which are reflected in this article. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity
Complexity refers to that which is not simple. In our case we refer to bio systems which contain compounded, coordinated, inter-related functions or parts. A electronic binary computer is complex. A rubber ball is far less complex.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 10:54:28 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
If, however, I have simplistic understanding EDUCATE ME!
Don't be so condescening or mean as to not explain what you knwo and I don't.
Your response is a surprise to me. Condescending? Mean? Where and how? I'm a little bewildered at such an accusation.
I'm trying to deal in facts and reason, that's all - and I try to call 'em as I read 'em best I can. That's how to move forward in debate.
I'm not being mean or condescending - just clear and as logical as I can.
If we have to start walking as on eggs we're not going to get very far.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/7/2008 11:01:54 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
1st, not it is not relevant. It's like saying that one cannot infer a car was designed unless knows how the designer came to be. It's patently incorrect.
2nd, that very cartoon actually illustrates Darwinism extremely well. Just call the pic "Darwinists explain life"
If we observed self replicating cars or cars mating and reproducing with heredity and variation, then we might conclude they are formed by natural causes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/8/2008 12:44:01 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
It is a well know axiom of knowledge that language and code require intelligence by their very nature. Asking for proof of this only demonstrates a poor conception of the facts.
Ah, now it is an axiom. That makes more sense, since axioms, by definition, are not capable of proof.
Of course, they are also supposed to be self-evident, and since this axiom is not, that sort of undercuts the conclusion.
So we still come back to an unsupported assertion that information can only be produced by intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/8/2008 1:01:56 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
It is a well know axiom of knowledge that language and code require intelligence by their very nature. Asking for proof of this only demonstrates a poor conception of the facts.
Ah, now it is an axiom. That makes more sense, since axioms, by definition, are not capable of proof.
Of course, they are also supposed to be self-evident, and since this axiom is not, that sort of undercuts the conclusion.
So we still come back to an unsupported assertion that information can only be produced by intelligence.
Indeed it is an axiom and until you can produce, without begging the question, circular reasoning or affirming the conseuqent, a clear example of a complex coded information system that arose randomly through whatever process you please, I suggest you refrain from bare assertions to the contrary without a grain of evidence in support.
All symbolic code come from intelligent sources, bar none. It is self-evident just as much as 'only minds think' or basic boolean truth tables.
Accept it as reality or go on in mere denial of facts with not even a semblance of an attempt to prove it ain't so.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/8/2008 2:23:45 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
All symbolic code come from intelligent sources, bar none.
Maybe. But one question would be whether DNA nucleotides are a symbolic code. i.e. do they relate to amino acid formation by convention only? Or is it physically/chemically impossible for them to produce any other amino acid from a particular DNA codon?
If the DNA/RNA code is wholly conventional why is it universal to all forms of life?
Symbolic codes produced by intelligent beings can normally be changed at will.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/8/2008 2:56:19 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
i.e. do they relate to amino acid formation by convention only? Or is it physically/chemically impossible for them to produce any other amino acid from a particular DNA codon?
That's the key.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Non-theistic ID - 7/11/2008 4:35:21 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
In ol' GHitch's defense,
It is very reasonable to use the word "information" under the assumption that information is useful only to an intelligence. This if you understand it in the sense of "transmitted symbols with meaning." However, some people understand the word to mean "transmission of energy" or perhaps "the illusion that a distal cause cares about its distal effects." If I don not make sense, however, I don't mind being asked to reconsider what I am saying.
These do not seem to be the same usages of the word, to me.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
