A simple start?

_{Mark

October 20, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In case we did not know, New Scientist confirms that at the base of the (postulated) tree of life is an extremely complex life form, much like a modern cell.

“There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”

It is easy (or not) to imagine something as simple as that arising by natural processes.

here

Comments

So Dave, Do YOU deny the existence of evil?bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Seversky makes an excellent point:
Yes, in the last century millions were killed by regimes that were avowedly atheistic. Over the many centuries before that uncounted millions were killed in the name of religion. The only reasons why less people were killed in any preceding century is that there were fewer people around to kill and less efficient means of doing their killing.
Imagine the death toll of the Thirty Year's War had the combatants possessed modern weapons and had the population of Europe been what it is today. The whole "atheists have a higher body count" canard is bogus. Our ID friends are in desperate need of a better schtick.Dave Wisker_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Nak, The Coding Found In DNA Surpasses Mans Ability to Code - Stephen Meyer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IUbornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

----seversky: "Meyer’s definition is vacuous. It amounts to saying that information is whatever causes things to be what they are." You had better explain that to Webster's dictionary from which he draws the definition. ----"If he wants to use that definition for the word that is his choice but he and other design proponents need to make sure they are doing all they can to avoid the charge of equivocation by making it clear that their definition is very far from the common usage of the term." Common usage is a function of those formulations found near the top of the dictionary's listings. Nice try, though. That same definition, by the way, applies to code found in a DNA molecule. Your only argument is to deny that information exists, which means, of course, that you have no argument. --"First, can you explain how something called “information” is actually a property of the object or structure being described rather than of the model and language being used to describe it?" You might as well ask how I know that the binary code in a software program is real---or how I know that the message in a written paragraph is real---or how I know that the alternative sequences of nucleotide bases and the effects produced by them are real--or how I know that the cellular machinery that receives the instructions are real. Instructions are instructions; storage is storage; codes are codes. Hypersubjectivism doesn't work with science. In any case, Mark Frank told us that he was prepared to explain how physics can produce information if only someone would provide a definition on which we could focus. Obviously, he could not support his assertion, so he ignored my question and began to complain about my "direct" style of debating. Would you care to take up his argument for him? Here, once again is the question: How can physics produce the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects?StephenB_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Nak, Are YOU denying information exists in life?bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, I hope you realize that quote from Abel and Trevors is a statement of opinion, not fact. I wonder what the scientific measure of "technical brilliance" is? How do you compare the genome of Mycoplasma to the program codes they use to predict the weather? Anyone know? Anyone? Bueller?Nakashima_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Seversky are you trying to deny information even exists in life? "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 Mycoplasma Genitalium - The "Simplest" Life On Earth - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRoMxpZWR7 Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life: Trevors JT, Abel DL. Excerpt: Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563395bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

As well Seversky without Christianity there could very well be no "science" as we know it today! Christianity and the Birth of Science http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Seversky, Atheism is a "pagan" religion!: The "Fruit of Materialism/Atheism" Matthew 7:15-17 "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are savage wolves. You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren't gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they? In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a rotten tree produces bad fruit." The Ancient Pagan Root Of Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtC-vU7ufeg The Fruit of Evolution - video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/fruit.xml From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A Stalin's Brutal Faith http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Excerpt: Essentially a body count of communism's victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million, non-war related, deaths in the century. (of note: this estimate is viewed as very conservative by many, with some more realistic estimates passing 200 million dead) (Of Note: Atheistic Communism is defined as Dialectic Materialism) http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087 Atheist Atrocities Frightening Stats About Atheists http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1KpNEeRYUbornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

cont. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) - Page up for Pseudo-genes refutation http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Endogenous Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVS) A Case for Common Descent or A Case for Incorrect Presupposition? http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_retroviruses.html How Scientific Evidence is Changing the Tide of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate by Wade Schauer: List Of "Junk DNA discussed: Tandem Repeats, Transposons/Retrotransposons, SINE/Alu Sequences, LINES, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) and LTR retrotransposons, Pseudogenes, C-Value Enigma, “Junk DNA” becomes “The Transcriptome”, Human Accelerated Regions (HARs), ....What can we conclude from the evidence presented in this essay: Every type of “Junk DNA” presented by pro-evolution websites has been found to have functional roles in organisms, which severely undermines the “shared errors” argument; www.geocities.com/wade_schauer/Changing_Tide.pdfbornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 161
With respect to the information found in a DNA molecule, which is the critical element to be considered, Stephen Meyer has provided this concise definition: “The attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.”
Meyer's definition is vacuous. It amounts to saying that information is whatever causes things to be what they are. If he wants to use that definition for the word that is his choice but he and other design proponents need to make sure they are doing all they can to avoid the charge of equivocation by making it clear that their definition is very far from the common usage of the term.
Can you explain how physics alone can produce information based on this formulation?
First, can you explain how something called "information" is actually a property of the object or structure being described rather than of the model and language being used to describe it?Seversky_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Ell, ERV's ? Shoot Ell, let's take the whole realm of junk DNA while we are at it! Amazingly, materialists use to insist that most of the 98.5% of the genome, which did not directly code for proteins, was useless "Junk DNA". Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA. This following site list several studies and quotes by leading evolutionists that expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists: Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm Whereas ID predicted functional "Junk DNA": “Indeed, if it were true that the genomes of higher organisms contained vast quantities of junk the whole argument of this book would collapse. Teleology would be entirely discredited. On any teleological model of evolution, most, perhaps all the DNA in the genomes of higher organisms should have some function.” From Michael Denton’s 1998 book Nature’s Destiny (pages 289-290) Junk DNA - Another Failed Prediction Of Evolution - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFNVfCAvrac Despite the unfounded disappointment of materialists , a large sampling of recent studies indicates high level regulatory function is to be found for all sorts of previous "Junk DNA" sequences across the entire spectrum of the human genome. How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980 - Richard Sternberg - Oct. 2009 - Excellent Summary Excerpt: A surprising finding of ENCODE and other transcriptome projects is that almost every nucleotide of human (and mouse) chromosomes is transcribed in a regulated way. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/how_the_junk_dna_hypothesis_ha.html Junk DNA Found To Have High Level Function - Lists Of Over 100 Studies http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_25gqm4zzfd No Such Thing As 'Junk RNA,' Say Researchers - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: Tiny strands of RNA previously dismissed as cellular junk are actually very stable molecules that may play significant roles in cellular processes, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091013105809.htm Here is a detailed refutation of the Vitamin C (GULO) pseudogene argument used by evolutionists for human/chimp common ancestry: Excerpt Of Conclusion: When examined in detail, the full pseudogene dataset we collected does not lend itself to a reasonable neo-Darwinian interpretation. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_118-127.pdfbornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler @ 136
Seversky, the real argument here is: Does God exist? If so, then there CAN be Acts of God, the Word of God, and the Son of God. If He doesn’t, well then He doesn’t and so much the worse for us, aimless, pointless, amoral, ultimately worthless bags of subatomic particles randomly assembled by physics but remarkably, nonetheless, expressing “apparent” design, intelligence, conscience, purpose, and a desire to know why.
This is where I have a problem with a certain form of belief when it holds we are "aimless, pointless, amoral, ultimately worthless" Says who? Why is it only God who gets decide what is our purpose or our worth or what is moral? What is to prevent us from working these things out for ourselves? You assume that only God can give these things but you do not say by what right. Yes, He has the power - if He exists - but I assume that you agree with me that might does not make right? I am quite prepared to believe in the existence of such a being if you can provide evidence for it or if He/She/It is prepared to step forward and do the same. Simply pointing to the many gaps in current scientific knowledge and exclaiming: "See! Your much-vaunted science can't explain how that came to be. It must have been designed/created" is not evidence. Yes, in the last century millions were killed by regimes that were avowedly atheistic. Over the many centuries before that uncounted millions were killed in the name of religion. The only reasons why less people were killed in any preceding century is that there were fewer people around to kill and less efficient means of doing their killing. On the other hand, there are millions of people alive today who would otherwise be dead because of discoveries by secular or atheistic science. And by that I mean that the explaining how diabetes or malaria or poliomyelitis works or the treatment thereof did not require the assumption of the existence of a deity.Seversky_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

BA77: "ELL, IF you had truly done your best to understand the evidence so far then you wouldn’t be an evolutionist anymore would you?" What do you think about the endogenous retroviral evidence? I haven't yet heard anyone here address that, perhaps I've missed it. "So why should I trust you anymore than I trust that paradigm of atheistic virtue: the non-debating and blatantly deceptive Dawkins: or even the Eucharist desecrating militant Meyers??" You don't have to trust me at all. I'm not trying to affect you in the slightest. I'm just here to learn. "For you to “so graciously” offer to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at arguments, without ever truly considering the merits of the issue, is a little less than forthright with the matter and has not enhanced my opinion of your debating style, or inherent honesty, in the least." I am doing my best to consider the merits, that's why I'm here. David Berlinski frequently takes potshots at things without always offering an alternative. Is it not alright to ask questions? It doesn't matter what you think of me. Thank you for supporting your contentions with your time and effort. That's why I'm here.ellazimm_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

#156 Thanks for the effort. I think information is difficult to define but you know it when you encounter it. Comments briefly as I can. Kolmogorov complexity Something is missing from this definition. Random noise would by this definition contain as much information as say a university lecture. Dembski's information This also seems like a useless definition. Its more of a heuristic one can use to determine if something contains information. But it does not describe information just how to detect its presence. Definition 3: Natural information In this sense everything is information just by its presence. We we think of information we think of it in terms of a representation either in action or as a store. For example a rules of the road book contains information as much as a driver driving while obeying the rules of the road. Definition 4: Unnatural information I don't see a definition here. In fact it presupposed DNA is not the product of a mind which is in dispute. Clearly DNA could well be "natural" in the sense that it was very useful for the designer. Just as a computer has a file system which contains among other things the operating system which is full of information. The machine does not require an agent to view or understand the file system or information contained within for its ultimate cause to have been a designer. Thanks for time again. It certainly got me thinking about the nature of information and I am sure I will give it more thought especially as to how to differentiate between information and data.Cable_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (#145, 146) Thank you for your posts, in which you attempted to clarify your position. I certainly can't call myself a statistician, although I did do a couple of years of Stats at uni back in the eighties. I would therefore like to apologize in advance, if some of my comments seem wide of the mark. That said, here goes. Re-reading Kalinsky's paper, it strikes me that he/she is really arguing from an ultra-Darwinian position, rather than an anti-Darwinian one. Modern textbooks on evolution take great pains to emphasize that evolution is more than common descent; it is the hypothesis that living things sprang from a common stock as a result of undirected natural processes. "Undirected" is usually taken to mean "lacking foresight; not aimed at any future goal." Teilhard de Chardin's theory of evolution would be dismissed as quackery by most modern scientists for precisely this reason: it has an Omega Point. Now, Kalinsky takes the "undirected" part of the modern definition of evolution very seriously; indeed, he/she goes further. For Kalinsky, evolution is the hypothesis that living things sprang from a common stock as a result of unbiased natural processes. A biased bowling ball may not be directed at any particular target; but it still shows a preference for a particular direction. If nature itself shows a built-in bias towards left-handed amino acids, or long-chain amino acids, or for that matter, amino acids that fold up neatly, then that bias requires an explanation, too. For Kalinsky, it's just too pat, too convenient. It is still legitimate to ask: where does this bias come from? One can easily imagine a cosmos having the same low-level physico-chemical laws as our own, but lacking this biological bias. When we consider the emergence of functional information, Kalinsky's point becomes even clearer. If nature itself is predisposed to favor processes that build up such information, then it can hardly be called unbiased. That's a Teilhardian solution to the problem of origins. It begs the question: why is nature so nice? Only a theist could answer such a question. That is why for Kalinsky there are only two rival hypotheses: either life is the result of "mindless natural processes," defined by Kalinsky as "a random walk, where the search proceeds in no set direction and, for any point in the search, it can be returned to any number of times" or life is the result of a process capable of producing significant levels of functional information. The so-called via media of invoking a natural process that tends to create functional information has already been ruled out as magical, and as invoking God in all but name. Or to use a Dawkinsian metaphor: natural selection is itself a skyhook if it can do that - which means that it doesn't really explain anything. Now I'd like to return to your contention that "the likelihood of functional proteins given an unspecified mind is not 1 or anything close to 1." I don't disagree with you. However, I don't think that's the question that Kalinsky is addressing. I'd like to cite a comment that he/she makes on page 6 (point #2):
Our observations indicate that there does not seem to be any known limit to the amount of functional information that intelligence can produce. It seems to be capable of producing anywhere from 0 bits and up.
It seems to me that Kalinsky is not interested in individual minds, but in processes. What he/she is asking is: is there any kind of process that can reliably generate significant levels of functional information? Yes, there is: intelligence. And in principle, it can generate an unlimited amount of functional information. In his/her article, then, Kalinsky is comparing the capabilities of two processes to generate functional information: intelligence (never mind whose), and a random walk. (We've already ruled out a non-random walk as "cheating.") If the latter process is umpteen orders of magnitude (155 in one of Kalinsky's protein examples) less reliable at generating functional information than the former, then I would agree with Kalinsky that intelligent design would be a rational explanation. I hope these comments shed light on Kalinsky's reasoning.vjtorley_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

ELL, IF you had truly done your best to understand the evidence so far then you wouldn't be an evolutionist anymore would you? So why should I trust you anymore than I trust that paradigm of atheistic virtue: the non-debating and blatantly deceptive Dawkins: or even the Eucharist desecrating militant Meyers?? For you to "so graciously" offer to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at arguments, without ever truly considering the merits of the issue, is a little less than forthright with the matter and has not enhanced my opinion of your debating style, or inherent honesty, in the least. "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist Ancient Fossils That Evolutionists Don't Want You To See - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLzqDLZoufQ THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient "living" fossils that have not changed for millions of years: http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 Fossil Record - No Transitional Fossils - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ZlcrumE2s "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History The Fossil Record - Don Patton - in their own words - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4679386266900194790 Let There Be Light http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

---Mark Frank: "I am sorry StephenB – you are also on my “do not respond” list. For rather different reasons. I am too weak to handle your very forthright debating style (my fault I am sure). Mark, I am sorry that you find my direct syle so disturbing. Even so, my question @ 150 and 161 was simple enough and there wasn't even a hint of aggressiveness associated with it. Here is is again: How can physics produce the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects?StephenB_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

I don't agree with that BUT I will continue to do my best to understand your point of view and occasionally ask sarky questions about it. Deal?ellazimm_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

I only agree to the fact that evolution is a deception, with no foundation in science whatsoever, and that you are delusional to believe in it. If you agree with that then we agree if you don't then we don't agree!bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

BA77 & StephenB: I'm kind of in agreement with Mark here; we've gone around and around the central issues so many times that I'm not sure further discussion will get any of us anywhere. I very much respect your willingness to present your views and obviously you know the standard evolutionary paradigm. But it all seems to come down to some of us accepting that a self-replicating molecule that occasionally makes mistakes (including duplicating sections of itself thereby adding to the "code") will continue to make copies, some of which are better able to exploit the natural resources around them, building more and more complex forms until, molded by the constraints and demands of various environmental niches, a plethora of forms exist. The process is directed by the natural, existing pressures and the "mistakes"/mutations collect "information" in a cumulative fashion. But, see, you've heard all that. And you can find the arguments. And read books by Dawkins, Miller, Shermer, etc. (I would highly recommend Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero for anyone interested in the fossil aspect in particular. So many transitional forms . . . ) And those on the other side can read and digest works by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, etc. Perhaps it's time to agree to disagree and leave it at that?ellazimm_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

#161 I am sorry StephenB - you are also on my "do not respond" list. For rather different reasons. I am too weak to handle your very forthright debating style (my fault I am sure). I will stick with vjtorley.Mark Frank_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

--Mark Frank @156: "I had a go showing how various types of information can be produced by physics. I rather regretted the offer simply because it was so time consuming. But I felt obliged having said I would do it." With respect to the information found in a DNA molecule, which is the critical element to be considered, Stephen Meyer has provided this concise definition: “The attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.” Can you explain how physics alone can produce information based on this formulation?StephenB_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Mr. Frank you state: "we have such different ideas on almost everything that I feel we will never find enough common ground to make for an interesting debate" But that is the whole point Mr. Frank,,, Our ideas are almost completely opposite yet there can only be one truth on these question of human origins (save if you want to compromise to a "lukewarm" a deistic position). The overwhelming thrust of my responses to you have been to show you that your materialistic position is thoroughly bankrupt of any rigid empirical validation whatsoever.. i.e. that your materialistic position is NOT TRUE. You seem like a fairly smart fellow (You worked at IBM for 30 years),, So don't you care to know what the truth really is? Do you not agree that if reality does not conform to your ideas then your ideas are merely dreams of the imagination that have no place in science proper? If so, then why do you not answer the empirics I present with you own empirics and continue to just ignore them? Is it that you find the thought of God distasteful to your lifestyle? Surely this can't be for of what ultimate reward is it to you to be so biased to the point of denying reality? I surely can see no reward in denying the truth of reality (i.e. I would call it being delusional) and in fact in the long run, I deeply believe your stubbornness to face the reality of God dead on very well may lead to you being separated from the living God eternally, Yes, separated from The Living God who is the source of all Life and all that is good! (John 1:1) (Romans 1: 19-21 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Theism Compared to Materialism http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 I am aware that you have been posting a lot of comment directed to me. I apologise for not responding but 1) they are typically long and include several external references which makes them extremely time consuming 2) we have such different ideas on almost everything that I feel we will never find enough common ground to make for an interesting debate I am sure others will benefit from your comments but I wanted to explain why I am not responding.Mark Frank_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

further note: The materialistic argument essentially appears to be like this: Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known. Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause. On the other hand, Stephen Meyer, in Signature In The Cell, describes the intelligent design argument as follows: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.”bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

Mr. Frank, you state in #155: "And if you fail to explain ANY element of a naturalistic explanation in sufficient detail then the conclusion is that it was designed. Yes – I am familiar with the argument." Actually, "material"/naturalistic explanations are failing to explain the basis of ALL elements of reality. (Anthropic Principle and violation of the first law in quantum teleportation, for vivid outline of how bankrupt "naturalism is) The Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy and The Mass Of The Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B0t4zSzhjg How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://in.geocities.com/info_aruni/tele.htm As well you seem to think the "information" found in life is fundamentally different from information as we use it: How The DNA Code Relates To Human Language http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIF_dJVfutE Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define 'functional information,' I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUeCgTN7pOo Seeing as you worked at IBM I would think this should be obvious to you? And in fact upon reflection I can find absolutely no satisfactory reason for you to "miss this evidence " except for your philosophical bias of materialism. http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Re #141 I had a go showing how various types of information can be produced by physics. I rather regretted the offer simply because it was so time consuming. But I felt obliged having said I would do it. It was far too long to put in a comment so I put it here.Mark Frank_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

#151 Because in order a designer is responsible for the system we only need to show a one is required for a single aspect of the system. If you wish to show there is a naturalistic explanation for a system then you must explain all the components. And if you fail to explain any element of a naturalistic explanation in sufficient detail then the conclusion is that it was designed. Yes - I am familiar with the argument.Mark Frank_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT}

By the way we have "eye witness" testimony for this "eternal framework" of time: A Reply to Shermer - Medical Evidence For NDEs - Pim van Lommel M.D. Excerpt: they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space,,, http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/bornagain77_{October 24, 2009
October
10
Oct
24
24
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply