Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Discussion and Debate > Physical & Life Sciences > Creation & Evolution
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Unread 9th October 2003, 09:50 PM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 150,051
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
Thanks for creating a strawman lucas but we are trying to make a real man here.

If you agree that this is an information problem then you should have no problem demonstrating that intelligent communication can take place on a computer without the aid of an intelligent programmer. That is the problem as I have stated several times. Forcing chemicals (or words and letters etc.) to direct themselves further as a result of the initial intelligent intervention rather proves my point that it is not posssible without such intervention.

Now we have several decades of attempts to produce artifical intelligent communication WITH the aid of intelligent programmers and have so far only succeded in proving my point. Why don't you try one without the intelligent input? Until you can, your objections are groundless.

Your defense of Dawkins shows your complete misunderstanding of the problem (or an attempt to purposely mislead). I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you so please tell me how Dawkins proved anything except his own intelligent intervention in either his biomorphs or METHINKS... experiment. He programmed and he selected and he set a goal. What exactly didn't HE do???

Making chemicals to wiggle and squirm and reproduce with the aid of an intelligent being directing is not creating a genetic code along with the associated machinery of translation without intelligetn input. Fox's experiments did not produce a genetic code and the associated logical communication necessary for real life. Again, give me the proof that you have overthrown several thousand years of human experience and produced meaningful information and communication without intelligent input. Your strawman does not fit the bill.
__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #182  
Unread 9th October 2003, 09:58 PM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 150,051
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
As far as the book being entirely scientific I made no claims that it was, as I explained in the preface. It is a book about atheism and theism with scientifc support for theism. And I certainly am not going to engage in a theological discussion here about what God was or was not thinking and the problem of good an evil in the world.

People like to blame God for not thinking like they do. The book is about a generic creator and I suppose that an alien could fit the bill if one prefers that approach. I interjected my personal beliefs as explained in the preface. Take it or leave it. The Christian God is known by revelation. Find another one if you don't care for the way he does things.
__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Unread 9th October 2003, 10:11 PM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 150,051
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
The nylon bug and "glitches" in the program:

If God was involved in the creation of life or at least in the initial programming of it. (I speak for the sake of argument.) Then there is no reason to think that he abandoned his creation to the forces of nature. A new food product (nylon) is like a new destructive virus that invades a healthy organism. All possibilities are not allowed for necesarily but many are, including those that the organism has not encountered previously. Adapting to a new source of food may or may not require "planning" depending on the organism and the capability it has to adapt and survive in new environments.

The reason that science does not want to consider God in creation is obvious to me. It creates too many possibilities for his ocntinued intervention by natural or supernatural means. That is one reason why I believe the God of the Bible fits so perfectly, i.e., the cursed earth, the battle of good and evil, the corruption of creation and the continued intervention of God into natural processes.
__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Unread 9th October 2003, 10:19 PM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 150,051
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
Finally, I do not have time to spend on this debate because I really do have another life. I will check back on this thread in a couple of days so please make your question to the point and please read the thread first. The topic here is the origin of information (as I defined it earlier) and the questions are as posed earlier in the thread. The tangents are interesting but I suggest that someone interested in them post another thread. I can't solve all the problems in the world for you.
__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Unread 9th October 2003, 11:51 PM
notto's Avatar
Legend

45 Gender: Male Faith: UnitedChurchOfChrist Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 31st May 2002
Posts: 11,090
Blessings: 84,188
Reps: 33,621 (power: 57)
notto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to behold
notto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to behold
You've introduced another term into the discussion. 'Forced'. Please show us where any of the chemical reactions are 'forced' and do not simply follow the rules of chemical reaction in the way we would expect them to.

Again, you assert intelligent communication and language but cannot provide an example where this communication can be measured, analyzed, and determined. Can you give us an example where a chemical or mechanism 'forces' another chemical or mechanism to do something other than what its nature is. Or, when given two options, it takes the one that is the least anticipated?

Why do you consider some reactions to be using this mechanism of communication while other do not?

You seem to be avoiding providing a way to determine if communication is happening and if information is used. If, as you assert, this information problem exists, you should be able to provide examples of mechanisms where it is a problem and where it isn't and a clear way to deliniate between them, otherwise, your determination of this is purely subjective and wishful thinking to allow you to conclude what you wish (a logical fallicy of including your conclusion in your premises)
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Unread 10th October 2003, 12:31 AM
Jet Black's Avatar
WinAce > cdesign proponentsists

35 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: England Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 24th June 2003
Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,427
Blessings: 185,943
Reps: 16,712 (power: 46)
Jet Black is a splendid one to behold
Jet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to behold
well you haven't answered any of my issues, so that is ok.
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Unread 10th October 2003, 08:23 AM
Meatros's Avatar
The Meat is in the Middle!

36 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 25th June 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 935
Blessings: 149,957
Reps: 41 (power: 0)
Meatros is on a distinguished road
Originally Posted by Jet Black
well you haven't answered any of my issues, so that is ok.
Hey man, I don't even think he saw my post...
__________________
If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?

"Be happy noble heart... And now the God of vengeance yields to me his power."

Just remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Unread 10th October 2003, 11:52 AM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 150,051
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
Originally Posted by Meatros
BTW-Sorry for all the questions, it's just these all came up as I was reading your website.
I am not trying to cut you off and I think most of your questions are legitimate. I simply do not have time to engage in a debate on the nature of God. I am trying to finish the one I have started and keep it on topic. If this helps, I will answer the basic problem I think you have with the God of the Bible:

1. He didn't do things the way you think he should have. Well that is where my statement about one of the aspects of God (... not only a God of pleasentries..) comes in. He never claims to be like us and to think like us. He also claims to hide evidence and purposely deceive people. Mankind is in the image of God but the image is now corrupt so we find ourselves debating why God is not like us with a corrupted intelect. There is no solution to the problem of finding God without a direct revelation from God initially. My book is only for those who wouldn't mind knowing the truth even if it is the Christian God. Fanatics on either side will not listen regardless of evidence.

2. I didn't prove that the God of the Bible created life: No, and I didin't intend to. Evidence supports theism because of the nature of information and the entirety of nature. Meaning does not come from the laws of physics with or without the aid of natural selection. Meaning comes from intelligent value judgments. The laws of physics are only tools, and to assert that they form opinions and think about solutions to problems is absurd. However you look at it materialistic evolution claims that the laws of physics are able to think and plan ahead. That is what atheism is based on -- absurdity. Clouding the central problem with several billion years of "could haves" simply shows the inherent dishonesty of atheism. If spacemen created life then we are left with the same problem, i.e., who created them and where did the intelligent source come from that is outside the laws of physics?

3. Why would supernatural evidence point to the God of the Bible and not another god or gods or aliens? Maybe it does point to other gods. I do not claim that other religions are inherently false and Christianity as it is practiced is true. Careful study of the Bible shows that God is more concerned with loving our neighbors than going to the right church. I don't think that God sends people to hell if they have not joined the right church (if their is such a thing). God has provided all of mankind with a concience. We are judged by the use of our concience and that makes for universal justice in the end.
__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Unread 10th October 2003, 01:08 PM
Jet Black's Avatar
WinAce > cdesign proponentsists

35 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: England Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 24th June 2003
Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,427
Blessings: 185,943
Reps: 16,712 (power: 46)
Jet Black is a splendid one to behold
Jet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by RFHendrix
The nylon bug and "glitches" in the program:

If God was involved in the creation of life or at least in the initial programming of it. (I speak for the sake of argument.) Then there is no reason to think that he abandoned his creation to the forces of nature. A new food product (nylon) is like a new destructive virus that invades a healthy organism. All possibilities are not allowed for necesarily but many are, including those that the organism has not encountered previously. Adapting to a new source of food may or may not require "planning" depending on the organism and the capability it has to adapt and survive in new environments.
please only look at the example with reference to what it was originally intended. I don't really want to sidetrack. If you think that the nylon bug was preplanned, then just say so. you of course will then have to explain how this enzyme-in-potentia (remember it is a frame shift, so this "word" had never been spoken before, so it is not kike the bacteria knew that the "word" even sounded like) wasn't corrupted by millions of years of mutations.
anyway, back to my example on how abiogenesis could have happened and generated a language then, since you haven't really refuted any of my hypotheses so far....
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

Last edited by Jet Black; 10th October 2003 at 01:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Unread 10th October 2003, 04:36 PM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 150,051
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
Originally Posted by Jet Black
pushing me aren't you? The problem as I see it, is that you immediately want to jump to the complex behavior all the time. when really what you should be doing is breaking it down into more easily digested steps. Take one look at a 12oz steak, and you'd think no man alive could eat it without choking, chop it into bits and it is no problem. If we could stay away from analogies like sentences and words, I would be much obliged, since there are so many connotations with these things that it becomes uncertain as to the boundaries of the analogy.

What we have so far from my hypothetical example, is a string of RNA that can produce strings of protein, initially as catalysts, and then as rudimentary enzymes, you then have a situation where the protein is more important in the reproduction of the RNA strand than the initial bit of RNA which facilitated the RNA reproduction. This is pretty unsuprising, since the versatility of Amino Acids is far far far greater than the versatility of RNA catalysts (compare 20 amino acids to 4 bases, and think of the differences we see in protein structures). In essence you would kind of re-evolve the system that got us this far, but evolve it with a much more versatile protein system instead. Initially this system would simply be a facilitator, increasing the amount of reproduction of our RNA strand, and then overtaking it and eventually completely dominating it. in this we have now created a early catalyst/enzyme that has the ability to read RNA. It is probably pretty rubbish, and not a patch on modern enzymes and proteins, but hey, it's better than what everyone else has, so it wins.

About the folding of the chains. you use the word "anticipated" and I am inclined to disagree with this to a degree. We know that modern catalysts are highly efficient, they do a REALLY good job, and pretty much any alteration to the binding site will wreck it. But in an early stage system, this binding site does not have to be very good at all. Am I just making this up? no, not at all.

Now I refer you to one of my favourite examples of a brand new enzyme, in Flavobacterium sp.K172, the nylon eating bacteria. The purpose of this example is simply to show that a completely novel enzyme can come about, and do some job, without any real prior "anticipation" of what the polypeptide chain will fold into.

Well when first discovered, this was a really rubbish enzyme. the enzyme whose job it replaces was far more efficient, so why did this really lame enzyme win over? because it was the only one that could in it's new environment. It gave the organism an infinite advantage in it's new environment, so it won, hands down. since then the enzyme has mutated and the binding site has become much more effective at chopping nylon, increasing the efficiency again by 165x (I think, I will check this up if you like. I do know the enzyme has increased in efficiency though.)

we can see from this that we don't really require "anticipation" of how the polypeptide structure will fold if it works, it works. if it doesn't, then it offers no advantage and will either a) be selected out because it is wasting it's time not doing alot at all or b) just sit around doing not alot, with the possibility that it might mutate and do something really novel.

ok, so now let's look at the "meaning" of these letters. well what is it, when looking at these really rudimentary things. the fist, and most primitive element of this language would be "the ability to reproduce", the next step is "the ability to reproduce more accurately" the next is "the ability to reproduce better, more accurately and faster"

In summary: I have illustrated a number of ways that each of these steps could be achieved, and the language emerges from them. As I pointed out, proteins are far more versatile in the structures they can form and so they would incur a huge benefit to any chemical that strung them together, even if it was just as a catalyst. because there are so many AAs, then a rudimentary language would spring up from this, probably not a very good one, probably with alot of errors (there were probably codons that coded for several AAs at a time, but every time it became more limited, then this was an improvement in accuracy)
I thought that you and I already agreed that there was more to the information in life than is contained in DNA? Maybe it was someone else but anyway I think that most people know that it is the entire system that produces the information. Without the translation mechanism there really is no information because the string of letters must be cut and pasted and otherwise selected in order to be useful. In fact we can say that without the system we really only need an almost random assortment of letters to select from. Read the chapters of my book; The Evolution of the Frog and Junk Science..., to see my views on the entire system of information processing.

A frame shift is not always the result of a "mistaken" mutation. They can simply be the intended manipulation of the information contained in the DNA. The same can be said for many "mutations". I can change many words into others simply by crossing out certain letters or adding one or two. The system (such as in a frog) has a great potential for variation because of the ways the information in the DNA can be manipulated (and in fact is).

If intelligence is indicated in the formation of the code and it's associated machnery and corruption is a fact of life then why would it be difficult to believe that the nylon bug either adapted to it's new environment naturally through selection or that it was simply one more creature on this planet created to maintain some type of balance with foreknowledge of the attempts of mankind to (inadvertantly perhaps)upset it? We overcome new diseases all the time and we are defeated by many as well until we have time to adapt. Whole species have died out because they could not efficiently meet the challenge of a new threat. Why is the nylon eating bacteria any different? The strong survive and the weak die out.

But what does your example have to do with the evolution of meaningful language? I do not question the manipulation of existing language and the addition of new information within that framework.

Your summary (above) leaves us with the same question that Fox, Kaufman et al leaves us with. Everyone simply says; "Well here is how we find the letters, and here is how we put them together, and here is how we did it in the lab so now let's just wait for a few million years and naturally a language will come forth..." Where is it? The essential question is ignored and we are in the same place as the plastic letters are in after they have been filtered naturally. We may have order or patterns but not a language.

Again, the problem can be solved with a computer (if it can be solved) as it is an information problem. The laws of physics cannot think unless they have in fact ben interjected with intelligence. If matter and energy evolved into meaningful thought and real planning and foresight (as in the human mind) then that is a tacit statement that the laws of physics are interjected with intelligence, or there is an intelligent being outside the laws of physics directing those laws. The end result is intelligece. That did not come from thin air.
__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
Reply


Return to Creation & Evolution

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:03 PM.