The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism

[Data]

[edit] eesh, read this wrong.

 

[RFHendrix]

Oh no, I have written genetic algorithms, I just didn't write that link


That is rather simple.. I can't do it now, but I'll get back to it.

I will be anxiously awaiting with the Nobel Peace Prize when you do it. And please, no cheating by way of your own intelligent input.

 

[Data]

I will be anxiously awaiting with the Nobel Peace Prize when you do it.

Like my genetic algorithm will somehow help world peace

Interestingly enough, I don't think a genetic algorithm would get a Nobel prize at all.. doesn't seem to fit into any of their catagories.

 

[RFHendrix]

Well just think, we can all use your program to reply to all these threads and we wouldn't have to argue about it. That is peace man...

By the way, Where are the Christians here? I have debated this subject on quite a few atheist forums but I thought I would get a little support here... I feel like Galileo facing the inquisition again.

 

[Zadok001]

RF:

The YECs around here tend to bow out pretty quickly. Not a whole lot of educated YECs here. One will show up, start a few arguments, get pounded into the ground repeatedly, and then vanish into the aether...

 

[RFHendrix]

I'm about to vanish myself. Maybe I will check in tomorrow. See you all later...

 

[Happy Wonderer]

What is your opinion of the work of Julius Rebek who created/discovered the self-replicating molecule AATE? Although that particular molecule probably doesn't happen to be the basis of our form of organic life, it certainly shows that simple chemical processes can lead to self-replicators. No magic required!

It seems to me that one who argues that RNA had to have come about by divine intervention is advocating a particularly weak God. "Bow down to the creator of the first pre-biotic organism! All hail the inventor of the bacteria! Worship He who strung the viri together!" These will probably be undergraduate biology homework assignments in 100 years or so...

hw

 

[David Gould]

Let's see here about this strawman I am supposedly building:

1. All life on this planet is based upon information-based machinery.

Can you please give the definition of 'information' you are using in this context?

2. There is real coded information and a real translation mechanism in each life form.

Can you please give the definition of 'information' you are using in this context?

3. There is no such thing as a primordial soup except as it exists in the mind of the one proposing the idea. And there is no such thing as non information based life.

Can you please give the definition of 'information' you are using in this context?

So, should I pretend that there was an earlier life form that was not information based to solve the problem? Or can we actually solve a real problem? I am not the one presenting a strawman here.

Can you please give the definition of 'information' you are using in this context?

 

[David Gould]

Is there 'information' in a hydrogen atom?

An electron?

A quark pair?

A vacuum?

 

[Data]

Well just think, we can all use your program to reply to all these threads and we wouldn't have to argue about it. That is peace man..

Ah. You wish this program to have intelligence? Then you want a neural network, not a genetic algorithm... sadly beyond my programming experience at the moment. They simulate the way neurons work in the brain, with a genetic algorithm controlling the weightings so it can learn. Which is rather simple in itself, but produces very complex reactions as seen at least in animal brains, if not to the greatest extent in human brains. Look it up, it's very interesting.

I'm planning on writing a simple one as soon as i can figure out how to structure it properly

 

[notto]

By the way, Where are the Christians here? I have debated this subject on quite a few atheist forums but I thought I would get a little support here... I feel like Galileo facing the inquisition again.

Many of us in this discussion are Christians. That doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to poor reasoning and logic or poor science.

 

[notto]

Let's see here about this strawman I am supposedly building:

1. All life on this planet is based upon information-based machinery.

2. There is real coded information and a real translation mechanism in each life form.

3. There is no such thing as a primordial soup except as it exists in the mind of the one proposing the idea. And there is no such thing as non information based life.

So, should I pretend that there was an earlier life form that was not information based to solve the problem? Or can we actually solve a real problem? I am not the one presenting a strawman here.

Define 'life'. Define 'information'

The strawman you are attacking is that anybody thinks that RNA or DNA assembled randomly in a pool or it appeared suddenly by chance all at one time.

Your analogies that you use for your supposed falsification have nothing to do with the structures and mechanisms you discuss. Even if the analogy you purpose for falsification was solved, it would still not falsify your ideas, therefore, there is little reason to pursue it.

You have not presented a mechanism that prevents what you say is not possible. Until you do, it remains possible, therefore, your conclusions are hasty and simply wishful thinking. You have not pursued enough to support your conclusions.

 

[davyuk]

@RFHendrix

Am I still considered 'blind' if I were to believe what you say, yet also believe the intelligent designer you mention was an alien visitor to Earth named Quarkoth?

I'm positive you'd object to the latter as your argument is not against science, but godless infidels such as myself.

Why dress up your Christian preachings as scientific debate? It fools no one.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Let's see here about this strawman I am supposedly building:

1. All life on this planet is based upon information-based machinery.

2. There is real coded information and a real translation mechanism in each life form.

3. There is no such thing as a primordial soup except as it exists in the mind of the one proposing the idea. And there is no such thing as non information based life.

So, should I pretend that there was an earlier life form that was not information based to solve the problem? Or can we actually solve a real problem? I am not the one presenting a strawman here.

1- If you consider chemical reactions between molecules "information" then you are correct.

2- Yes, we know that genetic information is "coded" so to speak. A certain sequence will produce a certain result.

3- Primordial soup could be anything that produces a self replicating molecule. We've managed to do this, what we haven't managed to do is create complex organisms. Granted we've only had a few decades vs a few billion years.


You are also seem to equate evolution with a godless abiogenesis as well. Evolution doesn't care (the fossil and geological records do though) when the earth was created, how it was created, why it was created, etc... Evolution will do it's thing regardless.

To be quite frank nobody knows 100% how and where life started. We know how it could have, where it might have, when it probabbly, etc... ID fits into one of these "could have" situations. There is no real substantial evidence for either side.

-Abiogenesis says that life started from self replicating molecules, grew more complex, and became the first organism(s).

-Intelligent Design says that we have no idea how, who, when or where. We just think that God did it since we can't possibly believe this happened naturally.

Saying that god(s) created life is no different than the reasoning behind saying Zeus throws lightning bolts from the sky 2200 years ago. The lack of understanding and jumping to conclusions is the real problem. Even if by some stroke of genius or luck you conclusively disprove that life could have started naturally what then? How do you prove that your god did it? How do you prove it wasn't aliens, other gods, your god working in tandem with other gods, space monkeys, etc? There is no evidence for ID that is actual evidence, just the assumption that it couldn't possibly have happened naturally because scientist haven't been able to fully replicate it within a few decades.

 

[RFHendrix]

What is your opinion of the work of Julius Rebek who created/discovered the self-replicating molecule AATE? Although that particular molecule probably doesn't happen to be the basis of our form of organic life, it certainly shows that simple chemical processes can lead to self-replicators. No magic required!


hw

I think he did a great work and I deal with his claims and similar ones in my book. But his work does not touch the subject and the problem of information (that I will define in my next post). On a side note however I should say that I don't think that chloroform and the lack of water in his experiment is a realistic simulation of any supposed abiogenesis hypothesis. The part of his experiment that is relevant to the subject of information that we are discussing is the fact that the molecule he created self replicates.

But, it replicates perfectly. I can design a machine that reproduces a product that I designed millions of times. That of course does not prove that intelligent design was not involved because both the original design and the machine that reproduced it were necessarily designed. In his experiment he forced the assembly of a molecule that replicates itself -- perfectly. Even if the copies were not perfect his experiment still would not touch the subject of information even if the best survived and were selected for an assumed future breeding.

Wait a minute and I will explain more clearly what I mean by information (although I already did earlier in the thread).

 

[RFHendrix]

Can you please give the definition of 'information' you are using in this context?

I use the dictionarly definition: Inform: To make something known...

Inofrmation: Knowledge aquired or derived. Timely or specific knowledge. The act of informing or the condition of being informed...

In all life information is the basis for the operation of the vital machinery of life. This information is much more than the definition of information that Shannon used because he was primarily concerned with the transmission of data and clear communication that filters the noise and discerns the coded message within the confusion. The introduction to his paper explicitly states that his use of the word is not in the way it is normally used. I am discussing the origin of information.

In real life we have not simply data or an historical record of events but actual meaning applied to symbols (i.e., something that represents something else). We have a translation of the coded message and there is also a practical use put to the information. The information within life has all the levels necessary to produce a language. It is of course a language recognized by the machine and all the associated componants. Information 'makes something known'. There is actual communication and actual messages and an actual result within life. The origin of information requires intelligent input in order for the code, and grammar and accepted use to be conveyed to the parties using the information. In a machine that knowledge is inserted into the mechanism so that the parts do as directed by the intelligent originator of the information.

A computer contains information in one sense (data) but the work is performed by the intelligently programmed information that directs the data. In exactly the same way the coded language within life directs the chemical processes that would be otherwise random and strictly according to the laws of physics without the direction. I am not talking about data or an historical record of chemical processes but real coded information such as is actually used in real life and in all languages whether spoken or written.

 

[David Gould]

That dictionary definition is insufficient.

How is knowledge aquired or derived except by an intelligent entity?

In other words, you have used a definition of information that requires an intelligent entity and then said that there is information in DNA.

Great. That 'proves' there is an intelligent entity. But assuming the conclusion is a logical fallacy.

We need a definition of information that is neutral with regard to being able to prove an intelligent entity necessary for DNA.

And how do you measure amounts of information using that definition?

 

[notto]

So you are saying that "in all life, knowledge is the basis for the operation of vital machinery of life".

That doesn't seem to make sense.

There is no "language" recognized by the machine.

Does a hydrogen atom recognize the "langauge" of the oxygen atom and use the "knowledge" to form a water molecule.

Chemical reactions are not language, knowledge, information, or evidence of design.

You refuse to see that all of the characteristics you assign as "information" in DNA exist in ALL chemical reactions and are acted on by simple catalysts.

"Coding" is determined by chemical composition and structures. They are not randomly assembled and given meaning so your analogies to language, while suitable for laymen descriptions and conversation, do not hold up to comparison to true language.

You Say:
"A computer contains information in one sense (data) but the work is performed by the intelligently programmed information that directs the data. In exactly the same way the coded language within life directs the chemical processes that would be otherwise random and strictly according to the laws of physics without the direction. I am not talking about data or an historical record of chemical processes but real coded information such as is actually used in real life and in all languages whether spoken or written."

Please show us how the molecules involved in the structure you discuss can be assembled randomly and acted on by the same catalysts they are acted on in the structures they take in DNA or RNA.

What "actual messages" are are communicated.
"I'm a molecule that you can react with so react with me" doesn't cut it unless you can show that the molecule could also respond to a message of "I'm a molecule that you can react with but DON't react with me". when the molecules come in contact.

 

[RFHendrix]

Define 'life'. Define 'information'

The strawman you are attacking is that anybody thinks that RNA or DNA assembled randomly in a pool or it appeared suddenly by chance all at one time.

Your analogies that you use for your supposed falsification have nothing to do with the structures and mechanisms you discuss. Even if the analogy you purpose for falsification was solved, it would still not falsify your ideas, therefore, there is little reason to pursue it.

You have not presented a mechanism that prevents what you say is not possible. Until you do, it remains possible, therefore, your conclusions are hasty and simply wishful thinking. You have not pursued enough to support your conclusions.

Life as in an independant organism that does not survive only because it is a parasite on another. We can force parts of the machinery of life to "live" in testubes or wherever but I don't think too many people call that "life".

I am well aware that the latest idea is that because it is now quite obvious that the problem is insurmountable that now it is speculated that the code and translation somehow evolved over time or several "protolife" forms grew in paralel and joined later somehow. Even so, the problem remains. Evolution cannot solve the problem and neither can several supposed self replicating molecules combining solve it. The problem is making a language not evolving complexity or creating greator confusion that somehow turns into life with a complete language in place. Selection comes from advantage. There is no advantage to a language that is not translated and not known to all that use it. Why would natural selection in a non-living form select one proto-language over another? Does natural selection know the meanings of the symbols ahead of time and preserve them until they are needed later?

 

[notto]

Life as in an independant organism that does not survive only because it is a parasite on another. We can force parts of the machinery of life to "live" in testubes or wherever but I don't think too many people call that "life".

I am well aware that the latest idea is that because it is now quite obvious that the problem is insurmountable that now it is speculated that the code and translation somehow evolved over time or several "protolife" forms grew in paralel and joined later somehow. Even so, the problem remains. Evolution cannot solve the problem and neither can several supposed self replicating molecules combining solve it. The problem is making a language not evolving complexity or creating greator confusion that somehow turns into life with a complete language in place. Selection comes from advantage. There is no advantage to a language that is not translated and not known to all that use it. Why would natural selection in a non-living form select one proto-language over another? Does natural selection know the meanings of the symbols ahead of time and preserve them until they are needed later?

What "language"? What reads the "langauge"? What "symbols"?

Strawman Alert:
"Does natural selection know the meanings of the symbols ahead of time and preserve them until they are needed later?"

I'll ask once again in a different way,

How does hydrogen and oxygen forming water differ in their communication with each other or the use of this chemical "language" you discuss. Why does the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen not represent this communication and language while the reactions you discuss do?

Can you show us an example where this language communicates to another reactant "Don't react with me, even though you should".