The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism

[RFHendrix]

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?

I think you need a definition that suits you so you can evade the real problem. I am not going to redefine words here. Use Shannons definition if you want and evade the problem if you want. That is the usual tactic when an atheist is faced with any evidence that points to intelligent design. So in other words, I am not going to play your game, thanks.

 

[RFHendrix]

noto,

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a genetic code? The entire translation mechanism prevents random reactions. The reactions are directed by the information in DNA as it is translated. Why would you assume that life is just a pile of chemicals? Surely you know that the chemical reactions are directed by the information.

 

[David Gould]

I think you need a definition that suits you so you can evade the real problem. I am not going to redefine words here. Use Shannons definition if you want and evade the problem if you want. That is the usual tactic when an atheist is faced with any evidence that points to intelligent design. So in other words, I am not going to play your game, thanks.

Explain, using the dictionary definition that you provided, the precise difference in information content between a quark pair and the y chromozome.

If you cannot do that, the definition is useless for the purposes of scientific discussion.


You are writing your stuff to try and convince people that your view is correct, I would assume. As such, explaining it to a harsh and critical audience is vital. If you cannot, I suggest you start again.

 

[David Gould]

noto,

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a genetic code? The entire translation mechanism prevents random reactions. The reactions are directed by the information in DNA as it is translated. Why would you assume that life is just a pile of chemicals? Surely you know that the chemical rection are directed by the information.

He is not saying that.

Why won't you answer his questions with regard to the formation of water? Is there similar information content, language and translation mechanisms in hydrogen and oxygen?

 

[RFHendrix]

Explain, using the dictionary definition that you provided, the precise difference in information content between a quark pair and the y chromozome.

If you cannot do that, the definition is useless for the purposes of scientific discussion.


You are writing your stuff to try and convince people that your view is correct, I would assume. As such, explaining it to a harsh and critical audience is vital. If you cannot, I suggest you start again.

Read the thread. You missed the point. And I have debated this subject for about three years before "harsh and critical" audiences so I know all the tactics that are used as diversion. Your's is nothing new.

 

[notto]

noto,

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a genetic code? The entire translation mechanism prevents random reactions. The reactions are directed by the information in DNA as it is translated. Why would you assume that life is just a pile of chemicals? Surely you know that the chemical reactions are directed by the information.

No, catalysts and inhibitors prevent random reactions.

I guess the "translation mechanism" in hydrogen and oxygen prevent random reactions of hydrogen and oxygen to form somthing other than water and are directed by the information.

Why would I assume that water is just a pile of chemicals? Surely I know that the chemical reactions are directed by the information in the hydrogen and oxygen molecules and translated by the catalyst (fire).

 

[David Gould]

Read the thread. You missed the point. And I have debated this subject for about three years before "harsh and critical" audiences so I know all the tactics that are used as diversion. Your's is nothing new.

I am not using it as a diversion. And I have read the thread twice through.

I am asking a specific question that is not answered in your previous postings. (Or if it is, then I was not smart enough to see it).

I would appreciate an answer as it would help me understand precisely what the issue that you keep referring to actually is.


How, using the definition of information you provided, do you determine the information content of a quark pair as compared to a y chromozome?

 

[RFHendrix]

I suggest that you read a biology textbook notto. Why would people splice genes into another genone if information does not specifically direct the chemical reactions? Surely you know the diference between that and the formation of water.

 

[RFHendrix]

How, using the definition of information you provided, do you determine the information content of a quark pair as compared to a y chromozome?

You do not use the definition I provided to determine the information content of a quark pair because we are talking about biology and the obviously different problems that we encounter in life. This is necessary unless you assume that the universe is living or that life is not in anyway unique.

 

[notto]

I suggest that you read a biology textbook notto. Why would people splice genes into another genone if information does not specifically direct the chemical reactions? Surely you know the diference between that and the formation of water.

LOL!

But apparently you can't explain it to me.

How does a spliced gene react in a new genome? Does it act the way we would predict based on its molecular makeup? YEP!

Basically you are saying that anytime a chemical reaction happens something is "reading information" to tell it how to react with another chemical.

I guess every reaction is intelligently designed, right down to burning wood, water forming, and I guess inert compounds simply "communicate" a message of "don't react with me, even though you couldn't if you tried".

Your argument is simplistic, has no predictive power (can you provide a prediction from your conclusion that can be tested?), and does nothing to explain the evidence any better than mainstream theories.

You just took the shortcut, jumped to an early conclusion, and said "God did it!".

Poor science.

Did you submit your publication to peer review? Who reviewed it? What is there backgroud? What did they say?

 

[RFHendrix]

LOL!

But apparently you can't explain it to me.

How does a spliced gene react in a new genome? Does it act the way we would predict based on its molecular makeup? YEP!

Basically you are saying that anytime a chemical reaction happens something is "reading information" to tell it how to react with another chemical.

I guess every reaction is intelligently designed, right down to burning wood, water forming, and I guess inert compounds simply "communicate" a message of "don't react with me, even though you couldn't if you tried".

Your argument is simplistic, has no predictive power (can you provide a prediction from your conclusion that can be tested?), and does nothing to explain the evidence any better than mainstream theories.

You just took the shortcut, jumped to an early conclusion, and said "God did it!".

Poor science.

Did you submit your publication to peer review? Who reviewed it? What is there backgroud? What did they say?

Basically I am saying that you are twisting my words. So long...

 

[David Gould]

You do not use the definition I provided to determine the information content of a quark pair because we are talking about biology and the obviously different problems that we encounter in life. This is necessary unless you assume that the universe is living or that life is not in anyway unique.

Okay, although the definition does not seem to mention life in anyway.

But ignroing that, using the definition you provided, how do you determine the information content of a Y chromozome compared to that in a single A in a Y chromozome?

 

[David Gould]

Basically I am saying that you are twisting my words. So long...

I think the words were already twisted. We have been trying to untwist them to some extent.

 

[notto]

Basically I am saying that you are twisting my words. So long...

Then perhaps you can explain the hydrogen and oxygen reaction using your terms of "information", "knowledge", "language", and "reading" and show me exactly why these terms don't apply to the reaction to create water. This should be an easy one.

 

[RFHendrix]

Okay, although the definition does not seem to mention life in anyway.

But ignroing that, using the definition you provided, how do you determine the information content of a Y chromozome compared to that in a single A in a Y chromozome?

The subject of the thread is the ORIGIN of information not the measuring of it either within or without a living organism. The problem is the origin as I stated several times. You can use a statistical definition of information (like Shannon used) to determine the information content.

 

[David Gould]

The subject of the thread is the ORIGIN of information not the measuring of it either within or without a living organism. The problem is the origin as I stated several times. You can use a statistical definition of information (like Shannon used) to determine the information content.

The definition of Shannon information, though, is not the same as the one you are using. That means that if we use Shannon to measure information content we are not measuring the same thing that you are talking about.

Or do you accept Shannon's definition? Before you do, I should warn you that it is entirely possible for information (using Shannon's definition) to come from completely undirected processes, which is exactly what you are arguing against.

This is the problem with imprecise and immeasurable definitions of the word 'information'.

 

[RFHendrix]

The definition of Shannon information, though, is not the same as the one you are using. That means that if we use Shannon to measure information content we are not measuring the same thing that you are talking about.

Or do you accept Shannon's definition? Before you do, I should warn you that it is entirely possible for information (using Shannon's definition) to come from completely undirected processes, which is exactly what you are arguing against.

This is the problem with imprecise and immeasurable definitions of the word 'information'.

I fully accept Shannon's definition and work for it's intended use. He did not discuss the origin of information or whether it was or was not originated by an inteligent being. So using his definition is like using a ruler to weigh something. For example:

There is obviously intelligent input in this program we are using on this forum. How do you determine where it is?

 

[notto]

The subject of the thread is the ORIGIN of information not the measuring of it either within or without a living organism. The problem is the origin as I stated several times. You can use a statistical definition of information (like Shannon used) to determine the information content.

I think we are still at the point where we need to determine if there is "information" involved at all before we determine that there is an origin to that. To do that, we need to understand how you use the word and measure the information.

You assume that there is "information" involved, but you have not shown it.

If we cannot measure "information" content, then how can we tell when information is involved (DNA) or when it supposedly is not (Water molecule)?

You are stating that information is involved by definition, but then using that in your conclusion. You can't do that.

This process involves information (stated but not proven)
Information comes from intelligence (stated and based on previous premise)

Fallacy: Assiming a premise in the statement of the conclusion.

 

[the Christian Apologetic]

RFHendrix, you asked for other Christians to help out, so here's one. I'll admit that I'm not as familiar with some of the scientific terminology being discussed, but I'm a quick learner. Anyway, I'd also like to suggest that this be moved to the Debate Forum, as that seems to be what this is quickly becoming.

The Christian Apologetic

 

[David Gould]

I fully accept Shannon's definition and work for it's intended use. He did not discuss the origin of information or whether it was or was not originated by an inteligent being. So using his definition is like using a ruler to weigh something. For example:

There is obviously intelligent input in this program we are using on this forum. How do you determine where it is?

No, Shannon did not discuss the origin of information. But we have found it is perfectly possible to create information (using Shannon's definition) through undirected processes.

As such, the information content (again, using Shannon's definition) of DNA might not require a director.

In addition:

A basic requirement for a communication system is that, with high reliability, the symbol at the information source and the symbol at the destination match. Shannon had a key insight regarding this: it doesn't matter whether the symbol means anything. It only matters whether the symbol at the information source and the destination are the same. It was this insight, meaning must be ignored, that enabled Shannon to create a workable mathematical model for information.

taken from: http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/shannon.htm

So meaning is irrelevent in Shannon's definition of information. A piece of information does not have to mean anything.

If you accept Shannon, you basically destroy your entire argument.