• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Absolutely wrong.

It is a four letter coded programming language containing complex and specified information, just like Windows 10 is, and both can only come from intelligence, from a mind.

There is NO natural mechanism that can write or create information.
Please post a quantifiable definition of information relevant to DNA so that we can continue this discussion.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Absolutely wrong.

It is a four letter coded programming language containing complex and specified information, just like Windows 10 is, and both can only come from intelligence, from a mind.

There is NO natural mechanism that can write or create information.
You seem blissfully unaware that others do not share the model you have in your mind, which gives information that particular meaning.

Are you aware of that?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,621
16,317
55
USA
✟410,338.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It is a four letter coded programming language containing complex and specified information, just like Windows 10 is, and both can only come from intelligence, from a mind.

Windows 10 is *not* a programing language. It is a piece of software, specifically an OS + utilities. A real programming language would be Fortran. (The ur-language and still the best.)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Absolutely wrong.

It is a four letter coded programming language containing complex and specified information, just like Windows 10 is, and both can only come from intelligence, from a mind.

There is NO natural mechanism that can write or create information.

OK there you go. Proof of god.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,046
15,652
72
Bondi
✟369,629.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You can set a million monkeys at typewriters for 14 billion years and they still can’t randomly type the works of Shakespeare or any other literary work.

You have already been shown why you are wrong making these claims and you have ignored the explanation. I love wasting my time so I'm going to give it another go. And hey, let's use the bard!

I'm assuming that you know what atoms are comprised of. And how molecules are formed. So we all know that some elements (and elemental particles) work together whilst others don't. This is basic physics/chemistry. I'm assuming that you accept basic physics and chemistry. It isn't all just happenstance.

OK...that's that out of the way. Now let's use your analogy of Shakespeare. Let's take Richard III at random. The number of words in that play are just under 30,000. If you got a monkey to type random letters out then the odds of it typing Richard III would be factorial 30,000 (written 30,000!). It's a number so large that it makes it effectively impossible. Add a gazzillion monkeys typing all day for a gazzillion years and it's still effectively impossible.

But now let's say that some combination of letters work better together than other combinations (like hyrogen and oxygen for example). So if you hit an N and then hit an O, they kinda go together. So hey, we'll keep those two. Like hydrogen and oxygen stick together in certain circumstances. So you've got 'No'. Get him to type at randon again but we'll keep the 'No' (just like we kept the combination of H and O2).

Now the analogy is not exact. But gee, we've only got some very basic rules and just the one chimp. So stick around.

More random typing and we get a 'w'. And hey, that works with the 'No' and so we keep that and now we have 'Now'. And more typing, whilst keeping what seems to work, gets us pretty quickly to 'Now is the winter...'.

Assuming our chimp hits one key every second then each letter we get that seems to work and will be added to what we alredy have will appear on average every 20 seconds (approximately half the keys on a typewriter if we include the punctuation needed). So the total play of 30,000 words will take 30,000 x 20 seconds. And that's 7 days.

Do you get that? With some basic rules and one monkey slowly typing random letters we go from something that would take longer than the universe has existed to...a week.

So the rules are somewhat arbitrary. So lets make them more difficult and put in a fudge factor of a billion. And we add a billion more monkeys. It still takes a week.

So how about we stop the nonsense of this argument from big numbers. You didn't understand the principle behind them to start with but it's now been explained to you twice. You shouldn't need a third .
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It was not highly successful. It was greatly exaggerated, and the lay public wasn’t told that mostly asphaltic tar was produced, that they had to put a filter to trap the molecules they were seeking, so they were removed from the tar that would destroy them, then had to remove them from the trap quickly before they deteriorated completely.

.
Since the experiment proved exactly what it set out to prove it was highly successful. At that time creationists claimed that amino acids could not form naturally. Since then claim after claim of creationists have been shown to be wrong. They have no scientific evidence that supports their denial of science at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The scientist that I know are very much spiritually awake and aware.

It shows far more appreciation to understand
what you see than it does to make up childish
fantasies, look at those and think that is spiritual.

To the extent it is "spiritual", it's nothing but self worship.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,146
3,176
Oregon
✟929,379.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
It shows far more appreciation to understand
what you see than it does to make up childish
fantasies, look at those and think that is spiritual.

To the extent it is "spiritual", it's nothing but self worship.
Gut reaction? Ignorance? Clearly you have no idea of what I was pointing towards. So why even go there.

AV says that scientist are spiritually deaf. From my own friends I know that's not true. That's all I was saying.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Gut reaction? Ignorance? Clearly you have no idea of what I was pointing towards. So why even go there.

AV says that scientist are spiritually deaf. From my own friends I know that's not true. That's all I was saying.
I was agreeing with you and adding a bit of why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,610
52,511
Guam
✟5,128,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It shows far more appreciation to understand what you see ...
And what do you see here?

images


We'll skip the appreciation (I'll consider the source) ... just show me your understanding.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Than my apologizes to you.

Nope, you don't get to apologize to me.
I wasn't clear in what I said. My fault.
No apology coming to me but I respect
you for thinking of it.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: dlamberth
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,458
3,994
47
✟1,112,508.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Absolutely wrong.

It is a four letter coded programming language containing complex and specified information, just like Windows 10 is, and both can only come from intelligence, from a mind.

There is NO natural mechanism that can write or create information.
Are you able to actually present a metric and an objective method for measuring complex and/or specified information?

Or are they still synonymous with gut feelings and religious conviction?
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,146
3,176
Oregon
✟929,379.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
There is NO natural mechanism that can write or create information.
Yet new life forms have evolved. Nature is pretty good creating new information for change.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,046
15,652
72
Bondi
✟369,629.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It is a four letter coded programming language containing complex and specified information, just like Windows 10 is, and both can only come from intelligence, from a mind.

There is NO natural mechanism that can write or create information.

You are conflating information and complexity. Your first sentence refers to complexity. And then you say, as if it follows from that statement, that nothing can create information.

A single 1 or a 0 is about as basic a piece of information that there is. But even the most complex of computer programmes are comprised effectively of 1's and 0's. So you could say that no real information has been added. But the combination of all those 1's and 0's are incredibly more complex. And powerful.

And I'll head you off at the pass here and agree that a computer programe needs a computer programmer to attain that complexity. But complexity arises unbidden in the natural world. An ice crystal is vastly more complex than a hydrogen or oxygen atom. And as hydrogen and oxygen naturaly form water and then ice by the process of freezing, so does hydrogen converts to helium via the process of nuclear fusion. And a star is much more complex (and useful) that a cloud of hydrogen. And all entirely natural.

So lets agree that incredibly complex information can be naturally formed from basic units of information.

Agreed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,046
15,652
72
Bondi
✟369,629.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Just a nitpick: a 'bit' or 'binary digit', is a logical state with one of two possible values.
'1' and '0' are representations of that concept.
Consider me nitpicked.
 
Upvote 0