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

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

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.

 

[SelfSim]

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?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.)

 

[Astrid]

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.

 

[Bradskii]

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 .

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That scientists are spiritually deaf.

I think that you have only demonstrated that you have that flaw.

 

[dlamberth]

That scientists are spiritually deaf.

The scientist that I know are very much spiritually awake and aware.

 

[Astrid]

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.

 

[dlamberth]

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.

 

[Astrid]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

It shows far more appreciation to understand what you see ...

And what do you see here?

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

 

[dlamberth]

I was agreeing with you and adding a bit of why.

Than my apologizes to you.

 

[dlamberth]

And what do you see here?

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

A book that some use to grow spiritually closer to their God.

 

[Astrid]

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.

 

[Shemjaza]

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?

 

[dlamberth]

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.

 

[Bradskii]

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?

 

[SelfSim]

A single 1 or a 0 is about as basic a piece of information that there is.

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.

 

[Bradskii]

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.