Prove it or remove it challenge

[Extraneous]

Your understanding of God is irrelevant? Your words, not mine.

Clearly He can't be used to explain anything...

If i use God the creator in this discussion it doesn't contradict anything which science already asserts. Science says that a singularity created everything, but they dont know what that singularity is, or where it is. So, i say God created everything. Science cant prove that God didnt create everything, just as science cannot prove what this singularity is. YOu say singularity, i say God. Apples and oranges my friend.

 

[Paterfamilia]

What does that have to do with the message conveying information?

Let's say you and Nate the Neanderthal are walking along the beach. You happen upon a bottle with a large brown flake inside.

You immediately recognize the flake as a computer chip. Nate sees the flake as nothing more than a weird rock and throws the bottle into the ocean.

The fact that neither of you knew what information the chip contained (let's say all of the books ever written in history are stored on the chip) doesn't change the fact that the information is there.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If i use God the creator in this discussion it doesn't contradict anything which science already asserts. Science says that a singularity created everything, but they dont know what that singularity is, or where it is. So, i say God created everything. Science cant prove that God didnt create everything, just as science cannot prove what this singularity is. YOu say singularity, i say God. Apples and oranges my friend.

But since you don't fully understand God, while criticizing scientists for not fully understanding DNA, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

 

[Paterfamilia]

But since you don't fully understand God, while criticizing scientists for not fully understanding DNA, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

Ha ha ha ha ignorance and hypocrisy. Two fundamentals that unify us all ha ha!

 

[The Cadet]

The fact that neither of you knew what information the chip contained (let's say all of the books ever written in history are stored on the chip) doesn't change the fact that the information is there.

This is why I referred you to that thread. You're mistaking the object we interpret information onto with information as a separate entity. Informational platonism, as it were. And that's a fairly major error. The "information" on that chip is utterly meaningless without the method to interpret it. The flipside of it is that the "information" in this rock:

Is equally meaningless without the method to interpret it. But to a society with the tools to interpret the patterns stored on this rock, it contains an incredibly large amount of information. Information is not a thing unto itself. It's something we read into other things.

 

[Extraneous]

But since you don't fully understand God, while criticizing scientists for not fully understanding DNA, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

Not at all, because im not claiming that i can prove God exists. I accept Him on faith, just as the scriptures teach us.

 

[lasthero]

Let's say you and Nate the Neanderthal are walking along the beach. You happen upon a bottle with a large brown flake inside.

You immediately recognize the flake as a computer chip. Nate sees the flake as nothing more than a weird rock and throws the bottle into the ocean.

The fact that neither of you knew what information the chip contained (let's say all of the books ever written in history are stored on the chip) doesn't change the fact that the information is there.

If that's case, how can you tell what does and doesn't convey information?

You said your scrambled sentence didn't contain information because it was meaningless, but you can say that of anything you don't. Understand.

Like this

Do Rui edf I t

That looks like random information, but it's actually a code I just made up. I know what it means, so by your definition, it has information. But how would you determine if it has information or not?

 

[Paterfamilia]

What did I say that you conclude I don't understand the difference? I think I have been illustrating the difference all along.

I will clarify - the first string of characters I listed are complex, BUT CONVEY NO INFORMATION.

The second string has the exact same likelihood of occurance, but differs in that it's complexity is SPECIFIED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION.

Does that clear it up?

 

[lasthero]

The second string has the exact same likelihood of occurance, but differs in that it's complexity is SPECIFIED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION.

Only if you speak English and can read it. If I only read Japanese all my life, they'd both appear just as random and convey no information.

 

[Paterfamilia]

If that's case, how can you tell what does and doesn't convey information?

You said your scrambled sentence didn't contain information because it was meaningless, but you can say that of anything you don't. Understand.

Like this

Do Rui edf I t

That looks like random information, but it's actually a code I just made up. I know what it means, so by your definition, it has information. But how would you determine if it has information or not?

Because of the causal relationships it has.

Seriously, we can have a repetitive, tedious, totally boring discussion about the nature of information, but really it's just a red herring.

Wouldn't it be more fun to talk about the real issues?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Only if you speak English and can read it. If I only read Japanese all my life, they'd both appear just as random and convey no information.

That's a bit of an awkward dodge if you don't mind me pointing that out. My memory is short, but the text of our conversation IS right in front of me...so....

 

[lasthero]

Because of the causal relationships it has.

What causal relationship?

Seriously, we can have a repetitive, tedious, totally boring discussion about the nature of information, but really it's just a red herring.

Properly defining terms is important in a discussion.

 

[lasthero]

That's a bit of an awkward dodge if you don't mind me pointing that out. My memory is short, but the text of our conversation IS right in front of me...so....

I think it's a very salient point. You say information conveys meaning, but that's dependent on our ability to decipher it.

 

[Extraneous]

I don't know why we even debate this stuff. Some people believe the "theory" of mans origin, others will remain skeptical about the conclusiveness, even the validity of that theory. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Im going to un-watch the thread. Hope everyone has a good evening.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't know why we even debate this stuff. Some people believe the "theory" of mans origin, others will remain skeptical about the conclusiveness, even the validity of that theory. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Im going to un-watch the thread. Hope everyone has a good evening.

Thankfully, those who are "skeptical" about ToE, are not the ones who need to know.

 

[Paterfamilia]

What causal relationship?



Properly defining terms is important in a discussion.

Both good points.

Fire burns down houses. The information that your house is on fire causes you to take action.

The information in DNA causes specific proteins to be constructed in a way that fulfills the needs and purposes of the organism.

And therein lies the fundamental question. Where did that information come from?

Chance is disallowed simply because the odds are so against it. When you get to the point of saying the odds are less than 1 in N (N being the number of atoms in the galaxy), you look for a different solution.

Necessity is better odds if we could isolate that force or evidence of the force. However, we can also experimentally disallow necessity on every hypothesis tested so far. For example, there is no special chemical attraction that causes amino acids to attach in a specific order. One order will form as easily and readily as the next without instructions from DNA.

Unfortunately, 99.99999999999999999999 (keep going) per cent of the possible proteins are not useful proteins.

No gestalt.

 

[Extraneous]

Thankfully, those who are "skeptical" about ToE, are not the ones who need to know.

After listening to this debate, im convinced that if i were a biologist, that i would still be skeptical. I think perhaps ToE is an just example of mans arrogance. His education makes him arrogant enough to think he can see millions of years into the past without error. If science would just admit that their interpretation is fallible and based on some speculation, than i would have more respect for them. Their arrogance however turns me off. It really doesn't matter though. Everything is just as God allows it to be. God is in control.

 

[HitchSlap]

After listening to this debate, im convinced that if i were a biologist, that i would still be skeptical. I think perhaps ToE is an just example of mans arrogance. His education makes him arrogant enough to think he can see millions of years into the past without error. If science would just admit that their interpretation is fallible and based on some speculation, than i would have more respect for them. Their arrogance however turns me off. It really doesn't matter though. Everything is just as God allows it to be. God is in control.

Have you ever listened to an actual biologist? Arrogant is not a word I would use to describe.

 

[Gene2memE]

Plants must have been first i would assume. If not then animals would have nothing to eat. Yes, we evolved from bananas.

You can't use your knowledge about present conditions to make assumptions about states in the deep past. They might be faulty. Just like with the OP, I've answered this question here before, so here's one I prepared earlier:


The ancestors of the Plantae kingdom - what we recognise as plants - are present in the fossil record from 540 million years ago, at the earliest. And for that you need to consider proto-embryophytes as plants. Actual plants don't emerge until about 435-450 million years ago, maybe a little earlier (480 million years).

In comparison, the Ediacaran biota includes the cnidaria and annelid phylae. These were animals - they are both classified as members of the Animalia kingdom and their descendants are still in existence, in the form of things like jellyfish and worms. Annelid were present, in numbers, at least 610 million years ago, and maybe as much as 650 million years ago. Cnidaria fossils are preserved from 580 million years ago.

So, the fossil evidence is that the Animalia kingdom emerged at least 70 million years before the Plantae kingdom. Depending on where you draw definitional boundaries, this could be as many as 170 million years before.

 

[Extraneous]

Have you ever listened to an actual biologist? Arrogant is not a word I would use to describe.

I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.