Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="notto" data-source="post: 1088285" data-attributes="member: 2918"><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> You assume that there is "information" involved, but you have not shown it. </p><p> </p><p> If we cannot measure "information" content, then how can we tell when information is involved (DNA) or when it supposedly is not (Water molecule)?</p><p> </p><p> You are stating that information is involved by definition, but then using that in your conclusion. You can't do that.</p><p> </p><p> This process involves information (stated but not proven)</p><p> Information comes from intelligence (stated and based on previous premise)</p><p> </p><p> Fallacy: Assiming a premise in the statement of the conclusion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="notto, post: 1088285, member: 2918"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
Top
Bottom