the self replicating watch argument

[RealityCheck01]

Information has not been demonstrably shown anywhere to come from the bottom up, only top down(the mind).

Wrong. We know that there is information in places like DNA and that is just a chemical. But that is using rational, scientific definitions of information. ID definitions may differ!

Thomas Nagel is not an "atheist moving away from Darwinism because of its contrivances". He is a philosopher, not a scientist or biologist. He has moved away from materialistic reductionism in his philosophy. He does not endorse intelligent design. He did not like the scorn with which scientists treated ID proponents. Understandable for a non-scientist.

 

[MaudDib]

You can postulate agency all you want, but there is no evidence of agency. Moreover, the ID folks have given us no idea whatever how that agency might be imposed on the material world, so we don't even know what to look for.


That is blatantly false, and worthy of a thread in itself. It should start with your definition of "information."


What now?

You can’t just blithely assert its false, demonstrate it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do not confuse mythological gods with the biblical God. Adults don’t come to believe in Zeus when they get older, nor the tooth fairy, they come to believe in the biblical God.

So why not call it GD? That is what you are talking about: God did it. Not intelligence did it.

ID postulates agency, something observable that exists on our planet,

According to you it postulates God.

How have you observed that God exists?

 

[MaudDib]

Wrong. We know that there is information in places like DNA and that is just a chemical. But that is using rational, scientific definitions of information. ID definitions may differ!

Thomas Nagel is not an "atheist moving away from Darwinism because of its contrivances". He is a philosopher, not a scientist or biologist. He has moved away from materialistic reductionism in his philosophy. He does not endorse intelligent design. He did not like the scorn with which scientists treated ID proponents. Understandable for a non-scientist.

Here is another person who doesn’t understand that philosophy underpins science.
Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. Reasoning and logic come from philosophy.
THOMAS Nagel doesn’t endorse ID that’s right but he, like me and a lot of other scientists are looking for more satisfactory answers than Darwinism.

 

[Speedwell]

Here is another person who doesn’t understand that philosophy underpins science.
Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. Reasoning and logic come from philosophy.
THOMAS Nagel doesn’t endorse ID that’s right but he, like me and a lot of other scientists are looking for more satisfactory answers than Darwinism.

So are the "Darwinists," every day. That's what science is about.

 

[Speedwell]

You can’t just blithely assert its false, demonstrate it.

As I said, first you define "information."

 

[MaudDib]

So why not call it GD? That is what you are talking about: God did it. Not intelligence did it.



According to you it postulates God.

How have you observed that God exists?

You don’t get the God of the Bible being the agent for free, that will need to be demonstrated separately.
We might have been seeded here by an advanced race according to others.

I can make a strong cumulative case for God based on objective evidence. And here it is the naturalists position that is anti science.(just think about the Kalam cosmological argument)

We also see God working in the lives of others.
when adults come to believe in God and we see the transformation in their lives then that counts as observation too.

 

[MaudDib]

As I said, first you define "information."

Well you seem confident dismissing something you don’t understand the definition of.

 

[pitabread]

Well you seem confident dismissing something you don’t understand the definition of.

Creationists have a long history of playing a shell game with the term "information" when it comes to genetics.

If you want to make an argument about information in the genome you need to:

a) Define information specifically as it relates to the genome/DNA. This also means no analogies about books, computer code or anything else. The definition must relate to biology and be demonstrable as such.

b) Define a unit measure of said information content of the genome/DNA.

c) If you are going to make arguments about the creation of, destruction of, increase of and/or decrease of information, then you need to explicitly describe what constitutes each of those scenarios and how it relates to the definition (A) and unit measure (B).

In my experience when it comes to DNA, you either wind up with definitions of information that flat-out don't apply. Or you wind up with a definition of information that applies to DNA but whereby natural processes can already account for its existence.

 

[Speedwell]

Well you seem confident dismissing something you don’t understand the definition of.

I am confident because I know the definition and I know from experience of IDists that they are not above playing tricks with it.

 

[MaudDib]

Creationists have a long history of playing a shell game with the term "information" when it comes to genetics.

If you want to make an argument about information in the genome you need to:

a) Define information specifically as it relates to the genome/DNA. This also means no analogies about books, computer code or anything else. The definition must relate to biology and be demonstrable as such.

b) Define a unit measure of said information content of the genome/DNA.

c) If you are going to make arguments about the creation of, destruction of, increase of and/or decrease of information, then you need to explicitly describe what constitutes each of those scenarios and how it relates to the definition (A) and unit measure (B).

In my experience when it comes to DNA, you either wind up with definitions of information that flat-out don't apply. Or you wind up with a definition of information that applies to DNA but whereby natural processes can already account for its existence.

Your argument falls flat at a.)

Define information ito DNA and chemistry.

You look at a menu. It says roast chicken.

Now you, pita bread, explain to us the semiotics ito the ink on the paper.

Explain from the bottom up:
How do you get roast chicken from the ink and the paper?

Yes, you are begging the question.

 

[MaudDib]

I am confident because I know the definition and I know from experience of IDists that they are not above playing tricks with it.

Check my response to pita bread, that will give you a good idea around information.

 

[Speedwell]

Your argument falls flat at a.)

Define information ito DNA and chemistry.

You look at a menu. It says roast chicken.

Now you, pita bread, explain to us the semiotics ito the ink on the paper.

Explain from the bottom up:
How do you get roast chicken from the ink and the paper?

Yes, you are begging the question.

That's supposed to be a definition of "information?" Information, as it applies to molecular genetics, is a mathematical concept with a mathematical definition.

 

[pitabread]

Your argument falls flat at a.)

Define information ito DNA and chemistry.

You look at a menu. It says roast chicken.

Now you, pita bread, explain to us the semiotics ito the ink on the paper.

Explain from the bottom up:
How do you get roast chicken from the ink and the paper?

Yes, you are begging the question.

Considering how nonsensical a response this was, I'll give you a chance for a do-over:

Do you have a valid definition of information as it specifically applies to DNA/genetics or not?

(If you trot out more goofy analogies, I'll take that as a "no".)

 

[RealityCheck01]

Here is another person who doesn’t understand that philosophy underpins science.

12 June 2018 MaudDib: A bit of "philosophy underpins science" ignorance.
This is philosophy. This is science. Science is a separate field from philosophy. There is a historical connection. There is a subfield of philosophy that looks at the philosophical aspects of science.

12 June 2018 MaudDib: A fantasy that Thomas Nagel is "looking for more satisfactory answers than Darwinism" is support of ID or even creationism.
He has an argument from "common sense" against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness. His proposed replacement is an atheist teleological view.

 

[VirOptimus]

ID postulates agency, something observable that exists on our planet, something that you refuse to postulate which detracts from your doing objective science.

Invoking god(s) is inherently unscientific.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Invoking god(s) is inherently unscientific.

What is more unscientific is concealing the invocation of god(s).
The proponents of ID are mostly creationists and ID a "wolf in sheep's clothing'. This is a reason why the Wikipedia article starts "Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"". Not this is well hidden. Everyone knows about the Of Pandas and People "cdesign proponentsists" debacle, that there was an propaganda strategy (wedge strategy), there is evidence that ID "research" institute had (has?) an underlying religious agenda Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District result, the dishonest Expelled film.

 

[doubtingmerle]

when adults come to believe in God and we see the transformation in their lives then that counts as observation too.

And when adults lose their faith in God and we see the positive transformation in their lives then that counts as observation too, yes?

 

[bcbsr]

If you are going to argue against science you need to first learn about the science: evolution.

Abiogenesis is the science about the fact life used to not exist on Earth and came into existence. The scientific explanation is chemical processes. We start with the observation that the chemical building blocks of life are common and created just by chemistry. We have detected an amino acid in space. Then things get complex. What kind of environment? Was it DNA or RNA first.

Some problems with claiming the God designed life and continues to do so.
There is an implication that God at least misleads us by designing life as if it evolved over billions of years.
There is possible "straitjacketing" of God by seeming to not allow God to have powers that he should have, e.g. where are the non-DNA based animals on Earth?
It contradicts the Bible because there is no mention of animals created after the first few days. But we have examples of new species that God must have created.
In theory this allows us to somewhat control God's actions. Look at the Long term E coli evolution experiment. We can rerun evolution from a previous generation in the experiment before the new species evolved. God will have to decide whether to create a new species or not.

This can all be avoided by a God who intervenes in human affairs but has decided to let the universe mostly run itself (miracles excluded). Or we can make up excuses. God works in mysterious ways, it is a test, etc.

There is no evidence that life is not a product of divine intervention. Evidence that it is is by way of inference.

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities— his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Rom 1:20

 

[doubtingmerle]

None of the above should be a show stopper when it comes to postulating agency at all though?

I didn't claim a showstopper for god postulates.

But I do claim that we have a good understanding of the world without postulating gods. When it comes to nature, postulates of gods doing it only drive the study of nature backwards.

Postulate away, if you wish.