the self replicating watch argument

[MaudDib]

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".)

Of course I do, I can't fathom why you would be asking? For your gain?

Suppose you are a molecular biologist, and know something about what the string of letters (CGAT) means in the sense that you can divide them up into genes and say what proteins are coded for, etc. That is the string has a semantic dimension.
DNA exhibits precisely the same kind of specified complexity as language since the order of the letters in a gene specifies the order of the sequence of amino acids in the protein.

Now take the above, and what I said before, and all of a sudden your bewilderment disappears.

 

[MaudDib]

Invoking god(s) is inherently unscientific.

We are not invoking God just yet, that occurs after the first step of postulating agency. Don't equate agency with God just yet, we could be here as a result of Panspermia.

 

[Speedwell]

DNA exhibits precisely the same kind of specified complexity as language since the order of the letters in a gene specifies the order of the sequence of amino acids in the protein.

But not the encoded meaning of a language. So again, you are put in the position of having to show that what you call "specified complexity" cannot arise naturally.

And still no definition of "information."

 

[MaudDib]

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.

Ahhh, yes it is possible for a theist to be intellectually lazy and say in effect 'i can't explain it therefore God did it.' Of course we must be careful of that.

But whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is also very easy to say 'evolution did it' when one has not the faintest idea idea how, or has simply cobbled up a speculative just-so story with no evidential basis.

Materialists have to say evolution did it because they don't have an admissible alternative. As a result it is just as easy to end up with an 'evolution of the gaps' as with a 'God of the gaps'.

 

[MaudDib]

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

Absolutely!

Although I imagine you'll be far outnumbered, as you are right now.

In fact, a great success story in the writing is China, it is estimated that there will be around 250 million+ Christinas there by 2030! talk about a conversion in an anti theist area!

 

[Speedwell]

Ahhh, yes it is possible for a theist to be intellectually lazy and say in effect 'i can't explain it therefore God did it.' Of course we must be careful of that.

But whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is also very easy to say 'evolution did it' when one has not the faintest idea idea how, or has simply cobbled up a speculative just-so story with no evidential basis.

Materialists have to say evolution did it because they don't have an admissible alternative. As a result it is just as easy to end up with an 'evolution of the gaps' as with a 'God of the gaps'.

It looks like you've staked everything on one throw. You better hope you are right. You seem to have dedicated your faith to one particular hypothesis as to how God's agency is manifest in the material universe (and a lame one at that). You seem also to be suffering under the delusion that the mechanism of evolution as described in the theory poses a barrier to divine agency.
What you need is not more science, but better theology.

 

[MaudDib]

But not the encoded meaning of a language. So again, you are put in the position of having to show that what you call "specified complexity" cannot arise naturally.

And still no definition of "information."

Not at all, it is the evolutionist that carries the burden of proof here, since they are claiming that it can (the affirmative position).

And none has done so.

 

[MaudDib]

It looks like you've staked everything on one throw. You better hope you are right. You seem to have dedicated your faith to one particular hypothesis as to how God's agency is manifest in the material universe (and a lame one at that). You seem also to be suffering under the delusion that the mechanism of evolution as described in the theory poses a barrier to divine agency.
What you need is not more science, but better theology.

What are you going on about? Your responses are wildly assuming and seem to be all over the place.
I haven't staked my faith on one particular hypothesis, what nonsense. Your second point couldn't be further from the truth either.
You jump to massive conclusions and I'm getting tired of it.
If you didn't know, i do believe in the thesis of descent with modification. Its the mechanism I'm worried about, random mutation and natural selection. I don't think it can bear the full weight of the level of biological complexity we see around us. And obviously the origin of biological information is synonymous with the origin of life itself. God stopped creating on the 7th day and what do you suppose has been happening since? Evolution of course.
My theology is sound and intact.
Im afraid your intuition isn't though. Please try not to respond too hastily, and ask questions rather than assume to squeeze me into one of your stereotypes. I don't see any edifying in you, only false accusation.

 

[Speedwell]

Not at all, it is the evolutionist that carries the burden of proof here, since they are claiming that it can (the affirmative position).

And none has done so.

What "affirmative position?" The theory of evolution is currently the only credible explanation for the diversity of life as we find it. It's outsiders like you who carry the burden of proof--and you can't even define your terms.

 

[MaudDib]

What "affirmative position?" The theory of evolution is currently the only credible explanation for the diversity of life as we find it. It's outsiders like you who carry the burden of proof--and you can't even define your terms.

I disagree, i think ID is a better inference as the best explanation. And of course I can show that information comes from agency. No one is that daft that they would disagree.

If you are going to claim that information can come from something else, please provide evidence.

You haven't done so, anywhere. At all. I looked at all your posts.

My advice to a brother in the faith, is to read up on John Lennox. He is very good at elucidating some of these items.

 

[Speedwell]

What are you going on about? Your responses are wildly assuming and seem to be all over the place.
I haven't staked my faith on one particular hypothesis, what nonsense.

Yet you are pretty snarky to other theists who disagree with you about ID.

Your second point couldn't be further from the truth either,

yet you seem reiterate it below:

You jump to massive conclusions and I'm getting tired of it.
If you didn't know, i do believe in the thesis of descent with modification. Its the mechanism I'm worried about, random mutation and natural selection. I don't think it can bear the full weight of the level of biological complexity we see around us.

So your position is that evolution does not pose a barrier to divine agency, but that it is an inadequate vehicle for it. Is that right?

And obviously the origin of biological information is synonymous with the origin of life itself.

Of course it is.

God stopped creating on the 7th day and what do you suppose has been happening since? Evolution of course.

Yet you propose that He has continued to tinker with it since then.

My theology is sound and intact.
Im afraid your intuition isn't though. Please try not to respond too hastily, and ask questions rather than assume to squeeze me into one of your stereotypes. I don't see any edifying in you, only false accusation.

I do ask questions which you never answer--you just rant about my having posed them.

 

[Petros2015]

3220+ replies.

Seems to me we have a strong self-replicating thread argument.

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree, i think ID is a better inference as the best explanation. And of course I can show that information comes from agency. No one is that daft that they would disagree.

If you are going to claim that information can come from something else, please provide evidence.

It depends on what you mean by "information." So far you haven't defined it but you seem to have confused it with "message."

My advice to a brother in the faith, is to read up on John Lennox. He is very good at elucidating some of these items.

Interesting fellow. He may be right, although I think the line he has taken up appeals more to those with a "Protestant" turn of mind.

 

[VirOptimus]

We are not invoking God just yet, that occurs after the first step of postulating agency. Don't equate agency with God just yet, we could be here as a result of Panspermia.

Why the lying? You believe this agent to be god, so just say it.

 

[MaudDib]

So your position is that evolution does not pose a barrier to divine agency, but that it is an inadequate vehicle for it. Is that right?

What? It’s like you haven’t read my responses at all?

Evolution doesn’t pose a barrier to divine agency no, I’m saying evolution needed a push start: Creation. And it appears to extend to biological information too.

 

[MaudDib]

Why the lying? You believe this agent to be god, so just say it.

Of course I am, but you don’t get to the biblical God just by postulating agency. Slow down.

 

[Speedwell]

What? It’s like you haven’t read my responses at all?

Evolution doesn’t pose a barrier to divine agency no, I’m saying evolution needed a push start: Creation. And it appears to extend to biological information too.

But that's Theistic Evolution, not ID.

Of course I am, but you don’t get to the biblical God just by postulating agency. Slow down.

Still, it would be interesting to see how you do it. Most IDists seem to think that once they demonstrate the existence of a "designer" we all should start voting Republican right away.

 

[VirOptimus]

Of course I am, but you don’t get to the biblical God just by postulating agency. Slow down.

No, you are simply preaching, no science.

Want to challange the ToE? Write an article for peer-review, thats the only thing that counts.

 

[MaudDib]

But that's Theistic Evolution, not ID.

Still, it would be interesting to see how you do it. Most IDists seem to think that once they demonstrate the existence of a "designer" we all should start voting Republican right away.

ID is midway between nature and God: agency.

Of course, once you have demonstrated agency, then you pull out further evidence to prove that its the God of the bible. Eye witness testimony, the resurrection of Jesus, all falsifiable and testable.
But, it at least gives other ideas a chance without leading to the supernatural all in one go. Like Panspermia.

 

[MaudDib]

No, you are simply preaching, no science.

Want to challange the ToE? Write an article for peer-review, thats the only thing that counts.

But the challenge has already been laid down: ID theory. You can't entertain it by virtue of your world view.
Although, as you will realise, your worldview does not allow you any admissible alternatives, so you are rather confined to nature only.

Kind of like begging the question in favour of atheism.

This is bad for science because science is supposed to be objective.

And since agency is also an explicator ito explanation (and not just scientific mechanism), those who are not restricted embrace it. You wouldn't say agency doesn't exist, thats like saying we don't exist!

ID is a better inference as far as explanatory power, explanatory scope, contrivance and adaptability goes.