A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

I think you've misunderstood. You want the syntax to say, "I am code?". For example, if what you are saying is true, then the structure you get from DNA, for an arm would not beAn arm.It would be;Na rma.The syntax is what is used in CATG. In binary code it would be 10101010101010101010101010010101011 or whatever.The syntax is the CATG, (four elements) it has pragmatics, because otherwise you could scramble any combination and get the same thing.I admit this post is very, very outlined, probably with mistakes because I am literally typing as I think - I am not getting into a massive defense of DNA as information, but I believe that if DNA shows the same purpose, if it has pragmatics and apobetics, and code like writing and if it gets the job done, then it has the same type of information as writing.You can say it is information and does not require a designer, I would say it is unrealistic to say it is not information, when it fulfills the criteria, but that is my opinion, I am going no further in this topic.

"Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction -- notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, random number generation, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is a type of information known alternately as specified complexity or complex specified information. . .Only intelligent causation gives rise to specified complexity."--Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences, William A. DembskiCSI is not limited to biology, and Dembski himself ascribes it to archaeology which includes jars, statues, etc.

You see, I am a Creationist, and while I think the argument from information is compelling, the miraculous nature of all things with DNA impresses me enough, within the category of, "Faith and Belief". It's not argument there, it's a matter of faith, and personal proof. On a personal level, I have got to the stage were all Creationist or design arguments could be conquered and I would still be utterly convinced of God's existence, for personal reasons.I defend creationists because I know and have heard them speak, I regularly study their work. Of course I am going to defend what we are saying, and oppose a strawman of what we are not saying, but you are basically handcuffing me and putting me in a corner, and shouting, "NOW ANSWER FOR CREO' CLAIMS of information".You said some things a while back that led me to think that your thinking wasn't as clear as I thought it was.The fairy tree, or whatever it was called, you excelled in regards to objectivity, but I noticed you became a lot more hard-nosed, going towards "new atheism". I respect the old atheism because it doesn't involve anywhere near as much epithets or animosity.

Ok - have at me. I don't have the ability to keep up with the responses, and it is not fair for me to take over this thread simply to defend everything I say. I know you are all passionate materialists and evolutionists, I know you don't accept information. I am not dogmatic, but nobody has shown me any strictly logical reasons to give up the belief in information showing a designer. There are some salad-logics that are worthy, but they are mostly tenuous compared to the reasoning the Creation Scientists have shown, in my clear judgement.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

You opened yourself up for that when you asked for a quote from an IDer who sees information in sculptures. Be careful what you ask for.If you don't think that these logical fallacies apply to your specific arguments then make that argument. I thought you did a fine job of that in previous posts. Let's not get bogged down by who is right or wrong. Let's just try to figure out which arguments are constructed properly. As an olive branch, the following argument is constructed properly:1. All complex specified information is the product of intelligent causation.2. Life has CSI.3. Therefore, life is designed.The fly in the ointment is the accuracy of the first premise, but the form of the argument is correct.

Thanks for this post, Taq. Good form, I tip my baba-wiz hat to you. Yes, you have to logically back up the first premise, because of a potential non sequitur.The non sequitur would be that of assuming the first premise is correct without knowing 100% of the induction. An example to the contrary would falsify the premise, OR, the premise could be altered ad hoc. The counter-example also would have to be scrutineered, to see if it was pedantically vacuous.I don't think anyone would claim that this argument from information is an absolutely sound, perfect syllogism, that's not really how it works, one can only really make a reasonable case for it based on the evidence. I think that is what the majority of Creationists do, they make a compelling case. It can't be proved.Working out the rest of the logic would take an intricate knowledge of all of the variables involved;- Finding out whether there are examples of information, as defined, that are potentially existent without a designer.
- Comparing real-life examples.I did not make the argument from information but if it was me I would make it more specific, with a full explanation of the definition.From the evidence I have looked at, personally I believe the argument has merit. Looking into what makes something a design is also important.For example, what makes a wall and a pile of bricks different? Writing on a page can be scrawl or a code, the amount of matter on the page does not change, the information is somewhere between the lines.I admit I do not know of examples of complex information, such as binary code or writing, having NOT the need for a designer. Thus far the objections seem to be based on simplistic examples, that are not equal.I would be convinced DNA did not need a designer if it could be show that you could get a sophisticated system that needs no designer.We can't use animals as they are the subject in question. But we can reasonably speculate upon the likely hood of finding a sophisticated example of information without the need for a designer.I am not saying an example does not exist, I believe reality, at this time, favours a designer. (An argument from Incredulity is when somebody can not accept that a certain proposal is true because they disbelieve it.)I appreciate your reasonable post. (think that's all I have to say.) Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Does it not strike anyone else as odd that it is the religionists who have a problem identifying, and have been defending the use of, logical fallacies? Or am I generalizing too much?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I for one don't recall defending a fallacy? I would defend a fallacy though, as examples have been given of a fallacious argument with a true conclusion.An appeal to authority, for examples, as Paul K said, is to state that the earth is 6,000 years old because the bible says so, but if the bible is true, then I don't care that it's a fallacy. If you knew that God existed, would you stop to tell him he is fallacious if you were to heed His authority?For example, Ad Logicam is the fallacy of saying that somebody's argument or conclusion is false, because it shares the conclusion of another, popular argument that they deem false.For example, if I concluded there was a designer because of the marvelous complexity in organisms, I would be told that irreducible complexity by Michael Behe, has been refuted, therefore I am wrong. However, an argument can have false premises and a true conclusion. Even if my argument was false, my conclusion could still be accidentally correct.So it is not entirely illogical to favour a fallacy. I love logic, but truth matters more to me, because if something is true, it is completely irrelevant to me that it is illogical.If you analyze the bible with Greek classic thinking for example, according to logic, then logically you are bound to not come to the correct conclusion, because the Hebrews thought very differently from the Greeks, and their language is correspondingly different. They will write with the style of saying something, then apparently contradicting it in the next sentence. Naturally, they were not stupid people, so critical thinking becomes silly and useless.Generally though, I would not defend a fallacy unless I knew that the non sequitur was removed from it. I.e. I knew it was true despite being unsound.

But it is. On the other side of my body. No, it's not. What is used is the fact that an aminoacyl- tRNA has a binding anticodon that is three bases long. It doesn't say "AUG" on the end of it; it has the bases adenine, uracil, and guanine and those form hydrogen bonds with the bases cytosine, adenine, and uracil at the A site of the ribosome.When we represent that process using letters like A, U, or G, when we describe that stochastic chemical process as a "code", that's when DNA has "syntax." Not at all. There are many things that are not "codes" that nonetheless require specific relationships in space, exclude some configurations, and produce something different when you scramble them. Freeze ice in one way and it forms the traditional hexagonal crystal. Freeze the exact same water somewhere else, under slightly different conditions, and now ice forms in the extremely rare cubic crystal. Freeze it under different circumstances and it adopts a third completely different form. But ice doesn't contain "syntax", codes, or pragmatic meaning about ice crystals - it simply follows physical laws. Chemical laws.DNA doesn't have codes or syntax, but the ways that we describe it do. Our representations of DNA have code and syntax because they're for human use. DNA is simply a chemical that follows chemical laws. I'm not saying that DNA doesn't contain information. I'm saying that DNA doesn't contain information as you have chosen to define it. DNA doesn't contain codes, syntax, or meaning. Our representations of DNA are full of meaning.

All of my comments are directed towards potential potholes in your argument. Think of this as one poster trying to find potential problems in order to improve your argument. Inspiration is an important first step in figuring anything out. However, you need to go further when making an argument. It is not enough to believe. You have to DEMONSTRATE. I am not saying that you ignore the demonstration part. Instead, I am just highlighting what a strong argument should look like. This would border on the fallacy "Argument from Analogy". In a discussion of DNA or life you could use binary code or writing to help illustrate your points (i.e. an analogy). However, you can not use binary code or writing as evidence since they are not DNA nor life. What applies to the analogy may not apply to the topic that is being argued. This would be a mixture of special pleading and shifting the burden of proof. If you never show how DNA arose through a designer then you lack the same type of evidence that you require from other explanations. This would be special pleading. Next, it is up to you to supply evidence that DNA was produced by a designer. It is not up to others to show that it did not arise through a designer. Anytime that your argument relies on the phrase "I believe" just stop, erase what you have written, and try again. When your argument strays to what you believe or don't believe the only thing you are arguing about is your level of gullibility. "This demonstrates" or "This predicts" are much better ways to push an argument forward.

It seems to me that you are defining information as a two-way street: if a mind can apprehend information from a specific source, that source must have been packed with information from another mind.But information doesn't require prior construction; DNA is only information to the apprehending mind, and then only because that mind has the necessary knowledge of DNA's structure and reactions.To a well-trained forensic specialist, a murder scene is packed with information. That doesn't mean the crime scene information was designed by another mind (credit to Rahvin). A good tracker can tell you when the bear passed this way--that doesn't mean the bear's mind designed that information.One might object that the bear does have a mind, and the exercise of that mind through the bear's movements created/designed the information: but when you reduce the tracking to bacterium and microscope, the fallacy becomes clearer.The apprehension of information requires mind. The creation of it does not.

How many fallacies do you want to pack into one sentence, mikey? You lot haven't even sorted argument from authority, yet you want to throw in circular reasoning to boot? And therefor unreliable. That is the problem with logical fallacies: they are not good tactics to use in a debate since they fall apart. Ah, good old religious "trvth". Useless in the real world.Now, I'm going to point something out to you; let's see if you catch it. Ready? Now can you see why debating religionists is sometimes a fruitless effort? You don't give a shit how unreasonable or illogical you are as long as what you tell yourself makes you feel good.

A core from a tree has lots of information, how old it is, what each season was like, when there was a particularly dry or wet, hot or cold year...An ice core has lots of information, how old it is, what each season was like, when there was a particularly dry or wet, hot or cold year, when there were volcanic activities, what the air was like at a given period, ...An air bubble in amber has lots of information ...

Hi Mike,Nice to see you around again.I'm doing okay, thanks.

Hi Taq, What would be the definition of information you are using in this example?God Bless,