No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?

quote:

---

Everything had a begining.

---

That is an unproven assertian.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hello, bkelly.I'm afraid that your response neither supports the claim that everything had a beginning, nor does it acknowledge that it is possible that some things might not have had a beginning. So the claim, "Everything had a beginning" is still sort of just hanging there.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Interesting. Myself, I have trouble comprehending the concept that the universe (with time and space and all that is in it) had a "beginning" a finite time ago. I find an eternal universe much more comprehensible. And if the universe has existed forever (an idea, I admit, that seems to be contradicted by modern cosmology), it is easy (for me, at any rate) to conceive that life may have existed forever. Interesting how different people think differently, no?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

how could you imgine a lot, lot, lot, lot more complex structures like the cell just be brought into existence without any external power?

---

My body started out as a single cell. So that is billions of cells that were brought into existence without any "external power".-

quote:

---

Man attempted to create life for more than 200 years.

---

No one has yet attempted to create life. Victor Frankenstein was a fictional character.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

The analogy is bad because cells are not puzzles that are put together from pre-existing pieces out of a box.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Except that proteins are not puzzles put together by people using pre-cut pieces out of a box. So your analogy is not apt.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Assembling a puzzle has nothing to do with a-biogenesis.

---

That is what I was pointing out. I am happy that you agree with me on this. Nonetheless, it is curious since the puzzle was your analogy. But as along as we agree that the analogy is not apt, we can move on.-

quote:

---

What is information?

---

A good question indeed, and one that the IDists have not yet been able to answer.-

quote:

---

It is similar to the Code in DNA.

---

In what way?-

quote:

---

No, DNA is the physical entity which has the information in the form of the sequence of the bases.

---

Perhaps this will make sense when you have told us what information is. As it stands, it is a meaningless sentence.-

quote:

---

So, for information, intelligence is necessary.

---

Perhaps this will be clear when you have told us what information is. As it stands, this is simply an unsupported statement.-

quote:

---

Assembly of DNA also requires intelligence.

---

Actually, DNA is constantly being assembled in my very cells. No intelligence necessary.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Thank you. How about answering the question? What is information, and how does it have the characteristics that you claimed for it?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

You are not answering the question.What is information? Give a precise, scientifically useful definition. I do not want an analogy. I want to know precisely what is information, and I want to know how to determine whether a cell contains information.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

I am not a molecular biologist.

---

That's odd. I could swear that I remember you claiming to be a molecular biologist or a biochemist or something when you first showed up.-

quote:

---

This genetic material had the information.

---

So you claim. Yet it only remains a claim because you cannot give us a precise scientific definition of "information". Since a precise scientific definition of "information" has not been provided, saying that genetic information has information is meaningless. When you try to use "information" in a discussion, you prove nothing.Let us try again: What is information? How does one measure the amount of information in a system? How does one detect the presence of information?

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

When insects carry pollen, they actually carry genetic information.

---

So you claim. However, you have never demonstrated that your claim should be taken seriously. In fact, the longer it takes you to finally get around to providing a definition of information, the more we become convinced that this claim shouldn't be taken seriously.-

quote:

---

So for information transfer, a physical carrier for storage and for the control of processes and a defined coding system for representing ideas in the form of symbols that can be copied.

---

Irrelevent to the question. My request is pretty simple: provide a scientifically precise definition of "information", a definition that we can use to determine whether or not a cell contains information, as you have claimed.-

quote:

---

Several hierarchical levels characterise all information which is (syntax, code, grammar, semantics and pragmatics.

---

Uh-oh. Now you are introducing even more words that need definitions. So far, you are only muddying up the waters. The addition of even more vaguely (and semantically loaded) terms appears to be an attempt at obfuscation.-

quote:

---

Every piece of information implies the existence of a sender and a receiver

---

Another claim that you need to support.-

quote:

---

Information only originates voluntarily(intention,intuition, disposition). Every piece of information has a mental(intelluctual and spiritual) source

---

Yes, this is yet another claim that continues to be made. Once you have provided a workable definition of information, you can try to show us that it requires an intellectual source.-

quote:

---

Mutation and selection cannot produce new information.

---

That may be true. But since you have yet to tell us what "information" is, the truth of that statement is in doubt.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

I do not understand how everyone who has objected to my posts....

---

I don't understand how you cannot understand our objections. Our objection is that you have not provided a definition of information that is suitable for determining whether a cell, in fact, contains information. Until you do so, your posts are just empty verbage.-

quote:

---

do not understand the meaning of the simple word "Information" when we live in an era of information in a high tech society.

---

Look up the fallacy of euqivocation. I doubt that word "information" used purely colloquially when I say, "Our department head has supplied me with the information that our secretary is ill today" is at all relevant to disussing what is or is not in a cell.Maybe it is, but you will have to tell us what "information" is.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

First, we do not know that P2 is true. In fact, that is exactly what we are trying to show. Since we cannot be certain all of your premises are true, then the argument is invalid.Second, eyes and brains may be exceptions to the rule, consistent with P3.Third, the demiurge of the Bible may not be the exception granted by P3; he may have been created by a higher deity, which then might be the exception to the rule.Each of these invalidates your argument.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

You are right, of course.pilate's argument is unsound because P2 is not known to be true (and, in fact, we have good reason to believe it is false).pilate's argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises, even assuming the premises are true since I gave two alternatives that are consistent with the stated premises.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

quote:

---

My comment. Reasonable men would agree that the simple concrete blocks that make my house were made. And, therefore they wouldn't believe that my house just evolved or existed by itself.

---

But we are not discussing houses made of concrete blocks. We are discussing organisms, and some reasonable people do believe that these did not have a designer.Even if we know that houses have designers, this tells us nothing about living organisms.-Second, you have a premise, P3, that says for every rule there is an exception. Therefore, according to your own premise, if we have the rule that houses made with concrete blocks are designed, then, according to your own premise, there should be a house that is made of concrete blocks that is not designed.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus