How is it that we view IC and ID?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:
Extremely impressive vocabulary Mr. McFall. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how it is supposed to read and what you are replying in regards to. I am guessing by what can be understood that you are either designing a model that can produce new information purely by natural processes in general or only in DNA. Please clarify, and I say this humbly because I am only a junior in highschool, but clarify with a little more in layman's terms if you could. Also, from what I have read of Stephen J. Gould I have not seen how "his efficacy would be circumscribable in the scope of Gitt." Finally, is "Gish" supposed to be Gitt (sorry, but some other words were spelled wrong and I can't be sure.) It sounds like if were comprehensible, it might be interesting and I would like to understand.

​

-Gerhard

---

Umm, if you can't understand Brad, then it is a very good sign. He has a bit of a problem stringing together meaningful sentences! As to your question, I think one of the problems is that you define information as something that has the prerequisite of an intelligent source. Indeed, if this definition is true, then you've a point. My argument is simply that the 'information' contained in DNA is not necessarily the handiwork of a designer (or at best a clumsy one). For example, why should so much of DNA consist of 'junk'? If anything, this junk DNA prevents a smooth flow of information. Secondly, DNA is subject to the laws of chemical bonding. The question is whether or not there is an opportunity for these types of chemicals to produce a self-replicating sequence without intelligent intervention. Can you show why intelligence is an absolute requirement?CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B]Joe: can you show an example where information does not come from an intelligent source? Why should I be refuting or backing a definition of information that seems to be accepted in its field? I think that is the job of the men who spent years of research on the evidence that led them to the definition. [/QUOTE]JM: Actually, in the case of ID, it was due to years of trouble getting creationism into the classroom that led to the definition!

quote:

---

Perhaps you did not read the theorems, also. Self-replicating sequences do not constitute information.

---

JM: I did not make this claim. I asked whether or not self-replicating molecules could form without intelligent intervention. You claim they can. I agree.

quote:

---

I cannot personally show why information cannot originate independently of a mental source because I do not have a full grasp of the mathematics behind information sciences.

---

JM: that's the rub isn't it? You cannot show this, yet you believe in it for religious reasons! Now, before you go off to far I do not feel it is wrong to refer to DNA coding as 'information'. I simply do not ascribe that to an intelligent source. The only way for you to do so is to simply make a bald assertion.

quote:

---

But then, I don't have a full grasp behind the mathematics of general relativity and if I were to argue that Newtonian physics is not applicable to all circumstances in nature I would still be correct. So I don't have to know every technicality behind the general principle.

---

JM: However, if you want to come up with a quantum theory of gravity, then you must go beyond the basic principles. The mere assertion that 'information', as applied to biological systems, requires an intelligent designer is simply a leap of faith. It is not required.

quote:

---

Again, I am open to any example that actually goes against the definition I put forth. Like I also said in one of my posts- any other proposition we make about that deity (i.e. he is clumsy) goes beyond what I am discussing.

---

JM: Actually, it is not beyond the scope of the discussion. You have done NOTHING more than to assert that biological information requires an intelligent source. How could we falsify this assertion? What evidence would lead you to conclude that 'information theory' as applied to biological systems would not require an intelligent designer?CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B]Joe: Let's go back to the eight theorems I put up on one of these posts. First off, the "bold assertion" that these were drummed up to put ID in the classroom does not hold. [/QUOTE]JM: Well, considering that your source was Answers in Genesis who make no bones about their political goals, I don't see how strong a counter position you can take!

quote:

---

I am not arguing evolution is untrue on the paltry excuse that all the definitions were made up to get a worldview across.

---

JM: Consider the source.

quote:

---

That really sounds like a way to try and circumvent something you cannot argue.

---

JM: You'd have more of a point were you not borrowing details from a purely biased website!

quote:

---

Do we agree on these theorems?

---

JM: Not as applied to biological systems, no we don't.

quote:

---

If not, then perhaps, and this is what I've been asking all along, you could point out a case where the definition is untrue.

---

JM: I ask you to show me why this ID must be true for biological systems. After all, this is what AIG is trying to argue. So, tell me, why MUST they all hold for biological systems?

quote:

---

That is, point out a case where we cannot trace information back to its mental source. If you are saying we cannot trace the information in DNA back to a mental source than I would ask you where it came from that it could be so original.

---

JM: ROTFL! No, you are making the bald (and bold) assertion that their is some higher intelligence behind biological systems. Show me the evidence. Here's the rub, you present a series of 8 'theorems' and argue that they apply to biological systems, but other than the theorems you've demonstrated nothing! Until you can show that an intelligence (or mental source as you call it) is behind biological systems you are simpling assuming the fact that you seek to prove!

quote:

---

DNA is not information and I don't think the question is whether self replicating molecules could form without an intelligent source. This is obviously possible. The question is, how is DNA's code not information in the sense provided by the definition?

---

JM: NO!

quote:

---

Does it have a code? Yes. Does the code have a convention? Yes. Does it fufill the five heirarchical levels. Well, it explains in code specific protiens in specific orders that must be produced. The code has meaning and the intention to communicate some kind of instruction to the ribosomes in order for their to be protien production. That covers statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Well the others we must assume- but the assumption does not seem to wild- that it originated from a mental source.

---

JM: As I said, you assume the very thing you are trying to prove. Thanks for agreeing! In essence you are using the long tried, but totally unsuccessful tactic of 'argument by personal incredulity. In short, you cannot believe that the coding could have arisen without an intelligent designer. You therefore further argue that because you can't believe otherwise, you have proven your point. Again, I say, show me that intelligent design is the ONLY way for these systems to form. You've already admitted that your conclusion is also your assumption.CheersJoe Meert

At the risk of sounding whimsical, I don't see any need to delve into the argument any further. The fact is that you have made a scientifically unsupportable conclusion regarding biological systems and their need for an intelligent designer by assuming the very thing you aim to 'prove'. Until you can argue in less than a circle, no good case has been made.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B]That's up to you. This is a case of me not presenting the argument clearly enough so I guess in your opinion the issue is solved. If only I could better explain to you I am not talking about biological systems but rather informational ones-- well whatever. The choice was up to you to read the actual evidence-- it really did not need a reply.Thanks for keeping me updated on your decisions though [/QUOTE]JM: Then why did you bring it to this board? This board is about creation and evolution. I guess I don't see your point if it was not in regard to information with regard to biological systems. It sure seemed that was your aim. If not, I apologize but then it does not really apply to this board.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B] Your professor is exactly right. Information scientists have been saying this all along! DNA is the medium for a code, just as ink letters are a medium for the code of the English alphabet. They are simply used to store and transmit the shapes that apply to sounds which we understand to mean something because of a convention made up by a mental source! [/QUOTE]JM: Again I ask you, what relevance is this to creation evolution unless you are going to assert (sans evidence) that the code carried by DNA arises from an intelligent source. The smoke and mirrors game only plays so far. So tell us why are we discussing codes and information on this website?CheersJoe Meert

I agree with Miller completely, I wrote the following sometime ago: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/id.htmI refer to Behe's God as a "Tim the tool-man Taylor" sort.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:
Joe, I still don't think you understand a very simple concept. So I will put it very clearly: INFORMATIONIONAL CODES ARE INDEPENDENT OF MATTER AND ENERGY!!!!!! Is it smoke and mirrors to discuss information if it is inherent to life, even if it is not inherent to a material system? Of course not. Quit trying to confuse DNA or a "biological system" with information. This "I won't believe it because we're not talking about the biological system my way thing" is getting ridiculous. You have already agreed that there is a meaningful code carried by DNA. This constitutes information. If you will not move past the old arguments the discussion with you is most definitely through. I don't care if you don't feel like reading new information. Just don't act like you know what you're talking about if you don't.

​

---

JM: I am not being obtuse. I am asking you what relevance this has to this discussion board?CheersJoe Meert

All of this is very interesting, but rests on the faulty notion that lving organisms MUST be intelligently designed. You have presented a convoluted (and apparently convincing to you) argument that this must be the case. Ultimately, it rests on the following argument"I can't believe living organisms exist without intelligent design" ergo, life is intelligently designed. Your arguments are simply circles around this basic tenet. What you have not shown is that the information contained in living organisms COULD NOT have arisen by natural means. By the way, just so we know---who is the intelligent designer according to you?CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-19-2002]