Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

[Neatras]

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 59 by rikuoamero]

No they don't.
Under Intelligent Design (ID), everything is designed. Every rock, every plant, every particle, every radio wave, everything in the universe was and is designed.
If SETI scientists were to operate under that mode of thought, they'd be unable to scan the universe and look for radio signals indicative of intelligent life, since every radio signal, even if from a pulsar, would be from an intelligent designer.
They'd have to no way to sift the non-designed for the designed.

Operating under ID, tell me which of these two pictures is indicative of intelligent design and which is not, plus how you are able to tell the difference.

that's why the term 'specified information' is used, as opposed to Shannon information.

The former displays specified information which is how you and I can tell it is designed.


All you have to do is try turning your argument around.


"Under materialism, everything is undesigned. Every rock, every plant, every particle, every radio wave, every animal and even human intelligence itself, everything in the universe was and is undesigned.
If SETI scientists were to operate under that mode of thought, they'd be unable to scan the universe and look for radio signals indicative of intelligent life, since every radio signal, even if from a TV studio, would be from an unintelligent designer.
They'd have to no way to sift the non-designed for the designed."

see? works as well both ways doesn't it? that is to say; not very well- because clearly we can both tell the difference with two different world views.


Because recognizing specified information is an objective mathematical test- it applies to the Rosetta stone, SETI signals, secret codes, computer software..

Any proposed rule that declares it cannot be applied to biology or cosmogony is subjective and arbitrary

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 60 by Guy Threepwood]

that's why the term 'specified information' is used, as opposed to Shannon information.

Shannon information? Never heard that term before. It's a river in my country, as well as a girl's name.

All you have to do is try turning your argument around.


"Under materialism, everything is undesigned. Every rock, every plant, every particle, every radio wave, every animal and even human intelligence itself, everything in the universe was and is undesigned.
If SETI scientists were to operate under that mode of thought, they'd be unable to scan the universe and look for radio signals indicative of intelligent life, since every radio signal, even if from a TV studio, would be from an unintelligent designer.
They'd have to no way to sift the non-designed for the designed."

False. Explain how, in that sentence, the radio signal from the TV STUDIO, is undesigned? Let's say the studio is broadcasting a music video, with song lyrics and everything.
How is THAT undesigned? You undermine your own argument by not actually thinking it through, examining it for flaws.

see? works as well both ways doesn't it? that is to say; not very well- because clearly we can both tell the difference with two different world views.

As indicated...nope.

Because recognizing specified information is an objective mathematical test- it applies to the Rosetta stone, SETI signals, secret codes, computer software..

Any proposed rule that declares it cannot be applied to biology or cosmogony is subjective and arbitrary

I notice you didn't even attempt to tell me how you tell the difference between the blocks and the rocks, which one is designed and which one isn't.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 61 by rikuoamero]

Shannon information? Never heard that term before. It's a river in my country, as well as a girl's name.

I took a boat down it a long time ago! very beautiful
Actually Claude Shannon was born and grew up quite close to me, but he is a world renowned information theorist.

The pile of rocks represents a large amount of information yes? & in fact it would take much more 'information' to describe the pile than the toy castle right? But the blocks represent specified information, because the arrangement creates/specifies a new order of information- 'castle' 'turrets' 'windows' etc- specified information.

False. Explain how, in that sentence, the radio signal from the TV STUDIO, is undesigned? Let's say the studio is broadcasting a music video, with song lyrics and everything.
How is THAT undesigned? You undermine your own argument by not actually thinking it through, examining it for flaws.

that's exactly my point- it's absurd to say the TV signal is undesigned.

Just as it is absurd to say that pattern of random rocks must be 'designed'. all you have to do is think the argument through both ways. clearly we can both tell the difference

I notice you didn't even attempt to tell me how you tell the difference between the blocks and the rocks, which one is designed and which one isn't.

Once again; the reason you and I can tell the difference is specific information, the blocks have it, the pile doesn't. pretty cut and dry and entirely objective no matter the world view.

we see Shannon information in things like patterns of rocks, leaves, clouds, stars, asteroids

we see specified information in TV/Radio signals, software, toy castles, books, DNA, molecular chemistry and subatomic physics.

The only known cause for the latter type of information is creative intelligence

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 62 by Guy Threepwood]

The pile of rocks represents a large amount of information yes? & in fact it would take much more 'information' to describe the pile than the toy castle right? But the blocks represent specified information, because the arrangement creates/specifies a new order of information- 'castle' 'turrets' 'windows' etc- specified information.

Both sets of objects are piles of hard matter. Ultimately speaking, neither has any more significance than the other. What do you mean "information" (in quotes)? Take much more "information"? Are you talking file size, as in the jpegs?

because the arrangement creates/specifies a new order of information- 'castle' 'turrets' 'windows'

All things that are pre-determined by humans to be of greater significance than some other things.

Anyway, under ID, which object is designed and which is not? If SETI used ID, how do they sift through all the radio signals they detect to find that which is from intelligence and that which is not?

that's exactly my point- it's absurd to say the TV signal is undesigned.

Then why did you try to reverse what I said?

Just as it is absurd to say that pattern of random rocks must be 'designed'

Under ID, the second picture, the grey rocks, ARE DESIGNED. Under ID, the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was created by an intelligent designer.
Unless you'd care to dispute that...?

all you have to do is think the argument through both ways. clearly we can both tell the difference

Except that you've just admitted that a reverse of my argument is absurd.

Once again; the reason you and I can tell the difference is specific information, the blocks have it, the pile doesn't. pretty cut and dry and entirely objective no matter the world view.

What is specified information? How do you know one of the piles has it, but the other doesn't?
What if I told you that the grey rocks from the second picture were designed, piled together in that way, so the photographer could take a shot?. It's from an online store, I can only presume that with advertising laws in mind, they'd want to have a photo that more or less accurately reflects the product they're selling, and so, they had a photographer pile rocks together.

we see Shannon information in things like patterns of rocks, leaves, clouds, stars, asteroids

Still don't know what Shannon information is...
If what you mean is that these things you list were not made or created by an intelligent designer, then this undercuts the ID claim of our universe being created by an intelligent designer.

we see specified information in TV/Radio signals, software, toy castles, books, DNA, molecular chemistry and subatomic physics.

Since leaves are made of DNA, molecular chemistry and subatomic particles, doesn't this lead to the conclusion that leaves have both Shannon information and specified information? Were you implying that it's supposed to be an either/or, things just can't have both?

The only known cause for the latter type of information is creative intelligence

If I asked you to show me the cause for a TV signal, you could show me someone (or multiple people) working at a TV studio using equipment to broadcast the signal.
Where can you do the same to show me the creative designer behind DNA itself? Where is this designer? Can you show him or her or it or them to me? Show me their equipment, if any?
Same if you mentioned a painting. You can show me an artist holding a brush containing coloured oils to a canvas, to show me the agent behind that painting. Not so much for the rock he's sitting on while he's painting the landscape.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 63 by rikuoamero]

So we have to clarify specified v shannon info for any of this to make sense.


Take the TV signal analogy- you have two identical TVs- (we're assuming old school tech here!)

one has no antenna and is just noise, the other is tuned to the Andy Griffith Show.

both display lots of information, if you had to describe all the dots, you would need a lot of information to do so for both images- ok so far?

now just ask what is being specified by the information. The 1st specifies nothing, the 2nd specifies people, cars, the town of Mayberry .

That's all it is.


Likewise the pattern in the pile of rocks presents information, but that pattern specified nothing else.

The pattern of toy blocks present information also - and yes- we can even say they both have similar atomic structures at some point- but the blocks also go further, to specify more - a castle with windows and turrets. Place it on a windy beach- and you still have the shannon info, but the specified info is destroyed and we can no longer recognize the intelligent pattern

So the same goes for information systems in biology, we see a vast amount of specified information, not just shannon info. We only have one verified source for this type of info- and it ain't noise/chance, entropy/luck

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 64 by Guy Threepwood]

So the same goes for information systems in biology, we see a vast amount of specified information, not just shannon info. We only have one verified source for this type of info- and it ain't noise/chance, entropy/luck.

Verified? Can you elaborate on that? Assuming you are referring to a god of some sort (doesn't matter which one), what constitutes verification that any such "thing" has ever existed, or exists now? Or are you making that statement based on your own choice of a default explanation for things that seem impossible (to you) to have happened naturally?

I've never seen any verification for the existence of any god or other supernatural being, and would be very interested to know what you think constitutes actual verification, rather than just a god-of-the-gaps position where things that are not understood (or believed) are assigned to a god being by default.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 65 by DrNoGods]

Verified? Can you elaborate on that?

you are using a hierarchical digital specified information system right now. And yes, we can verify the intelligent origins of this particular example.

Whereas we have no verifiable examples of such a system spontaneously developing by purely materialistic processes.

Not to say the latter is technically impossible, it's just not scientifically verified- extraordinary claims and all that...

Assuming you are referring to a god of some sort (doesn't matter which one), what constitutes verification that any such "thing" has ever existed, or exists now? Or are you making that statement based on your own choice of a default explanation for things that seem impossible (to you) to have happened naturally?

I've never seen any verification for the existence of any god or other supernatural being, and would be very interested to know what you think constitutes actual verification, rather than just a god-of-the-gaps position where things that are not understood (or believed) are assigned to a god being by default.

As above, of course there are many problems people point to in materialistic theories, but it is an argument in the affirmative also- everything boils down to information and information systems, biology, chemistry and physics- and math is the closest thing to a truly objective measure we have for anything is it not?

We know how such information systems can be produced- the claim that this is the only way is a falsifiable one- demonstrate with the same level of verification, how such systems can develop without creative intelligence.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 66 by Guy Threepwood]

you are using a hierarchical digital specified information system right now. And yes, we can verify the intelligent origins of this particular example.

You are so vague in many of these replies and analogies that it is hard to see what the actual point is you are trying to make. But in post 64 you stated:

So the same goes for information systems in biology, we see a vast amount of specified information, not just shannon info. We only have one verified source for this type of info- and it ain't noise/chance, entropy/luck

This specifically refers to biology, not the "hierarchical digital specified information system" I'm using to engage in this dialog. So the fact that we know there is an intelligent source behind the creation of this website has nothing at all to do with your claim that whatever you were implying in the above quote (presumably an intelligent designer, such as a god being) has had its existence "verified." My question concerned what you mean by the word "verify", and what constitutes verification of this thing.

Whereas we have no verifiable examples of such a system spontaneously developing by purely materialistic processes.

Again, this is not relevant to the question about how the proposed existence of an intelligent designer of biological systems has been "verified."

and math is the closest thing to a truly objective measure we have for anything is it not?

I wouldn't argue with that, but there is no mathematics that prevents things like DNA and the genetic code from developing naturally, without input from an intelligent designer of some sort. Many creationists and anti-evolutionists grossly misuse statistics to try and show that something may have a probability so low that it is essentially impossible, but no proper statistics or mathematics prevents development of the biological complexity that we see today. Or do you have some specific examples that show otherwise?

demonstrate with the same level of verification, how such systems can develop without creative intelligence.

You've provided no support for your claim that an intelligent designer for biological systems has been verified. So I'm not sure what you mean by "the same level of verification" as you have not produced verification at any level ... only a reference to a non-biological system like this website forum.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 67 by DrNoGods]

You are so vague in many of these replies and analogies that it is hard to see what the actual point is you are trying to make. But in post 64 you stated:

Quote:
So the same goes for information systems in biology, we see a vast amount of specified information, not just shannon info. We only have one verified source for this type of info- and it ain't noise/chance, entropy/luck


This specifically refers to biology, not the "hierarchical digital specified information system" I'm using to engage in this dialog. So the fact that we know there is an intelligent source behind the creation of this website has nothing at all to do with your claim that whatever you were implying in the above quote

because DNA is a hierarchical, digital, specified information system. just like software

The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created

the point I keep making is that mathematics doesn't care if you are using written numbers, electronic signals, nucleotides, m&ms or matchsticks to represent the numbers- and it doesn't care what the implications of each are. The same mathematical logic applies regardless
That's not vague at all, in fact it's about as clear cut & objective as it gets-

but no proper statistics or mathematics prevents development of the biological complexity that we see today. Or do you have some specific examples that show otherwise

no mathematics prevents a poker player playing 3 royal flushes in a row either, the mathematics only prevents chance from being the best explanation.

Likewise the odds of assembling a basic protein with the correct order of amino acids is beyond astronomical, nothing 'prevents' nature doing it, and nothing we know of 'prevents' Bigfoot from leaving footprints in the mud, but 'prove it didn't' is not compelling evidence of the best explanation for the footprint. we are interested in the least improbable explanation are we not?

You've provided no support for your claim that an intelligent designer for biological systems has been verified. So I'm not sure what you mean by "the same level of verification" as you have not produced verification at any level ... only a reference to a non-biological system like this website forum.

The hierarchical digital information system you are using right now, is proof positive that creative intelligence can produce hierarchical digital information systems- not simply that 'nothing actively prevents it'

Again biology does not get to have it's own version of mathematics, it has to play by the same rules

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 68 by Guy Threepwood]

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. The mathematics of the basic genetic code "algorithm" is trivially simple. 4 bases combine into groups of 3 (codons) to specify an amino acid. This produces a total of 64 combinations (4 cubed) for specification of only 20 amino acids along with the start/stop codons (so some amino acids are specified by more than 1 codon). There is nothing complicated or advanced about this. The overall translation process is far more complicated as far as the specific biological steps from transcription to protein building at the ribosome, but the mathematics of the genetic code itself is dirt simple, and if it were to be written as a computer program it would be just a few lines of code. So if it is the mathematics of DNA that you are referring to (and you keep stressing the mathematics of all of this), then it is not complex at all.

the point I keep making is that mathematics doesn't care if you are using written numbers, electronic signals, nucleotides, m&ms or matchsticks to represent the numbers- and it doesn't care what the implications of each are. The same mathematical logic applies regardless

That's not vague at all, in fact it's about as clear cut & objective as it gets-

Sure ... that is obvious. But how it relates to whatever point you are making regarding evolution and DNA is not clear. What, specifically, mathematical aspects of biology and DNA are you referring to, and how does it relate to ToE and intelligent design? Just saying that the same mathematical rules apply to various subjects is too vague to extract a debate point from.

Likewise the odds of assembling a basic protein with the correct order of amino acids is beyond astronomical, nothing 'prevents' nature doing it, and nothing we know of 'prevents' Bigfoot from leaving footprints in the mud, but 'prove it didn't' is not compelling evidence of the best explanation for the footprint. we are interested in the least improbable explanation are we not?

But one thing we can do in the case of proteins is prove that they are indeed made of strings of amino acids, and we can literally follow the entire process from transcription via RNA in the nucleus to production of the protein at the ribosome. So there is no debate as to whether or not this happens as we think it does because it can be observed, and your point reduces to an argument that the correct ordering (for a specific protein) of base pairs on a section of DNA comprising a gene is astronomically improbable and so therefore is not likely to arise by chance alone.

How would you explain the formation of structured crystals like those shown here:

http://www.geologypage.com/2018/02/10-c ... c.html2/4/

What is the probability that these kinds of structures could form by random chance if you tossed all of the relevant atoms and molecules into a bin and let them sit there for some period of time? Astronomically small. But when they grow slowly due to the way chemical bonds form between the atoms these structures arise naturally without any intelligent design, due purely to the laws of chemistry. There is no "intention" of the atoms to create symmetric structures that humans find appealing, but they do via this slow growth process because of how the atoms arrange themselves for bonding. When that mechanism is considered, the probability becomes 1.

I just gave that example for something that would also have astronomical odds against if you just look at the end result and ignore the process behind it. The genetic code is indeed a marvelous thing and no doubt uncommon as it appears to have happened (so far) only once on this planet as far as the specific bases involved and their assembly into DNA strands, genes, etc. But since all life on earth is some variation of the basic code, this is strong evidence in support of evolution producing the diversity of life forms over some 4 billion years starting with much simpler, single-cell organisms. So for your argument you'd need to go back and find this first groups of living organisms and examine their DNA/RNA (or an RNA precursor) and ask how that may have come about. Evolution tells us how we got from there, to here, and we don't yet know enough specifics about whatever was the very first life forms on earth to examine the complexity (or not) of it's genetic code. But that doesn't "verify" any intelligent designer behind those first creatures ... we just don't know yet exactly what they were or how their genetics worked to compare to modern life forms.