YEC (was Heaven will be boring)

[Enoch2021]

That which cannot be seen (detected) is not evidence of anything.

Factually Incorrect. Can you "SEE" Software/Information? If you need me to POST IT (You already seen it ) let me know. Can you "SEE": TRUTH, Knowledge, Logic....do they exist?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Thus, faith is belief without evidence. Hope is not evidence. Belief is not evidence.

Biblical Faith is the exact opposite. You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

Say What? It's not even close...."You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith."

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambigu ... ivocation/

False Equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency:

The following statements are examples of false equivalence:

"They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
"We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence


Which Fallacy is in play here?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Au Contraire, I beg to differ....

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life. Ya see....

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....

Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......



The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?

You're looking a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise.
CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

I'm just spit-balling here, but.....I think you may need a new "Just So" Story.

Oh btw....

"The Ribosome, together with it's accessories, is probably the most sophisticated MACHINE ever made. All of it's components are active and moving, and it is environmentally friendly, producing only GDP and phosphate". {Emphasis Mine}
Garrett, R., Mechanics of the ribosome, Nature 400(6747): 811-812, 1999

Oh and btw, See those IF's/EF's/RF's...they are "Functional Proteins". Where'd they come from if it takes the Entire Process above... to make them? Hmm, a little Chicken and Egg action...the "Space Shuttle building the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant" motif. And Yes, it gets better....
Let's say I remove one of the IF's (Initiation Factors) or an EF (Elongation Factors) from the milieu, what happens to DNA Translation...IN TOTO, eh? Yes, that's right.... it's a Football Bat/Pillow Hammer. Ya get ZERO Translation (No Functional Protein Synthesis)...guess what that means? The Entire Process is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!
And what did Charlie say...

Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

What about a Complex "Process" in place of that "Organ", Charlie? We have Plenty of Organs that scuttle his mind-numbing nonsense anyway. Get an A&P Glossary and start with "Abdomen" and end with "Zygote"...those and everything In-Between are his Huckleberry. But I digress,


Please tell us HOW on Earth does:

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Ladies and Gentleman, ink/paper/and glue molecules don't author books or technical instruction manuals for building robots. Pentose sugars, nucleo-bases, and activated phosphates don't create algorithms for the construction/maintenance/repair of literally thousands of "protein-robots" in each Cell; and that's just the mere TIP of the Iceberg.

This Game is OVER!!

So formally, "Scientifically"; Have it, Best Wishes (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 ) ...

"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?


Love, this is Non-Sequitur as Hydrogen is Non-Sequitur to Water.

regards

[ytrewq]

You did not address the following from my previous posting.

Yes sir, I did. Don't need to explain the "HOW" just Identify the "WHAT".

Unfortunately, for your theory to be worth a cracker, you do indeed need to able to explain how it actually works in practice.

And you willingly confess you haven't a clue as to how your ID theory would or even could work in practice.

Sorry, but that is not good enough.

Furthermore, I provided irrefutable evidence that animals are NOT intelligently designed, for example by observing the extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes. If this is true, and demonstrably it is, then your 'irrefutable' claim must be wrong. Sorry about that.

I will address your other points in due course, though I am not required to do so unless and untill you can disprove my irrefutable evidence that animals are not intelligently designed.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 70 by Enoch2021]

Tell me, do you agree that evolution does in fact occur, not only in the past, but right up to the present day? How could it NOT occur?

For the record, evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact. How does your theory accommodate that?

You forgot to answer this.

[Enoch2021]

ytrewq: The vast majority of professional in this field reject ID.

So? All you have here is...

Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy)--- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ularity.ht

If you think that you are smarter than their combined knowlwedge and experience, then good luck to you.

Well if by smarter you mean that I Know that ink/paper/glue molecules can't author War and Peace or Technical Instruction Manuals.....and "They" can't seem to grasp the concept; then YES, I suppose I'm Exponential Magnitudes Smarter.

No, I was not appealing to poularity as such at all. That fallacy would be if a Christian claimed evidence for his (unfounded) beliefs simply because there are millions of Christians in the world.

I was appealing to accumulated expertise in a particular scientific field. Broadly speaking, the views of a professional scientist, on a scientific topic within their area of expertise, are worth more that the views of an unqualified person. But even more so, given that the vast majority of professional scientists working in relevant disciplines overwhelmingly reject ID, then we should indeed by skeptical of your individual view that ID is irrefutable. Do you understand the difference?

As I said, that does not exclude the possibility that you are right and they are all wrong, but we should nonetheless be skeptical of your claims. Apparently you do indeed think you are smarter than the accumulated wisdom of tens of thousands of professionals in the field. Good luck to you. Maybe you are.

I'll address your other points in due course. Cheers.

ytrewq: No, I was not appealing to poularity as such at all.

ytrewq: The vast majority of professional in this field reject ID.

This is a TEXTBOOK Appeal to Popularity Fallacy. "Vast Majority"

I was appealing to accumulated expertise in a particular scientific field. Broadly speaking, the views of a professional scientist, on a scientific topic within their area of expertise, are worth more that the views of an unqualified person.

Well you have to able to discern between "Scientific Claims" and "claims, that scientists make". One is based and validated via the Scientific Method; the latter, is based on their Fairytale World View.

But even more so, given that the vast majority of professional scientists working in relevant disciplines overwhelmingly reject ID...

Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy)--- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... arity.html

SUPPORT.....? We want to see the "WHY" demonstrated via The Scientific Method?

then we should indeed by skeptical of your individual view that ID is irrefutable

Because they said so? lol

Joe Shmoe "Teller": "He robbed The Bank!!"

Judge: "Very well, present your evidence?"

Joe Shmoe "Teller": "He robbed The Bank!!"

Judge: "Yes, we heard you the first time. Proceed Sir....?"

Joe Shmoe "Teller": "I'm a Teller, He robbed the Bank!!"

Judge: "If you don't proceed with the evidence, you will be charged with Contempt and thrown out on your Neck!"

Joe Shmoe "Teller": "He robbed th..."

Judge: BAILIFF!!!!...out on His Neck!!!

Follow?

Unfortunately, for your theory to be worth a cracker, you do indeed need to able to explain how it actually works in practice.

As Mentioned least 5 times now, it's not a "Theory"; It's a Law.

Scientific Theories: explain the "How/Why".
Scientific Laws: describe "The What".

Ergo, your continued incessant insistence is nonsensical.

Furthermore, I provided irrefutable evidence that animals are NOT intelligently designed

You've provided your "Opinion"...evidence, in this specific case...."Scientific Evidence" requires a Tad More Validation:

What's your Hypothesis?

What's the Dependent/Independent/Control Variables of your Experiment/TEST that Validates the Hypothesis.....?

I am not required to do so unless and untill you can disprove my irrefutable evidence.

Doesn't something have to have least a splinter of Validation so as to even afford the opportunity to be refuted? Go ahead (SEE: above...hypothesis, ect)


ps. Since there has been no response or even a whiff of reference, I should tacitly take it that the Null Hypotheses are still Unassailable?


regards

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 70 by Enoch2021]

Tell me, do you agree that evolution does in fact occur, not only in the past, but right up to the present day? How could it NOT occur?

For the record, evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact. How does your theory accommodate that?

You forgot to answer this.

Oh, I surely did...TWICE.

Here it is, for the last time: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

regards

[ytrewq]

I also note that in the US highest Court of Law, it was determined that 'Creation Science' and 'Intelligent Design' were not true sciences at all, and were therefore not required to be taught in schools.

Are you referring to that Kangaroo Court Dover? Since when is "Scientific" Matters adjudicated by "Non-Scientific" Judges? You think Judge Jones called on his extensive background as being the chair of the PA State Liquor Control Board to help render his decision for the ACLU....? Who's next to preside.... MADD or the Boy Scouts of America?
You'll also note that, the trainwreck of a fiasco is only recognized in Dover, right?

Would you like to go through the Court Documents where I'll show Judge Jones Copy and Pasted Eric Rothschild (Interesting name) attorney for the ACLU.... document nearly Wholesale?

Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that: "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)

regards

Your reply here is extraordinary. Apparently, you are complaining that the judge was not a scientist!!?

You are correct. the judge was not a scientist, and yet when he carefully considered the cases put forward by the ID advocates, and some of the best scientists in the field, he concluded that ID was not science at all, despite him not being a scientist. You really shot yourself in the foot there.

You are probably right that the judge copied and pasted much of the case put forward by Rothschild. So what? Isn't that what you would logically expect? The judge examined the opposing cases put forward to him, and concluded that Rothschild had by far the better case, and then went on to describe that case in his findings. Well of course he would, and should. What's your problem?

Jay Wexler's comments are unusually unconvincing. If she thought that an impartial (neither a scientist nor an ID advocate) judge was unsuitable for making an impartial judgement, then presumably she (and you) would feel it more logical that professional scientists in the field should decide whether ID is science. But she really loses it in suggesting that the matter was related to 'freedom of religion'. Whether ID is valid science has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of religion.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 70 by Enoch2021]

Tell me, do you agree that evolution does in fact occur, not only in the past, but right up to the present day? How could it NOT occur?

For the record, evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact. How does your theory accommodate that?

You forgot to answer this.

Oh, I surely did...TWICE.

Here it is, for the last time: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

regards

Not in response to my posting, you didn't.

Would you care to try. The answer to my first question starts with 'YES' or 'NO'.

Do you dispute that evolution occurs at all?

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 76 by Enoch2021]

o, I was not appealing to poularity as such at all. That fallacy would be if a Christian claimed evidence for his (unfounded) beliefs simply because there are millions of Christians in the world.

I was appealing to accumulated expertise in a particular scientific field. Broadly speaking, the views of a professional scientist, on a scientific topic within their area of expertise, are worth more that the views of an unqualified person. But even more so, given that the vast majority of professional scientists working in relevant disciplines overwhelmingly reject ID, then we should indeed by skeptical of your individual view that ID is irrefutable. Do you understand the difference?

As I said, that does not exclude the possibility that you are right and they are all wrong, but we should nonetheless be skeptical of your claims. Apparently you do indeed think you are smarter than the accumulated wisdom of tens of thousands of professionals in the field. Good luck to you. Maybe you are.

I stand by my posting #73 quoted above completely, and am very happy to let others judge.

Either you 'get it' or you don't, and clearly you don't.

I'll say it one more time. I was appealing to expertise, not to popularity. In fact, the number of such scientists is not relevant to what I was saying, making it even clearer that I was not appealing to 'popularity'. Like I said, either you 'get it' , or you don't.

If you think that professional scientific expertise, averaged over a very large number of scientists, counts for nothing at all on a topic within their expertise, then go for it.

Edited in for further clarity.
You would claim that within the group of scientists in this field, I am still appealing to 'popularity' by giving credibilty to the view of the overwhelming majority.

That is true, but it is not the same as appealing to the unsubstantiated opinion of a large number of lay people.

In the case of professional scientists in the field, the overwhelming opinion of the majority carries weight, because that opinion is based on expertise and scientific evidence, rather than just any old lay-person opinion. It is true that the vast majority of scientists could still be wrong, and I have never denied that. However, the fact of evolution has been well accepted among scientists in this field for a very long time, so it is indeed reasonable to attach weight to their overwhelming rejection of ID.

It is analogous to a lay person disputing the 'theory of relativity'. Sure, the tens of thousands of scientists that believe this theory is true could be wrong, but their combined opinion that the theory is true does carry a lot of weight.

Hope that makes my position clearer. I am NOT saying that any of this means necessarily that you are wrong, but am entitled to point out that the vast majority of professional scientists in this field have concluded otherwise, and we may presume they have valid, supportable reasons for doing so, even if conceivably they have all got it wrong.

Cheers.

[historia]

We can look at the other translations you mentioned, but they all say basically the same thing. As I said above, these translations use the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek New Testament, not the critical text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. If you disagree, you are simply wrong.

I've been staying out of this because it would be more appropriate to make a new thread on this debate, wouldn't it?

Yes, indeed. But Enoch has apparently lost interest in the topic, so I'm not sure if there is much left to discuss. I'd be more than happy to start a new thread, however, if you'd like to continue. Send me a personal message if so.

Otherwise, let me just address this last point:

P.S. The Nestle-Aland text is based on Westcott-Hort's text and two other works: http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/history/

"In 1898 Eberhard Nestle published the first edition of his Novum Testamentum Graece. Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time: Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis."{Emphasis Mine}
https://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/ ... testament/

You both did a good job of reading the first paragraph of those sources, but you stopped too soon! Keep reading. In a couple of paragraphs you would come across this (emphasis mine):

The 26th edition, which appeared in 1979, featured a fundamentally new approach. Until then the guiding principle had been to adopt the text supported by a majority of the critical editions referred to. Now the text was established on the basis of source material that had been assembled and evaluated in the intervening period. It included early papyri and other manuscript discoveries, so that the 26th edition represented the situation of textual criticism in the 20th century.

26th Edition (1979): The great manuscript discoveries of the twentieth century (especially of early papyri) necessitated a fundamental reorientation of the principal text and a rewriting of the apparatus, and these were both introduced in the 26th Edition.

Westcott and Hort were seminal pioneers in the history of modern textual criticism. Their 1881 critical edition of the Greek New Testament was a major step forward in recovering the original text of the New Testament.

But in the 130 years since they published their work, we've discovered hundreds of New Testament manuscripts, including dozens of papyri that pre-date the manuscripts Westcott and Hort relied upon by a century or more. Further, scores of scholars have evaluated and re-evaluated these manuscripts, in many cases confirming the findings of Wescott and Hort, but in some cases reaching other conclusions.

The current Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek text takes a different approach -- called reasoned eclecticism -- from that of Westcott and Hort (WH). It agrees with the WH critical text in many area, because Westcott and Hort were right in many areas. But it is a fundamentally different approach.

This is why it is downright silly to attack the personal beliefs of Westcott and Hort, as if modern textual criticism depended on these two men. It doesn't. The current critical Greek text of the New Testament relies upon manuscripts and scholarship developed long after Westcott and Hort. You could declare them the worst humans on the planet, and it wouldn't change a thing! This is why we need to focus on the evidence, not ad hominem attacks.

That's my point. Hopefully it's well made.

[ytrewq]

Furthermore, I provided irrefutable evidence that animals are NOT intelligently designed

You've provided your "Opinion"...evidence, in this specific case...."Scientific Evidence" requires a Tad More Validation:

What's your Hypothesis?

What's the Dependent/Independent/Control Variables of your Experiment/TEST that Validates the Hypothesis.....?

I am not required to do so unless and untill you can disprove my irrefutable evidence.

Doesn't something have to have least a splinter of Validation so as to even afford the opportunity to be refuted? Go ahead (SEE: above...hypothesis, ect)

ps. Since there has been no response or even a whiff of reference, I should tacitly take it that the Null Hypotheses are still Unassailable?

regards

The hypothesis is that animals in general are not intelligently designed.

The irrefutable proof/validation of this, is that we observe animals that are in fact not intelligently designed, such as the recurrent laryngeal nerves in the giraffe's neck that detour 5m up to the top of the neck and then back again, when an intelligent designer would have taken the direct route.

What we observe is consistent with evolution, where the original nerve routing was direct and optimum, but as the length of the neck evolved, the nerve had no choice but to follow and then return, because it was unfortunately hooked around one of the upper neck bones. That what we observe is predicted by evolution is notable, but that is not my key point. The observed, irrefutable FACT is that many of the constructional feature of animals are not intelligently designed.

Doesn't get much clearer that that.

[FarWanderer]

Information is evidence.
Information can't be seen.
Information only comes from intelligent agent.
Information is not "physical". (why the quotation marks?)
Information is semiotic.

Now, I don't disagree with any of these claims individually, depending on the sense in which you are using the word "information". However, I don't think all 5 instances can coherently be referring to the same meaning for the word "information". In other words, I believe you are equivocating.

They're not meanings or definitions they are Attributes/Characteristics of "Information".

There is no difference between a definition and an essentual attribute.

Not that it even matters, because this isn't about you defining the word, but using the word in more than one sense.

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.

Please explain how "communication/reception of knowledge" (information) is simultaneously both evidence and something that cannot be physically observed.

But it can also be thought of physically. If it couldn't, then a sentence like: "That man is carrying important information in his suitcase" would be unintelligible.

Where's the Suitcase?

In the man's hand. That's what "carrying" usually means when applied to the word "suitcase".

All you have are "Squiggly Lines"---the letters of the Alphabet----Words-----Sentences, ect. The only way they have "meaning"/INFORMATION is we have a Preemptive agreed upon Convention... The English Language; otherwise, it's nonsense. Only by Intelligent Agency, communication and agreement can those "squiggly lines" contain INFORMATION.

I do not disagree. However, it is also perfectly 100% comprehensible everyday language to refer to those lines themselves as information.

I can "liberate" it about as well as I can reconstruct a house after it has burned down.

You can not extract the message form the chalk on my hand lol.

OK, I just wrote a message on the board and erased it...



What's the message?

What message? You mean what was the message? That I don't know, because you erased it.

It's like me showing you a picture of a pile of rubble and asking "where's the house?", or "what did the house look like?"

And here you specifically disallow any reference to a physical medium, further showing precisely that "Windows 7" can be thought of in a physical sense.

Well the CD Case isn't the Message. Get a Floppy disc or a CD weigh them both empty and fill them each to the brim with Software. Weigh them again....do they weigh more? You can send INFORMATION through air you can download it wirelessly...it's Mass-less.

In one sense of the word, yes.

In another sense, no. An "empty" hard disk actually has no less "information" than a "full" one, because emptiness itself is information. You see, without compression, a high-resolution image of pure black is exactly the same amount of information (takes exactly as much disk space) as a high-resolution image of a flower or anything else.

So...

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?


Between what and what?

I don't think I can reduce this or break it down any further.

You spoke of "Physico-Chemical links" I need to show. Links between what and what? Between the various DNA molecules? Between DNA and "information"? What? I cannot answer or assess your challenge when I don't even know what your challenge is.

If you are implying that genetic code is communication/reception of knowledge, who or what are the participants? What's the knowledge being communicated/received?

Didn't I already post this?

Pull this up: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746

Then start here (a little below below the C A T pic):
"To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude..." and read the 4 paragraphs.

That's all under the assumption that DNA contains "communication of knowledge". That's your premise, not mine. I have no obligation to answer any of those questions that assume a premise I never accepted.

On the other hand, I have just asked you to explain how your premise even makes sense on its own, which you have not done (instead attempting to project the burden of proof onto me). Honestly, it's a straitforward question. Why can't you just answer it?

Communication can occur throughout an (endless?) number of physical mediums; but communication always requires a medium for its existence.

Yes, I never said otherwise. The point is....The Medium isn't the MESSAGE.

Yes, yes, I get that you mean "information" in the semiotic sense. However, my point was in the paragraph that followed, that calling information "transcendent" over its medium is arbitrary.

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

And if the Moon were made of green cheese it'd still be the Moon.

Yes, I'm sure that's what he meant.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what he meant. How can anything of objective existence depend on what we know? For the sentence to make sense, I can only imagine Lewis to be conceiving "The Laws of Genetics" as an arbitrary construct used as a tool for understanding, rather than something prescriptive.