Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:39 am
The information issue is one that evolutionary biologist openly admit a problem with.
There is no evidence of information being randomly generated in nature.
Computers MUST be programmed to generate new information, it doesn't happen randomly.
It's worse than that, much, MUCH worse. Even if we grant mechanical or biological capability to generate new information (I have my own thoughts on the subject but they are irrelevant here), whoop-de-do, so friggin what? Who exactly will know anything about it? No one, that is who; it is a useless, meaningless string of digital code. Unless of course, there is a rational mind capable of putting such code in context and interpret it properly. A snow flake was just as natural and just as beautiful and intricately designed a billion years ago as it is today. Except a billion years ago no one knew it.
I don't understand. Why is a rational mind needed? In my labyrinth example the information LRRL can be transferred to a robot that has to go to the middle of the labyrinth. In biological evolution the RNA code is decode biologically and is implemented as a living creature. No rational mind needed.
Nils
DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:00 am
The requirement for an intelligent designer and programmer is not 'beside the point'.
It IS the point.
Here is your described premise
What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why.
In your example...
- Intelligence is required to design and assemble the computer that is able to create information.
- Intelligence is required to design the program for a computer to create information.
The computer is not independent from intelligence.
The computer's ability to create information is a function of its program which is dependent on external intelligence.
So your computer example actually demonstrates that
Intelligence (the intelligence of the designer and programmer) is in fact necessary for a computer to create new information.
You admit that the computer program generates information. That's all that is required.
And you admit that intelligence (the intelligence of the programmer and designer) is required to generate the program that allows the computer to create new information.
That's all that's required to directly contradict the premise that intelligence is not needed to create new information.
DB: And you admit that intelligence (the intelligence of the programmer and designer) is required to generate the program that allows the computer to create new information.
That's all that's required to directly contradict the premise that intelligence is not needed to create new information.
Nils: There is no evidence of information being randomly generated in nature.
Not randomly, but randomness combined with natural selection. Trial and error is a method that also humans use.
Yes, trial and error is useful to HUMANS creating and designing things. But what do humans have that non-living / non-intelligent things DON'T???!!! Obviously, the ability to recognize, learn from and APPLY the lessons learned from trial and error. Blind / non-living things have no sense of ANYTHING - much less the ability to design and implement trials or to learn from / build upon data from trial and error. Since when have non-living things planned a trial and been able to review and strategically apply lessons LEARNED to the resulting data. This is the babbling on nonsensical assertions of what might be possible from non-intelligent things. To me, it's so absurd that it reveals the motivations for someone so stubbornly clinging to it! It's blind faith in the supposed brilliance of BLIND things!
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:39 am
The information issue is one that evolutionary biologist openly admit a problem with.
There is no evidence of information being randomly generated in nature.
Computers MUST be programmed to generate new information, it doesn't happen randomly.
It's worse than that, much, MUCH worse. Even if we grant mechanical or biological capability to generate new information (I have my own thoughts on the subject but they are irrelevant here), whoop-de-do, so friggin what? Who exactly will know anything about it? No one, that is who; it is a useless, meaningless string of digital code. Unless of course, there is a rational mind capable of putting such code in context and interpret it properly. A snow flake was just as natural and just as beautiful and intricately designed a billion years ago as it is today. Except a billion years ago no one knew it.
I don't understand. Why is a rational mind needed? In my labyrinth example the information LRRL can be transferred to a robot that has to go to the middle of the labyrinth. In biological evolution the RNA code is decode biologically and is implemented as a living creature. No rational mind needed.
Nils
Set the biological information creation aside for now as that was not my point.
As to your other point, what is the robot programmed to do once he 'discovers' the path to the middle of the labyrinth? Perform a euphoric dance and spike the ball? Again, so friggin what? A series of meaningless mechano-digital actions unless they are designed to a specific end, their output data interpreted by a rational mind, and subsequent courses of action are further designed and implemented. Unless you start with a rational mind and until you terminate with a rational mind, none of the in-between actions have any meaning whatsoever.
Post edit:
Let me ask you a question Nils. Just for kicks, I propose that we insert in the information creation algorithm a bug, a mutation of sorts. For every N actions performed, a random switch is toggled (1 to 0 or 0 to 1) in the algorithm itself, not the data it is generating. It is after all, what happens with biological mutations right? So I propose to simulate it. Please describe what you think happens next.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:00 am
The requirement for an intelligent designer and programmer is not 'beside the point'.
It IS the point.
Here is your described premise
What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why.
In your example...
- Intelligence is required to design and assemble the computer that is able to create information.
- Intelligence is required to design the program for a computer to create information.
The computer is not independent from intelligence.
The computer's ability to create information is a function of its program which is dependent on external intelligence.
So your computer example actually demonstrates that
Intelligence (the intelligence of the designer and programmer) is in fact necessary for a computer to create new information.
You admit that the computer program generates information. That's all that is required.
And you admit that intelligence (the intelligence of the programmer and designer) is required to generate the program that allows the computer to create new information.
That's all that's required to directly contradict the premise that intelligence is not needed to create new information.
False logic.
I admit that:
1. In one case there is a process that creates information and that is generated by an intelligence.
From that does NOT follow:
2. Every process that creates information is created by an intelligence.
I only note that we know that:
3. There are processes that create information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process).
That's enough to debunk the claim that
4. There are no processes that create information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process).
False logic.
I admit that:
1. In one case there is a process that creates information and that is generated by an intelligence.
From that does NOT follow:
2. Every process that creates information is created by an intelligence.
No.
Every process that we can observe and empirically prove from which information is generated, starts with an intelligence.
That means that, every process from which information is generated requires an intelligence to be the source.
False logic.
I admit that:
1. In one case there is a process that creates information and that is generated by an intelligence.
From that does NOT follow:
2. Every process that creates information is created by an intelligence.
No.
Every process that we can observe and empirically prove from which information is generated, starts with an intelligence.
That means that, every process from which information is generated requires an intelligence to be the source.
In a purely inductive reasoning Nils is right, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow since we haven't observed (nor in principle could we observe) all processes. All one has to do is show a single instance where a process that derives information is itself derived from non-intelligence (or underived from intelligence rather). Nils' algorithmic example certainly fails the test, that's what I'm trying to show him.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
False logic.
I admit that:
1. In one case there is a process that creates information and that is generated by an intelligence.
From that does NOT follow:
2. Every process that creates information is created by an intelligence.
No.
Every process that we can observe and empirically prove from which information is generated, starts with an intelligence.
That means that, every process from which information is generated requires an intelligence to be the source.
In a purely inductive reasoning Nils is right, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow since we haven't observed (nor in principle could we observe) all processes. All one has to do is show a single instance where a process that derives information is itself derived from non-intelligence (or underived from intelligence rather). Nils' algorithmic example certainly fails the test, that's what I'm trying to show him.
I think Paul's observation is the key here... Every process that we can observe and empirically prove from which information is generated, starts with an intelligence.
Nil's example of a computer that creates new information also starts with the intelligence of a designer and programmer.
So Nil's has again failed to provide any evidence to support the assertion that intelligence is not required to generate new information.
This is yet another example where Nil's makes assertions with absolutely no empirical evidence to support those assertions.
False logic.
I admit that:
1. In one case there is a process that creates information and that is generated by an intelligence.
From that does NOT follow:
2. Every process that creates information is created by an intelligence.
No.
Every process that we can observe and empirically prove from which information is generated, starts with an intelligence.
That means that, every process from which information is generated requires an intelligence to be the source.
In a purely inductive reasoning Nils is right, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow since we haven't observed (nor in principle could we observe) all processes. All one has to do is show a single instance where a process that derives information is itself derived from non-intelligence (or underived from intelligence rather). Nils' algorithmic example certainly fails the test, that's what I'm trying to show him.
As DB pointed out, I didn't say EVERY process, only the OBSERVABLE ones.
And that is what science addresses, the observable and testable.
False logic.
I admit that:
1. In one case there is a process that creates information and that is generated by an intelligence.
From that does NOT follow:
2. Every process that creates information is created by an intelligence.
No.
Every process that we can observe and empirically prove from which information is generated, starts with an intelligence.
That means that, every process from which information is generated requires an intelligence to be the source.
In a purely inductive reasoning Nils is right, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow since we haven't observed (nor in principle could we observe) all processes. All one has to do is show a single instance where a process that derives information is itself derived from non-intelligence (or underived from intelligence rather). Nils' algorithmic example certainly fails the test, that's what I'm trying to show him.
In #21 I wrote:
"I only note that we know that:
3. There are processes that create information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process).
That's enough to debunk the claim that
4. There are no processes that create information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process)."
I don't have to make any assumptions of what created the process. In the OP I wrote "What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why." What Behe, Meyer and I discuss is the what the evolution process can do or not do. They discuss for instance what happens when some gene is mutated, if information is added or not. It is not discussed what is the source of the evolution process. Therefore the issue of what or who created the processes is not an issue in the OP and isn't relevant to the question I brought up there.
Nils
nils wrote:
If new information can be created by computers there is no reason why it couldn’t be created by biological evolution and this is precisely what the evolution theory assumes. Information isn’t created by intelligences alone.
Do you even realize what you have said here?
Yes, do you?
Nils
Get your own dirt.
I don't understand. Please be a bit more explicit.
Nils
I'm making a comparison between your logic, and the scientist in the "Get your own dirt" joke.
You claim intelligence isn't needed for a computer. When you are tossing aside crucial point, that the computer was designed and programmed by intelligence. The scientist goes to create life from dirt, but fails to grasp the fact that God created the dirt.
God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”
The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
RickD wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:29 am
Do you even realize what you have said here?
Yes, do you?
Nils
Get your own dirt.
I don't understand. Please be a bit more explicit.
Nils
I'm making a comparison between your logic, and the scientist in the "Get your own dirt" joke.
OK, I hadn't heard that joke before.
You claim intelligence isn't needed for a computer. When you are tossing aside crucial point, that the computer was designed and programmed by intelligence.
No, I don't claim that no intelligence is needed for the creation of the program or a computer. I claim that when the computer is there and the program is up and running then the program is creating information without any help from an intelligence. That's what needed to exemplify a process similar to the evolution process which also creates information without any help from an intelligence.
The scientist goes to create life from dirt, but fails to grasp the fact that God created the dirt.
God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”
The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”
Nils wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:04 am
No, I don't claim that no intelligence is needed for the creation of the program or a computer. I claim that when the computer is there and the program is up and running then the program is creating information without any help from an intelligence. That's what needed to exemplify a process similar to the evolution process which also creates information without any help from an intelligence.
Now that we've established the necessity of intelligence to create the computer and the program, let's explore the similarity to evolution a bit...
In your example...
Is the computer able to change its own program?
If so...
Are the program changes a function of intelligence and design?
Or do the program changes involve random changes to 1s and 0s in the binary code?
If 1s and 0s in the binary code of the computer program are randomly altered, would the computer program start to gain new functionality or would the computer program begin to fail?
