The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2011, 01:57 PM
 
Exclamation The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
Calling all Scientists. Which is why I'm posting this and not daring to answer. Tongue

COSMIC FINGERPRINTS


For Three Years and counting, I have successfully advanced the Information Theory argument for Intelligent Design on Infidels, the world’s
largest Atheist discussion forum.

Information Theory and DNA deal a crushing blow to Atheism, because the laws of physics and chemistry do not account for the existence of information.

You are invited to study, in detail, one of the longest-running debates in the history of the Infidels discussion board.

Verify for yourself: To the extent that science can demonstrate anything, the information in DNA is evidence of design in living things.

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.


If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall...(Continues @ Link)
Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2011, 02:44 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2011 02:51 PM by Observer.)
RE: The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
(01-05-2011 01:57 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
pulsars?

And how exactly does this man jump from coded DNA to a god. even more... to a god that requires worshiping. Aliens provide the same plausible explanation...
Unless he knows aliens have DNA too.
Nice try...

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2011, 03:35 PM
RE: The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
Isn't the creation of DNA a natural process?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2011, 04:15 PM
RE: The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
I'm not a scientist but number two I take objection to.
Quote:2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

That's what is in question. Can a code(DNA) arise through a natural process? Evolution is a proposed natural process that can add coded information. And it does have evidence. One of the premises can essentially be re-worded as, "Evolution cannot naturally create new information", for our purposes, and his conclusion,
Quote:3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
can be worded the same way. Seems like bad logic to me.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2011, 04:25 PM
RE: The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
(01-05-2011 03:35 PM)Tim_Kiebooms Wrote:  Isn't the creation of DNA a natural process?
Not in his view...
And he tries to back that claim up by saying it is the only code that occurs naturally.
He also says that "if you can find one thing that occurs natural that has a code too, you deflate his claim"
so I say... pulsar radio-signals...

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2011, 04:26 PM
RE: The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
DNA, as Tim said, is the empirical proof of a naturally occuring "code". I put quotations around "code" because the author of this proof seems to think that "merely a pattern" and "code" cannot be one in the same. (Of course we can also argue that DNA isn't a pattern at all, since a pattern is a repetitious mathematical sequence)

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2011, 04:52 PM
RE: The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
If you're curious for more, here a link to its page on Iron Chariots.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2011, 08:59 PM
 
RE: The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
The problem seems to simply be number 2. What reason is there to assume that information, codes, languages, whatever you want to call it requires a conscious mind? That's what the argument is supposed to prove, yet it's assumed as a premise.

Claiming that it can be assumed until an example to the contrary is given seems just plain stupid. First of all, unless you assume that all existing codes/languages were created by a conscious mind, then every existing language or code is an example for neither a designed code nor a naturally occurring code because to the extent of your knowledge it could be either one. If we don't assume the supernatural, then our conscious minds evolved through natural processes, and as a result so did all of the languages we have developed. So, without assuming a designer any code would be an appropriate counter-example. If you assume a designer, then no code you present would be a counter-example.

Seems like a fairly pointless argument to me. In order to resolve it you need to either assume supernatural origins or natural origins when the point is to establish whether the universe has natural or supernatural origins.

Or am I not understanding the original post correctly? Or possibly using flawed logic myself?
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Zach's post
01-05-2011, 09:13 PM
RE: The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
@Zach: That's exactly how I see it(only worded better). You're logic looks clean to me. The logic in the OP on the other hand, not so much.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2011, 12:57 AM
RE: The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It
This is one of the worst arguments brought forth by ID proponents, and unsurprisingly, one of the most common.

The laws of physics and chemistry do allow for information, because we live in a universe entirely governed by such laws and information is present.

DNA is a mere molecule, even if you were to argue that what we perceive as information was present.

Bald assertion. The entire first and second premises are merely asserting things that haven't actually been demonstrated.

Correlation =/= causation. The argument is proposing that as we only know of codes created by intelligence, that codes, or what we consider to be codes, must be created by an intelligence.

Red herring (premise 2) - science cannot demonstrate a natural process that creates coded information; and it doesn't have to, there is no need. It is irrelevant. But, if we want to define DNA as a code, then there is such a process; DNA replication.

Linguistic convenience. We call DNA a code or language, or say it contains 'information' as it is linguistically convenient. Its a great way to express it, but that doesn't mean it was created by a mind. This is an attempt to define it into existence.

Argument from ignorance. Just because we don't know of a process that could produce a code or language naturally and unintelligently, does not mean we can proclaim 'therefore a cosmic mind is the designer'.

World of watches. If we were to say that everything, including all codes, were designed, then we run into the problem of not being able to distinguish that which occurs naturally and that which was designed. We have no frame of reference.

shifting the burden of proof. It is not our job to demonstrate that you are wrong by providing a counter example, although it would settle this rather quickly, it is your job to demonstrate you're right. You need to show that DNA is a code or language, and show that it was intelligently designed or couldn't occur naturally.

Occurs naturally? DNA does. How else do you think it gets here? If we are to presume that DNA is a code or language, then it is one that occurs naturally, hence the one example you said would disprove your 'proof'.

There is a natural alternative: The RNA World Hypothesis - the most promising of explanations as to how the beginnings of life evolved to date.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes daemonowner's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: