Creation of information

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.
User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21333
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 199 times
Been liked: 1063 times

Re: Creation of information

#91

Post by RickD » Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:24 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:57 am
RickD wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:24 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:18 am
I am surprised this is still going...
Maybe I should've be surprised.

Has Nils been able to show one example of information being created from noting? or from non-information ?
That's a negative, ghost rider.
That's surprising.
Just like it is surprising how many phone hasn't created new information BEYOND it's designed capabilities.
That's not true. I just spoke to someone on my phone, and got new information that the programmer of the phone did not program into the phone.
:wave:
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.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5966
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 96 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Creation of information

#92

Post by Byblos » Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:52 pm

Nils wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:25 am
Byblos wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:00 pm
No, no, you misunderstand me completely. I have no interest whatsoever to argue from Intelligent Design. As I stated before, I don't particularly like the ID argument and never use it. Where I'm coming from with the algorithm scenario is to tie it to a metaphysical concept called the Principle of Proportionate Causality (you knew I was going to go there at some point, right? :mrgreen: ). The PPC states that what is in the effect must preexist in some way in the cause. In more common jargon, something cannot give what it does not have. One can then define in what way the effect might preexist in the cause. There are basically 3 ways, formally, virtually, or eminently. I'm not going to go into too much detail as to each but suffice to say that the issue you are having is that you think unless an effect (the ability of the algorithm to derive new information) is in the cause (the algorithm designer) formally (i.e. a direct link) then there is no link at all. That is simply false. In this case the cause is in the effect virtually. Without the programmer having designed the algorithm in the first place, there is no effect of producing new information.

Let me give you another example. Let us assume the multiplication of the numbers 45678/95452 X 7861321354 has never ever been done. For some reason, in the history of human and digital computation, that sequence has never come up and, therefore, the actual answer might seem like new information once it does occur. Does that mean when you feed these numbers into a calculator that, somehow, your calculator is responsible for creating new information? You can see how preposterous of an argument that is, right? But it's the same exact argument you're advancing with the algorithm. Yes, LRRL was not in the algorithm formally but it was in it virtually. The algorithm cannot possibly come up with any new information that wasn't already given to it by the designer of the algorithm.
No, no you misunderstand me completely (excuse me for mimicking you) but we think in different ways. I'm not talking about causation, I'm talking about information and the Shannon interpretation that I describe in #80. Let's take your calculator example. You feed the calculator with 20 digits and two operators. The calculator is designed to take that information, do the calculation and present the result. Doing this it finds/creates new information, the result. The procedure can be seen a Shannon information channel that transfers 22 characters long messages ('symbols' in information theory) and the calculator decodes the message giving the result. This is new information to the system of the calculator and its designer (even if perhaps has been calculated somewhere else before). The calculator is designed by the designer to do this job, decoding 22 character messages (among other things) but the designer need not and certainly don't know this piece of information, the result, when designing the calculator. What the calculator does is to compute the result of the specific messages sent through the input, one out of the about 2^70 possible messages. The value of the information is then 70 bits.

This doesn't mean that the programmer isn't in some way responsible for or in some way causing the calculator producing the result. It only means that the programmer don't have the Information about the result of the specific calculation. That information the calculator finds out on its own (of course assuming that it is functioning as intended).

You're not talking about causation? You can't be serious. The very title of the thread is what exactly? Ah yes CREATION Of Information. If that's not directly related to causation I don't know what is. And to think Shannon Information Theory is somehow related to the discussion (i.e. the creation of new information) tells me you don't really understand the theory. Shannon Information Theory started off as relating to information communication, data compaction, compression, and so forth. The entire theory is predicated upon the reduction of probability, not the gaining of new information. The theory is widely used in many different disciplines without which we would not have the communication speed we have today. But information creation? I don't think so. Like I said before, I can take any algorithm no matter the simplicity or the complexity and perform the iterational steps using pen and paper and come up with the same exact results. It's just a matter of time.
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.

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Creation of information

#93

Post by Nils » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:30 am

Byblos wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:52 pm
Nils wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:25 am
Byblos wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:00 pm
No, no, you misunderstand me completely. I have no interest whatsoever to argue from Intelligent Design. As I stated before, I don't particularly like the ID argument and never use it. Where I'm coming from with the algorithm scenario is to tie it to a metaphysical concept called the Principle of Proportionate Causality (you knew I was going to go there at some point, right? :mrgreen: ). The PPC states that what is in the effect must preexist in some way in the cause. In more common jargon, something cannot give what it does not have. One can then define in what way the effect might preexist in the cause. There are basically 3 ways, formally, virtually, or eminently. I'm not going to go into too much detail as to each but suffice to say that the issue you are having is that you think unless an effect (the ability of the algorithm to derive new information) is in the cause (the algorithm designer) formally (i.e. a direct link) then there is no link at all. That is simply false. In this case the cause is in the effect virtually. Without the programmer having designed the algorithm in the first place, there is no effect of producing new information.

Let me give you another example. Let us assume the multiplication of the numbers 45678/95452 X 7861321354 has never ever been done. For some reason, in the history of human and digital computation, that sequence has never come up and, therefore, the actual answer might seem like new information once it does occur. Does that mean when you feed these numbers into a calculator that, somehow, your calculator is responsible for creating new information? You can see how preposterous of an argument that is, right? But it's the same exact argument you're advancing with the algorithm. Yes, LRRL was not in the algorithm formally but it was in it virtually. The algorithm cannot possibly come up with any new information that wasn't already given to it by the designer of the algorithm.
No, no you misunderstand me completely (excuse me for mimicking you) but we think in different ways. I'm not talking about causation, I'm talking about information and the Shannon interpretation that I describe in #80. Let's take your calculator example. You feed the calculator with 20 digits and two operators. The calculator is designed to take that information, do the calculation and present the result. Doing this it finds/creates new information, the result. The procedure can be seen a Shannon information channel that transfers 22 characters long messages ('symbols' in information theory) and the calculator decodes the message giving the result. This is new information to the system of the calculator and its designer (even if perhaps has been calculated somewhere else before). The calculator is designed by the designer to do this job, decoding 22 character messages (among other things) but the designer need not and certainly don't know this piece of information, the result, when designing the calculator. What the calculator does is to compute the result of the specific messages sent through the input, one out of the about 2^70 possible messages. The value of the information is then 70 bits.

This doesn't mean that the programmer isn't in some way responsible for or in some way causing the calculator producing the result. It only means that the programmer don't have the Information about the result of the specific calculation. That information the calculator finds out on its own (of course assuming that it is functioning as intended).

You're not talking about causation? You can't be serious. The very title of the thread is what exactly? Ah yes CREATION Of Information. If that's not directly related to causation I don't know what is.
I primarily discusses information and that's not the same as causation even if they are related to each other. Also, as I wrote in #4, I am a bit uncertain if "creation" is the best wording .
And to think Shannon Information Theory is somehow related to the discussion (i.e. the creation of new information) tells me you don't really understand the theory. Shannon Information Theory started off as relating to information communication, data compaction, compression, and so forth. The entire theory is predicated upon the reduction of probability, not the gaining of new information.
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory it is said: "Abstractly, information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty". When a message reduces or resolves uncertainty the receiver gets new information. In the example I discuss the receiver, the program, extracts the information from the message, the input data. The information is inherent in the input data. If this information is "new" in a general sense can be discussed. Is any information really new? But I don't think we have to dig into that question now.
The theory is widely used in many different disciplines without which we would not have the communication speed we have today. But information creation? I don't think so. Like I said before, I can take any algorithm no matter the simplicity or the complexity and perform the iterational steps using pen and paper and come up with the same exact results. It's just a matter of time.
Yes, you use the algorithm on some data and then you get new information, using pen and paper.
Nils

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Creation of information

#94

Post by Nils » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:07 am

Apparently, I have to restart the discussion again.
The Evolution theory says that new designs can be created by the evolution process (EP) by random
mutations and natural selection. (or perhaps 'found' is a better word than 'create').
Stephen Meyer objects: "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process"

I have given an example, the labyrinth program, that I claim is an example of an undirected material process that creates or finds information, thus rebutting Meyer's claim.

The arguments that have come up here in this thread are all variants of the statement: Yes, but the material process (the program) is created by an intelligence, the programmer. Variants are that
- "the ability of the computer to create new information is a function of and thus dependent on the intelligence of the designer." DB #35
- "the programmer who created the computer program that allows the computer to create new information." DB #47
- "the programmer did design a computer program with the ability to process various types of input." DB #47
- the 'source' of the computer program is an intelligent programmer DB #49
- "The algorithms that make up the program executable are a representation of the intelligence of the programmer. " DB #56
- Even though the programmer didn't know which specific path the program would find, the programmer's program allowed for any of the millions of different paths. RickD #62

All these comments claim not only that when tracing backwards, as Meyer says, to a source we shall not stop at the direct source, the program in the example, but to the indirect source or the source of the source, the programmer. I will call the two methods direct tracing and indirect tracing below.

As I said before, the indirect tracing, will show to much and that indicates that Meyer is not thinking of the indirect tracing because if he uses indirect tracing his will argument fail. To show this I first states Meyer's argument in detail using direct tracing and then shows that the argument fails if he uses indirect tracing. From that follows the he certainly thinks of the direct method. This is also clear when I read other of Meyers articles. I have also referred to https://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.php where an ID theorist discusses creation of information extensively without mentioning the indirect method.

The conclusion is that if Meyer is talking about direct tracing then I also should talk about direct tracing in my counter example
Meyer says:
1) "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process".

To make it more explicit:
2) According to what we know, if we trace the information back from a process to a source the trace always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process.

Meyer seems to conclude, from 2) :
3) For all processes, if we trace the information back from a process to a source the trace always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process.

From 3) :
4) Evolutionary processes have to be traced back to a mind.

From 4) :
5) Evolution without minds is impossible.

This seems evident:
6) According to the theory evolution, all evolutional processes are undirected material process.

From 5) and 6) :
7) The theory of evolution is false.

(It can be noted that the conclusion 3) doesn't follow from 2) logically. However, my intention is to give a counter-example to 1) so this isn't important to me now. One may wonder if Meyer really didn't understand that he made a logical mistake).

In the evaluation above it is presumed that the tracing is from a process to a process not from a process to the creator of the process. This I called direct tracing.

If we define tracing not only from a process to a process but even to the creator of a process, what I called indirect tracing, we will get another conclusion. The tracing may go back to the creator of the evolution, which may be materialistic or a mind. However, the start of the evolution process isn't itself part of the evolution process, it's only the creator of it. This would mean that the backtracing in 4) may go back to a mind that created the evolution process, even if the evolution theory is true. Then it is not shown that 5) is true because the process that created the evolution is not a part of the evolution. And if 5) is false then 6) and 7) don't follow.

Evidently, the aim of Meyers proposition is to show that evolution isn't possible. Therefore he doesn't include the creator of a process in the back-tracing. So when discussing my counter example the creator of the program shouldn't be included in the back-tracking and my example shows that there is one case where an undirected material process creates information.

Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 25 times
Been liked: 161 times

Re: Creation of information

#95

Post by DBowling » Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:34 am

Nils wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:07 am
Apparently, I have to restart the discussion again.
Welcome back :)

The Evolution theory says that new designs can be created by the evolution process (EP) by random
mutations and natural selection. (or perhaps 'found' is a better word than 'create').
Stephen Meyer objects: "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process"

I have given an example, the labyrinth program, that I claim is an example of an undirected material process that creates or finds information, thus rebutting Meyer's claim.
That is your claim...
But so far in this discussion your example has only validated Meyer's premise.
The arguments that have come up here in this thread are all variants of the statement: Yes, but the material process (the program) is created by an intelligence, the programmer. Variants are that
- "the ability of the computer to create new information is a function of and thus dependent on the intelligence of the designer." DB #35
- "the programmer who created the computer program that allows the computer to create new information." DB #47
- "the programmer did design a computer program with the ability to process various types of input." DB #47
- the 'source' of the computer program is an intelligent programmer DB #49
- "The algorithms that make up the program executable are a representation of the intelligence of the programmer. " DB #56
- Even though the programmer didn't know which specific path the program would find, the programmer's program allowed for any of the millions of different paths. RickD #62

All these comments claim not only that when tracing backwards, as Meyer says, to a source we shall not stop at the direct source, the program in the example, but to the indirect source or the source of the source, the programmer. I will call the two methods direct tracing and indirect tracing below.
But if you choose to stop at what you refer to as a 'direct source' then you are no longer rebutting Meyer's position.

And as I said earlier
Meyer often uses the specific example of code in a computer program to make the point that the presence of code (a program) is evidence of a coder (a programmer).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10

The source of a source of a source is still a source.

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Creation of information

#96

Post by Nils » Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:34 am

DBowling wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:34 am
Nils wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:07 am
Apparently, I have to restart the discussion again.
Welcome back :)
Thank you. It took some effort and time to try to formulate my argument a bit more stringently so I would appreciate if you try to understand and respond to the argument.

The Evolution theory says that new designs can be created by the evolution process (EP) by random
mutations and natural selection. (or perhaps 'found' is a better word than 'create').
Stephen Meyer objects: "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process"

I have given an example, the labyrinth program, that I claim is an example of an undirected material process that creates or finds information, thus rebutting Meyer's claim.
That is your claim...
But so far in this discussion your example has only validated Meyer's premise.
The arguments that have come up here in this thread are all variants of the statement: Yes, but the material process (the program) is created by an intelligence, the programmer. Variants are that
- "the ability of the computer to create new information is a function of and thus dependent on the intelligence of the designer." DB #35
- "the programmer who created the computer program that allows the computer to create new information." DB #47
- "the programmer did design a computer program with the ability to process various types of input." DB #47
- the 'source' of the computer program is an intelligent programmer DB #49
- "The algorithms that make up the program executable are a representation of the intelligence of the programmer. " DB #56
- Even though the programmer didn't know which specific path the program would find, the programmer's program allowed for any of the millions of different paths. RickD #62

All these comments claim not only that when tracing backwards, as Meyer says, to a source we shall not stop at the direct source, the program in the example, but to the indirect source or the source of the source, the programmer. I will call the two methods direct tracing and indirect tracing below.
But if you choose to stop at what you refer to as a 'direct source' then you are no longer rebutting Meyer's position.

And as I said earlier
Meyer often uses the specific example of code in a computer program to make the point that the presence of code (a program) is evidence of a coder (a programmer).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10

The source of a source of a source is still a source.
If we are discussion a source of a source etc, tracing indirectly as I call it, then Mayer's argument 1) to 7) fails. That's what I claim.

If we discuss only the source, not the source of the source etc, tracing directly as I call it, then the following applies. If we assume that Mayer's statement 1) is true and if we accept the transition 2) to 3) , the conclusion 7) follows. However, then also my counter-example is valid showing that the statement 1) is false.

So either Meyer don't show that the evolution theory is false or my counter-example to 1) is valid.

The videoclip is an example how Meyer tries to motivate the erroneous proposition: If we don't know about black swans, there are no black swans.

Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 25 times
Been liked: 161 times

Re: Creation of information

#97

Post by DBowling » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 am

Nils wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:34 am
DBowling wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:34 am
But if you choose to stop at what you refer to as a 'direct source' then you are no longer rebutting Meyer's position.

And as I said earlier
Meyer often uses the specific example of code in a computer program to make the point that the presence of code (a program) is evidence of a coder (a programmer).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10

The source of a source of a source is still a source.
If we are discussion a source of a source etc, tracing indirectly as I call it, then Mayer's argument 1) to 7) fails. That's what I claim.
Ok... let's look more closely at what you claim...
Meyer says:
1) "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process".
That is a factually accurate statement
To make it more explicit:
2) According to what we know, if we trace the information back from a process to a source the trace always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process.
I agree with that statement...
Meyer seems to conclude, from 2) :
3) For all processes, if we trace the information back from a process to a source the trace always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process.
I would add one word to your statement... "known"
For all known processes, if we trace the information back from a process to a source the trace always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process.
From 3) :
4) Evolutionary processes have to be traced back to a mind.
That depends on how you define "evolution"
If you define evolution as mutation and natural selection then this is an accurate statement
If you define evolution as "random" mutation and natural selection then this is not an accurate statement
From 4) :
5) Evolution without minds is impossible.
Again that depends on how you define "evolution"... see above

A more accurate representation of Meyer's position is
The code that we see in the DNA of life today is impossible without mind or intelligence.
This seems evident:
6) According to the theory evolution, all evolutional processes are undirected material process.

From 5) and 6) :
7) The theory of evolution is false.
The presumption that unguided random processes are capable of producing what we observe in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today is a false presumption and is directly contradicted by the observed capability of "random" mutation.
So either Meyer don't show that the evolution theory is false or my counter-example to 1) is valid.

Wrong... see above.

Again your computer program based counter example continues to validate Meyer's premise that
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process".

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Creation of information

#98

Post by Nils » Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:17 am

DBowling wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 am
Nils wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:34 am
Meyer seems to conclude, from 2) :
3) For all processes, if we trace the information back from a process to a source the trace always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process.
I would add one word to your statement... "known"
For all known processes, if we trace the information back from a process to a source the trace always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process.
From 3) :
4) Evolutionary processes have to be traced back to a mind.
That depends on how you define "evolution"
If you define evolution as mutation and natural selection then this is an accurate statement
If you define evolution as "random" mutation and natural selection then this is not an accurate statement
I don't know how to explain to you, you don't understand or bother about how I reason. You take a small part of my argument and discuss that separately without considering the totality. My argument starts at the paragraph "As I said before ... " and continues until the end.

The argument from 1) to 7) is an argumentation schema with some premises and some conclusions by which I am attempting to describe logically how Meyer is reasoning, and I use it as a part of my argument. It is not a collection of statements that I claim.

1) is what he writes. 2) is an attempt to clarify it. 3) is what Meyer seems to claim. If you change 3) the meaning of the whole argument is distorted. Worse is: 3) says "For all processes ..." 4) follows logically independent of how 'evolution' is defined, as long as 'evolution' is a process. Do I have to explain it? It's an argument type: All X are Y. A is an X. From that follows A is an Y. Besides, if you change 3) as you do, then 4) will not follow.
I don't comment the rest of your post. You assume that the numbered statements are my claims. They are not, they are conclusions from other statements or some premises.

I can only ask you to read and try to understand my complete argument before you start criticizing the details if you don't find any evident logical flaws.
Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 25 times
Been liked: 161 times

Re: Creation of information

#99

Post by DBowling » Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:21 am

Nils wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:17 am
DBowling wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 am
Nils wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:34 am
Meyer seems to conclude, from 2) :
3) For all processes, if we trace the information back from a process to a source the trace always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process.
I would add one word to your statement... "known"
For all known processes, if we trace the information back from a process to a source the trace always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process.
From 3) :
4) Evolutionary processes have to be traced back to a mind.
That depends on how you define "evolution"
If you define evolution as mutation and natural selection then this is an accurate statement
If you define evolution as "random" mutation and natural selection then this is not an accurate statement
I don't know how to explain to you, you don't understand or bother about how I reason. You take a small part of my argument and discuss that separately without considering the totality. My argument starts at the paragraph "As I said before ... " and continues until the end.

The argument from 1) to 7) is an argumentation schema with some premises and some conclusions by which I am attempting to describe logically how Meyer is reasoning, and I use it as a part of my argument. It is not a collection of statements that I claim.
I understand that...
But if your argument is built on factually inaccurate statements, then the conclusion of your argument will also be inaccurate.
This is why I took each of your statements and individually commented on whether each statement was accurate or not.
1) is what he writes.
This is the only step where you are factually representing Meyer's position
2) is an attempt to clarify it.
Your clarification, not Meyer's.
But I happen to agree with it.
3) is what Meyer seems to claim. If you change 3) the meaning of the whole argument is distorted. Worse is: 3) says "For all processes ..."
Again this is your representation, not Meyer's.
And now you are two steps away from what Meyer Actually says.
I am disagreeing with your restatement of Meyer's position.

Meyer's statement says "whenever we see". Meyer is referring to observed (or known) behavior.
This is why I commented that adding the word "known" would more accurately represent Meyer's position than your statement.

If you get this one wrong then your whole argument falls apart.
4) follows logically independent of how 'evolution' is defined,
But if you get #3 wrong, then anything that flows logically from #3 is also wrong.
Hence my comment that your conclusion (which logically flows from #3) is wrong

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Creation of information

#100

Post by Nils » Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:59 am

DB, you still don't seem to understand my argument so I'll try to explain again.
See this as a complement to #94
In #94 I wrote:
"All these comments claim not only that when tracing backwards, as Meyer says, to a source we shall not stop at the direct source, the program in the example, but to the indirect source or the source of the source, the programmer. I will call the two methods direct tracing and indirect tracing below.

As I said before, the indirect tracing, will show to much and that indicates that Meyer is not thinking of the indirect tracing because if he uses indirect tracing his will argument fail. To show this I first states Meyer's argument in detail using direct tracing and then shows that the argument fails if he uses indirect tracing. From that follows the he certainly thinks of the direct method."

So in STEP1 I try to state Meyer's argument in detail, finding a way from the statement 1) "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process" to the statement 7) "The theory of evolution is false", which is Meyer's aim. In this deduction I assume that the theory of evolution requires that the evolution is an undirected material process. Also and important, in STEP1 I assume that Meyer is using the direct tracing method.

When I found this detailed argument in STEP1 I can show in STEP2 that if I instead apply the indirect tracing method in the argument from STEP1 I find that the argument from STEP1 isn't valid any longer.

From this I draw the conclusion that Meyer isn't using the indirect tracing method.

From this I further draw the conclusion that when I try to debunk 1) I should use the direct tracing method.
I hope that this will explain my argument.

Now, if you don't find my STEP1, the deduction from 1) to 7) in #94 convincing, then it is up to you finding another deduction schema taking you from 1) to 7). If you don't like mine and cannot find another that is better, you have shown that Meyer is wrong in another way. I tried to show that he is wrong using the counter example to 1), my labyrinth program. You have then shown that his whole argument is wrong from the beginning.
Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 25 times
Been liked: 161 times

Re: Creation of information

#101

Post by DBowling » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:37 am

Nils wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:59 am
DB, you still don't seem to understand my argument so I'll try to explain again.
I understand very well what you are attempting to do.
Since you are unable to rebut Meyer's real argument (because it's factually true) you resort to building up and then tearing down a straw man argument .
See this as a complement to #94
In #94 I wrote:
"All these comments claim not only that when tracing backwards, as Meyer says, to a source we shall not stop at the direct source, the program in the example, but to the indirect source or the source of the source, the programmer. I will call the two methods direct tracing and indirect tracing below.
The word "trace" demonstrates that Meyer is not limiting the term 'source' to what you call a direct source (your term, not Meyer's).
As I noted earlier a source of a source is still a source.
As I said before, the indirect tracing, will show to much and that indicates that Meyer is not thinking of the indirect tracing because if he uses indirect tracing his will argument fail.
You have asserted this but you have yet to demonstrate that your assertion is true.
To show this I first states Meyer's argument in detail using direct tracing and then shows that the argument fails if he uses indirect tracing.
Again you have asserted this but you have yet to demonstrate that your assertion is true.
From that follows the he certainly thinks of the direct method."
No he's not, as the word trace indicates.

A source of a source of a source is still a source.
So what you refer to as a direct source can accurately be referred to as a source.
And a source of a source can accurately be referred to as a source.
Both statements are true.
So in STEP1 I try to state Meyer's argument in detail, finding a way from the statement 1) "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process" to the statement
This is an accurate statement of Meyer's position
7) "The theory of evolution is false", which is Meyer's aim. In this deduction I assume that the theory of evolution requires that the evolution is an undirected material process. Also and important,
If you assume that evolution is an undirected material process... then evolution as you define it is demonstrably false (within the context of generating new information).
in STEP1 I assume that Meyer is using the direct tracing method.
And Meyer's use of the word 'trace' demonstrates that your assumption is false.
Therefore any conclusion based on this false presumption will also be false.
Now, if you don't find my STEP1, the deduction from 1) to 7) in #94 convincing,
I've already demonstrated where some of your steps are factually inaccurate.
So if your argument is based false premises then a conclusion built upon false premises will also be "unconvincing"
then it is up to you finding another deduction schema taking you from 1) to 7). If you don't like mine and cannot find another that is better,
My logic is pretty simple...

There are two proposals on the table for the generation of the code that we find in the DNA of life today:
1. "Random" mutation
2. Intelligence

As we have discussed elsewhere, the observed behavior of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab demonstrates that "random" mutation is incapable of producing the code that we see in the DNA of life today.

The only known observable causal explanation for code is an intelligent coder.

So if we want to identify a causal explanation for the code in the DNA of life today, the best choice is to choose the causal explanation that is known to be capable of producing code (ie an intelligent coder) over a causal explanation that has never been observed to be capable of producing code (ie random mutation).

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9140
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 122 times
Been liked: 342 times

Re: Creation of information

#102

Post by PaulSacramento » Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:38 am

I admire your persistence DB.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Creation of information

#103

Post by abelcainsbrother » Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:56 pm

Interesting discussion,however it only reminds me of why I don't really like Intelligent Design.It is not because it makes the case for an intelligent designer but that it gives the Theory of Evolution too much benefit of the doubt.

I mean in this discussion random mutations and natural selection were brought up,but these are really useless phrases because these things just cause normal variations amongst the populations,which is not evolution. You cannot use the same kind of evidence Charles Darwin used to make a case for Evolution 160 years ago and yet they do and are.

For instance,Darwin's finches.Darwin pointed out the different beaks on his finches and used this to make the case that these variations we see can add up given enough time,ad infinitum,generation after generation,until a new and totally different kind of life is produced. Yet today what is shown to be caused by random mutations and natural selection is just normal variations amongst the populations and not evolution.They'll show you normal variations amongst the populations of viruses,bacteria,rats,salamanders,roses,dogs,etc then claim this is evolution,when it is'nt and it is no different than Darwin pointing out the different beaks on his finches.It is the same kind of evidence,just different populations.

It proves that even if there are random mutations and natural selection the only thing it produces is normal variations amongst the populations and this is not what Charles Darwin thought evolution was,which his finches argument proves..He did not believe normal variations was evolution like today,and is why you believe evolution is true, but he believed that these variations could add up given enough time and change one kind of life into a new and totally different kind of life. We are still waiting for this to be shown and demonstrated. So it is just not good for Intelligent Designers to give evolution the benefit of the doubt like they do.Instead, they should be challenging Biologists to demonstrate Charles Darwin was correct in his assumptions or falsify the Theory of Evolution,like the Steady State Theory, that was falsified due to a lack of evidence and next came the Big Bang Theory.

Why make the case that God designed evolution to happen naturally when there is still no credible mechanism for Evolution? Without a mechanism and there is no way you could ever truly test the effects of random mutations,natural selection,genetic drift,etc and understand how it works on life in the evolution of life.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Creation of information

#104

Post by abelcainsbrother » Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:05 pm

Honest Evolutionists tried to point out the lack of a credibile mechanism and tried to help the Theory of Evolution,they even tried to propose a mechanism,now I'm not sure that even the mechanisms they proposed would help evolution,I honestly still don't think it would have helped evolution,but,honest evolutionists like (Christian)Rupert Sheldrake and (Atheist)Derek Hough did propose them trying to help evolution but they were ignored by the majority and so the problem still remains.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 25 times
Been liked: 161 times

Re: Creation of information

#105

Post by DBowling » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:42 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:56 pm
Interesting discussion,however it only reminds me of why I don't really like Intelligent Design.It is not because it makes the case for an intelligent designer but that it gives the Theory of Evolution too much benefit of the doubt.

I mean in this discussion random mutations and natural selection were brought up,but these are really useless phrases because these things just cause normal variations amongst the populations,which is not evolution.
The reason I refer to random mutation and natural selection is they are both scientific facts with observable behavior.
Microevolution (which you refer to as normal variation) is also an observable scientific fact.

The point I'm making is very simple.
The observed behavior of random mutation is incapable of generating the code/information that we see in the DNA of life today.

Are you disputing that statement?
In fact is there any statement that I have made in this thread regarding evolution, mutation, or natural selection that you consider to be factually inaccurate?

I generally try to steer away from the term 'evolution' because it means different things to different people, that is why I focus on the term 'random mutation' which is unambiguous and observable.

Here is the last statement in which I used the term 'evolution'
If you assume that evolution is an undirected material process... then evolution as you define it is demonstrably false (within the context of generating new information).

Can you find anything inaccurate in that statement?

Post Reply