Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:28 am
Which brings us back to the point I was making...
All of the phenomena that you mention are governed by structured, ordered, and extremely complex "laws of nature".
The Big Bang theory tells us when these structured, ordered, and extremely complex "laws of nature" began to function in our universe.
If we acknowledge that human intelligence is required for the ordered, structured and complex information in a novel or a computer system,
then intelligence of some sort would also be required for the structure, order, and complexity of the "laws of nature" that are many orders of magnitude more complex than any novel or computer program that humans can conceive.
I understand your point. On Earth complicated, ordered, and structured things are usually the result of a human construct. But you are not addressing my point; if you are going to assume what happens on Earth is consistent with what happens concerning the entirety of the Universe when it comes to non-intelligence, then do the same for intelligence.
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:50 pmThat is exactly what I am doing...
I am treating earth exactly the same way I am treating the rest of the universe.
How could you treat earth the way you treat the rest of the universe, when you don’t know the rest of the universe? You are doing the opposite; treating the rest of the Universe the way you treat Earth.
That's nonsense...
I believe that the the laws of physics function the same everywhere in the universe.
The data from Hubble supports that premise... and the Big Bang theory also demonstrates that the "laws of science" are constant everywhere in the universe.
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:50 pmIf a certain level of order, structure, and complexity is a function of intelligence on earth, then I apply that same criteria to the rest of the universe and I treat the same (or more) level of order, structure, and complexity as an indication of intelligence elsewhere in the universe... just as it is on earth.
They say scientists only know approx 4% of the Universe. What you are suggesting is like going to a library, picking up 1 book, reading it then assuming all the rest of the books in the Library is like the one you read..
That's not what I'm saying at all
I am saying that I believe that fundamental 'laws of nature' and logical principles of cause and effect that work in 4% of the universe will also work in the other 96% of the universe as well.
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:50 pmThe structure, order, and complexity of the "laws of nature" indicate the same level of intelligence on earth as it does elsewhere in the universe.
And intelligence on earth doesn’t live eternally. Using your logic you would have to assume intelligence nowhere is capable of living eternally.
Again you misrepresent my stated position.
(An affliction that has raised its head multiple times in your most recent post.)
I believe that the level of intelligence that is responsible for the 'laws of nature' on earth is the same level of intelligence that is responsible for the 'laws of nature' throughout the universe.
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:28 am
Which brings us back to the point I was making...
All of the phenomena that you mention are governed by structured, ordered, and extremely complex "laws of nature".
The Big Bang theory tells us when these structured, ordered, and extremely complex "laws of nature" began to function in our universe.
If we acknowledge that human intelligence is required for the ordered, structured and complex information in a novel or a computer system,
then intelligence of some sort would also be required for the structure, order, and complexity of the "laws of nature" that are many orders of magnitude more complex than any novel or computer program that humans can conceive.
I understand your point. On Earth complicated, ordered, and structured things are usually the result of a human construct. But you are not addressing my point; if you are going to assume what happens on Earth is consistent with what happens concerning the entirety of the Universe when it comes to non-intelligence, then do the same for intelligence.
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:50 pmThat is exactly what I am doing...
I am treating earth exactly the same way I am treating the rest of the universe.
How could you treat earth the way you treat the rest of the universe, when you don’t know the rest of the universe? You are doing the opposite; treating the rest of the Universe the way you treat Earth.
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:28 amThat's nonsense...
I believe that the the laws of physics function the same everywhere in the universe.
The data from Hubble supports that premise... and the Big Bang theory also demonstrates that the "laws of science" are constant everywhere in the universe.
Not when it comes to Dark Matter.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:28 am
I believe that the the laws of physics function the same everywhere in the universe.
The data from Hubble supports that premise... and the Big Bang theory also demonstrates that the "laws of science" are constant everywhere in the universe.
Not when it comes to Dark Matter.
The simple fact that scientists could use the 'laws of science' to infer the existence of dark matter, and then to detect evidence of its existence demonstrates that dark matter would also be governed by 'laws of science'.
The interesting about dark matter is that it has not been directly observed by any known scientific methods, but its existence has been inferred by observation of other phenomena in nature...
... sound familiar?
So the methodology that infers the existence of an eternal, intelligent causal agent from natural phenomena, is the same methodology that scientists use to infer the existence of dark matter (or even the Big Bang singularity for that matter).
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:28 am
I believe that the the laws of physics function the same everywhere in the universe.
The data from Hubble supports that premise... and the Big Bang theory also demonstrates that the "laws of science" are constant everywhere in the universe.
Not when it comes to Dark Matter.
The simple fact that scientists could use the 'laws of science' to infer the existence of dark matter, and then to detect evidence of its existence demonstrates that dark matter would also be governed by 'laws of science'.
The interesting about dark matter is that it has not been directly observed by any known scientific methods, but its existence has been inferred by observation of other phenomena in nature...
... sound familiar?
So the methodology that infers the existence of an eternal, intelligent causal agent from natural phenomena, is the same methodology that scientists use to infer the existence of dark matter (or even the Big Bang singularity for that matter).
I disagree! Just because Scientists are able to detect the results of Dark Matter doesn't mean the same laws of nature that govern matter will also govern dark matte, and in the same way.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:28 am
I believe that the the laws of physics function the same everywhere in the universe.
The data from Hubble supports that premise... and the Big Bang theory also demonstrates that the "laws of science" are constant everywhere in the universe.
Not when it comes to Dark Matter.
The simple fact that scientists could use the 'laws of science' to infer the existence of dark matter, and then to detect evidence of its existence demonstrates that dark matter would also be governed by 'laws of science'.
The interesting about dark matter is that it has not been directly observed by any known scientific methods, but its existence has been inferred by observation of other phenomena in nature...
... sound familiar?
So the methodology that infers the existence of an eternal, intelligent causal agent from natural phenomena, is the same methodology that scientists use to infer the existence of dark matter (or even the Big Bang singularity for that matter).
Just because Scientists are able to detect the results of Dark Matter doesn't mean the same laws of nature that govern matter will also govern dark matte, and in the same way.
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 am
Kenny,
Do you know of any case of information or data coming into existence from nothing?
I see information like energy; it's all around us but it requires an intelligent person to extract it for usage.
Information is like energy ?
Do the information in your cells, in your DNA is like energy?
How so?
There is energy all around us. Man can make a solar panel and use it to convert that energy into electricity and use that electricity for personal gain.
There is information in our cells and DNA. Man can take that information and use it for personal gain.
Where did the information come from?
We know where energy, in it's many forms, comes from, but information?
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:24 am
Kenny,
Do you know of any case of information or data coming into existence from nothing?
I see information like energy; it's all around us but it requires an intelligent person to extract it for usage.
Information is like energy ?
Do the information in your cells, in your DNA is like energy?
How so?
There is energy all around us. Man can make a solar panel and use it to convert that energy into electricity and use that electricity for personal gain.
There is information in our cells and DNA. Man can take that information and use it for personal gain.
Where did the information come from?
We know where energy, in it's many forms, comes from, but information?
There is information about everything that has a physical existence; it is a part of what ever it is that exists.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
I see information like energy; it's all around us but it requires an intelligent person to extract it for usage.
Information is like energy ?
Do the information in your cells, in your DNA is like energy?
How so?
There is energy all around us. Man can make a solar panel and use it to convert that energy into electricity and use that electricity for personal gain.
There is information in our cells and DNA. Man can take that information and use it for personal gain.
Where did the information come from?
We know where energy, in it's many forms, comes from, but information?
There is information about everything that has a physical existence; it is a part of what ever it is that exists.
That explains nothing.
Do you know the origin(s) of information?
Information is like energy ?
Do the information in your cells, in your DNA is like energy?
How so?
There is energy all around us. Man can make a solar panel and use it to convert that energy into electricity and use that electricity for personal gain.
There is information in our cells and DNA. Man can take that information and use it for personal gain.
Where did the information come from?
We know where energy, in it's many forms, comes from, but information?
There is information about everything that has a physical existence; it is a part of what ever it is that exists.
That explains nothing.
Do you know the origin(s) of information?
I looked up the definition of "information" from online dictionary, it basically said (paraphrasing) information is knowledge about things that are real. If information is knowledge, that would mean the origin of information are the intelligent beings with knowledge.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
There is energy all around us. Man can make a solar panel and use it to convert that energy into electricity and use that electricity for personal gain.
There is information in our cells and DNA. Man can take that information and use it for personal gain.
Where did the information come from?
We know where energy, in it's many forms, comes from, but information?
There is information about everything that has a physical existence; it is a part of what ever it is that exists.
That explains nothing.
Do you know the origin(s) of information?
I looked up the definition of "information" from online dictionary, it basically said (paraphrasing) information is knowledge about things that are real. If information is knowledge, that would mean the origin of information are the intelligent beings with knowledge.
So, how do you define the information in our cells ?
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:50 am
Where did the information come from?
We know where energy, in it's many forms, comes from, but information?
There is information about everything that has a physical existence; it is a part of what ever it is that exists.
That explains nothing.
Do you know the origin(s) of information?
I looked up the definition of "information" from online dictionary, it basically said (paraphrasing) information is knowledge about things that are real. If information is knowledge, that would mean the origin of information are the intelligent beings with knowledge.
So, how do you define the information in our cells ?
I would guess whatever there is to learn about our cells
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:35 am
There is information about everything that has a physical existence; it is a part of what ever it is that exists.
That explains nothing.
Do you know the origin(s) of information?
I looked up the definition of "information" from online dictionary, it basically said (paraphrasing) information is knowledge about things that are real. If information is knowledge, that would mean the origin of information are the intelligent beings with knowledge.
So, how do you define the information in our cells ?
I would guess whatever there is to learn about our cells
No, I am talking about the information / instructions IN our cells.
DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions for the development and function of living things.
All known cellular life and some viruses contain DNA.
The main role of DNA in the cell is the long-term storage of information.
It is often compared to a blueprint, since it contains the instructions to construct other components of the cell, such as proteins and RNA molecules.
The DNA segments that carry genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the expression of genetic information.
In eukaryotes such as animals and plants, DNA is stored inside the cell nucleus, while in prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea, the DNA is in the cell's cytoplasm.
Unlike enzymes, DNA does not act directly on other molecules; rather, various enzymes act on DNA and copy its information into either more DNA, in DNA replication, or transcribe it into protein.
Other proteins such as histones are involved in the packaging of DNA or repairing the damage to DNA that causes mutations.
DNA is a long polymer of simple units called nucleotides, which are held together by a backbone made of sugars and phosphate groups.
This backbone carries four types of molecules called bases and it is the sequence of these four bases that encodes information.
The major function of DNA is to encode the sequence of amino acid residues in proteins, using the genetic code.
To read the genetic code, cells make a copy of a stretch of DNA in the nucleic acid RNA.
These RNA copies can then used to direct protein synthesis, but they can also be used directly as parts of ribosomes or spliceosomes
That explains nothing.
Do you know the origin(s) of information?
I looked up the definition of "information" from online dictionary, it basically said (paraphrasing) information is knowledge about things that are real. If information is knowledge, that would mean the origin of information are the intelligent beings with knowledge.
So, how do you define the information in our cells ?
I would guess whatever there is to learn about our cells
No, I am talking about the information / instructions IN our cells.
DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions for the development and function of living things.
All known cellular life and some viruses contain DNA.
The main role of DNA in the cell is the long-term storage of information.
It is often compared to a blueprint, since it contains the instructions to construct other components of the cell, such as proteins and RNA molecules.
The DNA segments that carry genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the expression of genetic information.
In eukaryotes such as animals and plants, DNA is stored inside the cell nucleus, while in prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea, the DNA is in the cell's cytoplasm.
Unlike enzymes, DNA does not act directly on other molecules; rather, various enzymes act on DNA and copy its information into either more DNA, in DNA replication, or transcribe it into protein.
Other proteins such as histones are involved in the packaging of DNA or repairing the damage to DNA that causes mutations.
DNA is a long polymer of simple units called nucleotides, which are held together by a backbone made of sugars and phosphate groups.
This backbone carries four types of molecules called bases and it is the sequence of these four bases that encodes information.
The major function of DNA is to encode the sequence of amino acid residues in proteins, using the genetic code.
To read the genetic code, cells make a copy of a stretch of DNA in the nucleic acid RNA.
These RNA copies can then used to direct protein synthesis, but they can also be used directly as parts of ribosomes or spliceosomes
.
I'm not familiar with the information in our cells so I don't know how to define them. How do you define them?
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
It's only 15 minutes long, and Meyer does a good job explaining the nature of the information that is found in every cell of life and the implications of that information regarding intelligent design.
It's only 15 minutes long, and Meyer does a good job explaining the nature of the information that is found in every cell of life and the implications of that information regarding intelligent design.
Regardless of your view on "intelligent design", Meyer is correct in his explanation.
