nrg έγραψε:3. Παραγωγή πληροφορίας από τυχαίες διεργασίες.
1) Information is an abstract concept, not a conserved, physical, measurable quantity like mass or energy. 2) You are making a statement about a universal set, the set of all ways life can be made when we don't even understand ONE way to make life. Pure arrogance, and completely invalid scientifically. No scientific law says anything about universal sets, or that something is impossible. For example the 2nd law of thermodynamics says entropy can never decrease in a closed system. The constraint makes it non-universal. 3) X has never been observed therefore X can't happen is never used in science as a reliable law without supplementary empirical support.
*****
The "code" in DNA has not been OBSERVED to come from an intelligence, there is no known working model, process, or empirical observations of a mind creating DNA. You are relying on human-oriented, context-specific concepts and gaps in science. Creationists assume knowledge is static and 100% complete: "there has never been an OBSERVED code [and never will be so we won't have to change our worldview for the 100th time]" The dependency on the completeness of knowledge is why the argument is bogus. The conclusion depends completely on something that is not empirical, the state of completeness of current knowledge. Lightning creationists would love to point out the similarities between man made fire and "natural" fire. In small scale they are identical. No amount of similarities and comparison will change the dependence on bogus reasoning. You can name 10^10 similarities between the "code" in DNA and human codes. There are still many differences and without the mechanism of life origins being known, those similarities don't demonstrate anything because of the 100% dependence on the bogus rule: "all observed X are Y, necessarily implies all X are Y." "DNA IS a code..." It's a molecule that does many things codes don't do. It's a "code" only because you call it a code, not because of an observation of the intelligence, but by a definition that assumes the existence of what you what to prove. Applying a label does not mean all properties from the human context are valid in biochemistry.
****
You reject the possibility that codes can be created naturally
long before a theory of life origins exists!!! It's the height of arrogance. You're foolishly talking about a universal set, the set of all possible ways life/codes can be made, without even having a solid theory or working model about life origins. Of the two domains of knowledge where there are things that look like codes, one assumes the existence of minds and the other has no working model or mechanism. Your argument DEPENDS on lack of evidence, it's a god of gaps argument.
****
When you ask the question "where did information come from", you assume information is a substance or something that can be traced or identified physically, unambiguously and objectively (independent of context) in the same way a physical property like mass can. You assume that, in certain processes there is a "law of conservation of information" that prevents it from being created. There is no such law. You assert a negative, that the ONLY source of information/codes is something that has not been observed or verified. This is NEVER done in science.
*****
The creationist information argument is circular and a misuse of out-of-context words. Creationists use an abstract concept that only has meaning in a human context where minds are already assumed to exist. They apply the concept to a physical object and DEMAND, without a validated theory or evidence of any kind, that all sources and properties of information in the human context extend universally to all other areas in nature including biochemistry, and to unknown processes like life origins. It's simply insane.
*****
Let's assume for the moment that god exists. He has tricked humans countless times in the past. He has made them think he is a volcano or throwing bolts of lightning or controlling the sun. What makes you think, with high certainty, that you've discovered the first and only time he was directly controlling a process in nature? Almost all gods of nature are dead, yet you cling to your's like a religious zealot.
****
You have no scientific theory or solid evidence demonstrating any limits or upper bounds on the creation powers of natural laws. All you have is analogy and words taken out of context which assume the existence what you want to prove. Creationists do no demonstrations of truth about nature, only word-smithing, manipulation and bungling.
You're god depends on knowledge holes and unproven non-physical, non-empirical, non-universal definitions
that you foolishly demand are universal with no evidence.
Αυτά και πολλά άλλα χαζά που βλακωδώς επαναλαμβάνετε έχουν απαντηθεί εδω και καιρό!
.gif "Laughing")
