Information Theory and Intelligent Design.

You're off by at least one. Rob and Meyer were wrong in so many different ways that there were a multiplicity of different directions rebuttal could, and did, take. Most of the rebuttals were correct. To repeat myself, information is infinitely malleable. It can be encoded in a limitless variety of ways. Everything that happens, whether or not a human being was involved, causes matter and energy to shoot off into the ether carrying information about the event.--Percy

True, but irrelevant to the point that Meyer is trying to make. I'm not saying that the rebuttals were incorrect. They simply didn't really address Meyer's argument.His thesis is that information is massless and thus nothing material can act upon it. Therefore, materialistic explanations for "information" in DNA are off the mark.He is 100% correct that information is massless. Information is like thought. How much does a thought weigh?The point is not whether or not information is massless. The real question, for purposes of refuting the thrust Meyer's argument is whether materialistic processes can act upon DNA to change the information contained in it. "Information" in DNA is a result of a particular sequence of bases. One can take a particular collection of bases and, in one arrangement, that collection is meaningless. In another arrangement that might have the same mass as the first, the collection describes a living organism. There is not necessarily a correlation between the mass of the medium and the content of the information. In most cases, it's the arrangment of the matter in the medium that's important.Your point is important. Information can be encoded in a limitless variety of ways. Perhaps an interesting offshoot would be to try to envision a way of capturing information without any medium whatsoever. But that point by itself doesn't address Meyer's claim that only non-materialistic processes can act on information. It's the recognition that the particular arrangement of matter is what's important for purposes of transmitting information, rather than the mass of the matter, that's key.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Truth is brutal. The alternative that you won't confront is that you are wrong. That you are the one with closed eyes, that you refuse to confront the evidence - evidence for evolution, evidence for an old earth, etc.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

what? trust me, religion and philosophy are two different concepts.kind of like saying "philosophical and therefore mathematic in context". just as senseless.if anything, religion is a philosophy. it is one type of philosophy. go look up the branches of philosophy. you'll note that science itself if a philosophy--methodological naturalism. not religion.religion and methodological naturalism are not one and the same. they are two different philosophies, two different ways at looking at the world.just like aesthetics and mathematics are two different philosophical branch. you wouldn't argue that someone arguing from an aesthetic view is arguing from a mathematic view.oh, and thank you for helping solidify the Dover case with this: so much for being able to teach it in science class.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I really don't have time for this, so don't think that a non-response equals a checkmate.Ok Ice...Iceage:No, they were painted by machines designed by intelligent agents. As for the purpose or meaning of the color, you would have to ask the designer or the marketer of the disk. All designed by intelligent agents, so the answer is no! There is no materialist explanation.Painted computer disks designed for a specific function do not arise from material causes.IMHO

But you are not the one who believes in truth. You think all truth is relative no? Which means your statement is itself relative.If you believe that truth is absolute then yes, reality and truth are very brutal indeed, which is why you do not believe.Your information theory is frankly illogical.I was anticipating this response and you are far more correct than you realize...Revelation 19:21 The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider (christ) on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.I know that means nothing to you... Which kind of defeats your point.

Rob this is equivocation. If this was the point he was trying make, why doesn't he just hold up a pair shoes?The principle that Meyer was trying to highlight, but failed fundamentally in my humble opinion is:

Biology systems are based on information

Information is massless

Therefore information and consequently biology cannot be explained via materialistic explanations

​

I contend that this is false, and the slight-of-hand is the implied assumption that: if a property is massless it cannot have its origin in the material world.

​

Again I ask:

​

Shape, color, texture, polarity, vibrational state are just a few properties that are massless but are qualities that have materialistic explanations and origins.

​

There are others, but these are the simplest and suffice to counter his point. Furthermore while these properties maybe effected by "intelligent agents" they are not dependent on "intelligent agents".

​

Rob, one off topic observation, and please don't respond to this portion as this is an interesting thread and don't want to dilute it.

​

You would fair much better and sleep better at night if you would limit yourself to one concise point at a time.

​

You arrive at the scene and post a multitude of cut-n-paste articles and thinly defend them and then quickly find yourself overwhelmed - I know i couldn't defend that many fronts at a time.

​

Furthermore yesterday you claimed that you come here sowing truth and we, the wicked self-righteous, are just too stubborn to admit your insight - this is a bit self-serving.

​

You may want to consider that debate can be a learning process and not necessarily a zero-sum competition in the arena.

​

.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Sorry, this is not on-topic here, so I'll keep my asnwer brief (for me) Oh dear But Baez's site is very sound. No, absolutely not. Rest mass is an invariant quantity. Relativistic mass is an observer dependent quantity, and hence largely meaningless. If I ask you for your height, what do I expect? A measurement depending on your particular position? On how far away you are from me? On how fast you happen to be moving at that time? Because mass is not the only generator of inertia and gravitation. In this case one could say that it is the momentum of the photons that is causing the difference - it is certainly not their mass as that is zero. The trouble is there are too many uses of the word mass being floated around. The "mass" of a composite body is the gravitational "mass" - something that we actually often call stress/energy to avoid confusion. This is very different to the rest mass of a particle and to the relativistic "mass" of a particle. Meyer is simply talking nonsense and he has no clue to the real nature of mass and its various defintions - it's not his field. Why would I be intersted in any of his definitions?

Which just proves your assumptions are wrong again.I believe there is truth, but that what we can know about it is bounded on one side by what we do not know, and on the other side by what we know to be false.That is not relative.The earth is old. We know that it is at least 4.55 billion years old, how much older we do not know. We know that it cannot be much older as the solar system is not that much older.You believe the earth is young: this is false.Life on this planet is old. We know that it is at least 3.5 billion years old, how much older we do not know. We know that it cannot be much older because the earth is not that much older.You believe life is young: this is false.Evolution has, does and will proceed to diversify life on this planet. We know that by whatever metric you choose to measure "information" that it has, does and will "increase" (as well as decrease or remain the same) by purely natural means during the course of evolution.You believe it cannot "increase": this is false. Your radar for detecting truth is broken.You believe things that are contradicted by evidence. That is not truth, it is not faith, it is delusion.Only by confronting evidence do you find the bounds of truth, not by hiding from it.The "information" is there -- all you need to do is look at it. Quoting biblical verses is not evidence, and is rather an admission of defeat on a science thread, when you are supposed to substantiate your position with evidence. All this shows is that you would rather hide behind a convenient self-comforting quote than confront reality.It's your security blanket.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi Subbie,I think I already said what you're trying to say. Let me elaborate and see if you agree.In my previous message I said, "Everything that happens, whether or not a human being was involved, causes matter and energy to shoot off into the ether carrying information about the event." In your reply you used the example of DNA. When DNA replicates, whatever happens during that replication causes matter and energy to shoot off into the surrounding environment with information about that event. Since DNA has persistence, a property I also mentioned in a previous message, an event such as a mutation can persistently affect the surrounding environment. In other words, the mutational change continuously informs the environment of its presence (as does everything else).So when I said that every event creates information I was of course referring to material events, so of course they can create information. The examples I provided for Rob, of photocell lights, of tree rings and of starlight, were all of materialistic processes creating information, and they all contradicted Meyer's claim that information cannot be created by material real-world processes.--Percy

Hi Rob,As a participant in this thread I cannot moderate it, but I'd like to add my voice to the others here saying the same thing: could you please confine yourself to addressing the topic?If you're looking for an avenue of rebuttal that may have potential, could I suggest questioning the assertion that meaning isn't part of information. Both Dembski and Gitt claim that it is. Why don't you look into that?Or you could investigate Dembski's concept of specified complexity.Whether or not theses avenues hold much promise, unlike Revelation 19:21 and unsupported assertions of "you're wrong", at least they're on topic and follow the Forum Guidelines.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Or is it simply that he is still misrepresenting folk and never stops misrepresentingRob makes the following claim addressed to RAZD: Come on Rob. No one has ever said that there are not instance where things are absolutely true.For example, it is absolutely true that you are absolutely wrong saying that RAZD and others do not think there are things that are absolutely true. Sorry but that is a nonsense statement that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.In case you have forgotten the topic is "Information Theory and Intelligent Design."You have been shown examples of information that was created naturally. You have, of course, simply failed to address the very specific examples that refuted the quotes you provided from so called experts.When your points are absolutely refuted, you then fall back on your standby of trotting out bible verses out of context as though that had some merit.What you seem to miss is that by taking parts out of an information set you destroy the very information that you are claiming is present.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ok... So what I am hearing, is that I need to conform to reality (lose my life, so that I may find real life)... That I am wrong and that you are right (He who is not with me, is against me).You guys sound like someone I know... but you don't believe in Him.I see no reason to continue this mock trial. I was guilty before the trial began, you only offer forgiveness if I repent.Again, it sounds familliar....I shall not repent, and neither shall you. We are all absolutists here so... Therefore, on whom justice will fall, let justice fall.As for me, I am glad my debt is paid. I could never have paid it. I only have to endure your sophistry and derision for a short time. Death is a consolation for a man like Socrates in a world like this one. Plato understood it well...

Message 30

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

so now you're plato or socrates?hah, that's rich. real rich. tell me, what is it like to live in what we call the "modern" world, 2000 years plus removed from yours?I wouldn't suggest walking around. people might scream and otherwise react badly to a decaying corpse running (walking) around.you can think you're a martyr, Rob, but you're not. No one is crucifying you. It's not our fault you're delusional.