Information Theory and Intelligent Design.

Admittedly I have not rtfa yet, but plan to when I can set aside an hour.But I find an exception in the very first paragraph of the first link:

quote:

---

One important argument against evolution is the fact that information always requires an intelligent mind. It appears to be a real law of nature that information can never develop of its own accord.

---

The author does not substantiates this. I remember reading something that Dembski has expressed this notion and created what he calls the "law of conservation of information".Does anyone have some simple examples or analogy to refute this claim?Off the top, I can think of some examples from geology. Geological formations and rock themselves contain "information" of their past.For example, ripple rock are ordered mineral grains that contain information of prior conditions. This information is not the product of an intelligent mind but records the passage of energy flow and transition.The ripple patterns are ordered and therefore the entropy is reduced as compared to surrounding flat seabed. The pattern contains information that allows a present day observer to make inferences of the conditions (direction, depth, velocity, etc) of the conditions.Am I missing something here. Are they talking about a different sort of "information".

Huh? Because something has a massless character does that equate to a non materialistic origin? I would ask this professor to explain that implied assumption....Thinking about this further....A photon is massless, are their origins non-materialistic?What if this esteemed professor, with many degrees, and held up a blue disk and red disk and asked the difference in mass. Zero none.... and there you have it, no materialistic explanation is possible?What if the one disk was magnetized and one was not. Is magnetism a metaphysical property?What if both disks had a different shape but identical mass. Does this imply shape has non materialist origins?

The photon is massless, but that is of course, according to physicist who we know are probably just covering for the evilutionists.But what about shape or color?What if one disks is chocolate covered and the other smothered in a delightful hollandaise sauce but both of equal mass?Seriously, you can get away with an argument like this in a class of undergraduates who don't want to piss off the prof with a challenging question for fear of grade retaliation or when preaching to the choir.

Rob, before this spins wildly out of control can you address Does shape and color have non materialistic origins since they are massless quantities.

From reading your answer you didn't....The argument is that biological systems are based on information, information is massless and therefore cannot have a materialistic origins. Then why highlight information as special? But you just said everything is non-material.How about shape, color, charge, magnetisation? Maybe so, but not in the way your professorial quote contended with a whopper implied unstated assumption. Color is independent of intelligence and information. For example, if the sun shines on a black rock or white rock the energy adsorbed is different. Please highlight how I evaded the issue. You cut-n-paste a quote that "proves" the non-materialistic origin of life and you are having trouble explaining it - so who is evading? Edited by iceage, : fixed sentence wording.

Let's try this....

quote:

---

"One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two disks. One is blue, and the other one is red. And I ask them, ”what is the difference in mass between these two disks, as a result of their difference in spectral absorption properties.

​

And of course the answer is, ”Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of spectral absorption properties. And that’s because spectral absorption properties are a mass-less quantity. Now, if spectral absorption properties are not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?

---

Did we just "prove" that the physical properties of spectral absorption are not really a materialistic property or did we just commit some blunder in logic.

Please stop trying to validate yourself with your perceived martyrdom.If you were arguing Islamic creationism you would receive the same scrutiny. It is your false premise and logic that I question.

Meyer is incorrect...Again let's try this....

quote:

---

"One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two disks. One is blue, and the other one is red. And I ask them, ”what is the difference in mass between these two disks, as a result of their difference in spectral absorption properties.

​

And of course the answer is, ”Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of spectral absorption properties. And that’s because spectral absorption properties are a mass-less quantity. Now, if spectral absorption properties are not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?

---

Does the specific physical property of spectral absorption (color) have non-materialistic explanations.What about surface texture, shape, charge, magnetic polarity.

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.