Quote from: BitChick on March 04, 2014, 05:52:10 PM

Quote from: Rannasha on March 04, 2014, 05:43:54 PM

Quote from: BitChick on March 04, 2014, 04:17:53 PM

Quote from: Akka on March 04, 2014, 04:14:00 PM

Quote from: BitChick on March 04, 2014, 03:46:09 PM

Quote from: C10H15N on March 04, 2014, 03:40:15 PM

Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on March 04, 2014, 03:24:41 PM

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable. It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours? There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source. Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?" There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design. If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above. Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

Quote

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.

TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.

How does a robot work? If we take away the computer chip the robot is useless. We can look at the laws of nature and see that without information things will not function. Without DNA, all living creatures would not be able to do anything either. So this is a major point. There is information encoded in us. There had to be a sender of this information. Who that "Sender" is can be debatable, of course.

You assume that information, or complexity, can not emerge naturally from a basic set of natural laws without a supreme being (the Sender) artificially inserting it.

As a counterpoint, I present Conway's Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life). The Game of Life is a very basic "game" that consists of a 2-dimensional grid of cells that are either dead or alive (white or black, off or on, however you want to phrase it). There are 4 simple rules that specify how the status of a cell changes in the next step of the game. These rules are so simple that an 8 year old kid could take an initial state and evolve (not using the biological notion here) the game to subsequent steps. Of course, doing this manually is a slow process, but the Game of Life can be easily implemented on a computer.

What do we see when we take these very simple rules and some initial state and let things play out? Depending on the initial state, very complex patterns can emerge. From cyclic sequences with a period of thousands of steps to practically stationary structures that continuously produce new elements that are "shot" across the field. It is even possible for Game of Life to simulate itself, that is, many small cells make up much larger structures that operate on the same rules as the small cells, but on a much slower time scale. The system is also Turing-complete, which means that any mathematical function that can be computed with traditional computation methods can also simulated within the Game of Life.

The Game of Life is an impressive example of how from a very restrictive set of rules (2D-grid, discrete timesteps, only 2 possible states for each basic element) incredibly complex structures can emerge. Given what is already possible within Game of Life, it makes one wonder what emergent complexity is possible in universe with (at least) 3 spatial dimensions, continuous time (probably) and many more basic elements and possible states. And all of this doesn't require the complexity to be created. It just needs some initial state, a set of rules and a metaphorical flip of the "on" switch. Complexity will emerge on its own.

I cannot base my entire belief of life on the idea of a magical "flip on" switch for complexity or "information" to be encoded in the world. It is much more logical to believe that there was "programmer" that put the DNA code there.

I on the other hand find it far more natural and even elegant that our entire world and universe comes from a (fairly) simple set of rules and some initial state and that the complexity just emerged over the eons as the system evolved (again, not the biological notion) following this set of rules.

We have seen this emergent complexity in systems so simple a child can understand the rules, like Game of Life. If complexity can emerge in such a scenario, then I don't see why it would be more logical to postulate a "programmer" to introduce the complexity that could've emerged on its own. It just makes things needlessly more complicated.