evidence of God, a rational belief

this forum has the goal to organize and unite information and compelling evidence for the existence of the God of the bible


You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Information: Evidence for a Creator? on Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:47 pm

Information: Evidence for a Creator?

http://www.christiscreator.com/informationsystems.htm

The science of information systems has generated considerable debate on the possibility of macro evolution. Not only do living cellular structures lend themselves well to this kind of analysis but the complexity of living systems is vastly greater than the cyber systems normally studied under this type of science. According to scientist Michael Denton genomes or basic genetic material carry at least 1000 million bits of complex information or enough to fill 1000 volumes in a typical library.They include complex encoded algorithms for the growth, development, and possibly even the death of billions of cells. These storage and retrieval programs with their replication mechanisms and self diagnosis of defects and chemical repair systems are far beyond any computer programs achieved through the intelligence of man. To think they arose through natural selection and random chance should be incredulous.Such systems would no more arise by chance and natural selection than brand new Boeing 777's would arise in junk yards from the effects of tornadoes.

Complex systems whether mechanical or biological require energy, matter AND intelligent programming of information content. Such understanding is plainly obvious when one has experience in software programming as well as engineering and mechanical design. Fully functioning complex machines and systems require precise programming of information. Turning on and off computers or entering random data into a computer does not create operational programming functions. In the same way the vastly more complex and sophisticated programming of DNA and its double helix complex structure does not lend itself to the lack of intelligent design. The mathematical possibility of such a complex structure arising in a primordial "soup" through random chance was calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle to be one in 10 to the 30,000 power or in simple terms- statistically impossible.

The truth is that thousands of scientists are coming to this realization all over the world and many have joined creation based research organizations. Unfortunately the evolution establishment seems to be operating it's own "Inquisition of belief" if you will of those brave enough to question evolutionary theory.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/information-evidence-for-a-creator

The battle of the ages began when Satan deceived himself into thinking he could overthrow the sovereign rule of God. Since then, Satan has opposed God and has become known as the adversary or great deceiver. Two opposing kingdoms are in conflict. The kingdom of Satan attacked the kingdom of God with the goal of destroying it. Both God and Satan have a purpose for history; but since God is God, and Satan is His created creature, God’s purpose is the ultimate one.

With the birth of the Church, Satan had a new enemy to contend with. The Church’s preaching of the gospel poses a serious threat to his kingdom. Every time the gospel is preached to nonbelievers, Satan is in danger of them believing it and leaving his kingdom. Thus, in order to prevent losing members in his kingdom, Satan must attack the Church and its message. Throughout the history of the Church, Satan has used various tactics from physical persecution to deceiving the Church into believing wrong ideas and compromising God’s Word. Satan has launched these attacks from both outside and inside the Church. People have burned the Bible, banned it, changed it, or considered it irrelevant, especially in this modern scientific age. One of Satan’s major strategies against the church has been and is the philosophy of materialism.

Materialism is the assumption that all that exists is mass and energy (matter); there are no supernatural forces, nothing exists that is nonmaterial, and no God. Materialism is the foundational presupposition for atheism, humanism, and evolutionism.

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

We atheists . . . try to find some basis of rational thinking on which we can base our actions and our beliefs, and we have it. . . . We accept the technical philosophy of materialism. It is a valid philosophy which cannot be discredited. Essentially, materialism’s philosophy holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. . . . There are no supernatural forces, no supernatural entities such as gods, or heavens, or hells, or life after death (emphasis added).2

The challenge by materialists is that the Church cannot defend against the philosophy of materialism. The materialists do not believe the Church can demonstrate the existence of God. Further, they know that if materialism is true, then evolution must also be true. But what if the assumption of materialism is false? What if it could be shown through empirical science that the universe consists of more than just mass and energy?

Good News

For Darwinian (molecules-to-man) evolution to actually work, new genetic information is required each step of the way. In order for a fish to grow legs, new information must be encoded into the DNA. For a reptile to grow feathers, new information must be encoded into the DNA. For an apelike creature to evolve into a human, new information must be encoded into the DNA. This new information must add to or replace old information with new instructions to grow legs, or feathers, or human characteristics. But what is information and where does it come from?
Follow me in this illustration: Imagine for a moment that it is your mother’s birthday and you want to wish her a happy birthday, but you are stuck in an area without power. You know your friend a couple of miles away has power and knows Morse code. So you build a fire and begin using smoke signals to spell out Morse code for your friend to call your brother to have him send an e-mail on your behalf to your mother for her birthday.
Information went from you to the smoke signals directly to your friend’s eyes and from your friend’s mouth through sound waves to the phone receiver then through electronic signals in the phone to your brother and back into sound waves for your brother to hear it. Then the information went through his fingers and was transferred into code on the computer and again through electronic means to your mother who received the information on her computer screen as an understandable concept—Happy Birthday. Nothing material actually transferred from you to your mother, but information did, which shows that everything isn’t material.

This is the good news! Why is this good news? Because the foundation for materialism (atheism, humanism, evolution) is that the universe consists of only two entities3: mass and energy. Therefore, if a third entity can be shown to exist, then materialism and all philosophies based on it must also be false. Information is this third fundamental entity.

What Is Information?

There are several definitions of information currently in use; however, each of these definitions are generally too broad. For example, one definition of information includes symbols with or without meaning, and another includes everything in its definition of information. Imagine sending random symbols as smoke signals to your friend—would Happy Birthday ever get sent to your mother on her birthday? Imagine sending a bunch of smoke signal dots in the air to your friend—would Happy Birthday ever get sent to your mother?

In July 2006, a team of scientists representing various scientific disciplines met to evaluate a definition of information proposed by information scientist Dr. Werner Gitt,4 which is precise and corresponds very well to human languages and machine languages. The team proposed that this definition be called Universal Definition of Information (UDI) and agreed that there are four essential attributes that define it:

Code (syntax): Information within all communications systems contains a code. A code contains a set of symbols and rules for using letters, words, phrases, or symbols to represent something else. One reason for coding is to enable communication. Examples of codes would be the English alphabet, words, and syntax; hieroglyphics; or codes used in computers (for example, C, Fortran, or Cobol).

Meaning (semantics)
: Meaning enables communication by representing real objects or concepts with specific symbols, words, or phrases. For example, the word chair is not the physical chair but represents it. Likewise, the name “Bob” is not the physical person but represents the real person. When words are associated with real objects or concepts, it gives the word meaning.
For example, aichr and Bbo do not have meaning because they do not represent any real object or concept. However, if in the future one of these character strings were to represent a real object or concept, it would have meaning. Prior to the computer Internet age, the word blog had no meaning; today it is associated with a web page that serves as a personal log (derived from web log) of thoughts or activities. It can also mean a discussion community about personal issues. Another new word with meaning is simplistic. New words are continually being designated with meaning.

Expected Action (pragmatics): Expected action conveys an implicit or explicit request or command to perform a given task. For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the expected action is that someone will go to the store. This does not mean the action will actually happen, but it is expected to happen.

Intended Purpose (apobetics): Intended purpose is the anticipated goal that can be achieved by the performance of the expected action(s). For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the intended purpose might be to bake and eat chocolate chip cookies.

These four essential attributes specify the definition domain for information. A definition of information (Universal Definition of Information) was formulated by using these four attributes:
An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.

Encoded Code
Symbolically represented message Meaning
Expected action Action
Intended purpose Purpose
Anything not containing all four attributes is not considered information by this Universal Definition of Information (UDI).
Examples of entities that do contain Information:
The Bible
Newspaper
Hieroglyphics
Sheet music
Mathematical formulas
Examples of entities that do not contain Information (one or more of the attributes are missing):
A physical star: Lacks a code and lacks meaning because it does not represent something else; it is the physical object that the word star represents.
A physical snowflake: Lacks a code and lacks meaning because it does not represent something else; it is the physical object.
Random sequence of letters: Has a symbol set, but lacks rules for words or grammar (no code). Since it is random, it has no meaning to any sequence of letters.
A physical piano: Lacks meaning because it does not represent something else; it is the physical object.
Investigating Information Scientifically
The lowest level of operational science begins with ideas originated and formulated by man. These include models, hypotheses, theories, assumptions, speculations, etc. This is the lowest level of scientific certainty because man’s understanding of reality is incomplete, faulty, and constantly changing. A very large gap exists between this level of science and the highest level. This highest level contains scientific laws.
Scientific laws are precise statements formulated from discoveries made through observations and experiments that have been repeatedly verified and never contradicted. There are scientific laws about matter (Newton’s law of gravity, laws of thermodynamics, laws of electricity, and laws of magnetism). There is Pasteur’s law about life (law of biogenesis). Each of these laws is universal with no known exceptions. Scientific evidence that supports or refutes a scientific concept determines its level of certainty.

The information team evaluated scientific laws about information formulated by Dr. Werner Gitt that determine the nature and origin of information .

Fundamental Law 1 (FL1)

A purely material entity, such as physicochemical processes, cannot create a nonmaterial entity. (Something material cannot create something nonmaterial.)
Physical entities include mass and energy (matter). Examples of something that is not material (nonmaterial entity) include thought, spirit, and volition (will).

Fundamental Law 2 (FL2)

Information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
The information recorded on a CD is nonmaterial. If you weigh a modern blank CD, fill it with information, and weigh it again, the two weights will be the same. Likewise, erasing the information on the CD has no effect on the weight.
The same information can be transmitted on a CD, a book, a whiteboard, or using smoke signals. This means the information is independent of the material source. A material object is required to store information, but the information is not part of the material object. Much like people in an airplane are being stored and transferred in the plane, they are not part of the physical plane.
The first law of thermodynamics makes it clear that mass and energy (matter) can neither be created nor destroyed. All mass and energy in the universe is being conserved (the total sum is constant). However, someone can write a new complicated formula on a whiteboard and then erase the formula. This is a case of creating and destroying information.

Since the first law of thermodynamics states that mass and energy (matter) cannot be created or destroyed, and information can be created and destroyed, information must be nonmaterial.
The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, is purely symbolic and independent of its environment. Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter and energy.5

Indeed, Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.6

First Law of Information (LI1)

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.7

Second Law of Information (LI2)

Information can only originate from an intelligent sender

All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.

We observe daily a continual input of new information from an intelligent source (human beings). At present, on earth, the only new information we have detected being created is from human beings. Careful examination of other systems will determine if there are any other intelligent sources of new UDI.

Any given chain of information can be traced backward to an intelligent source.

For two people to effectively communicate, there must be some agreement on the language or code that is used.

Law of Matter about Machines (LM1)

When information is utilized in a material domain, it always requires a machine.
Definition of a machine: A machine is a material device that uses energy to perform a specific task.

Information is required for the design and construction of machines.
What does this mean? Both information and matter are necessary for the development of a machine. It is the information that determines and directs the assembly of the material system into the necessary configuration, thereby creating a machine. This means that tracing backward to the manufacture and design of any machine capable of performing useful work will lead to the discovery or necessity of information and ultimately to its intelligent source.


Does the code in all living systems (DNA) exhibit all four attributes of Universal Definition of Information?

Since all living systems contain DNA and DNA information contains all four attributes, it meets the UDI definition of information.

Furthermore, the capacity and density of the information encoded in DNA surpasses anything mankind has accomplished.

There is no information system designed by man that can even begin to compare to it [DNA]

The decoded portion of DNA contains 4 letters (ATCG) that make up three-letter words (codon). These codons are arranged linearly in a various sequence (syntax).

Meaning Each three-letter word represents 1 of the 20 specific amino acids used in life. The sequence (syntax) of the DNA words designates the specific sequence of the amino acids in protein formation.

Cellular proteins are biomachines essential for construction, function, maintenance, and reproduction of the entire organism

The information encoded in DNA is billions of times more compact than a modern PC hard drive.

How long would it take using naturalistic processes to type out such a code?
A billion universes each populated by billions of typing monkeys could not type out a single gene of this genome.



But a purposeful, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator could create complex codes in less than a day.

Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee (Jeremiah 32:17).

The information team agreed upon a precise definition of information (UDI) that is consistent with the information found in human natural languages and in machine languages. Additionally, scientific laws that govern the UDI definition domain were established. It was agreed that the information encoded within the DNA belongs to the UDI domain.


If we apply these laws governing UDI to DNA information, we can make logically sound arguments (conclusions).

Since the DNA code of all life-forms is clearly within the UDI definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a sender (LI 1, 2).

Since the density and complexity of the DNA encoded information is billions of times greater than man’s present technology, we conclude the sender must be supremely intelligent

Since the sender must have encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules
constructed the molecular biomachines required for the encoding, decoding, and synthesizing processes designed all the features for the original life-forms
we conclude the sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful

Since information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and cannot originate from purely material quantities, we conclude the sender must have a nonmaterial component (Spirit). God is Spirit

Since information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and cannot originate from purely material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude man’s nature must have a nonmaterial component (spirit). Man has a spirit

Since information is nonmaterial and the third fundamental entity, we conclude that the assumption “the universe is composed solely of mass and energy” is false

The philosophy of materialism is false!

Since all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (no sender), we conclude all theories of chemical and biological evolution are false

The evolution of life is false!

Therefore, the scientific laws governing the UDI domain have
Refuted the presupposition of atheism, humanism, and the like, including the theories of chemical and biological evolution.
Confirmed the existence of an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful being (God).

Summary

The importance of information to the creation/evolution debate is founded in the presuppositions of each model. The presupposition of the evolutionary model is materialism, which is the idea that everything in the universe is solely comprised of matter (mass and energy). From this foundational assumption, evolutionists logically conclude that cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution are all true. The presupposition of materialism has been shown scientifically to be false.
The presupposition of the Bible is that there is a God who created the universe, the earth, and all organisms living on earth. This has been shown to be consistent with scientific discoveries that there is a nonmaterial third fundamental entity called information that originates only from an intelligent source. The universe consists of more than just mass and energy, and the information found within the DNA system of all life originated from an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator God.

The Challenge

Anyone who disagrees with these laws and conclusions must falsify them by demonstrating the initial origin of information from purely material sources. This challenge has never been scientifically achieved.



Last edited by elshamah888 on Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:07 pm; edited 8 times in total

View user profile

2 Re: Information: Evidence for a Creator? on Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:03 pm

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm#discover

Q: How do you define information?

A: The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data."
From Wikipedia:
Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.
This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.
information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.
What's important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols ("code") which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.
It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.
A code is "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages." Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.
All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

View user profile

3 Re: Information: Evidence for a Creator? on Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:23 am

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

View user profile

4 Re: Information: Evidence for a Creator? on Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:24 am

http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/20-typing.htm

Those Typing Monkeys Don't Prove Evolution



by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed

Email: laurence@unmaskingevolution.com

Webpage: www.unmaskingevolution.com

[Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]




Attempts have been made to support evolution by appealing to mathematics to justify long ages. For example, Nobel prize winner, George Wald, wrote, "Time is the hero of the plot. Given enough time anything can happen - the impossible becomes probable, the improbable becomes certain." (1)

Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog") used this technique in Oxford, in 1860, while debating Samuel Wilberforce. He stated that if monkeys randomly strummed typewriter keys for a long enough time, then sooner or later Psalm 23 would be printed out. Huxley used this argument to demonstrate that life could have originated on Earth by chance. (2)

Julian Huxley (1887-1975) repeated this analogy to 'prove' that long periods of time could allow impossible evolution to occur. In his analogy, given enough time, monkeys randomly typing on typewriters could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. (3)

Stephen Hawking used the monkey story in 1988. He proposed that if there was a horde of typing monkeys, then "very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets." (4)

When all these outlandish statements were made "... no evolutionary scientist or mathematician who knew better raised a single objection." (5) So as a result, these statements have convinced many people that 5 billion years is enough time for life to evolve on Earth.

This ruse has been very convincing because most people have difficulty comprehending very small and extremely large numbers. For example, how long would it take someone to count to 1 billion, non-stop? (Answer on the bottom of the last page)

Just how logical is this monkey story? In simple terms, if every square foot of the earth's surface was covered with monkeys randomly typing on typewriters, at the rate of ten characters per second (about 5 times the realistic speed) they could not do the job. Even if they typed non-stop for 30 billion years there would not be the slightest chance that one of them would type even a single five word sentence of 31 characters, with spaces and punctuation in the correct place. The probability for them to achieve this is less than one chance in a trillion.

Richard Dawkins also appeals to the monkeys to convince his readers that evolution by natural selection is plausible. He believes that a thousand such monkeys could type Shakespeare's sentence, "Methinks it is like a weasel." However, the probability of them typing this six-word sentence (including spaces), is one chance in 1039.

It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10143).


"If each proton in the observable universe were a typing monkey (roughly 1080 in all), and they typed 500 characters per minute (faster than the fastest secretary), around the clock for 20 billion years, then all the monkeys together could make 5x1096 attempts at the characters. It would require an additional 3x1046 such universes to have an even chance at success." (9)

Recently, the reality of this last statement has been so damaging to the support for Darwinian evolution, that many evolutionists have taken up the "additional universes" scenario as a way out. They change the analogy and invent an unimaginably large number of universes that are all full of monkeys. They believe that under these new conditions, sooner or later one of the monkeys will succeed. This is the basis of the Anthropic Principle (see my lecture notes #8, "The Anthropic Principle", for a refutation of this theory).

There is a second counter-argument to the mathematical impossibility of evolution. It suggests that when a monkey types the correct key it stays, but when an incorrect key is hit it is 'rubbed out'. This reasoning is based on the assumption that evolution has proceeded in a positive direction, always upwards. As evolution isn't always positive (ie. devolution can also occur), this argument is not valid. (10)

A third counter-argument considers what is called cumulative selection. In it, the monkeys type in stages, stopping to check their work, saving what is close to the target sentence. This process is repeated until the monkey's random typing reproduces the sentence. (11)

This description of evolution is also false because evolution never has anything to aim at. "Nature presents life with no targets. Life shambles forward, surging here, shuffling there, the small advantages accumulating on their own until something novel appears on the broad evolutionary screen - an arch or an eye, an intricate pattern of behaviour, the complexity characteristic of life." (12)

Returning to the mathematics, Michael Behe estimates the probability of just getting the 30,000 gene pieces required for blood clotting in the right sequence as 10-18. To get the genes plus the clotting activator working together by chance has the probability of 10-36. (13)

Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:- (14)

10-19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide
10-20 for a functional enzyme
10-130 for the histone H4 molecule
10-40,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
This last value (10-40,000) shows the probability that a very, very tiny part of evolution could have happened. This probability is more unlikely than the monkey's chance typing (viz 10-143) which have been used to 'prove' evolution.

Bear in mind that Mathematical Zero is 10-50. Any value smaller than this is relegated by mathematicians to the realm of 'never happening'.

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material". (15)

To sum up this mathematical analysis of the monkey analogy, the monkeys could not succeed. Therefore, if the monkeys couldn't succeed, the analogy predicts that evolution could not have succeeded.

Time then, actually destroys the assumptions of evolution.

Bearing in mind that the evolution of life requires the evolution of genetic information, let's look at the monkey analogy from an information perspective. Is it appropriate to use typing monkeys as proof of the origin of life, including its genetic information?

Richard Dawkins used a computer program in his attempt to prove that the typing monkeys would succeed. Information expert Werner Gitt describes Dawkins' conclusions as feeble-minded and fallacious. Gitt says that "the goal will always be reached, because the programming is fixed. Even the number of letters is given in advance. It is obvious that no information is generated, on the contrary, it has been predetermined". (16)

Analysing the monkey analogy using information theorems will help to see if the information necessary for life (ie. DNA) could have evolved. Specifically:- (17)

Information Theorem #2 "Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act.";
Information Theorem #11 "A code system is always the result of a mental process - it requires an intelligent origin or inventor.";
and

Information Theorem #16 "If a chain of symbols comprises only a statistical sequence of characters, it does not represent information."
So it turns out that chance, random events cannot create information - which includes DNA (the information storage facility in living things).

If a six word Shakespearian sentence could not be typed in more time than the earth is believed to have existed, How could DNA have evolved by random events? Remember, the DNA in human cells contains approximately 1.5 gigabytes of data, equivalent to the information in 12,000 books. (18)

The typing monkey analogy, therefore, has no bearing on information, or on life, as it is impossible for DNA information to be created by chance, random events. (19)

View user profile

5 Re: Information: Evidence for a Creator? on Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:20 pm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god

Some scientists and educators have tried to get around the above problems by speculating that as long as all the chemicals that make up the molecule of heredity (and the information it contains) came together at some time in the past, then life could have begun.
Life is built upon information. In fact, in just one of the trillions of cells that make up the human body, the amount of information in its genes would fill at least 1,000 books of 500 pages of typewritten information. Scientists now think this is hugely underestimated.
Where did all this information come from? Some try to explain it this way: imagine a professor taking all the letters of the alphabet, A–Z, and placing them in a hat. He then passes the hat around to students of his class and asks each to randomly select a letter.
It is easy for us to see the possibility (no matter how remote it seems) of three students in a row selecting B then A and finally T. Put these three letters together and they spell a word—BAT. Thus, the professor concludes, given enough time, no matter how improbable it seems, there is always the possibility one could form a series of words that make a sentence, and eventually compile an encyclopedia. The students are then led to believe that no intelligence is necessary in the evolution of life from chemicals. As long as the molecules came together in the right order for such compounds as DNA, then life could have begun.
On the surface, this sounds like a logical argument. However, there is a basic, fatal flaw in this analogy. The sequence of letters, B-A-T, is a word to whom? Someone who speaks English, Dutch, French, German, or Chinese? It is a word only to someone who knows the language. In other words, the order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful.
In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful. DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum