Would this Origin of life model work?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Dan_Eastwood

Your own arguments have led to this conclusion. If your prior assumption is true (your beliefs) then your argument must be flawed.

My point was that if this story did not happen at all, then it would directly challenge the divinity of Christ because of what he said about that event as well as Noah’s flood. The common design model is derived from the Genesis account that Jesus suggested is true.

Your argument is circular. You are using the assumed truth of your beliefs to show your beliefs are true. I don’t mean that is a critical way, it’s just the nature of religious belief.

@Meerkat_SK5

A testable common design model is essentially providing an indirect way of testing for the divinity of Christ. So we actually can address this scientifically despite what you said.

That’s exactly what science cannot do. There are no exceptions or indirect workarounds. If you maintain that there are, then you should be able to cite undisputed examples.

In fact, I can bring up quotes from scientists who have contested what Jesus said, which shows that it is scientific.

??? Obviously false. If a scientist contests a parking ticket, does that make it scientific? No.

@Meerkat_SK5

Did you though? I only vaguely remember you commenting on this and I think it was pretty brief. Can you elaborate on your objection or at least copy and paste what you said before?

I didn’t wish to get technical, and I won’t. Briefly, Shannon Information is a measure of the average bandwidth needed to carry messages from a source to a receiver. In statistics this is the variance of a population. If you have ever calculated the standard deviation of a sample, you have also estimated the Shannon Information of the data source. Kolmogorov (Algorithmic) Information defines Information differently, in a way the measures the compressibility of information. It has different applications, but this theory runs parallel to that of Shannon Information. There is also Fisher Information, which I’m pretty sure only statisticians care about.

None of these in any way describe the meaning of information in any message. You are using the common or lay-persons understanding of Information, which is not mathematical or quantifiable. So when you write things like …

@Meerkat_SK5

Definition of life: digital information in the form of math

… it is simply nonsense, with no technical/scientific/mathematic meaning. This is why I keep telling you, there is nothing magical about Information. Likewise for QM, which uses concepts that parallel Information Theory - there is no magic in QM either.

For a very longer read about Information Theory, see this thread.

@Meerkat_SK5

No no no, you are misunderstanding what I said again about having falsifiable predictions versus a falsifiable hypothesis.

??? Modus Ponens. If you hypothesis is true, then the prediction should also be true. If your hypothesis is false then the prediction may be true or false. What you lack is any way to distinguish between the course of evolution and acts of God (to falsify acts of god). All of ID has this same problem.

@Meerkat_SK5

When I suggested that your objection was much more profound and devastating if it was not adequately addressed, I was talking about in terms of verifying the hypothesis. If God does not have a human nature in a similar fashion , then we can’t use the human observer as part of the experiment in order to verify or falsify the prediction that a universal common designer guided evolution entirely or provide falsifiable predictions. In other words, there would not be a common design model.

Really not sure what you are trying to say here.

@Meerkat_SK5

But, we can still disprove this hypothesis altogether and Sean Carrol described that way in the video. Now, if you feel that I misinterpreted him, then please explain how because he is a theoretical physicist who specializes in quantum and classical mechanics, which is what my hypothesis is fundamentally based on NOT information theory.

You know Carroll’s talk is titled, “God is not a good theory,” right? It’s an interesting video, but I don’t see where Carroll is saying what you claim, or anything like your proof. The closest he gets is at ~42 minutes, but spends the next 10 minutes poking holes in it.

Now, if you feel that I misinterpreted him, then please explain how because he is a theoretical physicist who specializes in quantum and classical mechanics …

That’s an argument from authority, but whatever. The most likely explanation is that you misunderstand him because you are NOT a “theoretical physicist who specializes in quantum and classical mechanics.” I know just enough physics to know better than to claim expertise in QM, but I at least understand some of the related math.

@Meerkat_SK5

And ,remember, this is not based on an assumption upon another assumption. It is an assumption based on an inference that is derived from previous experiments and observations that I argued suggest a Divine consciousness created life.

Argued incorrectly.

@Meerkat_SK5

This is why I am looking forward to your information theory objection where you explain why those studies do not show how DNA and human language are analogous or that this analogy was only meant as a metaphor.

Remember, they don’t have to be the “same” in order for the argument to work. They just have to show strong similarities in a non-metaphorical way.

Do I also need to explain how ice cream is unrelated to language OR DNA??? If you understood Information Theory you wouldn’t be making this demand.