Jesus returns in a few days

[Drifterwood]

If you think cruel and unusual things are going on here, you should accustom yourself with the torture techniques of our MODERN cultures, along with so many other things that are hidden from publc.
I could make a long list.

Are you suggesting that today's torturers are doing god's work?

 

[workandplay243]

Are you suggesting that today's torturers are doing god's work?

No, that things go on in this world that arent so pretty. The bible doesn't try to hide any of that.

 

[Drifterwood]

No, that things go on in this world that arent so pretty. The bible doesn't try to hide any of that.

And you don't think it significant that these things were done in the name of and at the behest of your god?

 

[B_Hickboy]

Are you suggesting that today's torturers are doing god's work?

Be keerfle,there,drifty. He knows hidden stuff.

 

[JustAsking]

my stance if anyone cares to see video:
How DNA Proves God Made All Creatures Great and Small | CNSnews.com

Worky, regarding this stance of yours. The link you provided has a video and a transcript of an interview the Dr. Stephen C. Meyers, who is the Director of the Center For Science and Culture at The Discovery Institute.

In this transcript, Meyers makes the following claim:

Jeffrey: All right, so what do you, Dr. Stephen Meyer, what do you say caused the first life to have DNA that had this coding that would determine the shape and the destiny of this creature?

Meyer: Well, I think we’re looking at a distinctive hallmark of intelligent activity. Information, based on what we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which is the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past, always comes from an intelligent source. If you look at a hieroglyphic inscription or a section of machine code, or a headline in a book or article, and you trace it back to its ultimate source, it always comes back to a mind, not a material process. So, when we look, when we see that there’s information embedded in DNA, and we see that that information is necessary to the beginning of the first life, I think what we’re seeing is that there must have been an intelligence that was, that played a role in the origin of life. That’s the most logical thing to conclude.

So, Meyers claims that information always comes from an intelligent source. But he only backs this up with some vague notion of "using science" to determine that.

Modern information theory makes no such claims about information requiring an intelligent producer nor an intelligent consumer. How do you explain Meyer's new restricted definition of information?

 

[JustAsking]

Oh yes, I recognize the pattern here. This is nothing but old timey Paleyism. The logic goes like this:

Premise 1: Humans produce information (incomplete list of human produced information artifacts provided).

Premise 2: Therefore a natural process cannot produce information.

Premise 3: DNA contains information.

Conclusion: Therefore the information in DNA came from an intelligent source.

I think Meyer left out a few steps, like between P1 and P2, for example. Is there anything more to this argument, or is there nothing more to see?

 

[JustAsking]

The above Meyer thing is simply a modern tarted up version of what "Natural Theologist" Wm Paley surmised in 1802:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...)

There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

Paley's logic deconstructed:

Premise 1: Humans make certain complex things (incomplete list of human artifacts provided)

Premise 2: Humans are intelligent and intentional.

Premise 3: Nature makes things (incomplete list of natural products provided).

Premise 4: Liiving creatures are more complex than human artifacts.

Premise 5: Therefore natural processes could not have created living creatures.

Premise 6: Therefore the creation of living creatures require intelligence and intention.

Premise 7: God is intelligent and intentional.

Conclusion: Therefore God created living creatures.

For some reason, this never gained acceptance as a scientific theory.

 

[Axcess]

Some more quotes for you W&P. I particularly like the one where god tells them to eat the foetuses of their victims. One for your pro life lobby.

What you have here is an understanding of a god from the Bronze Age.

I personally can't understand why anyone would either wish to inherit this understanding of god, let alone insist that it's dogma should over rule our latest science. I am willing to bet that even the people who wrote this stuff would be pretty embarassed if they were transported to our time.

"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)

"When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

"You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53)

"The Lord said to Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their horses.' " (Exceedingly cruel.) (Joshua 11:6)

"... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." (Judges 21:10-12)

"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work!
A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)

Yep . The easiest way to become an atheist is reading the Bible , specially the Old Testament.

 

[Calboner]

The above Meyer thing is simply a modern tarted up version of what "Natural Theologist" Wm Paley surmised in 1802:



Paley's logic deconstructed:

Premise 1: Humans make certain complex things (incomplete list of human artifacts provided)

Premise 2: Humans are intelligent and intentional.

Premise 3: Nature makes things (incomplete list of natural products provided).

Premise 4: Liiving creatures are more complex than human artifacts.

Premise 5: Therefore natural processes could not have created living creatures.

Premise 6: Therefore the creation of living creatures require intelligence and intention.

Premise 7: God is intelligent and intentional.

Conclusion: Therefore God created living creatures.

For some reason, this never gained acceptance as a scientific theory.

JA, I have to point out that your use of logical terminology is incorrect.

The fundamental distinction on which the very definition of an argument depends is that between premise and conclusion. A premise is a member of a set of propositions in an argument from which some other proposition, a conclusion, is inferred.

The fifth and sixth propositions in the argument above are conclusions, not premises. This fact is indicated in them by the use of the word "therefore." They may be designated "intermediate conclusion" or "sub-conclusion" to indicate that neither is the conclusion (in more explicit terms, the final conclusion) of the argument as a whole.

The generic term for designating the propositions that appear sequentially in an argument is "step." So, to use terms properly, each occurrence of the word "premise" in your analysis should be replaced by the word "step," and the word "conclusion" could also be replaced by "step 6." The more common practice is simply to designate steps by numerals and only indicate their status as premise or conclusion after them, where necessary, thus:

1. Humans make certain complex things. (Premise)

2. Humans are intelligent and intentional. (Premise)

. . .

5. Therefore, natural processes could not have created living creatures. (From (1)-(4))

[Etc.]
​

Making clear from which premises a conclusion is supposed to follow has the merit of bringing out cases in which, as here, the inference is completely devoid of logical consequence.

 

[Calboner]

JA, I would say that, IF (and I will return to that "if") we are going to represent Paley's argument as something aspiring to deductive validity, then it would be more plausibly reconstructed ("deconstructed" is the wrong word; in my book, it is always the wrong word, whatever the occasion; but it is certainly so here!) thus:

(1) Human beings produce purposively organized things, such as . . . (incomplete list of human artifacts provided).

(2) Human beings can only produce such things by an intentional exercise of intelligence and power.

(3) Therefore, purposive organization can only come into being by an intentional exercise of intelligence and power. (From (1) and (2)--by a wild leap of logic)

(4) The degree of perfection in a purposively organized thing reflects the degree of intelligence and power in its producer.

(5) Purposively organized things of a degree of perfection beyond human capacity, such as . . . (incomplete list of natural products provided), occur in nature.

(6) Therefore, those natural things are produced by an intentional exercise of superhuman intelligence and power. (From (3), (4), and (5))

(7) God is, by definition, a being of supreme intelligence and power.

(8) Therefore, God is the producer of purposively organized things in nature. (From (6) and (7)--by another wild leap)
​

Added in editing: On reconsideration, I think that step 1 is superfluous and can be compressed into step 2 (rephrased by replacing "such things" with "purposively organized things"); so the argument could be reduced to seven steps.

I think that this is more plausible both in the sense that it better represents Paley's argument (as I dimly recollect it) and in the sense that it is a more persuasive argument in its own right. I suspect that there is a way of tightening up the first few steps, so that the business about purposive organization (as I have called it) and the degree of perfection do not have to be in separate premises. I say this because it does not seem to me that the second conclusion, at (6), is problematic once one has granted steps 1-4. I also think that the inference to (6) is completely unobjectionable if the preceding steps are granted.

The real weak spots of the argument are the inferences at (3) and (8), which are simply non sequiturs. Hume (born 300 years ago this year) pointed out both failures in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. If I recall correctly, Hume also suggests in that work that what is presented as an argument is not really an argument at all but just an appeal to our impressions: look at such and such aspects of nature and you just see that it has to be designed! The further one goes in trying to derive a deductively valid argument from this intuitive process, the more apparent its faults are.

 

[Drifterwood]

Yep . The easiest way to become an atheist is reading the Bible , specially the Old Testament.

It's a funny one.

The worst thing that happened to Abrahamic religions IMHO is the imposition of orthodoxy. The journey was abruptly stopped and set in stone, to reference my celtic tradition.

This has allowed people like W&P to insist upon the reality of Bronze Age science whilst conveniently ignoring an understanding of a god who impelled us to rip the foetuses from our vanquished and devour them. They can do this because any honest scientist will seldom claim absolute knowledge as would in contrast a theist.

Their premise is based upon ignorance and fundamental dishonesty in disingenously compaing a modern scientist to a schmuck theist.

Perhaps the other way around.

I personally find this ? because a major part of my understanding of our human condition is to seek knowledge and understanding for all those things that we variously define as spiritual, unknown, unknowable, metaphysical etc etc.. I can also see that my friends like JA can find this in our religious heritage.

But they move forward as would have our religious texts had they been allowed to. This is why others have attracted more spiritual interest than the traditional christian religion in most other countries than the US. Perhaps also why there are more than 3500 denominations claiming to explain Love God and Love Yourself.

 

[workandplay243]

Worky, regarding this stance of yours. The link you provided has a video and a transcript of an interview the Dr. Stephen C. Meyers, who is the Director of the Center For Science and Culture at The Discovery Institute.

In this transcript, Meyers makes the following claim:



So, Meyers claims that information always comes from an intelligent source. But he only backs this up with some vague notion of "using science" to determine that.

Modern information theory makes no such claims about information requiring an intelligent producer nor an intelligent consumer. How do you explain Meyer's new restricted definition of information?

Information science and the science behind genetic coding is what I believe he is referring to. Biology and the 'why' behind the processes that take place in biology is what we are looking at. You take away any information that makes biological processes happen and you end up with nothing but death and dirt. Cells have no brains to let them make a thought, or complain or just get lazy, they are just doing their job, as they are told to do. This is why evolutions 'life comes from life' falls apart. Information is separate from materials, living or non living and the process that information acts on objects requires intelligent throughput. The 'how' things happen is what science is continually learning and testing making advances into all kinds of aspects in biology. -medicine, cloning, stem cell research... etc. Here I am trying to limit this discussion to the 'why'.

 

[JustAsking]

.... process that information acts on objects requires intelligent throughput. ...

And there is your problem, worky. That is an arbitrary statement with no support. There is no information theory that requires intelligence in either the producer or consumer of information.

What you stated above is just an opinion.

 

[JustAsking]

... The further one goes in trying to derive a deductively valid argument from this intuitive process, the more apparent its faults are.

I think you did Paley a lot more justice than I did by filling in some steps that are not even in his argument. But as you say, the more you fill it in, the less impressive it looks, because it brings out the places where it is obviously flawed.

I don't think much of his argument at all, but at least he was proposing it in a book called Natural Theology in 1802.

Its just today's misuse of it to manipulate the sentiments of the public is what bothers me.

And you are correct about properly labeling premises and conclusions. Thanks for the correction.

 

[JustAsking]

...I personally find this ? because a major part of my understanding of our human condition is to seek knowledge and understanding for all those things that we variously define as spiritual, unknown, unknowable, metaphysical etc etc.. I can also see that my friends like JA can find this in our religious heritage. ...

My pastor once said to me, "Seek those who seek the truth. Avoid those who think they found it."

 

[Calboner]

And there is your problem, worky. That is an arbitrary statement with no support. There is no information theory that requires intelligence in either the producer or consumer of information.

What you stated above is just an opinion.

But he has stated it SO MANY times! A few more repetitions and surely it must be transformed into an undeniable fact!

I think you did Paley a lot more justice than I did by filling in some steps that are not even in his argument.

Yes; that is one reason why I used the term "reconstruction." In truth, I was not even looking at the Paley passage but just going by my sense of where it is going in an attempt to provide the most nearly cogent possible reformulation of it.

I don't think much of his argument at all, but at least he was proposing it in a book called Natural Theology in 1802.

Even that was after the publication of Hume's Dialogues (1779), but, of course, long before anyone had any plausible conception of how adaptation could occur without design (in the sense of intentional formation).

 

[workandplay243]

My pastor once said to me, "Seek those who seek the truth. Avoid those who think they found it."

I agree.

 

[workandplay243]

And there is your problem, worky. That is an arbitrary statement with no support. There is no information theory that requires intelligence in either the producer or consumer of information.

What you stated above is just an opinion.

Proof that DNA was designed by intelligence or a mind by the 'producer':


(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern;
it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.

(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

We can explore five possible conclusions:

1) Humans designed DNA

2) Aliens designed DNA

3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously

4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information

5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.


(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.
(2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.
(3) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation in that it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing more than an appeal to
luck .
(4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is
(5) a theological one.
To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.

codes never occur without a designer:

Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a
pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

 

[JustAsking]

Proof that DNA was designed by intelligence or a mind by the 'producer':


(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern;
it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.

(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

Nice trick worky, but your premise #2 begs the question. The statement #2 requires one to concede that no codes can be created by a natural process, for example, the code in DNA, because:

All X requires Y, implies no X without Y. Or,

All codes require intelligence implies that there are no codes created without intelligence (e.g. through only natural processes).

But whether the code in DNA is naturally occuring or not is the very question, so it should not appear as a premise. Asking us to concede that point arbitrarily begs the question, and then creates circular reasoning.

If one does not concede that DNA occurs naturally, one can conclude that there are more examples of naturally occuring codes than there are human produced codes.

It also relies on the same Paleyesque non sequitar that we see in his 1802 argument that nature is less capable than humans in producing certain kinds of things. Like Paley you develop that argument emotionally or sentimentally by naming very obvious human artifacts and compare them to things in nature. By carefully choosing the items on the artifact list to be obvious human artifacts, you develop the emotional environment in which the reader feels that it is unlikely that codes can come from anywhere else. Once again, it is of the form:

1) Humans produce certain complex things (incomplete list of obvious human artifacts provided).
2) Therefore nature cannot produce certain things.

For example using the term "information storage system", makes it sound like something only a human would make, but nothing in that phrase actually establishes that nature does not have ways of storing information. And the mention of "language" takes it one step too far. There is no notion of a langage in DNA unless you stretch the definition of language. And even that won't help you because if you say that the code in DNA is a language, then one conclusion can be that certain languages can be naturally occuring.

We can explore five possible conclusions:

1) Humans designed DNA

2) Aliens designed DNA

3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously

4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information

5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

Very nice, worky, but all you did here was produce an incomplete list of possibilities carefully designed to convince the reader that it is exhaustive. In that way, you can make #5 seem to be the best solution.

However you left out:

3a) DNA was created by a non-random natural process.

and you left out:

4a) Through a non-random natural process, DNA accumulates information from the environment.

Also, #4 itself implies an argument from ignorance. If we are ignorant of natural processes that produce information, appealing to that ignorance is called appropriately, "Appeal To Ignorance", which is a logical fallacy. In other words, supporting the claim only based on someone's ignorance of a counter-example is appealing to ignorance. This is true even if no one knows a counter-example. In science our job is to test our assertions, not just propose them on a dare that someone find a counterexample.

You can address this fallacy by making #4 stronger, such as

4) No natural process can produce information.

but then you would have to prove that to be true. Appealing to the fact that some particular person might not be able to think of a way for nature to produce inforamation is simply an appeal to ignorance. And simply asking someone to concede the premise, is once again, begging the question, because the question at hand is whether the information in DNA is naturally occuring or not.

If your claim is #4, please demonstrate the positive falsifiable predictions that hypothesis makes and please tell us how it would be tested.

(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.
(2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.
(3) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation in that it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing more than an appeal to
luck .
(4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is
(5) a theological one.
To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.

And yes, because your #4 was incomplete in that it only included purely random processes, it is reasonable to speak the need for luck. But my 4a completes the list and removes the need for luck. There are plenty of processes in nature that are non-random, including one's that exploit randomness. Evolution, for example. Mutation is random, natural selection exploits the possibilities produced by that randomness in a relentlessly non-random fashion, and inheritance is exceedingly non-random.

codes never occur without a designer:

Appeal to assertion. Saying it over and over again, does not make it true. Oh, and saying it louder doesn't make it true, either. You have not demonstrated that this is true.

Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a
pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

A number of problems here. You produce an incomplete list of examples of human produced symbolic codes, and then make the claim that DNA is also a symbolic code, but you haven't demonstrated that. In other words, the terms "symbols" and "language" are usually used in describing codes that consist of abstractions. The symbol for the number "2", for example, is an abstraction for the notion of 2. Humans can use that symbol in their symbolic communication because they are intelligent. But that doesn't mean that all information can only be communicated in abstract symbols.

The patterns in DNA are just chemistry, and that chemistry gets expressed through chemical processes into the organic chemistry of cells and the like. Those chemical processes are driven by the sequences of base pairs in the DNA, but those chemical processes are not using abstract symbols to do that. The chemistry is just the chemistry.

(Yes, I know, you will divert the question to "how did the information get there to begin with", but first I am establishing that the expression of DNA into the ingredients for cells does not involve symbolic processing. So that further implies that the base pairs are not symbols. Which further implies that all codes are not symbolic. Which further implies that codes can be created and consumed by natural processes, because there is no requirement that information can only be produced and consumed via abstractions such as symbols)

So, if all information transfer requires intelligence, what the heck is going on here in a beehive? Or here with fireflies. Or with all the birds signalling each other in my woods and so on.

 

[JustAsking]

So here is how one analyzes a hypothesis like Worky's scientifically. As we said before, scientific hypothesis consists of one or more premises that produce testable predictions about something in the natural world.

The hypothesis might also produce further predictions by combining the premises in a logically rigorous fashion to produce consequential predictions. Such as the laws of motion (premises) producing through mathematics that orbiting masses will follow an ellptical orbit.

So the simplest hypothesis is:

1) B (premise) (e.g. F = MA). This is a naked assertion that X is true.

Or a more complex one might be:

1) B (premise) (e.g. F = MA)

2) C (premise) (force = counterforce)

... (many premises about motion)

n-1) G (last premise) (e.g. force of gravity)

n) Therefore Z (conclusion) (e.g bodies follow elliptical orbits).

So a scientific hypothesis follows the logical form of a logical or mathematical proof. If this were a logical or mathematical proof, the premises could be demonstrated to be absolutely true or absolutely false by some other logic or mathematics.

For example,

1) All points on the circumference of a circle are equidistant from the center of the circle. (premise).

The reason why #1 can be proven true is because it is a property of an ideal geometric figure. And those properties are established by definition.

Whereas, if I give you these two premises:

1) All points on the circumference of a circle are equidistant from the center of the circle. (premise).
2) The naturally occuring structure X is a circle. (premise).
3) Therefore X is .... (conclusion).

The problem with this hypothesis is that #2 does not make a statement about an idealized geometric figure. It assigns those properties to some structure X in nature arbitrarily. And the only way one would do that is by observation. Hopefully, carefully repeated and documented measurements about structure X. And those measurements are only as good as the measuring technique you used and the number of different Xs that you experimented with. You can get a statistically significant set of measurements that suggest that within the accuracy of your measurements X is a circle. And that can take you a very long way, perhaps providing useful results for 350 years, like F = MA did.

But since premise #2 is only as true as the accuracy of our measurements we accept #2 as being provisionally true as long as further testing with more refined techniques continue to demonstrate it is a circle to the best of our measurements.

So in science, all premises are provisionally true based on our testing continually failing to disprove them.

And that means that the conclusions that we derive from provisionally true premises also are provisionally true, because the deductive logic that gave rise to them cannot make them more true than the premises. It can only reflect their provisional truth into the conclusions.

So in science we use a belts and suspenders approach and we require that all conclusions about natural processes also be tested to the point where we accept them as having a high degree of provisional truth.

So both premises and conclusions must demonstrate their truth via lots of testing of the predictions they make about the natual world. In some cases we might only be able to test conclusions and not premises, such as is the case of planets where we can only measure the ellipticity of their orbits but we cannot go and test F = MA.

So to evaluate Worky's hypothesis as a scientific hypothesis, we must test both the premises and the conclusions through experimentation. But before we do that, we are allowed to investigate the form of the logical argument and throw it out if it is not logically rigorous. In other words, if the conclusion is not really a logical consequence of its premises, we do not need to waste our time and lots of money building a laboratory We can simply laugh off the bogus logic and move on.

The next step in our quality control is asking the question are the premises testable at all. In science we demand that the premises be falsifiable, meaning they contain all they need to suggest to us a test that will either prove out the premise's predictions, or falsify its predictions. And both of these are required. If a premise is unfalsifiable, we have to reject it because we can go no further in establishing its provisional truth through testing. If the any of the premises are not falsifiable then we also reject the hypothesis as being scientific and classify it as possibly interesting speculation. Again, we save ourselves a lot of time and money with something futile.

Finally, whether a premise can produce a positive prediction or not, we might be able to identify an counterexample for it in nature just by thinking back over stuff we know and eliminating it that way without having to do new experiments. For example, if someone offers the premise "It never rains in California", we can eliminate that readily without waiting for it to rain. We can demonstrate it is false based on the historical record.

And finally, if the premises and the conclusion survive all of those things, we build our laboratory or a huge billion dollar Large Hadon Collider and start working on testing the predictions made by the premises and the conclusions.

So now, given that, we have already shown that worky's logic is flawed in that his conclusions do not follow from his premise. In other words that humans make certain things does not tell us what nature cannot make. Yes, nature does not seem to produce automobiles, scultpures of human heads like Mt Rushmore, but that does not mean that nature can biological cells or DNA. It might seem unlikely, but so does continents moving all over the surface of the earth seem unlikely.

But getting by that, think about the following premises that are found in worky's logic.

1) Information can only originate from an intelligent source.
2) Information can only be consumed by an intelligent source.

Since we are overlooking the logical flaws in worky's hypothesis, we move on to the next hurdle which is asking the question, are these premises falsifiable. And the way one establishes that is to determine what tests these premises suggest that one would do to falsify them. If they are falsifiable, in principle, one should be able to do one test to falsify them, if they are not true.

How would you test #1 and #2

And while you are thinking about that, the next step would be, testable or not, can we think of any counterexamples in observations we have already made about nature?

For example, can you think of a case where anything or anyone responds to information that was originated from a non-intelligent source?

And can anyone think of of a case where a non-intelligent consumer responds to information?