The Instigator
creationtruth
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
sviridovt
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Information science demonstrates that biological information requires an intelligent mind (i.e. God)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
creationtruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,356 times Debate No: 53634
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

creationtruth

Pro

The information science, and definition of information that will be the resolution for this debate is to be found on this webpage: http://creation.com...

You can disagree with the information laws, but we must agree on the definition for information. If you do not agree with Dr. Gitt's definition of information (statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics), then please do not accept this challenge, but you may state why you don't agree in the comment section.

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Opening Arguments/Rebuttal of Pro
Round 3 - Closing Arguments/Rebuttals
Debate Round No. 1
creationtruth

Pro

To define information, I use Dr. Werner Gitt's explaination,"To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered"statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information."

Since you accepted the debate, you agreed to Gitt's definition, so we don't have to argue about semantics.

If you read the webpage I provided, you will have noticed the 4 scientific laws of information (SLI). I will assume for the moment that you agree with the first two laws, if not you can explain why. The contention certainly arises with the 3rd and 4th laws.

SLI-1
A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.

SLI-2
Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity.

SLI-3
Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes.

SLI-4
Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender.
(http://creation.com...)

SLI-3 is supported by experimental data which has shown that non-living matter cannot produce a living organism. Abiogenesis at best is a scientific hypothesis, but until it is proven by experimentation and becomes a scientific theory, SLI-3 remains a proven law. Scientific laws remain laws until operational science demonstrates an exception(s).

"A key element in evolutionary theory is that life has gone from simple to complex. But requiring the minimal components of a genetic code to be simultaneously in place without intelligent guidance is indistinguishable from demanding a miracle. No empirical evidence motivated searches for simpler or less optimal primitive genetic codes. Once the possibility of Divine activity has been excluded as the causal factor, an almost unquestioning willingness to accept absurd notions is created among many scientists. After all, it must have happened! We conclude that no one has proposed a workable naturalistic model that shows how a genetic code could evolve from a simpler into a more complex version." (http://creation.com...)

SLI-4 is substantiated by Gitt's SLI-4a-d:

SLI-4a
Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver.

SLI-4b
There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender.

SLI-4c
Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender.

SLI-4d
Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence.

Please explain why you disagree with any of the SLIs listed above.
sviridovt

Con


Thank you for the debate and best of luck to you!



While there is indeed little definitive evidence as to formation of life, there is equally as little evidence of life being created by any central deity. Disproving one theory doesn’t necessary make another one any more valid. With that said however, your claim that abiogenesis has no scientific merit is false as I would like to show you in the following arguments.


Your argument that states that a central deity was necessary for formation of life is flawed, while it is true that all molecules move toward entropy, this is only true of spontaneous reactions, meaning reactions which don’t require any energy. These reactions don’t require any energy because of the second law of thermodynamics, which Dr. Gitt’s explanation definitely agrees with and so do I. This information cannot be used to disprove a scientific formation of life however since it ignores the idea that a molecule may go against entropy with application of energy.


I would like to direct your attention to the Miller-Urey experiment, which was able to create many of the amino acids that form life by applying electric energy (which could have been lightning as used in experiment or another form of energy) to an environment that was thought to be similar to one found on earth at the time life evolved. Running the experiment with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and sulfur dioxide (which is another likely composition of molecules found due to many volcanic eruptions) revealed even more amino acids being formed. These amino acids are the heart of life, they are required to create proteins without which life would not exist. These proteins have likely evolved from smaller proteins bonding together eventually being able to create first organisms able to synthesize RNA (which is found in all living organisms and contains the code for creation of amino acids)


One could argue the composition of earth’s atmosphere when life was first created, but one may not dispute the fact that there are planets (including ones in our solar system) that have similar compositions of molecules, suggesting that even if composition on earth was unlikely to support formation of amino acids, the likelihood of these molecules coming from other planets is also likely.


To go back to the Laws of Information, I agree with SLI 2, as for the other ones, let me address them one by one:


SLI 1: “A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity” This is not true because we as humans generate non material entities on a daily basis, it is the ideas and thoughts that we generate. Ideas and thoughts satisfy the definition of universal information as it is created by an ‘intelligent sender’ defined as someone who is conscious, has a will of its own, is creative, thinks autonomously, and acts purposefully. Therefore we as humans, a material entity generate universal information, a non-material entity.


SLI 3: “Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes” The arguments presented in the article for this one are false, as I have shown beforehand, there have been physical experiments to show how life might have evolved, not to mention several experiments to show evolution of organisms in action.


SLI 4: “Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender” This law contradicts SLI 1, by the definition of an intelligent sender which humans fit, but humans as a material entity (have mass) cannot produce universal information by SLI 1. This therefore proves that a material entity can produce universal information disproving the ideas of a creator.


Debate Round No. 2
creationtruth

Pro

You say, "While there is indeed little definitive evidence as to formation of life, there is equally as little evidence of life being created by any central deity." This is not true. There is no definitive evidence that abiogenesis is possible. As for evidence of life being created by a deity, there is substantial evidence based on the irreducibly complex structure of the cell and the laws of both biogenesis (life only comes from life) and information science (which I'm arguing for in this debate.)

You say, "Disproving one theory doesn"t necessary make another one any more valid." That's true but in the case of biogenesis, if natural matter cannot produce information, the concept of a supernatural origin is viable. It is not true that science explains the universe by only naturalistic processes; this is a bias and a philosophical position of science. Science aims to experimentally find the answers not only to the form and function of the natural world but also to its origins. When evidence, such as the evidence of information science, leads us to the supernatural, we must concede to it.

You say, "With that said however, your claim that abiogenesis has no scientific merit is false. . ." I never said it has no scientific merit, rather I said it is an unproven hypothesis.

You say, "This information cannot be used to disprove a scientific formation of life however since it ignores the idea that a molecule may go against entropy with application of energy." I am not attempting to disprove a scientific formation of life. I am proposing a scientific formation of life: life came about as a creative act of the mind of God. Your statement that entropy can be thwarted by adding energy is flawed. Simply adding energy to something, without a mechanism to utilize the energy (i.e. chloroplast), will only speed up the process of entropy. Solar radiation breaks down amino acids, lipids, and all other compounds which are commonly proposed as the first to form DNA/RNA.

You say, "I would like to direct your attention to the Miller-Urey experiment, which was able to create many of the amino acids that form life by applying electric energy (which could have been lightning as used in experiment or another form of energy) to an environment that was thought to be similar to one found on earth at the time life evolved." I'm surprised you are using this experiment as an example. This experiment actually works against the idea that life can abiotically form (http://creation.com...). Regardless, the Miller-Urey experiment is meaningless in this debate as it is not evidence for abiogenesis. Forming amino acids in a lab under special conditions (like making a catch for the amino acids so they don't have any cross-reaction with the other compounds formed) does not give any credence to the hypothesis of abiogenesis for the following reasons: one, forming amino acids and expecting them to form RNA is like throwing a bunch of Legos in a box and expecting them to form a house. There are huge problems in getting polynucleotides to form; the polymerization problem (http://www.arn.org...). Second, most all enzymes are designed to work only with right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids, yet in lab experiments, a racemate mixture is produced. Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral, this is known as the chirality problem (http://creation.com...). Third, cross-reactions would be inevitable in realistic, natural settings. These reactions would hinder the production of more complex amino acids (http://creation.com...).

You say, "One could argue the composition of earth"s atmosphere when life was first created, but one may not dispute the fact that there are planets (including ones in our solar system) that have similar compositions of molecules, suggesting that even if composition on earth was unlikely to support formation of amino acids, the likelihood of these molecules coming from other planets is also likely." Yes, one could argue very strongly that, assuming the veracity of the geologic column, the early Earth's atmosphere was not a reducing one (http://creation.com...) nor was it anaerobic ( http://geology.gsapubs.org...). Even if you had the right atmospheric conditions, whether on our planet or on another, abiogenesis would still be an improbability for the reasons already listed above.

You say, ". . .as humans generate non material entities on a daily basis, it is the ideas and thoughts that we generate. Ideas and thoughts satisfy the definition of universal information as it is created by an "intelligent sender" defined as someone who is conscious, has a will of its own, is creative, thinks autonomously, and acts purposefully. Therefore we as humans, a material entity generate universal information, a non-material entity." The problem with this deduction of yours is that you erroneously equate ideas and thoughts with our material composition. Cognition is not a derivative or byproduct of chemistry in our brain. If you believe so, then why even have this debate as we simply say and believe what the chemistry in our brain leads us to. Also if you argue that our thoughts and ideas are just a result of neurologic chemistry, then those thoughts and ideas are also a material entity since they are just the result of activating your cerebral cortex and utilizing stored memories from your frontal and medial lobes. This can easily lead into an entirely different debate so I wont argue this point. Your deduction also doesn't really help your case as I am arguing for an intelligent mind as the source of genetic information and you posit that the ideas and thoughts we generate is information coming from an intelligent mind.

You say, "The arguments presented in the article for this one are false, as I have shown beforehand, there have been physical experiments to show how life might have evolved, not to mention several experiments to show evolution of organisms in action." You have not shown how they are false. All you have provided is one outdated experiment where under special lab conditions a few amino acids were formed (not even the 20 required for life). It has been repeatedly shown through experimentation that it is highly improbable that these amino acids would have been able to form the first polynucleotides, let alone the first RNA/DNA based life. What experiments show evolution in action? I hope you are not referring to these commonly cited examples of evolution in action via mutations:

1.) Sickle cell anemia: confers a resistance to the malaria parasite by producing deformed hemoglobin molecules.
(http://creation.com...)
2.) Aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria: this involves the loss of control of the normal anaerobic citrate digestion.
(http://creation.com...)
3.) Nylon digestion by bacteria: this involves a loss of substrate specificity in one enzyme contained on an extra
chromosomal plasmid (http://creation.com...)
4.) Antibiotic resistance of bacteria: in the case where resistance is due to mutation, this involves a rearranging or deleting
of information resulting in a change in which the antibiotic is not able to be transported into the bacteria or in which
the antibiotic is not able to bind and consequently kill the bacteria. (http://creation.com...)

Your last statement on SLI-4 has been addressed.
sviridovt

Con

Let me address some of your points,

You claim that complex structure of the cell is proof of god existence, I fail to see how that is so, just saying that something is complicated therefore someone created it is a very unfounded argument. Biogenesis is also just an observation that Louis Pasteur, not a scientific conclusion achieved with science.

Natural evidence is what allows us to know something definitively, you say that there is not definitive evidence for evolution, but the problem with your argument is that there is evidence. There have been a number of experiments including the ones you have mentioned (which by the way I have read the articles and as it seems your greatest evidence for disproving evolution is the fact that there haven't been great evolutionary changes in the last few hundred year, which no one claims that evolution works quick, it works over several thousand years), but this is an argument about origins of life more than about how life evolves.

Abiogenesis is more than just an 'unproven hypothesis', it is a theory that has been experimented with and it has been shown to be a viable option for initial creation of life.

Your disproving of Miller-Urey experiment has flaws, whatever was presented in the article you provided had nothing to do with the fact that the amino acids essential to life were formed, and citing that not all 20 acids were formed, the other 9 acids have evolved as a result, attributing the Miller-Urey experiment to chance, suggesting that the fact that 11 acids found in all life were formed in the experiment by coincidence requires more evidence than was provided (especially given such a small chance of that happening, several times). The issue with left and right handed amino acids can be attributed to the fact that left handed amino acids were the ones that worked, the reason we don't see the right handed ones is because they have dispersed, after all no one claims that a large amount of these acids were created, only enough to create one cell, one cell was all that is needed for life to evolve. As far as poly nucleotides coming together I would like to point out the fact that under proper conditions and energy poly nucleotides could have formed.

You claim that abiogenisis is improbability, which is true, no one said that living cells formed frequently, as I said before, you only need a single cell for life to begin. The gsapubs article you cited suggests a likelihood of CO2 present in the atmosphere, which only makes my case stronger as during the Miller-Urey experiment when CO2 was present even more amino acids were formed, and a likelihood of an oxygen rich atmosphere is unlikely, just as suggested by evolutionary scientists who suggest that first life has not lived in an oxygen rich environment.

"Also if you argue that our thoughts and ideas are just a result of neurologic chemistry, then those thoughts and ideas are also a material entity". Brain chemistry are the ideas that we have (you cant have ideas if your brain isn't functioning after all), but the fact that an idea can be transported to another person without physically switching matter makes it universal information, since once you share an idea more than one person know it, and since you cant just copy matter means that it fits within the definition of universal information since it cant be matter or chemistry.

The special lab conditions you refer to are conditions which have likely existed on earth when life was first formed, and the conditions which are currently available within our solar system. Claiming that my sources are outdated is irrelevant, the findings of that experiment are valid and the fact that amino acids are formed is fact, while most of the sources you provided come from creation.com, a website dedicated to disproving of evolution and preaching of biblical creationism which seems to me at least, to be a biased source to be relying on. The experiments I have cited have been legitimate experiments, done by scientists who discovered real findings (even though they performed the experiments to find evidence of evolution, the findings they found are real scientific findings done in an unbiased manner)

Closing

To the voters I would like to remind you that this debate is a question of faith vs science, the proponent of this debate has not presented any scientific evidence to prove creationism, the most the proponent has done is suggest that evolution is a theory, which is a fact that is commonly known. The law of information contradicts itself which proves it invalid , making the claim of an intelligent creator claimed in the law invalid as well, and that is the bottom line.

On that note I would like to thank creationtruth for a great debate, and encourage voters to vote CON for the reasons outlined above, as well as thank the voters for taking the time to read this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by joepalcsak 3 years ago
joepalcsak
Pro seems to be relying on one short 2009 article by Gitt. This is unfortunate. In 2011 Gitt published a 350 page book entitled, "Without Excuse." In this book, he refines his scientific laws of Universal Information (UI). The refinements reflects Gitt's willingness to consider peer input. The result is a much more robust theory. For example. SL 1-4c now reads, "All senders that create UI have a non-material component," and SL1-2 says, "A purely material entity cannot create a non-material entity." Because Pro used the one article, he missed these two crucial points and it hurt him badly.

I tip my hat to con for catching the fact that the incomplete argument as presented contained a distinct contradiction. But unfortunately for con, the truth is that the argument as stated, "Information Science demonstrates that biological information requires a mind," is true according to the definitions agreed upon under the terms of the debate. Falsification of the claim is remarkably easy: produce a single empirical example of natural processes producing UI. This was con's burden and he did not deliver. Thus, his brilliance in finding the door left open by con comes to naught.

I wish that pro would have fleshed out the attributes of code, syntax, and semantics as they apply to the DNA/RNA protein synthesis system. I wish he would have had Gitt's book as a primary resource rather than the simple article. Because con utterly failed to address his burden, pro narrowly wins a debate that really should have been a slam dunk.
Posted by creationtruth 3 years ago
creationtruth
@ArcTimes - What are the first languages, and where did they come from?
Posted by creationtruth 3 years ago
creationtruth
@ArcTimes - What are the first languages, and where did they come from?
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Yes, but the resolution is "Information science demonstrates that biological information requires an intelligent mind".

And languages are not created, there are exceptions like korean or esperanto, but the first languages were not created. And the funny thing is that languages evolve just like living creatures. Thanks information!
Posted by creationtruth 3 years ago
creationtruth
@ArcTimes - I know, I was just being silly. Information is not a property of matter. Information is used to describe something. It can be used in a quantitative sense if the "information" defines a system of functionality where statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics are observed. You can say that the difference between 01001011100100 and 01001012100100 is the addition of new information in the form of a "2." Information (the root word being "inform") tells you something about a system. The system I am concerned with in this debate is of course our bio-cellular system. In our cells we have DNA in which "Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information" (Gitt, Laws of Information).
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
You are not an illusion. An illusion can't write and debate. You could be a robot, or a computer program, but the most probable thing is that you are a human being.

You are not information, I don't see your point. I just disagreed with your definitions. With those definitions you had to prove some things before the debate starts or in the same debate.

Remember that accepting a definition is not the same as accepting the reality behind it.
Posted by Kaneo 3 years ago
Kaneo
The "the five levels of universal information" that talks about apobetics and what not, is completely loaded and has built in assumptions and presuppositions.
The definition should be objective and not be biased towards your position and have underlying assumptions.

Also having "expected action and intended purpose" tacked on the definition just muddles it and adds ambiguity.
Posted by creationtruth 3 years ago
creationtruth
@ArcTimes - No, I'm implying that I'm just an illusion so why bother responding.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Are you implying this is a semantics debate? If yes, then I agree.
Posted by creationtruth 3 years ago
creationtruth
@ArcTimes - This debate is just an illusion, don't pay any attention to it ;)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
creationtruthsviridovtTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con obviously does not understand that Universal Information is not synonymous with amino acids. He never even tried to prove UI can be formed naturally, or even argued for it. He loses conduct for ending the debate with a thinly veiled accusation that Pro's case requires blind faith but Con's is scientifically proven. Pro used more sources. I don't think Con cited a single one.
Vote Placed by joepalcsak 3 years ago
joepalcsak
creationtruthsviridovtTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I wish Pro would have used Gitt's 2011 book, "Without Excuse," as his primary resource instead of the one short article he did use. Nonetheless, the subject of the debate is a true statement in light of Gitt's definition of Universal Information (UI). Falsification of this claim is remarkably easy: produce a single empirical example of natural processes producing UI. He failed. Indeed, he did not even make an attempt. Pro narrowly wins a debate that should have been a slam-dunk.