Albion

I'm trying to understand a creationist claim on another board that coded systems only ever come from intelligence because nonintelligent sources are unable to provide code. Or something. I think this is leading to a claim that DNA must have been supernaturally produced because there's no evidence of naturally produced coded systems. He isn't actually bothering to define what he means by coded systems or anything useful. I assume this is a standard creationist argument because the guy isn't very original. I just don't really know what he means here.

Doubting Didymus

Join the club.

Sounds like his logic is this:

1) only intelligence can produce coded systems
2) Life is a coded system
.: only intelligence could have produced life.

Get him to provide evidence for 1).

Albion

Well, here's the thread. As far as I can see, we're going round in circles.

Him: "Coded systems only ever come from intelligence:"

Me: "Your scientific evidence being? I mean, it's so very easy to make a statement like that, but you need to show exactly why and how nonintelligent forces can't result in coded systems."

Him: "Well as far as science goes, inability of non-intelligent sources to provide code is a fact due to the absence of coded systems ever coming from non-intelligent sources. Since when does the negative have to be proven?"

Me: "The genetic code is a coded system. It's been shown to occur by natural processes."

Him: "No, natural processes has never constructed DNA, for DNA only ever comes from DNA. If nature cannot be shown to construct DNA from it's raw material, you cannot say nature didit in the name of science. No coded system ever has been SHOWN to be produced from non-intelligence:"

In other words, he isn't prepared to back up his statement, but it's too vague to really know what he's on about. Am I the only one who's at a loss to know what in the world he means?

Doubting Didymus

Actually, it looks fairly simple to me. He's saying that natural processes can't make DNA. You'll end up spiralling downwards into abiogenesis.

Coragyps

Ask him if stars are intelligent. If he says no, ask him how, exactly, they transmit information about their chemical makeup, temperature, density, surface gravity, magnetic fields, rotation speed, and surface turbulence in the light they give off.

The_Unknown_Banana

"Since when does the negative have to be proven?"

Great! So why does he require you to prove that God didn't do it? :P

braces_for_impact

Brace yourself for equivocation, I'll wager he is being purposefully vague.

emotional

Isn't that Dembski's Specified Complexity argument rehashed?

The "information from nothing" canard was my stumbling-block for accepting evolution until I was pointed to evolutionary computer simulations.

NonHomogenized

Speaking of stars, the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP was, "What about pulsars?"

Where did this creationist come up with such a stupid... oh. Nevermind.

GunnerJ

This principle applies inversely to hypotheticals; thus, a clear distiction must be made over whether the discussion is over "what is possible" or "what is actual." Saying that something is possible bears no burden of proof, as it is not a factual assertion, it is a hypothetical assertion. If speculating that some phenomenon is possible were to be converted into a factual assertion, it would be tantamount to saying that there exists nothing preventing said phenomenon from happening. Saying that something is impossible, on the other hand, is assertively tantamount to saying that there is something preventing it from occuring. Note that each of these two factual assertions are different from saying "it does happen" or "it doesn't happen."