:-)

Again. Answer my question. Can we encode information or not?
Lets go with your difinition. That
"
Nature, inluding DNA, is studied by us. We make conclusions on the basis of that and those conclusions are INFORMATION. In other words, information doesn't exist in nature. It is created by people.
"
Yea lets agree for the sake of argument with this. But my main question remains; can we encode this information or not ?
Can anyone write his name in terms of 0s and 1s? I hope you get my point here

There is a reason why people look for other creatures, because they know they are likely to exist, since there is evidence for those.
There is no such likelihood in case of god.

And looking for intelligence probably involves structures similar to ours, because we know . Not those appearing independently in nature.

If one involves intention and another doesn't, that makes them contradictory.
If one involves information as a part of the studied element, and another doesn't, that also makes them contradictory.

I WOULD LOVE YOU TO CONCENTRATE ON THESE PARTICULAR CLAIMS:
Nature, inluding DNA, is studied by us. We make conclusions on the basis of that and those conclusions are INFORMATION. In other words, information doesn't exist in nature. It is created by people.

It is not a problem with definitions, it is your misunderstanding and misusing of one of them without giving any evidence to support your claim. At this point there is no sense to move further because you can't differ between objects with information put in them, and those which don't have it.

DNA doesn't contain information, it contains molecules and involves processes, understanding of which can lead to producing information about DNA.
I did show you:

You believe there is intention where there is none and you believe this intention comes from god.
Just like Greeks.
I showed it to you but you won't admit it because this is where your whole argument falls.

Anything can be encoded into a sequence, that doesn't prove it is because it has information in it.

All of your arguments revolve around your problems with that other difinition. And it is now my comprehension problem because I showed you all the reliable sources that exactly said :Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a sequence of signals). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communicat
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things: genetically transmitted information

If you were really honest. You should have dealt with these resources and showed my why it was wrong. Instead of throwing random accusations and really bad analogies of Zeus and Gnemo. Those argument should be directed to guys who rely on gaps argument.

Dude simple question. Can we encode information or not? Yea I know you gave two difinitions. And both are not equal. But also they are not contradictory. If you gave information about something then we encode it; it will still be information.

We have done that in a computer language. And it is what we are trying to find in SETI. In SETI we are trying to find a pattern that might be produced by some intelligence because we already know what pattern an intelligent being capable of producing.

Secondly; the source of information is always a mind.
Well, I can agree, we created information concerning DNA, for instance. No problem here.

Take this challenge: just prove to me any natural phenomenon that could produce information.
No natural object possesses information, so sure, no random process produces it.
DNA doesn't have information, all that time you have been taking the word out of context, DNA information was produced by us, humans, once we comprehended how it works and what it consists of.
This understanding resulted in information being established by us.

How you can compare DNA which contains information with a natural phenomenon like thunders :/
No, it doesn't. You are just bad at understanding what information can be. And who says thunders do not work
according to patterns? Electricity surely does have rules according to which it operates, which you then could call a code
or language or whatever like that

[COLOR="#FF0000"]Because to produce a pattern of things and infuse into something; you would need to choose the pattern.
- In natural world, things arise because they are possible to arise, that seems to involve patterns and when it is possible for those patterns to replicate, they do. Not because someone makes a choice.

How can you use logic properly when you have problems with words such as INFORMATION?
Let me give you the definitions again, and divide them into 2 options:
, a) these are claims formed by us on the basis of how we understand something, not a part of the thing that was studied, like DNA.
b) these are claims formed from something which already has claims/information, something which was designed to possess it in the first place, like a book.

Non-believers do not claim that natural world possesses information, we claim that we possess information about natural world when we study it accurately.
I really hope it is clear now.
Cheers.

I said that this definition works perfectly with me because you yourself defined information that way.
- I gave 2 definitions. And one is not equal to another. They are not the same. And you chose the one with intention in it, even though, you have no evidence it is valid. That's my point all the time.

We don't mean it is intended information, because we would have to have evidence for that. This is how honest we are about it, compared to you.
All we mean by information there is that how DNA is built and what it does is understood by us and we create information on the basis of it. It wasn't anywhere before we actually comprehended the nature of DNA, unless you have evidence we are wrong here, which you don't. That's it.

SETI use the same concept. Thats why you avoided my question of SETI.
-Actually I did avoid. I admitted I know nothing about it, this is called honesty. Compared to you I don't pretend I know things I don't know.

You just claimed that genom is invisible as it was not seen by scientists.
You can't be serious. Do you have comprehension problems? I was talking about GNOMES (imaginary beings like your god), not GENOME.

First of all. I did not use the word complexity. I used the word information. Secondly; the source of information is always a mind. Because to produce a pattern of things and infuse into something; you would need to choose the pattern. And choice defies the meaning of randomness. Any random process cannot produce information.
Take this challenge: just prove to me any natural phenomenon that could produce information.
I dont argue here from lack of knowledge but from our knowledge of what a designer capable of and what a random process capable of.

I said that this difinition works perefectly with me because you yourself defined information that way; it is like you just proved my point, thanks. No matter what difinition you have. It is all agreed by people that when you have a pattern of letters/chemicals/signals it means information. If information understood or conveyed by someone; then it can be encoded. Any scientist know that anything coded is information. SETI use the same concept. Thats why you avoided my question of SETI. And I asked you earlier; if something is really designed; how would we know? You did not answer this.

But because of your belief system. You would deny anything related to that. Let me tell you this. You are just religious as any blind religious person out there. You just claimed that genom is invisible as it was not seen by scientists. Dude do some homework before coming to such debate. Read about the discovery of DNA. Read about logic 101. Now who said that thunder has some information on it? Even your analogies fails to do any objections to my argument. How you can compare DNA which contains information with a natural phenomenon like thunders :/
I see how desperate you are

Let’s see definition of information from many known websites
- there is no need for that.

“something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally “ This definition works perfectly with me.
- I am glad it is convenient for you. And I am sad you pick it on the basis of your religious beliefs and not evidence.

just using deductive reasoning to reach my conclusion like the following example: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Simple, right?
- very simple. So Ancient Greeks were correct! We should start believing in Zeus right now. You just need common sense after all.

just using deductive reasoning to reach my conclusion like the following example: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Simple, right ?
Your deductive reasoning leads anywhere you want. If you believed in invisible gnomes, you could prove them with it. That is so convenient and so illogical.

Simple, use this simple logic form: : If A = B and B = C, then A = C. If information is produced by designer and DNA contains information, then DNA is produced by designer. So using this simple logic, I look at DNA as evidence of a designer not a blind belief
- seriously it makes so much sense now.
If thunders are produced by Zeus, And they contain intended information like HEY THIS IS ZEUS, REMEMBER, I AM WATCHING YOU GUYS, then thunders are produced by Zeus.
You can look at thunders as evidence of Zeus, and not blind belief.
If we are really a part of a great computer programme, and we are not humans but just numbers, then if this reality resembles the Matrix movies, then we are just a pieces of codes.
If forests are controlled by invisible gnomes, then if you see that forests manage to exist and there is some complexity to it, that is evidence for invisible gnomes.

If complexity requires design, then there must be intelligence, sure - but it doesn’t.
You didn’t show how it is impossible for complexity or just anything to arise without special added agents like god. You just pick what you prefer, on the basis of what you believe. No logic or common sense whatsoever, unless you mean it is common to think this way among you guys.

otherwise, I would not bother to debate you to prove this point
- you are not proving a thing. You are telling about what you prefer as an answer, about your beliefs, no evidence or even logic there. Without evidence, we can form arguments for and against anything.

So yes, continuing this particular thread seems pointless, which I have been trying to explain all that time. Let’s better discuss something else.

Let’s see definition of information from many known websites so that you get more exposure to its definition and see if I am using it out of context.
From Wikipedia :
Information: is that which informs, i.e. an answer to a question, as well as that from which knowledge and data can be derived (as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts) ...
Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a sequence of signals). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communication.

From merriam-webster dictionary:
General Definition of INFORMATION
Information: : knowledge that you get about someone or something : facts or details about a subject
Full Definition of INFORMATION
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

From Oxford dictionary :
Facts provided or learned about something or someone :a vital piece of information
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things: genetically transmitted information

Here we can see that the general definition of information is “knowledge acquired about someone or something from someone or something” . And your definitions of information are the same ones as found from the web. Whether it was placed there intentionally (writing, sound, electrical signals, chemicals) of it was acquired by an observer from understanding some process . Your definition (b) states understanding how something works and what it consist of. If you understand how something works, you acquired knowledge from something. Your first definition states: “something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally “ This definition works perfectly with me. If you see a piece of paper with some information in it, even in a language that you don’t understand, you will conclude that this was made by human being even though you did not see the writer. And in our case, knowledge is acquired from DNA (something) because someone (designer) placed there intentionally 

Dude I know that already. That why we are having this debate in the first place .. otherwise, I would not bother to debate you to prove this point.
This what I am trying to do in this debate, just using deductive reasoning to reach my conclusion like the following example: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Simple, right ?
So I am not trying to force you to believe that there is a designer because some authority said so or because many people said so. You can just use your common sense to reach such conclusion without the influence of any authority.

Simple, use this simple logic form: : If A = B and B = C, then A = C. If information is produced by designer and DNA contains information, then DNA is produced by designer. So using this simple logic, I look at DNA as evidence of a designer not a blind belief

Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
By : Abu Al-Fida

أقترح بأن يضع الإخوة الكرام بعض الكتب بالانجليزية .. التي تتناول موضوع الالحاد ..
أيضاً الكتب التي تتحدث عن الاسلام وأدلة صحته .. وانه دين الحق .

Well a simple search in Google about the definition of DNA and you will find many sources saying DNA is instruction, code or information.
“DNA is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.”
- That is the major problem, you are looking for wrong simple answers, and this time you TOOK THE WORD INFORMATION OUT OF CONTEXT. You are not playing with evidence, but with semantics. Here’s why:
Information is knowledge acquired from:
a) something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally (a book, article, etc.),
b) understanding how something works and what it consists of, which doesn’t involve knowledge, or code or language or whatever you call it, it is NOT purposely created and added to the thing.
No one says DNA contains intended code in it, that someone designed it. You are saying someone did, and you have to prove it, but instead you are performing this semantic tap dancing, which shows you have nothing.


Okay let me dismantle your example of thunder and god of the gaps argument because I need to clear this up to avoid repetitive misunderstanding. In the past, people could not produce electricity, so for them to claim a thunder was made by god is false. It was just an argument from ignorance and God of the Gaps argument
So what would be a good analogy of how thunders happens ? Well nowadays, people can produce electricity indirectly.
Dismantle this:
Greeks didn’t know the source of thunders (lack of knowledge), they looked them as if they were made by Zeus (a belief, no evidence) so they said it was Zeus (a totally incredible belief).
You don’t know the source of DNA (lack of knowledge), you look at it as If it was made by god (a belief, no evidence), so you say it is god (a totally incredible belief).
So yes, it is ignorant and you really should shake hands with Ancient Greeks when you see them.

By the way, I don’t want to play the devil’s advocate but:
If I was to think the way Ancient religious Greeks could, I would easily say: in the past we didn’t know about electricity and we said it was Zeus who created it, now we know more about it, we can actually produce it, too, but does it mean the non-man made electricity is not from Zeus? Of course not.
And by producing light, we are getting closer to our real true god Zeus. Isn’t it great?!
You can always find arguments for god if you feel like it, just like for anything which is unprovable. But producing arguments is not a big deal, a real big deal is possessing evidence and not misinterpreting what we already know.


Well what about information. What is the source of information? Books for example contains papers, ink and information. The ink and paper are of material origin but the information is not. Because the source of information in any writings is the mind of the author who wrote it down. So we can form a general statement/theory here that the source of information is a mind. This is direct relationship unlike the previous example of electricity
So now you can see here that intelligent design theory is not just some random argument that was put there to explain anything to serve the agenda of religious people and satisfy their preference.
- yes it is and it serves your agenda for the reasons above, if you weren’t religious and your purpose wasn't proving by any means your god is true, you wouldn’t be misinterpreting what other people mean by calling DNA a code, and you wouldn’t use the same reasoning as Ancient Greeks.