Isn't that the opposite of the conclusion that should be taken, that if we can't create information that large by artificial means, but nature can, isn't it saying that it's perfectly natural that it did so, also nature had a longer time than us and much of the information contained is useless crap, mostly of it caused by rouge genetic programs called Virus. [/quote]
The point is that nature cannot. We have never observed information rising by natural means. So to say nature could have created the information held by DNA is not based on observation and therefore is only a matter of blind faith. You are free to believe nature can and did do such a thing but this would just be your faith based system, not a scientific belief.
When I look at the artwork done by Leonardo da Vinci I don’t say, “Hmm, I could not have done this, therefore nature must have done it.” Rather I would conclude, “Given my artistic ability I could not have done something this beautiful, therefore someone with greater artistic ability must have done it.” The same goes for DNA, if we has humans cannot create it, then something with far greater creative ability would have to be the source. Nature has zero ability to create specified complexity, so this is not an option.
Yes it would destroy both of them because both of them use our knowledge of information and how it is created to make inferences about human causation. If we believed that specified complexity could arise by natural means we would never say that we believe the pyramids were built by humans or pictographs were done by humans because they could have just been results of natural processes. However, because we know that both contain specified complexity we can infer that humans or some intelligent source was responsible for both.
How do you know they are 20,000 years old?
The point is that nature cannot. We have never observed information rising by natural means. So to say nature could have created the information held by DNA is not based on observation and therefore is only a matter of blind faith. You are free to believe nature can and did do such a thing but this would just be your faith based system, not a scientific belief.
When I look at the artwork done by Leonardo da Vinci I don’t say, “Hmm, I could not have done this, therefore nature must have done it.” Rather I would conclude, “Given my artistic ability I could not have done something this beautiful, therefore someone with greater artistic ability must have done it.” The same goes for DNA, if we has humans cannot create it, then something with far greater creative ability would have to be the source. Nature has zero ability to create specified complexity, so this is not an option.
Quote: And no it wouldn't destroy archeology and anthropology study, because they are the studies of Humanity, not the studies of the source of all information.
Yes it would destroy both of them because both of them use our knowledge of information and how it is created to make inferences about human causation. If we believed that specified complexity could arise by natural means we would never say that we believe the pyramids were built by humans or pictographs were done by humans because they could have just been results of natural processes. However, because we know that both contain specified complexity we can infer that humans or some intelligent source was responsible for both.
Quote: Also we already found connections bet north American indians and french people that date 20.000 years old, so the earth can't be that young.
How do you know they are 20,000 years old?
