Are ID/YECs right about anything?

   Did you read and think about Genesis 1:1&2 like I said?

Please provide evidence to back up your claim that there are "a million different things" that could cause "rock placement."

"More than one cause could be in play for almost everything"---Please provide evidence to back up your claim.

You can start with the examples given above in Posts #86, #91, & #98-99.

Up to this point you have only responded with vague generalities (including this most recent comment). Up to this point you have not responded with any specific evidence to counter or otherwise call into question the standard interpretation.

The entire earth was under water at the beginning. That's how it started.

   So there was sediment from the start.

" ...there was sediment from the start" - I don't understand, where did the sediment come from in a world covered in water?

The sediment we see today is washed into oceans by rivers. It originates from the eroding action of rivers and streams on the rocks and other material (soil) over which they flow.

Where are the rivers in a world without land?

That's true. Sediment is the result of erosion. There is very little erosion in the oceans, especially below the wave base, and deep-water, next to no erosion. The other difficulty is that some of the sediments are chemical precipitates (some types of limestone, and evaporite deposits of salt and gypsum that form by evaporation and dissolve in water), meaning they can't be formed ahead of time, but form at the time and place.

Wind, rain, earthquakes, mudslides, and million other reasons why some things can end up in one place and not another and none of them have to have anything to do with biology and time. Unlike code and language which always has to do with a mind!

There is no 'code' as such, not in the way you mean, just complex interactions between very large organic molecules.

Well, part right & wrong. There is a real genetic code that is symbolic in a way that goes beyond chemistry, but TM seems to use 'code' & 'coding' in a computer programming sense (of writing lines of code), which is different from the genetic code, so yes, that is a confusing use of the word that is not what we mean by it in genetics.

"There is a real genetic code that is symbolic in a way that goes beyond chemistry"

I'm still not clear what's meant by this. What exactly is there beyond the arrangement of organic molecules within DNA and interactions between them?

"Wind, rain, earthquakes, mudslides, or a million other reasons" have nothing to do with seafloor spreading, so this is still not an alternate explanation. 

A code is a set of rules that establish an arbitrary correspondence between two independent and unrelated symbol systems. The rules are arbitrary and the assignments are arbitrary. Like with Morse Code where dot-dot-dot means "S" because the rules have assigned this meaning. But there's no reason why dot-dot-dot has to represent S. It's an arbitrary rule and an arbitrary assignment.

Similarly, the genetic code is a true code in every sense of the word where a sequence of three nucleotides (a codon) represents or 'means' a specific amino acid. For example, the mRNA codon AUG 'means' the amino acid methionine. But there is no reason it should. It is an arbitrary relationship where AUG *symbolizes* methionine. There is no chemical reason that it should. AUG could just as easily 'mean' histidine or valine or some other amino acid (*or nothing at all!). In other words DNA/RNA nucleotides function as symbols that arbitrarily represent different amino acids. This relationship transcends their chemistry. There is no chemical reason why AUG should symbolically represent or stand for methionine. In fact, they don't interact chemically in any way. There is nothing about the laws of physics and chemistry that requires AUG to mean methionine. There is nothing about the laws of physics and chemistry that can *cause* chemicals to *symbolically mean* anything at all.

The arbitrary symbol assignments in informational codes are inherently abstract formalisms; that is they are inherently NON-physical, in the way that the rules of Morse Code are non-physical rules because they are abstract formalisms.

This is very problematic for the origin of life, because physical laws do not generate abstract formalisms like informational codes based on arbitrary assignments between independent symbol systems. In our experience, only cognition and agency do.

This is @TruthMuse's basic argument: a code requires a coder/programmer. Although TM phrases it in the form of an argument by analogy, which makes it weaker. He needs to flesh out his argument more formally. But fortunately this has already been done by experts in biosemiotics & information theory, so the weakness in his argument by analogy can be overlooked, since there are more formal 'proofs' that have been done.

*That is to say, even though the argument need a more rigorous treatment, @TruthMuse's basic point that 'code needs a coder/programmer' is a valid point. 'Mindless' physical processes (as he likes to say), do not write informational code, and that's true. In our experience, physicality does not generate non-physical arbitrary rule assignments between independent symbol systems.

Here's another way to think of it: Think of a typed recipe on paper that we're trying to explain the origin of. We could imagine random chemicals just so happen to come together to form the paper and the ink and the typed words of the recipe. That would be a miraculous occurrence, but let's say it happens. So what? The words carry information but that information is encoded in arbitrary symbol systems (language) that mean nothing to (and have absolutely no effect on) the laws of physics and chemistry. From the 'perspective' of physical laws and nature those 'words' are meaningless and aren't 'words' at all. They are only meaningful to us, because we have arbitrarily assigned them meaning based on arbitrary rules that we as cognitive agents have created. 

It's the same with the monkeys randomly typing analogy that people argue over, saying that in a sufficiently large universe with enough time those monkeys can type anything no matter how improbable even the entire collected works of Shakespeare. But even if they did, so what? The collected works of Shakespeare are meaningless from the 'perspective' of physics and chemistry. Those collected works accomplish nothing in the realm of physicality. They only carry information because we as cognitive agents have arbitrarily assigned alphabet symbols and words and grammar and syntax and language with meaning. Reducing the works of Shakespeare or a typed recipe down to atoms, does not describe the fundamental nature of the information that they contain, which is on the level of non-physical abstract formalisms.

Paul Davies put it this way:

Here's another (more recent) paper on the subject:

And here's another paper by one of the founders of the field of biosemiotics that argues that life cannot be reduced to mere chemistry. That life is more than chemistry. Life is chemistry + information, and an accurate scientific description of life requires non-physical categories that cannot be derived from mere physicality.

Thankyou for all of that but it's going to take me some time to read it, never mind assimilate it!

Back (much) later ....

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” ― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead 

@TruthMuse, 

Example 3: Primate placenta development: We observe that both humans and chimpanzees (and other primates) have the same protein syncytin-1 that is an essential protein in the development of the placenta. The blastocyst of a developing embryo has a layer of cells called the trophoblast, a good portion of which will become the placenta.

Specifically, syncytin-1 is a cell-cell fusion protein that causes trophoblast cells to fuse together to form a single, multinucleated cell called the syncytiotrophoblast. See how the light blue (syncytiotrophoblast) is a single interconnected cell.

This forms a barrier between fetal and maternal blood. Macrophages (white blood cells) from the mother can squeeze between cells and would then recognize and attack the fetus as an 'invader,' but the syncytiotrophoblast prevents this because the entire thing is a single cell barrier, so there are no multiple cells plural that the white blood cells can squeeze between. Thus, this cell-cell fusion caused by the syncytin-1 protein is essential and we (and other primates) would die without it. We share this protein (and the gene that codes it) in common with other primates, and it is on the same chromosome and same position in the genome as other primates like chimpanzees. 

But that's not even the most significant part about all this. The most significant part is that we further observe the gene is an endogenous retrovirus (ERV), specifically, the gene ERVW-1-- a "fossil" remnant in our genome secondarily acquired by a viral infection in a common ancestor of primates.

Not only that, but this viral gene has the same function in viruses as it does in primates: it codes for a protein that causes the virus to fuse with surrounding cells and in the process escape detection by white blood cell macrophages.

It is too improbable for it to be independently acquired. It is too improbable an occurrence for the same virus to just so happen by luck to infect all primates and by luck just so happen to insert itself in the same part of the genome. And it can't be the case that God separately created the gene in all primates according to a common design, because it is not part of an original creation, but the result of a viral infection. 

Conclusion: The most straightforward explanation for the observation that primates share a viral gene in the same location of the genome that codes for an essential protein in the development of the placenta, without which we would die, is that primates share a common ancestor that had acquired this gene. The fact that human placenta development is mediated by a viral gene that codes for an essential protein---that fact alone is indisputable evidence that the human genome has an evolutionary history (an evolutionary history shared with other primates), because it shows that this essential gene was not the result of an original creation, but the result of genomic evolution caused by a viral gene acquired during a viral infection.

That makes 0-3 examples of observational evidence that cannot be explained by a young earth creationism or intelligent design interpretation.

To recap so far, the most straightforward explanation of the observational evidence is that:

(1) The earth is much older than 6,000 years. A young earth view cannot account for observational evidence like the (Example 1) amazing coincidence that the "purported ages" of ocean floor rocks based on radioactive decay rates match what we would expect if seafloor spreading has been occurring at the couple centimeters per year rate that we directly observe and measure today. (And even if one rejects radiometric dating it does not change the indisputable fact (that YECs agree with) that the further rocks are from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge the more the radioisotopes in those rocks are decayed. So in order to fit that into a young earth framework, requires radioactive ☢️ decay rates to be accelerated a million fold, but the quantity of heat generated by such accelerated decay would make the earth uninhabitable).

(2) Humans & chimpanzees (& other primates) share a common ancestor. A YEC or ID view cannot account for the (Example 2) ~100,000 bits of viral genetic material that we observe that humans & chimpanzees share in common. It is too improbable (in the way that abiogenesis is improbable) that these "fossil" remnants of viruses in our genome just so happened by luck to insert themselves in the chimpanzee genome in the same locations when there is a ~1 in 10,000^100,000 chance of this occurring. And they can't be part of God's original creation 'according to a common design' because they are bits of viral genetic material acquired via viral infections.

(3) The human genome has an evolutionary history (shared with other primates). That is, the human genome shows indisputable evidence that it has undergone change over time--genetic changes that are not the result of an instantaneous divine creation or original creation 'according to a common design.' A YEC or ID view cannot account for the (Example 3) observation that human placenta development (and primate placenta development) is mediated by an essential gene that was not originally part of the genome, but that is a viral gene that was acquired via viral infection. This viral gene has been co-opted by primate genomes. This viral gene is essential to our survival. Without this viral gene the human placenta would not develop properly and the fetus would die. The fact this viral gene occurs in the same location in primate genomes again evidences common ancestry since (like #2) it is too improbable to explain by independent viral acquisition. So instead of original creation 'according to kinds' where humans are instantly created as a 'perfect' creation to reproduce 'according to their kind,' we see that an essential aspect of human reproductive development is only possible due to a viral gene acquired via viral infection during a shared evolutionary history of primates. (On a side note, while YECs may see this as an attack on the Bible, imho I do not believe that it is, because Genesis 1 does not speak to issues of modern science, but is a theological anti-pagan polemic against Egyptian creation myths. While I know YECs will disagree, that's mho: Genesis 1 & modern science are apples & oranges, and they only 'conflict' if YECs force them to conflict by requiring Genesis 1 to be something that it isn't).

So that puts the 'score,' so to speak, at 0-3. ID/YEC is 0 for 3 at accounting for the observational evidence.

HOWEVER, there is *at least* ONE BIG point that would seem to be in favor of YEC/ID (and I say 'at least,' because there are still some *critical/hard steps* in evolution that seem to defy explanation, at least at the present time, even on just a theoretical conceptual level, such as the origin of eukaryotes), and that is, of course, the origin of life, which we have talked to death (but then I suppose we've talked a lot of these other things to death, too). Still, it would not be a fair treatment of the observational evidence to list the three examples above while leaving out the problem of life's origin and @TruthMuse's valid point that 'mindless' physical processes do not 'write' 'code.' And while this may at first seem like we should adjust the scoreboard to 1-4, I think that would be grossly misleading, because this one thing is a BIG ONE, and the 'leap' from non-life to life is such an immense leap (and even that seems insufficient, if life is not mere chemistry but chemistry + information, since we have no evidence that the laws of physics & chemistry can 'write' informational code with semantic meaning) that the sum total rest of evolutionary history (minus the critical/hard steps mentioned above) pales in comparison and imho is easy and a 'cinch' relative to the OOL. And I don't know how to put a number on that, but it's certainly orders of magnitude more than just a single 1 pt addition to the 'scoreboard.'

I've been doing some reading....

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/

More accessible to a lay person than I expected, although some of the concepts take a little hard concentration to grasp. I can't say I found anything in it to suggest that a naturalistic cause for life should be ruled out but I'll keep reading.

Section 8 refers to the issue of the 'program-control' of cell processes I think?

"Information has also become a focus of general discussion of evolutionary processes, especially as they relate to the mechanisms of inheritance. One strand of this discussion misconceives information and its role in biological processes. In particular, G.C. Williams argues that, via reflection on the role of genes in evolution, we can infer that there is an informational “domain” that exists alongside the physical domain of matter and energy (Williams 1992). Richard Dawkins defends a similar view, arguing that the long-term path of evolution is made up of gradual changes in inherited information—as a river that “flows through time, not space” (Dawkins 1995: 4). This is an extension of a more common idea, that there exists such things as “informational genes” that should be understood as distinct from the “material genes” that are made of DNA and localized in space and time (Haig 1997). It is a mistake to think that there are two different things; that there is both a physical entity—a string of bases—and an informational entity, a message. It is true that for evolutionary (and many other) purposes genes are often best thought of in terms of their base sequence (the sequence of C, A, T and G), not in terms of their full set of material properties. This way of thinking is essentially a piece of abstraction (Griesemer 2005). We rightly ignore some properties of DNA and focus on others. But it is a mistake to treat this abstraction as an extra entity, with mysterious relations to the physical domain."

The quote captures the debate between traditional reductionists who see genetic coding and information as little more than metaphor (and not a separate "informational entity" of reality), and that biology is nothing more than complicated chemistry. A lot of this stems from biologists' & chemists' lack of knowledge of information theory and biosemiotics and the like. But this is changing and it is increasingly difficult to deny the reality of information as a "real thing" that is intrinsically non-physical and an abstract formalism similar to mathematics and logic, which most people would agree is not imaginary but real (though non-physical).

The interesting thing is that it is the experts in information theory who argue against the metaphorical view, and the biologists who traditionally have little understanding of such things, who think it's just a metaphor. But again that's changing and there are numerous prominent biologists recognizing that information is a real thing.

But I will return to discuss more later (and also read the Stanford philosophy entry in more detail; which I've read before, but it's been awhile, so I don't know any changes or updates to the entry)

*By the way, the Stanford Philosophy entry mainly concerns information applied to life once we have life and not so much the origin of life, or whether a "naturalistic cause can be ruled out," which again frames the abiogenesis hypothesis negatively as one that should be accepted until proven false; when it is not falsifiable and when it's the other way around: a scientific hypothesis needs to be demonstrated before accepted.

"I don't know any changes or updates to the entry" - it states that a substantial edit was done in 2017 but largely unchanged since then I think.

So if we're discussing discoveries of the last five years or so, I imagine it may seem a little dated?

"...the Stanford Philosophy entry mainly concerns information applied to life once we have life and not so much the origin of life, or whether a "naturalistic cause can be ruled out" "

I'll do some more digging and read on...