my friend on evolution

[rainonacongadrum]

My friend is a fairly die hard Christian. He is also a junior Biology major at his university and plans to attend med school. We got to talking about evolution the other day when I mentioned something about creationism. He essentially said that macroevolution is about as credible as creationism. He said that creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools if the teacher wanted to teach it and said that the teacher should have to option to teach evolution or not teach it.

Essentially, his argument was that he believed in microevolution and could see how one type of fish turned into another. But he couldn't see how man came from monkeys--he said there wasn't enough to back it up--just a bunch of theories. He said that much of the theories went something like "We know this happened, and we know this happened, so it's likely that this happened." Basically he said that there were a lot of missing links and no real proof, and, because of this, he does not believe in macroevolution.

Is he right to a degree?
Or, what can I counter with?
Is it a wierd, Christian thing to believe in microevolution and not in macroevolution?

[Prodigy54321]

I have a Christians friend who also admits micro-evolution, but refuses to accept macro-evolution. I think it is common among Christian groups to have this stance.

There are so many examples of micro-evolution that it is simply impossible to deny that it occurs anymore, so they accept it.

Macro-evolution seems to be a different story, not because there are huge differences between the two (since macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of "smaller evolutions"...it is because since it occurs so much more gradually, that there is not a mountain of evidence staring them in the face.

I would as him what it is about macro-evolution that doesn't allow micro-evolution to bridge that gap.

the distinction between micro and macro is really made up in the minds of evolutionists...first of all, where is this jump from micro to macro. Surely not at the somewhat arbitrary level that we label as the "species.". ..Biblical "Kinds" perhaps..I've never heard anyone properly define what a "kind" is..but if he wants to take a shot at it....Kent Hovind (Creation Scientist /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) likes to show pictures of a few different kinds of dogs and a banana and ask the audience which one of the picture is not the same "Kind" as another...He never bothers to get any closer "Kinds" than that.

maybe it's a problem with how mutually infertile groups evolve..

you'll have to address his objections individually..I would suggest talkorigins.org for that.

it is not his responsibility to disprove the theory or believe in it..but since he accepts micro-evolution, and there is no reason to stop there and presume that evolution cannot go farther without a reason why that might be so, I think it is necessary for him to voice his specific objections.

and even if that isn't so, there's a good amount of evidence for macro-evolution alone..you just can't expect to sit in front of a group of chimps and watch them turn into humans before your eyes...

sadly, I think many creationists think that this is how evolution works /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Prodigy54321]

err, sorry, some of the stuff I tried to type got cut off..either 2p2 is running slow, or it is just my comp...anyway..it won't let me edit my post for some reason, so I'll add here..

People who object to macro-evolution are often not using the definition that evolutionists use..that is, evolution above the level of species...

they sometimes do believe it to be speciation specifically or believe it to be the origin of life from non-living matter, and wikipedia notes that anti-evolutionists sometimes refer to macro-evolution simply as any type of evolution that they reject...so makes sure of what he specifically means by--macro-evolution..I would guess that he generally means evolution at or above the species level.

[arahant]

Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us. If he was at all open to thought on the question, he wouldn't be a creationist, so I hardly see the point of debating with him.

Just make sure that he considers viruses and bacteria all one 'kind', since the possibility of mutations for these could kill not just his patients, but the rest of us too.

He knows you need to APPLY to medschools, right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
My friend is a fairly die hard Christian. He is also a junior Biology major at his university and plans to attend med school. We got to talking about evolution the other day when I mentioned something about creationism. He essentially said that macroevolution is about as credible as creationism. He said that creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools if the teacher wanted to teach it and said that the teacher should have to option to teach evolution or not teach it.

Essentially, his argument was that he believed in microevolution and could see how one type of fish turned into another. But he couldn't see how man came from monkeys--he said there wasn't enough to back it up--just a bunch of theories. He said that much of the theories went something like "We know this happened, and we know this happened, so it's likely that this happened." Basically he said that there were a lot of missing links and no real proof, and, because of this, he does not believe in macroevolution.

Is he right to a degree?
Or, what can I counter with?
Is it a wierd, Christian thing to believe in microevolution and not in macroevolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, basically the difference between macroevolution and microevolution is that macroevolution isn't as intuitively simple, and therefore is a much more fertile target for creationist propaganda. There IS plenty of data, if your friend is actually interested in the topic, although his idea that 'macroevolution and creationism are about on par' heavily implies he is NOT interested.

On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician. It will probably not even move him into that small of a minority group.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us. If he was at all open to thought on the question, he wouldn't be a creationist, so I hardly see the point of debating with him.

Just make sure that he considers viruses and bacteria all one 'kind', since the possibility of mutations for these could kill not just his patients, but the rest of us too.

He knows you need to APPLY to medschools, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not going to be a problem for him, I can promise you that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But he couldn't see how man came from monkeys

[/ QUOTE ]
I could never see how glue worked. Real problem for me when I needed to stick things together.

chez

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

But he couldn't see how man came from monkeys...

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how Daniel Dennett classifies this sort of thing: "Mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But he couldn't see how man came from monkeys...

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how Daniel Dennett classifies this sort of thing: "Mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity."

[/ QUOTE ]

That is actually a really good quote, thanks for that.

[David Sklansky]

"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[godBoy]

<font color="brown">Is he right to a degree?</font>
He's right in saying that we don't have the millions of years required to personally witness macroevolution take place.

<font color="brown">Or, what can I counter with?</font>
All evidence points towards this being true because of the overwhelming likeness of DNA that all living creatures share. It's possible that God put it there - but I don't believe in a God who would be so sneaky as to make things appear as they happened in a way they did not.

<font color="brown">Is it a wierd, Christian thing to believe in microevolution and not in macroevolution?</font>
Yes, unfortunately. Though i'm sure other religions also fight the theory of evolution. There is a big fad in Christendom towards the idea of Creationism = Intelligent Design. I'm working to explain to such as these that Science is a great thing and it's not the enemy. Wish me luck - for it's hard to change a religiously motivated thought. This is understandable though - for an organisation like the church to exist for any length of time - it needs to have a firmness in changing direction.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big assumptions, and certainly ones I didn't make. In general I agree, although being a competent physician is at LEAST as much about being a regurgitant database as critically solving problems.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown">Is it a wierd, Christian thing to believe in microevolution and not in macroevolution?</font>
Yes, unfortunately. Though i'm sure other religions also fight the theory of evolution. There is a big fad in Christendom towards the idea of Creationism = Intelligent Design. I'm working to explain to such as these that Science is a great thing and it's not the enemy. Wish me luck - for it's hard to change a religiously motivated thought. This is understandable though - for an organisation like the church to exist for any length of time - it needs to have a firmness in changing direction.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would applaud any effort you put forth in this endeavor, but creationism is intelligent design. It's the exact same movement, the intelligent design moniker was adopted after Edwards v. Aguillard to "officially" distance themselves from Christianity. Of Pandas and People was originally a scientific creationism textbook, but after the subject was barred from schools under the 1st amendment, they simply replaced every occurrence of 'creationism' with 'intelligent design'.

It's happening again too. The Dover decision legally declares intelligent design as creationism, and by extension, Christianity. There's a concerted movement now to transfer 'intelligent design' to 'teach the controversy' in an attempt to discredit evolution (politically, not scientifically) making it easier to introduce another form of creationism at a later date. Take a look at the 'wedge strategy'.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
..but creationism is intelligent design. It's the exact same movement

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I wrote 'Creationism = Intelligent Design'

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
..but creationism is intelligent design. It's the exact same movement

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I wrote 'Creationism = Intelligent Design'

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, I just misunderstood. Thought you meant the fad was equating creationism and intelligent design, not creationism itself. Sorry about that.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all depends on how you define "competent." If competent means that he is about the same as an average doctor, then vhawk01 is correct. If it means that he's actually able to logically solve problems, then you're equating competence with the best of the best in medicine.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all depends on how you define "competent." If competent means that he is about the same as an average doctor, then vhawk01 is correct. If it means that he's actually able to logically solve problems, then you're equating competence with the best of the best in medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd put it a little differently: If you are equating competence with the ability to set aside personal bias, then you are talking about the best of the best. I think the average physician does a good job of logically solving problems as long as there is no major emotional issue or personal belief on the line. The good ones are able to do it even in the face of these difficult issues. What OPs friend is demonstrating is really just the ability to compartmentalize his thinking and reasoning when other beliefs and prejudices are at play....something that, as I said, won't prevent him from being an average doctor, or probably even a good one.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, his argument was that he believed in microevolution and could see how one type of fish turned into another. But he couldn't see how man came from monkeys

[/ QUOTE ]

a) Man didn't "come from monkeys".

b) Come on. Has the guy ever even seen a monkey? He can't imagine that a very large series of small changes over tens of millions of years could turn a small hairy primate with a tail and a small brain into a large less hairy primate without a tail and a large brain?

It's when I hear things like this that I know people just don't want the obvious answer to be true.

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
My friend is a fairly die hard Christian. He is also a junior Biology major at his university and plans to attend med school. We got to talking about evolution the other day when I mentioned something about creationism. He essentially said that macroevolution is about as credible as creationism. He said that creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools if the teacher wanted to teach it and said that the teacher should have to option to teach evolution or not teach it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you really find today however, is not so much a desire to teach creationism (there is in some places), but just an allowance of the critical dissection of darwinism - but so far many courts have ruled criticizing evolution as an advancement of religion.



[/ QUOTE ]Essentially, his argument was that he believed in microevolution and could see how one type of fish turned into another. But he couldn't see how man came from monkeys--he said there wasn't enough to back it up--just a bunch of theories. He said that much of the theories went something like "We know this happened, and we know this happened, so it's likely that this happened." Basically he said that there were a lot of missing links and no real proof, and, because of this, he does not believe in macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your simplistic explanation (or your friends simplistic explanation) of objections to evolution make it seem like there has been no critical thought. I don't know if the terms "micro-" and "macro" are the symptoms or the cause of this confusion. But the issue your friend seems to have is one of genetic information. Natural Selection is all around us and can be witnessed today. This is the natural sorting and elimination of various traits from a gene pool. The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it. Then it is said that mutations are needed to add information - but again mutations are only changes (or mistakes) to genetic information already present. There are no laws of physics that are able to produce information from nothing. From your friends point of view, it's easy to see genetic information being lost or sorted, but he has to imagine a mechanism by which it arrived there in the first place.



[/ QUOTE ]Is he right to a degree?
Or, what can I counter with?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you want to counter if you don't know how or with what? Why do you have an a priori position to defend evolution and to counter creationism, even though you've shown you don't understand your friends position or the evolutionary position enough to know how to counter already?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed! I would be very concerned about a physician treating me if:

he did not avail him/herself of all available medical technologies for either diagmostic, treatment or therapeuty,

or,

was availing him/herself of technologies that he thought were not founded on rational truthful scientific conclusions.

Given the many advances in medicine based on Evolution theories, one of the above would have to be true of a "creationist" physician, or snake oil salesmen as they may be appropriately better called.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]I partially disagree. As a whole, doctors are not great thinkers nor are they required to ne. They are a bunch of memorization monkeys and that is not logical thinking. They never have to solve using any real brainpower.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]I partially disagree. As a whole, doctors are not great thinkers nor are they required to ne. They are a bunch of memorization monkeys and that is not logical thinking. They never have to solve using any real brainpower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Even the problem-solving is more or less formulaic, algorithmic problem-solving. Ask questions 1-10 in this order. If answer to 1 is yes, ask questions 11-14. If not, move on to exam.

Don't get me wrong, its still really hard. You have to memorize a lot, and more importantly, organize it properly so that you can recall complex sequelae on a moments notice. Then you have to do this with sick people in your face. Then you have to do this while making said sick people comfortable, happy, and empowered.

Its a tough job, but it most certainly doesn't require brilliance or superb logic skillz. The brilliance is reserved for the doctors who cure things.

That being said, brilliance is overrepresented among doctors, in my experience.

[rainonacongadrum]

[/ QUOTE ]Is he right to a degree?
Or, what can I counter with?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you want to counter if you don't know how or with what? Why do you have an a priori position to defend evolution and to counter creationism, even though you've shown you don't understand your friends position or the evolutionary position enough to know how to counter already?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if he is right then there is no need to counter with anything--and I learn something in the process. If he's not right then I would like to have enough information to be able to hold some kind of conversation with him about it. That should answer your question. I'd like to think I know enough to favor science over blatant sorcery.

"From your friends point of view, it's easy to see genetic information being lost or sorted, but he has to imagine a mechanism by which it arrived there in the first place."

Yea, that's about right. Another thing, when I mentioned that it is a scary notion that a seemingly bright Biology major thinks macroevolution is totally bogus, he said that he doesn't believe in macroevolution because he's a Biology major. (What he has learned from classes has lead him not to believe in macroevolution.)

[Chips_]

I believe that the best explanation for the origin of humans is through evolution with common ancestors from apes. Having said that, my answer to your question is that your friend is making some good points. There is a very clear logical difference between "micro" evolution which would require only a few changes to a genetic code and "macro" evolution where there is a 2% difference out of a few billion bit genetic code between monkeys and humans. The larger evolution is not a trivial extension of the smaller evolutionary steps. When evolution is explained in a way that trivializes this difference (which happens far too often even on college campuses and with a popular author) then skeptics can have their suspicions flamed and if they have religious beliefs then this all leads to serious doubt of the theory of evolution.
I find the average evolutionist is strong on criticizing a person’s religious faith and weak on answering challenges to the theory well. There is a big difference between micro and macro evolution - on a mathematical/statistical expectation and on direct experimental evidence. Others who may scoff at folks who make this point and say that their religion is wrong don’t answer the question. That kind of a reaction indicates weakness in defense of the theory, not strength. It’s a long discussion to explain evolution and still acknowledge this point. But it is possible to acknowledge this point and still present the theory well. Here’s one idea: Specific knowledge of DNA between humans and primates makes a very strong case for common ancestry. Challenge your friend if he believes that humans have tails during embryonic development. Then go challenge him to find out exactly why. What are the genes and how are they impacted in different embryos. The answer is a strong case for evolution. Giving students specific exact examples that defend the theory and asking them to do their own study is a good way to point them in the right direction. Then you lead into a discussion of actual facts and evidence, which is where the discussion should be held. Set aside the psychoanalysis of why religious people question evolution. Asking about micro vs macro evolution is a very legitimate question and needs no such psychoanalysis.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the best explanation for the origin of humans is through evolution with common ancestors from apes. Having said that, my answer to your question is that your friend is making some good points. There is a very clear logical difference between "micro" evolution which would require only a few changes to a genetic code and "macro" evolution where there is a 2% difference out of a few billion bit genetic code between monkeys and humans. The larger evolution is not a trivial extension of the smaller evolutionary steps. When evolution is explained in a way that trivializes this difference (which happens far too often even on college campuses and with a popular author) then skeptics can have their suspicions flamed and if they have religious beliefs then this all leads to serious doubt of the theory of evolution.
I find the average evolutionist is strong on criticizing a person’s religious faith and weak on answering challenges to the theory well. There is a big difference between micro and macro evolution - on a mathematical/statistical expectation and on direct experimental evidence. Others who may scoff at folks who make this point and say that their religion is wrong don’t answer the question. That kind of a reaction indicates weakness in defense of the theory, not strength. It’s a long discussion to explain evolution and still acknowledge this point. But it is possible to acknowledge this point and still present the theory well. Here’s one idea: Specific knowledge of DNA between humans and primates makes a very strong case for common ancestry. Challenge your friend if he believes that humans have tails during embryonic development. Then go challenge him to find out exactly why. What are the genes and how are they impacted in different embryos. The answer is a strong case for evolution. Giving students specific exact examples that defend the theory and asking them to do their own study is a good way to point them in the right direction. Then you lead into a discussion of actual facts and evidence, which is where the discussion should be held. Set aside the psychoanalysis of why religious people question evolution. Asking about micro vs macro evolution is a very legitimate question and needs no such psychoanalysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said several times in this post that there is a major difference between macroevolution and microevolution. You even said there is a strong 'logical' difference. And this whole time I was waiting for you to tell me what it was. Is it a secret? I can't think of any major difference, but I'm no genius. Could you enlighten us?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
My friend is a fairly die hard Christian. He is also a junior Biology major at his university and plans to attend med school. We got to talking about evolution the other day when I mentioned something about creationism. He essentially said that macroevolution is about as credible as creationism.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's scary that this person wants to be a physician. I just hope I'm never treated by him.

[ QUOTE ]

But he couldn't see how man came from monkeys--he said there wasn't enough to back it up--just a bunch of theories. He said that much of the theories went something like "We know this happened, and we know this happened, so it's likely that this happened."

[/ QUOTE ]

How can he be a biology major and not have the slightest clue what is a scientific theory?

[ QUOTE ]
Basically he said that there were a lot of missing links and no real proof, and, because of this, he does not believe in macroevolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, it's difficult to know even where to begin.

1. Scientific theories aren't "proved" like mathematical theorems. They are constructed to unify or explain the observed facts and evidence. In the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, theories are at the top. To criticize evolution for being "just a theory" is like saying you shouldn't call an all-in pre-flop with AA in holdem because it's "just a pair".

2. The theory of evolution (including macro-evolution) is supported by overwhelming evidence. That includes not only strong evidence from the fossil record, but also evidence from genetics, geology, anatomy, and many others.

3. Since fossilization is rare (and most fossils we never find), it is expected that the fossil record is sparse compared to the total number of species that have existed. Nevertheless, the fossils which have been found conclusively support evolution. These include plenty of transitional forms. It is inaccurate and misleading to claim there are "missing links."

4. The evolution of human beings in particular from earlier primates is fairly well represented in the fossil record. This includes a number of hominid species which clearly show a transitional morphology between modern humans and our "ape-like" ancestors.

Here are some relevant links your friend should explore:

Talk Origins FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html)

Evidence for macroevolution FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

Hominid Fossil FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Then it is said that mutations are needed to add information - but again mutations are only changes (or mistakes) to genetic information already present.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never thought about Scrabble that way. It really seems as though the selection process itself ( me selecting by choice) was creating the words. The idea that the word combination was always in the box sorta takes the fun out of it, and it feels now like I'm not really doing anything amazing when I rack up a 4wayer.

With Natural Selection, which is a selection process with criteria also, it's as if you pick up your tiles, randomly place them on your rack, look down and see 'amazing' so you play it because it fits perfectly in the board environment.

Playing scrabble the random mutations usually occur in your head but some players do a lot of shifting tiles on the rack for inspiration.

Don't get lost in the analogy. I'm just not buying the claim that a duck-billed platypus was already in the information present in an early one celled replicator. I also don't buy the claim that I can't walk to cleveland.

luckyme

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't get lost in the analogy. I'm just not buying the claim that a duck-billed platypus was already in the information present in an early one celled replicator.
luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy it either, because I don't assume common decent from this "one celled replicator" as you do. You admit the information couldn't be there already. So now you must come up with a mechanism to add this information. Without a scientifically valid process by which information can be added all we have is conjecture - or faith in the belief that it was somehow added.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Don't get lost in the analogy. I'm just not buying the claim that a duck-billed platypus was already in the information present in an early one celled replicator.
luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy it either, because I don't assume common decent from this "one celled replicator" as you do. You admit the information couldn't be there already. So now you must come up with a mechanism to add this information. Without a scientifically valid process by which information can be added all we have is conjecture - or faith in the belief that it was somehow added.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define, explicitly, what you mean by genetic "information."

You might as well argue that mountains could not have been formed by the mechanism of plate tectonics, because that process adds no "information" about mountain construction.

[Chips_]

I do believe that macroevolution is an extention of microevolution. But that conclusion is not a trivial one to draw and requires more justification than just saying if you believe one mutation can occur and produce a change than you should also believe that millions of mutations have occurred to change primates to man. Suppose one person wins a six number lottery every week in the State of Florida - does that mean that if there were a 12 number lottery there would be a winner some time during the year. You can’t just make a general argument like this without some math to back it up, some experiments or observations to back it up and in the case of evolution, some additional theoretical justification. We know there are barriers to the levels of mutations that can occur and the change they can produce – breeding experiments bear this out. It’s the evidence that macroevolution did happen that is most convincing, not the notion that all you have to understand is that if one mutation can occur in a complex system millions have – that by itself is simply a speculation.

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Don't get lost in the analogy. I'm just not buying the claim that a duck-billed platypus was already in the information present in an early one celled replicator.
luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy it either, because I don't assume common decent from this "one celled replicator" as you do. You admit the information couldn't be there already. So now you must come up with a mechanism to add this information. Without a scientifically valid process by which information can be added all we have is conjecture - or faith in the belief that it was somehow added.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define, explicitly, what you mean by genetic "information."

You might as well argue that mountains could not have been formed by the mechanism of plate tectonics, because that process adds no "information" about mountain construction.

[/ QUOTE ]
DNA contains genetic information. The DNA sequence spells out the code for producing a specific protein. While I cannot give you a lesson on genetics and DNA, information contained in genetic code is not denied by anyone.
‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’- Richard Dawkins

It's the decoded information that produces organs, limbs, etc. What is the source of this information?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Kent Hovind (Creation Scientist ) likes to show pictures of a few different kinds of dogs and a banana

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting to me that he chooses dogs. I think that an extraterrestrial biologist, presented with a St. Bernard and a Yorkshire Terrier, without seeing any other dogs, or knowing anything else about the history of dogs, would probably think they were different species, although he would probably place them in the same family, and maybe the same genus.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Is he right to a degree?

[/ QUOTE ]
No
[ QUOTE ]
Or, what can I counter with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably nothing. If, after three years of college level biology, he doesn't get it, he's hopeless. We can only hope that he doesn't get into med school, as he is clearly not qualified to be a physician.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a wierd, Christian thing to believe in microevolution and not in macroevolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Most definitely. It's pretty much an arbitrary distinction. The thing is, microevolution is observable on a human time scale. It's so well documented, that it's hard for even a hardcore fundamentalist Christian to deny it. It is just barely possible, if you ignore enough evidence, to accept the idea that "microevolution" runs into some sort of mystical barrier that keeps changes from accumulating enough to allow for "macroevolution".

The thing about fish vs. humans is really bizarre, as there is a lot more difference between, say, a shark and a salmon then there is between a chimpanzee and a human. Unless, of course, you are really hung up on the "image of God" thing.

To make an analogy, if a fundamentalist saw somebody with a paint brush, and a bucket of red paint standing next to a fence, and came back two days later and saw that the fence was now red, he would say that there is no evidence that the person painted the fence red, so God must have turned it red.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Don't get lost in the analogy. I'm just not buying the claim that a duck-billed platypus was already in the information present in an early one celled replicator.
luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy it either, because I don't assume common decent from this "one celled replicator" as you do. You admit the information couldn't be there already. So now you must come up with a mechanism to add this information. Without a scientifically valid process by which information can be added all we have is conjecture - or faith in the belief that it was somehow added.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define, explicitly, what you mean by genetic "information."

You might as well argue that mountains could not have been formed by the mechanism of plate tectonics, because that process adds no "information" about mountain construction.

[/ QUOTE ]
DNA contains genetic information. The DNA sequence spells out the code for producing a specific protein. While I cannot give you a lesson on genetics and DNA, information contained in genetic code is not denied by anyone.
‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’- Richard Dawkins

It's the decoded information that produces organs, limbs, etc. What is the source of this information?

[/ QUOTE ]

This "where does new information come from" argument is a canard. It is trivial for new information to be added to the genome by common genetic mistakes. Consider the code "bison". A copying mistake might repeat this piece of code: bisonbison. Poof. The amount of genetic information has increased. One copy could be free to change via other mistakes of various kinds (repeats, reverses, deletions, insertions, etc), while still leaving the original code intact, doing whatever job it was originally doing. bison -&gt; bisonbison -&gt; bisonboson -&gt; bisonbonos -&gt; bisonbonobos -&gt; etc.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose a mechanic who doesn't believe in internal combustion, but that the car is powered by little angels who drink gasoline and jump on the pistons could handle most repairs, but I still don't want him working on my car, and I don't want a doctor who doesn't believe in evolution working on my body.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]I partially disagree. As a whole, doctors are not great thinkers nor are they required to ne. They are a bunch of memorization monkeys and that is not logical thinking. They never have to solve using any real brainpower.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the "absolutely nothing" in the first quote that made it incorrect.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Don't get lost in the analogy. I'm just not buying the claim that a duck-billed platypus was already in the information present in an early one celled replicator.
luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy it either, because I don't assume common decent from this "one celled replicator" as you do. You admit the information couldn't be there already. So now you must come up with a mechanism to add this information. Without a scientifically valid process by which information can be added all we have is conjecture - or faith in the belief that it was somehow added.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define, explicitly, what you mean by genetic "information."

You might as well argue that mountains could not have been formed by the mechanism of plate tectonics, because that process adds no "information" about mountain construction.

[/ QUOTE ]
DNA contains genetic information. The DNA sequence spells out the code for producing a specific protein. While I cannot give you a lesson on genetics and DNA, information contained in genetic code is not denied by anyone.
‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’- Richard Dawkins

It's the decoded information that produces organs, limbs, etc. What is the source of this information?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using a variation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument which was long ago discredited, as living systems are open, not closed. Open systems can become more organized, even non-living systems can become more organized if they are open systems.

You are also forgetting that mutation in living things is not a random process. Any individual mutation is random, but only the successful ones are reproduced, thereby loading the deck with only successful or at least not harmful variations over time.

FWIW, I have no problem with a creationist becoming a doctor. It's not like humans are changing that fast, he only needs to know how we work now. There is little in evolution, if anything, that one needs to believe in to be a successful doctor, as long as he relies on his skills and not God's when it comes to treating patients. He'll likely be a much more successful doctor than he would have been a biologist.

[MaxWeiss]

How did you get the horizontal rule using UBBCode???

[godBoy]

Broken quotes I think.


[/ QUOTE ]
Did this work? yep [ /quote] without the space

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]I partially disagree. As a whole, doctors are not great thinkers nor are they required to ne. They are a bunch of memorization monkeys and that is not logical thinking. They never have to solve using any real brainpower.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the "absolutely nothing" in the first quote that made it incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an example of a 'debate' I am having at this very minute on a well-known medical student/doctor forum. Keep in mind, the people I am debating with are either medical students in US allopathic schools or graduates of US allopathic schools.

The debate is over whether the following statement is a valid one:

Drug X is found to be ten times as likely to cause death than Drug Y. Therefore, we should not prescribe Drug X.

The majority of respondents think thats an entirely legitimate statement. Tellingly, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM even bothered to ask if there were, say, other mitigating factors, like side-effects, or, far more importantly, WHAT IS THE BASELINE RISK OF DEATH!?!?!?! For Christ's sake, people, if the risk goes from 1 in a billion to 10 in a billion, then a price decrease of like 5 bucks a month almost certainly justifies this. Not one person has asked any of these questions or found the statement objectionable at all. I think its pretty safe to say rigorous, critical thinking isn't necessary to become a competent physician. I have no reason to doubt (besides examples like these, of course) that all of these people are or will be functioning members of the physician workforce.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]I partially disagree. As a whole, doctors are not great thinkers nor are they required to ne. They are a bunch of memorization monkeys and that is not logical thinking. They never have to solve using any real brainpower.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the "absolutely nothing" in the first quote that made it incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an example of a 'debate' I am having at this very minute on a well-known medical student/doctor forum. Keep in mind, the people I am debating with are either medical students in US allopathic schools or graduates of US allopathic schools.

The debate is over whether the following statement is a valid one:

Drug X is found to be ten times as likely to cause death than Drug Y. Therefore, we should not prescribe Drug X.

The majority of respondents think thats an entirely legitimate statement. Tellingly, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM even bothered to ask if there were, say, other mitigating factors, like side-effects, or, far more importantly, WHAT IS THE BASELINE RISK OF DEATH!?!?!?! For Christ's sake, people, if the risk goes from 1 in a billion to 10 in a billion, then a price decrease of like 5 bucks a month almost certainly justifies this. Not one person has asked any of these questions or found the statement objectionable at all. I think its pretty safe to say rigorous, critical thinking isn't necessary to become a competent physician. I have no reason to doubt (besides examples like these, of course) that all of these people are or will be functioning members of the physician workforce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although it is a fine point, you are technically wrong. Ironically you are making a similar error to the one you are describing.

To show this, let us stipulate that Harvard Medical students won't screw up this question. They are certainly less likely to. And that Harvard students are more likely to become competant doctors than non Harvard students. Thus if I pick two random medical students and one gets your question right and another doesn't, the mere fact that the first might be a Harvard student means he is more likely to become competant (or better).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]I partially disagree. As a whole, doctors are not great thinkers nor are they required to ne. They are a bunch of memorization monkeys and that is not logical thinking. They never have to solve using any real brainpower.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the "absolutely nothing" in the first quote that made it incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an example of a 'debate' I am having at this very minute on a well-known medical student/doctor forum. Keep in mind, the people I am debating with are either medical students in US allopathic schools or graduates of US allopathic schools.

The debate is over whether the following statement is a valid one:

Drug X is found to be ten times as likely to cause death than Drug Y. Therefore, we should not prescribe Drug X.

The majority of respondents think thats an entirely legitimate statement. Tellingly, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM even bothered to ask if there were, say, other mitigating factors, like side-effects, or, far more importantly, WHAT IS THE BASELINE RISK OF DEATH!?!?!?! For Christ's sake, people, if the risk goes from 1 in a billion to 10 in a billion, then a price decrease of like 5 bucks a month almost certainly justifies this. Not one person has asked any of these questions or found the statement objectionable at all. I think its pretty safe to say rigorous, critical thinking isn't necessary to become a competent physician. I have no reason to doubt (besides examples like these, of course) that all of these people are or will be functioning members of the physician workforce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although it is a fine point, you are technically wrong. Ironically you are making a similar error to the one you are describing.

To show this, let us stipulate that Harvard Medical students won't screw up this question. They are certainly less likely to. And that Harvard students are more likely to become competant doctors than non Harvard students. Thus if I pick two random medical students and one gets your question right and another doesn't, the mere fact that the first might be a Harvard student means he is more likely to become competant (or better).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are adding in additional data, i.e. correlations that aren't stipulated. They may seem entirely reasonable, but its sort of central to my objection that they aren't. If I just grant you these assertions than there is no debate.

That being said, I'm definitely exaggerating (understimating) the small impact being able to solve these types of problems will have on competency, and your objection to my hyperbole is well-taken.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big assumptions, and certainly ones I didn't make. In general I agree, although being a competent physician is at LEAST as much about being a regurgitant database as critically solving problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I REALLY have to disagree with this, and think that lack of critical thinking is a HUGE problem with doctors.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"On the bright side, his stance will do absolutely nothing to prevent him getting into med school or becoming a competent physician

If his stance is logically wrong, and was come to through thought, your comment is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]I partially disagree. As a whole, doctors are not great thinkers nor are they required to ne. They are a bunch of memorization monkeys and that is not logical thinking. They never have to solve using any real brainpower.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the "absolutely nothing" in the first quote that made it incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an example of a 'debate' I am having at this very minute on a well-known medical student/doctor forum. Keep in mind, the people I am debating with are either medical students in US allopathic schools or graduates of US allopathic schools.

The debate is over whether the following statement is a valid one:

Drug X is found to be ten times as likely to cause death than Drug Y. Therefore, we should not prescribe Drug X.

The majority of respondents think thats an entirely legitimate statement. Tellingly, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM even bothered to ask if there were, say, other mitigating factors, like side-effects, or, far more importantly, WHAT IS THE BASELINE RISK OF DEATH!?!?!?! For Christ's sake, people, if the risk goes from 1 in a billion to 10 in a billion, then a price decrease of like 5 bucks a month almost certainly justifies this. Not one person has asked any of these questions or found the statement objectionable at all. I think its pretty safe to say rigorous, critical thinking isn't necessary to become a competent physician. I have no reason to doubt (besides examples like these, of course) that all of these people are or will be functioning members of the physician workforce.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if drug x also cures the ailment 100 or even 1000 times more often than drug y? That may be a risk I would like to take as a patient. I would rely on the good doctor to explain the risks and rewards of drug choices. (insert mean spirited attack on FDA and lawyers here) But some of the "protectors" in our society dont think I should be able to make this choice. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[MatthewRyan]

[ QUOTE ]


<font color="brown">Or, what can I counter with?</font>
All evidence points towards this being true because of the overwhelming likeness of DNA that all living creatures share. It's possible that God put it there - but I don't believe in a God who would be so sneaky as to make things appear as they happened in a way they did not.



[/ QUOTE ]

Godboy, what do you think about a God who used methods within the realm of physics/science to create life and everything else in this universe? His motivation for being 'sneaky' would be to ensure that his existance could never be proven, or unquestionsbale due to a lack of real alternatives; thus leaving the question of his existance always to be one of faith. To me, this seems inline with Christanity so I'm wondering what others think.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

His motivation for being 'sneaky'


[/ QUOTE ]

How is He being sneaky when He tells you He did it?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is not nearly as large a problem as the one you have - to wit, being a complete [censored] idiot.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

His motivation for being 'sneaky'


[/ QUOTE ]

How is He being sneaky when He tells you He did it?

[/ QUOTE ]

He told me? He must have done so in some sneaky way, because I didn't get the message. Also, fossils LDO.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of


increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."




link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

[Tablerat]

I would encourage your friend to read about the "family that walks on all fours." The NOVA site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/allfours/) (the original documentary aired on BBC2 last year) is at the very least fascinating to read. I could not find a full version online, but a transcript (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3317_allfours.html) of the PBS program is available. The NOVA program also repeats with some regularity on PBS.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
what do you think about a God who used methods within the realm of physics/science to create life and everything else in this universe?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure
[ QUOTE ]
His motivation for being 'sneaky' would be to ensure that his existance could never be proven, or unquestionsbale due to a lack of real alternatives; thus leaving the question of his existance always to be one of faith. To me, this seems inline with Christanity so I'm wondering what others think.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't being sneaky in the same way - i'm suggesting that he wouldn't create things in a way to appear like something they are not.
Science can't observe if there is something truly behind the natural phenomena that is witnessed - it can only witness the natural phenomena themselves - so in this way he could 'ensure that his existence could never be proven' if he so desired.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you look at a Ford F150 and assume that it evolved from a Ford Ranger over millions of years? You know... bigger/stronger/better through genetic mutation!

Similarities in appearance does not automatically mean one begat the other.

Perhaps instead of a common ancestor, we both had a common designer?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is not nearly as large a problem as the one you have - to wit, being a complete [censored] idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

But creationists aren't trying to pass their ideas off as scientific fact. That's the big difference there.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you look at a Ford F150 and assume that it evolved from a Ford Ranger over millions of years? You know... bigger/stronger/better through genetic mutation!

Similarities in appearance does not automatically mean one begat the other.

Perhaps instead of a common ancestor, we both had a common designer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn't assume that evolutionary scientists are just using similar appearances to come to their conclusions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you look at a Ford F150 and assume that it evolved from a Ford Ranger over millions of years? You know... bigger/stronger/better through genetic mutation!

Similarities in appearance does not automatically mean one begat the other.

Perhaps instead of a common ancestor, we both had a common designer?

[/ QUOTE ]

YAY!!! You came!! Guys, I'm going to take the blame (credit) for this one, I invited him here in a hilarious thread in OOT.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is not nearly as large a problem as the one you have - to wit, being a complete [censored] idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

But creationists aren't trying to pass their ideas off as scientific fact. That's the big difference there.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't? Are you sure about that? There are some folks in Dover who beg to differ.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is not nearly as large a problem as the one you have - to wit, being a complete [censored] idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

But responsible creationists aren't trying to pass their ideas off as scientific fact. That's the big difference there.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't? Are you sure about that? There are some folks in Dover who beg to differ.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is not nearly as large a problem as the one you have - to wit, being a complete [censored] idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

But responsible creationists aren't trying to pass their ideas off as scientific fact. That's the big difference there.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't? Are you sure about that? There are some folks in Dover who beg to differ.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what ARE they trying to do? Is it your position that the diversity of life on Earth is unexplainable in a naturalistic paradigm?

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you look at a Ford F150 and assume that it evolved from a Ford Ranger over millions of years? You know... bigger/stronger/better through genetic mutation!

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, you got the analogy wrong. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor into separate species selected for through different environmental pressures (i.e. to suit different purposes). An F150 and a Ranger evolved from early car models to suit different purposes.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you look at a Ford F150 and assume that it evolved from a Ford Ranger over millions of years? You know... bigger/stronger/better through genetic mutation!

Similarities in appearance does not automatically mean one begat the other.

Perhaps instead of a common ancestor, we both had a common designer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn't assume that evolutionary scientists are just using similar appearances to come to their conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

But apparently, that's what this kid was trying to say. Feel free to offer your own interpretation of his comment to correct me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you look at a Ford F150 and assume that it evolved from a Ford Ranger over millions of years? You know... bigger/stronger/better through genetic mutation!

Similarities in appearance does not automatically mean one begat the other.

Perhaps instead of a common ancestor, we both had a common designer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn't assume that evolutionary scientists are just using similar appearances to come to their conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

But apparently, that's what this kid was trying to say. Feel free to offer your own interpretation of his comment to correct me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key word is 'just.' Also, I like the insertion of 'kid.' Subtle, clever, a good first step. My guess is it goes to punk or whippersnapper next? Anything to subtly denigrate the position of the other guy, right, son?

[Inso0]

Well, this is the internets after all.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, you got the analogy wrong. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor into separate species selected for through different environmental pressures (i.e. to suit different purposes).

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Apparently you did not get the memo that's been going around for the past hundred and fifty years or so.


http://data2.blog.de/media/976/745976_ec6ba813b8_m.gif

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you look at a Ford F150 and assume that it evolved from a Ford Ranger over millions of years? You know... bigger/stronger/better through genetic mutation!

Similarities in appearance does not automatically mean one begat the other.

Perhaps instead of a common ancestor, we both had a common designer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn't assume that evolutionary scientists are just using similar appearances to come to their conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

But apparently, that's what this kid was trying to say. Feel free to offer your own interpretation of his comment to correct me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key word is 'just.' Also, I like the insertion of 'kid.' Subtle, clever, a good first step. My guess is it goes to punk or whippersnapper next? Anything to subtly denigrate the position of the other guy, right, son?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh...I'm not proud of it, but I'm in my 30's...If Inso is older than that and still this stupid...well, there you go.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, you got the analogy wrong. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor into separate species selected for through different environmental pressures (i.e. to suit different purposes).

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Apparently you did not get the memo that's been going around for the past hundred and fifty years or so.


http://data2.blog.de/media/976/745976_ec6ba813b8_m.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird, that first guy isn't wearing his "I'm a monkey!" nametag.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, you got the analogy wrong. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor into separate species selected for through different environmental pressures (i.e. to suit different purposes).

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Apparently you did not get the memo that's been going around for the past hundred and fifty years or so.


http://data2.blog.de/media/976/745976_ec6ba813b8_m.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, illustrations are great scientific evidence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Darwin_ape.jpg

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, illustrations are great scientific evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching to the choir here. Evolution is based almost entirely on illustrations with very little actual hard evidence. If not for the fancy illustrations, there would be no way to get so many sheep on board with it.

No, I didn't call you all sheep. But the poor kids who are looking at the nice color illustrations in their text books of hoaxes and outright lies, they're the sheep that buy into it.

[BillNye]

Christians wont believe in macro evolution untill it is 100% that it is proven, at which time the creation story will become 100% figurative... duh

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, illustrations are great scientific evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching to the choir here. Evolution is based almost entirely on illustrations with very little actual hard evidence. If not for the fancy illustrations, there would be no way to get so many sheep on board with it.

No, I didn't call you all sheep. But the poor kids who are looking at the nice color illustrations in their text books of hoaxes and outright lies, they're the sheep that buy into it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So evolution has no hard evidence and is based on hoaxes and outright lies? What are these outright lies?

And those illustrations you have a problem with are teaching tools, not scientific evidence used to prove/disprove evolution.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, illustrations are great scientific evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching to the choir here. Evolution is based almost entirely on illustrations with very little actual hard evidence . If not for the fancy illustrations, there would be no way to get so many sheep on board with it.

No, I didn't call you all sheep. But the poor kids who are looking at the nice color illustrations in their text books of hoaxes and outright lies, they're the sheep that buy into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone just drew that figure above, and that's what scientists use in order to draw and support their conclusions? I see you've thought out this problem as well as cause and effect in general.

Seriously I can't tell if you're levelling us or not, I'm leaning towards "Yes."

Also pray tell what are non-evolutionary theories based on? Words as opposed to illustrations?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, illustrations are great scientific evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching to the choir here. Evolution is based almost entirely on illustrations with very little actual hard evidence. If not for the fancy illustrations, there would be no way to get so many sheep on board with it.

No, I didn't call you all sheep. But the poor kids who are looking at the nice color illustrations in their text books of hoaxes and outright lies, they're the sheep that buy into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk - I'm going to have to ask you not to discuss the secret SMP society with outsiders.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, illustrations are great scientific evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching to the choir here. Evolution is based almost entirely on illustrations with very little actual hard evidence. If not for the fancy illustrations, there would be no way to get so many sheep on board with it.

No, I didn't call you all sheep. But the poor kids who are looking at the nice color illustrations in their text books of hoaxes and outright lies, they're the sheep that buy into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk - I'm going to have to ask you not to discuss the secret SMP society with outsiders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire, this is bound to be awesome, although in my short experience he does seem to have the usual habit of ignoring direct challenges and instead only replying to posts that he can mutilate and sidetrack.

[Jiggymike]

Where did Inso go? I'm feeling punchy and ready to tear him a new one.

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is not nearly as large a problem as the one you have - to wit, being a complete [censored] idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations! A very well thought out response.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, illustrations are great scientific evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching to the choir here. Evolution is based almost entirely on illustrations with very little actual hard evidence . If not for the fancy illustrations, there would be no way to get so many sheep on board with it.

No, I didn't call you all sheep. But the poor kids who are looking at the nice color illustrations in their text books of hoaxes and outright lies, they're the sheep that buy into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone just drew that figure above, and that's what scientists use in order to draw and support their conclusions? I see you've thought out this problem as well as cause and effect in general.

Seriously I can't tell if you're levelling us or not, I'm leaning towards "Yes."

Also pray tell what are non-evolutionary theories based on? Words as opposed to illustrations?

[/ QUOTE ]

STFU paleontologist. You really are in no position to talk when your entire field is based on:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f242/hoyahawk/Flintstone-family.jpg

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of


increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."




link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting how you copied and pasted the info at that link. Did you bother reading it? It says, " A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins" (emphasis added) This discusses the change to genetic information already present and then infers that this is also how it originated in the first place - not really answering the question.

The concept of information is vital to understanding origins. The human body has at least 50,000 different proteins performing important functions. The function each protein carries out is coded in the DNA - specific instructional information.

While matter and energy are necessary for life, they alone do not offer anything that would differentiate living from non-living matter. One prime characteristic of living organisms is the information they contain for the performance of life function, genetic information, and reproduction.
A few of the theorems of Information Theory are: No information can exist without a code.
No information can exist without a transmitter.
No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
No information can exist without a will.

To be consistent with all other aspects of information we see and perceive, genetic information must also be the result of a mind that coded this information with some purpose in mind.

[vhawk01]

That is comically circular and totally useless. Pretend it isn't information if that makes it easier for you. No reason to pretend it is.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
A few of the theorems of Information Theory are: No information can exist without a code.
No information can exist without a transmitter.
No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
No information can exist without a will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol.

No.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of


increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."




link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting how you copied and pasted the info at that link. Did you bother reading it? It says, " A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins" (emphasis added) This discusses the change to genetic information already present and then infers that this is also how it originated in the first place - not really answering the question.

The concept of information is vital to understanding origins. The human body has at least 50,000 different proteins performing important functions. The function each protein carries out is coded in the DNA - specific instructional information.

While matter and energy are necessary for life, they alone do not offer anything that would differentiate living from non-living matter. One prime characteristic of living organisms is the information they contain for the performance of life function, genetic information, and reproduction.
A few of the theorems of Information Theory are: No information can exist without a code.
No information can exist without a transmitter.
No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
No information can exist without a will.

To be consistent with all other aspects of information we see and perceive, genetic information must also be the result of a mind that coded this information with some purpose in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this from a mathematical theory of information? If so can you also provide the definition of information or preferably a link or citation to where you got those theorems from?

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of


increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."




link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting how you copied and pasted the info at that link. Did you bother reading it? It says, " A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins" (emphasis added) This discusses the change to genetic information already present and then infers that this is also how it originated in the first place - not really answering the question.

The concept of information is vital to understanding origins. The human body has at least 50,000 different proteins performing important functions. The function each protein carries out is coded in the DNA - specific instructional information.

While matter and energy are necessary for life, they alone do not offer anything that would differentiate living from non-living matter. One prime characteristic of living organisms is the information they contain for the performance of life function, genetic information, and reproduction.
A few of the theorems of Information Theory are: No information can exist without a code.
No information can exist without a transmitter.
No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
No information can exist without a will.

To be consistent with all other aspects of information we see and perceive, genetic information must also be the result of a mind that coded this information with some purpose in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are basing your entire argument on a very literal meaning of the word "coded." Why does genetic information have to be consistent with man-made information, considering that genetic information was around well before man existed? Writing a computer program is analogous but not exactly the same as the code in DNA. This article explains how genetic variation comes about, not how genetic material comes about.

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
That is comically circular and totally useless. Pretend it isn't information if that makes it easier for you. No reason to pretend it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you mean. Does pretending that DNA does not carry information make it easier for you? Easier to do what? I guess if information is the product of a mind and someone doesn't want to believe that this mind exists, it is easier to do so if they just pretend there is no information carried in living organisms.

To what do you attribute the performance of life functions? Do you say, "well that's just what it does"? When a seed grows into a tree, why doesn't other organic material grow into trees? Because it doesn't have specific instructional information that was transmitted to it by a parent.
But so I can consider all options, can you give me the naturalistic way life was arranged from non-living matter.

respectfully, Drew_aces

[bunny]

I dont know if you saw my post above. Can you tell me where you got those theorems from? Or provide the definitions, axioms and proofs?

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that evolutionists have is that Natural Selection cannot produce new genetic information - it only sorts it and eliminates it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of


increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."




link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting how you copied and pasted the info at that link. Did you bother reading it? It says, " A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins" (emphasis added) This discusses the change to genetic information already present and then infers that this is also how it originated in the first place - not really answering the question.

The concept of information is vital to understanding origins. The human body has at least 50,000 different proteins performing important functions. The function each protein carries out is coded in the DNA - specific instructional information.

While matter and energy are necessary for life, they alone do not offer anything that would differentiate living from non-living matter. One prime characteristic of living organisms is the information they contain for the performance of life function, genetic information, and reproduction.
A few of the theorems of Information Theory are: No information can exist without a code.
No information can exist without a transmitter.
No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
No information can exist without a will.

To be consistent with all other aspects of information we see and perceive, genetic information must also be the result of a mind that coded this information with some purpose in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this from a mathematical theory of information? If so can you also provide the definition of information or preferably a link or citation to where you got those theorems from?

[/ QUOTE ]
web page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp)

[bunny]

Thanks /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is comically circular and totally useless. Pretend it isn't information if that makes it easier for you. No reason to pretend it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you mean. Does pretending that DNA does not carry information make it easier for you? Easier to do what? I guess if information is the product of a mind and someone doesn't want to believe that this mind exists, it is easier to do so if they just pretend there is no information carried in living organisms.

To what do you attribute the performance of life functions? Do you say, "well that's just what it does"? When a seed grows into a tree, why doesn't other organic material grow into trees? Because it doesn't have specific instructional information that was transmitted to it by a parent.
But so I can consider all options, can you give me the naturalistic way life was arranged from non-living matter.

respectfully, Drew_aces

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using a definition of information that demands life came from God. Then, you are coming to the startling conclusion that life must have come from God. This is a useless definition of information for our purposes, and we have no reason to assume DNA needs to be considered information UNDER THIS DEFINITION. So, like I said, lets just pretend it isn't.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of information is vital to understanding origins. The human body has at least 50,000 different proteins performing important functions. The function each protein carries out is coded in the DNA - specific instructional information.

While matter and energy are necessary for life, they alone do not offer anything that would differentiate living from non-living matter. One prime characteristic of living organisms is the information they contain for the performance of life function, genetic information, and reproduction.
A few of the theorems of Information Theory are: No information can exist without a code.
No information can exist without a transmitter.
No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
No information can exist without a will.

To be consistent with all other aspects of information we see and perceive, genetic information must also be the result of a mind that coded this information with some purpose in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if you read through the webpage you listed, but most of the statements labelled "theorems" are in fact taken as axioms (ie there is no proof presented for them).

Also, the author writes that

"Since Shannon’s definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning."

and from then on requires that "information" has to convey a meaning, therefore has to be represented by a code, that it is a purely mental concept and that there must be a creator of that code. All of these seem to beg the question, in that it is not surprising that from this vantage point, a creator is inevitable.

If the statements the author makes are to be viewed as theorems, it should be possible to proceed from a few axioms and definitions to those theorems in a logical step-by-step fashion. This page gives the impression of following that process, but the details of the logical steps are omitted (also the definition of information which was provided by Shannon is shifted partway through, without the replacement being clearly articulated). Instead each of the theorems are just stated "to express empirical principles".

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this from a mathematical theory of information? If so can you also provide the definition of information or preferably a link or citation to where you got those theorems from?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


web page



[/ QUOTE ]

This is great. The website that you linked to, is the same one that brought us; Dinosaurs on the Ark, and “only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.”

Christian biology site (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is comically circular and totally useless. Pretend it isn't information if that makes it easier for you. No reason to pretend it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you mean. Does pretending that DNA does not carry information make it easier for you? Easier to do what? I guess if information is the product of a mind and someone doesn't want to believe that this mind exists, it is easier to do so if they just pretend there is no information carried in living organisms.

To what do you attribute the performance of life functions? Do you say, "well that's just what it does"? When a seed grows into a tree, why doesn't other organic material grow into trees? Because it doesn't have specific instructional information that was transmitted to it by a parent.
But so I can consider all options, can you give me the naturalistic way life was arranged from non-living matter.

respectfully, Drew_aces

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an example of a 'well thought out' response?

I've been waiting to see this claim, here actually. Not to ask about the specifics, but to ask why you believe such nonsense. Is it because it sounds scientific?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this from a mathematical theory of information? If so can you also provide the definition of information or preferably a link or citation to where you got those theorems from?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


web page



[/ QUOTE ]

This is great. The website that you linked to, is the same one that brought us; Dinosaurs on the Ark, and “only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.”

Christian biology site (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp)

[/ QUOTE ]


Noah's ark, if you choose to accept the basic premise, would not have been as difficult as people make it out to be.

1: It says in the bible that only animals who have "nostrils through which breathes the breath of life" were to be taken.

This eliminates all insects and water-dwelling creatures, as insects absorb oxygen through their skin and fish should do just fine on a planet covered in water.

2: 11% of land animals being larger than a sheep is of no consequence. All the illustrations show the big giraffes and elephants piling on the ark. There is absolutely no reason they wouldn't have taken babies/infants on the ark. They require a lot less food and are much more resilient.

3: People always argue that it would be impossible for a boat that huge to sail. They didn't have to sail... they just needed to float.

4: People say that 40 days and nights of rain couldn't possibly have produced enough water to go over the tops of Mount Everest.

A creationist will contend that Mount Everest wasn't there until after the flood. It says in the bible that during the last stages of the flood, "the mountains arose and the valleys sunk down". Perhaps this explains why fossilized clams have been found at the top of Everest. There are also many examples of sedimentary rock found at the top of mountains. This too would require that they were once under water.

http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology_visual.html


Then of course there's the Grand Canyon. Anyone who thinks the Colorado River carved out that canyon over millions of years is just not thinking properly. Not only is there no delta at the end of the Colorado, but I'd like to point out that rivers don't flow uphill very well, and the top of he grand canyon is something like a mile higher than where the river enters it. Creationists will tell you that canyon was formed in about a half an hour. If you blocked off the grand canyon, a lake would fill in behind it that would cover many states... doesn't anyone remember that story about the reservoir in Hawaii that killed a bunch of people because it flowed over the barrier and washed out an entire side of a hill? Water is a very destructive force.


Just food for thought.




EDIT: And don't start quoting me the amount of species of land animals on the planet. No one thinks that all the different species we have today were brought on the ark. Two dogs would have been more than enough to result in the wolf/cyote/dog populations we see today.

This is called Micro Evolution. It happens.

[Alex-db]

That doesn't address the difficulty Noah would have had sexing crocodiles to ensure he had 1 of each.

He must have been the original Steve Irwin, but with super-powers.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't address the difficulty Noah would have had sexing crocodiles to ensure he had 1 of each.

He must have been the original Steve Irwin, but with super-powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noah didn't have to do anything but build the boat. If you believe the story to be true, God delivered him each of these animals.

[Hopey]

Drew_Aces15 and Inso0 are making Sharkey look reasonable by comparison.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't address the difficulty Noah would have had sexing crocodiles to ensure he had 1 of each.

He must have been the original Steve Irwin, but with super-powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noah didn't have to do anything but build the boat. If you believe the story to be true, God delivered him each of these animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to argue with that logic.

This would also explain what happened to the dinosaurs. Obviously God found them to be "wicked" and let them drown. Or are you one of the Creationists who believe that God put dinosaur fossils in the ground to "test our faith"?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Noah's ark, if you choose to accept the basic premise, would not have been as difficult as people make it out to be.

1: It says in the bible that only animals who have "nostrils through which breathes the breath of life" were to be taken.

This eliminates all insects and water-dwelling creatures, as insects absorb oxygen through their skin and fish should do just fine on a planet covered in water


[/ QUOTE ]

ok..but doesn't this theory then conclude that macro-evolution does occur??? If no insects were saved, how did millions of species of insect come about?

still, even only considering animals with nostrils (seems fairly arbitrary if you ask me..also, insects and fish are not the only creatures without nostrils)..I am quite sure we are still talking about more animals than would be feasible

[ QUOTE ]
2: 11% of land animals being larger than a sheep is of no consequence. All the illustrations show the big giraffes and elephants piling on the ark. There is absolutely no reason they wouldn't have taken babies/infants on the ark. They require a lot less food and are much more resilient.

[/ QUOTE ]

infants, not so much..but I suppose they could be somewhat immature.

[ QUOTE ]
4: People say that 40 days and nights of rain couldn't possibly have produced enough water to go over the tops of Mount Everest.

A creationist will contend that Mount Everest wasn't there until after the flood. It says in the bible that during the last stages of the flood, "the mountains arose and the valleys sunk down". Perhaps this explains why fossilized clams have been found at the top of Everest. There are also many examples of sedimentary rock found at the top of mountains. This too would require that they were once under water.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know enough about mountain formation to go into detail, however, I'm quite sure that mountains are different ages...were they all formed at once? i guess some were around before...millions of years before..

so why an exception for everest?..for no other reason than that it has to be that way to support your belief..

this type of backwards reasoning is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
Then of course there's the Grand Canyon. Anyone who thinks the Colorado River carved out that canyon over millions of years is just not thinking properly. Not only is there no delta at the end of the Colorado, but I'd like to point out that rivers don't flow uphill very well, and the top of he grand canyon is something like a mile higher than where the river enters it. Creationists will tell you that canyon was formed in about a half an hour. If you blocked off the grand canyon, a lake would fill in behind it that would cover many states... doesn't anyone remember that story about the reservoir in Hawaii that killed a bunch of people because it flowed over the barrier and washed out an entire side of a hill? Water is a very destructive force.

[/ QUOTE ]

talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html)

-----------------------------------------

I'm not sure why I am arguing this at all..

I must concede that there is no way to show a creationist that something didn't or couldn't have happened.

if I show that something couldn't have happened..."God did it" problem solved..

but the same logic can be used to conclude any event based on any supposed supernatural cause...

so we're not adding any weight to the creationist argument here.

the reason that we must deal with these matters in a scientific and naturalist way is that to suppose any supernatural cause is empty and arbitrary.

unfortunately, noah's flood is easily discarded when you can't fall back on the show stopper that is..."God did it"

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't address the difficulty Noah would have had sexing crocodiles to ensure he had 1 of each.

He must have been the original Steve Irwin, but with super-powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noah didn't have to do anything but build the boat. If you believe the story to be true, God delivered him each of these animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to argue with that logic.

This would also explain what happened to the dinosaurs. Obviously God found them to be "wicked" and let them drown. Or are you one of the Creationists who believe that God put dinosaur fossils in the ground to "test our faith"?

[/ QUOTE ]

queue Kent Hovind, Creation Scientist and Dinosaur expert..

--dinosaurs lived alongside humans back in the day..you noob /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh...this is just the new creationist idiot fallback. It boggles my mind how one can even look at monkeys and honestly think they are unrelated to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you look at a Ford F150 and assume that it evolved from a Ford Ranger over millions of years? You know... bigger/stronger/better through genetic mutation!

Similarities in appearance does not automatically mean one begat the other.

Perhaps instead of a common ancestor, we both had a common designer?

[/ QUOTE ]

do you just eat up everything that creationists say?

this analogy is absurd.

it doesn't satisfy an ability for replication, mutation, or selection.

I guess if it has the word evolve in it, and it sounds absurd, it's good enough to be a creationist argument.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, you got the analogy wrong. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor into separate species selected for through different environmental pressures (i.e. to suit different purposes).

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Apparently you did not get the memo that's been going around for the past hundred and fifty years or so.


http://data2.blog.de/media/976/745976_ec6ba813b8_m.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol at you assuming that the first represents today's monkeys

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, illustrations are great scientific evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching to the choir here. Evolution is based almost entirely on illustrations with very little actual hard evidence. If not for the fancy illustrations, there would be no way to get so many sheep on board with it.

No, I didn't call you all sheep. But the poor kids who are looking at the nice color illustrations in their text books of hoaxes and outright lies, they're the sheep that buy into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're right, pretty much every book about evolution that I have read has been color-by-number..

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
--dinosaurs lived alongside humans back in the day..you noob /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from the Sopranos:

[ QUOTE ]

Evangelist:“Some people would have you believe that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. It is just not true. God created the earth six thousand years ago. I tell my kids, you have to remember, dinosaurs and human beings lived on the earth at the same time.”
Tony:“What, like the Flinstones?”
Evangelist:“It’s in the Bible.”
Christopher:“T-Rex in the Garden of Eden? No way, Adam and Eve would be runnin’ all the time, scared shitless. The Bible says it was Paradise.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[Inso0]

I'm going to leave now.

I'll be honest... I really don't care enough to try and argue with you anymore. I don't feel like re-typing everything I've said on the subject elsewhere to fit the context of this thread. If you want, you can go look at my posts in OOT in the "scientific poll" thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post10254229 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=10254229&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Pos t10254229)

You guys can continue to believe that you evolved from wet rocks over 4.7 billion years, and I will continue to believe that this planet is far too complex to have come about by chance and I'm fine with that.

This all boils down to eternity. If I'm right, you'll all burn in eternal damnation. If I'm wrong, nothing happens and I haven't gained or lost anything.

You may commence with your belittling my intelligence and whatever else is popular after "winning" a thread in SMP. I'll probably read your attacks if for no other reason than personal entertainment. But it's unlikely that I'll respond to them.

I ask only that you avoid procreation. We don't need any more liberals on this planet. It's bad enough already.

[Prodigy54321]

religoustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm)

here's something I found that talkes about anot problem with the flood theory..as well as some other stuff about creationism vs evolution

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I will continue to believe that this planet is far too complex to have come about by chance

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that as well, and evolution is the most likely resolution of this..DUCY?

[ QUOTE ]
This all boils down to eternity. If I'm right, you'll all burn in eternal damnation. If I'm wrong, nothing happens and I haven't gained or lost anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again..in the realm of speculation as to god or gods or afterlives of any kind, a particular brand of christianity is of such minute importance that to assume the above is absurd. There are many possibilities..your banking on one extrememly unlikely assumption...I bank on none...so enjoy your 0.00000001% greater chance of winding up better than me after you die....and even if we want to consider that there is a god in the usual sense...I am quite confident that I'll be fine...because god knows everything about me, including my sincerity...I am, however, not so confident in your fate...DUCY?

[ QUOTE ]
You may commence with your belittling my intelligence and whatever else is popular after "winning" a thread in SMP. I'll probably read your attacks if for no other reason than personal entertainment. But it's unlikely that I'll respond to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actaully wasn't very caustic at all IMO..I even conceded your point about full grown vs young animals..because I don't find any clear cause to dismiss it..

although it is hard to respond respectfully to such bizarre and outdated arguments..like the car evolving.

[ QUOTE ]
I ask only that you avoid procreation. We don't need any more liberals on this planet. It's bad enough already.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's sad that you don't know what a REAL conservative is...and I am one..

it's a shame the so-called conservative party in the US is overrun by people like you.

and, yes, I will admit that that comment was rude..but you started it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

good day sir

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]

1: It says in the bible that only animals who have "nostrils through which breathes the breath of life" were to be taken.


[/ QUOTE ]

That verse specifically talks about the animals that are wiped out by the flood waters, not which animals were to be taken. Here's Genesis 7:22-23 for your enjoyment:

"22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

[ QUOTE ]
2: 11% of land animals being larger than a sheep is of no consequence. All the illustrations show the big giraffes and elephants piling on the ark. There is absolutely no reason they wouldn't have taken babies/infants on the ark. They require a lot less food and are much more resilient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok that's fine. But how did kangaroo's and koala's get there? How did they get back to Australia after the flood?

[ QUOTE ]

4: People say that 40 days and nights of rain couldn't possibly have produced enough water to go over the tops of Mount Everest.

A creationist will contend that Mount Everest wasn't there until after the flood. It says in the bible that during the last stages of the flood, "the mountains arose and the valleys sunk down". Perhaps this explains why fossilized clams have been found at the top of Everest. There are also many examples of sedimentary rock found at the top of mountains. This too would require that they were once under water.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made some silly comment about Everest in the OOT thread too. Before you say anything else on the subject you should give yourself a crash course on plate tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics). Everest and the rest of the Himalayas were formed when the Indian Subcontinent basically "crashed" into Asia. So Everest was long ago underwater.

[ QUOTE ]

Then of course there's the Grand Canyon. Anyone who thinks the Colorado River carved out that canyon over millions of years is just not thinking properly. Not only is there no delta at the end of the Colorado, but I'd like to point out that rivers don't flow uphill very well, and the top of he grand canyon is something like a mile higher than where the river enters it. Creationists will tell you that canyon was formed in about a half an hour. If you blocked off the grand canyon, a lake would fill in behind it that would cover many states... doesn't anyone remember that story about the reservoir in Hawaii that killed a bunch of people because it flowed over the barrier and washed out an entire side of a hill? Water is a very destructive force.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even know how to address this because pretty much everything you wrote is wrong. I'll just refute your first point with a link instead. As for the other things, your assertions are so off the wall that I don't think I can find links to show why they're wrong. I suppose I could link you to the wikipedia Grand Canyon page, but you'd just say that all the geologists who form the consensus on how it was formed are "just not thinking properly."

Colorado River Delta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Delta)


[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: And don't start quoting me the amount of species of land animals on the planet. No one thinks that all the different species we have today were brought on the ark. Two dogs would have been more than enough to result in the wolf/cyote/dog populations we see today.

This is called Micro Evolution. It happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

4400 years isn't nearly long enough for the kind of evolution you speak of. Also, your use of microevolution is completely wrong, since it is defined as being change at or below the species level.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

This all boils down to eternity. If I'm right, you'll all burn in eternal damnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you got here.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This all boils down to eternity. If I'm right, you'll all burn in eternal damnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you got here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps his unstated position is "Everyone but me burns in hell."

[godBoy]

Personally, I hate the argument 'If i'm wrong nothing lost, if your wrong you burn'.

The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

I understand Inso0' feelings on this one though - There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here. Hidden Agendas, false assurances, it's an impenetrable bubble some are in - This is why he resorts to 'well I suppose we'll find out when we die, or if you're correct we won't.'

The only way to find the God described in the bible is to come to him without your presuppositions, humbly. It sucks for you that the only way you'll change your mind is if you can stick him in a test tube.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hate the argument 'If i'm wrong nothing lost, if your wrong you burn'.

The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

I understand Inso0' feelings on this one though - There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here. Hidden Agendas, false assurances, it's an impenetrable bubble some are in - This is why he resorts to 'well I suppose we'll find out when we die, or if you're correct we won't.'

The only way to find the God described in the bible is to come to him without your presuppositions, humbly. It sucks for you that the only way you'll change your mind is if you can stick him in a test tube.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This is truly some of the most ridiculous, condescending garbage I've ever seen you post. Ranks up there high on the overall list, mostly because you are trying to be conciliatory. Test tube? Wouldn't you have to admit that you could never change your mind regardless of ANYTHING? And you have the gall to call US closed-minded? Laughable.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hate the argument 'If i'm wrong nothing lost, if your wrong you burn'.

The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

I understand Inso0' feelings on this one though - There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here. Hidden Agendas, false assurances, it's an impenetrable bubble some are in - This is why he resorts to 'well I suppose we'll find out when we die, or if you're correct we won't.'

The only way to find the God described in the bible is to come to him without your presuppositions, humbly. It sucks for you that the only way you'll change your mind is if you can stick him in a test tube.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This is truly some of the most ridiculous, condescending garbage I've ever seen you post. Ranks up there high on the overall list, mostly because you are trying to be conciliatory. Test tube? Wouldn't you have to admit that you could never change your mind regardless of ANYTHING? And you have the gall to call US closed-minded? Laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll gladly accept what I see as the most reasonable answer. I haven't found any reasonable answers to explain why I have experienced what I think is God. Though, if I can then my reasons for belief wont exist and I wouldn't want to lie to myself.

Did the test tube part get to you?, Sorry. All I meant is that the evidence you require - God, Obviously does not have to provide to you. Especially if he is as described in the bible and wanting more that just belief from you.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hate the argument 'If i'm wrong nothing lost, if your wrong you burn'.

The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

I understand Inso0' feelings on this one though - There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here. Hidden Agendas, false assurances, it's an impenetrable bubble some are in - This is why he resorts to 'well I suppose we'll find out when we die, or if you're correct we won't.'

The only way to find the God described in the bible is to come to him without your presuppositions, humbly. It sucks for you that the only way you'll change your mind is if you can stick him in a test tube.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This is truly some of the most ridiculous, condescending garbage I've ever seen you post. Ranks up there high on the overall list, mostly because you are trying to be conciliatory. Test tube? Wouldn't you have to admit that you could never change your mind regardless of ANYTHING? And you have the gall to call US closed-minded? Laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll gladly accept what I see as the most reasonable answer. I haven't found any reasonable answers to explain why I have experienced what I think is God. Though, if I can then my reasons for belief wont exist and I wouldn't want to lie to myself.

Did the test tube part get to you?, Sorry. All I meant is that the evidence you require - God, Obviously does not have to provide to you. Especially if he is as described in the bible and wanting more that just belief from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, IF the God of the Bible exists, then he will not provide evidence of himself to me. But IF we grant that he exists, I don't need this evidence. You are going to have to try harder.

The point is, you presume there is some inherent flaw in demanding evidence for beliefs, but your only argument for this PRESUPPOSES a belief in a specific God. The only way you can possibly be correct is if you are already correct and that a faith-demanding God exists. If any number of other God exists, my approach is far superior.

But really, I would be fascinated to hear you explain what would cause you to change your mind. Be careful here, remember you have faith.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, IF the God of the Bible exists, then he will not provide evidence of himself to me. But IF we grant that he exists, I don't need this evidence. You are going to have to try harder.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't have to grant he exists to find the evidence, you need to be as Jesus described, child-like.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, you presume there is some inherent flaw in demanding evidence for beliefs, but your only argument for this PRESUPPOSES a belief in a specific God. The only way you can possibly be correct is if you are already correct and that a faith-demanding God exists. If any number of other God exists, my approach is far superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's correct to come to God with a measure of what it will take for you to believe - you are the ant remember. The only way to test if the Christian God is real is to try and understand what's being said and test it no?

[ QUOTE ]
But really, I would be fascinated to hear you explain what would cause you to change your mind. Be careful here, remember you have faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll grant it's extremely unlikely, that's because I have so much reason to believe - spiritual stuff like answered prayer, visions etc.. - most of all, just watching Christians. I've been lucky to know many great people and I see something in them that is just as the bible says about believers.
Oh, and witnessing the change that one undergoes when he is saved. This to me doesn't suggest that what they have is merely a delusion, but something real and life-changing.

[MegaloMialo]

"The only way to test if the Christian God is real is to try and understand what's being said and test it no?"

Can you be more specific? what sort of tests?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hate the argument 'If i'm wrong nothing lost, if your wrong you burn'.

The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

I understand Inso0' feelings on this one though - There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here. Hidden Agendas, false assurances, it's an impenetrable bubble some are in - This is why he resorts to 'well I suppose we'll find out when we die, or if you're correct we won't.'

The only way to find the God described in the bible is to come to him without your presuppositions, humbly. It sucks for you that the only way you'll change your mind is if you can stick him in a test tube.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least you took my advice and stopped pretending to be objective or rational. Nice work.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hate the argument 'If i'm wrong nothing lost, if your wrong you burn'.

The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

I understand Inso0' feelings on this one though - There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here. Hidden Agendas, false assurances, it's an impenetrable bubble some are in - This is why he resorts to 'well I suppose we'll find out when we die, or if you're correct we won't.'

The only way to find the God described in the bible is to come to him without your presuppositions, humbly. It sucks for you that the only way you'll change your mind is if you can stick him in a test tube.

[/ QUOTE ]

What hidden agendas and false assurances might an atheist have? Maybe we're all possessed agents of Lucifer doing our best to spread Godlessness to the masses.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hate the argument 'If i'm wrong nothing lost, if your wrong you burn'.

The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

I understand Inso0' feelings on this one though - There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here. Hidden Agendas, false assurances, it's an impenetrable bubble some are in - This is why he resorts to 'well I suppose we'll find out when we die, or if you're correct we won't.'

The only way to find the God described in the bible is to come to him without your presuppositions, humbly. It sucks for you that the only way you'll change your mind is if you can stick him in a test tube.

[/ QUOTE ]

What hidden agendas and false assurances might an atheist have? Maybe we're all possessed agents of Lucifer doing our best to spread Godlessness to the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not. But then, thats exactly what I'd say if I was.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we were trying to talk about evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting the evolution deniers are better than the heathens here in these regards? Because I'd disagree with you there pretty strongly.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hate the argument 'If i'm wrong nothing lost, if your wrong you burn'.

The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

I understand Inso0' feelings on this one though - There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here. Hidden Agendas, false assurances, it's an impenetrable bubble some are in - This is why he resorts to 'well I suppose we'll find out when we die, or if you're correct we won't.'

The only way to find the God described in the bible is to come to him without your presuppositions, humbly. It sucks for you that the only way you'll change your mind is if you can stick him in a test tube.

[/ QUOTE ]

What hidden agendas and false assurances might an atheist have? Maybe we're all possessed agents of Lucifer doing our best to spread Godlessness to the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not. But then, thats exactly what I'd say if I was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm watching you, lapdog of Satan.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought we were trying to talk about evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was just a catch for religious discussion /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting the evolution deniers are better than the heathens here in these regards? Because I'd disagree with you there pretty strongly.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's not what I am saying. Just sharing some long held wisdom about knowledge and humility.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hate the argument 'If i'm wrong nothing lost, if your wrong you burn'.

The only reasonable position to take is to be humble about what you don't know, and say so clearly. Don't be arrogant about what you think you know, and try not be ignorant where you can help it.

I understand Inso0' feelings on this one though - There really is no point in debating God with Atheists like those common place here. Hidden Agendas, false assurances, it's an impenetrable bubble some are in - This is why he resorts to 'well I suppose we'll find out when we die, or if you're correct we won't.'

The only way to find the God described in the bible is to come to him without your presuppositions, humbly. It sucks for you that the only way you'll change your mind is if you can stick him in a test tube.

[/ QUOTE ]

What hidden agendas and false assurances might an atheist have? Maybe we're all possessed agents of Lucifer doing our best to spread Godlessness to the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not. But then, thats exactly what I'd say if I was.

[/ QUOTE ]

And of course even if you were, you might not even know it. You're just a pawn, really.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Just sharing some long held wisdom about knowledge and humility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theorized continuation:

Subfallen: Do you even listen to what you're saying?
godBoy: Oh, I drift in and out.

[MaxWeiss]

This is the standard for what information is--the definition is provides boils down to: information is the minimum quantity of yes/no type answers provided (given that questions and answers are asked/provided in the most economical way) to gain the same understanding about the topic as the original sender.

While this idea can be, and has been mathematically coded and defined as bits of data, it still relies on an assumption of knowledge from the sender. My couch is white. That is information, and if I had not known the color, I could either ask somebody, or looked at it, both of which have different amounts of information which need to be sent and received and both with error rates.

The misconception that information must have a mind ON BOTH ENDS is something I am continually boggled by in Creationists. Information simply IS. My couch is white whether or not I care to look at it or use it. It does take MY mind to translate the information into something useful, like the knowledge of it being white, but that does NOT mean that the information had to be purposefully coded to begin with. I simply perceive the information as something useful and decode it to my own satisfaction and understanding.

Similarly, DNA can "code" for what the proteins do and how I am going to look and on and on--but that's just a biological process that has developed. There is not inherent mind to it--we only need a mind to look at it and decipher it as some kind of useful information. It was NOT INHERENTLY useful information in itself--we used our minds to assign value to the fact that this part of the DNA does this and that part does that. There is no reason that that need imply that a mind was responsible for it to begin with.

Information itself is nothing more than a useful theoretical statistical interpretation of real events and/or intentions. It is nothing inherently in itself.

If I type something and save it on my computer, now the "information" has a real world presence and I can recall it because I have created it as such. The "information" in DNA is simply representative of what has been "created" by a natural process and remains intact due to its survival value.

No mind is necessary.