Good science. There are some plenty smart engineers that can figure things out scientifically.
This isn't true. When there were more debates in the past, scientists that believe in common descent found themselves losing to YEC people and decided not to look into why they were losing, but preferred to stop debating.
You're silly. YEC debates stick close to scientific reality, but since scientists that believe in common descent get beat in that realm they have to avoid it.
All Shannon requires is that the information is encoded and transmitted. How it is encoded doesn't matter.
I'm merely saying that the portion of DNA that encodes for a particular protein is not the protein that DNA encodes for.
I know the conclusion, and it doesn't require math. In fact, I'll tell you up front where this is going: mutations are noise. They enter the system during transmission.
There is no difference between the DNA that encodes for a book and DNA that encodes for a protein in terms of Shannon.
You are correct Yorzick. Evolutionists were losing most of the debates to well prepared scientists. *There are several reasons why evolutionists *lost most of the debates. The main reason evolutionists lost most debates is because there are far more facts that support intelligent design and Biblical creation. Evolutionists often had to argue against good science, and made bad and illogical arguments. (Circilar reasoning arguments... claiming that there is no evidence against common ancestry, and being proven wrong... claiming things to be fact, but then having to back down from the claim etc).Yorzick said:
Case in point is hypocrite Richard Dawkins. He advizes people not to debate theists and creationist scientists *... yet the funy thing is he does it himself when he has a soft target. Dawkins has been ridiculed by media and other atheists for being cowardly.*Yorzick said:
Evolution is taught as part of the biology science curriculum at every major university that I know of. It is recognized as legitimate science by almost all of the major scientific organizations. It is considered as valid science by vastly more active PhD scientists than the number of scientists who believe that the Genesis creation account is scientifically accurate.
It is not a matter of offense as much as a matter of disappointment. In thousands of hours of conversing with other scientists I have seldom had to be as attentive to what the term “evolutionist” means as I do routinely with creationists. Instead of using the term to facilitate communication, creationists employ it as part of a lexicological minefield.
In prior conversations you have acknowledged that “evolutionist” can refer to a commoner who simply accepts Darwin’s theory, or it can reference scientists who actively do research relevant to the Theory of Evolution. As you say in your reply, it can refer to people concerned with how the early universe changes, and how stars evolve. The word can even refer to people concerned with the changing attitudes toward hairstyles, or morals, or political issues – all of which most definitely do include “creationists” within the umbrella of the term “evolutionists”.
I am not aware of any that are not, as you say below, “stellar evolutionists”. Even Jason Lisle mentions the evolution of stars. He is, by definition, both a creationist and an evolutionist.
I would hope that any even semi-intelligent scientist would believe that there is “stellar evolution” which does not depend on God pushing it along. The simple act of our sun consuming its limited supply of hydrogen fuel is a part of its evolution. Cadry-esque people are prone to having God micromanage every atom, but most rational scientists, including Christians (like Jason Lisle) recognize that stars evolve over time, sans God having to direct the process.
The BBC, like all news and entertainment outlets, relies on appealing to its audience. Therefore it is in their interest to sometimes “quote mine” the most egregious-sounding things they can find. People, like you, who use that as indicative of the norm of how science works, are their gullible audience. Dawkins once had a quite civil and productive dialogue with an opponent (Dr. Steve Pinker). BBC got wind of the encounter, and quickly asked Dawkins if he and Dr. Pinker would reprise the encounter on TV that night. Dawkins assented, but the person coordinating the event then asked Dawkins what the primary items would be that he and Dr. Pinker were going to disagree on. Dawkins told him the conversation had been a productive exchange of ideas, not an adversarial debate. The BBC event coordinator immediately expressed consternation that there would not be a volatile disagreement between Dawkins and Dr. Pinker, and soon rescinded the invitation to appear on TV that night. You think BBC isn’t in it for the sensationalism? And you lapped it up.
10 or more years ago, a YEC named Enyart teamed up with a high school math teacher in a debate against two OEC professional geologists with advanced degrees. The conduct of that debate was fascinating. One of the old-earth geologists went first, politely explaining why his side held an old-earth view. He mentioned items from geology and from how Genesis can be interpreted. Then Enyart came up, and the tone of the debate altered substantially. It was clear that in Enyart’s view, old-earth and apostate were pretty much equivalent terms, and he went on the attack. Since under the debate format this opening salvo from each side was their primary opportunity to lay out their case, the old-earthers had lost much of their opportunity, and were forced into a defensive posture. They never effectively recovered the advantage, not because they were outclassed scientifically, but their Christianity itself was called into question.
DavisBJ said:
Do I detect an undercurrent of envy in how you portray Dawkins? Dawkins, who has numerous publications both in his academic field of expertise, and in best-selling books presenting Darwinism to the public? Dawkins, who had an endowed Professorship created primarily for him by a joint agreement between a Microsoft executive and one of the most prestigious universities in England? Dawkins, who has been invited to present the honorary lectures initiated by Michael Faraday and only offered to one person annually? Dawkins, who has similarly been chosen to present lectures at hundreds of venues worldwide? Dawkins, who is honored by the world of science as an outstanding member of the scientific elite?
I know you would dearly like your quirky claims to dictate what the evolution taught at universities includes. Sorry, but evolution (common ancestry) is taught as part of the biology science curriculum at every major university that I know of. It is recognized as legitimate science by almost all of the major scientific organizations. Your pathological denials do nothing to change that.
Agreed, any method would suffice I'm not picky. What I'm really after is when is DNA encoded and transmitted? The how is mainly because it's pretty hard to answer the when without it and we know so much about the inner workings that saying one basically implies the other.
OK so you're saying the DNA isn't the protein which it produces. Big whoop. I notice you threw the word "encode" around a lot in that sentence, as if doing so means that DNA must obviously under go a stage of encoding (as per Shannon information definitions).
You're applying a mathematical theorem, of course it requires math otherwise you're not applying Shannon information
I know that's where you're going, you said that early on but we've been stuck on you showing that DNA is ever encoded or transmitted in cells (though you keep claiming it is).
So why don't you spell it out for me?
Sure - as long as you can show that encoding and transmission has taken place. We know so much about the cell why is this question so hard for you?
No big deal, Mike. I was just responding with what you asked for, not particularly expecting you to respond back.
Here is a partial list of significant events in Richard Dawkin’s life: