Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Shannon is for real. Yes.

You are still fundamentally misrepresenting Shannon's theory. It is about how much noise effects on a signal can be reversed if you wish to reconstitute the original signal perfectly. Since there is no-one to wish to reconstitute the original DNA perfectly when it is copied, then there is no-one to decide that the noise is undesirable (desire requires a conscious being, doesn't it?)

Shannon does NOT declare that all transmissions of data MUST be desired to be returned to their original state, just that IF you wanted to do that then his Noisy-Channel Theorem will guide you in understanding the limits.

You know - there is a reason why every serious YEC advocate avoids specifying the definition of information used in their arguments. You have specified one (Shannon info) but have expanded it with ideas of desirability about the noise that are unjustified.

To put it in short words for you: when a theory has an assumption built in, that places a limit on its use to situations where you can show that assumption to be reasonable. You look like a fool to take a limiting assumption as a de facto statement of Truth in all circumstances.

So the onus is on you: what evidence do you have that mutations in DNA are by definition harmful?

(This must be answered first, in order to justify your appeal to Shannon, but I predict you will resort to the circular argument you have relied on to date, to wit: Shannon's assumptions are reasonable because you want to use Shannon theory to prove the assumptions.)

 

[MichaelCadry]

But given you have only shared one supposed correct prophecy with anyone here isn't it fair enough that we a very skeptical of your prophetic powers given your much larger failures of prophecy?

Dear Ty,

If you had read this thread since it started, you would know that I've shared more than one 'prediction' that has happened in my life. Like my vision about the tornadoes in Xenia, Ohio, which originated in Brandenburg, Kentucky; or the volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens, here in the U.S., and the list does go on and on. I'm not retyping my book here. So whatever. Of course, I don't expect you to have to read through this thread since it's inception.

Besides where is it in your book because after a brief keyword search of it I can't seem to find any prophecies about anything that has happened yet. Although I did learn that apparently you think psychics/magicians are real, evil and Uri Geller is the antichrist... Oh and apparently you live a sad repressed life of suppressing your homosexual urges and guilt regarding past sexual behaviours. To be honest I feel kind of sorry for you due to the twisted psychology you've trapped yourself in.

Yes, I know that Uri Geller is the Antichrist and that Jean-Pierre Girard is the false prophet. They will be cast into the lake of fire, as it is written in Rev. 19:20KJV. I also explained the mystery of the whore of Babylon in Rev. 17:5. I'm pleased with my sexuality, to be honest. I'm not living a "sad, repressed life." I'm pleased that I don't have six children with different mothers, etc. And I could not afford to raise them anyways. Plus, I have to be free to go where the Lord tells me; not my wife telling me. Nor my financial situation. Don't even feel sorry for me. Feel sorry about yourself.

No your most important prophecy by any reasonable measure is the one involving gods plan for all of creation. i.e. the Apocalypse. That was is and forever will be the most important prophecy a prophet can make (and you like the millions of fake prophets before and after you will keep getting it wrong, because it's never going to happen).

Predicting the day or hour that Jesus will return isn't possible. Predicting when He will return is not possible. It is written in our Bible that Jesus said, 'No man knows, not even the Son, but the Father {God} only.' So that will be no one's 'big' prediction, because it ain't gonna happen. No prophet knows. I was a sucker to fall for DavisBJ's insistence that I provide a date when it would happen.

And yet someone successfully predicting the amount of snow on a particular day in snow season is still not all that impressive. The odds of someone doing that by chance are not all that unlikely even if you did do it.

Ok, if it's so easy, you do it!! C'mon big man. How much rain will you get the next time it rains?? Pick a date and an amount!

Either God said something to you or not. It's actually very simple. Clearly he did not say anything to you and you just inferred it or made it up. That or you can't tell the difference between god or the devil telling you something until you get it wrong.

Surely, it was a hard lesson that God wanted to teach me; that I do not know the day and hour either, or season. It's all in His Hands, which is where I should have left it. Yes, I was mistaken about it. It was a grave error on my part and should have never happened. I've learned better now. BTW, only God controls the weather, explicitly. The devil does not. I know, you don't believe in a God or a devil. Yippee!! That won't get you far in life.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Armageddon would nevertheless be the end of the world as we know it Michael and a far more significant event than snow falling in NYC in March. As we know snow falls in NYC in March, big deal, good guess maybe but hardly indicative of a prophet. To be a prophet you'd have to be reliable and consistent which clearly you're not.


On a scale of 1 to 10, snow falling in NYC in March = <1 while Armageddon = >10. A prophet must get the big stuff right at least else all you are Michael is a rather poor Old Moore's Almanac.

See my Post #17203 to Tyrathca regarding this. No use retyping my words twice. Thanks for being kinder, alwight.

Warmest Regards & Cheerio,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael,
I hope you can understand, it's not a matter of forgiveness, it's a matter of source of truth. When you hold up the Bible as God's Word, and say it is the ultimate source of truth, and then you speak what you say is God's Word of prophecy, and it doesn't come true, what are unbelievers supposed to do with that? Is it possible for them to believe the next prophecy you deliver? Is it possible for them to believe you when you quote scripture. Forget unbelievers for a moment--what are believers supposed to do with your message. Most prophecy had some kind of imperative attached to it--repentance from evil, usually. If a prophet came with an imperative to stop doing one thing and start something else instead, but the thing didn't come to pass, the people did not have to listen to the imperative.

The Lord God said that He will do nothing except He send a prophet to declare it. I have warned that Armageddon is coming very soon. It still is very soon. Not much has changed in that prophecy. But I backslid and said something I shouldn't have and said what season it would be in and what year, and I was wrong. I know it is grievous, but I have apologized for it profusely. Considering all of the prophesies I have been successful on, I still screwed up. I do understand your hesitation to believe me any longer. It won't happen again, Derf.

You've given imperatives to the followers of this thread--that they should believe the Bible's account of creation, or that there would be dire, eternal consequences. SO if you hold up your prophecy as the legitimization of your message, and any prophecies fail to come to pass, you've lost credibility--there's no reason to fear you BY THE VERY BIBLE YOU PREACH. And since a prophet is supposed to be giving God's commands to the people, God's word is now telling your listeners not to fear God. It's not just you that have lost credibility.

The Bible says that if a prophecy does not come to pass, then it is not of God. You shall not fear that prophet. But it does say if a prophecy does come true, then it is of God. So understand that the Bible says here that if a prophecy does not come true, then it is not of God, and you shall not 'fear' the prophet. But it does not say that the same prophet has made other prophecies that are true. The words are about the prophecies, not the prophet. So don't judge my entire testimony based on one error out of many true prophesies. I don't know what else to tell you. It is plain and simple. Don't believe me about anything else, if that is what you wish. You do not know all of the prophecies I've made that are true. Read my book. I cannot retype it all here. I do understand that my prophecy was a grave error. I apologize. Many church organizations and others thought it was going to happen also, because it was the last blood red moon out of four in one year. But they were wrong and so was I.

So you tell me, where should my loyalties lie--with you, who are telling me not to believe the Bible, or the Bible.

I don't write this lightly. I appreciate your passion and your faithfulness to this thread, and your ability to show love to those who disagree with you-don't stop any of that. But dig into the Bible and get to know it and forget prophesying about future events: unless/until you have an eternally faithful source.

Please refer to Post #17203 for my gaffe and my explanation. Moses did not get to go to the Promised Land because of a sin he did. But he did get to see it from afar, him being on a mountain. Because he acted like he was causing the water to come out of a rock instead of God, when he struck it with his staff, God told him he would not come into the Promised Land. Moses lived to a great age. And he killed a man when he first started defending his people, Israel. I have not murdered anyone, even like the apostle Paul, who killed many for his country. I have done the best I can with everything I've done. I made a mistake, Derf. If I make one mistake, are you going to make me suffer and never believe anything I say again? Like I've said, I've done tons of good and have made good prophecies. But also I made a very bad prophecy about Armageddon. My record is pretty good, considering that I've only made two errors out of many truths.

God Bless you, Michael.
Derf

Thank you Derf!! God Bless Your Heart And Soul Also. It's good to have you posting here on this Creation thread!!

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Dear Ty,

If you had read this thread since it started, you would know that I've shared more than one 'prediction' that has happened in my life. Like my vision about the tornadoes in Xenia, Ohio, which originated in Brandenburg, Kentucky; or the volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens, here in the U.S., and the list does go on and on. I'm not retyping my book here. So whatever. Of course, I don't expect you to have to read through this thread since it's inception.

I'm not asking you to retype your entire book, that would be silly. But can't you even say where in it you make your prophecies about events that have happened? You do remember what you've written, surely?

Because so far as I can tell you make NO such prediction in your book. You don't seem to even mention the snow prediction you are so fond of.

Predicting the day or hour that Jesus will return isn't possible. Predicting when He will return is not possible. It is written in our Bible that Jesus said, 'No man knows, not even the Son, but the Father {God} only.' So that will be no one's 'big' prediction, because it ain't gonna happen. No prophet knows. I was a sucker to fall for DavisBJ's insistence that I provide a date when it would happen.

Yes but even if you shouldn't have been goaded why did you claim god TOLD you when? You didn't just say that you believe it will occur on X date because of your analysis of signs or something. That would be more understandable. But instead you said that you got told by god.

Either god told you something or he didn't. Did he tell you anything? If yes then what did he actually say? If no then doesn't that mean you lied?

Ok, if it's so easy, you do it!! C'mon big man. How much rain will you get the next time it rains?? Pick a date and an amount!

Oh Michael I didn't think you would understand what I said. I'll try to put it simpler, the odds of a person guessing the snow amount in snow season within a significant but still somewhat common amount (such as 7 inches which isn't extremely uncommon) is probably one in several thousand. Small but not enough to get spooked about or change your view of reality about.

If you then factor in more than one person trying to make such a prediction then the odds quickly drop. And you'll generally only hear about the person who got it right, not realising there were perhaps many before and after who guessed wrong.

It's like the lottery but on a smaller scale, the odds of a particular person winning is very small (1 in many many millions sometimes) but given enough people try at least one (often many) end up winning most of the time.

(Oh and Michael what would your reaction be if I got it right anyway? Hmmm? Would you honestly re-assess your beliefs or would you just put it down to a "lucky guess"? or Satan? My bet is you'd have settled on one of the latter)

Surely, it was a hard lesson that God wanted to teach me; that I do not know the day and hour either, or season.

But I'm still curious as to WHY you thought you knew the answer to DavisBJ's questioning. Did you actually think god told you the answer at the time? What did you actually experience/hear/make up?

Because if someone says "Bob told me the sky is green" that should mean that Bob actually told you that the sky is green and if he didn't tell you that then you lied or if he did but the sky isn't green then Bob lied. Why should I treat your statement about god with LESS scrutiny than I would a statement about any regular person?

I know, you don't believe in a God or a devil. Yippee!! That won't get you far in life.

It's got me pretty far at this point.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg,

Yes, it is possible. The only animals on earth that survived were those who could breathe in the water. All of the land animals, including birds, bit the dust.

Michael

I'm not just speaking off the cuff, Michael. The logistics are so that it simply isn't possible. But I know that will do nothing to change your mind. Ignorance is truly bliss sometimes, I suppose

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are correct.... It is an inacurrate re-telling of a true account.

Yes, as is the Genesis account. But the flood tablet from Iraq tells an older story than either.

Remember the argument was that the Gilgamesh tale is illogical and absurd?
The cube boat would rollover where as engineers have called the God designed ark "optimal".
Even your paper from the students admits "“You don’t think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work,” said Thomas Morris, one of the students who worked on the project, in a statement.

Do you not understand the difference between Gilgamesh and the Iraqi tablet? We've established that a cube probably isn't a good design. However, the Iraqi tablet tells of a giant version of the HOLLOW, CIRCULAR RIVER CRAFT THAT HAS BEEN USED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE REGION FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Gilgamesh and Genesis have unrealistic designs for a sea-worthy vessel that could survive a worldwide flood. The tablet has a known design, just bigger that is well-known to be an effective river craft.

And no duh scientists don't approach the bible assuming it to be full of scientific facts! Why would they? It's not, and it never claims to be! Are you saying our science should come straight from the bible?

So... good teachers according to you claim that they have pre-existence.....they claim to be able to forgive sin..... they claim that unforgiven sinners will spend eternity in the lake of fire?
Jesus claimed He is the one and only way to God.
Either Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be....our Creator, Lord, Savior...... or He was a liar.

Option #3: He was a great and wildly influential teacher who was fully mortal, and either his divinity was a purposeful invention by his followers in order to spread his message or his body was stolen from the tomb and the disciples legitimately thought he'd risen.

Before you lose your marbles, I said that was option #3, not the only option.

 

[6days]

Option #3: He was a great and wildly influential teacher who was fully mortal, and either his divinity was a purposeful invention by his followers in order to spread his message or his body was stolen from the tomb and the disciples legitimately thought he'd risen.
Before you lose your marbles, I said that was option #3, not the only option.

You need do some studying Greg. You are using weak silly talking points.
You can't claim he was a great teacher if you reject what He taught.
And the stolen body claim is silliness... Do a wee bit of study rather than blindly believe weak atheist arguments.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You need do some studying Greg. You are using weak silly talking points.
You can't claim he was a great teacher if you reject what He taught.
And the stolen body claim is silliness... Do a wee bit of study rather than blindly believe weak atheist arguments.

Remember when I said, "Don't lose your marbles" because I was simply listing an option, not saying something as fact? You missed that.

At any rate, he's a great teacher mortal or immortal. Your opinions tend to be rather ill-informed or (even worse) purposefully ignorant of factual information. I do pity you, and I imagine that if Jesus is truly Lord of the Universe then he's disappointed that you can't see beyond the imaginings of some tribal nomads to see the true scope and breadth of creation. Your loss.



I noticed you did not reply about the ark situation. Did you finally see that there are flood stories older than Noah?

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'm not asking you to retype your entire book, that would be silly. But can't you even say where in it you make your prophecies about events that have happened? You do remember what you've written, surely?

Because so far as I can tell you make NO such prediction in your book. You don't seem to even mention the snow prediction you are so fond of.

Dear Ty,

See page 15 for my experience about my vision concerning the tornadoes in Xenia, Ohio and Brandenburg, Kentucky. And on page 14, I mention my vision about Cat Stevens, and what I went through, and that when I sang, it sounded just like him, and I knew what the lyrics meant as if I'd written them. I have witnesses that I sounded like Cat Stevens. Before that, I couldn't sing that well at all. See the book for further information on these two experiences.

I did not include my snow prediction in my book because I would have had to go about getting special approval from ABC-TV for using their letterhead, which is what I wrote to the reporter on. Also, I didn't see how I could put a copy of the New York Post on a page in my book. Plus, I would have had to get their approval to reprint it in my book. Copyright hassles. I do have the experiences proof pages which come along with an autographed copy of my book. You didn't want that, from what I remember. You didn't want to give out your address or the address of neighbor or friend where you would be given my mail to you. I have the proof page for the Mt. St. Helens eruptions also. It's not in the book. I also have proof pages about an enormous earthquake in Hollywood/L.A., California that is going to happen. When I wrote about my vision of it to the U.S. Geological Survey, they wrote me back and thanked me and said they would check it out. Well, it hit the newspapers a year later.

Yes but even if you shouldn't have been goaded why did you claim god TOLD you when? You didn't just say that you believe it will occur on X date because of your analysis of signs or something. That would be more understandable. But instead you said that you got told by god.

Either god told you something or he didn't. Did he tell you anything? If yes then what did he actually say? If no then doesn't that mean you lied?

I didn't lie. I misunderstood. I have apologized. I'm done. Stick a fork in me!

Oh Michael I didn't think you would understand what I said. I'll try to put it simpler, the odds of a person guessing the snow amount in snow season within a significant but still somewhat common amount (such as 7 inches which isn't extremely uncommon) is probably one in several thousand. Small but not enough to get spooked about or change your view of reality about.

If you then factor in more than one person trying to make such a prediction then the odds quickly drop. And you'll generally only hear about the person who got it right, not realising there were perhaps many before and after who guessed wrong.

It's like the lottery but on a smaller scale, the odds of a particular person winning is very small (1 in many many millions sometimes) but given enough people try at least one (often many) end up winning most of the time.

(Oh and Michael what would your reaction be if I got it right anyway? Hmmm? Would you honestly re-assess your beliefs or would you just put it down to a "lucky guess"? or Satan? My bet is you'd have settled on one of the latter).

You don't seem to understand that I did not PREDICT any snow. I was told by the Lord that He would send it on my behalf. That's how it happened. He told me to write the reporter and what to tell him. Of course, other stuff happened but I'm not going to retype it here.

But I'm still curious as to WHY you thought you knew the answer to DavisBJ's questioning. Did you actually think god told you the answer at the time? What did you actually experience/hear/make up?

Because if someone says "Bob told me the sky is green" that should mean that Bob actually told you that the sky is green and if he didn't tell you that then you lied or if he did but the sky isn't green then Bob lied. Why should I treat your statement about god with LESS scrutiny than I would a statement about any regular person?
It's got me pretty far at this point.

DavisBJ was not the only atheist harping on me for a time limit as to when Armageddon would happen. I will not share with you my personal experiences regarding it. They are my business and a part of my life that I don't wish to share. After it's all over, then I'll tell you. Everything takes its own time. So just do some waiting, like I have. I learned something very important though because of all of this. If the Lord says no man knows when, they don't try to predict when. So I did learn a big lesson. If God does not want it to happen for 100 more years, then who are we to argue? Of course, I think it is sooner, but that doesn't make me a know-it-all.

I'll take a vegemite sandwich!

Michael

 

[Caino]

Creation and evolution are the same thing. The thread title should read "creationism" vs evolutionary creation. Creationism comes from one of many singular event myths which developed in ancient times when there was no science. Its akin to going to the doctor today who still uses blood letting as a cure for anything.

 

[revpete]

Where in scripture does it categorically state that "hell" is at the centre of the earth?

 

[MichaelCadry]

November 4, 2014

10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew about
the Creation vs. Evolution Debate
Some quick insights about the ongoing conflict between two very big ideas.

By Michael Lehmann

Mike Lehmann edits Jesus & Dawkins, a blog that looks at the intersection of Christianity, science, and atheism. Recently, Lehmann had an exchange with Creation Museum founder Ken Ham about the creation/evolution debate. We asked him to list what he wishes everyone understood about creation and evolution.

1. Darwin’s idea can help us read the Bible better.

Darwin has helped us recover a truth the church fathers knew well but us moderns often forget: The Bible’s authority doesn’t depend on our ability to harmonize it with the latest scientific discoveries. We shouldn’t be disappointed that we can’t harmonize the Bible with science — we should be disappointed that we’ve tried. Treating the Bible as a science book, something it’s not, obscures its real meaning: teaching us about Jesus.

2. Yes, evolution is just a theory — and so is gravity.

As the National Academy of Sciences explains, a scientific theory is “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Scientific theories are not random guesses.

In this debate, we should use the word “theory” properly. Remember Inigo Montoya’s warning in The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

3. Evolution doesn’t disprove creation. It can’t.

Theologian William Carroll describes what the doctrine of creation is really about:
No explanation of cosmological processes, nor biological change for that matter . . . challenges the metaphysical account of creation, that is, of the dependence of the existence of all things upon God as cause.

The doctrine of creation is not about cosmological or biological change — it’s about why anything exists at all. Biological change — evolution — doesn’t put the creator God out of work.

4. If you believe Genesis 1 is science, you should also believe the sky is domed.

Check out Genesis 1:6: “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters” (KJV). The “firmament” — raqia in Hebrew — is a solid dome. Attempts to argue otherwise aren’t persuasive. If you read Genesis 1 as a scientific description of the world, you get this picture.

5. The structure and numbers in Genesis 1 are a big hint: It’s not about science.

Have you ever wondered why there are seven days in Genesis 1? God creates for six days and then rests for one, just like the ancient Israelites. Is there a deeper meaning to the number seven itself? Yes, it represents completeness. Genesis 1 isn’t bad science; it’s a great polemic against polytheistic creation stories. That’s why it’s so significant that God creates the sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:16). Other cultures considered them divine.

Am I making all of this up? No, and that’s just the beginning of it. (Pun intended.) Check out a great article by theologian Conrad Hyers and find out “how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

6. If they’re read as straightforward history, the six-day creation story and the Adam and Eve story contradict each other.

In the first creation story (Genesis 1-2:3), humankind is created after plants and animals. In the second creation story (Genesis 2:4-3:24), Adam is made before plants and animals appear, and Eve is the last creation. Early Jewish and Christian interpreters caught this contradiction too, but they didn’t panic. Philo, for example, saw it as an indication of profound meaning under the text’s surface.

7. There are other creation stories in the Old Testament.

Genesis 1-3 doesn’t get to have all the fun, even though it’s at the center of the creation/evolution debate. There are more passages in the Old Testament that describe creation, such as Psalm 74:13. God crushes a sea monster in this verse, reminding me of Pacific Rim. These other creation accounts are additional reminders that the Bible isn’t teaching science.

8. How did Christians react to Charles Darwin’s discovery? Some of their responses might surprise you.

Darwin’s work received a mixed reaction from Christians in the nineteenth century. Some Christians, like Anglican clergyman Aubrey Moore, even hailed it as a gift to theology. Moore quipped that “under the disguise of a foe, [Darwinism] did the work of a friend.”

For more on Christian reactions to evolution, and the origins of contemporary creationism, watch Conor Cunningham’s great documentary: Did Darwin Kill God? Spoiler alert: No, he didn’t.

9. Darwin wasn’t an atheist, nor did he have a deathbed conversion to Christianity

After Darwin lost his Christian faith, he became an agnostic. For a detailed account of Darwin’s relationship with religion, read this article by Nick Spencer.

10. Accepting evolution does not require accepting atheism. Choosing between creation and evolution is a false dilemma.

Have you heard someone say, “Evolution proves atheism”? That’s a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific statement. Atheist Eugenie Scott does a great job explaining that evolution does not entail atheism. For more information about reconciling evolution and biblical Christianity, explore The BioLogos Foundation. They have plenty of helpful resources.

 

[Caino]

It doesn't, but I'm sure someone could find it in the Bible.

 

[Yorzhik]

Shannon information can not be applied to everything in the universe. Your comment is both extremely vague and ignores the underlying principles upon which Shannon information is built: it is a model for communication and as Shannon himself put it: "The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximatelya message selected at another point"

It doesn't apply to just anywhere you can label something as information.

Which is why we are applying Shannon to communications in the cell exclusively.

I'm seeing that you are completely missing the point of what I said. Simply put, I was not making an analogy. I was giving an extreme/exaggerated example to highlight why your retort regarding "free information" (and the purpose and intention behind human communication systems) was wrong.

If you are going to make an example, make it fit in the same context as that which is being explained. To make the example accurate, the free information would have to work... like the free information gained from noise in DNA which creates a new working feature. Therefore, since watching all channels at once, or documentaries playing while you make a phone call does not work, it is not an example of new information that does work. So an example of free information would be when you text your wife that you are at the grocery store and she answers back "bring stuff for tacos" that instead you receive, because of noise, a text that reads, "bring cheese, hamburger, and sour cream for d tacos.lllll We have tomatoes and a taco shells oaikado" and it happens to work because it is accurate about what is in your kitchen.

No they wouldn't. That method is tedious, slow, unreliable and a pain to set up the necessary conditions of mutation and selection and we often (though not always) have other more expedient ways to solve problems for us.

Though I bet you're going to misunderstand/misrepresent what I've said here.

I don't misunderstand, but you will have to show why a method that is too tedious, slow, and unreliable can suddenly work for common descent. If fact, that's the whole discussion about Shannon information as it relates to common descent in a nutshell.

I'm not sure what you mean by asking I "show that is normal".

But I'm glad you've finally accepted that yes information can increase thanks to mutations. Normal, common, whatever is irrelevant given you admit that it CAN happen. Given your entire premise was that Shannon information theory said that information could NEVER increase I'm sure you'll find a way to backtrack out of this statement.

Then I'm not really sure what we are arguing about in this part. And to be honest I don't really care since it hardly matters now that you admit that information can increase due to mutations in at least some situations.

You are putting too much hope in times when Shannon information is increased due to noise. But, if you really want to hang your hat on that, I'm OK with it and you can provide your evidence that is what is actually happening.

We are not talking about "messages in cells" we are talking very specifically about DNA and inheritance and I STILL don't understand why you think proving anything about mRNA and protein synthesis has any bearing on DNA and inheritance. DNA and inheritance does NOT fulfill the the requirements to have Shannon information applied to it.

It certainly does. It's a message by every measure. And one of many messages.

If you think it does please actually spell it out with direct reference to Shannon information - extra point if you directly reference the original paper (I won't hold my breath though since you've never actually answered this question - note: word associations like being able to use the word "code" or "information" in a meaningful sentence with DNA does not count.)

It was already shown earlier in the thread. And I love how you avoid understanding by simply triggering on certain words instead of taking the ideas to their logical conclusions.

DNA is a code, and all the things it does are by messaging. If you want to move beyond the DNA->protein example, that's fine with me. Do you?

 

[Yorzhik]

Since there is no-one to wish to reconstitute the original DNA perfectly when it is copied, then there is no-one to decide that the noise is undesirable (desire requires a conscious being, doesn't it?)

Desire has nothing to do with Shannon. You are saying that if a message in the cell is changed, it doesn't matter. That kind of claim will have to have some support before you can expect anyone to believe it.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Where in scripture does it categorically state that "hell" is at the centre of the earth?

Dear revpete,

How are you doing?? Good to have you drop in. Rev, I doubt if it is the very center of the Earth, but inside the Earth. I was told by an angel that the 'center' of the Earth is the 'bottomless pit.' The Earth has a center and a top, and everyone thinks they are on top of the Earth because of gravity. So no bottom of the Earth, figuratively. Just a top and center. This makes it the bottomless pit, because there is no bottom. See Rev. 20:1-3KJV. Also the angel told me that hell is very hot, evidenced by the lava and molten magma that spews out of volcanoes, and the hot springs of the U.S. The angel told me that the 'lake of fire' was our Sun. Hey, I don't make these things up. I just relay what I've heard. See Rev. 19:20KJV. "These both were cast alive into a 'lake of fire' burning with brimstone.

I hope I've gone into enough detail here. I didn't make up any of this on my own. My imagination is not THAT active. Hope this all helps here.

May God Be Very Kind To You!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Creation and evolution are the same thing. The thread title should read "creationism" vs evolutionary creation. Creationism comes from one of many singular event myths which developed in ancient times when there was no science. Its akin to going to the doctor today who still uses blood letting as a cure for anything.

Dear Caino,

I like your new Avatar. Is that a pic of you in it? That's funny. You don't look like a Monster!! Just joking!! But it is too bad that your salvation is wrapped around a Urantia Book.

God Show You The Light!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Tyrathca,

Okay. I finally got done tonight. I have those copies about the snow happening, stored as .jpg or .jpeg files on my Desktop. Scanned them tonight. I do not know how to link them to you. Or how to attach them either. But one copy is of my letter to the NY Daily News reporter and the other is a copy of the actual NY Post's article about the 7" of snow falling. Whenever you're ready. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Desire has nothing to do with Shannon.

Exactly! Yet you keep saying that noise is undesirable. :idunno:

You are saying that if a message in the cell is changed, it doesn't matter. That kind of claim will have to have some support before you can expect anyone to believe it.

Matter to who? You haven't specified, despite prompting. If we are talking about mattering to an organism or a species gene pool, then we might be getting somewhere. But your request for support for the claim that mutations don't matter is entirely AAF. I have been saying for ages that mutations DO matter. However, you still have to support your claim that all mutations are harmful to organism or species.

And despite several requests, you have declined to justify this claim without circular appeals to Shannon's Noisy Channel Theorem. I don't think you can.