Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

It was pointless. Even after reading the whole thing. Of course you'd not want to blame yourselves xyz and yadda yadda lain:

Unwittingly, you illustrate the dynamic behind the data explored in the paper. As they found, the primary reason for why the US is an outlier in acceptance of evolution is that we have a higher number of fundamentalist Christians, who will not accept things like human/primate shared ancestry no matter how it's explained. They have their beliefs and aren't going to budge. Similarly, you believe that the reason behind the low numbers is poor teaching from scientists and lack of evidence, but when presented with contrary information you just wave it away and stick to your original belief.

So thanks!

 

[Yorzhik]

No, it's not a logical fallacy. The argument was of the form:
X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.

Where is the fallacy, unless the argument was used to prove the truth of a proposition? (Which it wasn't.)

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Yes, it's still a logical fallacy.

So, you have agreed that mutations (noise in your terms) can add information. That some mutations can provide novel and useful traits. It is clear that a diploid organism can tolerate a lot of harmful recessive mutations, since these don't often get expressed. What other objections can you think of now all these have been answered in my favour?

Congratulations, you've just argued against the use of Shannon in *any* message system. Certain noise in *any* message could potentially be useful. In response, whatever reason you come up to say Shannon should be used for any message system would be valid for the messages in a cell.

No. Shannon Theory describes messages that external actors desire to be transmitted without change.

That's only because people believe it works best that way. However, you can show them that there are times when noise adds to the information and works better.

It involves encoding, transmission, decoding and reading by the receiver. Your explanations is missing several parts of the sequence. And even if you still wish to apply it, since it is clear that noise adds information, and this new information is often interesting. You clearly haven't ever used Shannon's theory for actual technical purposes, but I'd suggest you read a technical document, rather than a YEC apologist blog.

I don't know of another YEC person that discusses Shannon. I'm getting this from the theory itself. Perhaps you should find those other YEC's that use the argument and find out what their critics are saying, because so far your responses utterly fail to answer the problem.

And my explanations are missing any parts. DNA is a code, it is transmitted into protein that is the working result. The information content in the protein is less than or equal to the measured information content of the DNA that made it. That's what Shannon dictates.

Transmission is only one of at least five stages in the communications theory of Shannon. Where are the other four?

The reason you have to use the word "at least" is because there can be a number of steps in a message system. But that doesn't mean that simpler message systems don't work under Shannon.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yes and no .
Unlike you I perhaps don't know enough about genetics for me to conclude that DNA information is never "transmitted", at least in a way you could apply Shannon to it, perhaps you know something I don't. Indeed a sperm is way to transmit DNA from A to B, but a very special case perhaps.
However since more generally DNA information does not typically need to be conveyed over any significant distance then it can be utilised directly by means of transcription and division. Calling that "transmission" is where I think you are going wrong.
That said, even for a sperm being an arguable means of transmission it involves the transportation of a physical copy of the information required, like taking a letter from one place to another, so I really can't see how Shannon might be applied to that.:think:
But do enlighten me anyone.

That may be your interpretation but for me transmission only involves attempting to maintain the original information. Transcription implies changes. If I take a letter from here to there I have transmitted information, so do you really want to apply Shannon to that process? The letter I sent to "there" could then be transcribed into Chinese and sent on to China where it would only be as good as the transcription process, as a representation of the original, would you want to find a role for Shannon here?

The only reason transmission is a part of Shannon is because that is where noise enters. If noise enters during transcription, then Shannon applies in the same way. That you think the word "transcription" is somehow magic that makes noise work better is a testament to your blind faith in common descent.

 

[DavisBJ]

Evolution stands or falls on the appendix - 6days

Evolution stands or falls on the appendix - 6days

And, every single one of those universities taught that our appendix was useless. They were wrong about the appendix…

I am glad you have that appendix argument. Otherwise, you would look pretty silly railing against evolution without anything to support you. And I will concede, the entirety of evolutionary theory rests on whether or not the function of the appendix was correctly determined right at the first. Wow, what a slam-dunk of an argument. (snicker)

On this appendix-type issue of getting it right the first time, is it true that for some time after it originally came out, the 1611 King James Bible usually included a preface written by the translators? And in that preface, did the translators actually admit that in some places they may not have picked the best English word? I can’t imagine a more serious breach of intellectual honesty than publishing a Bible in which there might actually be some mistakes. Turns the whole belief that the Bible is God’s word on its head, doesn’t it? (Or, you could actually admit that humans work with the knowledge they have, and as long as they are open to correction when errors are found, then that is called --- progress, not abject falsification.)

<Universities are in error> … were (and are) about many other evolutionary beliefs.

Considering that there are a multitude of on-going university research projects dealing with evolution, then I would be amazed if that was not true. But I part with your intimation that the errors are fatal to the overall efficacy of Darwinian evolution. So far you have been singing pretty much a one-note song – the appendix. There are a whole slew of evolutionary studies that are doing just fine besides the appendix.

Seriously, as a creationist with a deep-seated hatred of evolution and a belief that universities are continuing to mislead students by teaching evolution, what advice would you give to a faithful Christian teenager who wants a top-notch education in biology? Don’t you have any highly-ranked universities you would feel good about recommending to them?

… scientists emerge rejecting common ancestry beliefs. And, the rejection of Darwinism is now global. There are growing communities of scientists, in all disciplines of science who say 'evolution' is impossible. We see these small, but growing groups not just in America and Australia but also in Europe and Asia.

But you know that any scientist who feels that he has a better paradigm should also know what to do to win his case. Clearly write up the idea, show where it is a better explanation than the existing scientific consensus, and have the data to prove your case. Look at Wegener and plate tectonics. He originally hit a brick wall in trying to get his ideas accepted by mainstream science. But as the data kept accumulating, the resistance crumbled, and now plate tectonics is recognized as a crucial part of geology processes.

The Theory of Evolution is widely accorded the status of a valid scientific theory because it has numerous documented studies backing it. From day 1 there have been dissenters to the theory, but they have been impotent at falsifying the basic framework on which the theory is built. And the attacks on Darwin’s ideas on evolution started a half century before Wegener proposed his plate tectonics, and attacks on evolution have continued for over half a century after Wegener won his case. But evolution is in better shape now than it ever has been.

You claim there is a groundswell of scientists coming out against evolution. That claim is a standard canard from evolution haters. How about documenting this growing dissention against evolution? You know – scientific publications in which they invite the scientific community to evaluate their data and methodology? Are these “growing groups” of scientific dissenters more than just members of Sunday-school classes? Names, qualifications, you know – real science stuff. I listed a lot of specific countries in which scientific groups have supported evolution. If you would like, I can put actual numbers of scientists involved, and I can provide the exact statements they have formally submitted supporting evolution. Or is this a repeat performance of your braggadocio about massive evidence for the flood – evidence which you have yet to produce?

 

[Lon]

Unwittingly, you illustrate the dynamic behind the data explored in the paper. As they found, the primary reason for why the US is an outlier in acceptance of evolution is that we have a higher number of fundamentalist Christians, who will not accept things like human/primate shared ancestry no matter how it's explained. They have their beliefs and aren't going to budge. Similarly, you believe that the reason behind the low numbers is poor teaching from scientists and lack of evidence, but when presented with contrary information you just wave it away and stick to your original belief.

So thanks!

Look, I've even had inept 'scientists' explain a linear model so again, the blame really is entirely on yourselves. You are adamant to distance yourself, but look at your avatar, Jose! You do the inept on purpose! You have NO ONE to blame! There is no 'even if.'

 

[6days]

glad you have that appendix argument. Otherwise, you would look pretty silly railing against evolution without anything to support you.

No my friend. The appendix was simply one example of how all universities have taught false things based on common ancestry beliefs. The examples could cover almost every icon of evolutionists over the past number of decades. Peppered moths...Miller / Urey...junk DNA...Neandertals...psuedogenes... archaeopteryx...Darwins tree of life... Darwins warm little pond and 'simple cells...piltdown man...whale evolution...Haeckels embryos...Darwins finches...MANY disproven transitional fossils ('monkey' to man) such as Darwinius masillae...and more.

...what advice would you give to a faithful Christian teenager who wants a top-notch education in biology? Don’t you have any highly-ranked universities you would feel good about recommending to them?

Sure... Harvard or Oxford.

Advice to the teen...uh, I would rather give advice to the parents. Make sure your kids understand common ancestry beliefs as good, or better than their teachers do. Make sure your kids know what you believe, and why. And...give your kids the freedom to compare creation and evolution models, allowing them freedom to believe as they wish.

You claim there is a groundswell of scientists coming out against evolution. That claim is a standard canard from evolution haters. How about documenting this growing dissention against evolution?

Sure..... what I said was "There are growing communities of scientists, in all disciplines of science who say 'evolution' is impossible. We see these small, but growing groups not just in America and Australia but also in Europe and Asia."

About 70 years back there were very few, if any, scientists who did not accept Darwinian beliefs. You are likely familiar with several creationist organizations in Australia and the Americas with growing memberships / subscribers/ supporters? There are also associations of creationist geologists and geologists. In some European countries like Belgium and Russia, there are creationist societies started by scientists. In Asia, South Korea has a growing comminity of Bible believing scientists.

Davis..... you asked for evidence of growing dissension against evolution. I'm going to call a hostile witness to testify....
Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionist and science writer is concerned about the increasingly unmanageable problem of high-level academic defectors from evolutionary theory.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....-thomas-nagel/

One of the " defecters" Coyne mentions is Thomas Nagel.
Nagel wrote:
"I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement.... "

A funny line from Coyne is that the secular opposition to the ToE is coming from molecular biologists. He suggests they perhaps don't have a good enough education in evolution!
Perhaps these scientists have superior knowledge than Coyne does about life at the most elemental levels. Perhaps they understand the ToE is a house of cards about to tumble.
(watch for supernatural alternative explanations that exclude a Creator God. Aliens?)

The most logical and scientific explanation is "In the beginning, God created..."

 

[gcthomas]

I'm going to call a hostile witness to testify....
Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionist and science writer is concerned about the increasingly unmanageable problem of high-level academic defectors from evolutionary theory.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....-thomas-nagel/

One of the " defecters" Coyne mentions is Thomas Nagel.
Nagel wrote:

You do know that Nagel is not a high level academic evolutionary biologist, don't you?

He is a philosopher, so he can't defect from evolutionary science. He is not even a scientist.

Can't you find any actual high level scientist that has 'defected'?

 

[Lon]

Just fyi, for the thread: While we do share about 96% DNA with chimps, we also share exactly the same or even 97% with mice *(as biologists reckon in how they compare DNA). We also share 25% of the same DNA as with a house plant.

 

[Lon]

You do know that Nagel is not a high level academic evolutionary biologist, don't you?

He is a philosopher, so he can't defect from evolutionary science. He is not even a scientist.

Can't you find any actual high level scientist that has 'defected'?

This is a horrendous error on your part. You really need to read what his area of philosophy expertise is (hint: he has receive huge awards from even physical sciences for his work). You also are obfuscating the point that bothers Coyne. The statement from his direct quote was that he was bothered by those separating from evolutionary theory, politics, assumptions, and indoctrinating rhetoric. I think you running interference here, because it addresses nothing said.

 

[MichaelCadry]

All Linnaeus did was to classify plant and animals according to their similarities. Humans are very similar to the other great apes, so he classified us as great apes. What other category would we belong to? A special one of our own because we are special? Nonsense. We are animals, and we are apes.

We are not great apes, Stuu!! We are human beings, created in the image of God, just as it is written. You can't call a chimp a great ape. A chimp is a chimp. An ape is an ape. A human is a human. A turtle is a turtle. A tortoise is a tortoise. Every thing is of its own kind. Jesus said, "he who hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." So if Jesus appeared as a man, and not as an ape, what do you figure, Stuart?? God did create the beasts of the Earth, which would include cattle, apes, chimps, rhinos, hippos, bison, buffaloes, elephants, alligators, giraffes, cheetahs, etc. on the same day as He created man and woman. But He succinctly separates them all, similar or not. An amoeba is not a human, regardless of whether we have similar cells within us or not. You are just barking up a tree. Are you a dog or an African ape, or a human being/homo homosapien?

You are quite special, aren't you. Do you think they should come around to your house and testify, or something? Science is not like Mormonism or Jehovah Witnessing. It's not an evangelical sporting activity. You read and you learn. I know you write, but do you read and learn Michael?

You must know I read, Stuu! I read the Bible and many other books, including merit algebra trig. books, novels, autobiographies, etc. Science books that tell us about the different animals, without depicting evolution in them, Astronomy books about the stars and constellations, and the planets and Sun, and moon, etc. I've read tons in my life. It's been an interesting life so far, and I don't plan for it to end anytime soon, since mine is an eternal existence, even after I leave this earthly body and go live on a star (the energy and light inside my soul/ my essence/ the Spirit of God within me presently. Hope this helps you know me better. How was your summer in New Zealand this year?? We've already hit 90° in the desert here in Phoenix, Arizona. I love summer here because I hibernate from the heat. I've got A/C in my car and I make sure it works. The house has A/C too, so I never am troubled by the heat much, except when I am frying an egg on the pavement near the in-ground swimming pool. It's only 5 feet deep, but does the trick. There is a desert landscape in the back yard and also half of the yard is green grass, which has to be cut every week or two. The rest is rocks and cactus, and desert plants. It's like a different world that I'm glad I got to check out before I left this Earth. Cool!!

That's not what your book of talking donkeys says. But it makes little difference to me.

Scripture was never right.

Stuart (an African ape)

Scripture is always right, if it's from the Holy Bible. And I'll have you know that only once does it mention a donkey talking to a man, and the donkey was talking telepathically, not any other way. The same with the serpent talking with Eve in the Bible. Donkeys and serpents don't talk English, or any other human language, right? Make sense of things dude.

Much Love To You Stuart, In Christ,

Michael

 

[Stuu]

You can't call a chimp a great ape. A chimp is a chimp. An ape is an ape.

Er...

You are just barking up a tree.

Not anymore. But our distant ancestors did.

Are you a dog

No.

or an African ape,

Yes.

or a human being/homo homosapien?

Yes.

You must know I read, Stuu! ... Science books that tell us about the different animals, without depicting evolution in them,

Does Jesus ride on the back of a happy dinosaur in the books you read, Michael?

How was your summer in New Zealand this year??

Hot, thanks for asking.

Scripture is always right, if it's from the Holy Bible. And I'll have you know that only once does it mention a donkey talking to a man, and the donkey was talking telepathically, not any other way.

Numbers 22:28-30 And the LORD opened the mouth of the [donkey], and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the [donkey], Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the [donkey] said unto Balaam, Am not I thine [donkey], upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

What kind of telepathic talking requires the mouth to be opened first?

The same with the serpent talking with Eve in the Bible. Donkeys and serpents don't talk English, or any other human language, right? Make sense of things dude.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

This snake spoke Jacobean English, apparently. The bible is never wrong, correct?

Much Love To You Stuart, In Christ,

Hasn't Jesus suffered enough already? Can't you let him rest in peace?

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

Look, I've even had inept 'scientists' explain a linear model so again, the blame really is entirely on yourselves. You are adamant to distance yourself, but look at your avatar, Jose! You do the inept on purpose! You have NO ONE to blame! There is no 'even if.'

Thanks for your input.

Just fyi, for the thread: While we do share about 96% DNA with chimps, we also share exactly the same or even 97% with mice *(as biologists reckon in how they compare DNA).

Cite?

 

[Jose Fly]

You do know that Nagel is not a high level academic evolutionary biologist, don't you?

He is a philosopher, so he can't defect from evolutionary science. He is not even a scientist.

Can't you find any actual high level scientist that has 'defected'?

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

Once again we see how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[Lon]

Thanks for your input.

Cite?

In a science book, but it is a quick Google. Perhaps both are a bit dated, but it is what is in an American high school biography textbook.

 

[Jose Fly]

In a science book, but it is a quick Google. Perhaps both are a bit dated, but it is what is in an American high school biography textbook.

So you can't back up your claim. Figures.

 

[alwight]

We are not great apes, Stuu!! We are human beings, created in the image of God, just as it is written.

We humans are not always so great but apes is what we are nevertheless Michael.

 

[Hedshaker]

Scripture is always right, if it's from the Holy Bible. And I'll have you know that only once does it mention a donkey talking to a man, and the donkey was talking telepathically, not any other way. The same with the serpent talking with Eve in the Bible.

So where exactly in the Bible does it state that donkeys and serpents converse telepathically?

If your so sure you shouldn't have any trouble providing chapter and verse, right?

Donkeys and serpents don't talk English, or any other human language, right? Make sense of things dude.

What makes perfect sense is that animals cannot converse with humans aurally or telepathically so none of it ever happened. It's just make-believe, dude?

 

[6days]

My personal belief is "I don't know how life began", because we have no way of knowing if life began on its own...

Funny how evoluionists hate evidence.

We do know that life never comes from non life. Atheists have no alternative other than psuedo scientific beliefs.

Regardless of how life began, we do know for certain that it started very simple and over hundreds of millions of years

No my friend...you know no such thing. Funny how evolutionist beliefs cause them to "not know" things that are known. Funny how evolutionists beliefs cause them to "know for certain" things for which there is no shred of evidence.

Life went from sea to land, from invertebrates to vertebrates, and so on, and it's all in the rocks.

We need to now..... is that something you don't know? Or, is this one of those things that you know for certain? Or, could we classify this one as a religious belief?

*Some atheists think that a couple molecules met in simple clay, then organized other molecules into a information and storage system.

*Others believe life started between sheets of Mica.

*Some atheists believe life got a frankenstein start with a lightening bolt.

*Warm little pond...anyone?

*Others insist life began all by itself at a deep sea thermal vent.

*Could life have been brought to earth by ancient astronauts?

*Or....like some atheists believe....its even possible life was seeded on earth by aliens

IOW... atheists are willing to believe anything, no matter how silly...no matter how unscientific..... anything but the Creator God of the Bible.

Evidence... life comes from life.

Experience...codes require a code maker.

Logic...things which appear intelligently designed, may have a intelligent designer.

 

[Stuu]

We do know that life never comes from non life.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

Just fyi, for the thread: While we do share about 96% DNA with chimps, we also share exactly the same or even 97% with mice *(as biologists reckon in how they compare DNA). We also share 25% of the same DNA as with a house plant.

Mice share ~90% of their DNA with humans.
Chimps share ~98% of their DNA with humans.

http://education.seattlepi.com/animals-share-human-dna-sequences-6693.html