Jump to content


Why Is Evolution Singled Out?


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#81 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2009 - 07:05 AM

So you don't have a valid argument, don't care and didn't realize that the majority of the New Testament books were written in the 60's?

Oh this is too rich! If you mean the 1960s and the dropping of acid (especially "Revelations") I would agree with you.

Other wise CITATIONS please.

That's fine... Then I suppose no amount of evidence will convince you as well. That, also, is all well and fine. I won't waste anymore of my time talking to a brick wall.

View Post

LOL! You've provided ZIP, NADA, NICHTS, ZERO "evidence". Try again Ron. No, not just trying this time as you've been so the entire time, but PRODUCE evidence here Ron.

Honestly, I don't think you can.

That you think that you've produced evidence means you are the brick wall.

One last thing, NT is not OT. Thanks for playing.

#82 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 November 2009 - 10:25 AM

Oh this is too rich!  If you mean the 1960s and the dropping of acid (especially "Revelations") I would agree with you.

Other wise CITATIONS please.LOL!  You've provided ZIP, NADA, NICHTS, ZERO "evidence".  Try again Ron.  No, not just trying this time as you've been so the entire time, but PRODUCE evidence here Ron.

Honestly, I don't think you can.

That you think that you've produced evidence means you are the brick wall.

One last thing, NT is not OT.  Thanks for playing.

View Post



Here's a good place for you to start Frank:

http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0

But, you'll most likely squint you eyes so you don't actually have to read and understand the implications.

#83 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2009 - 11:30 AM

Here's a good place for you to start Frank:

http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0

But, you'll most likely squint you eyes so you don't actually have to read and understand the implications.

View Post

I'll be even more blunt.

I see you're the moderator now.

It is highly unlikely I'll post while you have that power as I don't trust you at all.

#84 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 November 2009 - 04:42 PM

I'll be even more blunt.

I see you're the moderator now.

It is highly unlikely I'll post while you have that power as I don't trust you at all.

View Post


Looks like you may not be posting for a long-long time.

#85 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 November 2009 - 11:58 PM

I'll be even more blunt.

I see you're the moderator now.

It is highly unlikely I'll post while you have that power as I don't trust you at all.

View Post


If you have a problem with a mod, you can take it up with either me or Fred. Ron cannot use his mod powers to win a debate. Only moderate when someone goes out of bounds of the rules.

So if he did use his powers to get the advantage, you can report it and we will look into it. So why don't you at least give it a try instead of giving up?

#86 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 14 November 2009 - 01:24 PM

Shannon "information" merely measures fidelity - not the content of meaning.

Meaning is assigned outside of the codes. "One if by land; two if by sea" would just be a one or a two to Shannon's formula - nothing more.

I don't plan on arguing - I was just trying to be helpful.

View Post

Again, Shannon does not ignore meaning completely. However...

... as it turns out, even fidelity is enough to sink evolution. The problem is that DNA is a code that means something. By "meaning something" I mean that it makes a difference what the code is. In other words, if you have DNA that codes for a trait, it can code for very little if anything else; and visa-versa, if the DNA is different from that code just mentioned, then you will get a different result (a different trait or a variation of that trait or a different path to that trait). Adding noise to the signal (the transmitted code) would require an equal change in the receiver/decoder for the code to continue to "mean something" as if the sender/code contained that original message.

#87 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 November 2009 - 02:00 PM

Again, Shannon does not ignore meaning completely. However...

... as it turns out, even fidelity is enough to sink evolution. The problem is that DNA is a code that means something. By "meaning something" I mean that it makes a difference what the code is. In other words, if you have DNA that codes for a trait, it can code for very little if anything else; and visa-versa, if the DNA is different from that code just mentioned, then you will get a different result (a different trait or a variation of that trait or a different path to that trait). Adding noise to the signal (the transmitted code) would require an equal change in the receiver/decoder for the codeto continue to "mean something" as if the sender/code contained that original message.

View Post



Code?

Is there any code that we can prove did not come from intelligence? Is code not intended to pass on information? Where does information come from? Does that code not drive the actions of the device (for lack of a better generic term)? Does the complexity of a code not denote the intelligence of the code giver?

In other words, show me any code that definite proof can be educed to show it wasn’t a design from a designer…

BTW Yorzhik, I understand that this isn't what you are positing. I am just making a point. For those who THINK there is no intelligence in the code (and therefore the design), you should now know why evolution is singled out. Because, if you cannot admit the design in the product, you need to be singled out.

#88 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 November 2009 - 02:33 PM

Again, Shannon does not ignore meaning completely. However...

... as it turns out, even fidelity is enough to sink evolution. The problem is that DNA is a code that means something. By "meaning something" I mean that it makes a difference what the code is. In other words, if you have DNA that codes for a trait, it can code for very little if anything else; and visa-versa, if the DNA is different from that code just mentioned, then you will get a different result (a different trait or a variation of that trait or a different path to that trait). Adding noise to the signal (the transmitted code) would require an equal change in the receiver/decoder for the code to continue to "mean something" as if the sender/code contained that original message.

View Post

The assumption of meaning is a source of confusion. Generally 'information' refers to something meaningful. "Shannon information" does not. "Information", in Shannon's work, was simply "that which is transmitted".

You can transmit complete gibberish, with no meaning whatsoever. Shannon's achievement is that he can tell you how much the gibberish received matches the gibberish transmitted. You can transmit something profound or something fanciful or fallacious - it doesn't matter one bit to Shannon's procedures. All that matters is fidelity.

Loss of fidelity = loss of meaningful information in the real world. It's common sense; it's observable; it's common experience. But Shannon defined 'information' differently. The infidelity of gibberish is just as important as the infidelity of the most profound message, according to his maths. The content does not matter, and if the content itself does not matter, clearly the significance of the content cannot either.

Now gibberish can be added to any message. Evolutionists point to the fact that by Shannon's definition, gibberish can be classified as "information". I have seen no evidence that people fall for the bait-and-switch; it's pretty counter-intuitive, and explaining it sufficiently for anyone to understand simply gives away the deception.

Information cannot be created, if one employs the normal definitions of the term. If the term be expanded to include meaningless, worthless gibberish, it seems inevitable that "information" must be created left and right.

However, meaningless, worthless gibberish will not serve to evolve life from non-life or evolve new organs and systems outside of imagination. We know proper, meaningful information must be coded into the genes, if they are to accomplish anything. The source of any proper, meaningful information you'll ever encounter will always be an intelligent entity.

#89 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 14 November 2009 - 03:14 PM

The assumption of meaning is a source of confusion. Generally 'information' refers to something meaningful. "Shannon information" does not. "Information", in Shannon's work, was simply "that which is transmitted".

You can transmit complete gibberish, with no meaning whatsoever. Shannon's achievement is that he can tell you how much the gibberish received matches the gibberish transmitted. You can transmit something profound or something fanciful or fallacious - it doesn't matter one bit to Shannon's procedures. All that matters is fidelity.

Loss of fidelity = loss of meaningful information in the real world. It's common sense; it's observable; it's common experience. But Shannon defined 'information' differently. The infidelity of gibberish is just as important as the infidelity of the most profound message, according to his maths. The content does not matter, and if the content itself does not matter, clearly the significance of the content cannot either.

Now gibberish can be added to any message. Evolutionists point to the fact that by Shannon's definition, gibberish can be classified as "information". I have seen no evidence that people fall for the bait-and-switch; it's pretty counter-intuitive, and explaining it sufficiently for anyone to understand simply gives away the deception.

Information cannot be created, if one employs the normal definitions of the term. If the term be expanded to include meaningless, worthless gibberish, it seems inevitable that "information" must be created left and right.

However, meaningless, worthless gibberish will not serve to evolve life from non-life or evolve new organs and systems outside of imagination. We know proper, meaningful information must be coded into the genes, if they are to accomplish anything. The source of any proper, meaningful information you'll ever encounter will always be an intelligent entity.

View Post

We agree completely. The only addition I would add is that gibberish put into a message was addressed by Shannon and Weaver in terms of creating a message with more information content. This is a minor point and will concede it for the sake of the discussion.

That being said, even in terms of fidelity alone, evolution fails. That is because fidelity is determined by the receiver. If the message changes in transmission from the original message that was encoded, the receiver must regardless be able to decode the message. When it comes to DNA, similar to a lock and key, there are only a few messages (relative to the number of messages possible) that the receiver can decode.

Here is an example. Let's say you give me a message in English, and by freak chance noise enters the message in transmission such that the message changes to German. Despite my German heritage, I will not understand your message because my decoder only understands English and the process the message was supposed to facilitate will fail. Evolutionists will say, rightly so, that theoretically there can be an increase in information. However, the argument still fails because the decoding would have to not only change as well, but change *in exactly the same way* (I would have to learn German and not French) for the mutated message to succeed.

#90 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 14 November 2009 - 03:32 PM

Code?

Is there any code that we can prove did not come from intelligence? Is code not intended to pass on information? Where does information come from? Does that code not drive the actions of the device (for lack of a better generic term)? Does the complexity of a code not denote the intelligence of the code giver?

In other words, show me any code that definite proof can be educed to show it wasn’t a design from a designer…

BTW Yorzhik, I understand that this isn't what you are positing. I am just making a point. For those who THINK there is no intelligence in the code (and therefore the design), you should now know why evolution is singled out. Because, if you cannot admit the design in the product, you need to be singled out.

View Post

True. And further; this is the beginning to the argument showing that thermodynamics ruins evolution *after* biogenesis. The reason is that all information is carried on media. And it takes more energy to have information carrying media with information on it than it then to have information carrying media without information on it.

Taking this a step further, it takes more heat to add new information to information carrying media than the information on the information carrying media could provide.

#91 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 November 2009 - 03:52 PM

True. And further; this is the beginning to the argument showing that thermodynamics ruins evolution *after* biogenesis. The reason is that all information is carried on media. And it takes more energy to have information carrying media with information on it than it then to have information carrying media without information on it.

Taking this a step further, it takes more heat to add new information to information carrying media than the information on the information carrying media could provide.

View Post


All good points Yrozhik.

#92 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 November 2009 - 04:30 PM

That being said, even in terms of fidelity alone, evolution fails.

View Post

Exactly!

#93 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 November 2009 - 10:38 AM

Yup!

#94 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 20 November 2009 - 07:02 AM

Common descent is singled out because it is not observable, testable or repeatable like other science is. I can jump in the air and test gravity, I can take an aspirin and test chemistry or medicine, I can discect a frog and look at biology, but I can't reproduce the beginning of the world. Scientists do not know what anything was like before the world began so we cannot duplicate it.

And actually all the evidence points away from common descent. The fossil record is missing, no common descent is observable. If it takes millions of years to make a new animal, well how come we don't see that today? We should see new life forms popping up all over the place that started evolving millions of years ago.

#95 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 November 2009 - 10:11 AM

Common descent is singled out because it is not observable, testable or repeatable like other science is.  I can jump in the air and test gravity, I can take an aspirin and test chemistry or medicine, I can discect a frog and look at biology, but I can't reproduce the beginning of the world.  Scientists do not know what anything was like before the world began so we cannot duplicate it.

And actually all the evidence points away from common descent.  The fossil record is missing, no common descent is observable.  If it takes millions of years to make a new animal, well how come we don't see that today?  We should see new life forms popping up all over the place that started evolving millions of years ago.

View Post


Another correct posting.

#96 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 November 2009 - 01:48 AM

Evolution isn't singled out at all really. Large chunks of science that have nothing to do with it but do disagree with genesis are placed under the umbrella of the term evolution.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users