Jump to content


Photo

What Can Stop Micro To Macro?


  • Please log in to reply
350 replies to this topic

#341 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 April 2009 - 04:23 AM

Hey Loveslife,

This is from the Forum FAQ,

What is information? – The kind of information we should debate on this forum should be of the type that is sufficient to communicate enough data to build some object, such as a car, a computer, or in the case of the origins debate, an organism. To that end, I hereby offer coded information as the type of information to debate on this forum. By coded information I mean any type of information that is a language, as described by symbols, syntax, and semantics. These three components encompass three of the five elements of Gitt information (I submit the other two components of Gitt information, pragmatics and apobetics, are somewhat inherent and natural extensions of the first three; these later two are open to discussion but not required). Examples of coded information include the English language (or any foreign language), Morse code, C++, etc. By requiring our definition of information to be that which is sufficient to build something should rule out anecdotal musings such as tree rings and redshifts. Other types or descriptions of information, such as Shannon information at the lowest level, to Dembski's complex specified information, to Algorithmic information theory, to Gitt information at the highest level, are welcome for discussion provided it is in the spirit of understanding the proposed description/type of information. We encourage however that members use the working definition of coded information given above when debating information and its role in creation or evolution. Arguments deemed unacceptable for this forum include spurious claims such as "tree rings and redshifts prove that information can originate naturalistically", "ripples in the sand represent information", etc. Such arguments do nothing to establish the kind of information required by evolution to produce all life over time from a common ancestor.


Please offer us what you believe is a better definition for information

Would you mind sharing what it is that you actually believe about God in a new thread?

#342 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:07 AM

Creationists often discuss DNA and how "new information" cannot be created and I mentioned that creationists typically don't define what it is they're talking about - they rarely, if ever, define what they mean by "new information." You guys responded by not defining it. You also provided links which don't define it either.

View Post


Evoluteists often discuss DNA and how it proves evolution. But, we have never observed DNA becoming anything but more DNA… No evolution, just well designed! We have never observed information spontaneously erupting out of non-information, just information coming from information. When you can show information coming from non-information, let me know…

In other words, evolution works. Thank you very much, I agree completely. A mutation occurred resulting in an immunity (or near-immunity) which is all I was saying. If you want to cling to the idea that "new information" wasn't created, feel free. The term is meaningless anyway.

View Post


Evolution works in bazarro world, so you’re welcome… Occurrences of mutation show no evidence for macro evolution, just adaptation… So, again, you’re welcome…

How did we evolve to be susceptible to bullets? Why did natural selection result in the creation of tissues for the sole purpose of allowing bullets to penetrate right through us? Hint: natural selection didn't create tissues or cells for the sole purpose of being vulnerable to viruses or bullets.

View Post


“How did we evolve to be susceptible to bullets?, what kind of nonsense is that? Had bullets always been around, we would have always been susceptible to them! Hint, natural selection is just a word. Unless you are ascribing some kind of sentience to it… Then it becomes a religion… So, evolution IS a religion.

Viruses evolve. I just got my flu shots again. Like I do every year. Because the stuff from last year - they evolved.

View Post


Viruses don’t evolve, they adapt… Now, if you want to pretend this is evolution, all well and good. But, they remain viruses, so, you have absolutely no case for macro evolution in that analogy… So thanks for disproving evolution…

#343 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:45 AM

Actually it was polywrong.
CCR5-Delta (don't recall if 32 is accurate or not) isn't new information; it's a garbling of information. A virus needs a doorway to enter a cell. This mutation fouls things up, so the doorway is defective. With a defective doorway, the virus can't enter the cell.

In other words, evolution works. Thank you very much, I agree completely. A mutation occurred resulting in an immunity (or near-immunity) which is all I was saying. If you want to cling to the idea that "new information" wasn't created, feel free. The term is meaningless anyway.

In very much other words. A defect in a lifeform does lead to change, the kind that isn't good. A man with no physical brain would be less susceptible to brain tumors. Wow! Evolution is wonderful.!

And if information were truly meaningless, I don't think we'd be seeing so much overt disinformation.

How did we evolve to be susceptible to bullets? Why did natural selection result in the creation of tissues for the sole purpose of allowing bullets to penetrate right through us? Hint: natural selection didn't create tissues or cells for the sole purpose of being vulnerable to viruses or bullets.

So if the broken door mechanism didn't evolve in order to facilitate infection, it would've needed some other purpose.

Both evolutionism and creationism require a purpose for a complex door mechanism (and it is complex) to exist on a cell. Even the evolutionist has no excuse for believing this "mutation" is creative.

As this mutation was only recently discovered, you may not be aware of the specific purpose for this door mechanism. But you were aware that it should have a purpose, even according to your own stories.

Viruses evolve. I just got my flu shots again. Like I do every year. Because the stuff from last year - they evolved.

View Post

Oh yeah... :lol: You people any your belief that you can dictate reality... I would not exist if you could.

#344 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 02 April 2009 - 09:23 AM

Oh yeah...  :lol:  You people any your belief that you can dictate reality...  I would not exist if you could.

View Post


According to relativism, you can dictate your own reality! So why you being so intolerant? :o

#345 Guest_loveslife_*

Guest_loveslife_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:23 PM

Hey Loveslife,

This is from the Forum FAQ,
Please offer us what you believe is a better definition for information

Would you mind sharing what it is that you actually believe about God in a new thread?

View Post

Keep in mind that the term is being applied to DNA, therefore we are talking about genetic information. Not spoken, written, computer program, etc information. I read that definition in the forum FAQ as well as watched about half that 18min video before I realized neither one was addressing the idea that "no new information" can be formed.

So a good definition, in my opinion, of genetic information is additional genetic material, or the emergence of genes that were not there before. What do you think?

And, out of curiosity, why do you want me to share what I believe about God in a new thread? So the YECs on here can break out their flamethrowers? :)

#346 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:47 PM

Evoluteists often discuss DNA and how it proves evolution. But, we have never observed DNA becoming anything but more DNA… No evolution, just well designed! 


DNA is poorly designed if it is in fact designed. It's not even the original design as RNA came first.

Why the redundancy???
Why go through uncoiling, transcription, then translation???
Why so many types of RNA???




We have never observed information spontaneously erupting out of non-information, just information coming from information. When you can show information coming from non-information, let me know…


Information is only information because you call it that. You're simply denying chemistry.

Evolution works in bazarro world, so you’re welcome… Occurrences of mutation show no evidence for macro evolution, just adaptation… So, again, you’re welcome…


Adaptation is evolution.

“How did we evolve to be susceptible to bullets?, what kind of nonsense is that? Had bullets always been around, we would have always been susceptible to them! Hint, natural selection is just a word. Unless you are ascribing some kind of sentience to it… Then it becomes a religion… So, evolution IS a religion.


I agree, that's a dumb thing to say, but to deny natural selection is to deny science. Environments produce selection pressures

Viruses don’t evolve, they adapt… Now, if you want to pretend this is evolution, all well and good. But, they remain viruses, so, you have absolutely no case for macro evolution in that analogy… So thanks for disproving evolution…

View Post


Nothing has been disproved.

A huge minority of the people who have brought you the 1st world society you enjoy are pretending then. This is why I don't get as up in arms as others who accept evolution do. Creationism poses no threat so it doesn't bother me, but I'm more than happy to discuss it.

#347 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 April 2009 - 09:44 PM

A huge minority of the people...

View Post

Wouldn't this qualify as an oxymoron? :)

#348 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:22 PM

Wouldn't this qualify as an oxymoron?  :)

View Post


Lawl, I was just talking to some friends about dumb quotes we've heard from NBA players and I write that. :D

Obviously I meant huge majority.

#349 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:28 PM

Lawl, I was just talking to some friends about dumb quotes we've heard from NBA players and I write that. :D

Obviously I meant huge majority.

View Post

I was just razzing you. :)

#350 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 03 April 2009 - 02:44 AM

DNA is poorly designed if it is in fact designed.  It's not even the original design as RNA came first.

Why the redundancy???
Why go through uncoiling, transcription, then translation???
Why so many types of RNA???


Are you using your ignorance as argument ? :D

Information is only information because you call it that.  You're simply denying chemistry.


Oh ! a book has no information, that´s only the chemistry of the pink :)

Adaptation is evolution. 

Micro-evolution

I agree, that's a dumb thing to say, but to deny natural selection is to deny science.  Environments produce selection pressures
Nothing has been disproved. 


Oh no ? So, let me know your opinion about this article

Selection Of The Weakest

#351 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:02 AM

DNA is poorly designed if it is in fact designed.  It's not even the original design as RNA came first.

View Post


You realize the illogic of the above two sentences don’t you?

Anyway, you speak about the design of DNA (“poorly designed if it is in fact designed”) as if your omnipotence gives you the authority to make such statements. So, if you have such authority, design and build something as complex as DNA from materials you also have to design and build (good luck with either project) that works better than DNA. This should increase your appreciation for DNA and decrease your opinion of your abilities.

Why the redundancy???
Why go through uncoiling, transcription, then translation???
Why so many types of RNA???

View Post


I’m sure you will have the opportunity to ask the Creator these questions yourself…

Information is only information because you call it that.  You're simply denying chemistry.

View Post

No, you’re simply denying information by ascribing so silly a proposition that chemistry doesn’t contain it. Information is the communication of facts and knowledge. So, are you insinuating chemistry doesn’t contain information? Because the information contained in chemistry is definite knowledge acquired by studying chemistry… Are you sure you want to pursue so silly a proposition?

Adaptation is evolution. 

View Post


No, evolution is a weak watering down of the word adaptation (which has been around far longer than the word evolution).

I agree, that's a dumb thing to say, but to deny natural selection is to deny science.  Environments produce selection pressures

View Post


Science doesn’t prove natural selection, evolutheists ascribe sentience to the words natural selection to empower a god for evolution…

Nothing has been disproved. 

View Post


What has been disproved?

A huge minority of the people who have brought you the 1st world society you enjoy are pretending then.  This is why I don't get as up in arms as others who accept evolution do.  Creationism poses no threat so it doesn't bother me, but I'm more than happy to discuss it.

View Post


“huge minority”, “jumbo shrimp”, “natural selection”… All oxymoron’s! Are you actually insinuating that because the majority believes it; it has to be correct (Think Dredd Scott)? And, if Creationism poses no threat to you, and it doesn't bother you, then why do you come here with false assumptions, poor scholarship, weak argumentation, misinformation and bad science to argue against it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users