|
Post by JasonPensa on Dec 15, 2003 23:29:10 GMT -5
Information: A modern scientific design argument All the design in living things is encoded in a sort of recipe book with lots of information. Information describes the complexity of a sequence — it does not depend on the matter of the sequence. It could be a sequence of ink molecules on paper (book) — however the information is not contained in the molecules of ink but in the patterns. Information can also be stored as sound wave patterns (e.g. speech), but again the information is not the sound waves themselves; electrical impulses (telephone); magnetic patterns (computer hard drive).
The anti-theistic physicist Paul Davies admits: ‘There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing’. Information scientist Werner Gitt has demonstrated that the laws of nature pertaining to information show that, in all known cases, information requires an intelligent message sender, a conclusion rejected by Davies on purely philosphical (religious) grounds. Thus a modern version of the design argument involves detecting high information content. In fact, this is exactly what the SETI project is all about — the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence involves trying to detect a high-information radio signal, which they would regard as proof of an intelligent message sender, even if we had no idea of the nature of the sender.
In living things, information is all stored in patterns of DNA, which encode the instructions to make proteins, the building blocks for all the machinery of life. There are four types of DNA ‘letters’ called nucleotides, and 20 types of protein ‘letters’ called amino acids. A group (codon) of 3 DNA ‘letters’ codes for one protein ‘letter’. The information is not contained in the chemistry of the ‘letters’ themselves, but in their sequence. DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known.
Now consider if we had to write the information of living things in book form. Dawkins admits, ‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. Even the simplest living organism has 482 protein-coding genes of 580,000 ‘letters’.
Let’s suppose we had the technology to go the other way, and store books’ information in DNA — this would be the ideal computer technology. The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content. Putting it another way, a pinhead of DNA would have a billion times more information capacity than a 4 gigabyte hard drive.
Just as letters of the alphabet will not write the Annals of Ennius by themselves, the DNA letters will not form meaningful sequences on their own. And just as the Annals would be meaningless to a person who didn’t understand the language, the DNA ‘letter’ arrangements would be meaningless without the ‘language’ of the DNA code.
His Servant, Jason
|
|
|
Post by JasonPensa on Dec 15, 2003 23:32:57 GMT -5
This is just dead wrong. Mutations are NOT always a decrease in information, they are change from the norm, which can take several forms, including an omission. What is more, it is NOT a fact that 99.9% of mutations are harmful. Most are neutral, or helpful or harmful depending on the environment. Could you please show the scientific evidence that proves that mutations are always decreases in information and are always harmful? Matt, I know I haven't provided any outside links myself (there aren't many good ones). But is there anyway you could get some evidence from a source other then talkorgins.com?? Thanks man. Mutations could not be responsible for any supposed evolutionary changes in organisms. Each cell of your body contains enough information in its DNA molecules to fill a library of about one thousand books. DNA is the building blocks of life. In order to keep the human race around, humans must reproduce. It is a very detailed, orderly and complex process of replicating cells, and building cells. There is order even on the molecular level, not chaos and randomness. Rarely, there is an error in replication, and small changes are made in the DNA code. These small, random changes in the DNA code, called mutations, occur when an extra nucleotide is added to the code or left out of the code. They may also result from improper base paring. All of these errors are serious. Mutations are generally considered by scientists to be harmful to the cell, often they kill the cell. Very few (1) mutations are known to be helpful to the organism. No cases are known of where new information is gained to grow new and working complex things like wings for example. This makes the whole hypothesis of evolution impossible. Mutations (mistakes) have been responsible for causing albinism, or lack of coloring material in people and animals; near absence of feathers on chickens; extra fingers or toes on people; wrinkled skin and near hairless mice; and other harmful effects. These illustrate the curse that was put upon the creation after the fall at the Garden of Eden. (1) I almost said, “No mutations are known…” But then thought of this interesting fact: One example is known of a species of insect on a rock in the ocean, where the mutated insect “is the fittest” if you will. The insects with wings, were more easily blown off the rock and drown in the water. However, the insect, with no wings, the mutation, survived. In this one particular instance, the insect with no wings (the mutation) was benefited by this deformity. Please note, however, this was a loss of information, not a gain of information, as is required by the theory evolution. His Servant, Jason
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Dec 16, 2003 0:19:28 GMT -5
Yes, you would. You would also expect to find dogs next to brachiosuari, and humans next to tyrannosaurus rexes, or even dinosaurs of different periods next to eachother. None of this is seen at all. Anywhere. See my above post. Intermediates between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds: [/size][/ul] Bird feathers have a transitional form on the dromaeosaurid dinosaur Sinornithosaurus millenii, which has filamentous integumental appendages which are compound structures composed of multiple filaments and which show two types of branching structures characteristic of feathers [Xu et al, 2001]. For the purpose of brevity, I didn't post the other transitions. I'll post them if you want, though. Geology. Draw a dot in the middle of a small piece of paper. (A sticky note placed sticky-side up does nicely, and we've all got some of those, right? ;D) Now, place it on a table and push two opposit ends together, while firmly keeping the ends to the table. The ends stay low, but the middle, with our dot-fossil, is pushed up. This is how most mountains are formed. Continental plates are squashed in the middle by geological forces, forcing rock upwards and creating mountains. Very true. Very irrelevant. See my post on abiogenesis above. Which ones? Which promises? Elucidate please. What stories? Please show an example. Prove it. I've let a divine foot in the door. I'm a theistic evolutionists. Argument NA. Which one?? No scientific theory can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's why they're called theories. True enough. Doesn't make the theory false, however. Maybe. Again, not an actual proof that I'm wrong though. Yes it can be. But they HAVE shown huge amounts of evidence that it is the correct accounting for the specifics of creation. Mhm. We don't, although not for the reasons you've given, and that doesn't count out how he formed the universe, or man. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Dec 16, 2003 12:59:46 GMT -5
I must admit that I must resign from this debate, not due to my conceeding my position, but rather I am too lazy to read over the vast amounts of information given by both sides. However if both parties are willing to use simple (er) terms and less "well this guy over here says this, but your guy says this" Information is good, but in huge quanities it is off putting for me and I am sure other people, may I suggest posting the links to the website only?
I am still firmly a six day creationist
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Dec 16, 2003 13:12:25 GMT -5
Ok. Because there's so much in those two posts, I'm not going to try a point by point. Here, however, is a quick overview of why you're wrong. <G>
Your general information on DNA is accurate as far as I can see.
Again, I'd really like to be able to read what Mr. Gitt said himself, and I'd like to be able to read Paul Davie's comments in context.
Well, see the problem here is that Mr. Gitt is actually relying on two distinct information theories. The first one is Shannon's information theory; and the second is the Kolmogorov-Chaitin information theory.
From Talkorigins.org
Again from Talkorigins.org
Now, here's the hitch. You CANNOT equate entropy in Shannon with entropy in Kolmogorov-Chaitin. They refer to two different systems.
once more, from TO.org
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Dec 16, 2003 13:32:10 GMT -5
I must admit that I must resign from this debate, not due to my conceeding my position, but rather I am too lazy to read over the vast amounts of information given by both sides. However if both parties are willing to use simple (er) terms and less "well this guy over here says this, but your guy says this" Information is good, but in huge quanities it is off putting for me and I am sure other people, may I suggest posting the links to the website only? I am still firmly a six day creationist I'm sorry to hear you're resigning. Do you have anything you're confused about specifically you'd like said in simpler terms? (Jason and I have debated this on another forum, so we both have a lot of stuff that might seem like a non-sequitur because we're pasting from old arguments. If there are any points you see flaws in or have questions about, please ask. And what about the theological end? I've never had my question about chapter 2 answered in any forum I've debated this.
|
|
|
Post by DavidRojas on Dec 16, 2003 16:05:23 GMT -5
I am not quite sure I understand your Chapter 2 argument. However, I will try to address it as best I can. For purposes of argument, I will post the New American Standard translation of Genesis 2 (just the part that relates to creation, the first seven verses) here. Obviously, the creationist's literal interpretation of Genesis is based on Chapter 1. However, where does Chapter 2 conflict with Chapter 1? Genesis 1 details what was created on each of the six days, and then how God rested on the seventh, a precursor to the Sabbath (referred to in the first three verses of Chapter 2). I am guessing that you are taking into account verses 5-7. Are you saying that in chapter 1, God says he created plants first, but in chapter 2, He created man first? From Tektonics, "G2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field? The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is 'erets -- a word which has much broader geographic connotations." Basically, Genesis 2 is saying that there was no farming before Adam. _________ Since we are already in Chapter 2... looking at verse 7, if man is created from "dust from the ground," unless this is to be treated symbolically (but how it would be done so is beyond me), it seems that God is quite explicitly showing how He created man. What does the dust represent? Methinks it does not represent homo erectus, but instead... dust from the earth. (!) Continuing on a similar thought, why would God use the same ancestors for the creation of the creature bearing His own image as the creatures that man is supposed to dominate? Are the recent ancestors of man in the image of God as well? If not, why not? Are we more evolved, at least to a little degree, than Adam was? If so, are we more in the image of God than Adam was? _________ Genesis 1:25 states, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good." Each classification of animal was to reproduce after their own kind. This does not seem to leave much room for biological macroevolution. Reptiles beget more reptiles, birds beget more birds, and humans beget more humans. I will touch slightly on the transitional forms that you brought up. I am far from an expert in the field of origins, but I am aware that many creationists believe that Homo erectus bears enough similarity to Homo sapiens, that the two species should be merged. From Talk.Origins, "Lubenow (1992) and Mehlert (1994) have argued that Homo erectus is similar enough to H. sapiens that it should be merged into it...Both Lubenow and Mehlert have stated, in support of the claim that erectus fossils should be classified as H. sapiens, that H. erectus brain sizes fall within the modern human range." Regarding Homo habilis, the predominant creationist view seems to be that the species is invalid because some specimens are human, and others are apes. _________ Regarding abiogenesis, I agree with you, Matt. It is only an issue if you are an atheistic evolutionist. Unless there is a reason to refute atheistic perspectives, there really shouldn't be any need to address abiogenesis. _________ One last thing, if theistic evolution is true, what exactly did God first create on this planet?
|
|
|
Post by JasonPensa on Dec 16, 2003 16:34:16 GMT -5
One last thing, if theistic evolution is true, what exactly did God first create on this planet? God created monkey in His own image. No wait, that's not it. God created slime in His own image... NO, that's DEFINANTLY NOT it. (Ok, so I don't mean to be sarcastic here... no offense). I'm not sure how thesitic evolutionists explain God and evoltuion in the same picture. I can't really keep up reading all these posts and activily responding to them either. I need to get some school, speech, college apps and debate research done. :: cough, cough :: :: elbows Matt :: I'm sure Matt does too. His Servant, Jason
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Dec 16, 2003 22:18:31 GMT -5
Hmmm, I feel my competative juices rising. Well if Jason Pensa is does not have the time to reply then I guess I will stick it out. However if Matt would be kind enough to only post once in a while (so that I could catch up and stay current and still understand what is being said)
Oh hang it all I'm IN!!!! lets go gloves on everyone!! ::laces up gloves and puts on football helmet::
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Dec 16, 2003 22:32:53 GMT -5
I agree with David on the creation of man. It is not too far of a stretch to imagine God picking up a "handful" of dust and forming man, after all what makes up people?mostly water, carbon nitrogen, etc (I am not an expert in this field don't quote me ( ) I presume that Matt believes God used evolution to create world. If that is the case then we don't have to argue ex nihilo (sp?) out of nothing, that God created the materials necessary to start creation. If Matt doesn't believe this then we will have a hard time debating this as we won't even have a common ground. More to come once I fix a problem with my computer
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Dec 16, 2003 23:10:06 GMT -5
One the creation of man:
I assume that Matt believes that Adam was the first FULL man. But therefore the "ape" who was his father would have been in the garden of eden. Of course he could have died. I don't know how Matt will argue this, but to be Biblical and evolutionist at the same time would require all evolution to happen after the Fall. Before the Fall God said that is it was all Good. God is not capable of creating anything that isn't perfect in origin, as God himself if perfect. Therefore there was no death before the fall.
So if this is true then the fossil record would happen after the fall, say at the great big flood in Noah's day.
But lets say that evolution did happen before the fall. What does this mean? It means that God's creation was not perfect, but rather had to be perfected by time. So then when God says that it was all good he was lying.
In a perfect world where there was no death how would any evolutionary process that relied on mutation occur? In basic Biology I was taught that a mutation in the genes is an error, whethere the DNA line shifts over, or extra (I can't remember what they are called) ones are added, or it misses. In basic biology I was taught that most mutations are harmful. For instance if a human is born with a third 23 (or was it 21) chromosome then the child will have downs syndrom (sp? on all of the above) Now in this case, information is not added, just copied too many times, and even then the effect is disasterous. I don't believe many children with downs syndrom would survive in the wild by themselves.
Now I would like to say that I am making assumptions (that Matt may not agree with) and following them through logically, sorry if I am a little blunt.
(also I know I forgot to mention an argument I was thinking of, so I do have something else, I just can't remember it)
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Dec 16, 2003 23:28:54 GMT -5
answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp Answers in Genesis is a good foundation that are entirely Christian and try to interpret the Bible the way it is ment to be read. I am not saying that they are necessarily right, but it is good to see both sides. I of course will be looking into Matt's sources.
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Dec 17, 2003 0:12:31 GMT -5
I am not quite sure I understand your Chapter 2 argument. However, I will try to address it as best I can. For purposes of argument, I will post the New American Standard translation of Genesis 2 (just the part that relates to creation, the first seven verses) here. Obviously, the creationist's literal interpretation of Genesis is based on Chapter 1. However, where does Chapter 2 conflict with Chapter 1? Genesis 1 details what was created on each of the six days, and then how God rested on the seventh, a precursor to the Sabbath (referred to in the first three verses of Chapter 2). I am guessing that you are taking into account verses 5-7. Are you saying that in chapter 1, God says he created plants first, but in chapter 2, He created man first? From Tektonics, "G2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field? The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is 'erets -- a word which has much broader geographic connotations." Basically, Genesis 2 is saying that there was no farming before Adam. The New American Bible, Genesis 1:11 : "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant on earth that bears seed, and every kind of fruit tree that bears fruit with its seed in it."This is before man's creation. Genesis 2:5 "while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted,..." No field shrub on EARTH. This is not a matter of learning to cultivate stuff that is already there. NONE EXIST ON EARTH. NONE HAVE SPROUTED. Then, on the issue of animals: Genesis 1 states that all animals were created first, with man as the culminating achievement. Genesis 2:18-20, however, has God creating animals out of the earth later, as companions. A literal interpretation conflicts with itself, and the Bible does not conflict with itselft, so a literal interpretation is wrong, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Dec 17, 2003 0:44:29 GMT -5
If you are to argue that a literal interpretation forces God to be a fool, then I would say that forcing anyother intrepretation forces God to deny himself, and make himself into an undetailed God, a God that doesn't Love personally, and etc etc.
I would really not like to get into this line of thought!!!!
So if we don't insult the God that each case implies (afterall he is the same God, I hope) that would be great
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Dec 20, 2003 1:16:36 GMT -5
Does this mean I won? WAHOO
::turns around in celebration raises fists and is promptly stabbed in the back by Matt who was playing dead all along::
well I must admit the eye of the storm is very peaceful, too peaceful.
|
|