Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Zachriel]

Information is created constantly from inanimate objects, usually through the application of energy. For instance, a snow flake is not a random collecton of particles, but a delicate crystaline structure. Storms in the atmosphere are another type of organization which spontaneously occurs. Of course, there is no violation of thermodynamic laws as the Sun provides the energy. (In any case, keep in mind that abiogenesis is not a feature of the Theory of Evolution.)

Geology is the proof of Evolution. Fossils of dinosaurs only exist in rocks of a certain age. Fossils of hominids only exist in relatively recent rocks. To counter Evolutionary Theory, one would have to attack the geological record. This would be difficult as it is well-researched and quite transparent even to the casual observer. Indeed, geological sciences are used to find mineral deposits. Creationists do not find oil. Geologists do.

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln> Just to get your answer to number 10 out of the way....

Do you believe in a flood as per the bible?

Yes as a matter of faith


====


Would you be able to answer the following questions:

Was an ark constructed?
.If the ark was constructed, how did the designer know how big to make it?
.How was such a vessel completed when significantly more experienced ship builders working on empirical knowledge of ship building have been unable to build massive wooden boat structures (the use of iron was ultimately necessary to build massive boats) ?
.How did a manufacturer of such a vessel incorporate all of the ecological and climactic conditions?
Since the polar water ecology would have been ruined by such a worldwide flood (through massive amounts of rain), wouldn't whales have needed to be bred in ecologically suitable conditions, in the ship?
.How did all of the necessary animals, such as penguins or those on Australia get to the boat?
.If Noah was breeding termites on board, and there was all this wood around, wouldn't that have been a problem?
.How did Noah get the bacteria and virii on board? They exist, and many would have likely been destroyed by a significant flood.
.How did Noah deal with inbreeding. Two animals are insufficient in most species to propagate the species.
Why isn't there clear evidence of a global flood in ice flows or tree rings world wide?

[Lincoln]

"The fact is Gitt was referring to all information."

You should actually read his book. I posted the essence of it but he gave a very precise definition of the type of information he was referring to. He makes a definite distinction between the two view of information which I tried to explain. He is not to blame if I have not clearly explaine the parameters of his theorems.

In reality what he put in more scientific terms is only the obvious.

[Lincoln]

Would you be able to answer the following questions:

No.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Maybe I am missing something, as I have not read the mammoth entirety of the thread, but what point is trying to be proved. That Big Bang theory is wrong?

I am not sure. That came from a .doc file posted by Jack. It is a copy of something from New Scientist Magazine. I believe that was the idea of the poster however. If not to show it wrong then to show it could be wrong.

The late Sir Dr. Hoyle never exactly fell in love with the Big Bang either and I still respect him. So showing the Big Bang could be wrong is an entirely reasonable endevour.

Sure would make the universe more interesting long term if Sir Freddy was right.

If so, there are a number of big bang models that incorporate isotropy, and others that include none. Finding the amount of anisotopy only serves to eliminate some models. Doesn't it?

Seems that way to me. No variation at all however would be very hard to fit into any expanding universe model. As I recall the variation COBE found was near the limit of the sattelites capacity to detect it. Especialy you consider the amount of data filtering that had to be done to account for foreground objects.

Also, some anistropy is created by the motion of the Earth through the substratum. We are travelling at ~620 km/s with respect to the CMB., so doppler shift causes the CMB to be colder in one direction than the other. Although I think that has been corrected out of the COBE results.

Yes it was part of the data filtering. The entire swath of the middle of the galaxy had to be ignored I think due to all the stars and gas clouds. There have been more observations made since than with balloon mounted instruments that had more sensitive and precise equipment that have been able to show variations on a smaller scale than COBE could but they could only look at small sections of the sky.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Would you be able to answer the following questions:

No.

How about this one then? Are there significant scientific problems with global flood / ark concept in the bible?

[Lincoln]

Zacherial and everyone,

Read this article and get back to me so that we are talking about the same thing. If the link doesn't work I will post some excerpts from it. Snow flakes etc. do not contain the same type of information contained in DNA. Please don't waste my time if you don't understand the problem. It is spelled out here:

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln... randomness can explain the beginning... comment on these statements.

Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms. There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms.

If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity) from scratch, then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)

If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.

Do you agree with these statements?

[Dauphin]

No variation at all however would be very hard to fit into any expanding universe model

No variation at all would contradict the very presence of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. So the results would either be flawed or not sensitive enough.

[mactbone]

I said “fraud and incorrect interpretations.” I don’t have the faith that you do to believe 200 years of confusion, fraud and subjective interpretation as fact.

So instead you rely on a book written by someone who was imperfect? You rely on the same teachings that claimed a flat Earth, that claimed everything revolved around the sun? On teachings that are never to be questioned?

Do you know why scientists argue? It's called dialectic, someone presents a thesis, someone else presents an anti-thesis and eventually they should come up with a synthesis. So, I post an article with evidence that extra-terrestrials landed and are living here in the form of dogs. Other scientists know this is false and publish an article detailing why I am false and providing concrete facts. When was the last time any Church allowed that?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You should actually read his book.

Its not exactly well reviewed from what little I can find about it. He gets about the same amount of respect as Michael Behe. Not much but more than the norm for books on creationism. Its much easier to get information on Behe's stuff. I guess it more popular.

As far as I can tell he thinks that information requires an inteligence. I am not going to buy a book on irriducible complexity which is all this really is. No one has shown the existence of such yet.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Well that is a bit of topic but I would LOVE to discuss this abberant faith with you. I was pretty sure that was your answer. I figured you for a stealth creationist. That is, one that does want to admit that the Bible rather than science is the basis for his beliefs.

Just to be clear and to not be a stealth operator. I was raised Catholic. I am agnostic not atheist but some would call it a soft atheism I suppose. I see no reason to believe in a god but I can see no way to disprove the existence of a general god so I take no position on the existence of creator except that I don't see the need for one. A desire for a afterlife is the not the same as reason for believing in a god. Wishfull thinking is not reason.

Note that I said general god. Jehova is a specific god with specific properties including actions described in Genesis. The evidence is overwhelmingly against Genesis.

You don't have to respond to this Lincoln. Its just information to show where I am coming from and to make it clear I don't think stealth creationism is a intelectually honest manuever. Its part of the present effort to yet again sneak the Bible into the US public school system by trying to pass off Genesis as creation science.

First of all I am not a "stealth creationist" I have posted on this forum for over a year and my religious views are public knowledge except for the newcomers. I do generally seperate my personal beliefs from scientific discussions because it avoids the quagmire of mixing faith with science. That is why I am not going to discuss "termites" in the Ark etc.

On a personal note to you, I should say that I appeciate your input on this topic because you seem to be sincere and honest in your approach. That is a refreshing change from the usual creation/evolution debates that end up in name calling and ridicule from both sides.

I am not trying to "sneak the Bible into public schools" nor am I trying to teach the Genesis account of creation in school. My reason for debating here is to show credible evidence for Intelligent design in the formation of the DNA code. That is a valid argument which has nothing to do with Genesis.

Anyway, let's be friends

[Lincoln]

"I am not going to buy a book on irriducible complexity which is all this really is."

Believe me it has nothing to do with irriducible complexity. It is an entirely different field of science.

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln... I am beginning to think you aren't answering this argument, because doing so would disprove your belief of intelligent design.

Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms. There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms.

If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity) from scratch, then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)

If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Lincoln... randomness can explain the beginning... comment on these statements.

Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms. There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms.

If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity) from scratch, then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)

If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.

Do you agree with these statements?

I hope that you are reading the article that I posted. If you do then you will understand that "Information is [NOT] the container" anymore than a book as a container of information is the same as the information that was put in it by the author. DNA can be and often is simply randomness but it certainly is not now random. It contains coded information. If the container is the same as the information then utter randomness would fit the definition of information.

"There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms."

There is no magic information in a book either it is "just a bunch of atoms." But the information contained in those atoms originated from an intelligent mental source. And no I do not agree with the above statements. If you are talking about cloning then yes, it works. If you are talking about "an endless amount of DNA seaquences" forming themselves into life then no, it must have intelligent input or manipulation so that a code could be formed and viable information can be placed within your theoretical bacteria.