Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
BrianCalgary wrote:We have laws in our land. If someone breaks that law, whose fault is it, the lawmakers for creating the law, or the one who breaks it?
I must say I always find it rather surprising that people view the concept of "God" like this, in terms of "human but only with more power"
We define laws because ultimately we are slaves to nature, slaves to how our universe is defined. We cannot change the fabric of reality so we must define laws to live within that reality. We create laws to restrain people because we cannot change the fundamental aspects of humanity.
God can
To understand the power your own religion's definition of God entails, a much better way to view God is to view him as the ultimate computer programmer, and the universe, and us inside it are the computer program.
If I write a computer program this program is constrained by the definitions contained in the programs source code. Sure I can give the program a bit of intelligence, some would say free will, to decide how to react based on certain situations. But ultimately the reality that governs the computer program is defined by me. As far as the computer program is concerned the definitions of the source code is its reality, its laws of nature. And as far as the computer program is concerned I am God. I have ultimate control over every aspect of the source code, over how everything is defined.
Say I create a virtual world and populate it with virtual people. I create the concept of virtual death. To help organise how they interact with each other I might instill a sense of my morality in them. Using advance artificial intelligence I give these virtual people the ability to choose to do things inside my virtual world. But ultimately how that world is defined is decided by the source code I wrote to create the world.
Using your example above, these virtual people decide that speeding their virtual car is wrong (based on a primitive morality they have developed)
They cannot change the source code, the nature of their reality, because they are part of the source code. They cannot change the nature of speed, the nature of a car hitting someone, the nature of their virtual death. They are constrained by my source code, and as such have to make their own laws to manage their society. This is morality, and it is relevant only within the constrains of the virtual world.
I am not constrained by the source code. I wrote the source code. The source code is ultimate what ever I wish it to be. As such the natural laws and constrains of the virtual world, constraints that shape the morality of the virtual people, is ultimately what I want.
I have decided that a virtual metal car will kill a virtual person, and that the virtual person can die in the first place, which is why the virtual people had to make laws against speeding. They had to do this to manage society within the constraints I originally decided.
I decided that a virtual male person and a virtual female person are required to have children. Which is why the virtual people have to make laws around the family.
Take the "sin" of murder. My virtual people die. I decide that when I wrote the source code. I decided what it takes to kill someone in my virtual world. I decided that one of my virtual people will not survive without, say, their heart. Therefore I decided that to kill someone you can damage their heart. I decided that my virtual people will know this fact, and that be able to act on it. Therefore my virtual people have to make laws around these rules that I originally decided, because they cannot change the nature of this rules, the nature of their reality. I decided them, and they exist in my source code, but as far as they are concerned they are fixed.
Now say one of my virtual people decides to kill another one of my virtual people. He has broken a law within the virtual universe, set up to manage how I initially created this universe. Ultimately he has only done what I allowed him to do, within the parameters that I ultimately defined initially with my source code. He has broken a law of the virtual universe, but has he broken one of my laws? He is able to "sin" because I have created the source code that allows him to "sin". So how can I say he has broken my law? I am not constrained by any rules of nature. If did not wish him to sin I would not have created the source code that allows this to happen in the first place. I don't need laws to organise because am not constrained by the virtual reality. In fact I controll it.
The virtual person speaks to me and says
"Oh lord I have sinned. I killed another person. Are you angry at me? Do you forgive me?"
And I say
"How can I be angry with you, you have done what my source code said you would do. I allowed you to kill when I wrote the source code of this virtual world you inhabit that created the ability for you do kill, that defined what death is in the first place. I cannot be angry with you because you are a product of my source code, of my universe. You should not seek forgiveness from me, you should seek it from those other virtual people you have harmed. I do not wish to give you forgiveness nor give you punishment because I made you the way you are."
"Yes you have murdered a virtual person, but I created the source code that allows virtual people to die. You have stabbed him in the heart but I created the source code that says that one needs a heart to live. If I did not want what you did to happen I would not have defined you and your universe in such a way that it can and will happen."
I would say to him "Your people cannot change my source code, so they have created laws to live within it. They will punish you because you have broken those laws. But I do not wish to punish you because ultimately I defined you"
If I were to punish this virtual person for murder what does that say about me? I created the sin of murder when I created the ability of someone to murder within the rules of the universe I created. For me to punish one of my virtual people for acting within the constraints of the virtual world I created would be nonsense.
Equally for me to say to this virtual person "You must seek my forgiveness" would be also nonsense. It is my source code, I decided all the factors of the reality that this virtual person exists in. What would I forgive him for? Being what I decided he would be?
But why are we born with sin? Using the analogy above, we are born with sin because God decided when writting the software code that ultimately defines this existence, what we would be born with sin. So for him then to punish us for this makes little sense, and is certainly not what one would call a fair system. The idea that he would wish us to seek his forgiveness for this makes even less sense.BrianCalgary wrote:We are born with sin, there is no doubt about it, we all do it.
What would God forgive? His own decision?BrianCalgary wrote:The question is are you forgiven for it.
"We" didn't blow anything. I wasn't born 6000 years ago.BrianCalgary wrote:Our original purpose at creation is to be in communion with God and without sin, yet we all blow it. We decide to sin.
Also the idea that our original purpose at creation was to be without sin does not make much sense with the idea that God sees everything including the future. God knew Adam would sin. So why go ahead with creation claiming that our purpose was to be within sin if God knew that pretty quickly we would be very much with in?
Using the computer programmer analogy, it would be like saying that I defined my source code to say that the virtual people would all be black, but when it ran they were all white. That wouldn't happen. The source code cannot change, it is not possible that when it came time to run the program the virtual universe would turn of differently to how it was originally defined by me.
We cannot turn out differently to how God planned us to turn out, because we are constrained by the nature of his created reality, just like the virtual people in my analogy are constrained by the source code I wrote that defines their reality.
To say that we changed from our original God given purpose on our own is ridiculous. We may have free will, but that free will is still contrained by the nature of the universe God created for us.
True, but then God defined our nature. So its his faultBrianCalgary wrote:You can try and put the blame on God all you want, it is our nature to blame someone else for our wrong doings.
But joking aside, it is ultimately it is not about fault of God.
You cannot blame God if you break the laws of our reality because ultimately that doesn't do anything. It ignores the purpose of blame, which is to effect change. We cannot change the laws of our reality, so blaming God is pointless. We create our laws, or morality, and ultimately our sense of blame, to manage the reality we have now and here.
But equally we should not rush to seek forgiveness from a god for how he made us, for how he defined our reality. That is certainly not our fault If god does not like how he made our reality, how he defined our nature, they why did he do it like that in the first place.
I would not blame my source code if the virtual people I created did something I did not like or wish them to do. I would blame myself for writing the source code in the first place.
The virtual person who killed the other virtual person broke the laws of the virtual world, defined by the people of the virtual world. He should be punished within the laws of this world, for that is how the world has decided to manage itself.
But I, as the creator of the source code of this world, don't right to be annoyed at this act, or to blame my program for it. If I did that would be ridiculous. I wrote my program!
He acted in the way I defined he could act. If I don't like the way he acted why did I write the source code that allowed him to act the way he acted. Why did I create the laws of his virtual universe allowing this to happen. Why did I define that his virtual people will die when their heart is damaged, knowing that this virtual person would injure someones heart?
What would I forgive this virtual person for? What would I punish this virtual person for? He does not exist outside of the reality I defined for him.
Forgiveness and punishment from me are meaningless concepts, since the world he inhabits is entirely my creation. Everything he does is based on my design. Even his free will is created by mean and is constrained by my design. He cannot act in a way that I have not already defined that he can act, so how would anything he does make me angry or sad or upset?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw
A billion transcription errors could turn this thread into 'Hamlet'.
It would take a million billion billion billion billion (i.e. 10^^42) transcription errors to just produce the 30 letter soliloquy (from Hamlet) “To be or not to be, that is the question” (26 x 26 x 26……30 times)
A billion transcription errors would ONLY get you “To be or n“ (26 x 26 x 26……7 times)
…….anyway, why would you want to turn this thread into a Shakespearean Tragedy – when the thread is already ‘Comedy Gold’ (with the joke on Evolution)?!!!!:D
Scofflaw
Both you and I are the results of thousands of accidents - unless you regard your genealogy as planned?
Our genealogies may be unplanned but the basic sexual reproduction processes of meiosis and fertilization are observed to be precise ordered phenomena – as one would expect from systems handling enormous quantities of tightly specified critical information at ‘microdot’ levels of resolution.:D
Scofflaw
you are claiming that the DNA of humans is magically different from other DNA. You have made this claim several different times, expressed a different way each time - so let's be clear - there is no "data compression" in human DNA.
There is ‘information compression’ in all DNA.
Scofflaw
the maximum complexity possible in the human genome is a function of its size in base pairs and genes
That’s a fallacy equivalent to saying that the maximum complexity of information possible on a DVD is a function of the size of a DVD in GB.
There might be NO information, a load of garbled rubbish or a highly interactive computer game – all with totally different levels of ‘specified complexity’ i.e. information!!!!.
Fallen Seraph
they (bad mistakes) don't accumulate. So no matter how many billions or trillions occur, it doesn't matter because they don't get passed on. Only the good ones.
…….but I have already explained that we DON’T have a clear mechanism to eliminate errors in biological systems. Granted, the ‘big’ errors would result in the death – but even then, the error might not be eliminated – as it could ‘live on’ in a heterozygous state in the afflicted individual’s siblings.
In addition, semi-lethal and debilitating errors might ‘live on’ in the afflicted individual itself as well as it’s offspring.
The reason that such a ‘runaway’ situation doesn’t develop currently, is because sophisticated auto-repair mechanisms ELIMINATE mistakes.
Such systems show overview and foreknowledge of what the ‘correct’ information is – akin to computer auto recovery and rebooting systems – and this strongly indicates the intelligent design of living systems.
Wicknight
So far you cannot give a theory that attempts to explain how, where, or when during reproduction biblical speciation takes place. So far you cannot give any observed evidence of this every happening.
So you don't have a detailed theory, and you don't have any evidence
The exact mechanisms by which the Big Cat Kind became Lions, Tigers, Panthers, etc. requires further study – but the fact that these cat species are cross fertile indicates that they have speciated from a common ancestor on Noah’s Ark.
Wicknight
There is a theory of abiogenesis (a few actually), and there is a theory of evolution.
There are plenty of theories – but NO evidence for any of them!!:eek:
Wicknight
The people researching abiogenesis don't need to create artifical life to formulate and test theories of abiogenesis. You haven't created an artifical God, yet I imagine you would claim to study and theorise about him every day.
I’ll leave the ‘artificial God’ creation to others – but science CAN evaluate the forensic evidence for the involvement of intelligence in the creation of life – and the evidence is overwhelming for the involvement of massive intelligence in it’s creation!!!
Wicknight
The club moss can use a bigger chromosome if that is ok with natural selection for the club moss.
Surely God could ALSO use a larger genome carrier for Club Moss, if that was OK with Him!!!!:D
He is probably having endless fun at the ‘lather of sweat’ that the Evolutionists have gotten themselves into on this one – and especially the repeated claim by evolutionists that they are ‘more informationally challenged than a Club Moss’!!!!
Equally, if both Club Moss and Humans developed via ‘copying mistakes’ – then surely the number of ‘mistakes’ required to produce a Human would be in ratio to the vastly greater Complex Specified Information observed in a Human – and therefore their DNA volume would reflect this difference i.e. be vastly greater.
This isn’t observed, and so the conclusion that DNA volume = information is wrong for BOTH the Evolutionary and Creationist Models.
Which part of the statement “DNA volume DOESN’T equal CSI” do you not understand?
Wicknight
I'm not an expert on club moss but I would imagine that evolution in club moss is very very slow, as it probably has adapted to its environment quite well and isn't the most dynamic of organisms.
…so why then would a spontaneous system produce such a large genome with such a ‘primitive’ organism???
Wicknight
What doesn't make sense is the idea that some over all intelligence designed all this at the same time. Therefore all the systems should be equally efficent and quite similar.
The basic carrier system (i.e. DNA) is identical – but the quality and quantity of the information on the DNA is vastly greater in Humans.
Wicknight
You cannot assume that the greater the number of mutations in a species the more complex, structurely, the species (why would you assume this?) Evolution doesn't work like that. It all depends on what the mutation does. Baterial mutates much faster than a species like humans, yet are far less complex in their structure.
Mutations always cause a decrease in CSI.
However, Evolution postulates that life develops via mutations – so Evolution therefore postulates that the more complex a creature, the more mutations required to produce it.
I agree that Bacteria mutate furiously – yet they remain ‘simple’ bacteria – more evidence that Evolution or ‘copying errors’ DIDN’T actually turn ‘muck into man’!!!!! :eek:0 -
-
Wicknight
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read up on evolution JC, because you still aren't getting it. This is getting so frustrating. You seem to view evolution in the way a child views something like the weather
You forget that, as a former Evolutionist, I have read (and believed at one stage) ALL the books!!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
Equally, I’m sure that you don’t particularly care whether it is a 4.5 GB DVD or a 700 MB CD that you use to store a particular presentation
Wicknight
Are you claiming that your prefect God didn't take particular care when designing life? Are you actually claiming that. Think for a minute, because you know if you do that ridiculous idea is just going to be used against you for the next 400 or so pages.
How does a perfect being not take particular care when doing anything? By definition of being perfect then how can he do a lazy job? His job will be done perfectly, by definition.
God created all life perfectly.
However, the size of the genome doesn’t affect it’s level of perfection – so WHY would God worry about it – just like you can store a perfect presentation on a 4.5 GB DVD or a 700 MB CD without affecting the quality of the presentation.
Once again you are confusing the size of the carrier with the quality of the information!!!
The fact that God chose to place the vast amount of Human genetic information on a genome that is smaller than a Club Moss is actually a demonstration of God’s power in action – and perhaps He was also telling us to be humble before our God!!!!:cool:
Wicknight
Being a god it would have been just as easy for God to design everything with perfect care as it would have been for him not to. In fact God would have to chosen not to design life with perfect care. The idea that God would just make a mistake is ridiculous, he would have to choose to make a mistake, and I would imagine most of the Christians on this forum, and in the Creationist movement, would completely reject your idea of the lazy, mistaken, God
God certainly wasn’t either lazy or mistaken – He just had His priorities right –
……..i.e. producing perfect life forms ………..
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and confusing ‘anti-God’ Evolutionists to the point where they start to ‘think’ like Club Mosses!!!:eek:
Wicknight
You are right. It is the mutation is copying errors.
But I don't know why we are arguing this. Your theory of speciation DOESN'T WORK without mutation, by your own admission (I mean as far as I'm concerned according to biology it doesn't work at all)
I think your exact words were "Creation science has no problems mutation"
You are correct, that I don’t have any problems with the fact that mutations occur – but I do have a BIG logical problem with the claim that they could account for the CSI that we observe in living organisms.
Wicknight
A blank DVD is VERY DIFFERENT from a piece of paper. A DVD contains a series of either 0 or 1. There is no NULL setting. A "blank" DVD is all 0. THAT IS INFORMATION
Information is always COMPLEX and SPECIFIED – and a series of several billion zeros is neither complex nor specified – and so it ISN’T information.
A blank DVD and a blank sheet of paper are called blank precisely because they contain NO information.
Look, this has nothing to do with Evolution or Creation – so why are you destroying your credibility arguing that ‘black is white’ when it is obvious to anybody with even a basic command of logic and the English language that a blank DVD and a blank piece of paper contain NO INFORMATION until something is written on either media!!!
Wicknight
The only difference is how the computer interprets the information. Most computers interpret the information as being a blank DVD. But you could write a computer program to interpret that information as a colour, or a word.
So what word does ‘000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000’ code for????
……..and what would even a simple sentence look like????
Look Wicknight, even a 10 year old can tell you that binary information requires BOTH 1 and 0 – and that is how information is encoded on a DVD – by a complex specified pattern of 1 and 0.
……..and on DNA - by a complex specified pattern of the four base pairs,
Originally Posted by J C
I’ll go with the theory that it was to confuse Evolutionists to the point where they start thinking like a Club Moss
Wicknight
Well according to your own religion God doesn't lie. So that would be a bit of a stupid theory.
Who said anything about lying – God has been known to destroy His enemies by creating confusion amongst them!!!
……………and the confusion amongst Evolutionists on this thread about the CSI content of Club Moss is destroying their credibility completely!!!:eek:
Wicknight
If you take a 800x600 digital photograph of cheque with €100 written on it, and a 800x600 digital photograph of a cheque with nothing written on it, there is the same amount of information in both photographs (800x600x24 bytes)
If you gave me a copy of the imagine with €100 on it I would not need a bigger storage medium (harddrive for example) to store that than the one with nothing written on it.
You are again confusing the size of the carrier / storage medium with the quantity/quality of the information stored.
You are making my point PRECISELY.
The information on a cheque with €100 written on it is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than the information on a blank cheque – as it authorises a bank teller to issue €100 in cash to you.
Wicknight
No I don't know (how one scientifically determines the QUALITY of information stored in DNA)
"Trained scientists" my arse
Now, now Wicknight, just because you don’t know everything that Creation Scientists know, doesn’t mean that you should use expletives!!!!
As I have already said, the objective measurement of complexity and specified organisation of genetic information is a very important area in Creation Bioinformatics research - and Creation Scientists are making great progress in understanding pCSI, sCSI and tCSI !!!! 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
bluewolf wrote:Oh, stop lying. Noone's read all the books on it. I don't care how many scientific disciplines you claim you be an expert on (something we're still dubious on), this is certainly a lie.
Well certainly the Evolutionits on this thread don't seem to have studied Evolution in any depth - of course if they did do so they would probably cease to be Evolutionists!!!!:D 0 -
However true that may or may not be, lying isn't impressing anyone, jc.J C wrote:Well certainly the Evolutionits on this thread don't seem to have studied Evolution in any depth - of course if they did do so they would probably cease to be Evolutionists!!!!:D0 -
-
-
-
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
Both you and I are the results of thousands of accidents - unless you regard your genealogy as planned?
Our genealogies may be unplanned but the basic sexual reproduction processes of meiosis and fertilization are observed to be precise ordered phenomena – as one would expect from systems handling enormous quantities of tightly specified critical information at ‘microdot’ levels of resolution.:D
You have mistaken my point - all the meetings that had to take place between your ancestors, and the accidents of conception that resulted, are the accidents in question.
Also, of course, Down's Syndrome.J C wrote:Scofflaw
you are claiming that the DNA of humans is magically different from other DNA. You have made this claim several different times, expressed a different way each time - so let's be clear - there is no "data compression" in human DNA.
There is ‘information compression’ in all DNA.
Reeeeeaaallllly. I see. Would you care to prove that?J C wrote:Scofflaw
the maximum complexity possible in the human genome is a function of its size in base pairs and genes
That’s a fallacy equivalent to saying that the maximum complexity of information possible on a DVD is a function of the size of a DVD in GB.
There might be NO information, a load of garbled rubbish or a highly interactive computer game – all with totally different levels of ‘specified complexity’ i.e. information!!!!.
Hmm. Whichever way up I look at that statement, it's still silly. There might be, as you say, "NO information, a load of garbled rubbish or a highly interactive computer game" on any given DVD - but the statement that this is somehow related to the maximum amount of data you can fit on a DVD is ludicrous. None of these need fill the DVD, so the two points are unrelated. Bizarre.
So, to reiterate:
1. a DVD holds 4Gb of data
2. that data may be random (which the computer interprets as "no data", by the way, assuming no file allocation), or may be a thesis, or a program
3. leaving aside the random data
4. the maximum length of the thesis, in words, is related to the format of the file(s)
5. the maximum "complexity" of the thesis is related to the number of words in it - modified by the "elegance" or "density" of the writing, which itself has a maximum per language
6. the maximum length of the program code, in instructions, is related to the programming language used
7. the maximum complexity of the program generated by the code is related to the number of instructions in it - modified by the elegance of the programming
Therefore, the maximum complexity of the information on the DVD is related to the storage capacity of the DVD. To put it very simply - you can't get Quake onto a floppy, although you can get Minesweeper.
By the way, are you saying that specified complexity=information?J C wrote:Fallen Seraph
they (bad mistakes) don't accumulate. So no matter how many billions or trillions occur, it doesn't matter because they don't get passed on. Only the good ones.
…….but I have already explained that we DON’T have a clear mechanism to eliminate errors in biological systems. Granted, the ‘big’ errors would result in the death – but even then, the error might not be eliminated – as it could ‘live on’ in a heterozygous state in the afflicted individual’s siblings.
Which is why diseases like haemophilia don't eliminate themselves from the population, because they require both alleles to be the mutated version. Entirely predictable.J C wrote:In addition, semi-lethal and debilitating errors might ‘live on’ in the afflicted individual itself as well as it’s offspring.
Which is the point you've missed. Statistically, the carriers of non-lethal but debilitating genes are less likely to breed succesfully. Over generations, that weeds out the debilitating mutations - the more debilitating, the more quickly weeded out, because the less likely the carrier is to breed.J C wrote:The reason that such a ‘runaway’ situation doesn’t develop currently, is because sophisticated auto-repair mechanisms ELIMINATE mistakes.
Do their best to - but not very well. The research being done at the moment on aging and calorie restriction is interesting from this point of view - it has been suggested that calorie restriction switches the organism's repair mechanisms to a greater level of efficiency.J C wrote:Such systems show overview and foreknowledge of what the ‘correct’ information is – akin to computer auto recovery and rebooting systems – and this strongly indicates the intelligent design of living systems.
Rubbish. If an organism has a debilitating inherited gene, those systems would try and repair it if it suffered "damage" by mutating into a harmless form - so they would be trying to make things worse, not better. The "correct" information the repair mechanisms "know about" is simply the starting genome, whatever that may be, good or bad.J C wrote:Wicknight
So far you cannot give a theory that attempts to explain how, where, or when during reproduction biblical speciation takes place. So far you cannot give any observed evidence of this every happening.
So you don't have a detailed theory, and you don't have any evidence
The exact mechanisms by which the Big Cat Kind became Lions, Tigers, Panthers, etc. requires further study – but the fact that these cat species are cross fertile indicates that they have speciated from a common ancestor on Noah’s Ark.
That they are cross-fertile indicates that they are evolutionarily close. However, some are closer than others (as shown by different rates of inter-breeding success) - which doesn't make any sense if they all split off from a single Big Cat exemplar.J C wrote:Wicknight
The people researching abiogenesis don't need to create artifical life to formulate and test theories of abiogenesis. You haven't created an artifical God, yet I imagine you would claim to study and theorise about him every day.
I’ll leave the ‘artificial God’ creation to others – but science CAN evaluate the forensic evidence for the involvement of intelligence in the creation of life – and the evidence is overwhelming for the involvement of massive intelligence in it’s creation!!!
Who have you overwhelmed with it recently? Also, are we talking about a "massive intelligence" from your point of view or ours?J C wrote:Wicknight
The club moss can use a bigger chromosome if that is ok with natural selection for the club moss.
Surely God could ALSO use a larger genome carrier for Club Moss, if that was OK with Him!!!!:D
He is probably having endless fun at the ‘lather of sweat’ that the Evolutionists have gotten themselves into on this one – and especially the repeated claim by evolutionists that they are ‘more informationally challenged than a Club Moss’!!!!
Equally, if both Club Moss and Humans developed via ‘copying mistakes’ – then surely the number of ‘mistakes’ required to produce a Human would be in ratio to the vastly greater Complex Specified Information observed in a Human – and therefore their DNA volume would reflect this difference i.e. be vastly greater.
Er, no, because CSI is what is known as "not real".J C wrote:This isn’t observed, and so the conclusion that DNA volume = information is wrong for BOTH the Evolutionary and Creationist Models.
Which part of the statement “DNA volume DOESN’T equal CSI” do you not understand?
I would certainly be forced to agree that nothing appears to equal CSI.J C wrote:Wicknight
I'm not an expert on club moss but I would imagine that evolution in club moss is very very slow, as it probably has adapted to its environment quite well and isn't the most dynamic of organisms.
…so why then would a spontaneous system produce such a large genome with such a ‘primitive’ organism???
Accumulation of genetic material through a very long history without much penalty for error.J C wrote:Wicknight
What doesn't make sense is the idea that some over all intelligence designed all this at the same time. Therefore all the systems should be equally efficent and quite similar.
The basic carrier system (i.e. DNA) is identical – but the quality and quantity of the information on the DNA is vastly greater in Humans.
No, no. We may still be arguing about the "quality", but the "quantity" is beyond doubt - 20,000 genes.J C wrote:Wicknight
You cannot assume that the greater the number of mutations in a species the more complex, structurely, the species (why would you assume this?) Evolution doesn't work like that. It all depends on what the mutation does. Baterial mutates much faster than a species like humans, yet are far less complex in their structure.
Mutations always cause a decrease in CSI.
Sneaky. Since the assertion that mutations cannot lead to an increase in information has proven false, you now prefer to use the term "CSI", which has no real definition, instead.J C wrote:However, Evolution postulates that life develops via mutations – so Evolution therefore postulates that the more complex a creature, the more mutations required to produce it.
I agree that Bacteria mutate furiously – yet they remain ‘simple’ bacteria – more evidence that Evolution or ‘copying errors’ DIDN’T actually turn ‘muck into man’!!!!! :eek:
What, did God forget to give them repair mechanisms? And how is it they haven't degenerated into protoplasmic blebs as a result of all that CSI reduction?
You're funny, JC. First you argue one way, then the other, then back again - anything as long as you can claim it supports creationism. It's like being attacked by a mad gnat.
amused,
as so often,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
> If the NT was made up, why would the authors write things that illustrate the
> weakness of followers of Christ as well as the strengths?
For the same reason that Uri Geller does the same thing -- it lends credibility to the story. Not, I hasten to add, that I can think of many instances where the "weakness" of Jesus is given much airtime
> Homer (Iliad) is taken to be an authentic writing, yet its earliest copy is dated
> 500 years after it was written.
The writings of Homer have not produced a world-wide multi-billion dollar religious industry, employing millions of people, all of which is based upon the believe that everything that Homer says is inerrantly true. Neither do the writings of Homer encourage people to object to anti-discrimination legislation -- to take just one example from just one day in just one country -- because of something he may or may not have written.
And regardless of whether or not the manuscript has remained unchanged from the date it was written, or whether it was written by somebody we trust, or accurately describes what they saw, you still haven't addressed the far more important and far more basic question of whether what it says is actually true.
Isn't that the whole point?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement