The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...what we are talking about here is is irreducible complexity .... which you deny exists ...
...so HOW did any ESSENTIAL biochemical cascade supposedly work before now with less than its full current compliment of chemistry and steps ... when it is observed that removing any one step will bring the whole cascade to a halt ... with the death of the organism or its severe disablement???

Because, as I just said, while this organism might depend on a specific chemical being available for life, its ancestors didn't. Simpler forms of that chemical would not be able to perform the same function but they would still perform a function of some kind. The idea of irreducible complexity relies on the misconception that as parts are stripped away the component, whatever it is, must retain the same function but that's not how it works. To use a non living example, if the fulcrum is taken out of a scissors it can no longer function as a scissors, a scissors can be said to be "irreducibly complex" but the two parts can function quite well as knives so the fact that they cannot function as a scissors is irrelevant. They still have a function that, if it was a living being could be selected by natural selection and later on it could mutate to form the fulcrum and use the two existing parts for a new function

As I said earlier, your probability argument relies on ignoring natural selection. Your argument against natural selection is irreducible complexity and that depends on ignoring that something that is of a less complex form, while possibly not performing exactly the same function in exactly the same way, can still perform a function. The irreducible complexity argument is just a misunderstanding of evolution, it ignores one of the main aspects of the theory, that functions change over time, to make it look like it's impossible.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because, as I just said, while this organism might depend on a specific chemical being available for life, its ancestors didn't. Simpler forms of that chemical would not be able to perform the same function but they would still perform a function of some kind. The idea of irreducible complexity relies on the misconception that as parts are stripped away the component, whatever it is, must retain the same function but that's not how it works. To use a non living example, if the fulcrum is taken out of a scissors it can no longer function as a scissors, a scissors can be said to be "irreducibly complex" but the two parts can function quite well as knives so the fact that they cannot function as a scissors is irrelevant. They still have a function that, if it was a living being could be selected by natural selection and later on it could mutate to form the fulcrum and use the two existing parts for a new function

...firstly if an organism requires a functioning 'scissors' for a life-critical process then a blunt 'knife' will be USELESS ... and it will not survive to ever produce a 'scissors'!!!

Biochemical cascades are found throughout living organisms peforming life-critical closely co-ordinated functions with other equally life-critical cascades. Some of these cascades involve hundreds of different molecules ... and it is observed that removing even one molecule or having a molecule in the 'wrong' place in the cascade destroys or severely compromises the function of the cascade, thereby resulting in the death of the organism !!

To take a simple example, let us look at a life-critical cascade consisting of just four molecules (A, B, C and D). It is observed that if A or B or C or D is individually removed then the other three molecules are incapable of maintaining the cascade - and the organism dies ... so please tell me HOW this life-critical cascade could be formed in a step by step fashion if A, B & C - or any other permutation of three of the four molecules is non-functional thereby ALWAYS resulting in the death of the organism?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I said earlier, your probability argument relies on ignoring natural selection. Your argument against natural selection is irreducible complexity and that depends on ignoring that something that is of a less complex form, while possibly not performing exactly the same function in exactly the same way, can still perform a function. The irreducible complexity argument is just a misunderstanding of evolution, it ignores one of the main aspects of the theory, that functions change over time, to make it look like it's impossible.

...Natural Selection can only select when there is something 'useful' to select ... and non-intelligently created processes (like random mutations) are INCAPABLE of producing any 'useful' trait, for NS to select...
....because the useless 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite for even relatively small molecular combinations ... and the functional 'combinatorial space' is observed to often only be one combnation!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The irreducible complexity argument is just a misunderstanding of evolution, it ignores one of the main aspects of the theory, that functions change over time, to make it look like it's impossible.

... are you now saying that 'nature' is 'conspiring' against Evolution ... to make it look IMPOSSIBLE???:eek::D

...is that denial or what???!!!:D

...so even though Evolutionists admit that Evolution looks like it's impossible...and it defies almost every law of science and logic ... they still continue to hold onto this defunct theory with the grim resolve of a drowning man grasping at a straw ... simply because there is no real alternative but to believe on the Creator GOD of the Bible!!!!:eek::D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...so how did irreducibly complex biochemical cascades come about...if not by Direct Creation?

Evolution by natural selection.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...so how did irreducibly complex biochemical cascades come about...if not by Direct Creation?

The Mad Hatter
Evolution by natural selection.

...Natural Selection can only select when there is something 'useful' to select ... and non-intelligently created processes (like random mutations) are INCAPABLE of producing any 'useful' trait, for NS to select...
....because the useless 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite for even relatively small molecular combinations ... and the functional 'combinatorial space' is observed to often only be one combnation!!!:)

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RyUa3OubY

Very entertaining little vid.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...firstly if an organism requires a functioning 'scissors' for a life-critical process then a blunt 'knife' will be USELESS ... and it will not survive to ever produce a 'scissors'!!!

That's absolutely true and that's why the biological equivalent of a scissors evolves in organisms that can survive without it and it's only when the new component has become fully established that the old components degrade. For example lungs evolved in fish long before they lost their gills and became fully land animals

J C wrote: »

so please tell me HOW this life-critical cascade could be formed in a step by step fashion if A, B & C - or any other permutation of three of the four molecules is non-functional thereby ALWAYS resulting in the death of the organism?

This is why this thread is so long. You ask a question, someone answers it, you ignore the answer and ask the question again

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...firstly if an organism requires a functioning 'scissors' for a life-critical process then a blunt 'knife' will be USELESS ... and it will not survive to ever produce a 'scissors'!!!

Sam Vimes
That's absolutely true and that's why the biological equivalent of a scissors evolves in organisms that can survive without it and it's only when the new component has become fully established that the old components degrade. For example lungs evolved in fish long before they lost their gills and became fully land animals.

...so now you are arguing that Evolution will produce and develop a non-functional extra organ ... without the organ having any advantage before it becomes functional ... and therefore having no way for NS to select for it!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
so please tell me HOW this life-critical cascade could be formed in a step by step fashion if A, B & C - or any other permutation of three of the four molecules is non-functional thereby ALWAYS resulting in the death of the organism?

Sam Vimes
This is why this thread is so long. You ask a question, someone answers it, you ignore the answer and ask the question again

...a non-answer, if ever I saw one ... to a very important question that HASN'T been asked or answered on this thread before !!!
...and if you are arguing that A, B, C & D can 'safely' develop by trial and error because the life-critical function is already carried out by F, G, H & I - this begs the question as to how the F, G, H & I life-critical cascade developed in the first place.
...equally NS cannot 'favour' organisms developing the A, B, C & D cascade because its development would be 'masked' by the already functional F, G, H & I cascade ... and it also has no functionality until A, B, C & D is present ... so developing it can ONLY be by pure chance ... with no 'help' from NS!!!!
...and developing it is therefore an 'all or nothing event' with the added problem, that even when it is developed, it may confer no advantage because it is eclipsed by an equivalent life-critical function already being provided by F,G H & I.

Direct Creation can provide such luxuries and redundancies ... but 'blind chance' cannot do so because the useless 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite and it will therefore overwhelm any non-intelligently directed process.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...so now you are arguing that Evolution will produce and develop a non-functional extra organ ... without the organ having any advantage before it becomes functional ... and therefore having no way for NS to select for it!!

Who says it's non-functional? Of course it's functional, it's just not as efficient as a human lung or is used for a different purpose until it adapts into a lung

I'd have to check this for sure but afaik the lungs in lung fish evolved from swim bladders. But even if that isn't how it happened it demonstrates the point. Simple things develop that perform a function and as it develops its function changes. This is the fact that you constantly ignore and as soon as you stop ignoring it this thread will end because you will have nothing left to say

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...so how did irreducibly complex biochemical cascades come about...if not by Direct Creation?

Evolution.

Sam Vimes

Morbert wrote: »

Evolution.

I disagree. The correct response to that question is: The irreducibly complex biological cascades being referred to are not in fact irreducibly complex and can come about through simpler biological process that perform different functions of the same function in a less efficient way. The irreducible complexity argument could be called an argument from ignorance but since it has been explained to J C hundreds of times why it's flawed and he keeps ignoring the answer, it's more accurate to call it an argument from wilful ignorance

The Mad Hatter

Morbert wrote: »

Evolution.

Hey!

Morbert

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Hey!

oopsy. I'm "posting from the hip" in this thread.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... and non-intelligently created processes (like random mutations) are INCAPABLE of producing any 'useful' trait, for NS to select...
....because the useless 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite for even relatively small molecular combinations ... and the functional 'combinatorial space' is observed to often only be one combnation!!!:)

None of this is true, for obvious reasons.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Evolution-Kids-Ideas-Activities/dp/1556525028

Galvasean

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RyUa3OubY

Very entertaining little vid.

Nice little video. Sums thngs up nicely without going into too much detail.

Sam Vimes

On specified complexity:

http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.txt

I started to copy parts of the text to paste here but I just kept going and going because it flies in the face of so much that J C says on a regular basis. I managed to restrain myself to the following two extracts:

The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to Dembski's claims about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible. Yet NFL's coverage of artificial life is limited to a few dismissive remarks, the longest of which I have already quoted above. Indeed, the term "artificial life" does not even appear in NFL's index. There is no reference to, for example, the work of Adami, Ofria, and Collier (2000) which suggests the possibility of increased complexity over time.

As a scholarly work, Dembski's NFL falls dramatically short.

and

I have covered six of the most significant problems with NFL. At least some of these problems could have been avoided had Dembski been more willing to test his claims through the peer-review process. But intelligent design advocates have consistently failed to publish their work in scientific journals (Gilchrist, 1997; Forrest, 2001). When pressed, some say this is because academia is a "closed shop", run by an "elite" that is biased against them.

This claim is undermined by the fact that many non-mainstream and controversial views routinely get published in the scientific literature. Just recently, controversial claims of table-top fusion induced by the collapse of super-hot bubbles were published in a major scientific journal (Taleyarkhan, West, Cho, Lahey, Nigmatulin, and Block, 2002).

DigiGal

Tags on this thread are better than the thread!

J C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RyUa3OubY

Galvasean wrote: »

Nice little video. Sums things up nicely without going into too much detail.

...the video should really be entitled Science & Roman Catholicism!!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...so how did irreducibly complex biochemical cascades come about...if not by Direct Creation?

The Mad Hatter
Evolution by natural selection.

Morbert
Evolution

Morbert
None of this is true, for obvious reasons

....above are the non-answers from two Evolutionists to a comprehensive statement by me invaldating Materialistic Evolution!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Biochemical cascades are found throughout living organisms peforming life-critical closely co-ordinated functions with other equally life-critical cascades. Some of these cascades involve hundreds of different molecules ... and it is observed that removing even one molecule or having a molecule in the 'wrong' place in the cascade destroys or severely compromises the function of the cascade, thereby resulting in the death of the organism !!

To take a simple example, let us look at a life-critical cascade consisting of just four molecules (A, B, C and D). It is observed that if A or B or C or D is individually removed then the other three molecules are incapable of maintaining the cascade - and the organism dies ... so please tell me HOW this life-critical cascade could be formed in a step by step fashion if A, B & C - or any other permutation of three of the four molecules is non-functional thereby ALWAYS resulting in the death of the organism?


...Natural Selection can only select when there is something 'useful' to select ... and non-intelligently created processes (like random mutations) are INCAPABLE of producing any 'useful' trait, for NS to select...
....because the useless 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite for even relatively small molecular combinations ... and the functional 'combinatorial space' is observed to often only be one combnation!!!

...and if you are arguing that A, B, C & D can 'safely' develop in the background, by trial and error, because the life-critical function is already carried out by F, G, H & I - this begs the question as to how the F, G, H & I life-critical cascade developed in the first place.
...equally NS cannot 'favour' organisms developing the A, B, C & D cascade because its development would be 'masked' by the already functional F, G, H & I cascade ... and it also has no functionality until A, B, C & D are all present ... so developing it can ONLY be by pure chance ... with no 'help' from NS!!!!
...and developing it is therefore an 'all or nothing event' with the added problem, that even when it is developed, it may confer no advantage because it is eclipsed by an equivalent life-critical function already being provided by F,G H & I.

Direct Creation can provide such luxuries and redundancies ... but 'blind chance' cannot do so because the useless 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite and it will therefore overwhelm any non-intelligently directed process.

... so how did irreducibly complex biochemical cascades come about...if not by Direct Creation?

J C

wrote:

Posted by Sam Vimes
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it

Please take your own advice ... and stop blindly accepting the unfounded and irrational notion that you are a direct descendant of Pondslime!!!!:D:)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Please take your own advice ... and stop blindly accepting the unfounded and irrational notion that you are a direct descendant of Pondslime!!!!:D:)

I'm blindly accepting nothing mate. I think though that you're at least suffering from selective blindness, such as how you've missed the review I linked to above of the book that originated the nonsense idea of specified complexity, the review that explained in some detail why it's nonsense

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm blindly accepting nothing mate. I think though that you're at least suffering from selective blindness, such as how you've missed the review I linked to above of the book that originated the nonsense idea of specified complexity, the review that explained in some detail why it's nonsense

....do you mean the 'review' that says little more than 'trust me I'm an Evolutionist' and Dembski is wrong ... just because a few Evolutionists say so!!!

...please take the advice of your own signature... and stop blindly accepting the unfounded and irrational notion .... that you are a direct descendant of Pondslime!!!!

...and before you close your mind ... please open it first!!!

wrote:

Signature of Sam Vimes
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it

....Touché ... with bells on it!!!!:eek::D

...and even though Evolutionists admit that Evolution looks like it's impossible...and it defies almost every law of science and logic ... they still continue to hold onto this defunct theory with the grim resolve of a drowning man grasping at a straw ... simply because there is no real alternative but to believe on the Creator GOD of the Bible!!!!

...is that denial or what???!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....do you mean the 'review' that says little more than 'trust me I'm an Evolutionist' and Dembski is wrong ... just because a few Evolutionists say so!!!

Well now let's be honest J C it says a bit more than that

Do you have any rebuttals to what's being said? Take for example this:

On occasions Dembski elevates mathematical trivialities to the level of
profound insights. On page 166 he justifies a claim that "CSI is
holistic" (that is, it cannot be accumulated through an iterative
process) by calculating that the Shannon information of an English
sentence exceeds the sum of the information contained in its individual
words. But a careful examination of his argument shows the missing
information is precisely that contained in the space characters between
the words.

Zombrex

On occasions Dembski elevates mathematical trivialities to the level of
profound insights. On page 166 he justifies a claim that "CSI is
holistic" (that is, it cannot be accumulated through an iterative
process) by calculating that the Shannon information of an English
sentence exceeds the sum of the information contained in its individual
words. But a careful examination of his argument shows the missing
information is precisely that contained in the space characters between
the words.

pwnd :pac:

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well now let's be honest J C it says a bit more than that

Do you have any rebuttals to what's being said? Take for example this:

Quote:
On occasions Dembski elevates mathematical trivialities to the level of
profound insights. On page 166 he justifies a claim that "CSI is
holistic" (that is, it cannot be accumulated through an iterative
process) by calculating that the Shannon information of an English
sentence exceeds the sum of the information contained in its individual
words. But a careful examination of his argument shows the missing
information is precisely that contained in the space characters between
the words.

...please post full details of the figures involved and I will respond.

On a general point, Shannon Information Theory concerns itself with the quantity of information and its compressibility ... (which are important issues in areas such as electronic communication) ... BUT it doesn't measure message importance or meaning i.e. its quality ... which is the key issue with the functional CSI in living systems. To put it it plain language, any old 'gobbledy gook' takes up just as much bandwidth as the writings of Creation Science .... but there is no CSI in the 'gobbledy gook' !!!

....and I am indebted to Wikipedia for the following concise summary of the DIFFERENCE between Shannon Information and Complex Specified Information:-

"Source coding and channel coding are the fundamental concerns of (Shannon) information theory.
Note that these concerns have nothing to do with the importance of messages. For example, a platitude such as "Thank you; come again" takes about as long to say or write as the urgent plea, "Call an ambulance!" while clearly the latter is more important and more meaningful.
(Shannon) Information theory, however, does not consider message importance or meaning, as these are matters of the quality of data rather than the quantity and readability of data, the latter of which is determined solely by probabilities."

...actually the fundamental problem with Evolution is that it is assumed that quantity equals quality ...

..whereas Creation Science recognises that Quantity and Quality are both important in living systems.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...please post full details of the figures involved and I will respond.

I have no intention of ever holding that book full of nonsense in my hand but surely as such a great proponent of CSI you must have read the book and must be able to point to the exact excerpt and explain the error?

J C wrote: »

On a general point, Shannon Information Theory concerns itself with the quantity of information and its compressibility ... (which are important issues in areas such as electronic communication) ... BUT it doesn't measure message importance or meaning i.e. its quality ... which is the key issue with the functional CSI in living systems. To put it it plain language, any old 'gobbledy gook' needs just as much bandwidth to transmit as the writings of Creation Science .... but there is no CSI in the 'gobbledy gook' !!!

Which makes you wonder why the guy who thought up CSI is using it so widely

J C wrote: »

...actually the fundamental problem with Evolution is that Evolutionists assume that quantity equals quality ... why am I not surprised?

What actually happened was the Dembski attempted to show that the information in the sentence exceeded the letters in it but he forgot to take account of the spaces. Nothing was assumed, it was quite easily shown that Dembski was in error

And I'd also like you to deal with this part of the review:

For a book that purports to discuss fundamental questions about information, complexity, and biology, there is remarkably little discussion or awareness of previous work. Dembski does not cite any of the following works, just to list a few:

- Kimura's paper where he shows how natural selection can
increase Shannon information (Kimura, 1961);

- Wicken's book on evolution and information (Wicken, 1987);

- The papers of Saunders and Ho (Saunders and Ho, 1976;
Saunders and Ho, 1981) that argue that complexity increases
during evolution;

- The paper of Nehaniv and Rhodes (1997) showing how, in a
finite automaton model, complexity can evolve in biological
systems.

The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to Dembski's claims about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible. Yet NFL's coverage of artificial life is limited to a few dismissive remarks, the longest of which I have already quoted above. Indeed, the term "artificial life" does not even appear in NFL's index. There is no reference to, for example, the work of Adami, Ofria, and Collier (2000) which suggests the possibility of increased complexity over time.

As a scholarly work, Dembski's NFL falls dramatically short.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have no intention of ever holding that book full of nonsense in my hand but surely as such a great proponent of CSI you must have read the book and must be able to point to the exact excerpt and explain the error?

...is that a closed mind or what???
...read your own signature ... and then read the book!!!:eek::D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What actually happened was the Dembski attempted to show that the information in the sentence exceeded the letters in it but he forgot to take account of the spaces. Nothing was assumed, it was quite easily shown that Dembski was in error

...CSI cannot be measured by Shannon Information Theory ... so there is no issue there except in the fevered minds of Evolutionists !!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

... And I'd also like you to deal with this part of the review:

...my answers in red below:-

wrote:

For a book that purports to discuss fundamental questions about information, complexity, and biology, there is remarkably little discussion or awareness of previous work. Dembski does not cite any of the following works, just to list a few:..explaining specificity is the issue with living systems (and not complexity) !!!!

- Kimura's paper where he shows how natural selection can
increase Shannon information (Kimura, 1961);...an increase in the quantity of 'gobbledy gook' is an increase in Shannon Information. An increase in quality (CSI) is required for life.

- Wicken's book on evolution and information (Wicken, 1987); ...information quantity increases but no information quality increases!!!

- The papers of Saunders and Ho (Saunders and Ho, 1976;
Saunders and Ho, 1981) that argue that complexity increases
during evolution; ...information quantity (complexity) increases but no information quality (CSI) increases!!!


- The paper of Nehaniv and Rhodes (1997) showing how, in a
finite automaton model, complexity can evolve in biological
systems. ...information quantity (complexity) increases but no information quality (CSI) increases!!!


The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to Dembski's claims about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible. Yet NFL's coverage of artificial life is limited to a few dismissive remarks, the longest of which I have already quoted above. Indeed, the term "artificial life" does not even appear in NFL's index. There is no reference to, for example, the work of Adami, Ofria, and Collier (2000) which suggests the possibility of increased complexity over time. ...more talk about quantity (complexity) increases and nothing about increased quality (Specificity)!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...is that a closed mind or what???
...read your own signature ... and then read the book!!!:eek::D

Having a closed mind is refusing to give an idea a chance. I've heard more than enough about CSI from yourself and that review to know it's nonsense

J C wrote: »

...CSI cannot be measured by Shannon Information Theory ... so there is no issue there except in the fevered minds of Evolutionists !!!

LOL
Dembski is the guy who dreamed up CSI in the first place and he's using Shannon information theory to measure it. Looks like CSI is another thing we can add to the big list of things J C doesn't understand

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Having a closed mind is refusing to give an idea a chance. I've heard more than enough about CSI from yourself and that review to know it's nonsense

...having a closed mind is having a hive mind ...

... so start to apply your own signature .... and open your mind before you close it!!!
....prove you have an opened your mind by reading the salient chapter in Dembski's book - which is linked below!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Dembski is the guy who dreamed up CSI in the first place and he's using Shannon information theory to measure it. Looks like CSI is another thing we can add to the big list of things J C doesn't understand

...Complex Specified Information (CSI) measures information quality ... while Shannon Information Theory (SIT) measures information quantity...

....simple really ... just repeat after me....

CSI=Quality ... SIT=Quantity.

CSI=Quality ... SIT=Quantity.

CSI=Quality ... SIT=Quantity.

......:D:):eek:

....and here is the particular page from "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology" where Prof William Dembski talks about CSI being holistic ... and could I point out that the abiotic infusion of exogenous information is the great unanswered question confronting modern evolutionary biology ... and it won't go away ... and it wont be 'fobbed off' with ruses like claiming that Evolution and Abiogenesis are different things (even though they may well be - the abiotic infusion of exogenous CSI demands an answer). !!!
http://books.google.com/books?id=qCDp8MjkkLQC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=%22CSI+is+holistic%22&source=bl&ots=3WQP8873qP&sig=_7ppELXeeVGnDO-NfQFX9DqpVYU&hl=en&ei=HrQVS77qE8jOjAea9MymCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22CSI%20is%20holistic%22&f=false

Enjoy!!!:D

Have a look at page 182 where he deals with Prof Dawkins algorithm in relation to the phrase 'methinks it is like a weasel'...and finds it has a probability of 1 AND ... a complexity of 0!!!!
...and it therefore doesn't model living systems !!!

...methinks Evolution IS a weasel word!!!:D:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...having a closed mind is having a hive mind ...

... so start to apply your own signature .... and open your mind before you close it!!!
....prove you have an opened your mind by reading the salient chapter in Dembski's book - which is linked below!!!

...Complex Specified Information (CSI) measures information quality ... while Shannon Information Theory (SIT) measures information quantity...

....simple really ... just repeat after me....

CSI=Quality ... SIT=Quantity.

CSI=Quality ... SIT=Quantity.

CSI=Quality ... SIT=Quantity.

......:D:):eek:

....and here is the particular page from "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology" where Prof William Dembski talks about CSI being holistic ...

I read it. He's comparing the sequence of words {A, IS, IT, LIKE, WEASEL, METHINKS} with the sentence "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL". They are not the same thing. The correct set to compare with is {A, IS, IT, LIKE, WEASEL, METHINKS, _, _, _, _, _} where each underscore represents a space. And you can say CSI=Quality ... SIT=Quantity all you want, the fact remains that Dembski tried to show that "the bits of information far exceed the complexity of any item in the set" but he forgot (or deliberately left out) the spaces in his comparison.

And in fairness J C, as someone who after 4 years is still trying to lump abiogenesis with evolution having been corrected hundreds of times you can't talk about closed-mindedness, not to mention the fact that you just brushed off four books in relation to evolution and information with the same throwaway remark

J C wrote: »

and could I point out that the abiotic infusion of exogenous information is the great unanswered question confronting modern evolutionary biology ... and it won't go away ... and it wont be 'fobbed off' with ruses like claiming that Evolution and Abiogenesis are different things (even though they may well be - the abiotic infusion of exogenous CSI demands an answer). !!!

You're absolutely right in that abiogenesis does demand an answer if we are to give a naturalistic explanation to the origin of life and we're well on the way to answering that question but that question is separate to evolution, which deals with the complexity and diversity of life, and will remain separate no matter how many times you insist otherwise

wolfsbane

I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock
JC and Wolfsbane, I'm wondering, if you have an hour or so to spare, would you consider listening to this talk given by a chap called Earnest Lucas? He gives a talk about Genesis 1 - 3. I would be interested to hear you opinion on what he has to say.
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/fara...94%20Lucas.mp3
Thanks for that site, Fanny. I've listened to some of it and hope to complete it this week. Good arguments to get my teeth into.

I'm going to follow-up on this in the Lets try to Understand Genesis whilst believing Evolution thread, where the theological (rather than scientific) issues for Theistic Evolution are being discussed.

Good to see that in my absence JC is still applying the rod of correction.