Darwin - Half Right

AV1611VET said:

Then ask.

Click to expand...

No thanks.
I'll read the Bible for what it states, not an account from you or anyone else.

renniks said:

Explain to me why it wouldn't?

If you want to review his papers yourself, go for it:

https://www.logosresearchassociates.org/john-sanford

Click to expand...

1. I asked *you* for a reason why this guy should be thought of as credible. If you think someone is credible, maybe you should be able to support that position. Why should I not just dismiss his claims?

2. You pointed me to a ministry of some sorts to which your "qualified scientist" is a member some how.

3. The bio you extracted from that page describes an experimental geneticist. What about his background demonstrates that he has the relevant experience and training in the applied mathematics and statistics that form the basis of information theory? <=== THIS IS THE KEY QUESTION.

(4. If he is also applying "entropy" to information and "changes in entropy with time" in the manner of thermodynamics, what do people who know thermodynamics think of it.) [I'm not sure if he's doing that, but I've seen it before.]

sjastro said:

No thanks.

Click to expand...

Then don't.

But don't go harping on my "incomprehensibility" if you're not going to ask me if I'm being serious or not.

Subduction Zone said:

LOL!! I did. The first one that I clicked on was this paper:

Testing the Hypothesis that the Nylonase NylB Protein Arose de novo via a Frameshift Mutation

In bold red print this message was at the top of the article:

This version is not peer-reviewed

Click to expand...

Not to mention the other author is Sal Cordova. LOL

AV1611VET said:

Then don't.

But don't go harping on my "incomprehensibility" if you're not going to ask me if I'm being serious or not.

Click to expand...

Your posts are incomprehensible because you have never set out to logically show how your interpretation of Biblical verses is a conclusion.
You can start by showing us how Genesis 6 can be logically concluded as fallen angels experimenting with evolution.

sjastro said:

Your posts are incomprehensible because you have never set out to logically show how your interpretation of Biblical verses is a conclusion.
You can start by showing us how Genesis 6 can be logically concluded as fallen angels experimenting with evolution.

Click to expand...

Which do you want? fallen angels or experimenting? or both?

AV1611VET said:

Which do you want? fallen angels or experimenting? or both?

Click to expand...

Well obviously both since that is your claim.

sjastro said:

AV1611VET said:

Then don't.
But don't go harping on my "incomprehensibility" if you're not going to ask me if I'm being serious or not.

Click to expand...

Your posts are incomprehensible because you have never set out to logically show how your interpretation of Biblical verses is a conclusion.
You can start by showing us how Genesis 6 can be logically concluded as fallen angels experimenting with evolution.

Click to expand...

This is a really important example of the different approaches for acquiring knowledge.

I made a post the other day to @AV1611VET, where I asked him if his tealeaf-like readings of what I wrote was the way he always acquires knowledge. He was completely confused by the question (no offense intended there, @AV ..).

There's something very deep (and very subtle) about always basing one's own knowledge acquisition on someone else's 'word' vs using considered external references as the way to 'embed' personal knowledge.

The knowledge to be gained out there is an expanding target. As a consequence of this fact, I think one has to use any and all methods in order to gain the biggest picture possible .. and a single, fixed (absolute), and literal ancient text interpretation, as the sole reference, doesn't help much as the knowledge sphere balloons?

renniks said:

Seems pretty straightforward to me. How can the amount of genetic information in a pumpkin make a prince?
Or how can the amount of genetic information in a possum result in an elephant, no matter how many billion years you throw in there?
It's like trying to get a Boeing 747 out of a unicycle.

Click to expand...

If it's straightforward, explain it... if it can't be measured, then there isn't an amount to be sufficient or not.

Gut feelings are not evidence.

sjastro said:

Well obviously both since that is your claim.

Click to expand...

I'll try this one and see where it goes.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Who were the "sons of God"? they were fallen angels.

When God created the earth, ALL the angels shouted for joy, including Lucifer.

Here's how God words it ...

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Morning stars = sons of God = angels

After the Fall, some of these angels (known as "fallen angels" because they followed Lucifer in the rebellion), came to earth and married women.

SelfSim said:

I made a post the other day to @AV1611VET, where I asked him if his tealeaf-like readings of what I wrote was the way he always acquires knowledge. He was completely confused by the question (no offense intended there, @AV ..).

Click to expand...

None taken!

AV1611VET said:

After the Fall, some of these angels (known as "fallen angels" because they followed Lucifer in the rebellion), came to earth and married women.

Click to expand...

So why wouldn't the women have rejected them? Presumably they had a choice in the matter(?)

SelfSim said:

So why wouldn't the women have rejected them?

Click to expand...

I don't know.

SelfSim said:

Presumably they had a choice in the matter(?)

Click to expand...

Yes.

AV1611VET said:

I don't know.Yes.

Click to expand...

When looking past the mythical aspect of the story, the manor in which women were treated in the ancient past, and often still are, I seriously doubt that they had any choice.

Subduction Zone said:

His book on Genetic Entropy would have been rejected right off the bat if he ad submitted to the proper publishing department. Sanford was, again past tense. well respected scientist because at one point he submitted actual scientific work. He went through the peer review process in well respected professional journals. After he became a creationist he could no longer do so because his work

Click to expand...

Are you just making this up off the top of your head?

Hans Blaster said:

1. I asked *you* for a reason why this guy should be thought of as credible. If you think someone is credible, maybe you should be able to support that position. Why should I not just dismiss his claims?

2. You pointed me to a ministry of some sorts to which your "qualified scientist" is a member some how.

3. The bio you extracted from that page describes an experimental geneticist. What about his background demonstrates that he has the relevant experience and training in the applied mathematics and statistics that form the basis of information theory? <=== THIS IS THE KEY QUESTION.

(4. If he is also applying "entropy" to information and "changes in entropy with time" in the manner of thermodynamics, what do people who know thermodynamics think of it.) [I'm not sure if he's doing that, but I've seen it before.]

Click to expand...

Like I said if you want to read his work there's multiple scientific papers there that he wrote... review them yourself.
I'm just wondering why I should listen to random guy on the internet over someone who actually has knowledge in the genetics field

AV1611VET said:

I'll try this one and see where it goes.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Who were the "sons of God"? they were fallen angels.

When God created the earth, ALL the angels shouted for joy, including Lucifer.

Here's how God words it ...

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Morning stars = sons of God = angels

After the Fall, some of these angels (known as "fallen angels" because they followed Lucifer in the rebellion), came to earth and married women.

Click to expand...

I asked you to show how Genesis 6 leads to the conclusion of fallen angels experimenting in evolution.
You haven’t even attempted to answer the question.
All you have accomplished is to exhibit the same lack of methodology which is a characteristic in your interpretations of the Bible.

Shemjaza said:

If it's straightforward, explain it... if it can't be measured, then there isn't an amount to be sufficient or not.

Gut feelings are not evidence.

Click to expand...

Who said it can't be measured? That sounds like a cop out.

"What is often overlooked is that without a constant supply of new mutations, selection can only increase fitness by reducing genetic variance (i.e., selecting away undesirable alleles, eventually reducing their frequencies to zero). This means that given enough time, selection must reduce genetic variance all the way to zero, apart from new mutations. According to Fisher’s Theorem, at this point effective selection must stop and fitness must become static. This evolutionary scenario only results in a minor increase in fitness followed by terminal stasis. Apart from a constant supply of new mutations, Fisher’s Theorem would actually suggest that “Mendelism has killed Darwinism” (Glick 2009, p. 265), a common view in Fisher’s time. This is precisely the opposite of what Fisher wanted to prove."

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations

sjastro said:

I asked you to show how Genesis 6 leads to the conclusion of fallen angels experimenting in evolution.
You haven’t even attempted to answer the question.
All you have accomplished is to exhibit the same lack of methodology which is a characteristic in your interpretations of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Have a nice day.

SelfSim said:

This is a really important example of the different approaches for acquiring knowledge.

I made a post the other day to @AV1611VET, where I asked him if his tealeaf-like readings of what I wrote was the way he always acquires knowledge. He was completely confused by the question (no offense intended there, @AV ..).

There's something very deep (and very subtle) about always basing one's own knowledge acquisition on someone else's 'word' vs using considered external references as the way to 'embed' personal knowledge.

The knowledge to be gained out there is an expanding target. As a consequence of this fact, I think one has to use any and all methods in order to gain the biggest picture possible .. and a single, fixed (absolute), and literal ancient text interpretation, as the sole reference, doesn't help much as the knowledge sphere balloons?

Click to expand...

Consider this quote.

HE killed the noble Mudjokivis.
Of the skin he made him mittens,
Made them with the fur side inside,
Made them with the skin side outside.
He, to get the warm side inside, 5
Put the inside skin side outside;
He, to get the cold side outside,
Put the warm side fur side inside.
That ’s why he put the fur side inside,
Why he put the skin side outside, 10
Why he turned them inside outside.

Click to expand...

To the average person in the street it is gibberish.
To a pure mathematician it is an example of a topological manouvere.