Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Hans Blaster]

Your right about labels representing one or more ideas, and as such they are necessary for good and efficient communication. But within the context of what I was responding to, whether labeled "neo-Darwinism" or "Extended Synthesis," these theories still suffer from a lack of observable evidence for macroevolution. The label game can’t mask the fact that unguided processes fail to explain biological complexity—only intelligent design does.

Do you understand what is inside the package of ideas for each of those labels?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Shifting labels doesn’t change the fatal flaws. Whether it's labeled "modern" or "post-modern," these syntheses still rely on unobserved macroevolution and blind chance--philosophical naturalism dressed up as science. The Biblical account remains the only coherent, testable, and historically grounded explanation for life’s complexity.

None of that is true though.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can man lie?

Again: the obfuscation isn't going to work,.

 

[Larniavc]

I haven't fleshed out the case,

Do that then. Until then you are simply making claims that may or may not be correct. You need to provide a rationale for your conclusions.

 

[Larniavc]

The evidence is the historical community that can't adequately be accounted for through legend(because of the centrality of the supposed legendary material) and requires a host of additional considerations to make a naturalistic explanation.

You have just described special pleading.

 

[Larniavc]

specified information

What units are you measuring 'specified' information and how does it differ from information.

 

[Larniavc]

Scripture actually does address biology, and that with incredible prescience.

Are bats birds? What does Leviticus say?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again: the obfuscation isn't going to work,.

I know.

People are too smart to answer my question(s).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know.

People are too smart to answer my question(s).

Or we know when a question of yours isn't worth answering.

 

[The Barbarian]

Please extend to me the curtesy of including all of my post in you reply posts to keep everything in context.

What part of "God created all things ex nihilo (Genesis 1:1, John 1:3) with irreducible complexity " do you think misrepresents your position?

A plain reading of your statement is inconsistent with the fact of each human as a creature of God. Can you explain how it is otherwise? I don't see anything in your post that qualifies this as a "maybe" or "in some cases." Can you show us that?

 

[The Barbarian]

A couple of points: random mutation is not the same as random variation. Random variation is expressed in the phenotype. random mutation is something that happens to genetic material. The short answer (since you are not going to respond, the short answer is enough) is that natural selection decreases the information content of the gene pool and random mutation replenishes it.

Great point. I wish I had put it so succinctly. I'm going to steal that one.

 

[The Barbarian]

You're right that evolution can lead to a loss of information. We see that through deletions and broken genes. But the real issue is the gain of new, functional, specified information.

I asked you to support your claim with numbers:
Every new mutation in a population is an increase in information. Perhaps you don't know how information comes about. Let's take a look at a simple case.
Suppose there are two alleles for a given gene in a population, each with a frequency of 0.5. Then suppose a new mutation happens and eventually each of them have a frequency of about 0.333. What was the original information for that gene, and what was it after the mutation?
If you don't know how to calculate it, I'll do it for you in the next post.

You declined to answer. Am I to assume you don't know how to calculate information, and want me to show you how it works? I'll assume so: I made the numbers simple to make the calculations easier to understand.

The Shannon equation is:

So -( (0.5X log(0.5) X2) equals about 0.301. Now with the new mutation, it would be -((0.333 X log(0.333) X3) or about 0.477, an increase in information. As Shannon realized, information is a measure of uncertainty about the message before reading it. If there is only one allele, then the information is zero; you have no uncertainty about a particular individual's allele. If there are two alleles, the uncertainty increases, and with three alleles, it increases to a greater degree. As you see, every new mutation in a population increases information.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or we know when a question of yours isn't worth answering.

That's okay.

This is the way I see those who view God's creation doesn't lie:

1. They say God's creation doesn't lie.
2. When asked if the Bible is God's creation, they claim the Bible is mans' creation.
3. When asked if man, who is God's creation, can lie, they say NO, but he can make mistakes.
4. Conclusion:
   1. Those who claim God's creation doesn't lie, make God out to be a liar.
   2. Those who claim God's creation doesn't lie, are themselves confused.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is the way I see those who view God's creation doesn't lie:

So far, you're the one pushing that story. Perhaps you've confused nature with those created being to whom God gave free will to be honest or lie as they chose.

Those who claim God's creation doesn't lie, make God out to be a liar.

I don't think you want to make God out to be a liar. I think you're not thinking very clearly.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are bats birds? What does Leviticus say?

Here, you are pointing out the hopelessness of using scripture for a science text. Leviticus isn't wrong; it's using a different classification system. "Bird" to the Hebrews, essentially meant "animal that flies." It was a functional classification, not a biological one.

 

[AV1611VET]

So far, you're the one pushing that story.

I am, huh?

What's this then:

And since the Bible was written by man and God's creation cannot lie...

Notice too another poster gave it a WINNER.

Perhaps you've confused nature with those created being to whom God gave free will to be honest or lie as they chose.

Or perhaps someone else has.

I don't think you want to make God out to be a liar.

You think correctly.

I think you're not thinking very clearly.

Or maybe you're not too observant?

But after all, you're arguing from an academic perspective; and foresight is not one of their better qualities.

 

[The Barbarian]

Or perhaps someone else has.

You seem obsessed with it. You've confused nature with sentient moral agents created by God. And that's why you can't get your arms around the idea.

But after all, you're arguing from an academic perspective; and foresight is not one of their better qualities.

If you slowed down a bit, and thought about the issue, you could probably write a proper sentence about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem obsessed with it.

Even if I was, what's your reason for getting the story wrong?

You've confused nature with sentient moral agents created by God.

Um ... I'm not the one who said God's creation cannot lie, then turned around and said (or refused to say) the Bible is in error.

If God's creation cannot lie, is the Bhagavad Gita telling the truth? The Preservation of Favoured Races? Mein Kampf?

What about College Physics 2e?

And that's why you can't get your arms around the idea.

Who else can't?

If you slowed down a bit, and thought about the issue, you could probably write a proper sentence about it.

Would you know it if I did?

 

[BCP1928]

Even if I was, what's your reason for getting the story wrong?



Um ... I'm not the one who said God's creation cannot lie, then turned around and said (or refused to say) the Bible is in error.

The Bible is not the same as God's creation.

If God's creation cannot lie, is the Bhagavad Gita telling the truth? The Preservation of Favoured Races? Mein Kampf?

None of those books are the same as God's creation. God's creation is the entire universe and it's contents spread before us. Those other things are just books.

What about College Physics 2e?

At least physics studies God's creation itself.

Who else can't?



Would you know it if I did?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is not the same as God's creation.

But It was allegedly written by God's creation who, according to academia, cannot lie.

None of those books are the same as God's creation.

They don't have to be.

As long as they are a product of someone who cannot lie, they are truthful products (or should be).

QIQO guys -- QIQO.

Quality In, Quality Out

God's creation is the entire universe and it's contents spread before us.

Okay, for the record, I'm agreeing with you.

But you're contradicting yourselves.

Those other things are just books.

Yup.

They're not cars. They're not lamps. They're books.

At least physics studies God's creation itself.

Neat.