Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Subduction Zone]

You posted "If is merely an orderly sequence set out by an intelligence, then no, "
..that would mean the computer code running in your computer doesn't contain any information.....me thinks your logic is faulty.

I am rather amazed at your continued poor reading comprehension. I was talking about whether DNA is "information" by your definition. Once again, when you don't understand ask questions politely. We can all see that you lack quite a bit of understanding.

 

[-57]

According to what I have heard from creation scientists, the information in our cells can be regarded as having "specified complexity", that is what sets it apart from things like snowflakes because whilst snowflakes are complex, they are also random. Also, according to one creation biologist, the chemicals in our cells are not necessarily behaving according to the laws of chemistry while we are alive, but only begin to do so once we die. For instance, I understand that amino acids have to have the same-handedness, not only in humans, but in all life (and the same apparently goes for proteins), but when a living creature dies, the chemicals start doing what they would naturally do and begin to revert to a racemate, i.e., mixture of right-handed and left-handed molecules. If this is indeed the case, then it's surely another problem for the idea that life can come from non-life by natural means.

Going back to information - is it not merely a message from a sender to a receiver? My Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary describes it thus: "information (on / about sb/sth) facts or details about sb/sth" So I suppose you could argue that the workings of the cell are using facts or details about sb/sth in order to be able to "know" what their respective tasks are to keep the cell alive and therefore they do contain information. Here's a simple summary http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna4.htm

Yes, DNA contains a code..which is a set of instructions. Information. The problem is this...the evos CAN'T call it information. The evos are forbidden to call it information. Anyone reading this thread lately can easly recognize the evos delima.
Once they call it a code....they have to admit to the possibility of intelligent design. I love watching them walk on eggs.

 

[-57]

I am rather amazed at your continued poor reading comprehension. I was talking about whether DNA is "information" by your definition. Once again, when you don't understand ask questions politely. We can all see that you lack quite a bit of understanding.

Lets make the question simpler for you...does your computer code contain information?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My mistake, I should have said "Creation-believing scientists" or perhaps "Bible-believing scientists"

Better, but that still does not answer why none of them seem to be able to do any significant work within that paradigm. You do know how new ideas are accepted, it starts with a simple peer reviewed article. That is not that difficult for a professional and yet scientists that believe in creationism can't seem to write articles that pass that rather low hurdle.

He has a PhD, and once taught evolution as fact, but later came to recognise the lie that he used to teach when he found God. Maybe the same thing will happen to you one day, you never know!

I have my doubts about that. And there is the possibility that you misunderstood his statement. Your post was rather nonsensical to say the least and I can't see a "PhD" making that error.

Now you claimed that he was a PhD, in what subject? From what school? What has he published? He may simply be another failed scientist that opted for the easy road of creationism.

 

[-57]

Then DNA is not information by that standard since there is no sender nor receiver in that sense. Like I said, either the definition of "information" will eliminate DNA as being information or it will include the possibility of DNA gaining information through natural means. I have yet to see a creationist violate this.

DNA can't gain information through natural means. If it could the evos would have shown how. But, as we all know....they're a no show.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets make the question simpler for you...does your computer code contain information?

I said ask politely. Try again.

You need to remember that you are the one that is clearly wrong here and you are in no position to have such an attitude.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DNA can't gain information through natural means. If it could the evos would have shown how. But, as we all know....they're a no show.

You can't even define "information". We can show how new traits are added. Now if you want to call that "new information" then yes we can show how new information is added.

And again, when you are the one in abject ignorance you need to be much more humble.

 

[-57]

I said ask politely. Try again.

You need to remember that you are the one that is clearly wrong here and you are in no position to have such an attitude.

Does your computer code contain INFORMATION? It's really a pretty simple question to answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, DNA contains a code..which is a set of instructions. Information. The problem is this...the evos CAN'T call it information. The evos are forbidden to call it information. Anyone reading this thread lately can easly recognize the evos delima.
Once they call it a code....they have to admit to the possibility of intelligent design. I love watching them walk on eggs.

No, we are not walking on eggs. We just don't like the dishonest way that many creationists try to twist the facts. You meanwhile run away from your duty to define "information". This tells us who is really walking on eggs. So far your definitions have either excluded DNA from being "information" or it allows DNA to naturally acquire new "information".

 

[TLK Valentine]

You havea been presented with several examples....then you act like you haven't. What a strange tactic you're using.

I don't want an example, I want an objective definition... one that a person couldn't weasel out of if they were so inclined.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Does your computer code contain INFORMATION? It's really a pretty simple question to answer.

What is information? It's really a much simpler question that you won't answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does your computer code contain INFORMATION? It's really a pretty simple question to answer.

Again, you need to learn how to ask questions politely.

Try again.

 

[-57]

You can't even define "information". We can show how new traits are added. Now if you want to call that "new information" then yes we can show how new information is added.

And again, when you are the one in abject ignorance you need to be much more humble.

If a new trait is evolved then there is a requirement for new information...instructions...in the DNA on how to build it. You seem to disagree with that concept.
To date there is no mechanism recognized by scientist on how the instructions could be coded into the DNA to allow the new trait to be realized. I widh I could help you with a few suggestions...but there just isn't any. Information can't be increased via the process of descent with modification.

If it can....SHOW US. But I do have a great confidence that you can't.

 

[-57]

What is information? It's really a much simpler question that you won't answer.

I belive in several post in this thread I said instructions are one of the elements of information. So, please stop lying and claiming I didn't tell you what "information" is.

Now I do agree, I haven't reached into the dictionary and presented every example...but I have reached in and presented definitions suitable for the topic of the thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a new trait is evolved then there is a requirement for new information...instructions...in the DNA on how to build it. You seem to disagree with that concept.

No, I simply demand a proper definition of "information". Since we know how new traits evolve then by at least one definition we know how new "information" is added. If you asked reasonable questions you might be able to learn something.

To date there is no mechanism recognized by scientist on how the instructions could be coded into the DNA to allow the new trait to be realized. I widh I could help you with a few suggestions...but there just isn't any. Information can't be increased via the process of descent with modification.

Really? Show this to be a fact with reliable sources.

If it can....SHOW US. But I do have a great confidence that you can't.

When you ask your questions properly and politely I will have no problem doing so.

 

[-57]

You can't even define "information". We can show how new traits are added. Now if you want to call that "new information" then yes we can show how new information is added.

And again, when you are the one in abject ignorance you need to be much more humble.

I've already given you one definition...instruction...Do I need to write it bigger for you? INSTRUCTION

 

[-57]

Here's the good part....now the evos have to deny instructions is not information. snicker snicker.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm getting bored of the wishy washy replies of the evo-babblers.
Perhaps I should ask them to show how information can be contained in a code...and read via another mechanism....and a task performed...derived via a process of random mutation and natural selection.

What's "information"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've already given you one definition...instruction...Do I need to write it bigger for you? INSTRUCTION

So information is instruction... you finally gave a definition...

 

[TLK Valentine]

I belive in several post in this thread I said instructions are one of the elements of information. So, please stop lying and claiming I didn't tell you what "information" is.

I didn't ask for an "element," I asked for a definition.

Eggs are an element of chocolate cake, but that doesn't tell me what chocolate cake is.