Hey TE's, lets try to do better.

[notto]

A creationists has claimed (in the creationists only forum of course) that TE's don't provide credible information to back their claims.

Let's try to do better.

I'm talking to you Glenn (who details each piece of evidence he uses in his argument and includes pictures and very detailed reasoning)

and you Vance (who presents large amounts of historical documents and works from history)

and you Karl (who has shown me more pictures of skulls than I would ever care to see)

and you rmwilliamsll (who's essays are legendary and provide hundreds of pesky facts)

I guess we need more footnotes, peer reviewed scientific material, and MORE historical writings and positions of Christians.

And here I thought we could just get away with quotemining, ad-hoc explanations and devisive claims that others aren't Christians or following the 'plain teachings' of the bible. Maybe we need to include more scientific works from those with doctorates in Christian education or from retired electrical engineers and dentists.

Well, as for me, BACK TO THE QUOTE MINES!

 

[Micaiah]

How about making more effort to understand the arguments given in the quotes you post.

 

[notto]

How about making more effort to understand the arguments given in the quotes you post.

Why don't you define 'information' and give us a credible source for your definition.

 

[Micaiah]

This seems to be a vexing question for you Notto. Here is a chance for you to demostrate your knowledge on the subject and provide in your own words the 'Official Definition of Information' (TM). I'm not even going to ask you for your source.

 

[notto]

This seems to be a vexing question for you Notto. Here is a chance for you to demostrate your knowledge on the subject and provide in your own words the 'Official Definition of Information' (TM). I'm not even going to ask you for your source.

Nice dodge. If I was the one making the assertions about information in numerous threads that I started, I would have provided a definition when asked.

I guess the creationist who complained about lack of credible sources should put you on the list. You made an assertion without providing sources to back those assertions with even a simple definition of what they are claiming. When asked to define how you measured information and what definition you use, you refuse to answer. This makes your assertions meaningless, right? How can you claim something can be measured when you can't give a definition of what is to be measured and how?

 

[Vance]

The problem with the information model is that it is a mixture of two unrelated (or loosely related) concepts by legitimate scientists, to form a new concept about genetic "information" that neither scientist would agree with. So, this particular use of the term "information" by Creationist is not even really in the scientific lexicon since it is being used in a way that no scientist really uses it.

Please see my post called "Information on Information Theory" which provides the background as to how the Creationists created this odd conflation of concepts into something new and, ultimately, incorrect. HEre is a link to it:

http://www.christianforums.com/t845562