• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

I Reject Creationism because it does not make accurate predictions about the future

RichardT

Contributor
Sep 17, 2005
6,642
195
35
Toronto Ontario
✟30,599.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
This is all about communication deriving from Shannon's theory of communication. Why don't you explain to us what its exact relevance to "biological information" and evolution is? What is the role of natural selection in Gitt's definitions for example? How has Gitt actually shown the "new information" can't arise? What is the implication of Schneiders work on the Evolution of Biological Information to Gitt's postulates. How does Gitt deal with algorithmic information?

Gitt seems to be extending Shannon but as far as I can see he just made up these postulates. Shannon provided rigorous math in his paper to support his theory. What has Gitt done to support his?

Shannon's measurement of genetic information has no regards to meaning, that is what I know, and this seems to be enough to know that mutation is not evidence for common ancestry. Alleles could come from Genetic Recombination of already existing Alleles and horizontal gene transfers.

I'm going to start giving some practical examples. Even thousands of years ago farmers knew that they could artificially select their crops to make them bigger. But they knew that given enough time, the crops would not become extremely huge, they understood that there were always limits to the size of the crops. They also understood that if they selected too much, the crops would go bad, because whenever they were selected, meaningful information was lost.

When the Horse and Donkey reproduce, the mule is sterile. When Lions and Tigers reproduce, the Liger is sterile (I suspect that this could possibly be the limits of "kind"-- sterility).
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Alleles could come from Genetic Recombination of already existing Alleles

Of course. All a part of the ToE.

and horizontal gene transfers.
Unlikely. The chance of a higher eukaryote receiving a horizontal gene transfer of genetic material similar enough in function and sequence to be considered an allele of an existing gene, and then have said material integrate into the correct context of the genome, is pretty small.


I'm going to start giving some practical examples. Thousands of years ago farmers knew that they could artificially select their crops to make them bigger. But they knew that given enough time, the crops would not become extremely huge, they understood that there were always limits to the size of the crops. They also understood that if they selected too much, the crops would go bad, because whenever they were selected, a loss of meaningful information was lost.
And here is your example corrected
....because whenever they over-selected, a loss of fitness occurred.
 
Upvote 0

RichardT

Contributor
Sep 17, 2005
6,642
195
35
Toronto Ontario
✟30,599.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Of course. All a part of the ToE.

Darwin never included genes in his Origin of Species, why do you restrict Creationists from "believing" in facts of today? We know mutations occur, we know genetic recombination occurs, we know horizontal gene transfers occur, because we aren't all brain dead idiots. In fact did you know Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. who was a Young Earth Creationist, performed research that was the basis for MRI machines?

Unlikely. The chance of a higher eukaryote receiving a horizontal gene transfer of genetic material similar enough in function and sequence to be considered an allele of an existing gene, and then have said material integrate into the correct context of the genome, is pretty small.

Have you read this article? It is very interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/33hrp3

And here is your example corrected
....because whenever they over-selected, a loss of fitness occurred.

Why would that be?
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Darwin never included genes in his Origin of Species, why do you restrict Creationists from "believing" in facts of today? We know mutations occur, we know genetic recombination occurs, we know horizontal gene transfers occur, because we aren't all brain dead idiots. In fact did you know Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. who was a Young Earth Creationist, performed research that was the basis for MRI machines?

I don't place such restrictions. I have yet to see any logical statement that they in any way support creationism

as for a creationist inventing an MRI machine...so what? Newton, arguably the greatest scientific mind in history, was an alchemist and a creationist. Holding wierd beliefs does not preclude you from working in a technological field, and working in a technological field does not validate weird beliefs.


Have you read this article? It is very interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/33hrp3

I read the original science article, does that count? If you had read my response, you will see I was not denying lateral gene transfer, I was suggesting that lateral gene transfer of material that was similar enough to an existing gene and integrated at the correct position so as to be considered a new allele of an existing gene was improbable.



Why would that be?


Make you a deal, I will respond in more detail to this section if you will provide a reasoned reply to my 5HT post
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This is truly amazing.

We have a 17 year old, well steeped in his religious faith, and having access to Google, arrogantly arguing science with a scientist, who has been working in his field for longer than the kid has been alive.

Wow.
 
Upvote 0

TheOutsider

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
Dec 29, 2006
2,747
202
Indiana
✟26,428.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
This is truly amazing.

We have a 17 year old, well steeped in his religious faith, and having access to Google, arrogantly arguing science with a scientist, who has been working in his field for longer than the kid has been alive.

Wow.
I'm kinda glad that he put me on his ignore list so I don't end up getting into pointless debates like this with him. The kid is a geocentrist ferchrissake! He is completely impervious to reason and falls for any pseudoscience as long as it is a Christian that is presenting it.

PS. please don't quote me if you respond to this post.
 
Upvote 0

RichardT

Contributor
Sep 17, 2005
6,642
195
35
Toronto Ontario
✟30,599.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
This is truly amazing.

We have a 17 year old, well steeped in his religious faith, and having access to Google, arrogantly arguing science with a scientist, who has been working in his field for longer than the kid has been alive.

Wow.

So what? I learn from debating. What would you rather I do, concede all of his points and agree with common ancestry? I don't even know why you would say this. I'm aware that he's a scientist working in the field.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,882
65
Massachusetts
✟398,979.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So what? I learn from debating. What would you rather I do, concede all of his points and agree with common ancestry?
Well, yes, that would be the sensible thing to do. Or you could argue with his points and agree with common ancestry. Either choice would reconnect you with reality.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I reject Creationism because it does not make accurate predictions about what we would observe in nature, human behavior, what we would find in the fossil record, or anything else that I know of.

Creationists, if your ideas are correct, then in what way can you use creationism to make accurate predictions about the future?
What projections have evolutionists made about human nature which have come to pass? I can tell you this, that many Americans were against America becoming involved in the League of Nations after the GREAT WORLD WAR because they were afraid of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT as spoken of in REVELATIONS. And NOW there is EURO.... TEN LITTLE TOES and China sells more than little RED books...
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟26,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
What projections have evolutionists made about human nature which have come to pass? I can tell you this, that many Americans were against America becoming involved in the League of Nations after the GREAT WORLD WAR because they were afraid of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT as spoken of in REVELATIONS. And NOW there is EURO.... TEN LITTLE TOES and China sells more than little RED books...
I can tell you from my experience as someone with a science degree that evolution is a very powerful hypothesis generator. Since evolution requires traits and behaviors to provide a selective advantage, you can generate a hypothesis on what that advantage is and design an experiment to test it. Creationism simply states *poof*. where are the meaningful predictions of behavior and physical traits that can be made with this?
 
Upvote 0

JeremyHopkins

Member
Sep 9, 2007
56
8
52
Amarillo, Texas
Visit site
✟22,706.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Wow. I am exactly where you were. I really don't know what to think about this. Girls seems 100% unpredictable to me, I think things will happen one way but I always am 100% wrong about absolutely everything in the "game of love".

It's because you are operating by a completely inaccurate model of how the world works.
 
Upvote 0

JeremyHopkins

Member
Sep 9, 2007
56
8
52
Amarillo, Texas
Visit site
✟22,706.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
OK. I shall do more research to see if this is possible, but to me, evolution vs creationism is a lot more philosophical than scientific.

Actually, it's completely religious. I mean, no one ever rejects the theory of evolution in favor of creationism for any reason other than religious.

Have you ever noticed that creationists produce nothing useful? The only thing that ever comes out of creationist "research" institutes is propaganda. That's all they produce. No new knowledge about how our world works, no information on how to apply creation in any scientific field, no information about how to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex, etc.
 
Upvote 0

JeremyHopkins

Member
Sep 9, 2007
56
8
52
Amarillo, Texas
Visit site
✟22,706.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
What projections have evolutionists made about human nature which have come to pass? I can tell you this, that many Americans were against America becoming involved in the League of Nations after the GREAT WORLD WAR because they were afraid of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT as spoken of in REVELATIONS. And NOW there is EURO.... TEN LITTLE TOES and China sells more than little RED books...

I'll explain some general rules I've extracted from the ToE regarding talking to women because that is the one main area it's helped me, personally, the most.

The predictions are that women will either initially be attracted to you or they wont. If you are unattractive, there's really nothing you can do to change that fact and so your time would be better spent moving on to the next one.

If they are attracted to you, then there are a list of rules you got to follow. It's like having a test graded. That is, every time you break a rule, your score drops. If you break too many rules, you'll lose her interest.

The rules are mostly a list of behaviors to avoid based upon how a women's brain interprets your behavior. And that is based on the fact that sex and reproduction is world's more expensive biologically for women that it is for men and makes women much more vulnerable. And so a women needs to be able to distinquish between a potentially good mate and a bad one.

Women have mental defense mechanisms in place that alert them to potentially bad or dangerous men and these defense mechs are triggered when men do certain things. It's nothing reasoned. Instead it's like when the guy exhibits certain behaviors, the women will get a bad feeling.

Since society is only about 10 thousand years old, but the human race has been around for about 1 or 2 million years, and our ancestry stretches back billions of years, our instincts have developed and formed mostly in enviroments that are vastly different than the ones we are currently living in. So there is no appearent logical reason for some of women's mental defense mechanisms. The instinct surfaced in a different enviroment and the trait remain intact even to the modern day. And so many instincts that people have no longer serve any useful purpose (and often times work against us). That is one reason why women sometimes get upset with men for reasons that make no sense to men. 20 thousand years ago, or 500 thousand years ago, the reason might have made more sense but today it doesn't. The reason is because then, it was a matter of survival. Today, it's often times at worse a minor inconvenience.

Basically, the best advise that I know of that anyone can give a guy about women is learn what behaviors trip women's defenses and then eliminate those behaviors. Then just get involved in the game. Your love/sex life will improve drastically.

All of this is based upon my understanding of the theory of evolution. I figured out this stuff for myself after accepting ToE and within a year, I went from couldn't get a date to save my life to being a nonvirgin. I taught would I had learned to other people that I knew that had some of the same problems and worked for them also.
 
Upvote 0