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.
Good. Because I'm ignorant of what you meant by your post #37. The text is clear. The sub-text is deeply obscure.
Looking forward to the removal of ignorance.
I believe you may have missed the thrust of the argument.I've never heard someone call a bed a 'set', which is why I said the meaning of the sentence was changed, but apparently one can call a bed a 'set' so the meaning didn't actually change... :/
I believe you may have missed the thrust of the argument.
Letters are arbitrary symbols that, in combination, may represent intelligible words. If we take a sentence and change/modify one or more letters we may produce gibberish, or we may produce a new words that alter the meaning of the sentence.
The codons of DNA are arbitrary elements that, in combination as genes, may produce a functioning protein. If we take a gene and change/modify/mutate one or more condons we may produce gibberish, or we may produce a new protein that performs a different function within the cell.
In either case, sentences or genes, how many changes did we make? For the example sentence, was it one change of a word, or was it two changes of letters, or were more change required to arrive at the end product? How we define this determines how closely the second sentence is related to the first.
They're still numbers though.As a follow up how different as a % are the following sequences?
1234512345
124512345
Is the 1 difference the deleted 3?
Or are there 7 differences, the digits in the rows that don't line up?
They're still numbers though.
Three.Something to illustrate a point...
Suppose I have this text:
Toby made his bed. Then he went outside.
I change that to:
Toby made his set. Then he went outside.
How many changes have I made?
Too late.This also means you are (atleast from a cladistic point of view) a fish!
But not if you view fish as simply a taxa. Thought I'd add that before you get any silly ideas.
Don't be surprised if they come up with something on paper.
They'll even fake drawings to show we start out as fish, then turn into humans.
It depends on whether you are counting a word change as a change (1), a letter change as a change (2), or a pixel change as a change (lots).But I can also say that the B was changed to an S, and the D was changed to a T, so that's two changes, isn't it?
Which claim is more valid, that there is 1 change or 2 changes?
Too late.
It depends on whether you are counting a word change as a change (1), a letter change as a change (2), or a pixel change as a change (lots).
The only reason the change made sense was that "set" has a predefined definition. In your analogy, the software that interprets the sentence would have to understand what the new word meant, and that couldn't happen unless it underwent a simultaneous, similar change. A better analogy would be "Toby made his *e#. Then he went outside.", which demonstrates the Creationist point that information is lost when mutations occur.
But we have lungs ... fish don't.BTW I'm using fish in the loose everyday sense here.
But we have lungs ... fish don't.
They have gills.
I am astounded that you actually said that! Perhaps you were tired.A better analogy would be "Toby made his *e#. Then he went outside.", which demonstrates the Creationist point that information is lost when mutations occur.
Agreed. Example 1 can be demonstrated in nature. Example 2 has never been proven to happen, I believe because it is impossible without intelligence ("set" only makes sense to us because we have a predefined definition). Example 3 is impossible without intelligence.I am astounded that you actually said that! Perhaps you were tired.
Since you appear to agree that the changes to "set" made sense, then you must agree that some changes make sense.
Therefore, your example is one of a sub-set of possible answers, there being two sub-sets in this regard: changes that make sense; changes that do not make sense.
We might also consider two sub-sets of the first: changes that make sense, by altering information; changes that make sense by adding information.
These changes would be represented thus:
- Loss of information - "Toby made his *e#. Then he went outside."
- Change of information - "Toby made his set. Then he went outside."
- Addition of information - "Toby made his big bed. Then he went outside."
There are many instances of number 2. I am occupied at present, but will return with examples (unless another member provides some in the interim.)Agreed. Example 1 can be demonstrated in nature. Example 2 has never been proven to happen, I believe because it is impossible without intelligence ("set" only makes sense to us because we have a predefined definition). Example 3 is impossible without intelligence.
Agreed. Example 1 can be demonstrated in nature. Example 2 has never been proven to happen, I believe because it is impossible without intelligence ("set" only makes sense to us because we have a predefined definition). Example 3 is impossible without intelligence.
@Circumcised_HeartGood advice. Unfortunately many creationists are fact averse. Analogies can provide a means of making them at least a little aware of the shaky foundations to which they have trusted their beliefs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?