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.
Originally posted by Lanakila
Jerry, evolutionists make it hard to understand and lose most common people in the technical aspect. I am trying to simplfy it. Funny
Originally posted by Lanakila
Jerry, evolutionists make it hard to understand and lose most common people in the technical aspect.
Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
This isn't science it's Christian apologetics. Look at the publisher for crying out loud.
"Theism," a.k.a. supernaturalism, is off limits to science, by definition.
Dembski is a huckster with a sack full of useless analogies.
2. Genetic mutation deletes/rearranges pre-existing information.
Originally posted by Lanakila
Like it or not, you have quite a dilemma my friends, because classical evolutionary theory unequivocally begins with a presupposition (i.e. faith) that the worldview of naturalism is valid and then proceeds to evaluate the scientific data accordingly. Yet, the theoretical infrastructure of such cannot support the scientific evidence or philosophical data.
I beg of you, please attempt to conduct a careful introspective evaluation, of your hearts and minds, to make sure that you are seeking after truth, regardless of the consequences. It is obligatory to us within the academic community to be honest, with both ourselves and the data, so that we achieve not "our" conclusion, but "the" conclusion - objective reality.
Originally posted by Lanakila
How is information added? Duplication of the same information isn't adding anything. Mutations only rearrange, delete or on some rare occasions, duplicate the same pre-existing information. Take the dog born the other day with six legs. That is a duplication of the code for legs, and possibly a rearrangement of the same. This is basic genetics. Look at the data wanting truth, please.
Originally posted by Lanakila
It may be adding information by your definition, but its not new or novel information. Its only a duplication and insertion. So, you are still stuck with the dilemma. Also, the dilemma of where the information came from in the first place.
Originally posted by Lanakila
The fact is that neo-Darwinistic theory is intrinsically "theory laden" and a convoluted representation of both scientific data and philosophical foundations of cosmogony.
Like it or not, you have quite a dilemma my friends, because classical evolutionary theory unequivocally begins with a presupposition (i.e. faith) that the worldview of naturalism is valid and then proceeds to evaluate the scientific data accordingly.
Yet, the theoretical infrastructure of such cannot support the scientific evidence or philosophical data.
I beg of you, please attempt to conduct a careful introspective evaluation, of your hearts and minds, to make sure that you are seeking after truth, regardless of the consequences.
It is obligatory to us within the academic community to be honest, with both ourselves and the data, so that we achieve not "our" conclusion, but "the" conclusionobjective reality.
Originally posted by Lanakila
It may be adding information by your definition, but its not new or novel information. Its only a duplication and insertion. So, you are still stuck with the dilemma.
Also, the dilemma of where the information came from in the first place.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Now lets say that there is a mutation in the gene that forms the pigment in the iris of the eye, that causes the pigment to have slightly different molecular properties, and to reflect a "blueish" mixture of light instead of a "brownish" mixture of light. Now, that gene is spread through a few generations until someone winds up with two copies of it and has blue eyes instead of brown. Now the gene pool has more variation than it did before, and loosely speaking it has more "information" than it had before.
Does this help?
Originally posted by npetreley
No. Your "proof" above that information is added is pure speculation. I realize that speculation is the entire foundation of evolution, but that's the problem with your discussion on the issue of information. You think in terms of speculation, and L is talking in terms of facts.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, please bluster elsewhere.