No new information? and dinosaurs

[Stellar Vision]

Ok so I attended this weekly group discussion on Christianity to basically hear them out and see if they had any good arguments. Out last meeting of the Spring presented us with a 45min video of Ken Ham trying to convince us that evolution insinuates racisim and creationism adaquately explains the different ethnic races we see today in humans. This is the first I've heard of Ham, but he seems nearly as bad as Hovind (aka Dr. Dino); he even had some dinosaurs in the background.

I was rather distraught to see everyone nodding their heads in agreement. During our short discussion the overall argument which everyone reciprocated was that evolution was false because there was no new genetic information in subsequent generations.

I was pretty skeptical that it was all bogus, but at the time I didn't know of any rebuttal for it. I'm hoping to learn a little more about that particular issue.


P.S. also I would be interested in hearing explanations of dinosaurs on a 6000yr old planet by creationists if they have any.

 

[Dannager]

Show up with a printout of the contents of the following website. It should shut that argument up pretty quickly: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

To make a long story short, there's no such thing as an information argument. Those who claim such things don't understand information theory or how it applies to biological systems (specifically DNA).

Also point out that if that is the extent of their argument in support of young-earth creationism, they've just had their beliefs falsified and need to work on finding something else to use.

 

[Micaiah]

I don't think there is any doubt that just any old mutation can explain common descent. If we agree on that the next step is to decide the requirements of mutations that can lead to evolution. I started a thread to that affect and listed what I consider to be those requirements. If you think you have discovered a mutation that fits the bill, do tell. We need not one, but millions and millions for evolution to be viable.

 

[Jet Black]

I don't think there is any doubt that just any old mutation can explain common descent. If we agree on that the next step is to decide the requirements of mutations that can lead to evolution. I started a thread to that affect and listed what I consider to be those requirements. If you think you have discovered a mutation that fits the bill, do tell. We need not one, but millions and millions for evolution to be viable.

well there have ben millions and millions of mutations. so?

that was a really odd thread you started, since you refused to discuss anything.

 

[fromdownunder]

If we agree on that the next step is to decide the requirements of mutations that can lead to evolution.

I don't understand this statement. Any mutation, some positive, some negative and some totally benign are part of the evolutionary process. Just what are you trying to get at?

Norm

 

[JohnR7]

Out last meeting of the Spring presented us with a 45min video of Ken Ham trying to convince us that evolution insinuates racisim and creationism adaquately explains the different ethnic races we see today in humans. This is the first I've heard of Ham, but he seems nearly as bad as Hovind (aka Dr. Dino); he even had some dinosaurs in the background.

I do not know much about Ken Ham, but statements like that would cause me to question if he was a racist.