The Creationist Explanaton

[dmmesdale]

So? Even if you call it "code" this isn't the same thing as demonstrating its source is intelligent in nature.

Then falsify it.

Especially since we already known mechanisms by which DNA replicates and changes.

Replication and change do not account for the creation of new information. Code works with what was already there in the first place. Blind biological processes can't take to be or not to be, that is the question and make it into

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That is an increase of information which requires intelligent intervention. If you are saying it can be done via natural processes then you have a template for artificial intelligence. Do you got that or are you going to ignore that too?

It's not a demonstrable inference. And consequently, it's a poor one.

Then falsify it. Show your better plan for artificial intelligence via chemical reaction and become the next billionaire. You say it is not demonstrated when complex code is always and everywhere demonstrated to derive from an intelligent source. Deny deny deny and never come up with a viable alternative. That is why you guys will always remain in the weird cult status category, no different than flat earth anomalies in humans.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah if you pick purpose A, then a Shark might benefit from trait B but it might also loose out on Purpose Y because of Trait B. So for example Sharks have teeth for tearing and laceration, but they have no vertical neck. So if they had a horizontal tail then how would they tear and lacerate their prey? It would be be easier to do so with a vertical tail that is in line with the way their teeth are positioned to lacerate*.

I suppose we can leave it at that, that the difference in anatomy comes down to difference in function.

I can't really shake the feeling though that we're merely describing the difference as opposed to explaining the difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

But evolution does not seek perfection.

There's an old saying: You can't improve on perfection.

Evolution thinks things improve with time.

And while that looks good on paper, the fact of the matter is that we have been so corrupted since the Fall, that any improvement looks monumental.

And while evolutionists are fighting the tares that are growing inside us and tearing us down -- (and they're doing a good job doing it -- kudos to them) -- they'll never get us back to the way we were before the Fall.

And eventually ... unless God intervenes ... the tares will win.

Another saying emphasizes this very well: You're polishing brass on a sinking ship.

We need God's intervention.

And according to the Bible, we are going to get it.

 

[pitabread]

Then falsify it.

Once again, not how the burden of proof works.

Replication and change do not account for the creation of new information.

"Information" as commonly used in the context of DNA refers to the DNA sequences themselves. Therefore, changing the DNA sequence into a sequence that didn't exist previously is new information.

That is an increase of information which requires intelligent intervention.

This is a goofy YEC argument (a favorite of Answers in Genesis if I remember), but it's fallicious. To make this argument you need to start by defining information as it applies to genetics and then describe the metric by which you are measuring that information content and then describe what would constitute an increase or decrease.

The problem is that you either wind up with a definition that isn't applicable (to genetics), or you wind up with one that is applicable but whereby increases and decreases can be demonstrated.

As I said, "information" in the context of DNA typically just refers to the sequence of DNA in and of itself. We already have known mechanisms by which DNA can be modified; thus a duplication mutation followed by subsequent mutations to the duplicated sequence and voila: new genetic information. What is even neater is this sort of thing can be directly tested when uncovering how different biological functions evolved via gene duplication and modification.

Deny deny deny and never come up with a viable alternative.

This describes the creationist/ID situation perfectly.

The burden of demonstrating that DNA in natural biological organisms had intelligent intervention/creation rests firmly on their shoulders. Thus far, they've done a craptacular job of it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There's an old saying: You can't improve on perfection.

Evolution thinks things improve with time.

And while that looks good on paper, the fact of the matter is that we have been so corrupted since the Fall, that any improvement looks monumental.

And while evolutionists are fighting the tares that are growing inside us and tearing us down -- (and they're doing a good job doing it -- kudos to them) -- they'll never get us back to the way we were before the Fall.

And eventually ... unless God intervenes ... the tares will win.

Another saying emphasizes this very well: You're polishing brass on a sinking ship.

We need God's intervention.

And according to the Bible, we are going to get it.

That was a whole lot of words with zero substance.
I have to say: I didn't miss those.

 

[pitabread]

Wasn't that already answered? The very thing you said was the subject awhile back, and indicated we were to stick with, is no longer the subject? You now move the subject to something else because it's convenient/works for you?

Are you satisfied with an answer described purely in terms of anatomy and function thereof?

If so, we'll leave it at that. (Although, I'm not sure how this is explicitly a 'creationist' explanation since arguably one could make the same explanation regardless of dolphin/shark origins.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I suppose we can leave it at that, that the difference in anatomy comes down to difference in function.

I can't really shake the feeling though that we're merely describing the difference as opposed to explaining the difference.

Pita, did you notice I replied to one of your threads?

32

 

[AV1611VET]

That was a whole lot of words with zero substance.
I have to say: I didn't miss those.

Ya -- I slipped a kudos to evolutionists in there and it went right over your head, didn't it?

 

[pitabread]

Perfection does not exist in the evolutionary model, nor will it ever exist.

How would one even define "perfection" in that context to begin with?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ya -- I slipped a kudos to evolutionists in there and it went right over your head, didn't it?

No, I saw it. It was a very snide, backhanded compliment if nothing else, but I saw it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How would one even define "perfection" in that context to begin with?

Like these guys from the Futurama episode, A Clockwork Origin.
Floating balls of gas.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I saw it. It was a very snide, backhanded compliment if nothing else, but I saw it.

You may have read it, but I think you're far from understanding it.

People think I hate science, and that's a reflection on their comprehensive skills -- not mine.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You may have read it, but I think you're far from understanding it.

People think I hate science, and that's a reflection on their comprehensive skills -- not mine.

And yet you've never given a single shred of evidence that shows that you don't hate science, since that seems to be the only thing you rag on about.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you've never given a single shred of evidence that shows that you don't hate science,

Wow -- just wow.

I have a single thread that has almost six times the number of pages in it than you have posts; and you make a doosey of a statement like that?

You've read all my posts have you?

Just to show you wrong, QV please:

Okay, Zoii ... this brings out one of my favorite points:

(You old-timers know what's coming! )

I currently have 9008 times more posts than you do, Zoii; and you haven't a clue as to where I stand on science.

And in fact, I hold science up to a Standard that atheists won't dare to go.

Scientists are, in my "pick-and-choose" opinion, gifted to us from God, and I'll kiss the feet of a scientist before I kiss the feet of a theologian any day.

So before you hold me in contempt of court, please don't judge me like everyone else does.

Be above them and give me some credit.

I would take flack from even my own church for believing the earth is as old as it is ... whatever age that is ... so I keep my mouth shut.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wow -- just wow.

I have a single thread that has almost six times the number of pages in it than you have posts; and you make a doosey of a statement like that?

You've read all my posts have you?

Just to show you wrong, QV please:

A case of irony: you try to refute what I say... but then go and prove it anyway.
Also, the number of posts you have meant absolutely jack if they come from a person that is well known for being a bit... well, let's just say, not intelligent. Quantity does not always beat quality.

 

[dreadnought]

But the organism doesn't need to be perfect. It just has to survive. Humans have a whole host of biological problems (just focusing on the body here) that keeps us far from being perfect and yet we've survived on Earth for over 3 million years (if we take Australopithecus as THE first hominid) with those problems.
Perfection does not exist in the evolutionary model, nor will it ever exist. Evolution merely states that an organism that survives long enough to pass on its genes to its young will continue to prosper.

Perhaps evolution is part of the Lord's plan.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps evolution is part of the Lord's plan.

And many Christians believe it is.
But again, perfection does not exist in evolution.

 

[dreadnought]

And many Christians believe it is.
But again, perfection does not exist in evolution.

There are those who don't believe in a God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There are those who don't believe in a God.

... ... and?
Evolution does seek perfection. Perfection does not exist in the evolutionary model. Just survival.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Perhaps evolution is part of the Lord's plan.

Perhaps so. But then that would make it undeniably true to creationists, yes? Just leaving the IDer's who won't acknowledge that ID and creationism are the same thing.