The Deception of Genesis

KerrMetric · Nov 1, 2005

Critias said:
What is this? Do what I tell you or be quiet? Sigh...What grade are we in?

Why doesn't he define it?

I dare him to do so. I told him to be quiet unless he does because I am sick to death of creationist butchers of science refusing to define this exact thing, yet they still trot out bs arguments based upon something they refuse to define.

Critias · Nov 1, 2005

KerrMetric said:
Why doesn't he define it?

I dare him to do so. I told him to be quiet unless he does because I am sick to death of creationist butchers of science refusing to define this exact thing, yet they still trot out bs arguments based upon something they refuse to define.

If you look, it has been defined. Second, you refuse to support your position and assertion. Instead you state such things as "Let's just pretend I cut/pasted all the web pages on the geological column." As it is ok for you not present anything, you then proceed to tell someone to do what you tell them or be quiet. Might you follow your own statement then?

KerrMetric · Nov 1, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
in·for·ma·tion
n.

Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.

Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.

A collection of facts or data: statistical information.

The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.

Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.

A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.

Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

not REALLY what you are looking for, is it though? People define things to suit their needs. such as "species". (the same thing we get accused of with "kind"

No I want a scientific definition. Science doesn't use everday dictionaries for definitions, that's for language use not the precision required in a scientific realm.

Since he makes statements that imply measurement of information content I want the definitions where we can apply mathematics to it.

They exist - I just know he dare not post one.

Uphill Battle · Nov 1, 2005

KerrMetric said:
No I want a scientific definition. Science doesn't use everday dictionaries for definitions, that's for language use not the precision required in a scientific realm.

Since he makes statements that imply measurement of information content I want the definitions where we can apply mathematics to it.

They exist - I just know he dare not post one.

right. So if a scientist defined something, and it's disagreed with, nuts to the disagreement, is basically what you are saying.

Critias · Nov 1, 2005

KerrMetric said:
No I want a scientific definition. Science doesn't use everday dictionaries for definitions, that's for language use not the precision required in a scientific realm.

Since he makes statements that imply measurement of information content I want the definitions where we can apply mathematics to it.

They exist - I just know he dare not post one.

So science doesn't follow the meaning of English words they use?

KerrMetric · Nov 1, 2005

Critias said:
If you look, it has been defined. Second, you refuse to support your position and assertion. Instead you state such things as "Let's just pretend I cut/pasted all the web pages on the geological column." As it is ok for you not present anything, you then proceed to tell someone to do what you tell them or be quiet. Might you follow your own statement then?

Please point out where he defined information that allows a metric?

Show me. He did no such thing becuase Creationists never do, they dare not becuase they know full well what is coming right back at them.

It's not up to me. There are dozens of web resources on the geological column and what it is and where it is. He has a problem with it I guess. I would like him to tell us what they are. I have no problem with the consensus and reference that as my source.

shernren · Nov 1, 2005

From what I have read our knowledge of genetics and how the DNA mutates is still in its infancy. I have not seen any one on this forum able to provide a simple explanation outlining the mechanism by which the DNA of the first cell supposedly acquired all the information that our DNA contains. We have no clear examples of how this happened in the past or how it can hapen today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations

Well if one believes in common descent, the logical answer is that there was a great deal of information gain at each major adaptive radiation. A "radiation" in this context means an event in which suddenly a lot of niches for life were opened up. The best example is when the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago (according to conventional theory) all the ecological spaces they took up were suddenly empty and mammals "radiated" to fill all of them, and that's why all our big animals are mammals instead of reptiles. Anyway, that's when a lot of information gain would occur.

I'm not going to get into a debate about what information is. But it is demonstrable that random changes in genetic material can bring about new biological features. Good examples include the speciation of wheat by polyploidy, the nylon bug, ring species, etc. So unless one shows that there is no possible sequence of random changes in genetic material that can result in the evolution of, say, tetrapods from microorganisms, then it's hard to say it's impossible. (Improbable but not impossible stuff happens all the time. Vacuum quantum fluctuations happen, even though they break the laws of mass-energy conservation, simply because they can.) Perhaps improbable. Then again, God has used any number of improbable events recorded in the Bible for His purposes. Why not evolution?

I'll admit that it's difficult to define information. But I've never seen any reasonable definition of information under which the nylon bug was not an increase in information.

KerrMetric · Nov 1, 2005

Critias said:
So science doesn't follow the meaning of English words they use?

No and you are playing game here. Dictionaries usually define things in an everyday sense of language not in the specifics of mathematics or science. You know this is true.

The word theory is an excellent example where many dictionaries use only the iffy guesswork colloquial use.

KerrMetric · Nov 1, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
right. So if a scientist defined something, and it's disagreed with, nuts to the disagreement, is basically what you are saying.

Your post makes no sense.

Dictionaries are not the source for specialised definitions. Information has some very specific definitions when it comes to the measurement of information content.

This is not quite the same as an everyday definition.

The fact is mathematical definitions exist and they can all be mathematically proven to back up the claims of standard science with respct to mutation etc. and the Creationists cannot deny this.

So what do they do. They pretend to ignore these precise definitions exist and they do what Micaiah has done and refuse to provide one for fear of being pinned down and shown to be foolish.

Critias · Nov 1, 2005

KerrMetric said:
Please point out where he defined information that allows a metric?

You only said, define information. It was defined. Now you ask for it to allow for a metic, thus changing what you initially asked for.

KerrMetric said:
Show me. He did no such thing becuase Creationists never do, they dare not becuase they know full well what is coming right back at them.

Such a statement shows you will never be satsified by a creationists, no matter what they provide. Thus, not open minded.

KerrMetric said:
It's not up to me. There are dozens of web resources on the geological column and what it is and where it is. He has a problem with it I guess. I would like him to tell us what they are. I have no problem with the consensus and reference that as my source.

You asserted, so present your support. When you make such an assertion as 99.99%, support it. Or, you can follow your own advise where you told someone to do as you say or be quiet.

And when you are going to provide your evidence the number you gave of how many Messianics there are? Or do you want to just avoid that assertion as well?

Ceris · Nov 1, 2005

Closed for Staff Review

Ceris · Nov 1, 2005

Ok everyone - I've cleaned up this thread little.

Seriously - just play nice, ok?

Uphill Battle · Nov 1, 2005

well, we've been warned, gentlemen and ladies. Care to resume?

Micaiah · Nov 2, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
well, we've been warned, gentlemen and ladies. Care to resume?

Warned about what specifically?

Uphill Battle · Nov 2, 2005

to play nice.

justified · Nov 2, 2005

Um, Hey kids,

there was a nice argument going about the formal points of Genesis and the intextuality issues associated with it;

Kerr, one could easily go after you for refusing to parse literary data: you seem to want to pull every discussion into an area in which you are quite comfortable and is to some extent specialized.

I mean, I have no qualms with attempting to make fundamentalists learn that they can't ignore what science has done, but it'd be nice not to have 50 posts of argument over definitions of "information" and such.

I'm realising that my training puts people off as well; you must be willing to come down to the level of people and show them unequivocally that they are mistaken in terms which they can understand -- thus throwing all of one's training (including the jargon and the advanced criticism) into an argument is not the most effective way. For example, we can both start talking about core samples from the dead sea or the rift valley in general, and you'll spout off a ton of data and the conclusions you draw from it, and you'll be right. But I am entirely unable to interact that those data and conclusions because I lack your training; thus from a post-structuralist, post-processial point of view, I have no form to draw on and it is meaningless to me.

See? Maybe?

shernren · Nov 3, 2005

So where were we?

Micaiah · Nov 3, 2005

Not sure about others but I was trying to start a discussion with KerrMetric. It was a bit like the boat I tried to start today. It went in fits and starts and in the end stopped altogether. He seems to be laying low for a bit.

shernren · Nov 3, 2005

He may not have been a 100% charitable but frankly the impression I got was that you were lazy to look up what he suggested. IMHO a simple Google would've taken 5 minutes or less and calmed him quite a bit.

Micaiah · Nov 3, 2005

I guess that is one perspective. You could also view it as an attempt to engage a person in actual scientific discussion about a topic. Have a look back over the thread and consider how much constructive information was posted by KerrMetric.

The Deception of Genesis

Well-Known Member

Critias

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Critias

Guest

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Critias

Guest

I R the Nutness (and I love sedatta )

I R the Nutness (and I love sedatta )

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency