Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Speedwell]

if it specifies something beyond itself- it is specified information

So that of course opens up a vast range of possibilities, which is why I give some examples (as opposed to analogies)

it is also a useful way to distinguish between mere 'complexity' and information:

the pattern in 100 bricks dumped from a loader, specifies nothing beyond a random pile of bricks

while a 10 by 10 stack of bricks, specifies 'a wall' - evidence of specific design information, even though the pattern is simpler- even though it has far less total information (including unspecified) if you see what I mean

Yet both arrangements of bricks are the product of intelligent design. Your test for "design" is useless.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh, I know. Being with familiar with the origins of these terms, I already know this discussion is a dead end.

I just want to see if Guy Threepwood knows that.

He is also equivocating with the term "design" and thinks we haven't noticed.

 

[pitabread]

c'mon don't give up so easily!

Oh, I'm not giving up. It's just having been down this road a couple dozen times already, I already know exactly where it ends.

Actually I disagree with Meyer on this- whether or not he coined the term 'specified' I honestly don't know- maybe 'specifying' would be less confusing - but that's all semantics

Dembski is the one who really started it in the context of ID, and Dembski himself borrowed the term "specified complexity" from Orgel.

In Dembski's case he coined the term "complex specified information" in his attempt to formulate a methodology to detect biological design. He was using a probability formulation to try to detect said information. Unfortunately, it's for naught as his definition was too vague to be useful and his methodology never borne out.

Meyer seems to have latched onto similar terminology from Dembski (like others in the ID community), but uses it in a far less formal and non-mathematical manner. My readings of Meyer where he attempts to define it invariably relies on analogy and Meyer constantly equivocates in its usage.

But without a rigorous, unambiguous definition, constantly referencing this terminology is for naught. All we're left with are the same arguments based on analogy and equivocation. It's a dead end.

I'm saying something different- that information which specifies something beyond itself, is not merely a familiar product of creative intelligence, but that it more fundamentally demonstrates a capacity for anticipation- (where of sufficient quantity and quality) - a phenomena unique to a conscious mind- no matter how profound that implication might be- we have an objective measure for it.

Then define it. And if you have an objective measure for it, then quantify it. You still haven't provided that.

These words appear here by virtue of my anticipation,
that you will all soon concede the debate and renounce your atheism!

I'm not an atheist.

And FWIW, my own personal philosophies defined over my own lifetime are such that a mere internet debate isn't likely to overturn them. Nor should anyone expect to as I don't expect anyone else to give up their own beliefs either. Our journeys are our own, no one else's.

 

[Speedwell]

These words appear here by virtue of my anticipation,
that you will all soon concede the debate and renounce your atheism!

(kidding )

LOL! And if ID turned out to be true I would be so disappointed with God that I might consider becoming one.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm saying something different- that information which specifies something beyond itself, is not merely a familiar product of creative intelligence, but that it more fundamentally demonstrates a capacity for anticipation- (where of sufficient quantity and quality) - a phenomena unique to a conscious mind- no matter how profound that implication might be- we have an objective measure for it.

Word salad. Your statements lack, I don't know, what's the word? Ah, yes. Specificity. Instead, just a big vacuum.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm saying
...
information which specifies
...
demonstrates a capacity for anticipation
...
a phenomena unique to a conscious mind
... no matter how profound that implication might be

Yes .. So what?
Each of the three emboldened terms above are what either you, or some other human mind naturally does.
What's so 'profound' about that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm saying something different- that information which specifies something beyond itself, is not merely a familiar product of creative intelligence, but that it more fundamentally demonstrates a capacity for anticipation- (where of sufficient quantity and quality) - a phenomena unique to a conscious mind- no matter how profound that implication might be- we have an objective measure for it.

There's a risk here of a circular or tautological definition of anticipation - i.e. anticipation as done by conscious minds is unique to conscious minds.

There's a good argument to be made that anticipation can be applied more widely - consider the leaves of a Venus Fly-trap that anticipate the arrival of a fly to trigger their closure, or the structure of a cactus that anticipates long periods of drought, etc.

What the various forms of anticipation have in common is conditioned 'learning' or programming of various sorts - the persistent effects of past experience of the environment preparing the anticipator for similar future conditions. In the case of the plants I mentioned, it's a evolutionary process; in the case of higher animals it's a cognitive process. But there is a variety of intermediate forms of anticipation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'd say 14 billion years is an issue for the theory of evolution, it's not enough time to randomly assemble even some of the simplest proteins by trial and error

'dozens of millions of years' to produce most of the major phyla... that's a teensy bit of an issue, yes!

As suspected, no response to the question.

But I suppose I never did actually expect you to answer the question, because you can't.

 

[d taylor]

Wut?

I do not think my writing stuttered when i wrote that.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I don't reject God created all
I do not reject that God created everything in existence. But I do see evolution and creation coincide with each other. Biblical accounts: 1)God created the heavens and the universe. God said let there be light and there was light _ 1st day.
2)God made the firmaments and divided the waters and he called the firmaments heavens _ the 2nd day. 3)God said let the waters under Heaven be gathered together in one place and let dry land appear and he called the dry land Earth, and said let the Earth bring forth grass and trees and such 3rd day.
4)And God said let there be lights in the firmament of Heaven to divide the day from the night, he made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night _ 4th day.
5) God said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures and fowls that fly. Bless them and told them to feel the waters in the seas _5th day. 6)And God said let the Earth bring forth living creatures, cattle, and creeping things, and beast of the earth and last but not least God said let us Make man in our image _ 6th day.
Evolution's science account:
1) Big Bang Theory (light)
2) matter in the universe (heaven)
3) the Earth
4) plants
5) sea life
6) land animal life and man.
Except the creation of man God called the Earth and the waters to bring forth plants and sea life and land animals. And according to Evolution's science, the Earth brought forth the plants, the sea life, and the animal life. All life is made of the minerals and such of this planet.
This is my beliefs millions of years past between God's calling light into existence, putting the firmanents of Heaven together, the firmaments of Earth together, calling for the Earth to bring forth life, and his forming and making man.
He changed the chromosome count and created man.
Everything that grows on Earth comes from seeds. Seeds that was placed upon the Earth to sprout and give life by God.
Science:: Abiogenesis and panspermia - the most widely accepted theory of science along with the primordial soup mix, is how life started on Earth - where living organisms came from space down to earth - and they still don't know where or how RNA, which is the key factor to life, came about. .Because body designs, chromosomes, bone structure, some genetic traits, and such are similar they believe evolution.
It's all a ploy of the devil to mislead and take as many with him as he possibly can. Keep it close to the truth but change it just enough.
Made in God's image simply means having the ability to know right from wrong. A primate and humans have basically the same bodies, so one could say they are made in God's image - the difference is they don't know what's right and wrong and we do.
Issue of sin, when Adam disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of knowledge, knowledge was given to man to know that he is a sinner and the wages of sin as God promised is death. And through Adam's Disobedience sin, death, and final judgement fell upon all mankind.

There a huge differences between man and the rest of God's creation. The capacity for speech (no other creature has a tongue that can produce words), free will (animals operate on instinct), and above all, the capacity to know God. Man was not a sinner when he was created. There was another tree in Eden, the Tree of Life. If Adam had refused Satan and eaten from the Life tree, history would have been entirely different.

If man evolved from apes then the concept of sin is meaningless. When did man gain a conscience? When did he gain the capacity to speak? When did he become responsible for his actions? All at the same time? How could evolution produce that? The only answer I've received on that question is to the effect that it happened so it happened. That simply won't wash with me.

God created man morally neutral and gave him a choice and a warning. Adam disobeyed possibly the simplest command ever given. "Don't eat that! It will kill you!" Apart from that, Adam could do as he pleased.

Those involved in life sciences can see that their observations follow the creation account in Genesis to some degree. Where science falls over is trying to eliminate God from the creation process. And there is a great deal of fraud, deception, lies and misunderstanding in the scientific community. Many promote "falsifiability" when it suits and ignore it at other times when it does not - especially when it comes to seeking funding. What earthly use is dark matter/energy research? 70 years of looking for the invisible and unprovable idea that there is unseen matter. So far, to quote the Goons, "not a sausage". Some postulate that there is such a thing as antimatter. So the "big bang" should have cancelled itself out. Obviously that is not the case.

Spending billions on research, just to satisfy insatiable curiosity, I think is wasted. God gave us all that we need to know about Creation.

 

[pitabread]

And there is a great deal of fraud, deception, lies and misunderstanding in the scientific community.

And of course, these sorts of things *never* happen within religious organizations.

(It's also worth noting that the "great deal" of fraud, etc., is usually exaggerated to the nth degree if you're getting such claims from creationist sources.)

What earthly use is dark matter/energy research?

If we spent all our time second guessing the value of doing research into our natural world/universe, we'd still be living in caves.

But for all your slagging of scientific research, it's more than a little ironic you're transmitting such messages via a modern computer device and international network powered by the same research and development.

Spending billions on research, just to satisfy insatiable curiosity, I think is wasted. God gave us all that we need to know about Creation.

So why aren't you living the life of a bronze-age individual? Put your money where you mouth is. Otherwise, you're just being hypocritical.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And there is a great deal of fraud, deception, lies and misunderstanding in the scientific community. Many promote "falsifiability" when it suits and ignore it at other times when it does not - especially when it comes to seeking funding.

I don't know what on earth you are claiming here, and I'm not convinced you do either. These kinds of deception are quite uncommon in science as openness and clarity are valued highly in the professional practice. "Falsifiability" is not the end all, be all of the scientific method though it is quite useful.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What earthly use is dark matter/energy research? 70 years of looking for the invisible and unprovable idea that there is unseen matter. So far, to quote the Goons, "not a sausage". Some postulate that there is such a thing as antimatter. So the "big bang" should have cancelled itself out. Obviously that is not the case.

I'm sorry that you lack curiosity, but not all people do.

Astronomers have very clearly demonstrated that there is invisible matter (dark matter). They have determined some of its properties, but that isn't enough yet for particle physicists to have detected it yet. There is such a thing as antimatter, it has been detected many times for many decades. As to why there is more matter than antimatter, that is likely due to CP-violation which is seen in some particle interactions.

 

[pitabread]

I'm sorry that you lack curiosity, but not all people do.

I wonder if the psychological need for closure being higher in creationists plays a role in this. Some people are wired for high need for closure, which correlates with a low tolerance for uncertainty.

Meanwhile, intellectual curiosity is driven by uncertainty.

Creationism and intellectual curiosity do seem to be in opposition in that respect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Spending billions on research, just to satisfy insatiable curiosity, I think is wasted. God gave us all that we need to know about Creation.

Clearly this "God" by way of the Bible has not provided us with everything we need to know about "Creation". The Bible provides us with no information about the nature of light or gravity (though both are recognized), says absolutely nothing about nuclear physics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, semiconductors, optics, simple machines (even though the Greeks knew them), etc. That's just physics. Also missing is extensive practical knowledge from chemistry, geology, mathematics, medicine, and biology. Even if your god got things started it is humans that have made the discoveries that have advanced the quality of life we enjoy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So why aren't you living the life of a bronze-age individual? Put your money where you mouth is. Otherwise, you're just being hypocritical.

I tell people to forget the good old days, these are the good old days. We have vaccines; we have vastly better racial and sexual equality (however much further we should go) then we ever had before. We have computers and instant means of contacting anyone around the world (that might wish to here from us!). We can treat cancer. We have artificial limbs that are lightyears beyond a wooden stump or an iron hook. Etc.

Who could wish to go back!

 

[SelfSim]

There's a risk here of a circular or tautological definition of anticipation - i.e. anticipation as done by conscious minds is unique to conscious minds.

Anticipation is always done by conscious minds. Anticipation has zero meaning when there is no conscious observer around to form a conclusion of: anticipation.

In the case of the plants I mentioned, it's a evolutionary process; in the case of higher animals it's a cognitive process. But there is a variety of intermediate forms of anticipation.

No .. its always a cognitive inference (a conclusion) being made by a human observer (as is: 'an evolutionary process' also).

 

[sjastro]

Those involved in life sciences can see that their observations follow the creation account in Genesis to some degree. Where science falls over is trying to eliminate God from the creation process. And there is a great deal of fraud, deception, lies and misunderstanding in the scientific community. Many promote "falsifiability" when it suits and ignore it at other times when it does not - especially when it comes to seeking funding. What earthly use is dark matter/energy research? 70 years of looking for the invisible and unprovable idea that there is unseen matter. So far, to quote the Goons, "not a sausage". Some postulate that there is such a thing as antimatter. So the "big bang" should have cancelled itself out. Obviously that is not the case.

Spending billions on research, just to satisfy insatiable curiosity, I think is wasted. God gave us all that we need to know about Creation.

Here is a list of fraudsters from the biological and medical sciences.
Here is another list of fraudsters in physics and astronomy.

All these fraudsters have one thing in common; they are Christians.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Clearly this "God" by way of the Bible has not provided us with everything we need to know about "Creation". The Bible provides us with no information about the nature of light or gravity (though both are recognized), says absolutely nothing about nuclear physics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, semiconductors, optics, simple machines (even though the Greeks knew them), etc. That's just physics. Also missing is extensive practical knowledge from chemistry, geology, mathematics, medicine, and biology. Even if your god got things started it is humans that have made the discoveries that have advanced the quality of life we enjoy.

God has provided exactly how much we need to know. I don't have any issue with man using God's gifts of intelligence and creativity to serve mankind better. I do have a problem with useless research that leads to nothing of any worth whatsoever. Origin of Life and dark matter research are just two pointless pursuits, along with everything to do with evolution.

Nothing of this world makes it into the next. Everything will be made crystal clear to everyone. You will discover just how futile the afore mentioned research has been, still is and will be in the future.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nothing of this world makes it into the next. Everything will be made crystal clear to everyone. You will discover just how futile the afore mentioned research has been, still is and will be in the future.

You're making promises *you* can't keep. We'll see how it turns out.