Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

[Lon]

Yes. The first two were riddled with misconceptions. Wise neatly disposed of them in his reply.

"Disposed" of them? I guess I can see that in a way, if by 'disposed' you are saying with Kurt that all information can be used one way OR another depending on the job. Wasn't Kurt suggesting that creationist rather 'use' that tool, however? :idunno:

 

[Lon]

Random mutations can never improve information.

Once again... we observe change .... we do NOT observe a single common ancestor to all living things.

Well, God, but you were talking about spontaneous generation of a single-celled organism that mutated/changed to become onions and whales, from the same genetically, incredibly rich and unbelievably complex 'single-cell.' The theory of evolution is an anomaly to every other part of scientific observation where the effect is never greater than the cause, except in evolutionary theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

You get more dishonest with every post. I have not disparaged Kurt Wise in any way.

That is just a bold-faced LIE.

Post 34:

Barbarian regarding Dr. Wise:
Of course you don't. He's a YE creationist who actually knows what he's talking about.

Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
Apparently not.

Barbarian asks:
He has a PhD in paleontology. You?


disparage verb
dis·​par·​age | \ di-ˈsper-ij
, -ˈspa-rij\
disparaged; disparaging
Definition of disparage

transitive verb
1 : to depreciate (see depreciate sense 1) by indirect means (such as invidious comparison) : speak slightingly about religious beliefs disparaged as superstition
2 : to lower in rank or reputation : degrade

 

[chair]

... every other part of scientific observation where the effect is never greater than the cause, except in evolutionary theory.

What do you mean?
That I can't burn down a forest by lighting a single match?
This really could bear some explanation.

 

[Stripe]

What do you mean?
That I can't burn down a forest by lighting a single match?
This really could bear some explanation.

Try thinking.

You can't manufacture matches by lighting one and burning down a forest.

There is more information in a match than there is in a forest fire.

 

[The Barbarian]

Random mutations can never improve information.

So, for example, randomly dropping toothpicks on a piece of lined paper could never improve information about pi?
https://ogden.eu/pi/

Turns out, it does. The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, for example, randomly dropping toothpicks on a piece of lined paper could never improve information about pi?
https://ogden.eu/pi/

Turns out, it does. The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

An intelligent being doing something intelligent to narrow down the possible digits of pi?

:think:

At the very least, it's not creating new information, only isolating that which already exists.

 

[Right Divider]

An intelligent being doing something intelligent to narrow down the possible digits of pi?

:think:

At the very least, it's not creating new information, only isolating that which already exists.

:mock: Next it will be monkeys typing Shakespeare.

 

[Stripe]

:darwinsm:

He should have stuck with pretending to ignore me.

:mock: Barbarian.

 

[The Barbarian]

An intelligent being doing something intelligent to narrow down the possible digits of pi?

:think:

At the very least, it's not creating new information, only isolating that which already exists.

Perhaps you don't know what "information" means. All you have to do, is run it until you get to a more precise estimate of pi than you know about. And there you are.

If you don't know what "information" means in terms of message entropy, look here:

"Generally, information entropy is the average amount of information conveyed by an event, when considering all possible outcomes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

Works in population genetics, as well. So every new mutation in a population increases information.

 

[The Barbarian]

:mock: Next it will be monkeys typing Shakespeare.

Without natural selection, that would be evolution. With natural selection, you get increasing fitness and new species.

 

[Right Divider]

Without natural selection, that would be evolution. With natural selection, you get increasing fitness and new species.

That you don't even get my point is funny.

 

[chair]

So, for example, randomly dropping toothpicks on a piece of lined paper could never improve information about pi?
https://ogden.eu/pi/

Turns out, it does. The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

Wow. I'd never heard of that. Thanks!

 

[The Barbarian]

Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
Next it will be monkeys typing Shakespeare.

Barbarian observes:
Without natural selection, that would be evolution. With natural selection, you get increasing fitness and new species.

That you don't even get my point is funny.

Everyone got it. You're just cutting and pasting old stuff you found on the net. Do you think we haven't seen it all before? Seriously?

 

[Right Divider]

Barbarian observes:
Without natural selection, that would be evolution. With natural selection, you get increasing fitness and new species.

Everyone got it. You're just cutting and pasting old stuff you found on the net. Do you think we haven't seen it all before? Seriously?

I typed it myself.... you evolutionists are such a HOOT!!

Once AGAIN, creationists have NO PROBLEM with natural selection, which only selects what ALREADY exists.

 

[Stripe]

Darwinists think that designing a system and recording data establishes their precious religion.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I typed it myself.... you evolutionists are such a HOOT!!

Once AGAIN, creationists have NO PROBLEM with natural selection, which only selects what ALREADY exists.

You may have typed it yourself but the "monkeys typing Shakespeare" bit has been around for years and hardly your concept.

 

[Right Divider]

You may have typed it yourself but the "monkeys typing Shakespeare" bit has been around for years and hardly your concept.

No kidding. I never claimed that it was my original thought.

That "bit" was created by silly evolutionists.

 

[Lon]

The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

You AREN'T a creationist???? :noway: (I realize I'm being pedantic here, but you've unbelievers watching, so this is pedantically important, you need to be, at times, on the 'our' side whether you disagree about other things. IOW, you have to argue 'in camp' else you are arguing out of it. Be careful where you make your bed and lie down when it comes to the Creator of the universe. This part is important. -Lon

So, for example, randomly dropping toothpicks on a piece of lined paper could never improve information about pi?
https://ogden.eu/pi/

Turns out, it does. The universe is much, much more amazing than creationists imagine it to be. Why wouldn't it be? He created it, after all.

No, it really doesn't. It is simply a tool for estimation. We do indeed find patterns mathematically, but he was talking about random chance. It has to EITHER be God OR no God when creating. Do you for instance, believe Colossians 1:17?
Mathematical statistics and observation aren't the same as random chance. This pi observation is merely a statistic probability that coincides with pi. No creationist contests that God made an ordered universe. In fact, it wouldn't be 'random' at all. Just the opposite: part of an ordered and well maintained universe. If you agree on that, then a lot of evolution/creation disagreement can be put to rest by the simple agreement and observation. It'd be totally different, for example, to say that animals 'change' according to laws/guidelines of a well-ordered universe, than saying "random non-ordered unguided 'beneficial' mutation."

 

[ok doser]

You AREN'T a creationist???? :noway: (I realize I'm being pedantic here, but you've unbelievers watching, so this is pedantically important, you need to be, at times, on the 'our' side whether you disagree about other things. IOW, you have to argue 'in camp' else you are arguing out of it. Be careful where you make your bed and lie down when it comes to the Creator of the universe. This part is important. -Lon


No, it really doesn't. It is simply a tool for estimation. We do indeed find patterns mathematically, but he was talking about random chance. It has to EITHER be God OR no God when creating. Do you for instance, believe Colossians 1:17?
Mathematical statistics and observation aren't the same as random chance. This pi observation is merely a statistic probability that coincides with pi. No creationist contests that God made an ordered universe. In fact, it wouldn't be 'random' at all. Just the opposite: part of an ordered and well maintained universe. If you agree on that, then a lot of evolution/creation disagreement can be put to rest by the simple agreement and observation. It'd be totally different, for example, to say that animals 'change' according to laws/guidelines of a well-ordered universe, than saying "random non-ordered unguided 'beneficial' mutation."

Barbie is most definitely not indwelt with the Holy Spirit