Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Let me borrow phrasing from a rationale you recently posted:
The German massacre of “inferior life forms” (the term used in the film) was done by Christians and by unbelievers...It had nothing to do with a belief in Darwinian evolution. Some may have tried to justify their actions through various means including their religion, or through beliefs that "pure Aryans" were more pure than the lower life forms. But Christians who tried to justify their actions actually rejected what the Bible teaches. The fact that we now understand the brutality innate to much of natural selection means we can now choose to rise above that level of conduct. For example long ago, as recorded in the Hebrew canon, when God said slaughter the infants, we did just that, and when God ordered thousands of virgins to be awarded like personal trophies to the soldiers who had massacred the virgin’s families, then like the spoils of war that they were, it was done.
Smart people can plug their ears. Just because you are smart doesn't mean you're not prideful enough to ignore things you don't like.
I'll try. You do realize that a lot of being corrected has to do with you, right?
Yes, it is generally true that homeschoolers do better than public schoolers.
Oh my. Part of the teaching we give to our kids is not only both sides of the debate, but human nature in a debate. That would mean that unless the teacher is asking for an opinion, a student would never challenge a teacher in class. Even if a student has better and more correct information, they will lose in a debate of that kind.
LOL. Even if parents do take decisive action, it can only be to remove their kids from government school - because public schools are designed to do a bad job (every last one of them). But that's another thread topic.
Which is a good reason to remove one's children from government school. They teach a common descent dogma first and only evidence that fits that dogma is allowed.
And beyond that, if a parent wants to teach their child religious dogma that's no concern of yours.
Just because you have consensus, don't be so quick to dismiss qualified scientists. They only appear to fail because no one is convinced, even though the reason most aren't convinced is because common descent means nothing to their work and dissenting from common descent will come at a great cost.
Thus, the reason for class is to get a piece of paper that says you learned something, not to crusade about some truth claim.
Yes. Direct and honest. I never said anything about getting me in under the radar. I said "grace to a YEC". You get me in as a YEC. I can't get in as a YEC, so I need someone with enough reputation to burn to get me in the door. But, as you know, your reputation would be burned because any dissent from the dogma includes a high price.
As I said, you can ignore topics at will. That isn't a bad thing unless you want to argue that you are right based on consensus.
Oops. You've decided you are right based on consensus. It would behoove you to verify the veracity of that consensus before you put too much stock in it. If it is there because dissent requires a heavy price, then you should know that not all the dissenters are crackpots.
And that's another good topic. How does one separate the crackpots from the good people that disagree? One way is to look at other claims by the person in question. Crackpots aren't very reasonable in other aspects of life or claims. But good people that disagree from consensus seem to be normal in almost all other aspects except the one they dissent from. It's a weak way to tell, but we humans are good at using it as a general rule and can decide to look deeper or not at a particular persons claim if they seem reasonable
But there's more. One can actually learn about some of the science of any particular topic. Take the time. Learn both sides. That's what I did, and lucky for me the topic didn't have to get as deep even as a 4 year degree to see the opinion and bluster from the common descent side. And the further I study, the worse it looks for common descent, and I suspect that would continue the more I study a particular topic in the context of common descent.
But there's more. When one studies one topic that touches on common descent. Then another unrelated topic that also touches on common descent. A pattern emerges. The pattern is that the common descent side consistently relies on consensus, it doesn't want to explain how it reached its conclusions, it doesn't want to show raw data, and when it does show raw data it makes sure not to explain it. It's a lot of red flags that the common descent side could tend to be wrong.
But there's more. When the defenders of common descent encounter dissent, they are quick to anger. Even if a person wasn't historically a crackpot but something seemed worth questioning, common descent defenders rarely show any respect for reputation.
It's not a bad thing to be disinterested in any particular truth claim. I have several that I ignore just because of time constraints.
The best argument I've seen against IC is that anything claimed to be irreducibly complex can be reduced but with a different function. That's a weak response so you must have come up with a better counter? I'm just too curious to find out what it could be.
But the number of evidences in favor of a young age of the solar system, and then of recent creation of life, are are many. I don't think any one of them is 100% proof, but I'm not sure which would be the strongest either. While the number of evidences for common descent are few, and rely on what we don't know.
The argument for long ages of the solar system are radiometric dating and starlight. But both of these rely on not knowing important things that could turn the argument either way. The strongest argument for life being old on the earth is homology, which is just looks, and we have no idea what really goes on in the cell that could decide if that were possible or not - and please note that there is strong evidence against homology even being a thing related to common descent because of genetics. And over both of these is consensus. But consensus does not determine what is right.
You are both. But I only say that because you've been arguing this topic for a long time and should have studied the other side by now.
I'm a role model for my kids. I don't know of any other youth in particular that look up to me on the topic of YEC. Did it make you feel good to throw that insult?
I'm a laymen. My degree is in computer science. What is your strongest field and I'll go that direction.
The difference between God existing and God not existing is that for those that believe the material is all there is, they are constrained by the material laws. That doesn't mean that everything has to have an explanation, but it does mean that if science shows something is wrong, you are obligated to stop supporting it.
It simply means that the government shouldn't be in the business of raising kids. But, yes, if no public moneys go to schools then let teachers A and B be free to teach.
Jose Fly
New member
And how do we determine what does and doesn't go into the curriculum?
I don’t see that any of your response actually addresses the issue I posed. Your unsubstantiated and knee-jerk response is no more than tooting the creationist horn. I probably shouldn’t have expected an honest response that would show you were willing to consider the issues involved.
Jose Fly
New member
It's always fascinating to me to watch creationists play the victim card. It brings up a couple of things....
1) It's true that creationists are generally poorly thought of in the scientific community, and at times they can't even get a foot in the door. To creationists that seems like an active conspiracy to suppress their views and arguments. The reality however is that the reason for this treatment is the same as the reason stationary-earth geocentrists are similarly treated. In both cases it really amounts to nothing more than what these folks are bringing to the table is not only wrong, but terribly, laughably, and horribly wrong.
Throw in the long history of creationists quote mining scientists, ridiculing their work, and attempting to undermine science education and you start to get a good idea why when most scientists hear "there's a creationist at the door", they're going to respond "Tell him I'm busy". It really isn't much more complicated than the fact that YEC is very, very wrong and creationists have a long history of shady behaviors.
2) If we look at the history of science, we see many good examples of scientists coming up with new ideas that were considered radical at the time, and as a result were rejected by the scientific community. Oftentimes these scientists were even subject to ridicule or worse. But the reason we know their names and their ideas is because of what they did in response. They kept collecting data, conducted more research, and kept making their case to their colleagues. IOW, they let their science do the convincing.
Contrast that with creationists, who upon having their ideas rejected by the scientific community, focused their efforts on school children, church groups, fake museums, lawsuits, and PR campaigns.
I mean, let's face facts. Creationism (primarily YEC) hasn't changed much in over a century, nor has it contributed a single thing to science. So one has to wonder....on what basis can any creationist believe that some day their version of science will prevail?
I am less concerned about whether teachers are free to decide what to teach than I am about a system that provides no assurance that all students will receive essentially the same accurate instruction. And I see little difference between parents who, for whatever reason, teach their kids crap, and parents, who for whatever reason, physically brutalize their kids.
Shannon didn't create messaging. He discovered it. It happens to apply to all message systems.
Actually, I know you have stopped thinking and your eyes glazed over long ago. But because you are funny, let me ask you, "if a portion of DNA that makes a protein is transmitted to that protein without error, will the protein have more, less, or about the same amount of information as the DNA it was made from?"You are clearly presenting nothing here but bovine scatterings Yorzhik and you know it.lain:
And herein DavisBJ admits he would support tyranny, and how a belief in common descent is a part of it.
alwight
New member
No he didn't, he pioneered digital transmission techniques that you are disingenuously attempting to purloin as a red herring for YECism.
Nice display of faux arrogance Yorzhick btw, I enjoyed the laugh, of course on the internet we can all be legends in our own lunch times.
Genetic transcription is a mechanical process of direct contact, without a specific transmission sequence, so where does Shannon theory apply :liberals:? :
| Genetic Transcription | |
This is continuously happening countless billions of times over without error or "noise" since there is no separate transmission part. DNA to RNA to protein.
While this continues there will be no change to the information or the amount. Do you really need to ask this?
As with other mechanical processes the occasional error may happen, genes may be duplicated, altered or mis-transcribed, a random mutation occurs. An increase of information or just a change has happened. Natural selection will put any such inherited mutations to the test in the real world and any beneficial traits will tend to proliferate. All the kind of thing other people (better people?) have told you about many times before Yorzhik.
Please would you now explain where and how exactly do you think Shannon information fits in to this given that its purpose is to maintain fidelity, not to allow change and to correct any changes that nevertheless occur?
6days
New member
DavisBJ said:
Davis, that is simply not true. Here is the complete line from that film..."We have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior life forms.....thousands of drooling imbeciles must be fed and cared for, individuals lower than any beast"
Where do you suppose the idea of 'the law of natural selection' came from? It came from Darwinian beliefs about survival of the fittest. The Nazi's thought they could create a more fit race, a master race by eliminating those they deemed unfit. Haeckel, Hitler and the Nazi's used Darwinism to murder millions.
The Nazi's just seemed to using Darwin's ideas...
Charles Darwin :"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla"
Reminder that this argument was over your statement saying "I am not aware the ToE has been the impetus for open attacks on people". But, even hard core evolutionists such as Stephen J. Gould admits " “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory”
6days
New member
Yes..... Not sure I would use the word tyranny but definitely many evolutionists are against freedom of choice...pushing indoctrination.
I am left to conclude that your propensity for demonizing your opponents is a mental condition that cannot be cured. Indeed, you do have my pity.
Dear Jonahdog,
6days is doing just fine. He is not wrong. You are! Everything Science has drawn from has been things that were 'created.' Creation was here thousands of years before man's interpretation called Science. Trying to explain everything without a God. That's what Science is. But there are those of us who still KNOW where everything came from and Who 'manipulates' each genome and neutrons, electrons, and elements within it. He makes the changes... not Science. I have capitalized the word science to help make this clearer for you. Science came along WAY AFTER Creation!!! Evolution is a folly devised by foolish men!! There are no creatures evolving into other animals. God creates each animal individually. That's the myriad of ways that Creationism has contributed to Science. Just as God is the Master Chemist, He is also the Master Biologist, Master Creationist, and Master of Everything!!!
Warm Regards,
Michael
:think: :angel: :angel: :rapture: :cloud9: :cloud9:
Dear Hedshaker,
Okay! You got it! If you don't want me preaching to a nonbeliever, then so be it. Only in your case. I was just trying to point you in the right direction so that the Lord might save your soul. Never mind.
Much Love, Brother!!
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :guitar: :singer:
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
Please, Yorz, look up the meaning of the term information that Shannon used - it has nothing to do with 'meaning' or 'semantic content' or 'better/worse' or 'function'. It is merely a measure of how many bits are needed to specify it. You have claimed to be using Shannon information ideas in this post, and others, then you go on to reference the usefulness of the information content.
You cannot talk about the function of DNA and still refer to the information in it in terms of Shannon information without looking like you need to do more thinking or research about the topic. (I have tried to point you in the right direction, but your unwillingness to correct this technical point is looking more like a deliberate obfuscation than accident now.)
To help you along, here is a snippet from MIT:
| Shannon quantified the amount of information in a signal, stating that is the amount of unexpected data the message contains. He called this information content of a message ‘entropy’. In digital communication a stream of unexpected bits is just random noise. Shannon showed that the more a transmission resembles random noise, the more information it can hold, as long as it is modulated to an appropriate carrier: one needs a low entropy carrier to carry a high entropy message |
Michael of all you post, this is the most disturbing. You seem to be saying that all disease, all genetic problems, all birth defects are the result of the active intervention by your god. Why then bother to go the a doctor. Your god has done what he wished, you should be thankful for whatever ailment you have.
Let me go upstairs and suggest to my wife that she should have lived with her 2 hips without cartilege and not bothered with surgery. The laughter you hear will be her.
- Status