So you can’t explain how information, a known product of a mind, can arise by
You don’t even know what faith is.
Jan.
Creationist questions evolution
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
So you can’t explain how information, a known product of a mind, can arise by
You don’t even know what faith is.
Jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, you don't.......Nope. I accept God.
Jan.
No, you don't.......
You not only borrow from my worldview, you to dip into my answers as well?
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You are trailing the discussion please catch up.
If you are incapable of researching the material you shall remain ignorant of what the theory says...if you ignore the vid you shall remain ignorant of the JC story.
The path to enlightenment is before you but it is you who must decide to walk upon it.
I do think you realise that what I say is reliable and my views formed only after demanding review such that what I say can be relied upon so when I say to watch the vid to find the truth which is the JC story is a reinvention of ealier stories and has its foundation in astrology I believe you avoid a viewing as you know what I tell you is the truth that you do not want to hear.
You ask for proof that there is no god well certainly yhe vid is absolute proof that no JC existed ... and if watch the vid you can only but agree.
You have a choice before you ... accept the truth or ignore it.
If you watch the vid and say you still believe I will not say anymore and find you another one perhaps more convincing.
Alex
You'd have to have the common sense of a child to understand it.
b
You are the one claiming faith is behind your posting here.
Like this:
Fundamentally dishonest. An agent of the Great Deceiver.
I know what deception is. I know what lies are, and slanders.
You are the one claiming faith is behind your posting here.
Like this:
pretending never to have seen the many explanations posted for you.
Fundamentally dishonest. An agent of the Great Deceiver.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan presents this way but he perhaps does not see that his approach is seen by others as dishonest which shows he can be selective in what he takes on board.
Jan probably does not see what others see and believes he is the fountain of truth.
However his avoidance of looking at the facts of what evolution says and his reluctance to consider the implications contained in the video I posted suggest he is determined not to consider the material available... thinking perhaps that if he does not look all will go on as his contrived normal such that reality is framed in his selective context.
I can understand why he choses such an approach as to do otherwise would bring his house of cards down. In fact would cause the cards themselves to disappear.
Jan needs his world to be defined within his input else it produce a result inconsistent with his belief.
I understand he needs his approach else his world is destroyed and all he supports is shown to be false.
His avoidance is therefore somewhat understandable.
Jan must believe the bronze age authors had a clue but sadly they were just superstitious folk grasping at vaugue interpretations that have now been shown to be made up and false.
Jan is to be be forgiven as he is not the only human trapped in superstition and magic.
We must continue to guide him to the path of enlightement and knowledge....we must help those who are trapped within their prison of ignorance to escape by offerring them reason, clear facts and a view of history that shows clearly they have, through little fault on their part, been victims of a manipulation which had its roots in populace control and not some pathway to a spiritual interpretation of things ...that the adoption by Rome of JC was a mere political tool to consolidate a crumbling empire in a less positive form.
It survives today through the decipe enlisted so long ago.
I pity folk like Jan that their indoctrination has destroyed that part of their mind that is able to sort fact from fiction.
What a shame Jan must fit all incoming information into a predetermined world view...one that will not change, nor can it change, else the whole construction will colapse, leaving him and them with no other explanation than they have been conned over and over.
They lose their reason and usually a large part of their income and do not ever realise they have been conned.
It is so sad really to see someone like Jan, a reasonable well educated person with a desire to be decent, corrupted to indulge dishonesty and avoidance of available knowledge such that the myth hides the reality he should be free to discover.
I like Jan and respect his ability but unfortunately it is his ability to side track those who seek to help him that prevents him embracing the truth that the universe is eternal and the myths of a creator are no more than sad attempts by superstitious bronze age verbal story tellers to explain a world far more complex than their understanding and education allowed them to do corrupted to merely control the masses and extract their meager resourses.
But we are not in the bronze age and the benefit of our accumulated knowledge is available to those who take the time to review it...all has been worked out via science and available to all and so the challenge for Jan is no more than to read something from the modern era..something ...anything...but at least something...and that something should produce a realisation that bronze age ramblings are simply and no more than bronze age ramblings.
I sincerely hope that Jan can be saved.
Alex
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, no?You not only borrow from my worldview, you to dip into my answers as well?
Jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No sir, you have blind faith in a theist named Dr. Behe
I am certain you must have read this enlightened article....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution
Richard Dawkins had something to say about that as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html
So, what if more than one simultaneous mutations had to take place. Or that a single mutation affected two original genes?
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
Clearly two simultaneous mutations of ancestral genes took place during the fusion which created a single longer gene from the two ancestral genes.
And as Hazen demonstrates, mutations are probabilistic events and, considering the combined richness of very large spaces and very long times, there is no "either/or" in bio-chemistry. It's all the probabilities in between the two extremes. It's more like "Sooner or later".....
Last edited:
How is that a claim of faith?
You say many explanations have been posted for me.
You lie, with the intention to deceive.
And now comes the ''slander''.
jan.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't explain it, if requested.
There may be other people who want to hear this explanation.
So please, on behalf of everyone who would like to hear this explanation, I ask you to present one.
Thank you in advance.
jan.
No, I don't. I state simple fact, with the intention of directly confronting your tactics here.
They have already heard it, many times. This is a science forum. Almost everybody here is at least somewhat familiar with Darwinian evolutionary theory, and there have been many threads relevant.
There was even an explanatory illustration of your silly "new information" issue, in the post above - the potato plant growing from an eye in a hydroponic solution, easily observable to elementary school children, assembling new information by the CPU load minute by minute.
You are not ok. And you are not here to get better - to heal, or learn, or even discuss anything.
We’ll have the agree to disagree.
Then they won’t have any objection to hearing it again. Will they?
Now, either put up, or shut up, or, allow someone to meet the request.
Then explain how complex, specified information evolved, and quit stalling.
Oh! That’s interesting!
Now explain how CSI evolved.
I have yet to hear an explanation of CSI evolved.
This is critical to the Darwinian concept. Can you, or can you not explain it?
I will gladly discuss my health with you after you explain how CSI evolved.
Jan.
Last edited:
That is a good reason. (Although quite funny coming from the theist who refuses to explain anything.) So:
To remind you, the statement you took issue with was this: "Darwinian evolutionary theory is carefully reasoned from evidence. The building of new information according to that theory is straightforward. A child can demonstrate it right in front of you, if you have any interest in the matter - or you could observe the thermodynamic principles in action by watching a potato plant grow from an eye in a hydroponic jar, as hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren have before you."
You seem to have problem with the "new information" thing. So let's work on that.
Every time any organism reproduces sexually, there is a chance of miscoding or mistakes in meiosos or fertilization. In addition, mutations in the DNA of gametes result in mutations in the resulting organism. That might make the resulting organism's genome longer, shorter, or the same size but with errors. We will consider three cases:
1) (very common) the new organism is nonviable due to errors in its genome, and it dies. This is why not every fertilization results in a new organism.
2) (also common) the new organism is unaffected. The error took place in a segment of DNA that was noncoding (i.e. it doesn't do anything) or was coding for a nonimportant trait (i.e. now the organism's hair is black instead of brown.)
Case 2) is important. Because if the new genome is slightly longer (which it often is) and it's noncoding (which it often is) then the organism now has more "junk DNA" - DNA that doesn't do anything. If the new genome is shorter, the odds that the missing parts were important is nonzero - so evolution favors slightly longer genomes over time. That's why we have "junk" or noncoding DNA.
Now, all that junk DNA represents information, but it is random, due to errors. It either does nothing or does something minor that's of no consequence.
With me so far?
Now we get to case 3).
3) (very UNcommon.) The new organism is better due to the mutation. Let's say the organism has slightly darker skin, and its ecological niche exposes it to a lot of sun. That is a benefit to the organism. This organism with darker skin does not get skin cancer, and thus goes on to reproduce more often. This genetic trait is thus conserved. Information has been added - one of those formerly noncoding or coding-but-unimportant segments of the organism's DNA has been changed into coding for an important trait. Or take something more dramatic. A piece of junk DNA gets activated by a mutation and it gives the organism a second tibia. (Duplication of an existing trait is one of the most common mutations.) Normally a bad thing, but in this case (Idiurus Macrotis, a flying squirrel) this is actually a slight help, because it increases wing area without requiring longer legs or a more awkward wing. Again, information has been added, and a large structure (a new tibia that sticks out a bit) has been added. Not because anyone decided to add it, but because DNA which was formerly "junk" now codes for a useful trait due to a mutation or other duplication error.
So building new "junk" DNA happens all the time, due to the imperfect process of sexual reproduction. Very rarely, that junk DNA is mutated into something useful. That useful section of DNA is retained by natural selection - and new useful genomic information comes into being.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Crime Scene Investigation? The plot thickens......
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
.....Not to mention the intellectual honesty.
In the present case I predict it will be a lack of the latter that leads to a thoroughly unproductive exchange, replete with deliberate obtuseness and evasion. But then Jan is master of these arts, so it is not much of a prediction.
Irrelevant. I object to being lied to by you, and doing extra work on your dishonest pretexts, and interrupting the thread with irrelevancies.
The only relevance of your posts here is as illustrations of the psychology of overt Abrahamic theists who post on science forums.
For example:
The poster, an overt Abrahamic theist, has had several such explanations posted for him on this forum alone.
So why do they lie about it?
There has been no explanation of how Complex, Specified Information evolves.
I’m beginning to think you cannot give an adequate explanation, thereby rendering your belief in the Darwinian concept, a false one.
So can you offer an explanation, or are you going to continue lying, and evading the question?
Jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You have been given several explanations and examples. The problem is you refuse to learn by evading and lying about what is known about evolution.
Michael Behe is not a reliable source. Robert Hazen is. I gave you a link, but alas you refuse to see.