Real science is still based on empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
As a former science instructor, one of the things we know for sure from science is that information -such as the complex DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance (which evolution requires). 'A code system (i.e. ,DNA) is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.' 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.' Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
The huge amount of information found in living things (e.g. DNA) must originally have come from a Creator. Has matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and has arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or that a Being with infinite intelligence created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science? Creation by an intelligent Designer is logically and scientifically defensible and it should be allowed investigated and not censored! True science welcomes scrutiny and insecurity! However, some Scientists fear it!
That is why we present logical and scientific data. Because real science is the friend of the Creationist.
Consider the following: In terms of philosophy and logic, Something must be eternal. Thinks about that! Would you agree?
I would then ask, "Has matter always existed?"
"Who made God?" That's a good question! Another good question is, then "Who made Matter?"
Either Matter is eternal, or God is eternal.
If you are an atheist, your "bias" seems leaves you with only one possibility. MATTER!! and ONLY MATTER!!!
Now, that would mean the matter by itself, organized itself into meaningful information (i.e. DNA), against all that we observe in real science. That would mean that genetic information increases over time in order to get single celled organism to humanoids.
Therefore, I have one very simple question that must be answered. Can you give me an example of a genetic mutation, or an evolutionary process, which can be seen to "increase the information" in the genome?
If you can, send me an answer. I have taught on this topic for years, and no student or fellow teacher has been able to give me a legitimate answer. I got a lot of "off-the-wall" answers that did not answer the question.
Perhaps, this example below will help extract some of those thoughts!
What is the missing ingredient in every example below?
1.novel = glue + paper + ink + grammar + (?) 2.song = notes + ink + paper + (?) 3.machine = metal + nuts + Laws of Physics + (?) 4.proteins = amino acids + time + energy + (?) 5.DNA = sugar + phosphates + bases + chemistry + (?) 6.life = molecules + energy + chemistry + (?)
Scroll down for answers!
The only thing missing in each common example is "INFORMATION!". Said another way, it's a writer, a composer, a design, a plan, intelligence, a designer.
Let's give you a word (i.e. meaningful, useful Information) forming by chance. Make that word, simple like "house." Is that a word? _______
Now is that a word to a person that speaks Chinese, Spanish, or Greek?
NO! It is only meaningful to a person that speaks and reads English.
Information by chance, random processes is non-sense, because there has to be a language system in place to understand the Information. Say you read a book, would you recommend the ink, or the paper? NO way! If I gave you a book written in Greek (my mother language), would you be able to read it? Only if you speak and read Greek? The same thing with the DNA code.
Assumptions are not conclusions! Interpretations of facts are not facts!
Evolutionism is a world-view, which only interprets the data. It can not stand the test of the rigors of science. For it to even survive, there has to be censorship of scientific data that destroys it.
I hope you are open-minded enough to reason together and discuss SCIENCE!!
No one would assume that the Presidents' heads on Mt. Rushmore were the products of millions of years of erosion! You and I can recognize design, the evidence of the out-workings of intelligence. We see man-made objects all around us (e.g. the computer you are looking into) Oh, and by the way, in your shopping list example, Who made the alphabet and what language was it written in?) And yet, at no time would anyone ever suggest that such objects were just the products of time and chance. Design is everywhere. This "design argument" is often associated with the name of William Paley, who wrote on this topic in the late eighteenth century. He is particularly remembered for his example of the watch and watchmaker. In discussing a comparison between a stone and a watch, he concluded "that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." Paley thus believed that just as the watch implied a watchmaker, so too does design in living things implied a Designer. Today, however, a large proportion of the population, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and creatures, including the intelligent engineers who make watches, were the product of an evolutionary process - not a Creator God. But is this really a defensible position? Ham make a good point and it is hard to argue with!! Do living things show evidence of design? The Isaac Asimov declared that "In man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe." It is much more complex than the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design? Scientists who reject the concept of a Creator agree that all living things exhibit evidence of design. In essence they accept the design argument of Paley, but not Paley's Designer. For example, Dr. Michael Denton, (I am sure you must have read his thoughts on origins) scientist with a doctorate in molecular biology who is not a Christian, concludes: "It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance... "Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology, "It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate."
Dr. Richard Dawkins, holder of the newly endowed Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, has become one of the world's leading evolutionist spokespersons. It has come as the result of the publication of books including The Blind Watchmaker, which claims to refute once and for all the notion of a Creator and defends modern evolutionary theory. He states the following: "We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance." (I would be forced to agree) There is no doubt that even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is evident in the animals and plants that inhabit our planet. If Dawkins rejects "chance" in design, what does he put in place of "chance" if he does not accept a Creator? Who -- or what -- is the designer then? Design obviously implies a designer. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bible's explanation: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Richard Dawkins who admit the design in living things reject the idea of any kind of a Designer/God. In reference to Paley, Dawkins states: "Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false." Why? It is because Dawkins attributes the design to what he calls "blind forces of physics," and the processes of natural selection. Dawkins writes: "All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his mind's eye. "Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." Dawkins does, however, concede that "the more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an Intelligent Designer." Nonetheless, he rejects the idea of an "Intelligent Designer" and
...
I am glad you have your beliefs, but , cool. Other belief systems are out there, yeald to them too. Yours isn't the only one...science teacher or not. I am too. Big deal!
>Therefore, I have one very simple question that must >be answered. Can you give me an example of a genetic >mutation, or an evolutionary process, which can be >seen to "increase the information" in the genome?
Oooh! Oooh! I have one! Bacterial transformation; bacteria transfer circular rings of DNA called plasmids among one another, thereby giving the bacterium receiving the transfer some new information.
If a single-celled organism engulfed another and just absorbed all of its DNA (as is the proposed means by which eukaryotes, and poly-chromosomal organisms came about), that's about a doubling of information right there.
If no scientists have ever proposed this to any Cre(a)ti(o)nists, either the Cre(a)ti(o)nists haven't been listening hard enough or I should get the Nobel Prize for proposing this.
> Consider the following: In terms of philosophy and logic, Something > must be eternal. Thinks about that! Would you agree?
Yes
> I would then ask, "Has matter always existed?"
No
> "Who made God?"
Some people in the Mediterranean.
> That's a good question! Another > good question is, then "Who made Matter?"
Nobody
> Either Matter is eternal, or God is eternal.
Why? What is God anyway? The only God I know is God, the god of evolution.
> If you are an atheist, your "bias" seems leaves you with > only one possibility. MATTER!! and ONLY MATTER!!!
Huh?
> Now, that would mean the matter by itself, organized > itself into meaningful information (i.e. DNA), > against all that we observe in real science. That > would mean that genetic information increases over > time in order to get single celled organism to > humanoids.
Yes, I do not see your problem
> Therefore, I have one very simple question that must > be answered. Can you give me an example of a genetic > mutation, or an evolutionary process, which can be > seen to "increase the information" in the genome?
Yes, duplication of a gene, a quite common mutation
> If you can, send me an answer. I have taught on this > topic for years, and no student or fellow teacher has > been able to give me a legitimate answer. I got a > lot of "off-the-wall" answers that did not answer > the question.
> Perhaps, this example below will help extract some of those thoughts!
> What is the missing ingredient in every example below?
> 1.novel = glue + paper + ink + grammar + (?) > 2.song = notes + ink + paper + (?) > 3.machine = metal + nuts + Laws of Physics + (?) > 4.proteins = amino acids + time + energy + (?) > 5.DNA = sugar + phosphates + bases + chemistry + (?) > 6.life = molecules + energy + chemistry + (?)
> Scroll down for answers!
> The only thing missing in each common example is "INFORMATION!". > Said another way, it's a writer, a composer, a design, a plan, intelligence, > a designer.
> Let's give you a word (i.e. meaningful, useful Information) > forming by chance. Make that word, simple like "house." Is that a > word? _______
Yes
> Now is that a word to a person that speaks Chinese, Spanish, or Greek?
If they are familiar with modern music, Sure.
> NO! It is only meaningful to a person that speaks and reads English.
How many languages did you check for the lack of the word "house"?
> Information by chance, random processes is non-sense, because there has to > be alanguage system in place to understand the Information. Say you read a > book, would you recommend the ink, or the paper? NO way! If I gave you a > book written > in Greek (my mother language), would you be able to read it?
A bit of it, yes.
> Only if you speak and > read Greek? > The same thing with the DNA code.
> Assumptions are not conclusions! Interpretations of facts are not facts!
> Evolutionism is a world-view, which only interprets the data. > It can not stand the test of the rigors of science. For it to even > survive, there has to be censorship of scientific data that destroys it.
> I hope you are open-minded enough to reason together > and discuss SCIENCE!!
Sure, I would prefer to discuss Nature, or even the American Biology Teacher, but start if you like.
> No one would assume that the Presidents' heads on > Mt. Rushmore were the products of millions of years > of erosion!
No, but they are the product of a natural process.
> You and I can recognize design, the > evidence of the out-workings of intelligence. We see > man-made objects all around us (e.g. the computer > you are looking into) Oh, and by the way, in your > shopping list example, Who made the alphabet and what > language was it written in?) And yet, at no time > would anyone ever suggest that such objects were just > the products of time and chance. Design is > everywhere. > This "design argument" is often associated with the > name of William Paley, who wrote on this topic in the > late eighteenth century. He is particularly > remembered for his example of the watch and > watchmaker. In discussing a comparison between a > stone and a watch, he concluded "that the watch must > have had a maker; that there must have existed, at > some time and at some place or other, an artificer or > artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we > find it actually to answer; who comprehended its > construction, and designed its use." > Paley thus believed that just as the watch implied a > watchmaker, so too does design in living things > implied a Designer. > Today, however, a large proportion of the population, > including many leading scientists, believe that all > plants and creatures, including the intelligent > engineers who make watches, were the product of an > evolutionary process - not a Creator God. > But is this really a defensible position? Ham make a > good point and it is hard to argue with!! > Do living things show evidence of design? > The Isaac Asimov declared that "In man is a > three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the > most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the > universe." It is much more complex than the most > complicated computer ever built.
Sure, the same for Tursiops
> Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent > brain designed the computer, then the human brain was > also the product of design?
Kansas, Arkansas
> "We have seen that living things are too improbable > and too beautifully "designed" to have come into > existence by chance." (I would be forced to agree) > There is no doubt that even the most ardent atheist > concedes that design is evident in the animals and > plants that inhabit our planet. > If Dawkins rejects "chance" in design, what does he > put in place of "chance" if he does not accept a > Creator?
> "The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, > step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, > from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have > come into existence by chance. Each successive > change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple > enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen > by chance. > "But the whole sequence of cumulative steps > constitutes anything but a chance process, when you > consider the complexity of the final end-product > relative to the original starting point. The > cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. > The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the > power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally > nonrandom process." > Basically, then, Dawkins is doing nothing more than > insisting that natural selection and mutations > together provide the mechanism for the > evolutionary process. He believes these processes are > "nonrandom" and "directed." In reality, this is just > a sophisticated way of saying that evolution is > itself the designer! > Does 'natural selection' produce design?
YES
> Life is built and runs on information( i.e DNA). > Therefore, to argue that natural selection and > mutations are the basic mechanisms of the > evolutionary process, one must show that these > processes produce the information responsible for the > design that is evident in living things. > Now anyone who understands basic biology recognizes, > of course, as Darwin did, that natural selection is a > logical process that one can observe. However, > natural selection only operates on the information > that is already contained in the genes
FALSE
> - it does NOT produce new information. > It is true that one can observe great variation in a > "kind," and see the results of natural selection.
What is a "kind"?
> But the point is that NO new information was produced > - these varieties of dogs have resulted from a > rearrangement, sorting out, and separation of the > information in the original dog kind.
FALSE
> One "kind" has never been observed to change into a totally > different "kind" with information that previously did > not exist! Without intelligent input to increase > information, natural selection will not work as a > mechanism for evolution.
> Denton states: > "It cannot be stressed enough that evolution by > natural selection is analogous to problem solving > without any intelligent guidance, without any > intelligent input whatsoever. No activity which > involves an intelligent input can possibly be > analogous to evolution by natural selection." > Without a way to increase information, natural > selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. > Evolutionists would agree with this, but they > believe that mutations somehow provide the new > information for natural selection to act upon. > Can mutations produce new information? > Actually, scientists now know that the answer is NO! > Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who > taught information and communication theory at Johns > Hopkins University,
a layman
> said, > "In this chapter I'll bring several examples of > evolution, particularly mutations, and show that > information is not increased, But in all the reading > I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never > found a mutation that added information." > "All point mutations that have been studied on the > molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic > information and not to increase it."
> "The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to > explain how information of life has been built up by > evolution. The essential biological difference > between a human and a bacterium is in the information > they contain. All other biological differences > follow from that. The human genome has much more > information than does the bacterial genome. > Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose > it. A business can't make money by losing it a > little at a time." > Evolutionary scientists have no way around
> Real science is still based on > empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
> As a former science instructor, one of the things we know > for sure from science is that information -such as the complex > DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance > (which evolution requires). > 'A code system (i.e. ,DNA) is always the result of a mental > process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should > be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. > All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising > his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.' > 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise > to information, neither is any physical process or material > phenomenon > known that can do this.' Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at > the > German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
<snipped> Well, "Director and Professor" is a little misleading, and the institute name is mistranslated, but Prof. Werner Gitt is real (having spent the last 20 years in Germany, I say this with some annoyance, I didn't realise these people were around over there). Anyway, here's some more information on W. Gitt. He heads a department at the PTB, which describes itself in its English web site as follows:
What is the PTB? The Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Braunschweig and Berlin, is a national institute for science and technology and the highest technical authority of the Federal Republic of Germany for the field of metrology and physical safety engineering. It is the successor to the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt founded in Berlin in 1887 and comes under the auspices of the Federal Ministry of Economics. The PTB has about 1650 regular staff members 1300 of whom work in Braunschweig. 550 employees have undergone scientific training. (not the institute, nor a division)
Prof. Dr. Ing. Werner Gitt is in division Q, which is described as follows:
Division Q: Scientific and Technical Cross-sectional Tasks Tasks Division Q is responsible for cross-sectional tasks for the main fields of PTB's activities: Fundamentals of metrology Metrology for industry Metrology for the area regulated by law International cooperation. It provides information technology services for the technical divisions and is responsible for the coordination of the internal quality management.
Within this division, Prof. Dr. Ing. W. Gitt heads:
Department Q.4: Information Technology
Tasks: The main tasks of the Information Technology Department are,
Furnishing computational facilities for infrastructural tasks Planning, administration and backup of scientific and administrative servers Operation of the Oracle Relational Database System for cross-sectional tasks Cross-sectional systems administration Enhancement and Management of the Local Area Network Operation and enhancement of World Wide Networks Scientific solution of information technology problems Controlling the information technology budget
In article <NoGB3.16449$Hu6.6...@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>,
River <jrmil...@home.com> wrote: >Real science is still based on >empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
>As a former science instructor, one of the things we know >for sure from science is that information -such as the complex >DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance >(which evolution requires).
It's scary to think that you used to be a science instructor. However, I take comfort in the fact that you are no longer teaching science. (At least I assume that's what "former" meant.)
In article <NoGB3.16449$Hu6.6...@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>, "River" <jrmil...@home.com> wrote:
> Real science is still based on > empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
> As a former science instructor, one of the things we know > for sure from science is that information -such as the complex > DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance > (which evolution requires).
Really? It is a no surprise that you are a former science teacher. Define information in some meaningfull way, please.
> 'A code system (i.e. ,DNA) is always the result of a mental > process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should > be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. > All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising > his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.' > 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise > to information, neither is any physical process or material > phenomenon > known that can do this.' Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at > the > German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
Lots of information about this Gitt Character, unfortunately most of it seems to be in either Hungarian or German. However, one web page http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/create/articles/general/gitt2.html Says his specialities are information science, numerical mathematics and control engineering. Areas that have a lot to do with biology. :-\
> The huge amount of information found in living things (e.g. DNA) must > originally > have come from a Creator.
Nice arguement from ignorance and incredulity. But of no use in science. snip
> Either Matter is eternal, or God is eternal.
Or matter is not eternal, existing only from the big bang, a and god is a figment of your imagination
> If you are an atheist, your "bias" seems leaves you with > only one possibility. MATTER!! and ONLY MATTER!!!
And your bias is ignorance and only ignorance.
snip
> Today, however, a large proportion of the population, > including many leading scientists, believe that all > plants and creatures, including the intelligent > engineers who make watches, were the product of an > evolutionary process - not a Creator God.
Perhaps this should give a pause to think. Why do all these people, from so many diverse backgrounds and religions, all accept evolution?
snip
-- Dick #1349 email: dic...@uswest.net People think libraries are safe, they're not. They have ideas in them.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
"T.Westerhof" wrote: > > Consider the following: In terms of philosophy and logic, Something > > must be eternal. Thinks about that! Would you agree?
> Yes
> > I would then ask, "Has matter always existed?"
> No
> > "Who made God?"
> Some people in the Mediterranean.
> > That's a good question! Another > > good question is, then "Who made Matter?"
> Nobody
> > Either Matter is eternal, or God is eternal.
> Why? What is God anyway? The only God I know is God, the god of evolution.
> > If you are an atheist, your "bias" seems leaves you with > > only one possibility. MATTER!! and ONLY MATTER!!!
> Huh?
The above is a logical fallacy? Can anyone identify it? It's an unbased assumption that if you know of two mutually exclusive choices, that if one is not correct, the other must be, with no evidence or support that there are not other choices.
> <snip>
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------ When someone is saved from certain death by a strange concatenation of circumstances, they say its a miracle.
But of course if someone is killed by a freak chain of events - that must also be a miracle.
Just because it isn't nice doesn't mean its not miraculous. --Terry Pratchett "Interesting Times" ------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <NoGB3.16449$Hu6.6...@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>,
River <jrmil...@home.com> wrote: >As a former science instructor, one of the things we know >for sure from science is that information -such as the complex >DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
Then why do we see information arise from chance ubiquitously?
And what does pure chance have to do with evolution? Origin by chance is 100% creationism. ONLY creationists, and NOBODY else, propose it. -- Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta "My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
I exchanged a couple of emails with this asshole. Gave me a couple out of context quotes of Dawkins, claimed he couldn't meet the "information challange" etc.
> Real science is still based on > empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
> As a former science instructor, one of the things we know > for sure from science is that information -such as the complex > DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance > (which evolution requires). > 'A code system (i.e. ,DNA) is always the result of a mental > process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should > be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. > All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising > his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.' > 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise > to information, neither is any physical process or material > phenomenon > known that can do this.' Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at > the > German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
> The huge amount of information found in living things (e.g. DNA) must > originally > have come from a Creator. Has matter eternally existed (or came into > existence > by itself for no reason), and has arranged itself into information > systems against everything observed in real science? > Or that a Being with infinite intelligence created information > systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science? > Creation by an intelligent Designer is logically and scientifically > defensible > and it should be allowed investigated and not censored! True science > welcomes > scrutiny and insecurity! However, some Scientists fear it!
> That is why we present logical and scientific data. > Because real science is the friend of the Creationist.
> Consider the following: In terms of philosophy and logic, Something > must be eternal. Thinks about that! Would you agree?
> I would then ask, "Has matter always existed?"
> "Who made God?" That's a good question! Another > good question is, then "Who made Matter?"
> Either Matter is eternal, or God is eternal.
> If you are an atheist, your "bias" seems leaves you with > only one possibility. MATTER!! and ONLY MATTER!!!
> Now, that would mean the matter by itself, organized > itself into meaningful information (i.e. DNA), > against all that we observe in real science. That > would mean that genetic information increases over > time in order to get single celled organism to > humanoids.
> Therefore, I have one very simple question that must > be answered. Can you give me an example of a genetic > mutation, or an evolutionary process, which can be > seen to "increase the information" in the genome?
> If you can, send me an answer. I have taught on this > topic for years, and no student or fellow teacher has > been able to give me a legitimate answer. I got a > lot of "off-the-wall" answers that did not answer > the question.
> Perhaps, this example below will help extract some of those thoughts!
> What is the missing ingredient in every example below?
> 1.novel = glue + paper + ink + grammar + (?) > 2.song = notes + ink + paper + (?) > 3.machine = metal + nuts + Laws of Physics + (?) > 4.proteins = amino acids + time + energy + (?) > 5.DNA = sugar + phosphates + bases + chemistry + (?) > 6.life = molecules + energy + chemistry + (?)
> Scroll down for answers!
> The only thing missing in each common example is "INFORMATION!". > Said another way, it's a writer, a composer, a design, a plan, intelligence, > a designer.
> Let's give you a word (i.e. meaningful, useful Information) > forming by chance. Make that word, simple like "house." Is that a > word? _______
> Now is that a word to a person that speaks Chinese, Spanish, or Greek?
> NO! It is only meaningful to a person that speaks and reads English.
> Information by chance, random processes is non-sense, because there has to > be a > language system in place to understand the Information. Say you read a > book, would > you recommend the ink, or the paper? NO way! If I gave you a book written > in Greek > (my mother language), would you be able to read it? Only if you speak and > read Greek? > The same thing with the DNA code.
> Assumptions are not conclusions! Interpretations of facts are not facts!
> Evolutionism is a world-view, which only interprets the data. > It can not stand the test of the rigors of science. For it to even > survive, there has to be censorship of scientific data that destroys it.
> I hope you are open-minded enough to reason together > and discuss SCIENCE!!
> No one would assume that the Presidents' heads on > Mt. Rushmore were the products of millions of years > of erosion! You and I can recognize design, the > evidence of the out-workings of intelligence. We see > man-made objects all around us (e.g. the computer > you are looking into) Oh, and by the way, in your > shopping list example, Who made the alphabet and what > language was it written in?) And yet, at no time > would anyone ever suggest that such objects were just > the products of time and chance. Design is > everywhere. > This "design argument" is often associated with the > name of William Paley, who wrote on this topic in the > late eighteenth century. He is particularly > remembered for his example of the watch and > watchmaker. In discussing a comparison between a > stone and a watch, he concluded "that the watch must > have had a maker; that there must have existed, at > some time and at some place or other, an artificer or > artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we > find it actually to answer; who comprehended its > construction, and designed its use." > Paley thus believed that just as the watch implied a > watchmaker, so too does design in living things > implied a Designer. > Today, however, a large proportion of the population, > including many leading scientists, believe that all > plants and creatures, including the intelligent > engineers who make watches, were the product of an > evolutionary process - not a Creator God. > But is this really a defensible position? Ham make a > good point and it is hard to argue with!! > Do living things show evidence of design? > The Isaac Asimov declared that "In man is a > three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the > most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the > universe." It is much more complex than the most > complicated computer ever built. Wouldn't it be > logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent > brain designed the computer, then the human brain was > also the product of design? > Scientists who reject the concept of a Creator agree > that all living things exhibit evidence of design. > In essence they accept the design argument of Paley, > but not Paley's Designer. > For example, Dr. Michael Denton, (I am sure you must > have read his thoughts on origins) scientist with a > doctorate in molecular biology who is not a > Christian, concludes: "It is the sheer universality > of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to > whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and > ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, > which so mitigates against the idea of chance... > "Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity > exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even > our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel > humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of > twentieth-century technology, > "It would be an illusion to think that what we are > aware of at present is any more than a fraction of > the full extent of biological design. In practically > every field of fundamental biological research > ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are > being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate."
> Dr. Richard Dawkins, holder of the newly endowed > Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of > Science at Oxford University, has become one of the > world's leading evolutionist spokespersons. It has > come as the result of the publication of books > including The Blind Watchmaker, which claims to > refute once and for all the notion of a Creator and > defends modern evolutionary theory. He states the > following: > "We have seen that living things are too improbable > and too beautifully "designed" to have come into > existence by chance." (I would be forced to agree) > There is no doubt that even the most ardent atheist > concedes that design is evident in the animals and > plants that inhabit our planet. > If Dawkins rejects "chance" in design, what does he > put in place of "chance" if he does not accept a > Creator? > Who -- or what -- is the designer then? > Design obviously implies a designer. To a Christian, > the design we see all around us is totally consistent > with the Bible's explanation: "In the beginning God > created the heaven and the earth." > However, Richard Dawkins who admit the design in > living things reject the idea of any kind of a > Designer/God. In reference to Paley, Dawkins states: > "Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity > and is informed by the best biological scholarship of > his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly > wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, > between watch and living organism, is false." > Why? It is because Dawkins attributes the design to > what he calls "blind forces of physics," and the > processes of natural selection. Dawkins writes: > "All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker > in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit > deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker > has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and > plans their interconnections, with future purpose in > his mind's eye. > "Natural selection, the blind, unconscious,
|>Real science is still based on |>empirical science, observation, testing and logic! |> |>As a former science instructor, one of the things we know |>for sure from science is that information -such as the complex |>DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance |>(which evolution requires). | |It's scary to think that you used to be a science instructor. However, |I take comfort in the fact that you are no longer teaching science. |(At least I assume that's what "former" meant.) | No, I think he meant he's an instructor in "former science".
-- John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia <mailto:wilk...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins> Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
In article <NoGB3.16449$Hu6.6...@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>,
River <jrmil...@home.com> wrote: >Real science is still based on >empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
>As a former science instructor, one of the things we know >for sure from science is that information -such as the complex >DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
Good thing you're a FORMER instructor, since we obviously DON'T know such a thing (and see quite the opposite). -- -Roger Tang, gwang...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL] - http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html -Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
In article <NoGB3.16449$Hu6.6...@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>, "River" <jrmil...@home.com> wrote:
> Real science is still based on > empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
> As a former science instructor, one of the things we know > for sure from science is that information -such as the complex > DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance > (which evolution requires). > 'A code system (i.e. ,DNA) is always the result of a mental > process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should > be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.
(+ a variety of stuff all snipped, you get the general idea).
What creationists and anti-evolutionists invariably fail to understand is the role of the environment. Here's an analogy. How long will it take you on average to throw 5 sixes with 5 dice ? Given that the chance of throwing 5 sixes with a single throw is 1/6^5, 0.000129 or about 1 in 7,800, you might guess that it's going to take you at least a few thousand throws. And you're wrong. Suppose you throw the 5 dice. Then only pick up and throw those dice that were NOT 6. Throw again, each time leaving any sixes that turned up. You'll find that it takes you about 12 or 13 throws on average, not the few thousand.
Or the odds of dealing all 13 cards in a single suit ? Keep redealing, and the sun might have exploded before you get there. But if you deal 13 cards, and then pick up and reshuffle only the cards that were not, say spades, and then redeal, it will take you no more than about 80 or so deals.
The point is that the content, e.g., DNA, may vary randomly, but it is the selection process - in evolution provided by the environment, in general, that "adds" information. And, my analogies notwithstanding, no intelligence is required by the environment either - all you require is that the environment is not a closed system. This is what natural selection is. D'uh.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
|
