The inside info
Tim DeLaney
evolutionary processes cannot create "new information".
The idea (if one can dignify it thereby) is that there is,
or at least ought to be, a law that states: "information
can neither be created nor destroyed." Conservation
of information, although desireable for creationism, is
not a feature of the universe.
Let me give an example from the endeavor of duplicate
bridge. Contestants all play the same hands (hence the
name "duplicate") against their opponents. In tournament
play, A computer program 'deals' the cards (not a trivial
exercise, but not all that difficult in principle) and everybody
faces the same problem: How to get the best result with
the same cards as all the other contestants.
The program that deals the cards is of finite size, and therefore
consists of a finite amount of information. But since it is used
over and over to generate random deals for the contestants, it
gives rise to an unlimited amount of information.
This information is not only meaningful; it is also very useful in
determining the most skillful players. (Does anybody see an
analogy with natural selection?)
As it happens, programmers have devised programs that can
calculate the optimum result for any given deal. (Double dummy
engines) It is common practice for the organizers of tournaments
to provide to the contestants the results of these calculations
(after the competition, of course). This multiplies the information
available to the players with very little cost.
Note that in this process, reams of useful information are created
for the benefit of the contestants. All this information is created
from nothing, at least from very little.
The fact is that there is no principle of 'Conservation of
Information'.
In many ways, information can be created in unlimited quantities,
creationist wishes notwithstanding.
Tim
All-seeing-I
Actually, you have elequently made a great case for a creator that is
an utter genesis.
1) A creator creates a wonderful universe with the same common
materials but each part is as unique as a finger print.
2) DNA, a blueprint for all life can, with variations of it's sequence
can generate an infanite amount life "each after his own kind" using
the same information and common materials.
not bad, eh?
Boikat
If you want to illsutrat faulty reasoning, sure.
>
> 1) A creator creates a wonderful universe with the same common
> materials but each part is as unique as a finger print.
You assume a creator, and that the "unique" features cannor arise
naturally. You seem to be assuming your conclsion based upon
incredulity. 2 logical fallacies to start with.
>
> 2) DNA, a blueprint for all life can, with variations of it's sequence
> can generate an infanite amount life "each after his own kind" using
> the same information and common materials.
If you assume all life is the "kind" involved. As support for a
"creator", the claim is a false conclusion based upon 2 pevious
logical fallacies, in addition, you have no evidence to support your
base assumptions, and still rely on an argument of incredulity to
carry the weight of your claim.
>
> not bad, eh?
Yup. Not bad at all. You've combined several logical fallacies to
demonstrate, once again, that you are a god-smacked idiot, or, "alien-
smacked". Which is it today? Were we created by some diety, or were
we created by some little green guys from another planet or alternate
reality, who had nothing better to do?
Either way, you end up looking like an idiot.
Well done, Mr. Camvrian mammal = Trilobite!
Boikat
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Drinking and smoking crack so early in the morning?
Boikat
Again, you jump to a faulty conclusion. I neither drink anything that
would immpare judgment, nor do I smoke crack. Never have, and never
will.
And you are still an idiot, Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite.
Boikat
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, you have elequently made a great case for a creator that is
>an utter genesis.
>
>1) A creator creates a wonderful universe with the same common
>materials but each part is as unique as a finger print.
using processes like evolution.
>
>2) DNA, a blueprint for all life can, with variations of it's sequence
>can generate an infanite amount life "each after his own kind" using
>the same information and common materials.
of course, to this creationist, a jellyfish is the same as a shark
because both are fish.
>
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
I notice you completely ignore the point, which
is that information can be generated in huge
amounts by trivial processes, much to the chagrin
of creationists.
They don't call it th information age for nothing.
Tim
David Fritzinger
<aab56fde-584e-4bc6...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
"A creator that is an utter genesis?!?!?!?!?!?" Say, is English your 2nd
or 3rd language?
>
> 1) A creator creates a wonderful universe with the same common
> materials but each part is as unique as a finger print.
You know this how?
>
> 2) DNA, a blueprint for all life can, with variations of it's sequence
> can generate an infanite amount life "each after his own kind" using
> the same information and common materials.
And, you can get increases in information through gene duplication and
mutation. That is called evolution.
>
> not bad, eh?
Cory Albrecht
Thank you for admitting that you are unable to actually address the
points Boikat made.
Ymir
<aab56fde-584e-4bc6...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> Actually, you have elequently made a great case for a creator that is
> an utter genesis.
Everything I've read in the ancient texts suggests he's more of a
Collossian Moroni.
Andr�
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
..
>
>2) DNA, a blueprint for all life can, with variations of it's sequence
>can generate an infanite amount life "each after his own kind" using
>the same information and common materials.
>
>not bad, eh?
>
>
too bad it took science to discover DNA while creationists were
muttering mumbo jumbo about ghosts and demons...