EvC Forum: Evolving New Information

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Evolving New Information

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 262 of 458 (522019)
08-31-2009 12:23 PM

Reply to: Message 261 by traderdrew
08-31-2009 11:28 AM

Re: and yet you go there

trader.

It has been defined as CSI. Successfully refuted?

Yes, it's simply a rehash of "it's-so-complicated-it-couldn't-have-evolved" argument hidden behind a few sciency sounding words in am attempt to give the old argument from incredulity some credulity.

Sorry, but it's still an argument from incredulity. It just tries to make incredulity "evidence" when it is no such thing.

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 261 by traderdrew, posted 08-31-2009 11:28 AM		traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 08-31-2009 3:20 PM		mark24 has replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 267 of 458 (522080)
09-01-2009 3:42 AM

Reply to: Message 265 by traderdrew
08-31-2009 3:20 PM

Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)

traderdrew,

Is this information not specified?

It doesn't matter one iota whether you, Dembski or anyone else slaps a label on the phenomenon, it still boils down to an argument from incredulity.

Basically the CSI argument is "it's complex & has function & there's information involved (well, possibly, but since you conveniently won't define it we can't even be sure of that), therefore can't have evolved". Once you have demonstrated that no CSI structure can possibly evolve, then CSI means something. But since no-one has demonstrated any such thing it's a gimmick to fool gullible creationists/Ider's that they have science on their side rather than the same old argument dressed up in the Emperor's new clothes.

I can't believe how Darwinists could think that I am not objective

A baseless argument from incredulity isn't objectively derived evidence, that's how. You're kidding yourself.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 08-31-2009 3:20 PM		traderdrew has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 277 of 458 (522473)
09-03-2009 3:43 PM

Reply to: Message 274 by traderdrew
09-03-2009 12:49 PM

Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)

traderdrew,

You think you have got me on that one? You don't. A good argument against ID should be a good argument for Darwinism.

Utter nonsense. Why does a refutation of ID have to mention Darwinism at all? All you have to do is point out is that it is evidentially vacuous & leave it as that.

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 274 by traderdrew, posted 09-03-2009 12:49 PM		traderdrew has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 294 of 458 (522783)
09-04-2009 9:15 PM

Reply to: Message 293 by LucyTheApe
09-04-2009 6:57 PM

Re: What is (new) information? (Its what creationists can't handle)

LTA,

Coyote, it's a scientific endevour.

In which case you have already accepted that it occurs, right? Because we know new function evolves, right? And if new function doesn't require new information, then evolution doesn't require new information & you just did yourself out of an argument, right?

Mark

This message is a reply to:
	Message 293 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-04-2009 6:57 PM		LucyTheApe has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 303 of 458 (522831)
09-05-2009 11:56 AM

Reply to: Message 302 by LucyTheApe
09-05-2009 11:45 AM

LTA,

Chemical reactions are also entropic

They can be "anti-entropic", too. How do you think large molecules form from smaller ones? How do you think they can broken down again? One of those reactions increases entropy, the other reverses it. The laws of nature allow for local increases & decreases in entropy so no law has been broken.

Not that new information has any bearing on increases & decreases of energy available for work, anyway, of course.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 302 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-05-2009 11:45 AM		LucyTheApe has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 319 of 458 (523197)
09-08-2009 7:14 PM

Reply to: Message 317 by traderdrew
09-08-2009 6:49 PM

Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)

traderdrew,

I said it before, you see no CSI and you hear no CSI. I have ased this question before, if it is not CSI, then what is it then?

And I've said it before, too, even if you could identify CSI, it's still an argument from incredulity. In other words, CSI isn't evidence.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 317 by traderdrew, posted 09-08-2009 6:49 PM		traderdrew has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	AZPaul3
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0