DN represents Neo-Darwinists’ naturalistic explanation of evolution, not evolution itself.
I don't think anyone will see the distinction you're drawing between "evolution" and "evolution itself."
Also, when appropriate it would improve the clarity of your posts to quote the specific portion of a message that you're responding to. There are a couple dBCodes available for this purpose: [quote] and [qs]. See dBCode Help for details.
I have my own creationism, which I mentioned is different from all other creationism. I don’t think it’s a good idea to introduce my creationism all around at once. For example, if it contains ten subtopics, it would be impossible to debate/discussion if I propose all ten subtopics at once. Let’s discuss one subtopic at a time.
There's a general consensus in this thread that your idiosyncratic ideas do not cohere into a consistent and rational whole. Some are trying to gain further insights into your thinking. Being evasive is just raising further suspicions that you're not being honest and forthright.
If your ideas are evidenced and rational then they you should be able to state them clearly. Your inability to make these clear statements and your reluctance to respond to requests for clarification and more information is working against you.
To conclude, I'm seeing multiple comments in this thread that tell me people are seeing you as unclear, obfuscatory, illogical and evasive, and that you're ignoring such feedback. No one can make you care what other people think, but when many people say the same thing it shouldn't be ignored, either. This is a moderated forum, so if moderation thinks they have a point then moderation will step in. I'm stepping in. Please step it up.
Keeping things simple is often a good idea, but not to the point of error. "Life consists only of matter" is as clearly in error as "pizza consists only of dough." How would you characterize the role of ATP if life were only matter?
If I could touch on honesty just a bit, if I claimed I was an ordained minister I would be lying. My inability to display the qualities of such training would be apparent and people would question it. Would you like to come clean about anything?
There's a lengthy "About the Author" section. Dr. Wang was born in Shanghai, China, in 1941. He was at Dalhousie University in Canada in the physics department for many years but doesn't feel he published any papers of consequence. He accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in 1993. Because he's a theoretical physicist he knows new information through random mutation is impossible.
Re: Re-Admin(114): Still, we need a new topic and NvC-3 is a good topic
There are no time requirements for replying. Take your time.
With regard to opening a new thread, is it your view that this thread has reached a consensus about naturalism in biology? If so could you state that consensus?
I'm gaining the strong impression that you do not want to engage with most of the feedback people are providing you. You've responded to only 16 of 60 replies to you, about 25%. I'm not inclined toward opening a new thread for you to repeat that performance.
However, we still need a topic in order to set a narrow focus and continue our discussion/debate. Here is my suggestion. Based on the feedback, I’ll decide whether to submit. I don’t want to give Admin any more trouble.
If you continue ignoring moderator feedback and insisting on charting your own somewhat unintelligible course, nothing's getting promoted. I don't have hours of time to analyze your cryptic stuff trying to figure it out.
Please stop referring to messages as, for example, Admin(151). You can link directly to messages with [msg=151], which becomes Message 151.
This is a suggestion, there's no need to follow it.
I'd like to suggest that no progress will be made in discussions about information until a common and unambiguous definition is adopted, one where information can be quantified. I propose using the definition of information used by Information theory - Wikipedia.
quote:The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
Shannon's focus is communication of information (he worked for Bell Labs, the nation's dominant telephone company at the time), so he goes on to define information in a rigorous and mathematical way.
A second issue with Shannon is that he had no concern for the meaningful content of the message,...
Exactly. I quoted that portion. Science has so far been unable to quantify meaning. It feels to me that the way information is being discussed in this thread requires quantification, so unless the discussion shifts from meaning to Shannon information the discussion is bound to become like comparing different genera of fruit.