A Cheap Shot at Creation Magazine

My mom just sent me this month's issue of Creation Magazine (at my request) and it reminded me of repeated discussions about information, to wit:While it may be possible that natural processes can add information to the genome, there appears to be no process, natural or otherwise, that can add information to Creation Magazine.

quote:

---

My mom just sent me this month's issue of Creation Magazine (at my request) and it reminded me of repeated discussions about information, to wit:

​

While it may be possible that natural processes can add information to the genome, there appears to be no process, natural or otherwise, that can add information to Creation Magazine.

---

How can anything add information to a genome according to the definition you and Peter were using, which requires the "information" be used by a conscious agent? Have I actually finally convinced you that that definition - the one you two were using - is the wrong one to use when dealing with DNA, and of the obvious fact that DNA does contain information????[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-23-2003]

No. You'll notice I said "may", implying that I did not intend to comment on that issue but merely to raise it.You might try working on your reading comprehension; or at the very least not deliberately misstating my positions. For something you complain about me doing it's generally you who's the first to do it.

quote:

---

You'll notice I said "may",..

---

So? I didn't say otherwise. I asked how anything could do what your "may" would involve: adding information to a genome according to the definition you and Peter were using, which requires the "information" be used by a conscious agent?So I ask again, but in slightly different form...how could natural processes make genomes conscious?Can you give a reasonable answer to that? Apparently not.

quote:

---

You might try working on your reading comprehension;

---

Why? What you said in this thread is ridiculous when using the definition of information you've been using in the other exchanges with me. Nothing you've said in this thread reverses that.Looks like it is you who needs to do some work, on formulating consistent positions.

quote:

---

For something you complain about me doing it's generally you who's the first to do it.

---

I have fully supported that you have created strawmen versions of my statements. You, on the other hand, merely assert it...well, sometimes you try to fool people by offering invalid support.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-23-2003]

I don't know. Since it's not a position I hold, I can't possibly defend it. I can however see that a person might hold that position, and since my post wasn't about whether or not that position was true or not, I chose not to immediately deny the possibility.In other words, I was tactful. I can understand if this is not something you're familiar with.