Genetic information is information in the gene code. Does that make sense? New information would be EXACTLY the same as NEW INFORMATION.
No, that doesn't make sense. In order to define information, you have to avoid using undefined terms ... such as "information".
Like I can have shorter ears and a longer nose than my father, thats the same info. But I will NEVER grow wings and fly away because that is NEW INFORMATION.
Ah, OK, you mean new abilities. There's lots of examples of that. For example, the ability to digest nylon.
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug.
I'm kinda young and can't really quote a lot of scientific babble, but what I'm writing is real easy to understand.
Yes, I'm sorry to say it is. You are claiming to know more than the thousands of people who have actualy studied these subjects on the basis of a few biased and ignorant Christian websites.
t seems like the number one argument for the evolutionists is "define kind".
It's not an argument, it's a question. How can we discuss kinds if we don't know what they are?
I stated that scrambling of the gene code is micro, new information is macro; never been observed. Stephen Gould, Charles Darwin, they ALL admit this
Sorry, no.
If you want quotes I can find them
Oh, I don't doubt that. However, I'll bet a
lot of money that you can't find a quote that:
A) We haven't seen before. DO you reallly think tyou're the first?
b) Is not incomplete or otherwise altered in a way that completely alters the obvious meaning of what was written, when the entire context is considered. Consider some quotes from creationists:
quote:
If I don't debate someone, it's because I don't have a case.
Jonathan Sarfati posting as Socrates on TWeb
I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant.
attributed to Kurt Wise in an email, 2003.
No, of course I haven't done lab research on the systems described in Darwin's Black Box.
an email from Michael Behe to the Baptist Board Administrator, 2003.
And one of the strongest arguments for the validity of radiometric dating is that the methods agree.
from The radiometric dating game by David Plaisted, 1998.
I had either stupidly or dishonestly reversed the time axis of the text’s figure to get my figure
from D. Russell Humphreys, The Acts of the apostates, 1998.
...various dating methods agree that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
John Woodmorappe, Studies in creationism and flood geology ICR Impact 238.
Do these quotes accurately reflect the views of the people who wrote them? Do the quotes that you offer accurately reflect the views of the people who wrote them?
Someone said anything Hovind comes up with is wrong. Sounds like a BIG predjudice to me. As I said, besides a couple of small arguments that MAY be false, the big picture of what he teaches is CORRECT. Prove me wrong.
Not prejudice; a rational conclusion based on analysis of the evidence (Kent's published works). Ken's too far out for even most creationsists; as Answers in Genesis says at
No webpage found at provided URL: Maintaining Creationist Integrity:
quote:
As part of this, AiG published a particular article entitled Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, and followed this with a related Creation magazine article 'Moving forwardarguments we think creationists shouldn’t use'. This was not aimed at any particular person or organization, but was produced as a result of the collective wisdom of AiG’s trained scientists and other professionals, based on years of research and experience.
When an attempted critique of this AiG article appeared on Kent Hovind’s Web site, AiG was somewhat surprised (and disappointed) to note that it frequently and significantly misrepresents and/or misunderstands the statements and positions made in our carefully researched document.
In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, we believed we had to respond to Kent Hovind’s critique (albeit with a heavy heart), particularly because of the mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good.
Before responding to specifics, it may be worth pointing out the obvious: If these arguments don’t convince fellow creationists, why would any creationist think they are going to convince evolutionists? And it would be worth revisiting our articles hyperlinked above for our motivation in compiling these dubious arguments.
Read the entire article.
Wait a minute WERE YOU THERE when the animals evolved??? Did you observe it?
Were you there when some Deity created everything? Did you observe it?
At the risk of being obnoxious, are your parents married? Did you observe it?
The idea that some event must be directly observed to be valid science is wrong on so many different levels. Do you thing that a murderer should be convicted only if the murder was observed? Events leave traces, and events that didn't happen don't leave traces, and studying these traces or noting their absence is valid scientific research.
Ok, I will repeat THERE IS A LIMIT!
Lots of people have claimed there is a limit .. nobody has ever presented any evidence of a limit. Your inability to inmagine how such evolution might take place is evidence of your inability and nothing else.
Don't tell me I'm not making sense I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.
You are not making sense. It apears that you have essentially no knowledge of the science that you are criticising. Your writing is not simple; it's wrong.
™ Version 4.2