Question about creationist argument

[TheDeafPianoTuner]

Thanks for the responses everyone, I suspected the whole time that there was something wrong with the way they worded that argument. I am actually astonished to realize the amount of deceptive and dishonest tactics used by christians, the more I watch debates online and read material on the internet.

Tubby, I started to write a bit about my de-conversion story, but it got to be about a few pages long! I am not 100% sure yet if I do want to go into all the details yet, it's been a long and slow process, but I feel like I've come a long way. Maybe at some point I'll make a post or blog about the whole thing.

The main thing was the doctrine of eternal torment. I always hated that thing, but felt that I really had no choice. Long story short, it took a major event in my life which dramatically increased my stress level, and I realized I needed to let go of things that caused me stress, my religion being a major one of them. I didn't really think I would let go of the whole thing, but that's what ended up happening, as I started to learn more and more, exploring areas of thought and science that I had before been too afraid to explore, but I had gotten to the point where I really was screaming on the inside for a way out of the nightmare of believing that most of humanity (and quite possibly myself) would be subject to the worst fate you can imagine. And I am happy now that I can say with confidence that the whole thing is bullsh1t!!

[The Grand Nudger]

I am actually astonished to realize the amount of deceptive and dishonest tactics used by christians

-when all other options are removed, you go with whatever's left in your toolkit. They ran out of honest options before their religion was even formed. So they're serving from a significant handicap.

[Ravenshire]

Welcome aboard TheDeafPianoTuner.

The use of the word information by creationists when they're championing they're bullshit is, at best, misdirection and at worst, straight up lying! Complexity has been shown to increase through evolutionary models.

Another bit of bullshit they love to trot out is "We've never seen speciation so you can't say it really happens." It's bullshit too. There have been (tested, verified and repeated speciation events in bacteria in lab environments.

You may want to consider an introduction thread. Let people get to know you a bit. You don't need to tell your whole detailed story. Just hit the high points. Losty will probably even bring cookies.

[Dystopia]

I've been seeing this argument by creationists that goes something along these lines: "mutations don't increase information in the genes, therefore mutation cannot account for an increase in complexity"

I'm not an pro on mutations or genetics, I don't know a lot about it, I'm more of a social sciences person. I can however tell you I'm surprised there is a creationist smart enough to use that argument. The usual creationist argument is - God created the world because the world can't come from nothing, and since the bible says so it's true, because the world is perfect and there's not way it wasn't made by god's hand. They also frequently say - If evolution is true why are there still monkeys?

I don't even bother arguing with these people anymore

[The Grand Nudger]

Another bit of bullshit they love to trot out is "We've never seen speciation so you can't say it really happens." It's bullshit too. There have been (tested, verified and repeated speciation events in bacteria in lab environments.

That's nothing, our entire ag system depends on speciations that any botanist could induce -before they even knew what a mutation was-. It's gone beyond "we see it in the lab, in bacteria" to "we leverage it commercially to the tune of billions of dollars of productivity". But if someone wants to see guys in white coats observing, fine, there are an astounding number of verified speciation events clustered around a single crop. Brassica.

[Ravenshire]

Or the ever popular:
"Of course there was a big bang. God spoke and BANG, it happened"

Unfortunately, there are just enough intelligent religios out there for the masses to be able to Google and parrot.

[Duke Guilmon]

Hello,
I am recent de-convert from Christianity (what a relief). I have been spending the last few months watching videos on evolution and the evidence for it, trying to understand as much as I can.

I have one question that I am hoping someone can shed some light on, incase I might be missing something.

I've been seeing this argument by creationists that goes something along these lines: "mutations don't increase information in the genes, therefore mutation cannot account for an increase in complexity"

First off, I don't know a whole lot about genetics. But my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that our genes are a code, like a string of binary computer code. Each animal just has one permutation of all the possible values that string could take on. The purpose of the genetic code is that it represents the instructions on how to build and grow an animal. A mutation is like flipping one of the bits in a string of binary numbers, which will change the instructions, and produce a slightly different animal.

Mutations, as I understand it, don't "add or decrease information", they simply change the instructions. Different instructions produce different animals, some instructions produce simple animals (bacteria) other instructions produce complex animals (tigers).

Let's say I have the instructions for baking cookies, which can be thought of in terms of code, and each word or number is a unit that could "mutate". If I "mutate" the cups of flour in the instructions from 1 cup to 100 cups, I've got a larger batch of cookies (and, arguably, a more complex batch of cookies!). I haven't "added" or "subtracted" any words to the instructions, I've simply changed them, and the result became bigger / more complex.

Anyway, my point is to say that I really don't understand this concept of "mutations adding or decreasing information", I think it might be misrepresenting what mutation actually is, but I would like to know if I am on the right track here.

Thanks!

Nice to meet you.

First DNA being like a binary code is an analogy used for layman understanding on how DNA works. DNA is really a chemical process that ends up leading to a certain body part, action, or function.

Adding a decreasing information is also a layman version. A mutation is really a change in DNA that was not in the DNA's original function. The problem here is that creationist bring complicated terms down like that so they can misinterpret it and get people that don't understand it to believe them while they them selves don't under stand it.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutation...nemutation

[TubbyTubby]

The main thing was the doctrine of eternal torment. I always hated that thing, but felt that I really had no choice.

Fair enough, I'm always a bit curious (nosey) as I never had to go through the 'de-conversion' so to speak. As much as I try to empathise, I can't really as I have never been there. But congratulations to you for breaking free, I'll drink a pint for you this afternoon.