For Christians (or anyone else) who deny Darwinian evolution.

[Astreja]

Typical atheist answer.

Genetic fallacy.  

[Ravenshire]

I have no reason to have a conversation with an unreasonable sort like you and this will be my last reply to you until you can act like a grownup.

GC

Wow. You really are afraid of the question, aren't you?

Act like a grownup? You're the one with the imaginary friend. Judge not, asshole.

[Angrboda]

Proof that you can add information to DNA:

Take an organism, say we call it A. Suppose that its offspring suffers a mutation in its genome. According to creationist dogma, this must either result in no change in the amount of information, or a loss of information. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it results in a loss of information. By definition, this new organism, B, has less information than A. Now suppose that B's offspring suffers a mutation which changes its DNA back to that which it was in A. Call this organism C. Because A has more information than B, and A and C have the same information, organism C's DNA has more information than B's DNA (by transitivity). Thus, by mutation, an increase in information was observed.

QED.

 You are somewhat correct, but I think you have left out part of what Creation science knows. The info in B was never lost in the sense it just left, it is no longer active, it's recessive. So when C is born and looks like A the info became active again, we can see this in dog breeding today. I've breed down unfavorable traits in dogs just to have them pop up again.

You're simply altering the hypothetical in order to avoid the conclusion. Do you deny that information in the genome can be lost due to mutation? In no clear sense does the term recessive apply. Recessive traits can express themselves without a change in the DNA. This is not at all analogous to the hypothetical given. The hypothetical given was an example where the information was actually lost. You're simply choosing not to answer the hypothetical.

[Harry Nevis]

Ah well fluff 'reality' up any way you like.  Get it just right and you can go back to sleep and dream up the 'reality' of your choosing.

 Evolutionary science is dreaming up many fairy tales so I'll just let them go on doing so, it seems atheist like there fairy tales and receive much enjoyment from them.

GC

Of course.  A lot of people who don't understand the subject they're talking about think is a fairy tale.

---

 Evolutionary science is dreaming up many fairy tales so I'll just let them go on doing so, it seems atheist like there fairy tales and receive much enjoyment from them.

GC

I was an atheist before I knew about evolution, because the idea of god is silly. BUT if evolution turned out to be wrong it would mean that some other natural process did it. it would in no way validate the idea of god.
I fail to see what theists get out of denying what is obviously the case, it seems strange to me.

I think it feeds their persecution complex.

---

Better educate yourself on what the scriptures teach and then we might be able to have a decent conversation. All that crap you wrote that I deleted from this post will not intimidate me in the least, I'm a biblically educated Christian that knows what's what in the life of a Christian, you are a non-believer that know nothing other than to parrot what others have said, you haven't the fortitude to study the Bible for the truth.

GC

Man, you really don't understand irony, do you?

[JackRussell]

Gc throws around the word information, and I am pretty sure he has no idea how scientists discuss this, especially in an evolutionary context.

One thing that Theists frequently do is conflate Claude Shannon's ideas about the transmission of information, which he bases on a rigorous scientific framework, with Kolgomorov's ideas, again rigorously tested, on information content.

I get that this shit is difficult, but it is there to be learnt.

And we go from their to the 'language' canard about DNA/RNA.

And none of this addresses proto-cells in a pre-biotic work, before evolutionary biomass occurs.

Weird thing, even evolutionary processes can occur then too.

You too can research this stuff.

[Crossless2.0]

Gc throws around the word information, and I am pretty sure he has no idea how scientists discuss this, especially in an evolutionary context.

One thing that Theists frequently do is conflate Claude Shannon's ideas about the transmission of information, which he bases on a rigorous scientific framework, with Kolgomorov's ideas, again rigorously tested, on information content.

I get that this shit is difficult, but it is there to be learnt.

And we go from their to the 'language' canard about DNA/RNA.

And none of this addresses proto-cells in a pre-biotic work, before evolutionary biomass occurs.

Weird thing, even evolutionary processes can occur then too.

You too can research this stuff.

Why research this stuff when you can just take William Dembski's word for it and parrot his talking points?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Just goes to show how many people can be fooled by simple lies.

GC

I can't figure out why your Reputation is higher than mine is.

I repped GC because he has been a gentleman during my conversations with him, and IMO, he has made honest attempts to give meaningful, thoughtful answers to my questions.

[JackRussell]

Even Dumbski has stopped talking 'bout this now. His 'research' is moving in new directions.

Or, his bullshit has been exposed for the rancid rat shite that it is.

Wedge document anyone?

[Jehanne]

Even Dumbski has stopped talking 'bout this now. His 'research' is moving in new directions.

Or, his bullshit has been exposed for the rancid rat shite that it is.

Wedge document anyone?

I have read that Dumbski's research output as a scientist is below par as compared to his peers; in other words, he has published fewer papers.

[JackRussell]

Yep, and his only relevant papers are applicable to understood systems.

The whole ID movement has NO peer reviewed accepted papers.

This is why they started their own papers.

And don't get me started on AiG, they are just batshit absurd liars for christ.

Trouble is, even worse than that, some people think Kent and Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and a whole plethora of other bullshit purveyors have a point.


Creationism is utter wank.

Doesn't disprove god, but it is wank.