Re: BBC the creationist at the museum

"On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:26:07 GMT, in article <jd7Hm.1200$%U3.252@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Garamond Lethe stated..."

On 2009-11-01, TheMac37 <mac3871@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 30, 5:57=C2=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:03:48 GMT, in article <UsuGm.191$l67...@newsfe=
03.iad>,
Garamond Lethe stated..."





On 2009-10-30, TheMac37 <mac3...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:08=3DC2=3DA0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:39:41 -0700 (PDT), in article
<c22f4c23-a1d0-4468-b900-27d052773...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=
, T=3D
heMac37
stated..."

On Oct 25, 5:46=3D3DA0pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote=
:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:05:10 -0700, TheMac37 wrote:
[...] I mean...look around. Lots of diversity huh?

More, in fact, than an ark would hold.

You asked earlier for proof of an increase in information. =3D3=
DA0The=3D
re you
have it.

--
=3D3DA0Mark Isaak =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0eciton=
(at) earthlink =3D
(dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of nat=
ural
=3D3DA0honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct=
, than=3D
the mos=3D3D
t
=3D3DA0pompous views suggested by theological theories and syst=
ems." =3D
- D. Hum=3D3D
e

The diversity of created animals does not prove an increase in
information. If I start with say, the book "Bleak House" by Dicke=
ns,
and tear our pages and black out some letters, I may still have a=
boo=3D
k
that is readable, but it is a loss of information. It may even st=
ill
be recognized as Bleak House, but an abrdged version. This is wha=
t we
see in say dogs. The wolflike original dog would be the unabridge=
d
book. The chihuahua is the very simple cliff notes. Same story, m=
uch
less info.

Is this what you read in Genesis 1-3?

Or is this where you diverge from Genesis 1-3 with your own ideas?

Do you actually have a coherent position?

If someone were to tell me that he believes what the Bible says, n=
o
more and no less, I cannot argue with him.

When someone says that he has a position that he has arrived at wi=
th
logic and evidence, then it is fair game to ask for that logic and
evidence.

When someone introduces even a touch of secular reasoning (logic
and evidence) into what the Bible says, then he has said that the
Bible is subject to that standard of secular reasoning.
The loss of info is what is observed in real testable observable
science. Genesis 1-3 is the model that this scientific data fits
nicely into.

Ah, I hadn't realized.

By this model:

1. =C2=A0What is the historical and present rate of information loss?

2. =C2=A0How is this information loss manifested?

3. =C2=A0What other factors can either increase or mitigate informati=
on loss?

4. =C2=A0How do you account for repeated observations of information =
gain?

Ok, so maybe there isn't a model in Genesis after all.

Contrast this with our current models for gravity. =C2=A0We have a mo=
del=3D20
for how gravity currently affects matter, we know that other forces
affect matter as well (and our understanding of gravity has led=3D20
directly to the discovery of new kinds of matter and energy), we
can make predictions about how gravity will work in the future, and
we know at what point our current understanding of gravity breaks=3D2=
0
down.

(You can take as a given that if you say something like "real testabl=
e
observable science", several people here will promptly ask you to=3D2=
0
provide real, testable, scientific observations. =C2=A0Knowing this w=
ill=3D20
happen might be useful in crafting your replies.)

I'd just like to know where TheMac37 (or anyone else) finds anything
in Genesis 1-3 about "information", about changes (or the lack of
changes) to the world of life, or - any "model" which accounts for
the sort of thing which is subject matter of evolutionary biology.


Genesis 1-3 says God made animals after their "kind". That is the
model we see today. Dog kind, cat kind, bear kind etc...

You brought up the subject of "information", and I wanted to know
where Genesis 1-3 says anything about information. You're changing
the subject.



....and?

That's it?

Nothing about how to associate a given critter with the correct=20
kind? Nothing about which types of kinds (or kinds of kinds, if
you like) are useful and which are spurious? Nothing about how
to, given a kind, infer information about its members?

One might think that "kinds" as you describe them are simply an
aritfact of the human tendancy to abstract and classify. =20

The following was posted here not too long ago. It's a listing
of potential kinds, and thus by your definition must be a model
as well. It has the benefit of being much more detailed than
your model (and much more evocative).

<q>
These ambiguities, redundancies, and deficiencies recall those=20
attributed by Dr. Franz Kuhn to a certain Chinese encyclopedia=20
called the Heavenly Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. In its=20
distant pages it is written that animals are divided into=20

(a) those that belong to the emperor;=20
(b) embalmed ones;=20
(c) those that are trained;=20
(d) suckling pigs;=20
(e) mermaids;=20
(f) fabulous ones;=20
(g) stray dogs;=20
(h) those that are included in this classification;=20
(i) those that tremble as if they were mad;=20
(j) innumerable ones;=20
(k) those drawn with a very fine camel's-hair brush;=20
(l) etcetera;=20
(m) those that have just broken the flower vase;=20
(n) those that at a distance resemble flies.
</q>

A third model is standard taxonomy based on morphology and=20
genetic sequences.

How do you go about evaluating which model is better?

(Hint: you'll first need to define "better".)

I asked you a similar question about astrophysics that
you haven't gotten around to answering yet: why is the model
of Copernicus better than the previous geocentric one? Why
is Newton's model considered to be an improvement, and Einstein's
model considered to be even better?


Yes.

And ... once again, we have a creationist making stuff up and saying
that it's in the Bible.

There is nothing in Genesis 1-3 about "dog kind", "cat kind", "bear
kind". There is nothing that suggests that there is "information"
in a "kind". There is nothing that suggests that a "dog kind" has
different information from a "cat kind". There is nothing that
suggests that "dog kind" is different from a "cat kind". There is
nothing that tells us anything about a "kind". All of that is just
stuff that people have made up (mostly rather recently, by the way)
and then pretended that it is in the Bible.


--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Intelligence: Everywhere, Great and Small
    ... Bob Casanova wrote: ... no matter how small we observe, there seems to be no end to functional, ... "Evidence confirming an observation is ... Newton knew he couldn't perceive how gravity works, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... there's no way for matter to have been 8x as dense. ... It follows that if d remained approximatively constant, then the gravity ... But you have no independent evidence for that. ... You consistently pick and choose the data that seem to support ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... In case you wondered, I have the highest respect for math. ... >move matter, nor bring about gravity. ... The same evidence you have that rocks fall down and not up. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)