Good video on creationist use of "information theory"

[Underseer]

Since these arguments come up again and again, I thought this was worth posting.

[rhutchin]

Since these arguments come up again and again, I thought this was worth posting.

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

[Keith&Co.]

Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." .... Things don't happen overnight.

No, they take six days. And you've had 6000 years....

[James Brown]

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

And what will happen when biologists "nail down" a definition for species?

[Underseer]

Since these arguments come up again and again, I thought this was worth posting.

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

So your argument is that creationists are not wrong about information theory because you don't like the definition of species used by scientists?

In other words, you don't have an argument to make, so you're hoping to change the subject.

[Keith&Co.]

So your argument is that creationists are not wrong about information theory because you don't like the definition of species used by scientists?

Well, of course. Creationism only exists as a reaction to evolutionary theory. Without that, then their evidence (which mostly consists of taking evolutionary claims out of context and shouting 'Nuh-UH!') would be nonsensical gibberish.
They cannot provide evidence FOR creation except to show that either:
1) Scientists' claims are dismissable,
or as rhutchin tries to claim in this case,
2) Scientists' are 'just as bad' as creationists.

[GenesisNemesis]

Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." Things don't happen overnight.

So generous, for someone who believes that everyone believes in god without any evidence whatsoever.

[Keith&Co.]

Wait.
I thought that science HAS a definition of species, there are just areas and boundaries that don't quite conform to it? I mean, like all labels, it's an attempt to let us get a grasp on what's happening. And the biosphere is more complicated than our labels are comprehensive.

But... Do any two creationists offer the same definition of 'kind?' Is the fuzziness of 'kind' at all analogous to the incompleteness of 'species?'
And when creationists use 'information theory' are they all using the same (however robust) definition as information theory specialists?
IS this a comparable tit-for-tat?
Or is it just a tit-from-twit?

[sdelsolray]

Since these arguments come up again and again, I thought this was worth posting.

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

And you could lead the way for your creationist tribe with meaningful definitions of "information" and "kind." But you haven't and you won't.

[Kharakov]

Wait.
I thought that science HAS a definition of species, there are just areas and boundaries that don't quite conform to it? I mean, like all labels, it's an attempt to let us get a grasp on what's happening. And the biosphere is more complicated than our labels are comprehensive.

But... Do any two creationists offer the same definition of 'kind?' Is the fuzziness of 'kind' at all analogous to the incompleteness of 'species?'

Yeah. Evolution is creeping death. Wow... sometimes I tell the truth.