Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 80

Thread: Good video on creationist use of "information theory"

  1. Top | #1
    Elder Contributor Underseer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    11,413
    Archived
    39,172
    Total Posts
    50,585
    Rep Power
    77

    Good video on creationist use of "information theory"



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

  2. Top | #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    DC Area
    Posts
    335
    Archived
    9,059
    Total Posts
    9,394
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Underseer View Post


    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.

  3. Top | #3
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    19,016
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,516
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
    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....

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,254
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    9,098
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
    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?

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor Underseer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    11,413
    Archived
    39,172
    Total Posts
    50,585
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Underseer View Post


    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.

  6. Top | #6
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    19,016
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,516
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Underseer View Post
    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.

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,244
    Archived
    20,351
    Total Posts
    23,595
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
    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.

  8. Top | #8
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    19,016
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,516
    Rep Power
    84
    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?

  9. Top | #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    141
    Archived
    890
    Total Posts
    1,031
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Underseer View Post


    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.

  10. Top | #10
    Quantum Hot Dog Kharakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    OCCaUSA
    Posts
    4,370
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    7,753
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-03-2018, 06:39 PM
  2. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11-14-2016, 09:44 PM
  3. "Genetically Modified Information": a potential pro-GMO film
    By ApostateAbe in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-01-2015, 09:35 PM
  4. U.S. System Of "Justice": Have "Good Ol' Days" FINALLY Ended??
    By Medicine Man in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-29-2015, 12:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •