Ask a Young Earth Creationist.

[Erik Mesoy]

Duplicating things is adding information, you have more pieces of information than before, even if some are identical.

I point you to c_h's earlier post 113.

"...they might add information, but it is not adding new or better information... The only types of mutations that are beneficial are those that lose some information."

Apparently a beneficial mutation in one of a pair of duplicates somehow causes the information contained in the other duplicate to be lost somehow, at the same time as the information in the mutated duplicate is either worse or present somewhere already. This is the extension of what c_h is saying, and it makes little sense.
I want a definition, and preferably a metric, for "information".

 

[Samson]

I want a definition, and preferably a metric, for "information".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#Measuring_information_entropy

It seems to me that a duplication and subsiquent base change mutaion would fit the definition.

 

[brennan]

I point you to c_h's earlier post 113.

"...they might add information, but it is not adding new or better information... The only types of mutations that are beneficial are those that lose some information."

That's pretty feeble. It is incontestably MORE information. When you say 'new or better' that's the sound of goalposts moving.

 

[ToxoXI]

Quite the thread. Just finished reading the entire thing. It was - um - noble of you to take this on classical hero. I applaud you for that. I could repeat a lot of what has already been stated, but I will jsut pick up on this comment of yours.

1. Are your beliefs set in stone, or do they change when ever new information comes to light?

Generally my view is based upon what the Bible says because there have been so many cases in the scientific community where they have been plain wrong on a certain issue often because they just do not have all the available facts and as a result as something new come to light that will destroy the previous scientific views of the day.

Exactly! The scientific community is wrong lots of times. Has been, and hopefully always will be. Pardon the pun, but thank God. The reason I say that is based on the old office adage:

"Don't want to to anything wrong? Then don't do anything at all."

I think you will get the point. The scientific community is always pushing the envelope of what we know. They develop theories on how the world around us works based on the facts at hand. New facts come in - existing theories get supported or modified or dumped in the trash can. The scientific community constantly challenges itself, and that is a good thing. And much, much different from what I see from the Creationists.

So, if this was ever to develop into anything beyond a faith versus science argument, the Creationist Community would have to start practising 'hard' science. And therein lies the conundrum.

 

[classical_hero]

Quite the thread. Just finished reading the entire thing. It was - um - noble of you to take this on classical hero. I applaud you for that. I could repeat a lot of what has already been stated, but I will jsut pick up on this comment of yours.



Exactly! The scientific community is wrong lots of times. Has been, and hopefully always will be. Pardon the pun, but thank God. The reason I say that is based on the old office adage:

"Don't want to to anything wrong? Then don't do anything at all."

I think you will get the point. The scientific community is always pushing the envelope of what we know. They develop theories on how the world around us works based on the facts at hand. New facts come in - existing theories get supported or modified or dumped in the trash can. The scientific community constantly challenges itself, and that is a good thing. And much, much different from what I see from the Creationists.

So, if this was ever to develop into anything beyond a faith versus science argument, the Creationist Community would have to start practising 'hard' science. And therein lies the conundrum.

I gave a list of creationist articles that do practice hard Science. The list is found here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5297382#post5297382
Obviously you did not read that properly, since you did not say that either of them are wrong and why they are not wrong.

 

[Mango]

Dunno if you've answered some of these, but um, how do you explain carbon-dated rocks that have been around for millions, and sometimes billions, of years?

edit: Hmm, I have managed to find a way to search threads, something that I did not know existed, and found you have answered it somewhat. Still your answer leaves me wondering. You claim there are inaccuracies in the way it is measured, but surely these inaccuracies would not result in such uniform results around the Earth, would they?

Also, with all of the scientific evidence in various fields pointing to an old Earth, how does someone remain an expert in debunking all of the "evidence"? Surely that person would have to have advanced degrees in a number of fields.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I'm more interested in the explanation for the fact that while it takes countless millenia for light from far away galaxies to reach us, we can still see them from Earth.

 

[Withouthatred]

Well the radioactive decay is not quite so concrete as many people say, because there are many things that can affect the rate of decay. Also the way how the it is measured makes many assumption, such as that they know the exact amount of mother material that would have been at the site. No one would even know that, thus it is assumed.

What utter crap. The forces within the nucleus of an atom are so incredibly strong that nothing outside of maybe a particle accelerator can affect them to any notable degree.

Also what "assumptions" would it be based upon. Last time I checked the equation that represents half life ( N(t)=N(0)e^-(lambda)t) consists of nothing but easily measured quantities. N(0) representing the intial mass present. Lamda representing the half life rate of a specific substance, and t representing the time elapsed. Guess what? All can be measured.

Oh, and about other materials being at the site? Guess what? In this modern day and age we can filter out other substances to leave only one substance to be measured.

The world isn't flat buddy.

 

[wicshade]

First i would just like to reconize your avatar, I think it is Lizst, not certain but i thought so, if it is i would say you have good taste in music and in composers, i myself once tried to play Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 but i nearly went insane halfway throught the friska.

to the point of the thread

1. I have heard some people say that the remains of dinosaurs were put here by god to test us and others say that it is the devil trying to cause disbelife in god. the notion that we lived together at one time with dinosaurs seems a bit more farfetched then either of those.

2. Puttig asside all of the science of why the earth is or is not the age it is i would like to address the common view of intelegent design, why is it that when most people talk about this they describe it as if god directly created every single speciecs of organisms as it is, to me it would seem more likely that an all powereful bieng such as god could do one action and everything that we see today would have come from that one action, moreover i also think that we as people seem to put time constraints on god and his work i don't see how there is any difference for god in 6000 years or 15 billion, time IMO would not have any meaning to god. I am trying to say that i think god could have created the universe billions of years ago and everything came about whithout any direct action from god.

3. I do not look down towards believeing that the bible is the true word of god, but i do think that the bible has been altered by man to a point that has perverted Religion so that some few can benifit.

 

[warpus]

I gave a list of creationist articles that do practice hard Science. The list is found here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5297382#post5297382
Obviously you did not read that properly, since you did not say that either of them are wrong and why they are not wrong.

They don't do good science because they start with a conclusion and look for facts to support it.

A good scientist starts with facts and tries to come up with a conclusion that fits all of them.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

That's pretty feeble. It is incontestably MORE information. When you say 'new or better' that's the sound of goalposts moving.

Which is why getting a definition, a metric, a yardstick or the like for "information" from classical_hero would be nice.

I'm more interested in the explanation for the fact that while it takes countless millenia for light from far away galaxies to reach us, we can still see them from Earth.

I think it involves the speed of light changing, and scientists mistaking red stars for red-shifted blue stars.
Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_redshift

 

[Fifty]

Classical Hero: What is your decision procedure for deciding which tiny fraction of the questions asked to reply to?

 

[ToxoXI]

They don't do good science because they start with a conclusion and look for facts to support it.

A good scientist starts with facts and tries to come up with a conclusion that fits all of them.

Thank you. That is a more precise and concise way of saying what I was trying to say above.

 

[ToxoXI]

So, if this was ever to develop into anything beyond a faith versus science argument ....

To quote myself, I do believe that 'faith' and science can co-exist. But I don't think it is by denying the science and the reality around us, which is what YEC, in my opinion, is doing. It would seem to me that the astronomers and physicists and mathematicians who study mind-bending stuff such as deep space and the origins of the universe would find a more "natural fit" for God and creation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Do you give equal weight to all the books of the Bible, and try to integrate them together? Or do you allow that some books might be more accurate than others?

For example, the historical credibility of John seems to be lower than the book of Mark. Does this mean that you consider the events in John to be less likely than those described in Mark? Or did it all happen, 100% as described?

 

[classical_hero]

Do you give equal weight to all the books of the Bible, and try to integrate them together? Or do you allow that some books might be more accurate than others?

For example, the historical credibility of John seems to be lower than the book of Mark. Does this mean that you consider the events in John to be less likely than those described in Mark? Or did it all happen, 100% as described?

What examples do you have?

BTW, I am not feeling the best right now, which means that I have not been able to answer the question like I want to.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't have any good examples from Mark, but (for example) the 'water into wine' trick is only mentioned in John. Is it as 'believed' as events that are repeated in the more reputable books (like the cursing of the fig tree, I believe)?

 

[Murky]

Have you seen the movie Zeitgeist? You can go to YouTube and do a search for it. It covers Christianity pretty well.

 

[Pokurcz]

So basically, YEC is a conspiracy theory.

The conspiring are the general members of the scientific community, against the equally scientific YEC scientists, who fight valiantly against a overwhelming enemy that wont even acknowledge them as real scientists because their threat towards the scientific community and its monopoly on knowledge.

Did I get it?

 

[Quasar1011]

Also what "assumptions" would it be based upon. Last time I checked the equation that represents half life ( N(t)=N(0)e^-(lambda)t) consists of nothing but easily measured quantities. N(0) representing the intial mass present. Lamda representing the half life rate of a specific substance, and t representing the time elapsed. Guess what? All can be measured.

Oh, and about other materials being at the site? Guess what? In this modern day and age we can filter out other substances to leave only one substance to be measured.

Are you saying (assuming) that the Vela Supernova had no affect on said atomic measurements?