Creationism, fact or fiction? - Page 5 | Realm of Thought | PinoyExchange

Page 5 of 12 First ... 4 5 6 ... Last
Results 81 to 100 of 223
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by essex
    Oh yeah easter, do you think that insects were also taken into the ark? how do you think noah would have managed to collect and store the millions of species of insects?
    We'll been busy for a while so never got to post much. God created the universe and I think it wouldn't have been much of an effort for Him to save some insects.

    Here are some possible explanations to the insects in the ark.


    1. "Two Hebrew terms represent the animals kinds that Noah was commanded to take. The term "behemah" is translated "beast" or "cattle". The term "remes" is translated as "creeping things". Remes has numerous meanings in Scripture, but in this context it seems to refer to reptiles. Both of these terms refer to land animals that breathed through their nostrils (Gen 7:22). Insects breathe through small tubes in their exoskeletons (body walls), and not through nostrils."

    2. "What if insects were taken? Even though the terms in Genesis 6:19-20, "behemah" or "remes" do not necessarily include insects, Noah still could have easily taken them. If a million pairs were kept in 4 inch boxes per pair, then all insects would occupy only 1000 m3 or another 12 cars."

    Source: http://www.soulcare.org/Bible%20Stud...k-Animals.html

    3. Insects may have survived through vegetation mats.

    "Even if much of this specialization existed before the flood, based on the creation model those insects living today would be degenerated forms of those living at the time of the flood. They would have been healthier and probably less sensitive to changes in their environment than their modern descendants. Given this, it is not unreasonable that those insects could have managed to survive on vegetation mats, even if their modern descendants can't."

    Source: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CH511

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    Here are some possible explanations to the insects in the ark.

    3. Insects may have survived through vegetation mats.

    "Even if much of this specialization existed before the flood, based on the creation model those insects living today would be degenerated forms of those living at the time of the flood. They would have been healthier and probably less sensitive to changes in their environment than their modern descendants. Given this, it is not unreasonable that those insects could have managed to survive on vegetation mats, even if their modern descendants can't."
    The insect that eats wood what do you call that insect? Its lucky those insects didn't eat the arc during the flood.

    I'm sure the insects today are more sensitive to changes in the enviroment so they can adopt. The old insects did not have to adopt to Raid and Katol and the Exterminator.

    Siguro nangati ng husto sila Noah habang natutulog dahil duon sa bedbugs na si-nave nila sa flooding.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    We'll been busy for a while so never got to post much.
    No problem easter, I've been busy likewise... as long as you don't run off and avoid my questions right?

    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    God created the universe and I think it wouldn't have been much of an effort for Him to save some insects.
    Here you're assuming that god intervened and somehow 'magically' rounded up all the millions and millions of insects and kept them alive for the whole duration of the voyage while being kept in 4 inch long boxes.... don't you find it odd that if god wanted to make Noah's life easier he could have simply wiped out all the evil people off the face of the earth in an instance instead of creating a flood? Or perhaps god wanted to make Noah's life harder and therefore did not intervene...

    Anyways, If you believe that the whole flood story was simply a 'magical' event that cannot be explained using science, then don't try to... So don't go around saying god did it everytime you can't explain something, otherwise, just admit that the flood story has no scientific and logical basis for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    Here are some possible explanations to the insects in the ark.
    Thanks, now let's tackle them one by one...

    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    1. "Two Hebrew terms represent the animals kinds that Noah was commanded to take. The term "behemah" is translated "beast" or "cattle". The term "remes" is translated as "creeping things". Remes has numerous meanings in Scripture, but in this context it seems to refer to reptiles. Both of these terms refer to land animals that breathed through their nostrils (Gen 7:22). Insects breathe through small tubes in their exoskeletons (body walls), and not through nostrils."
    Ok, this one doesn't really say anything about caring for the insects, it's simply claiming that insects were not taken into the ark for which I have to ask, how did they survive?

    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    2. "What if insects were taken? Even though the terms in Genesis 6:19-20, "behemah" or "remes" do not necessarily include insects, Noah still could have easily taken them. If a million pairs were kept in 4 inch boxes per pair, then all insects would occupy only 1000 m3 or another 12 cars."

    Source: http://www.soulcare.org/Bible%20Stud...k-Animals.html
    You must me kidding me right? You are saying that the millions and millions of insects were paired and kept in tiny little 4-inch boxes, millions and millions of boxes no doubt?

    First of all, how in blazes were they fed? You do understand that most insects require special diets right? Some insects are even strict carnivores, and some of those specialize on certain kinds of foods, how did Noah determine and provide for all those special diets?

    Many even require fresh food, parasitoid wasps only attack living prey. Most spiders locate their prey by the vibrations it produces. Aphids, in fact, are physically incapable of sucking from wilted leaves. How did Noah keep all these food supplies fresh?

    Never mind how they were able to feed all millions of them... and you do know there were only 8 people on the ark right?

    And how were short-lived insects able to survive? Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Some insects even have a lifespan of only a few hours... Some species of spiders kill their partners after mating, if you had kept them paired in carboard boxes, well then... too bad I guess right?

    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    3. Insects may have survived through vegetation mats.

    "Even if much of this specialization existed before the flood, based on the creation model those insects living today would be degenerated forms of those living at the time of the flood. They would have been healthier and probably less sensitive to changes in their environment than their modern descendants. Given this, it is not unreasonable that those insects could have managed to survive on vegetation mats, even if their modern descendants can't."

    Source: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CH511
    1) Many insects could not survive for a year on vegetation mats. Most insects are specialized at least somewhat for their food or environment. Some of the requirements of various insects include

    * living vegetation or flowers to feed on
    * dry wood
    * soil
    * dung
    * animal corpses
    * shallow streams

    In particular, a global flood would have caused the extinction of most aphids, drywood termites, dung beetles, burying beetles, black flies, mayflies, ground beetles, and many more, unless special care were taken to ensure their survival.

    2) A global flood would cause the extinction of millions of species of insects and other invertebrates simply as a result of the reduced quantity of habitat. Insect species are going extinct today simply from the cutting down of sections of forests. A global flood would be many orders of magnitude more devastating. Given the fact that insects are alive today, if there was a flood, Noah must have gathered them and saved them with the rest of the animals.

    3) The Bible says that Noah took "every creeping thing on the ground" and that these were distinct from animals (Gen. 6:20, 7:8,14). It further says that all life that was not aboard the ark was killed, including creeping and swarming things (Gen. 7:21-23). There is not the slightest bit of biblical support for anything living on vegetation mats and a great deal of biblical contradiction of the idea. Obviously, the only reason to put insects on mats is so the ark apologists do not have to worry about them.

    source

    As you can see easter, it would have been virtually impossible for Noah to have rounded up all those insects not to mention keeping them alive for the whole voyage, alternatively, it would have also been impossible for those insects to survive outside of the ark, not only is it scientifically impossible but also biblically unsound.

    I would also like to ask for your response to my rebuttal of your previous post,unless ofcourse you have no answers for it?

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by trypho
    Thank you for clarifying what you mean. It is true that I said that information can be thought of as a difference. This is because information is often explained and used with regards to the transmission of signals accross communication channels. But we can also think of information as the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others (Fred Dretske).

    Regarding Mordeca's sample, maybe he is indeed talking about "new" information. And perhaps he will try to argue about the origin of the specific sequence of the neuclotides in the DNA molecule of the first organism.




    You are mistaken there. In the case of the series which produces only one symbol (e.g. all 1's) the entropy is not maximum but is in fact zero. This is because we are sure that the next symbol is 1 and therefore the probability is 100%. If we use the formula given by Shannon to compute the entropy, we would end up with the value zero.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
    "It is important to remember that entropy is a quantity defined in the context of a probabilistic model for a data source. Independent fair coin flips have an entropy of 1 bit per flip. A source that always generates a long string of A's has an entropy of 0, since the next character will always be an 'A'."

    I agree with you though that all that is needed is one line of code to describe the entire sequence.



    I agree that a system under equilibrium has maximum entropy. I even said in my previous post that it would be equal to -log2M. Maybe we just don't agree with what "under equilibrium" means. It seems for you, a complete uniformity or equilibrium is something like that of the series which produces only the symbol 1. For me, equilibrium means "equal probability of the symbols".
    your last statement says it all, thank you.
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by essex
    No problem easter, I've been busy likewise... as long as you don't run off and avoid my questions right?
    I never avoid questions essex. Furthermore, I am not so much in the business of having the last word in every debate. As long as I have presented my points that is enough. If it convinces you then good and if not then I pray that God will do the rest.


  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie
    your last statement says it all, thank you.
    Ok po. Let's wait for Mordecai's clarifications.

  7. #87
    I think there’s a bit of confusion here since the definition of entropy can vary from field to field. To address some people’s claims that entropy is proof against evolution, First I’d like to point that information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are two different things. Second I would like to point that the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most misquoted of the physical laws.
    As engineering students we study thermodynamics rather extensively. The second law makes no claims that “disorder” is the natural state of things. Entropy is not equivalent to disorder. Furthermore, people who claim that things naturally “disorganize” themselves obviously haven’t being observing the world around them. Put oil and water in a container and they naturally separate themselves. You mix one compound with another compound you get another compound. And the new compound shouldn’t naturally deconstruct overtime. It would remain as it is until another chemical reaction breaks the it. …order though is different from design.

    a.)
    / / / /
    / / / /
    / / / /
    b.)
    - -//\\ - - ll\\ - - //ll
    - //__\\ - ll \\ - // -ll
    //- - - \\ -ll -\\// - ll
    We know that letter a is ordered since the characters are laid out in a predictable pattern. Such patterns occur naturally. Letter b however seems designed. Most often we perceive something as designed if it conveys meaning. To someone who can’t read roman alphabets, letter b is just an ordered collection of characters arranged in straight lines and diagonals. To us however we know it reads AM and therefore there is a high probability that it was purposely arranged that way. Unfortunately some people extend this interpretation of meaning to objects that have no objective meaning –they look at the sunset and they see some sort of higher purpose or something like that. And then god enters the picture


    Nobody is arguing against the complexity of DNA.
    trypho you took IT, you probably know that it’s extremely improbable to generate even a simple working program by randomly generating characters. Analogously it’s also near-impossible to generate a complete DNA string by chance alone (at least with our current understanding of how things work). However if instead of single characters we generate random words then your chances improve a bit. And if instead of single words you generate chunks of code then your chances improve even more.
    I’m not making specific suggestions on how DNA could have formed I’m merely stating what evolution has been suggesting ever since it was first introduced but seems to just be flying over the heads of lesser theists. Complex things gradually arise from more and more simple things. Nobody is saying that atoms spontaneously combined and formed the first cell as we know cells to be or that sometime ago a lungfish gave birth to a frog….

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaywalker
    Furthermore, people who claim that things naturally “disorganize” themselves obviously haven’t being observing the world around them
    That was supposed to be "haven't been observing"

  9. #89
    btw, i was speaking from the context of Gregory Chaitin's algorithmic information theory.
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    Let's stick to the thread topic shall we?

    Scientific Evidence for a Creator - Information in Nature

    1) Information can only be created by an intelligent being.
    2) Nature can only produce patterns (e.g. ABABABABA), not information (e.g. "To be or not to be, that is the question").
    3) Biological systems in nature function because information is present.
    4) Therefore, these information-dependent biological systems must've been created by an intelligent being or creator.

    Best Example of Information in Nature - DNA
    The nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie
    what's the difference between patterns and information?
    The difference is in specificity (purpose-driven) and complexity (non-simple). Only information can have both. Patterns produced by nature has never been observed to have both properties. Furthermore, information that are both specified and complex have always been observed to arise from an intelligent cause. Therefore, the specified and complex information that we see in the DNA code for contruction, function, and maintenance of organisms must’ve been caused by an intelligent Creator.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by jeune_fille
    If an information was created by a creator. Is it logical to say that a creator was also created by another creator? say man created GOD
    Your concern is non-sequitur. What does the fact that the Rizal Monument’s designer has a mother have anything to do with the fact that Rizal Monument is obviously designed? Nothing. The point is information in nature exists and can only be explained by an intelligent creator. Whether that creator has a creator is irrelevant in this discussion.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by crazy legs
    This is not scientific evidence at all. This is just mumbo-jumbo justification for ID/creationists. Abracadabra scientific stuff.

    This is what you are really saying:

    1) Information can only be created by an intelligent being.
    God created everything.

    2) Nature can only produce patterns (e.g. ABABABABA), not information (e.g. "To be or not to be, that is the question").
    God created everything

    3) Biological systems in nature function because information is present.
    God created everything

    4) Therefore, these information-dependent biological systems must've been created by an intelligent being or creator.
    God created everything.

    Your scientific evidence is not scientific at all it is blind loyalty to your religious beliefs. Admirable. But don't pass it off as science.
    Between my evidence versus your prejudiced ranting? It is quite obvious who is blindly following his (atheistic) ideology. At least mine looks like and IS scientific.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Jestnii
    Point 1 muna...
    How did you came up with this ???

    Information is defined by an intelligent being, true, but to say that it can only be created by an intelligent being is for me very much false.

    I'll give you an example, the sound "tu" was defined by intelligent beings (man) to refer the quantity that is one unit more than one, it other words, two. But even if intelligence is not there, the sound can still be randomly created.
    Blowing into certain pipes produce the sound "tu"...if you hear that sound, what information do you obtain from it?

  14. #94
    ...just because
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Metro Manila
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    At least mine looks like and IS scientific.
    ...that is according to you.

  15. #95
    ...and that is according to you.

    Shall we iterate?

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    The difference is in specificity (purpose-driven) and complexity (non-simple). Only information can have both. Patterns produced by nature has never been observed to have both properties. Furthermore, information that are both specified and complex have always been observed to arise from an intelligent cause. Therefore, the specified and complex information that we see in the DNA code for contruction, function, and maintenance of organisms must’ve been caused by an intelligent Creator.
    on one hand, i shall not argue with you regarding specificity, since purpose is essentially subjective.

    it seems that you are begging the question here. of course patterns in nature would not be observed to have complexity since patterns are essentially simple. however, this does not mean that something complex cannot arise from nature. complexity is an emergent property of a system which cannot be traced to any of its components. for example, a wave is an emergent property that cannot be traced to any one particle which makes it manifest. in the same manner, the properties of water cannot be found in either hydrogen and oxygen gas. however, if we take away the waving particles or either gas, we take away the wave or water itself. now, your second argument regarding information is an inductive generalization and a weak one at that. even if all complex and specified information observed arises from an intelligent source (which is false if you are aware of chaos theory and connectionism), it does not necessarily mean that all complex and specified information would arise from an intelligent source external to the system.

    neural networks are examples of complex systems which are made up of simple "neurons." their complexity comes not from any outside interference, but from the intereactions between the simple processes involved in its function. it is able to have specificity since it can "learn" by reinforcing the connections between interactions which are often used, and it can self-organize by taking into account information feedback. complexity is as much a part of nature as simplicity for the sole reason that simplicity interacting with itself is what complexity is all about.
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  17. #97
    i roared and i rampaged
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Metro_Manila
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    Your concern is non-sequitur. What does the fact that the Rizal Monument’s designer has a mother have anything to do with the fact that Rizal Monument is obviously designed? Nothing. The point is information in nature exists and can only be explained by an intelligent creator. Whether that creator has a creator is irrelevant in this discussion.
    Worst analogy i've ever heard.

    Ur argument:
    1) Information can only be created by an intelligent being.
    2) Nature can only produce patterns (e.g. ABABABABA), not information (e.g. "To be or not to be, that is the question").
    3) Biological systems in nature function because information is present.
    4) Therefore, these information-dependent biological systems must've been created by an intelligent being or creator.

    Best Example of Information in Nature - DNA
    The nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.

    *here you are trying to point out that things are created by super being which is your GOD for that matter.

    My argument: An intelligent being (GOD) can be created by another intelligent being (men)
    Thus, logical to say that the super being is perhaps created by men.

    Your argument: see above post

    My argument: mother of designer->designer->rizal's monument
    The fact that rizal's monument cannot rationalize is a substantial ground that you cannot use this analogy. Rizal's monument is not a thinking being, it cannot be curious if he was created by something. That's not the case with us men

    man->GOD->man

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    The point is information in nature exists and can only be explained by an intelligent creator. Whether that creator has a creator is irrelevant in this discussion.
    the key words here are "can ONLY be explained". you reinforce this with this from your previous post.

    The difference is in specificity (purpose-driven) and complexity (non-simple). Only information can have both. Patterns produced by nature has never been observed to have both properties. Furthermore, information that are both specified and complex have always been observed to arise from an intelligent cause. Therefore, the specified and complex information that we see in the DNA code for contruction, function, and maintenance of organisms must’ve been caused by an intelligent Creator.
    if we expand your argument about information, you are clearly driving at something more general and that is the "order" present in nature. your central argument is based on what you subjectively call as "purpose", an "intelligent cause". i would be corollary then that the laws of physics, the mathematical axioms and everything else that we use in our capacity to understand these "patterns" are like that because they are designed to be like that. because it is the "purpose" of an "intelligent" creator.

    i want to try to understand your line of thinking so i'll use examples to illustrate how you prove the existence of "order" because of the prerequisite of "purpose".

    1. oxygen - its quite abundant on earth, though not necesarilly that abundant in the universe per se and is essential to life. without it, there won't be life (as we know it) here on earth. therefore it is there for the purpose of sustaining life on this planet.

    2. water - also quite abundant on earth and in rarely convenient liquid form too. without it life (as we know it) cannot exist. therefore it is there for the purpose of sustaining life on this planet.

    3. proximity to the sun - any nearer to the sun and it would be too hot for life (as we know it) to survive, any futher and it would be too cold (and water would freeze). therefore we are at this ideal distance since it is essential for life to exist.

    now before i continue probing, are those three statements accurate in describing your "theory" of intelligent purpose being the driving force of the universe? if not, please modify or clarify.

  19. #99
    Everyone who thinks Mordecai's arguments are scientific type "BRAINWASHED"

  20. #100
    Brainwhat?
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

Page 5 of 12 First ... 4 5 6 ... Last

Posting Permissions

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