You can tell this person is an anti-science bigot

Current News and Links of interest

Moderator: News Editors

You can tell this person is an anti-science bigot

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:52 pm

Just by reading tirade in the Abstract regarding the Lenski experiment (which was described in 'The Greatest Show on earth: the Evidence for Evolution'):
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/m ... -creation/

PS As much 'Science only' as 'News'. What made me think 'News' was because he mentioned the Nye-Ham debate and also because I sent a brief message to AiG via the 'newsworthy' option on their website.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9007
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: You can tell this person is an anti-science bigot

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:53 am

He seems to be saying, in essence, entropy is good for you - or for bacteria, at any rate!
His logic is nonsense anyway: loss of bits - Shannon style information - in a message can still result in an increase of information - Kolmogorov form. Take the following example:

(I wrote this in a "digital" style font, Banknote Gothic, where the analogy to codon deletions is clear. I can't see how to upload the images I made without hosting them somewhere and my own site isn't working at the moment but you should get the idea)

The precious word GOLD can degenerate into the less valuable COLD by losing the stroke of the G.
But where did I get the GOLD from in the first place? By losing two other strokes from the base word GQUD.
Which, I think, merits QED.

He is saying that nothing new is added in changing gqud into gold: let him tell that to |Ken Ham's bankers!
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: You can tell this person is an anti-science bigot

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:37 am

Last time I checked, YEC blogger Gilleand was still censoring my debunking of the article (see the '6,000 year' thread). Whynot used the phrase "appropriate transporter" when he really meant "appropriate transporter protein". The reason being that he claims the Lenski experiment did not witness any 'Gain of Novel Information' - he does not define a GONI but be DOES claim "A GONI must involve a mutational event or series of events that enable the production of novel protein(s) that can perform a specific and previously unknown activity".

I also sent my debunking comment to AiG. Ken Ham and Scott Whynot will doubtless be studying it right now.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9007
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: You can tell this person is an anti-science bigot

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:12 pm

I was going to dig deeper into his fallacies but skimming through to the end of his paper I found the bit that he hadn't quite the courage to put at the beginning:
n the biblical creation model, God created various kinds of living organisms in a highly complex state. Ever since the Fall of man in Genesis 3, genetic mutations have resulted in the degradation of information that, while having many negative consequences, come with the positive benefit of allowing populations to diversify and adapt to their new environments. When defending the truth of creation, we must remember that natural selection only exists due to the entrance of death into the world through sin (Romans 5:12) and proclaim that our only hope of salvation from sin and death is Jesus Christ.
As always with YECs, the conclusion comes first - even if they daren't put it there. A letter written 2000 years ago trumps every discovery since. What a wally.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to News and Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron