Evolution Through the Lens of Information Theory

Originally posted by googlefudge
Complaining about those things if they are the result of evolution is like complaining about the results
of a hurricane on your city.
The hurricane wasn't evil or nasty, it just was.

Complaining about those things if they are the result of your god is like complaining about the results
of a thousand heavy bomber raid on your city.
The heavy bomb ...[text shortened]... inherently nice.

WE have morals, WE care about outcomes.

Laws of nature don't.

Why do you think we have morals and care about outcomes, if we are a product of nature, which doesn't care about anything?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Pardon me if I misunderstood you. Yes, I think the creation account is an allegory, but it also presents true history as well. Genesis is also a history of the generations of a line of mankind from the first created humans down through Noah and the worldwide flood and all the way to the death of Joseph in Egypt.

Your suggestion you are being deliberately ...[text shortened]... y easily point to a young Earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFZEpdrYQdw

The Instructor

You are still misunderstanding me.

Jesus believed hat the best way to explain deep concepts was to use parables i.e:

1 Stories that are not literally true

2 Stories that help people to understand key truths better by explaining them in simple terms that are readily comprehensible to those listening

Now, suppose God did decide to create the universe we see today over a period of 18 billion or so years (a blink of an eye to God, you will agree), using the Big Bang leading inexorably to the creation of man via evolution, he might have thought:

'Blow me, if I tell them exactly what happened, no way are they going to be able to conceive of this, so I will helpfully set it in terms of an allegorical account that they will be able to understand the underlying truth better.' Effectively God using the same technique his son uses later.

Nowhere in the Bible is a claim made that the creation account is literally true, and despite what you say, 99.9999999% of all scientists believe that the evidence points to a much older earth. To God, the age of the universe is a tiny point of trivial detail. The important truth is that he created it, not whether it happened 6,000 years ago or 18 billion (just a blink of an eye, remember).

So why do you resist so much an explanation that is consistent with the facts and also a technique much favored by God?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You are still misunderstanding me.

Jesus believed hat the best way to explain deep concepts was to use parables i.e:

1 Stories that are not literally true

2 Stories that help people to understand key truths better by explaining them in simple terms that are readily comprehensible to those listening

Now, suppose God did decide to create the ...[text shortened]... uch an explanation that is consistent with the facts and also a technique much favored by God?

I have already told you that a parable is NOT a story that is NOT literally true. So get that out of your head. The story is literally true. But it also has two meanings.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already told you that a parable is NOT a story that is NOT literally true. So get that out of your head. The story is literally true. But it also has two meanings.

The Instructor

So you really believe that Jesus was referring to an actual person who owned a vineyard and paid his workers at the rate of one denarius a day?

Sorry, I don't believe you.

Edit : Wow! Even creation.com doesn't think parables are literally true.

I watched the entire video.
It is on impossibly low probabilities of life formation by accident.

The name given to the video by someone is -

"Information Embedded Within DNA Proves the Existence of God"

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
I watched the entire video.
It is on impossibly low probabilities of life formation by accident.

When you say 'life formation by accident' are you including the possibility of something simpler than currently known life forms that then evolved? If so, anyone claiming to be able to calculate the probabilities is wrong. It is simply not known what possible simpler life forms may have existed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
When you say 'life formation by accident' are you including the possibility of something simpler than currently known life forms that then evolved? If so, anyone claiming to be able to calculate the probabilities is wrong. It is simply not known what possible simpler life forms may have existed.

That would just make it even less likely, so the improbability figures would just increase.

The Instructor