Want Some Answers ???

Evolutionism
Index
Home



Hi Andrew

Thanks for the mail,

>>Dear Mark To say I'm 'debating for the sake of debating', would suggest I don't care either way. This is incorrect.<<

Then sorry, it's good you care.

>>so much to deal with.., I'll be brief. 1. You are trying to make an arguement based on physics. 2. In physics - information, complexity, entropy – all have specific mathematical defintions. 3. You disagree with their defintions. 4. Therefore you do not accept the physics. 5. Therefore you do not accept the basis of your own argument.<<

We differed with the use of the word 'complexity'. You illustrated with white and black sand mixed to emphasize 'complexity'. The complexity referred to on my webpage however, related to the more complicated or intricate which has complex structure. All the parts are interconnected and highly ordered. The point - there's no natural increase of information for up-hill evolution. To the contrary, with the 2nd law things go from order to disorder, the opposite. But you wrote,

"…..I find the terminology confusing myself…..you use the terms 'order' and 'complexity' as if they were synonymous. In the physics of entropy they are diametrically opposite."

Then with mixed sand you argued 'complexity' means mixed up. However, even evolutionists use 'complexity' as I specify - referring to the intricateness or complicatedness within a simple cell. It's reasonable to suggest the cell is too 'intricate' to occur by chance. Most people don't find this 'terminology confusing'. Darwin never looked into a cell, he thought they were very simple life, we know this is not true.

I proved the words
order and complex were used correctly with quotes. Here's another, Prof., Prigogine [Physics] wrote, “All our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms”. And another, Prof. Asimov [Biochemist Boston Univ] “in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe”. [Smithsonian Institute Journal Jun.1970 p.10]. I underline THEIR use of the words.

This '
complexity' is beyond the greatest complexity in man-made technology. You try to make a simple cell. Even if you could, it would require a blue-print, tremendous skill, excellent chemistry and great knowledge way beyond today's. But would only prove intelligence and information are required to create life. In other words, an intelligent creator God.

>>I appreciate you've quoted some favourite creationist sound-bites from the 1940's onwards. 1. A lot of what they said was the simple stuff we all agree with 'cells are complex', 'entropy increases', etc. 2. I'm amused to have 30 year old comments of science fiction authors and other pundits like Hoyle quoted at me.<<

Thank you for accepting my comments. So many quotes I use from professional scientists, it's amusing you would still believe in Darwinian evolution regardless.

>>3. Ehrlich and Birch seem to have be complaining that evolution was as difficult to 'prove' as religion (irony, oh and its not just Popper who has a problem with this idea of 'proving' things, isn't it Hume as well?). Well the nature paper was from 1967. We'll no doubt come back to the current situation later. 4. The 'Creationist Information Scientist' Gitt's comments about information are funny. His arbitary views on information are nicely unscientific.<<

Yes in fact evolution is a religion. “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it. It remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and utterly destitute of proof" (A Physicist Looks at Evolution’ Physics Bulletin. Prof, Lipson [Physics] vol.31 1980 p.138).

And Prof Werner Gitt? History - Director & Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology - Head of the Dept. of Information Technology - Ph.D in Engineer, summa cum laude, Borchers Medal from the Technical Univ., of Aachen - many books/papers. Explain why his views are '
unscientific'.

>>Information is difficult to quantify but there are mathematically agreed definitions - Information is measured in 'bits' or 'bytes' and their multiples, you will have heard of them.<<

It's possible to formulate conclusions in exact mathematical terms ensuring preciseness and generality but this is not always the case. C. Shannon (tried to define information mathematically) he would place 'bytes' with 'statistics' the lowest level of information. The problem with Shannon was that the actual contents and impact of messages were not investigated.

Dr Gitt comments on the higher levels. He says information is so complex it can't be defined in one statement and - "there can be no information without a code. Any code is the result of a free and deliberate convention. There can be no information without a sender. Any given chain of information points to a mental source. There can be no information without volition (will). There can be no information unless all five hierarchical levels are involved: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information cannot originate in statistical processes" (p.80 In the Beginning was Information. Dr Gitt. CLV 2000). (I underlined)

The point? There is no updating ‘mechanism’ adding new information as life goes on, and evolution is a foolish assumption.
Mathematics is a precise science and thankfully unworkable calculations are observed as simply unworkable. Evolution is not workable or mathematical. "The mathematical probability that only one molecule could form by chance arrangement of the proper sequence of amino acids as far less than 1 in 10 [to the power of 450]. The magnitude of the number 10-450 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10-28 inches in diameter" [Dr J.Bergman Ph.D Biology].

>>A REQUEST! I'm sorry the email formating failed on the informational entropy equation, like I say you can look it up for yourself. I worked it out again myself from the original paper. Actually do that - go and look up 'information and entropy' on a university physics website, e.g. look for the original work of Claude Shannon on information theory. 10 minutes work max, I promise. When you have it tell me what you think is going on with the maths. All your own thoughts now. and be fair now - no pseudo-research organizations sponsored by right-wing christian sects, ok.<<

I do read both sides. And realize universities, media, text-books and school systems are not telling the truth about evolution. Most are left-wing humanistic and government sponsored. 'Research' is very selective, and information contrary to evolution isn't published, its hidden, or re-read to fit the theory. The theory is NEVER regarded as wrong. No papers contrary are accepted. A one-sided bias continually presented. Many are fooled and never ask the hard questions.

Spend 10 minutes reading books below. You will be shocked (I promise) by the huge flaws in evolutionary philosophy. Some authors were committed evolutionists -

Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.......... Dr. M. Denton.
Darwin’s Black Box............. Pro.M.J. Behe.
Bones of Contention......M. Lubenow.
Not A Change......... Dr. L. Spetner.
Darwin on Trial & Reason in the Balance.......... P.E. Johnson.
Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems..... L.D. Sunderland.
Collapse of Evolution..... S.Huse.
In the Minds of Men; Darwin and the New World Order........Pro.I.T.Taylor.
The Fossil Evidence............. Dr.G.Parker.
The Biotic Message.................. W.J.ReMine.
Evolution: the fossils STILL say NO!................. Dr. D.T. Gish.
The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution........... W.R.Fix.
Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason............... N.Macbeth.
The Creation-Evolution Controversy...........Pro.R. L Wysong.
Darwin Was Wrong............ L. Cohen.
Those Gaps in the Sedimentary Lawyers........... Dr. A.A Roth.
Evolution Debate............. Dr. A. Mcintosh.
Icons of Evolution...........Dr. J.Wells.
Hallmarks of Design................ S.Burgess
Just So Stories............... R.Kipling


>>On that theme...The logic of 'argument from quotation'. e.g. "Fred Hoyle says X". As a (?theology) academic you know its weak. You have a high probability of misquoting, being out of context, or being grossly outdated. Similarly lots of Hindus have PhDs, are you a Hindu? Therefore the tally of doctorates on both sides does not convince me. It definitely does not convince you. phew, out of time. mail me back Andrew<<

I suspect what or whoever I quote it will be dismissed as 'out of context' or 'date'. You will ignore any highly qualified scientist with excellent credentials who reject evolution on scientific grounds. Most of the great scientists [fore fathers of modern science], were creationists.

In the end, my difference between the evolutionist is that I have something worth living for. Life has meaning, purpose, dignity and value. Evolutionism with it's 'fittest survive - dog eat dog world', teaches that death, suffering, and violence and pain are good. They are the means whereby evolution advances. With evolutionism there is no ultimate right or wrong, no truth, no knowing anything for certain, the world doesn't make sense.

What 'convinces' me is that the bible has been proven true repeatedly. It tells me why there is suffering and evil on earth, it explains who I am and where life came from. It tells the future and how it will all end. And in the end, it makes sense and very mentally satisfying.

Regards

Mark



Index
Home
His Reply