Re: West Virginia creationism

LDagget wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:
 

Ernest Major wrote:

On 01/05/2024 03:52, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 4/30/24 4:27 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

Ernest Major wrote:

On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:

I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate of deleterious mutations each generation becomes  less fit than the preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of a species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species survival. This could account for many of

 

99%+ of of all species that ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well massive volcano eruptions  accounts for extinction of many species for example in Siberia.

>
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? Or

 

are you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species biota is the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?
>
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil record

 

is that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species diversity

 

has been generally increasing over time (though with big setbacks

 

at times of mass extinction).
>

>
snip
>

 >
I dismissed, Although I do try to respond to questions, challenges and

 

issues. I cannot address every comment that's presented due to time and my present concerns and interest. I'm not so sure of just how important anything I see on TO is to me, right now especially this thread. I never intentionally defended or supported West Virginia Creationism. But rather intelligent design has been my interest for decades.
>

>
To remind you of the context, I've removed the intermediate material. The context is not "West Virginia creationism". The context is the claims you've made about the natural world.
>

I think the weakest facets of evolution is what is _not_ known about origins. The most serious is the question is the origin of highly complex information. Except for life, nothing else in the natural world has ever equaled or come close to such information. If the present is key to the past, then there is no exception; highly complex information comes _only_ from a mind. Without information - there is no life.

  One of the weakest aspects of your arguments is the utter failure to
be able to define your terms in anything even approaching an objective
manner. Scientists who study information find ways to quantify it. Most have arrived at formulations that strongly parallel equations
that are at the foundation of Entropy.

 >
Scientist who study information, can study information, because information exist. But this doesn't explain the origin of information specifically genetic information.
During my years at the university I had to take statics which information theory was essential.
This dealt with information, quantity, storage, transmission, reception, use etc.
But information theory says _nothing_ regarding the origin of genetic information.
  This information has to come from somewhere.  The Cambrian explosion was an explosion of information. There had to have been a massive infusion of genetic information stored in DNA. The origin of which is unknown.
 >

You fail to do that. You fail to even understand information science.
There's no indication you have ever even tried to understand information science. People you like to reference about "complex
specified information" have tried to define their terms but they
ultimately gave up because they could not do so in a way that
supported the arguments they want to make.

 >
 >

As a result, your language about these things is like new age frauds
who misuse terms like energy in incoherent ways in their attempts
to sound scientific. Their "spiritual energy" and "life force" verbiage
are completely unmappable to the concepts of energy and force as known in physics, yet they attempt to borrow legitimacy by usurping
those terms. You do that is "complex information" and with "design". The sad part is that you aren't even away of your flimsy equivocations
because your grasp of scientific principles are so weak.
Of course, you could prove me wrong by supplying units or math behind
"complex information". We all know you won't and can't.