The origins of information vs. The origin of species

I offer this in the hopes of better understanding. I challenge you to
watch in the interest of science. It's not that long and if you're unable
to watch now. Be sure to watch when possible. It isn't that long and should
produce some greatly needed differences from the normal ATS conversation.
I hope I hopes. Please take the few minutes and then decide if you want to
move on to the other videos. This is about different views.

a reply to: randyvs

If you look at the world based on belief that the bible (which version? LOL) is the absolute authority, then you've departed from empirical science and by extension, logic.

You can twist it into a pretzel all you want. Doesn't change anything.

Genetics:ROLMFAO had to stop, sorry.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
You can twist it into a pretzel all you want. Doesn't change anything.

Genetics:ROLMFAO had to stop, sorry.

Normally I like a good pretzel, but not this kind. I only got to 35 seconds, but I saw your reaction to the genetics and decided to listen. I had to stop there too.

I don't see how the video is going to cause a different discussion than the norm for this topic OP. I was happy that somebody finally explained to me why I'm not a cabbage though. That's been bugging me for a while.

a reply to: randyvs

I don't think there's anything in this video that we haven't heard from AIG before. And I'd be willing to argue that most of the people here who support evolution understand the arguments being made by AIG. It's just that those arguments are based on compounded misunderstandings of what evolution is and the mechanisms behind it in an effort to arrive at their conclusion. To put it in terms that AIG would understand: there's no new information in this video, therefore their message doesn't seem to be evolving to keep up with new scientific findings.

a reply to: randyvs

Well I'm convinced! When can I get baptized?

a reply to: randyvs

So I can't watch videos at work, so I decided to read the description of the video on the Youtube page to get an idea of what I'd be in for. Let me quote it below:

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his infamous work On the Origin of Species. More than any other, this single work changed the way the world viewed the origin of life and relied heavily on natural selection and mutation to support its claim. In this new DVD, astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder) systematically dismantles Darwin's claims and shows that the very things Darwin used to propagate his ideas actually undermine them! Dr. Lisle also refutes the dating methods most commonly used to support the evolutionary timeline (billions of years). This DVD clearly shows that God's Word is the final authority in all matters on which it touches—science included!

Ohhh a Dr. Jason Lisle. A Ph.D. Let's see if AiG has actually gotten someone from the right field of science for once. Dr. Jason Lisle. GAH! Astrophysics. That's not evolutionary science. Damn.

Oh before we move on with my preliminary critique of your video, I also found this about Dr. Lisle: RationalWiki: Jason Lisle

Dr. Lisle is a creationist with a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado Boulder. Lisle earned his undergraduate degree from Ohio Wesleyan University summa cum laude with a double-major in physics and astronomy and a minor in mathematics. His postgraduate research concentrated on solar dynamics, utilizing NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO)[3] to monitor the surface of the sun. His dissertation "Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism" is available from the University of Colorado[4] and he has also published numerous papers in legitimate scientific journals concerning convection cells in the sun.[5]

Although some creationists claim that a creationist would be unable to earn an advanced degree from a secular university because of institutional prejudice against their beliefs,[6] Lisle's academic progress was not hindered by his creationism. While members of his Master's thesis and Ph.D.dissertation committees might have been aware of his young Earth beliefs, their evaluation of his work was based on his research and not his personal beliefs.[7]

OH HO! Looks like a popular Creationist myth of prejudice against Young Earth beliefs in academia is dispelled. Sure enough, if you post GOOD science work, even as a YECer, you will be still be accepted by your peers. Whodathunkit?

In any case, back to my preliminary critique. Now that it has been shown that Lisle is as credible talking about evolution as you or I, what makes you think I should give him my attention on what he says? Given that he is a YECer, I'd have to say that his position is going to come from strawmans and assumptions without even watching the video. This is a shame since the man clearly knows how to present GOOD science, yet when science conflicts with his beliefs, out goes the scientific method...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think a quote from one of his other videos sums up his view of science vis a vis scripture quite nicely:

creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically

If the facts don't fit scripture, throw the facts out. That's good science right there.

a reply to: iterationzero

Like I said, such a shame. He clearly knows how to do good science, yet STILL chooses to disregard it when it conflicts with his confirmation biases.

a reply to: randyvs

Ok you brainiacs I just want to reinforce my reasoning
before you throw Randy under the bus again.

This is about different views.

Give him a break, u have no idea the politisocio-religious ladder that guy had to climb, or might still be climbing. What a champion, regardless of belief! Imagine any of our politician senators never being able to change their stance on their every vote? I know I can't. Of course this guy can't say anything but typed out laughter.

A believer asks an atheist: "So you believe God only exists today as we all understand it, because he in-fact never existed? & for whatever reason, man had fabricated it all? Right up into exactly what he is known as on this very date in time?".
What would the atheist respond I wonder?
Because I'm just not getting how a "Zero-Biblical" atheist can assume so much. & assume that man could make his own God in nothing but an image, yet so well, that it converts mostly all of the other atheists in history, touching something in them so deep, it gets called spirituality, then is still so wonderous to fathom, it gets continued into history as something as profound as the after-life, and other many many other willfully exotic & pure stories of noble intention.
I want to know if there is no nor ever will be any God; which Atheist had this original idea to make him like he is today? Not very atheist-like.
I'm ranting, and confused myself though. But I know I believe in something. When I don't understand what that belief is, especially in comparison to what most "leaders" claim of theirs, I continue refusing to call it "nothing", like an atheist would.

a reply to: randyvs

Hey Randy, long time no see.

I have to admit I didn't watch the entire video as within the first few seconds we hear the speaker say he works for Answers In Genesis.

As per their beliefs AiG rejects, out of hand, any scientific findings they feel do not agree with the Bible. Thus is the inherent bias of their endeavor, as the thumbnail for the video shows their foundation for truth isn't an open and honest scientific inquiry into the nature of reality and the natural world but is the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God.

If you like when I have time I will watch the video and present a more full rebuttal.

If scientists who happen to be religious believers would like to falsify evolution and publish research they are more than welcome to and yet that has not happened. In more than century of studying evolution the evidence for it has only been compounded and become more solid, especially where genetics is concerned. Evolution remains the cornerstone theory of the biological sciences and if there are those who which to disprove that cornerstone they should not be relying on obviously false mythical accounts from ancient religions.

Furthermore the Bible is not God's word, it was written by human beings and its contents and the deity it depicts are great evidence of this. They are a product of their time, thousands of years ago and it seems to me that humanity is not benefited at all from clinging to ancient ideas especially when the concept of God in the mind of most believers has moved far beyond the petty incompetent and very limited deity of the Old Testament and the Bible in general.

From the Answers in Genesis website:

We need to be equipped to teach people to see and draw connections between the Bible and the world around us. The Bible is the foundation for our understanding of the real world. It can be trusted and is the ultimate authority no matter what it speaks on—from biology to salvation.

A book of myths in which a snake talks and a woman is magically made out of a man's rib is not a good foundation for understanding the world.

Believers are welcome to believe what they want but they do not get to call their beliefs science especially when they say stuff like the above. Real scientists must form FALSIFIABLE hypotheses and explanations, they must be open to being proven wrong and their work being torn apart and scrutinized by their peers... something tells me Ken Ham and AiG are not open to being proven wrong or forgoing their conclusion that the Bible is correct on everything. Ken Ham himself admitted such in his debate with Bill Nye and said flat out that nothing would convince him that the "word of God" isn't true.

If you're not open to following the evidence where it leads you're not doing science.

a reply to: randyvs

Ok you brainiacs I just want to reinforce my reasoning

Maybe you should try questioning your reasoning instead of seeking to reinforce it.

before you throw Randy under the bus again.

Randy, if you find yourself thrown under the bus, maybe you should pay more attention to the first line in your OP instead of the last line:

I offer this in the hopes of better understanding.

If you think that the points the gentleman in the video is making are scientifically valid, then I'd suggest that you should try to understand the science. I, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the proponents of evolution on ATS, whether they be theists or atheists, understand every argument that he's trying to make against evolution. The problem is that, even to someone who only has a basic understanding of the facts, his arguments are based on misunderstanding, misconception, and misrepresentation of science.

If you think scientists with doctorates in their respective fields can't be mistaken about other relatively unrelated fields of science, I'd like to introduce to you to the bevy of microbiologists I've worked with in my career who don't understand some of the basics of chemistry. And biology and chemistry are closer disciplines than astrophysics and evolutionary biology.

a reply to: randyvs

Can we have something from a geneticist ? No seriously a SME (Subject Matter Expert) would be nice. NOT a scientist from another discipline. I'd not want a geneticist telling an astrophysicist about supernova either.

The video was made by Dr Jason Lisle. But a creationist cant be called a scientist.

Ill say this again:

A scientist is someone who looks at the evidence and then makes a conclusion. Creationists already had their conclusion since the age of 5 and now they try to find evidence for their beliefs.

You can see the video below where Dr. Lisle is asked what happens if he finds evidence that contradicts the bible. His answer is that the word of god is chosen over the evidence that contradicts it.

Watch it from 2:50

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I didn't even need to waste 35 seconds of my life on the video.

The image displayed by the link is all I need to know about it.

On the left, is the word 'kind' and below that the words 'God's word is truth'.
On the right, are the words 'evolutionary changes' and below that the words 'man decides truth'.

'kind' is an unscientific general classification word and is offset against 'evolutionary changes' to indicate that there is a choice between created kinds and evolved diversity. OK, they are trying to present their argument.

But where they go off the rails is in trying to claim that somehow created kinds are God's truth, and evolutionary changes are thought up by mankind. The actual TRUTH is exactly the opposite of that silly claim.

The fact is that the story of 'created kinds' in the Bible are not God's truth - they are 'truths' because man has decided they are truth.

On the other hand, if you believe that God created the Earth and its plant and animal life, then the story of evolution is exactly the story of that creation - and it is truth because it is derived from precisely that Creation - which is the 'Word' of God.

I really do not understand how any person can claim to believe in God's Creative intervention in the Universe and not be in awe of His works and want to learn about them as much as possible. It just doesn't make sense to me why they would want to lock themselves into a Bronze Age campfire story when they themselves KNOW that the very first command that God gave to mankind was to learn about His creation.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

A book of myths in which a snake talks and a woman is magically made out of a man's rib is not a good foundation for understanding the world.

But my friend, what if it's only a discription for lack of wording by an ancient people?
It would still bare all the truth of it's account. I believe you always write from bias.

However, where in the hell have you been old friend, I've actually missed you a great deal?
You will be around more often now ? Truth in hope?

Let me guess, you needed a break cuz Randy was get'n to ya huh?

a reply to: iterationzero

Maybe you should try questioning your reasoning instead of seeking to reinforce it.

But I was talking about understanding different views. As the vid
touches on most of all in the beginning. Why would I need to
question that? That's where my hope lay in a different discussion.
I thought I was clear but, apparently not. So I apologize I guess?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Like I said, such a shame. He clearly knows how to do good science, yet STILL chooses to disregard it when it conflicts with his confirmation biases.

Well thanks for that much shot. Even tho that's not where I wanted to go
with this.

a reply to: danielsil18

You can see the video below where Dr. Lisle is asked what happens if he finds evidence that contradicts the bible. His answer is that the word of god is chosen over the evidence that contradicts it.

Who wouldn't choose the word of God over the evidence
a man could or couldn't find. I see no contest.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: iterationzero

Maybe you should try questioning your reasoning instead of seeking to reinforce it.

But I was talking about understanding different views. As the vid
touches on most of all in the beginning. Why would I need to
question that? That's where my hope lay in a different discussion.
I thought I was clear but, apparently not. So I apologize I guess?

in other words, you are not interested in being corrected.

this feels like a bait thread.