An interesting idea, but if they’re going to play games with me, I’d rather people knew that. If I had had such a clause in dealing with AiG, they just wouldn’t have responded at all, and we wouldn’t know about their cloak-and-dagger mentality. But overall, I suppose it’s a good idea.
-Ben
But by failing to respond, we may assume that they concede the argument, we may even warn them of such a conclusion in advance if we like.
I’ve received an answer from ChristianAnswers.Net. At first, Tom Henderson stated that he would shop my questions around to other creationists if I gave him the url for the FAQ. I did so, and asked why they needed the evolutionist answers before they could give me the creationist ones. Here is his reply:
-Ben
So the best he can do is admit that he is not capable of imagining something to occur and concluding it cannot have occurred?
::: sigh :::
I think even Anselm could have done better than that.
That’s it, I’m convinced. The weight of the creationist argument is just too strong. :rolleyes:
Message to creationist: arguments from increduality are very, very weak. It is basically an admission that you don’t understand, and have no desire to.
I don’t get this one at all…unless, of course, he’s tacitly admitting that they don’t have the answers on their own, can’t even come up with answers on their own, and the best they can hope for is to poke holes in the only available theories in a misguided attempt to “prove” something.
**
There is obvious disagreement here.
**
Again, it shouldn’t have to for this purpose. Either creationists can come up with a viable “theory” (or even just an explanation) on their own, or they should admit that it is a faulty, less-than-satisfying view for understanding biological phenomena. That, or they simply wish to cling to it as an act of faith, regardless what evidence may actually exist.
**
Oh look! The “chance” argument…again. I think that at the very least, these people should a) take an organic chemistry course, and b) a statistics course. Maybe they will then see just why these arguments receive so mich disdain.
**
Oh. That again. ::sigh:: There is no “information” in DNA; DNA, beyond acting as an ultimate template for the creation of proteins, contains no “information”. It is impossible to extrapolate upwards from “DNA strand” to “organism”, just by deciphering the “code”.
The application of Information Theory to DNA is seemingly becoming more popular amongst IDers, if not creationists. Unfortunately, what they fail to realize is that Information Theory is a man-made concept, created to help explain certain aspects of communication, rather like the concept of a magnetic or electric or gravitational field is used to explain magnetism, electricity or gravity, respectively. The fields do not truly “exist”, anywhere but in concept. The idea of “information” being contained in DNA is simply an anthropomorphic projection onto a molecule.
Besides, it seems to me that there is a hell of a lot of noise in DNA in the form of pseudogenes.
**
God’s spokesman, I guess. Whatever we think God would, or would not, do is irrelevent. The question is, can we determine what God did do, if, indeed, God did anything?
**
Reasonable, perhaps, if one clings to erroneous ideas about chemistry and statistics, and the anthropomorphism of molecules.
**
To which, I can, regrettably, only respond with a heartfelt :rolleyes:
He doesn’t realize that you simply wanted to know what creationists believe? Oh, boy.
Of course, he doesn’t bother explaining why.
What information? And if there is information in DNA, then who is it for? If there is no intended receiver, then there is no information. It’s just a bunch of chemical compounds strung together.
What plan? How does he know there is one?
The same reason he won’t sacrifice a goat to Zeus so he can go to Elysium Fields.