QUOTE:
Originally Posted by Dark Horse
From what I see in your definition your saying that information is data about things, right? Well if that is that case then information is always there, everywhere. It's just whether we're capable of gathering it and understanding it.
So as our brains developed we were able to gather more information via observations of our environment.
Ok. See if you can get a good definition, that way we can debate some more :)
|
This is what my dad has to say about information:
QUOTE:
|
Information is that which is transferred and of which we are informed. Therefore, it would be knowledge. In the study of science, we restrict the term, fact, or truth, to that which can be reproduced in the laboratory. So, information is knowledge of actual observations. In studying DNA for example, the information is coded in a sequence of molecules and it produces specific proteins that accomplish specific tasks. We have never seen this information increase without the imput of intelligence as Evolution claims. It is far easier to believe that the information was there first as in God's mind and recorded in Creation in the DNA of living organisms. This is much the same as the laws of physics. We dont' know the specific information until we "discover" it.
For further discussion on information theory see A. E. Wilder-Smith the author of, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution" and "The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory". Smith has professored in many different prestigious universities in the field of medical science, especially pertaining to pharmaceuticals.
|
I hope that helps you get a better grasp at what I'm talking about. Now, we can start a discussion.
QUOTE:
|
I know, I'm just saying that we don't know and we are alive today so obviously the moon didn't prevent life from occurring.
|
You argument is invalid because you are assuming that Macro-Evolution actually occurred. If you use those statistics to extrapolate back in time, then the moon would show evidence of a young earth rather than an old earth.
QUOTE:
|
What I'm trying to say is that we have no evidence that proves that the earth could have not been around for 4.5 billion years.
|
Actually, we have quite a bit of evidence. That is why I said so many different possibilities. The opposite is more the reality since we have no evidence that proves that the earth could have been around for 4.5 billion years.
QUOTE:
Well here's a link to one site the sun, you can also go to wikipedia. The sun is growing in intensity and brightness and near the end of it's life it will expand into a red giant and probably end life on earth. |
I read the article (a while back now) and I remember it saying that the sun WAS getting stronger in intensity and brightness but it never said that it was
growing larger. What I did find though was a site that said that the sun was getting smaller.
Here are some links to sites that I briefly scanned but basically say the same as me (I think):
The Sun is Shrinking
That Matter of the Shrinking Sun
QUOTE:
|
No I am not, I am just saying that it isn't chance because the chemicals combine due to their compositions. Depending on electron, proton and neutron amounts. So really it isn't random and it has an "observable cause".
|
So it isn't random chance that the chemicals just happen to combine together in the incredibly small probability of life? Even if the chemicals do combine and form something better, it would still be random chance if nothing was there to make it do so or make it "want" to do so.
QUOTE:
|
We have no proof that complexity = more energy usage. I don't think an ape and a human of equal size and weight would use different energy amounts. One is more complex though. The energy difference comes from difference of mass and temperture, not complexity.
|
I never mentioned anything about complexity. If we use your argument, then there would be a large difference of mass and temperature over the years from a microscopic organism to what we see today. I will quote what I said before because I don't think you actually really answered what I was actually saying
QUOTE:
|
Your argument is assuming that Evolution has happened and that since it did, it would use energy from the sun. We know that there must have been more energy to make macro-evolution possible. Didn't you admit this earlier or am I mistaken?
|
QUOTE:
|
The answers are there, it's all explainable by physics. Google to find out...The physics behind it are very confusing though and it takes a lot of concentration to understand and be able to explain it(which I really do not have at the moment, lol).
|
That's kind of funny because there are many sites that say the exact opposite.
Finally, I actually got this written. Sorry it took so long.