Glenn,
I do not have time to joust right now, but my "sent" records indicate all my
posts went through ASA.
I try not to post off list in any groups as the concept of a group is the
puddling of many intellegences.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
To: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:09 AM
Subject: RE: Supernova 1987A
>
> Jay, Since you violate net etiquette by making public a note which was
> privatly sent to you (because you had sent the prior note privately to
me),
> I will reply publically.
>
> You wrote on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:29 PM:
> >I hesitate continuing to clutter up this list any more but,
> >
>
> The note you are replying to wasn't sent to the list thus there was no
need
> to reply to the list.
>
> >Your statement:
> >
> >"One simply can't be intellectually honest and only listen to positive =
> >things for ones' views..."
> >
> >describes your approach to pretty much everything I have said.
>
> So are you saying that one can be intellectually honest and ONLY listen to
> positive things for his side?
>
> >
> >You continually patronize me by claiming that "non-scientists" cannot =
> >hope to fathom the depths of your scientific understanding.
> >
>
> I don't believe I ever said that. What I did say was:
> "The sad thing is that creationists, who don't understand information
theory
> or entropy have convinced non-scientists like you that there is a
conflict.
> To answer that requires some knowledge of information theory but I will do
> some simple things to show you what happens. First, lets define ordered.
> Ordered sequences are things like:"
>
>
> >
> >You said:
> >
> >"Evolution is just the driving of sequences towards the random portion =
> >of
> >sequence space and that is where the information lies."
> >
> >What drives it? What information lies in the random portion of sequence
=
> >space? =20
>
> For those who didn't get the chance to see my private note to you, they
need
> to see what we are speaking of.
>
> I had written of random mutation:
>
> The sad thing is that creationists, who don't understand information
theory
> or entropy have convinced non-scientists like you that there is a
conflict.
> To answer that requires some knowledge of information theory but I will do
> some simple things to show you what happens. First, lets define ordered.
> Ordered sequences are things like:
>
> 010101010101010....
>
> That is like a crystal--highly ordered, but low in information content.
> Information can be measured in one of two ways. First by the equation H
= -K
> sum(P(i)log(P(i)) where the P(i)'s are the probability for a character in
a
> sequence to appear. If you have a sequence like 0000000.... there is only
> one character which has a probability of 1 of occurring next in sequence.
> Since the log of 1 --log(1)-- equals zero, a single character sequence is
> highly ordered but has no information. A random sequence the characters
are
> basically equally probable. So given 26 letters, a random sequence might
> look like:
>
> qb4qbe9jnw317hd3bj8ty5bo99ibo8i3P
>
>
> A question: Does the above sequence have information? Does it have
> meaning? It is not ordered, it is organized and looks random. It is
> organized because it does have meaning. It is a Caesar cypher for "a
random
> sequence might look like:" A Caesar cypher is merely a shift of the
fingers
> on the keyboard. It looks random doesn't it? It isn't random, but it
> illustrates that information and randomness are at the same end of the
> spectrum for possible sequences.
>
> The point is that as random mutation occurs in a sequence like
01010101010,
> it transforms it into something that looks like
> qb4qbe9jnw317hd3bj8ty5bo99ibo8i3P, which has lots of information. Thus,
> random mutation creates information both in relation to the logarithmic
> equation above as well as qualitatively.
>
>
> Now to answer your question. What drives things to the information
> containing part of sequence space? random mutation. Your question ">What
> information lies in the random portion of sequence =
> >space? =20" shows that you didn't understand what you read above. An
> ordered sequence,
>
> 0000.... has zero information content. Shannon entropy is zero. Mutate it
> to
> 0010.... and it now has more information than the sequence above. Mutate
it
> again to
> 0a1b.... and it has even more information content. Mathematically the
more
> random a sequence is, the more Shannon entropy (which is what is defined
as
> information in information theory) it has. Sequences of dna when analyzed
> this way show that the higher organisms are more random.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> >-------
> >
> >
> >You said:
> >
> >"But it wouldn't have been a big bang and it won't have the same
> >consequences. What reason did God have for making the galaxies (which we
> >wouldn't discovery for millennia) all be moving away from us?"
> >
> >The coming into being of all the energy and matter in the universe would
=
> >not be a bang of universal proportions and sling stuff everywhere?
> >
> >To God all time is a created thing he sees all at once, like a table. =
> >Everything that has ever and will ever be, matter, energy, space and =
> >time as we know it, was created at once.
>
> What I said, in context people here didn't see because it was a private
> note, is that the creation of everything 7000 years ago, wouldn't be a big
> bang. It would not entail expansion of the universe from an original
density
> anomaly. There would not be time for all matter to expand to the present
> positions. No, it wouldn't be a big bang.
>
> >
> >
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> >-------
> >
> >
> >You said:
> >
> >"Explain why those things I pointed you to aren't
> >transitional forms?"
> >
> >Please restate your alleged transitional forms between any two genuses.
=
> >I do not recall you asking me that question.
>
> This is what often happens with young-earth creationists. When one tries
to
> point them to data, they don't go and actually look at the data. I had
> written:
>
> In another note you said:
> >I have yet to see empirical data or even a believable hypothetical model
=
> >for intermediary forms, or sudden survivable mutations creating one =
> >genus from another genus.
>
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm for info on the
> details of the fish/amphibian transition
>
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm for pictures of a
> very smooth transitional sequence with foraminifera--down at the bottom of
> that page. Tell me why you think this isn't a transitional sequence?
>
> Take the time to actually look at the data before you say there aren't any
> transitional forms.
>
> >
> >
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> >-------
> >
> >
> >You said:
> >
> >"Why did God create the radioactive isotopes like He
> >did?"=20
> >
> >Why not. Everything works into his plan. You assume that if man cannot =
> >readily discern that plan it must not exist. =20
>
> "Why not?" is a reason? God created the isotopes with the appearance that
> they had gone through 4.50 billion years of decay time. There was no need
> for God to not create the isotopes with that distribution. It makes the
> world appear old, when supposedly God KNEW it wasn't old.
>
> >
> >
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> >-------
> >
> >
> >You said:
> >
> >"Secondly, I have noticed a all too familiar trait in you. Young-earth
> >creationists, when faced with problems never reply to a direct question
> >about the problem."
> >
> >Same to you. If ever a trait appeared in evolutionary thought, that is =
> >it. You completely avoided Wolfram's analysis.
>
> You didn't present a 'wolfram analysis' You had written:
>
> >Even Stephan Wolfram recognizes this basic problem. He thinks he has
found
> >the answer to this puzzle in his new book, A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE but his
> >"cellular automata" postulate does not explain the origins of existing
> >specific, systematic complexity.
>
> You cited his book. I haven't read the book, you didn't describe much
about
> his books so there wasn't much to respond to. If you would describe in
more
> detail what Wolfram says, I would be delighted to respond.
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> >-------
> >
> >
> >You said:
> >
> >"If all of this is true, Jay, how can you be sure that the Father of =
> >Lies
> >isn't making you think you read one thing on the pages of the Bible when
=
> >in
> >fact the Bible says something entirely different? If Satan is so =
> >powerful
> >to deceive our senses, then what limits him from deceiving our senses =
> >when
> >we read about the plan of salvation?"
> >
> >Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 sums it up pretty well at "19If only for this =
> >life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."=20
>
> That doesn't answer the problem your view has. You said that Satan
deceives
> scientists and confuses us observationally. If Satan is that powerful,
how
> do you know he isn't deceiving you about what is actually on the written
> page of the Bible? I don't think you can actually have satan deceive us
> observationally and still have a basis for believing Christianity. Maybe
> Satan deceived the disciples about Jesus arising from the dead.
>
> >
> >
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> >-------
> >
> >I said:
> >
> >"As long as we both believe Jesus was exactly who he said he was, and =
> >that
> >>we both need and accept his salvation, whether the gas ring was
> >>there before
> >>the supernova or not, or exactly how God operated in Genesis 1 is =
> >simply
> >>exciting mystery to investigate. I do not feel we will get it =
> >completely
> >>sorted out before Christ returns and fills in the blanks for us,"
> >
> >To which you said:
> >
> >"First one isn't investigating if one thinks he already has the answer."
> >
> >So you no longer Jesus was exactly who he said he was?
>
> YOu misunderstand. I was speaking above about investigating nature, the
> context wasn't about Jesus.
>
>
> glenn
>
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
> for lots of creation/evolution information
> anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
> personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 12 2002 - 17:13:26 EDT