Posted on 02/27/2009 7:26:13 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Preliminary Remarks about the Concept of Information
by Dr. Werner Gitt
February 26, 2009
By way of introduction, we shall consider a few systems and repeatedly ask the question: What is the reason that such a system can function?
1. The web of a spider: In Figure 1 we see a section of a web of a spider, a Cyrtophora in this case. The mesh size is approximately 0.8 x 1.2 mm. The circle in the left picture indicates the part which has been highly magnified by an electron microscope to provide the right picture. The design and structure of this web is brilliant, and the spider uses the available material extremely economically. The required rigidity and strength are obtained with a minimal amount of material. The spiral threads do not merely cross the radial ones, and the two sets are not attached at the points of intersection only. Rather, they run parallel over a small distance, where they are tied or “soldered” together with very fine threads.
Every spider is a versatile genius: It plans its web like an architect, and then carries out this plan like the proficient weaver it is. It is also a chemist who can synthesize silk employing a computer controlled manufacturing process, and then use the silk for spinning. The spider is so proficient that it seems to have completed courses in structural engineering, chemistry, architecture, and information science, but we know that this was not the case. So who instructed it? Where did it obtain the specialized knowledge? Who was its adviser? Most spiders are also active in recycling. They eat their web in the morning, then the material is chemically processed and re-used for a new web...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
If Repetition is “baloney,” You are 100% Oscar Meyer with your daily posts.
I don’t get your cartoon. Are you saying that creationists are as dumb as dogs?
Spider evolution is rather interesting and there is a ton of research out there describing it. All you have to do is Google it.
But I’m sure you’ll stick to your cartoons.
I’m curious, can you please point me to creationist research in the field of spider “Creation?” What is the creationist’s take on horseshoe crabs? ie, what “kind” are they?
Thanks.
Footnotes
2 However, I would like to add the following condition. It is not clear from the statement whether God is referred to, or whether He is excluded. The question of the source of the information is acknowledged to be of fundamental importance, but even if the question about the source of the information has been answered logically and correctly, one would not be able to really understand this world without acknowledging the Spirit of God. If the Bible really is the Book of Truth, as stated in many ways (e.g., John 17:17), then it is the key for understanding the world.
You can prove anything you want if you get to add conditions that make your explanation the only possible answer.
Which ‘kind’ was the original spider that all the rest of the spiders evolved from?
Oh yeah! How quickly I forgot that GGG is an evolutionist. I guess that happens when he ignores our simple questions.
Yes GGG and all the ID'ers (Deists) believe in evolution. They claim that everything evolved from 'kinds' and that once you discover the original 'kind' there is no precursor to it.
It is odd that GGG complains so much about evolution when he obviously believes in it. I think the term is cognitive dissonance.
Thanks for the ping!
once again I see you’ve been influxed by DC dropouts who do nothign but criticise with far reaching broad generalizations without EVER posting ANY evidence to back up their claims or provide evidences contradicting what you post- Have fun- I’m goign to label them the ‘spitwad patrol’ because that’s all they ever hurl.
Thanks. I’m swamped these days, so I don’t have the free time to respond to them. It’s actually a good learning experience, as I’m learning a bit of self-restraint (thus allowing me to clear my cluttered desk!). Thanks for your support. I’ll be back with both guns blazing in about a week or two. In the meantime, I will still be posting my usual creationist/ID articles and papers...which, I am quite gratified to say, are perfectly capable of standing on their own two feet without any help from me :o)
All the best—GGG
Unbelievable! GGG has the time to create hundreds of threads attacking evolution, and make thousands of posts, but he can't reply to a few simple questions?
I have a feeling that GGG can't or is afraid to answer the simple questions : ) I don't think I would like to answer the questions either if I was GGG.
That would be August 6th, at 2 PM in the afternoon, 4000 BC : )
He accepts 90% of evolutionary theory therefore. His only problem seems to be origins, which I can live with (if he didn't post 4 billion creationist articles, it would be better though.)
I think he is trying to test the theory that someone can post 4 billion creationists articles without imparting any meaningful information.
Then what is your purpose for being on this thread? Your comment says more about you than anything else.
He pinged me and I enjoy a good laugh. Please don't stop pinging me GGG, your articles are very entertaining!
How do you deal with your cognitive dissonance Andrew? Of all the creationists, with the possible exception of Betty Boop and Alamo girl, you seem to actually understand the scientific theories. Are you just a Deist lite, holding out hope that science may advance in a way that falsifies evolution? Or are you just frightened that when you die you might go to hell if you don't believe in a fairy tale?
Do you really think you can lie to God?
Good points.
AndrewC, long time no talk. I agree with LeGrande... You have always stricken me as a Henry Morris/Duane Gish type (though I think the latter is a YEC) - you know a heck of a lot of real science, but your faith in God has put too much fear in your heart. I’m sorry, I cannot understand that.
I’ve also never been able to understand why you never seem capable of calling bs on creationists when you see bs. If LeGrande posted something I disagreed with, say, a competing hypothesis on the origin of flight - or spiders to stay on topic - I’d challenge him. And he’d most likely accept it and study further if he felt my post warranted it. (And he’s also at least scan the research I’d link to back up my position.)
As you know, this is how science works. We have a good idea when flight evolved, we have a couple hundred good fossils now of feathered dinosaurs, but there is still some argument about the first flight ecological pressure that facilitated it. (ie, like the modern day chuckers’ way of climbing inclines, from the ground, or gliding from trees.)
He and I can disagree and he and I would seek information regarding that disagreement. The day I see a creationist (although you are actually an evolutionist who believes in God, which is perfectly fine) challenge another’s ideas is the day I opus.
For example, this new guy GloryBeToGod (or whatever) constantly calls not only Evolution Satanic (his tagline), but ALL of science is Satanic.
As ridiculous as that is, I’ve yet to see a creationist tell him to knock it off.
Why is that?
Anyway, to your original question - why are LeGrande and I here - I’m going to chase GGG around now that he’s admitted to being an evolutionist. I’m fascinated by his disconnect now that he’s admitted to that - and I will consistently ask him what (spider, in this case) “kind” begat all the other spiders. And where do horseshoe crabs relate to that original kind.
As I think you may know, horseshoe crabs certainly would give a creationist pause, should a creationist ever actually think about such things.
What makes you think I am so afflicted? The reason I have my doubts about Darwin's theory is that I actually read the book and I don't accept just-so stories from those that purport that they are not pushing just-so stories when they are. If you'd have actually read the article which heads this thread, you would find out that it is a preface to a book and talks about information without going into the wellspring of that information. The book may later broach the question but the article itself does not mention the words evolution, or Darwin.
Au contraire mon ami, I do not fear God in the fashion you seem to imply. I don't believe because I have to believe. I believe because I believe in purpose(cause and effect).
As to your other questions, there is a difference between opinion and something that purports to be fact(or at least there should be).
Your attempted attack at me and defense of GGG.
The reason I have my doubts about Darwin's theory is that I actually read the book and I don't accept just-so stories from those that purport that they are not pushing just-so stories when they are.
What exactly do you disagree with Darwin about?
If you'd have actually read the article which heads this thread, you would find out that it is a preface to a book and talks about information without going into the wellspring of that information. The book may later broach the question but the article itself does not mention the words evolution, or Darwin.
I read the article and it said nothing. It did quote one of my heroes, Feynman. You are aware that he did his best work in strip joints?
Obviously the article is trying to lay a foundation for intelligent design. Even though the writer was afraid to mention the words evolution (Darwin didn't use it either originally, but you knew that of course) or Darwin, that is what he is trying to falsify.
To avoid a lot of wasted time and effort it is just quicker and easier to jump to the chase and show the ID'ers/Creationists/Deists why their beliefs are wrong. I personally like to use their own beliefs against them in kind of a verbal jiu jitsu. Hence when GGG claims to believe in Evolution based on 'kinds' I simply asked him to indicate what the basic kinds are that everything else evolved from. Can you provide the basic 'kinds'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.