Define Information

[A Beautiful Truth]

I'd like to know of some resources that YEC's use to help them define information so that they can make claims about information going horizontally or down but not up since God's created kinds.

I'd very much like to hear also of corroboration in secular research, so if any books are recommened, please include secular research as well, if you know of any.

The reason I want secular corroboration is because I believe YE science can be and is flawed, since we are not talking of Bible text, I'd like to see if the young earth scientific aspect can be verified from the "creation".

"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world..." Ps. 19:1-4

"For since the creation of the world His divine attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without exuse." Romans 1:20

The creation confers this benefit so how could the information be so hidden from view by the world?

I believe Christians have a good case for the increase in information being caused by God. I believe there is secular research that verifies the problem with information increasing by natural means.

I know of no resources, secular or YEC, that supports the idea that speciation is always a loss of information, as the YEC believe.

I admit I could very well be wrong about this, that is why I would like to have a young earth resource to look at.

We use corroboration alot in our apologetic, we should have it in our scientific witness as well (God has provided his own creation as a witness to the world, after all--if it is there, is should not be hidden. If it is hidden to everyone but YEC's then I am suspicious for that is not the kind of witness that goes to "the end of the earth".

[cbro]

Did everyone miss this request. Char. your signature indicates that there can only be one meaning for the word 'ancient'. So to be a YEC is to contradict God. Correct? Also, what do you think of my signature?

[trueseeker]

I'd like to know of some resources that YEC's use to help them define information so that they can make claims about information going horizontally or down but not up since God's created kinds.

I'd very much like to hear also of corroboration in secular research, so if any books are recommened, please include secular research as well, if you know of any.

The reason I want secular corroboration is because I believe YE science can be and is flawed, since we are not talking of Bible text, I'd like to see if the young earth scientific aspect can be verified from the "creation".

"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world..." Ps. 19:1-4

"For since the creation of the world His divine attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without exuse." Romans 1:20

The creation confers this benefit so how could the information be so hidden from view by the world?

I believe Christians have a good case for the increase in information being caused by God. I believe there is secular research that verifies the problem with information increasing by natural means.

I know of no resources, secular or YEC, that supports the idea that speciation is always a loss of information, as the YEC believe.

I admit I could very well be wrong about this, that is why I would like to have a young earth resource to look at.

We use corroboration alot in our apologetic, we should have it in our scientific witness as well (God has provided his own creation as a witness to the world, after all--if it is there, is should not be hidden. If it is hidden to everyone but YEC's then I am suspicious for that is not the kind of witness that goes to "the end of the earth".


This may or may not be relevant to your request, but I for one and numerous other YEC I know, do not believe that speciation is always a loss of information. Now you may be referring to mutation, most YEC would say that mutations are a loss of information. However, my perspective is God made creatures so they will diversify, and made them so that they actually do pick up new information into their genetic make up. So creatures do diversify even past the point where they aren't able to mate with their parent breds, but I don't think they ever evolve to become higher life forms, or out of their kind. A reptile doesn't become a bird or a mammal or fish or visa versa.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Char. your signature indicates that there can only be one meaning for the word 'ancient'.

I did not say it with the force you do, "can only be one meaning..." I think this is one possible interpretation, as I also believe the YEC interpretation is a possible interpretation.

So to be a YEC is to contradict God. Correct?

I think if God was really that concerned about it, He would have made it as clear as the essential doctrines. I would not say the YEC's contradict God, but I would say YEC's are missing alot when it comes to the details of creation. But it really is not that big of a deal. Both YEC's and day agers believe the Bible is true that God created.


Also, what do you think of my signature?

I think you are kind of zealous? Is that the right answer??

[CobraA1]

Here's the definition I use:

A piece of information is an instruction or series of instructions that perform a task.

In the case of DNA, a series of codons that create a functional protein.

It seems to have worked so far, except I'm forced to conclude that it is indeed possible for information to increase according to my definition. Improbable, maybe, but still possible.

[Acanthostega]

I did not say it with the force you do, "can only be one meaning..." I think this is one possible interpretation, as I also believe the YEC interpretation is a possible interpretation.

The verses in your signature speak of the universe, the earth, or the mountains being "ancient" - which they are, even from a YEC point of view. By comparison with a human lifespan, several thousand years is a long time.

Another point: 2 Peter 3:5 says that the heavens existed and the earth was formed "long ago" (Greek: ekpalai). However, Peter has used this same word previously about the judgement awaiting false teachers:

"In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long [Greek: ekpalai] been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping." (2 Peter 2:3; NIV).

It is clear from this verse that the Greek word ekapalai does not require or imply the meaning of millions or billions of years.

[Socratism]

Here's the definition I use:

A piece of information is an instruction or series of instructions that perform a task.

In the case of DNA, a series of codons that create a functional protein.

It seems to have worked so far, except I'm forced to conclude that it is indeed possible for information to increase according to my definition. Improbable, maybe, but still possible.

There seems to be a lot more information in DNA than merely to code for the production of proteins. It seems to me that nobody currently has a good general hypothesis for how structures are formed and where or how such structural information is stored and processed.

As far as increase of information is concerned it would appear to me that random trial is about the least likely way to increase information in a lifeform.

Sort of like spitting in the ocean to raise the level of the sea. Yes, it works but oh so impractical, even given millions of years!!!!

[CobraA1]

As far as increase of information is concerned it would appear to me that random trial is about the least likely way to increase information in a lifeform.


I agree, but try telling the evolutionists that :no:. They'll hang onto every inch they can get.

[Socrates]

Here's the definition I use:

A piece of information is an instruction or series of instructions that perform a task.

In the case of DNA, a series of codons that create a functional protein.

It seems to have worked so far, except I'm forced to conclude that it is indeed possible for information to increase according to my definition. Improbable, maybe, but still possible.
AiG and Spetner are careful NOT to say that mutations can NEVER increase information, but rather that it is so improbable that it cannot be the source of the encyclopedic information in all living things. If evolution were true, information-increasing mutations should be commonplace, but they have yet to be observed. The usual examples of mutation-selection increasing information have nothing to do with a whole genome evolving, but a designed tiny gene complex designed to hypermutate, e.g. The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n3_nylon.asp) and The Unsuitability of B-Cell Maturation as an Analogy for Neo-Darwinian Theory (http://www.trueorigin.org/b_cell_maturation.asp). To see this quantitatively, check out Weasel, a flexible program for investigating deterministic computer ‘demonstrations’ of evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v16n2_weasel_program.asp)

But note that by far the majority of variation and speciation involves sorting out already-existing genetic information, or losing information through mutation corrupting it or selection eliminating it. This is diametrically opposed to evolution from goo to you via the zoo. But don't expect Ross or his disciples to understand that.

[Socrates]

As far as increase of information is concerned it would appear to me that random trial is about the least likely way to increase information in a lifeform.

Sort of like spitting in the ocean to raise the level of the sea. Yes, it works but oh so impractical, even given millions of years!!!!
However, it's even worse for the evolutionists than that. Rather, most of their alleged proofs of evolution, e.g. blind fish in caves, are analogous to trying to raise sea level by sucking out water with their mouths!