Information question settled once and for all!? It ends right here!

2011-01-23T18:19:00.000-08:00

By the way, this post is not censored. Every one of the linked blogposts in here has a comments thread that is open to you so if you want to address one of the points, comment on that blog post. I keep the bottom of this clean so it can stand as a clearinghouse containing various information posts, all commentable.

There was a post I made in September that included various links to the more recent posts regarding information. So once I summarize the situation I invite you to take a look back and view the previous posts in which I clearly demonstrated a few facts about of information. That post begins as this one ends...and there is a tasty treat (depending on your tastes) at the very end from the world of psychedelic rock. I may add a post link or two from time to time.

For those of you who want to study this question in detail, first you begin with Dr. Werner Gitt's book, In The Beginning Was Information: Paperback and Kindle from Amazon. Multiple languages and additional publications in book and pdf formats. (I linked the English page but there are about a dozen other languages available and MP3 in Dr. Gitt's mother tongue, Deutsch.

Once you have absorbed this book (and there is a LOT to absorb) the Stephen C. Meyer's book Signature in the Cell uses information theory and the latest evidence about the makeup of organisms to present the exclamation mark on the end of the phrase, Law of Biogenesis! If you prefer using Amazon then here is that link which includes the Kindle download.

Let's take a journey to the center of the mind...and gee, there is INFORMATION IN THERE! Shall we have a look?

My desire to expand upon the Promise remains, but I thought I would put an end to the information question once and for all. Those who will not understand will have no excuses, you have been answered and if you do not like the answer? Have another cup of coffee and eat a bear's claw. This is the end of the discussion on this particular subject on this blog and subsequent questioners will be directed back to this post. So here we go...

Darwinist commenters have smashed their heads in futility against the wall of information. I am going to give you the best answer they have come up with for a natural source of information. Seriously.

"What is a natural source for information?"

"Mutation plus natural selection."

Yes, this is supposed to be an answer. It is akin to asking a student to provide us with Euclid's first theorem in a Plane Geometry class and having him say, "Obtuse angle." Will obtuse angles be mentioned in a Geometry class? Undoubtedly, and you may even argue with me about what the first theorem should be called but in no way does the answer given answer the question. We would all agree with that. FYI in my opinion the answer would be, "If two triangles have two sides equal to two sides respectively, and if the angles contained by those sides are also equal, then the triangles will be equal in all respects.

If we leave the world of Geometry and stroll over to an art class, we could easily disprove this theorem, as we could paint two identical triangles but color one red and one blue. So the theorem is true in the world of plane geometry but in the actual world in which we live there are ways to make the statement untrue. So far, so good? Euclid's first theorem is true in the world of Geometry but not necessarily and completely true in every context.

The following statements about information are true:

Information cannot be quantified perfectly because it is not material in form.

Information containers can be quantified but the exact quality and quantity of the information within cannot be.

Information within DNA can be associated with specific portions of the DNA string, which enables us to quantify to some extent and identify to some extent the information contained within DNA. But this is still a matter of identifying the container of information.

No material or natural source for information has been identified. Information within the genome is pre-existent and it is lost, it is mutated or it is transmitted but it is never created.

We know that information is lost in reproduction, we know it is lost in ring speciation, we know it occurs when a subset of organisms is isolated. We have also discovered that by mating speciated kinds with each other we can to some extent begin to bring scattered genetic information together. It would be theoretically possible to bring all dog-kinds together and mate them until we produced an animal that is probably very similar to the original dog-kind. When dogs of all kinds are abandoned and begin to run in packs and intermingle they have a tendency to lose the characteristics that breeders bred for and they tend towards a homogenous dog-kind such as the wild dog packs of Detroit. Detroit has large parts that have been abandoned as this blog's pictures nicely illustrate. Although new members to feral dog packs can be very obviously identifiable breeds, the result of interbreeding has produced a typical feral dog that is turning into a type with similar features, sizes and colorings. There was a fascinating documentary shown on cable television last year documenting the Detroit feral dog, its habits and appearance and measures man was taking to try to control their population. Detroit Mayor Dave Bing has denied a Discovery Channel request to do a documentary on these dogs. I have been unable to locate the original documentary and would appreciate a link if you know what has become of it?

Now we move to information theory.   I will point to links below in which I clearly demonstrate that information has no material form but in order for material beings to transmit information we need tools that are material in form such as media and languages.   Dr. Gitt actually has written a brilliant and challenging book concerning information that I have often referred to or accessed for publlication on this blog and frankly doing that all over again is unnecessary. In The Beginning Was Information is readily available for purchase at Amazon as well as Creation.com and other sources. His biography page at the aforementioned site and it is quite modest. Dr. Gitt reached the pinnacle of information science and is among the most respected if not the most respected information expert on the planet. His detractors are generally those that resent his Christianity and the fact that he does not hesitate to link science and God. Of course, neither did Newton or Kepler or Lord Kelvin or Bacon or Maxwell or other great scientific minds that have come before him.

Information has been shown to be intelligence transmitted.   It is not material in form or substance. When someone claims that a definition of information is not correct without a demonstrable way to quantify it, they are playing games of misdirection.   Information cannot be quantified because it is not material! Make sure you understand this. By this we understand that information and intellect did not arise by natural means and because of this truth alone the entire worldview of the Darwinist collapses in a heap at his feet. Naturally (small pun), Darwinists do not wish to allow that to be understood or known, so they demand that information be defined in a quantifiable way. They will not get their wish. Shannon's Law deals with information containers, which can be quantified. But it cannot speak to the content within the containers, which is the actual information itself.

So, they say, how can I maintain the speciation is a matter of information loss?   Ah...now we enter into the world of genetics. But allow me to make an illustration from real life.   I once worked as a stick-building carpenter. What this means is that we took the raw materials (planks of 2 x 4 and sheets of plywood, stacks of bricks, nails, staples, shingles, sheets of insulation and drywall and so on) and used our tools and a blueprint to build a house. To be precise, the company I worked for had one team that laid the foundation of concrete and concrete blocks. We would then begin to build the house on that foundation. We would have it erected and roofed and insulated in part. The third team then came in to do the final trim work and put a coat of flat white paint on the walls.   We also had another team that put in the electric and plumbing while the building was being erected.

We were conscientious in trying to use material wisely, saving pieces of wood cut to make a door frame so that perhaps the smaller 2x4 might be used in framing a window and so on. Yet our teams managed to fill a huge dumpster full of materials left over from our construction efforts. Ends of 2x4, twisted wood, wood with big knots, warped plywood, cracked drywall, shingle ends, the list goes on and on. We used the raw materials to build a house and what was not needed or appropriate was cast aside. We built a house according to the blueprint. We never began to build a house and wound up with an automobile instead.   We used the materials available and followed the directions given. At the end we could gaze upon a house we had helped to build according to the specifications of the architect who designed it. I suppose that our crew represented a reproductive process acted out upon the stage in the world of construction/carpentry.

The same thing happens when an organism reproduces. The mother lays the framework for the child so that the organism that is to be built will be another of the same organism. Within the DNA is the blueprint for that organism.   The father also has to input genetic material to the organism.   From the mother and father the organism is built and Mendel discerned that characteristics from both mother and father could be transmitted and that there were some characteristics that could be predicted to be found in the child based on the characteristics of the mother and father. There was obvious variation observed within the population of peas that he studied and frankly all organisms can be studied in similar ways. Within every kind of organism is genetic information.

If we take the sum of all dog-kinds we would see all dog information still available. But when individual dogs mate only the characteristics within the DNA of mother and father can be expressed. As populations become isolated from each other there is a loss of genetic information within those gene pools as reproduction takes place and natural selection occurs.   In other words the dog-kinds wind up tossing genetic information into the dumpster as they reproduce, for the pressures of their environment tend to select the particular traits best suited for life in that environment and therefore those individuals survive to reproduce.

God made baramin or kinds. Linnaeus made an attempt to classify organisms with the idea that God had created kind. Linnaeus was making an attempt to classify organisms based largely on appearance and characteristics without having access to the information that science has now. Even as this article is being written there are Baraminologists working on compiling an accurate classification system based on evidence from the genetic level. When a Darwinist discusses species or families he is using an outdated classification system that has served science pretty well but is now past its due date. Eventually I expect that Baraminology will be able, using genetic information, to classify each kind and then from the primary kinds provide a tree of life that represents the descent of all living things from the original created kind.

I can remember the Power Team coming to our church once, and at that time I was involved in the teen and pre-teen ministry and our kids were allowed to have some extra interaction with the team. Some of us who were bigger and stronger (including me before my back surgery) were asked to help set up their performance and be stage helpers.   It basically involved schlepping a bunch of garden edging stones, lots of boards and bricks and other stuff to specific areas around the stage and then being ready to lug the stuff to the edge of the stage as each portion of the show proceeded. I got to hang out and talk with the guys and my kids got a bunch of autographed "swag' like t-shirts and exploded water bottles and so on.   Most of those guys were far bigger and stronger by nature than the average man. I believe their leader is about 78 inches tall and weighs around 300 pounds. At any rate, one of their demonstrations of power was to take a phonebook and rip in in half! I can attest that the blocks and books and 2x4 and so on that they used were not tricked up in any way because I was on the team that offloaded them from trucks and placed them along the stage and handed them up during their demonstrations.   No tricks, those guys do their feats of strength honestly!

Now there was a guy named Charles Atlas who used to demonstrate his strength by ripping a phonebook in half, but he had a secret - the phonebooks he used had a large number of the pages within cut with a razor blade or knife to just short of the margin of the paper, so when Atlas exerted enough strength to begin to rip the edge of those sheets of paper, suddenly the entire book would be ripping and the combination of his actual strength and the momentum of the action would allow him to continue the process and toss the two pieces of the book off to the side. Then he was ready to shill for his product line.

Information Containers can be quantified but not the information itself because information is not materialistic and does not arise from natural causes!

No matter.   Whereas I cannot precisely quantify information itself, I can quantify the containers. When a phonebook is ripped in half, each half has some of the information contained within the entire book.   When animals mate, some information from each individual combines to form the child and some is not passed on. So every new birth is a loss of information to some extent.   Because speciation occurs we know that information loss takes place. Studying DNA carefully has allowed scientists to begin to identify specific locations on the DNA string associated with characteristics so that we can discern which parts of the DNA of the mother and father, respectively, were passed on.   This is a science in the making, of course, since DNA and RNA and replication are not fully understood yet. What, you say? Not fully understood? No, since the cell has some overall control of the process and meta-information is involved and what was once considered "junk" DNA has actually been found to be vital. The more we study reproduction the more we learn about the systems involved and the more complex it is revealed to be.

The theme of the knowledge of scientists studying these processes should be this: Conservation of kind! The so-called "Arsenic Bacteria" were described by NASA (seriously?) with hoopla but the facts of the case were misrepresented. There was nothing unusual about the bacteria, they were stressed by having their primary source of sustenance cut off and some could survive until the sustenance was restored, at which point the went right back to what they were before being tampered with...they never substituted arsenate for phosphate within their DNA.

Scientists will jump organisms through all sorts of hoops seeking to cause them to both mutate and demonstrate "new" abilities or traits.   But mutation is deleterious and is not conserved normally so once organisms are allowed to reproduce freely the mutated varieties disappear. Michael Behe's book, the Edge of Evolution, is a statement that flatly puts a limit on the ability of mutations to change organisms. Behe is the one whose book, Darwin's Black Box, put the Intelligent Design movement on the public radar and caused a fury in Darwinist circles that continues to reverberate unabated.   I literally laughed out loud as Darwinists sought to "build a simpler mousetrap" to falsify the book, whereas the mousetrap was simply an analogy used to bring the reader into the world of irreducibly complex molecular systems, a world where they run into another one of those walls. There are inumerable irreducibly complex systems found in organisms.   Darwinists waste time and money trying to figure out a way to disprove the idea while real scientists study these systems to apply them to use in designing things modern man can use.   Michael Behe is fortunately so respected and tenured that Lehigh University kept him on staff although Behe himself says in the official disclaimer that, "My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them"

Of course they disagree with Behe because Behe challenges their worldview. But when it comes down to evidence he remains on target. Unschooled judges may not understand but the scientific community recognizes that Behe has thrown a pipe wrench into the Darwinist Machine and it is irretrievably broken. Behe, by the way, is one of a few non-Darwinists who are still able to get a paper peer-reviewed now and then, perhaps because Darwinists would prefer to let him publish than to have headlines revealing their prejudices passing around the internet? This may be his most recent one as a member of the Lehigh faculty and staff:

Behe, M.J. 2010. Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution.’ Quarterly Review of Biology 85, 419-445.

Michael Behe is not a YEC but is rather a typical scientist who has associated himself with the Intelligent Design movement. I have found that all sorts of worldviews are represented amongst the members of the Discovery Institute. There are Christians and Muslims and Jews and Agnostics and there is no lockstep thinking in terms of religion, but they do agree on one thing: Design is clearly demonstrated in organisms. In fact, design is clearly demonstrated throughout the Universe. Those who do not admit this are simply religious zealots who are a drag on both science and mankind. I will include a few remarks about Behe's publications below:

Black Box, from M. Frodsham: I don't really think the harshly negative reviewers get the point, nor are they being fair. Biochemistry was my undergraduate major, and I worked as a geneticist for a few years afterward. From that point of view, I don't think Behe's arguments are inherently flawed or bad science.

As Behe points out, there is a disconnect in evolution's explanation of microscale processes (e.g. biochemical: protein-protein interactions) compared with macroscale processes (e.g., functional gene mutations such as commonly seen in bacteria). It is difficult to see how mostly benign chemicals, that react primarily with respect to strong or electromagnetic forces, necessarily combine in self-advantageous (or self-disadvantageous), reproducible ways under a competitive survival paradigm.

Einstein and his group pointed out that gravity does not work on the chemical level (i.e. microscale). Behe merely points out the same thing with respect to evolution in biomolecules. My only complaint was that Behe inferred the intelligent design aspect too soon in the book. I would have liked more examples of biological irreducible complexity since I'm not sure that's the winning argument. That is, if you take away one piece, or that the mousetrap is made of paper, perhaps it functioned some other way than as a mousetrap. I thought the ATP synthesis was a nice example, but I found myself wanting more.

I thought the killer point Behe made, that I agree with, is the intolerant intellectual atmosphere so pervasive in many areas of science, particularly biology. I believe this has a large a priori effect on the approaches taken in research, or on reporting findings. This intolerant culture might come from the vehement attacks by creationists on the other side, which may in turn tend to galvanize the molecular biology community. Who knows? I do, however, believe scientists are too quick to discredit, or label as a creationist or idiot, anyone who challenges the evolution dogma on any scale.

Scientists give up too quickly if they think evolution is the sine qua non on every level. The little changes to big changes cliche is tired and needs more.

Behe points out, pretty simply I might add, that it is no sillier to say that God fills the gaps than to say evolution fills the gaps. Let's face it, evolution simply cannot explain microscale biochemical processes. Perhaps something else does, but evolution doesn't.

Cheers to Behe.

Edge of Evolution: "In The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe carefully assesses the evidence of what Darwin's mechanism of random mutation and selection can achieve in well documented cases, and shows that even in those cases that maximize its power as a creative force it has only been able to generate very trivial examples of evolutionary change. Could such an apparently impotent and mindless force really have built the sophisticated molecular devices found throughout nature? The answer, he insists, is no. The only common-sense explanation is intelligent design."

-- Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., author of Nature's Destiny

"In crystal-clear prose Behe systematically shreds the central dogma of atheistic science, the doctrine of the random universe. This book, like the natural phenomena it so elegantly describes, shows the unmistakable signs of a very deep intelligence at work."

-- Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D., Research Psychiatrist, UCLA, and author of The Mind & The Brain

"Until the past decade and the genomics revolution, Darwin's theory rested on indirect evidence and reasonable speculation. Now, however, we have begun to scratch the surface of direct evidence, of which this book offers the best possible treatment. Though many critics won't want to admit it, The Edge of Evolution is very balanced, careful, ¬and devastating. A tremendously important book."

-- Dr. Philip Skell, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, at Pennsylvania State University, and member of the National Academy of Sciences

"With this book, Michael Behe shows that he is truly an independent thinker of the first order. In a day when the media present all issues in the football metaphor as two teams fighting, the intelligent design debate is presented simplistically as authors who are lapdogs for young-earth creationists versus evolutionists who are lapdogs for atheists. Michael Behe is no lapdog. He carefully examines the data of evolution, along the way making an argument for universal common descent that will make him no friends among young-earth creationists, and draws in new facts, especially the data on malaria, that have not been part of the public debate at all up to now. This book will take the intelligent design debate into new territory and represents a unique contribution on the longstanding question of philosophy: can observation of the physical world guide our thinking about religious questions?"

- Professor David Snoke, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh

Why do I bring Behe into the discussion? Simply because he is NOT a Young Earth Creationist and frankly has not endorsed Creationism...in other words, he is an impartial bystander in the war of worldviews who has focused his attention on empirical science and applied it to the inner workings of organisms. Behe has used the scientific method to investigate the subject and found that there are boundaries that prohibit macroevolution from bringing about new kinds of organisms. He is like a brilliant automobile mechanic who cannot tell you who owns the factory but can state categorically that your automobile was designed and manufactured and not the result of a long series of happy accidents.

What is the final answer? Information has no natural source and therefore requires a supernatural source. It has no material substance and so is not material in form and substance. Only the containers of information can be quantified. We must then say that information comes from without the natural, material Universe. The Creator God is the source of both life and information and Darwinists will try to change the subject or redefine terms but they always come back to this truth. Information is not produced by any natural process. Period. Game, set and match.

credit

A totally ridiculous and completely erroneous comment from the last post demands a thorough and devastating response:

I remember you gave up on information and yielded the point to me because "my definition was too narrow" when I used the dictionary definition. (radar)

Your memory is faulty. I simply stopped bothering to attempt reasoned discourse with a cinderblock wall. Your definition of "information" is still exactly what it was: logically flawed and therefore useless, because you tried to beg the question. Also simply wrong, because information can and does enter the genome without any intelligence being involved. (Jon Woolf)

Readers, what "exactly wrong" definition of information did I use? Did I use the "Creationist Dictionary" (is there one, I don't know?) or find some obscure tome? My short version = "Information is intelligence transmitted for a specific purpose." But what does a normal dictionary say?

–noun

knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.

knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.

the act or fact of informing.

an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public: The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.

Directory Assistance.

Law.

an official criminal charge presented, usually by the prosecuting officers of the state, without the interposition of a grand jury.

a criminal charge, made by a public official under oath before a magistrate, of an offense punishable summarily.

the document containing the depositions of witnesses against one accused of a crime.

(in information theory) an indication of the number of possible choices of messages, expressible as the value of some monotonic function of the number of choices, usually the logarithm to the base 2.

Computers.

important or useful facts obtained as output from a computer by means of processing input data with a program: Using the input data, we have come up with some significant new information.

data at any stage of processing (input, output, storage, transmission, etc.).

Use information in a Sentence

See images of information

Search information on the Web

Origin:
1350–1400; ME: instruction, teaching, a forming of the mind <>See inform¹, -ation

How about Merriam-Webster?

in·for·ma·tion

noun \ˌin-fər-ˈmā-shən\

Definition of INFORMATION

: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence

a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : intelligence, news (3) : facts, data b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed

: the act of informing against a person

: a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer as distinguished from an indictment presented by a grand jury

So, Mr. Woolf, not only I but apparently the entire English-speaking world is dead wrong about what information is. Let's repeat the first definition of Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster:

knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance (DDC)

and

the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence (MWO)

Both of which are good definitions and I think they will suffice for the English-speaking world. So it is Woolf versus the sum of academics and scientists and historians and linguists who have established the meaning of the word. You cannot run away from that. Remarkably, dictionaries often offer up DNA as a source of information. I want you to try one more time to try and back up your ridiculous statement and give us an example of new information entering the genome. You have, for the last 18 months, totally failed to do this.

Meanwhile, for those of you not utterly blinded by your religion, a reprise of recent posts concerning information and living organisms. You will find that Darwinists first try to redefine information and then try to squirm out of the "narrow and arbitrary" (in other words, standard Merriam-Webster) definition of information. Do they ever figure out a way information could enter an organism? No. Is there any way a simple form of life could evolve into a more complex form of life without adding vast amounts of information? No. I invite you to review the discussions and try to help the poor Darwinists out if you can? Remember, loss of information or transfer of information is not a case of new information. A change in function does not mean an information increase. I can cut the back off of a chair and it becomes a stool. I take it entirely apart and pick up one leg and I have a rudimentary baseball bat or a club. Things like this happening within organisms, when mutations take functions or parts away, are the primary examples Darwinists present to the unknowing world as "evolution in action" such as the citrase-munching bacteria.

Information matters

Feb 13, 2009

"Tax said - (me)You will have to show us evidence of multi-mutation evolution that adds rather than subtracts from or simply utilizes preexisting information within the DNA.(end me)

(tax)Why does IAMB have to do this? Seelke's article (to which IAMB replied), nowhere states that it's necessary for evolution to 'add information'. It's only about adding functions, and IAMB clearly showed that multi-mutation evolution IS indeed possible and DOES occur.

But if you insist; could you please explain WHY it's necessary for evolution to 'add information' within the DNA to be possible?
Also, could you clearly define the term 'information'?

~~~~~~~
I previously posted three articles concerning bacterial studies. The studies as a group are evidence that evolution has been observed NOT to occur. I already explained why in a previous comment.

1) Multiple thousands of generations of bacteria have failed to evolve into anything other than bacteria.
2) The relatively few mutations that were not deadly to the organisms were usually deleterious in nature and often could not be passed on.
3) Some mutations gave the organism abilities not normally possessed as a result of a loss of an ability or system functionality. This would make the specific organism less viable in a wide variety of conditions but more viable in one specific situation.
4) Mutation mistakes never occurred in tandem. One mutation at a time might survive but multiple mutations that combined to act together were never found.
5) No new systems were produced. The gene pool would either be altered or decreased rather than increased. .."

Information Matters part two

Feb 15, 2009

"If we received a single intelligent signal containing information from space then we would conclude that there is intelligent life out there. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the ...

Information part three - the LIE

Mar 14, 2009

Those who prefer not to believe that God created have a lot of unexplained problems, but three words represent three massive problems they must deal with: Life, Information and Energy. They do make a very nice acronym, no? ...

Information = IT

Apr 12, 2009

Information is one of the three topics this blog is currently discussing, along with the beginning of life and the process of evolution. Other issues may be addressed later on but let us deal with that which is at hand thoroughly rather ...

What information is?

Mar 14, 2010

How odd is has been to try to nail down Darwinists on the subject of information. They will not answer the question, "where did information come from?" They know what the question means and therefore dodge it in various ways. ...

The question of information? Darwinism has no answer.

Mar 16, 2010

I gave any and all Darwinists a chance to answer the question of information within organisms. After several posts and dealing with their continual evasions I can say with conviction that they do not know. ...

Deluded Darwinist Deals with information his own way

Jun 17, 2010

I THINK I CAN, I THINK I CAN, I THINK I CAN................................ Ten million generations later.........Drat! Darn! Now for a few words from a genius greatly admired in non-Darwinist circles: David Berlinski ...

Are Darwinists intentionally ignorant or are they simply dumb ...

Jul 03, 2010

Notice how the commenters do, in fact, run away like mad from what is a big problem for them while calling me names and deriding dictionary definitions and ignoring the explanations of a guy with a doctorate in information theory. ...

Radaractive: Darwin versus Creation - Faith versus Science/three ...

Jul 10, 2010

Why Abiogenesis aka Chemical Evolution aka Spontaneous Generation is a myth, not science!
November 10, 2011

When you read this blog, you know a human mind had to produce the words as a thought first, then that thought (intelligence) was transmitted (information) via a medium (blogspot) so that a recipient (you) could receive that information. ...

For you IT Geeks: Research Slideshow:Computer History Quiz: Ten Most Influential Contributors
November 7, 2011

I was going to do a parody song to the tune of "A Question of Temperature" by Balloon Farm, but I doubt if more than two or three readers have ever heard it so I will just sing it to my self...I do recommend that you find that MP3 if you can, as the song is one of the classics of the short and eclectic era of psychedelic rock. Everybody has heard Strawberry Alarm Clock, but how about Bubble Puppy? Ah...

Update: If you have read this far you deserve a cookie or two...or three:

The Ultimate Information Post

Information question settled once and for all!? It ends right here!

Dictionary.com (that hangout for nasty old creationists)

in·for·ma·tion

in·for·ma·tion

Definition of INFORMATION