Quote from: BabyShark on January 11, 2018, 05:18:29 PM
There is no known scientific mechanism that allows for the creation of new information required for new features, like wings or lungs or bones or kidneys or a mouth or feathers.
I believe it's called "evolution". It's a very well known, well studied and well documented process.
You are saying "if I have a name for it, that proves it".
I have a name for my beliefs about origin. It's called Creation. It's a very well known, well studied and well documented process.
That proves it.
You're going to have to do better than that.
The reality is that there is NO mechanism that allows for the ADDITION of NEW information for new functional structures in living things. The addition of NEW information has NEVER been observed. There are exactly ZERO instances of this being observed EVER. ZERO. NONE.
All mutations can do is scramble or delete existing information. They can NEVER add NEW information. It's not found in science.
This one fact alone is enough to dump the entire "theory" down the drain of implausible ideas.
This is one area where belief is required, and why I call evolutionism a religion, which as you will come to realize upon closer examination, it is. And its proponents defend it with religious fervor, and vehemently attack and oppose anyone who dares point out scientific problems with their philosophy. You have to believe that the genetic code can magically produce new information to produce new structures and information that wasn't there before. In actual science, where people can test, observe, demonstrate, witness, this does not exist. It's a fantasy.
This is an insurmountable problem for the evolutionist view.
In terms of meaningful information arising out of nothingness and intelligently designed functioning organisms, machines, life systems that all are intricate and complex and marvellous coming into existence on their own, you proposed the following:
"A monkey at a typewriter would type out all of Shakespeare's works given enough time." (You specified infinite time.)
1. You can believe that, but it's outside of science. It is impossible to test or prove this scientifically, because you can't test with infinite time. This is a belief, an opinion, not science.
2. This is one of many types of impossible things or "miracles" that evolutionists have faith in, and the medicine to cure impossibility is always enormous, inconceivable amounts of *time*. A frog can become a prince, just mix in 3 teaspoons of time. These are fairy tales, not science.
3. A monkey (intelligently designed organism) trained by a human (intelligently designed intelligent organism) who sat the monkey at a typewriter (an intelligently designed machine) could possibly, with significant effort from the human coaxing with rewards and assistance, produce a small number of disjointed words, such as "as", "I", "jar", "hat" mixed up in a massive pile of jibberish.
Ie. jfwio ejifj io mwe iqio mj[CEFMKIVK AWREV K'WFOM Q'WOMOIMJMDOIA' sdj;iowe;miweimomvawej;awjef9qjfovkvdmkladmfvvflfgbkkjkjkmlfklmfdkgfgeakorwweo'rwejoi'wfji'ofwjeifw'pfw'pfw'jfJ'GFVEMK'LAEGVMAGE EGM'BAM' VWM'VEFM'OIVAEM'I e'avnvRM'rm'er
Ok, I mashed the keyboard (I turned off caps lock partway through lol just because *shrug*). Here we see if, we, do, we, lad, or, we, we, of, if, MAGE, AM.
Wow, randomly produced words! Perhaps the word MAGE because it's a W2 fan!?!?
First of all there is no coherent information here.
Does this scenario accurately represent the situation when absolutely nothing existed?
We have a human being (a remarkably intelligent specimen of the most intelligent species on earth at that
) at a computer (intelligently designed by even more intelligent specimens) pressing buttons that represent letters that make up language. This isn't an equivalent scenario to absolute nothingness. When you have NOTHING, you have no computer. You have no letters. You have no one pressing the buttons.
How long it will take nothingness to nothing the nothing into something can't even be addressed by science because we can't reproduce nothingness.
Even scientists desperately trying to make life in a lab aren't reproducing the conditions under which life arose without intelligent design, because by their concentrated efforts, they are injecting intelligent design into the process, but still failing miserably at producing life from non-living material.
Even if they put a living frog in a blender, so that they now have all of the atomic components and chemicals needed to make life, they are going to have a very poor outcome in trying to reassemble that frog into a living animal.