Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The Ultimate Answer to the Information Argument

I have just come up with the ultimate argument against the "Information" argument creationists use ("evolution cannot produce new information").

Here goes: Creationists believe that absolutely everything was created in just six days. Variation and micro-evolution could occur, but no macro-evolution and no "increases in information" would happen. They also believe that everything was created perfect, no thorns, thistles, and so on. So how did those things come about? Evolution is the only answer. God couldn't have created them, the bible says nothing of neither God nor Satan creating these things. It must have evolved and the only way to do that is through an increase in information.

Let's take an even greater case into mind: How did snake venom come about? Would it have possibly had a pre-Fall use? Let's look at their words about this problem:

The idea that the snake’s fangs may have been used to inject a fruit-softening substance pre-Fall has the same problem. That is, why, how, and when (if not by direct creation) did snakes change not only their diet but their behavior, which appears to be programmed in their genetic code and not a matter of conscious choice?

In any case, snake venom contains complex chemicals that appear to be designed for purposes far removed from fruit-eating. One of these chemicals is highly specific in its attack on the central nervous system to arrest breathing; another specifically blocks the clotting mechanism so that the prey bleeds to death internally.

They took the words right out of my mouth.


Anonymous said...

You wrote: They also believe that everything was created perfect, no thorns, thistles, and so on. So how did those things come about? Evolution is the only answer. God couldn't have created them, the bible says nothing of neither God nor Satan creating these things.

You got defeated again you liar.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

You're both blind, stupid and a deceiver.

Aaron said...

And you're too much of a wuss to leave your real name.

One thing I would ask you, Anonymous, is *WHY* God altered the genetic code of the plants that received "thorns and thistles" rather than just making the thorns and thistles "happen" -- like "poof! there they are!" -- Why is God bound to making changes within the Genetic Code if he is all-powerful?

Romeo Morningwood said...

That makes perfect sssssssssense to me!

I have always suspected that most of the story was borrowed from the previous Civilizations that dominated the desert and mesopotamian floodplains. The Flood is an obvious theft..the patriarchs living to be 100s of years older than regular folk who were lucky to hit 35.

Anyway back on topic. ALL snakes can swim, so much for the Floody Floody.
btw are you a supporter of the Mediterranean breach?

Speaking of venom, I watched the venom of a Tiger Pan being injected into a small bowl of Human Blood..within minutes the blood turned into jello.
Very scary stuff.

Dying from a snake bite would have been a mysterious event for primitive people. Unlike exsanguinating or having your skull crushed from an attack by a Lion...it would have been more of a mystical experience...
no wonder snakes got such a bad rap.

AIGBusted said...

Mr. Anonymous, you are a coward. I bet you're someone from Free Republic!

It does not say that God created thorns or thistles, just that the ground would "bring them forth".

By the way, why didn't you answer the snake venom argument?

Anonymous said...

I think the snake could be read as getting a function upgrade as well after the Fall. On the other hand, I notice something "new" on this re-read of Gen 1 at bible.org. Fruits and seeds are for humans. Animals get to eat grass and green plants, not fruit. So anyone whose prelapsarian world-view includes fruit-eating animals is mistaken.

Of course that Answers In Genesis article doesn't claim to have all the right answers... huh, they should change the name.

My favourite omissions in the bible creation include microbes, the sun (appears several days after daylight, aren't they connected?), plants that live in water are missing... oh, the sun is a Population I star, it contains matter from other stars which "lived" and "died" before the sun came into being. So that's wrong as well.

Joshua said...

This isn't very convincing, as it's too easy to get out of. All you have to say is that God did change the DNA (or its expression) after the Fall. The Bible doesn't say anything on it, so you can go either way if you need to.

AIGBusted said...


If a creationist were to say what you are saying, then that means God knew we would sin, therefore meaning that he set us up to fail and did not create a perfect creation ("And God saw that it was good").

Unknown said...

God created the world to be perfect but He gave Adam and Eve a choice. He knew that they would sin. He is our Father, if I was a father I would want my children to obey me because they chose to, not because I made them. He still gave them a choice