In truth, I merely cited Glenn's own acknowledgement that micro-level and
macro-level change are distinct, then pointed out that the latter is
probelematic as admitted by two staunch evolutionists. I quoted them
verbatim."
I do not believe that I agreed that micro-level change and macro-level change
are distinct. What I did in the first post was anticipate your response. I
also noted that a 1 bit change in a nonlinear system can produced either
amazingly large amounts of change, or only minor change. Thus I feel that
macro change and microchange are identical in nature.
Jim wrote:
"Next: The existence of stratomorphic intermediates are less problematic for
creation theory than evolutionary theory. Quoting Kurt on this point was not
Wise. See his entire section in "The Creation Hypothesis" (Chapter 6)."
I am fully aware that Kurt was trying to dismiss the existence of
transitional forms in his chapter in that book. My point was that he could
not dismiss the whale pakicetus. Evolution predicts stratomorphic
intermediates, I do not see that fiat creation predicts such things, so I
fail to see your logic that these intermediate transitions, which occur in
the proper time order, are less problematic for creation theory than
evolution. Would you elaborate please?
Jim wrote:
"Next: I have seen computer simulations before. I've read "The Blind
Watchmaker." I've had computer cowboy friends wax eloquent about them. But I
still fail to see how bytes in boxes are in any way similar to genes in
nature, and how the numerous assumptions inherent in any simulation program
make them useful for determining what actually happens in the real world,
where things not only do not run smoothly, they are actually hostile.
A good rule of thumb for living in the cyber-info age: Don't fall in love
with
your own programs. Love is blind."
If you do not think bytes in boxes are in any way similar to genese in nature
then do you also think that bytes in boxes are not similar to the way an
airplane flies? All aerodynamic work is now extensively tested in the
computer before a wind tunnel test is made. The bytes in the computer can so
closely model what happens in a wind-tunnel experiment that some people even
say that the wind-tunnel is unnecessary. If you really think simulations are
not useful, I would suggest that you tremble the next time you get on an
airplane. Pilots are now taught to fly from nothing more than bytes in a
box. The first time they get behind the controls of a new aircraft, they
have a full load of passengers behind them.
Mathematical models of nature is precisely how physical sciences works.
What does the equation
8 Pi kT=G
have to do with your existence? k is a constant, Pi = 3.14 T and G are
tensors. These are merely bytes plugged into an equation. I can take this
equation (and have) and put those bytes into a computer program and mimic the
motion of a light ray from the big bang to the big crunch or model the motion
of a planet orbiting the sun, or even predict when the next eclipse will be.
But according to your logic these "bytes in a box" are not useful "for
determing what actually happens in the real world."
Maybe V=IR has nothing to do with your world either. It is merely the
equation which tells your computer how to operate so you can send me messages
disagreeing with my position. But surely these are merely bytes in a box.
All of physics, astronomy, engineering, much of chemistry and biology
are numerical in nature. If you rule out bytes as being irrelevant to
science, then you have just wiped out the last 500 years of accumulated
knowledge.
I am not in love with my programs as my programming style is very
sloppy. My son cringes when he sees how I love global variables. But I am
in love with the concepts which the programs illustrate. Those concepts are
important. They tell me something about how God constructed this wonderful
world we live in. Your failure to try these harmless little programs and
your failure to explain to me why the whale sequence is not a satisfactory
large morphological change by small steps, tells me that you are not
interested in the data of science. If the observational and theoretical data
of science are irrelevant to your position, then there isn't much to discuss.
I can state that I am correct just as long as you can. But if we actually
discuss the data, we will both learn something.
glenn