Cofty: Arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.
There’s some irony there, don’t you think? The moment has come that I need to thank all of you for your inputs, especially Cofty, Caedes and Viviane. You demonstrate the evolutionary way of doing things. Those unbiased observers out there will notice that this is not logical at all. It is also highly unpleasant for anyone that holds an opposing view. As long as they dish out the ridicule, it is acceptable. But as soon as the shoe is on the other foot, they are up in arms. If I did step on some toes and caused hurt, I apologize. I hope that at least some of you would have benefited from the discussion.
Information theory and information technology are here to
stay, whether they like it or not. Information cannot be brought forth out of
thin air or from non-living matter, organic or non-organic. For information to
see the light of day, one needs an intelligence, i.e., a brain. A book has to be
written by an author. A computer has to be programmed by a programmer. At this stage life is so complex, we as humans can replicate life by using existing life forms. We have not as yet succeeded in creating life from scratch.
Evolutionists are happy as long as one does not refer to DNA as an information system or compare it to a computer program. The reasons for this are obvious. Unfortunately, because of its complexity, scientists are forced to study it, that is the working of DNA, RNA and the manufacture of proteins, by means of mathematical equations, computer simulations and programs. I stress the point, an information system cannot develop by itself or be derived from non-living matter. So, what are the alternatives? You be the judge….