Information Theory and Intelligent Design.

I am not a scientist by any means, but if you gave up the example of the two discs, and used instead, two corn snakes or such animal of different coloration, is it correct to say; the mass is the same (can be) and that while there is a difference in information, this is obviously not dependent on intelligent design? Or in other words, even if a creator allowed for these variants in information, they are easily explainable via natural means regardless of any 'agent'?

How about a normal, honest post in a thread which you can handle, instead of the pre-fab material you use consistantly to cover every topic?I am not trying to be rude, but it is obvious even to fellow christians that you are repetitve, egotistical, off topic, etc. when you could very easily contribute something of yourself as every other christian here is capable of. It is never altogether easy, but it it is definitely possible to hold your views and not be banned.

Not from the equation, no. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but if all A=some B, then B is less than A, and then, a corn snake in its variety is missing some information that 'corsnake' in general has? Just asking, because in breeding of animals, that is often how it works, take zebra finches. The missing information is not discernible except through color, but the finch is still a whole finch.Anyway, this is beyond my abilities, or my expectations. Just thought it might serve the point better to use an object which has NOT obviously had an intelligent agent behind its design, as would a man-made disc.

Yes, good point. Loss of color seems to indicate loss of information, but it certainly may not. The 'purest' breeding is when recessive genes are ousted to the best of an intelligent agent's ability, but often coincide with loss of functionality in the animal, again giving the appearance of loss of information. In that case, the 'intelligence' of any designer in designing a functional creature seems obvious, but this does not exclude the process of natural selection. We, as agents in design, have 'unnaturally' selected for the survival of the animal.Of course, dominant and recessive genes do not have to do with the color of a man-made disc, and it seemed more to the point to question 'intelligence' in the field of purely natural phenomena.

So, take it. Turn over a new leaf right now. Post somewhere new, using entirely your own words, and wing it. If not, you are only selling yourself and your God short.

And you pay homage with your lips, and not with your deeds. Where have you actually posted in your own words so we can see that you have in your heart the words which you must always have on your lips? If God wants you to be a prophet, you must speak to the age. If you quote scripture, you are a preacher. Truth is chaff, straw is real but useless? How is truth/straw useless? So, if I am forced to use my own words to talk about God, 'someone' has won? Poor world.How do you talk to your wife? Your co-workers, etc? Do you speak in parables? Do you have a scripture quote over breakfast?Just be real, for God's sake.

That is one of the good points about EvC, especially since it possesses career scientists amoung its membership. Many people will never have the information needed to sort through the pre-fab sciency looking stuff and really know what is plausible and what isn't. I for one, in lieu of accepting a particular theory, adapt a sort of nonchalance towards all of them because I acknowledge that I don't have the ability to know a good theory from a poor one. Forums like this help to fill the gaps in knowledge by looking at things from many perspectives at once.

Thanks Nighttrain, I do try to make time. Even if I don't grasp it all I pick things up which may be useful as building blocks.