Design Reality Gap
Isn’t the evolutionary assumption of abiogenesis pure faith driven and not factual?
DNA does not readily “add” new information to itself, and any upward movement is very, very slow with NO new species clearly demonstrated by science, they assume time and volume would “fill in” the gaps.
But their starting point, called abiogenesis, isn’t that the utter leap of faith that they need as a starting point? And the Stanley Miller experiments clearly did not generate all 20 amino acids needed and they absolutely did not represent the atmosphere of that time. They also cheated on how much available energy that was available.
Not only are base cells extremely complicated, they also are very co-dependant with other things like atmosphere and other cells. The idea that luck and volume somehow gave birth to cells is “out there” with believing in Intelligent Design.
Why is it that those who wish to “defend” evolution (mutation & natural selection) say that abiogenesis is a separate issue when in all reality it is home base for their assumptions?
I don’t know much about Information Theory, which you referenced in your post. But people who are experts in Information Theory say that creationists are not using this theory in the way that it is intended.
I also once heard an interesting analogy to refute your claim. You take a magnet, which has a positive pole and a negative pole. You break it in half. Now each half has it’s own positive pole and negative pole on each end. It has have added information to itself!
If you want the best source to find the viewpoint that goes against your point, this wouldn’t be the place. I’d start by interacting with ‘God The Failed Hypothesis’ by Victor Stenger. That is, if you really want to get an idea of the opposing view. Maybe you just want to come into Y/A and defeat a straw man, in which case I’d say to keep doing what you are doing.
Fall Into The Gap – Part One