Atheist Equivocation on the Definition of Information

ATHEIST EQUIVOCATION ON INFORMATION
James A, Ph.D

I will say more about the following in an upcoming article but I noticed something interesting about debating atheists on mutations one hand (as to whether mutations produce new information sufficient to prove particles to people), and information theory on the other (that information itself in DNA/RNA and protein sequences shows an intelligent programmer behind their coding systems).

When atheists/naturalists/materialist argue in favor of mutations, they attempt to show that mutations do add new information (whether they are arguing from insertions, or bacterial resistance, etc…). Of course, they are wrong about their assumptions and conclusions, but that’s not the point. They must concede to a common sense definition of information to even begin to argue that their view of mutations adds new information.

However, when arguing about information theory, their first line of attack is to challenge the definition of information! Now think about that:if the atheist isn’t settled on what exactly “information” even means, then why would they be comfortable in their conclusions that, for example, insertions show evidence of new information? Why is it that the atheist/naturalist/materialist needs a functional definition of information* (since they know they are at a loss to explain the origin of information in DNA) when they don’t need a definition for information when arguing for new information in mutations!

This is just one more example of how atheists/naturalists/materialists use dishonest tactics to defend their a priori bias against a Creator.

_______
*When it comes to a thorough definition of information, I have always relied on the 5 levels explicated by Werner Gitt (In the Beginning Was Information). The atheists will always erect their straw man arguments against Shannon’s Theory of information even though I’ve consistently made it clear that SHANNON isn’t my source.

Why I Voted For Trump-Part 1

Why I Voted For Trump
James A., Ph.D

I’ll make this simple enough a liberal can understand it. We’ll start with a story.

In Afghanistan, there was a SGT leading troops away from an ambush. Only two people knew the escape route, the SGT, and the female CORPORAL that tipped off the enemy to their location. If the unit wants to survive they need to make a choice as to which person is going to lead them to the safe passage.

However, there’s a snag. Ms CORPORAL tells the group that SGT can’t be trusted because he’s immoral and he cheated on his wife. So the soldiers make a decision. They don’t like what the SGT did, and are personally mortified by it, but in this situation, they can either do nothing, in which case they will still die, trust CORPORAL who they know sold them out, which means they will die, or follow the SGT.

Liberals would’ve rather that conservative Christians did nothing in 2016, which is still a choice. So they constantly point to Trump’s past immoral behavior (and blatantly obvious, patently false accusations) in an attempt to guilt Christians into not supporting religious freedom, second amendment defense, freedom of speech, economic stability (which has a direct impact on churches, pastors earn their salaries from their members- if the economy is bad, the pastors suffer, and liberals are well aware of this. Why do you think Obama sicked the IRS on churches?), and a secure border. In other words, liberals think you should give up your constitutional freedoms because the man currently enforcing them is immoral. Never mind the double standards among liberals who defended Bill Clinton which is sort of telling: liberals know intuitively that objective moral values and duties exist, they simply choose to hate God and live like moral relativists (although they live like objectivists when defending THEIR actions and opinions) while expecting the Christian to maintain their standards. Of course, a Christian should live according to God’s standards whether a relativist does or not, but do so according to what’s actually in the Scripture, not according to the straw men and misguided arguments used by liberals. It’s a standard leftist tactic to attempt to polarize Christians and make them back down from politics by using some reductio ad absurdum logic to reduce any flaw in a politician as a reason you as a Christian shouldn’t support them. This way, they can have their cake and eat it, too.

Granted, I’d prefer someone else (sorry Trumpers). Knowing someone believes in objective moral values that are derived from our Creator makes it a little easier to believe someone is being honest and sincere which is important to politics. But the anomaly here is that while I don’t believe Trump is a serious Christian, he’s at least a theist that is at least striving to protect God-given rights, and he’s surrounded by good influences like Mike Pence. The alternative was to follow a communist/socialist witch who put our national security at risk by giving Russia nuclear bomb material (which they sold to Iran), and whose policies have always been aimed at destroying America and facilitating a coup that leads to America joining a satanic globalist one world order and began criminalizing Christianity (which has been in the works for decades under both Democrats and establishment Republicans).

So no, I don’t support Trump the person, but I do support a free market, strong economy, border security, freedom of religion and speech, conservative justices and judges being appointed, restrictions on abortion, deregulation, etc..and I will vote exactly the same way in 2020 if my only options are SGT and CORPORAL again. And whether the liberals like it, accept it, or believe it, we care enough about them to do what’s best FOR THEM, not their best interests (we’ve seen what their interests are and it’s not pretty), even if they don’t get it, and even if they hate us for it.

 

__________________

For some more detailed explications of the above arguments, see my article on Why Liberal Media Censors Fundamentalists