Posted: Nov 20, 2016 4:24 pm
A lot of brilliant exposition in all that. But I would encourage those confronted with spurious creationist "arguments," to stop at it depends on exactly how you define the term "new information," and leave it at that.
After all, creationists, and those who may be swayed by their "arguments," are in denial of all the starting-point data required to make that complicated description work, so despite you're being right, none of the people you are talking to, will be persuaded.
Oh, and I would also caution against using the term "created," as in "new information IS created" in your argument, since "created" isn't accurate here. Instead, say something like "previously unseen but always possible variations can show up" or something like that.
After all, creationists, and those who may be swayed by their "arguments," are in denial of all the starting-point data required to make that complicated description work, so despite you're being right, none of the people you are talking to, will be persuaded.
Oh, and I would also caution against using the term "created," as in "new information IS created" in your argument, since "created" isn't accurate here. Instead, say something like "previously unseen but always possible variations can show up" or something like that.