Creationists and DNA

[SpecialFrog]

-At least in my computer the link is working properly.

Still no go from my end. If you post the title of the video or your youtube username I could presumably locate it by other means. Or you can reproduce the content in a textual form in this thread, which would be slightly preferable.

-Ok, I call it information, you can give it another name, which of the premises you think I wrong and why?

Based solely on what you have posted in this thread I'd say your definition is incoherent and neither premise has been at all demonstrated. However, you indicate that you explain more in the video so I am willing to see what you say there.

-I am not arguing that DNA had a supernatural origin, I said that DNA came from a mind, this mind may or may not be supernatural (that would be an other topic)
-That is my point, the problem is that you already “know” that DNA came from a natural mechanism, no amount of evidence will convince you for the opposite. You reject ID by default.

I don't know that DNA came from a natural mechanism. However, I do know that nature exists and that there are plausible natural mechanisms by which DNA could have arisen.

I also don't know that any form of entity capable of creating DNA both exists and has interacted with this planet in the last billions of years. Without establishing that you may as well assert that DNA requires fairy dust to develop.

 

[Gnug215]

Then I made my argument
Premise 1: what I call information can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is what I call information
Therefore DNA came from a mind

My turn:

Premise 1: All premises in my syllogisms are true.
Premise 2: This is a syllogism:
Therefore this syllogism is true.

In all seriousness, dandan, your syllogism is pretty close to the greatest round of circular reasoning I've ever seen.

But hey, I guess this just tells the rest of us something, namely that your faulty conclusion is faulty because you're basing it on two faulty premises.

So you've pretty much just informed us that you don't hold to just one erroneous belief, but two.

But smacking them together like that in such an amazing circle-jerk of failure really looks impressive.

 

[dandan]

Still no go from my end. If you post the title of the video or your youtube username I could presumably locate it by other means. Or you can reproduce the content in a textual form in this thread, which would be slightly preferable

RE The "DNA is information" argument........ by answerquestions1

Based solely on what you have posted in this thread I'd say your definition is incoherent and neither premise has been at all demonstrated. However, you indicate that you explain more in the video so I am willing to see what you say there.

I don´t provide much more details in the video, why is the definition incoherent?

We know that DNA is what I called information (feel free to give it an other name)
Complexity: DNA has many codes (units) called based pairs,
Pattern: the units are organized in a specified pattern, they form functional stuff like self-replication rather than just junk, you can organice the units in many ways but only 1 or few combinations would form a self-replicating pattern.
Independent: the pattern is independent from natural laws, there is no natural law that states that the units should organice in sush a way that would create self-replicating molecules

And we know that the only known source that can create information is an intelligent mind,
So exactly what problems do you have with any of the premises? Apart from your bias against ID is there any good reason to deny my conclusion?


Every time we see information we conclude that it came from a mind, why are you making an arbitrary exception with DNA?

I don't know that DNA came from a natural mechanism. However, I do know that nature exists and that there are plausible natural mechanisms by which DNA could have arisen.

can you provide an example of such mechanism? what would convince you that DNA came from a mind?

 

[dandan]

Then I made my argument
Premise 1: what I call information can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is what I call information
Therefore DNA came from a mind

My turn:

Premise 1: All premises in my syllogisms are true.
Premise 2: This is a syllogism:
Therefore this syllogism is true.

In all seriousness, dandan, your syllogism is pretty close to the greatest round of circular reasoning I've ever seen.

But hey, I guess this just tells the rest of us something, namely that your faulty conclusion is faulty because you're basing it on two faulty premises.

So you've pretty much just informed us that you don't hold to just one erroneous belief, but two.

But smacking them together like that in such an amazing circle-jerk of failure really looks impressive.

No that is not circular reasoning, each premise is independent from each other For example if you disprove premise 1, premise 2 would still be correct. Please apologize for that false accusation.




As for your sarcastic argument, in fact you didn´t make any logical fallacy, but since I don´t know which syllogism you are talking about I can´t tell if premise 1 is correct or not

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

:docpalm:

Wow, dandan is back and instead of addressing anything here or here he decided to post in a new thread using the same debunked argument.

In fact I made a video reply to that argument long ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6wkbLgTMW
:lol:


I apologize if my English sucks but I made my best effort.

As you have demonstrated in your debate with Inferno, just because you reply to something does not mean you rebutted it or even come close to addressing what is actually being said. Also, seeing as how Martymer81 never responded to you, I doubt your video is worth the watch.

Basically the “problem” with the argument is the ambiguity of the term “information” so I simply decided to define information as:

Series of codes (or units) organized in a complex, and independent pattern

Then I defined what I meant by complex, independent and pattern

Fair enough.

Then I made my argument
Premise 1: what I call information can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is what I call information
Therefore DNA came from a mind

Obviously aticreationists disagree, but they never present their testable and falsifiable premises that support a naturalistic origin of DNA

Besides what everyone else has said about your flawed syllogism your premise one is false and we have been over that several times on this thread alone. What you call information can arise naturally. Funny how you have abandoned that thread, along with this one, and decided to start commenting in a new thread. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of your argument does not make your argument valid, it only exposes that you are unwilling to question your preconceived notions.

Because if I would have used “evolutionist” instead of anti-creationists, you would have argued that evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of genetic information. Should I use the term naturalist for the next time?

Yes, you should, because by saying that you are admitting that Intelligent Design creationism is not natural. That seems like something we all agree on.

 

[SpecialFrog]

We know that DNA is what I called information (feel free to give it an other name)
...
And we know that the only known source that can create information is an intelligent mind,
So exactly what problems do you have with any of the premises? Apart from your bias against ID is there any good reason to deny my conclusion?

Every time we see information we conclude that it came from a mind, why are you making an arbitrary exception with DNA?

Your claim of bias is unfounded. I'm only biased against ID in the same sense that I am biased against fairy-based explanations in that I require evidence of fairies before I accept them as the basis for other claims.

Your argument is ultimately circular. Clearly if DNA has a natural origin then if DNA meets your definition of "information" then information can arise without a mind. You have to assume that DNA doesn't have a natural origin in order to say that "every time we see information we conclude it comes from a mind", otherwise DNA itself is an example of a case where we don't make that assumption.

Additionally, do all polymers contain information? If not, why not? If they do, can some of those not arise naturally?

Also, I question your claim that DNA forms independently of natural laws.

I don't know that DNA came from a natural mechanism. However, I do know that nature exists and that there are plausible natural mechanisms by which DNA could have arisen.

can you provide an example of such mechanism? what would convince you that DNA came from a mind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

I gave you two pre-conditions for accepting ID and you ignored them. However, if you proved that DNA could not have come about naturally this would kind of imply a non-natural explanation.

 

[dandan]

:docpalm:

Wow, dandan is back and instead of addressing anything here or here he decided to post in a new thread using the same debunked argument.

In fact I made a video reply to that argument long ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6wkbLgTMW
:lol:


I apologize if my English sucks but I made my best effort.

As you have demonstrated in your debate with Inferno, just because you reply to something does not mean you rebutted it or even come close to addressing what is actually being said. Also, seeing as how Martymer81 never responded to you, I doubt your video is worth the watch.

Basically the “problem” with the argument is the ambiguity of the term “information” so I simply decided to define information as:

Series of codes (or units) organized in a complex, and independent pattern

Then I defined what I meant by complex, independent and pattern

Fair enough.

Then I made my argument
Premise 1: what I call information can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is what I call information
Therefore DNA came from a mind

Obviously aticreationists disagree, but they never present their testable and falsifiable premises that support a naturalistic origin of DNA

Besides what everyone else has said about your flawed syllogism your premise one is false and we have been over that several times on this thread alone. What you call information can arise naturally. Funny how you have abandoned that thread, along with this one, and decided to start commenting in a new thread. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of your argument does not make your argument valid, it only exposes that you are unwilling to question your preconceived notions.

Because if I would have used “evolutionist” instead of anti-creationists, you would have argued that evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of genetic information. Should I use the term naturalist for the next time?

Yes, you should, because by saying that you are admitting that Intelligent Design creationism is not natural. That seems like something we all agree on.

I answered to every single one of your claims (attest the relevant one) I quit the “debate” because I saw no point in repeating the same thing over and over again.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I answered to every single one of your claims (attest the relevant one) I quit the “debate” because I saw no point in repeating the same thing over and over again.

During your debate, you were repeating the same wrong claims repeatedly. Repeating a debunked argument does not make it any less wrong. It just makes you look dogmatic. Furthermore, since you are the only one that can judge which questions you felt were relevant, I guess that statement is not incorrect. However, as I pointed out above, your premise one is still wrong and was repeatedly shown to be wrong in this thread, yet that does not stop you from repeating it yet again in a new thread. In addition, there seemed to me to be several relevant questions that went unanswered by you in both the threads I pointed out.

 

[dandan]

Specialfrog

Your claim of bias is unfounded. I'm only biased against ID in the same sense that I am biased against fairy-based explanations in that I require evidence of fairies before I accept them as the basis for other claims

.

Ok so what evidence would convince you that genetic information came from a mind?

Your argument is ultimately circular. Clearly if DNA has a natural origin then if DNA meets your definition of "information" then information can arise without a mind. You have to assume that DNA doesn't have a natural origin in order to say that "every time we see information we conclude it comes from a mind", otherwise DNA itself is an example of a case where we don't make that assumption.

Yes, that is the point, if you prove that DNA or anything else that meats my definition of information had a natural origin my argument would be falsified.
¿how can I falsify you “nature did it” hypothesis?

Additionally, do all polymers contain information? If not, why not? If they do, can some of those not arise naturally?

Only if the polymer meats my definition of information.

Also, I question your claim that DNA forms independently of natural laws.

My point is that amino acids have no bias in forming self-replicating proteins, rather than just any piece of useless junk. This is what I mean with independent. In other words I am not saying that DNA itself is independent from nature, but rather that the pattern (or order) in which the units are organized

For example the letters in a book are independent from natural laws in the sense that there is no law that states that ink should form text with meaning rather than a meaningless ink spots.

The hexagonal pattern of an ice crystal is NOT independent because there is a natural law that forces H2O to form hexagonal patterns.
Is the concept of independent clear?

I don't know that DNA came from a natural mechanism. However, I do know that nature exists and that there are plausible natural mechanisms by which DNA could have arisen.

can you provide an example of such mechanism? what would convince you that DNA came from a mind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

The problem is that every single one of those hypothesis is untestable or has been falsified

I gave you two pre-conditions for accepting ID and you ignored them. However, if you proved that DNA could not have come about naturally this would kind of imply a non-natural explanation.

I can´t prove a negative, that is like proving that superman-doesn´t excist, since you claim that DNA had a natural origin (positive claim) you hold the burden proof.

I already provided an argument with falsifiable premises in support of an intelligent mind as a cause for genetic information. ¿why can´t you do the same to support your naturalistic hypothesis?

 

[dandan]

I answered to every single one of your claims (attest the relevant one) I quit the “debate” because I saw no point in repeating the same thing over and over again.

During your debate, you were repeating the same wrong claims repeatedly. Repeating a debunked argument does not make it any less wrong. It just makes you look dogmatic. Furthermore, since you are the only one that can judge which questions you felt were relevant, I guess that statement is not incorrect. However, as I pointed out above, your premise one is still wrong and was repeatedly shown to be wrong in this thread, yet that does not stop you from repeating it yet again in a new thread. In addition, there seemed to me to be several relevant questions that went unanswered by you in both the threads I pointed out.

Can you please copy-paste the exact portion of the debate where you (or some else) disproved any of my 2 premises?

My hypothesis is that you will fail to provide that simple copy-paste

 

[Inferno]

Dandan, I believe the video is set to "private"? If so, the link will work fine for you but not for us. Try logging out of YouTube and see if you can access it. If you can, then the problem is on our end.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

During your debate, you were repeating the same wrong claims repeatedly. Repeating a debunked argument does not make it any less wrong. It just makes you look dogmatic. Furthermore, since you are the only one that can judge which questions you felt were relevant, I guess that statement is not incorrect. However, as I pointed out above, your premise one is still wrong and was repeatedly shown to be wrong in this thread, yet that does not stop you from repeating it yet again in a new thread. In addition, there seemed to me to be several relevant questions that went unanswered by you in both the threads I pointed out.

Can you please copy-paste the exact portion of the debate where you (or some else) disproved any of my 2 premises?

My hypothesis is that you will fail to provide that simple copy-paste

First off, we were not having a debate; it was a discussion. Second:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]See the boxcar evolution game

That was easy. What did I win?
[showmore=Read on.]Now, I already hear your protest. Thus, to prevent that I will quote something that was already stated on this thread.

Rumraket[/url]"]*facepalm*

Here's a scanning tunneling microscopic image of DNA:

Will you be so kind as to point out these letters you speak of?

Hopefully that will not go over your head and you will see why the box car evolution game fits your definition of information the same way DNA does.[/showmore]

 

[Gnug215]

My turn:

Premise 1: All premises in my syllogisms are true.
Premise 2: This is a syllogism:
Therefore this syllogism is true.

In all seriousness, dandan, your syllogism is pretty close to the greatest round of circular reasoning I've ever seen.

But hey, I guess this just tells the rest of us something, namely that your faulty conclusion is faulty because you're basing it on two faulty premises.

So you've pretty much just informed us that you don't hold to just one erroneous belief, but two.

But smacking them together like that in such an amazing circle-jerk of failure really looks impressive.

No that is not circular reasoning, each premise is independent from each other For example if you disprove premise 1, premise 2 would still be correct. Please apologize for that false accusation.

No, I will not, because it is not a false accusation.

Let me try again, then, by re-wording your syllogism:
Premise 1: I have decided information comes from minds only.
Premise 2: I have decided that DNA is information.
Therefore these two pre-decided premises come together nicely in a conclusion that I had already decided was true.

It is circular reasoning because you are the one setting up the premises based on what YOU think. The circular reasoning isn't really the worst part here, but the fact that you seem to think your syllogism is somehow supportive of your argument.

All it does, as I said, is show the erroneous decisions you took on your way to come to a faulty conclusion.

You have made this a discussion about the logical soundness of your syllogism, when that isn't the point at all.

We already KNOW that your belief in a higher power is partly based on a very particular (and wrong) way of looking at scientific realities. You don't have to put that into a syllogism to make it clear to us.

As for your sarcastic argument, in fact you didn´t make any logical fallacy, but since I don´t know which syllogism you are talking about I can´t tell if premise 1 is correct or not

I used sarcasm and an absurd syllogism to make the point that syllogisms in themselves are useless. It's just a cheap trick (that most of us here have probably realized a long time ago, since philocharlatan William Lane Craig started abusing the hell out of them) that muddles the argument.

My sarcasm is not what should be discussed here, because it is besides the point. And the same goes for your syllogism. We don't need to see your faulty conclusion, or the cognitice leaps you take in your head to get to the conclusion. Argue the faulty premises, because those are what matter.

 

[Rumraket]

Basically the “problem” with the argument is the ambiguity of the term “information” so I simply decided to define information as:

Series of codes (or units) organized in a complex, and independent pattern

Then I defined what I meant by complex, independent and pattern

Then I made my argument
Premise 1: what I call information can only come from a mind

Your definition of information has nothing to do with how actual scientists use the term. So the rest of what you say is utterly irrelevant.

If we simply use the term information as it is used in information theory by actual scientists and mathematicians, it it trivial to show that evolution can create information.

For a quick overview, see this excellent blogpost by an expert in information theory, Jeffrey Shallit, taking apart creationist bullshittery wrt information thery: http://recursed.blogspot.dk/2009/10/stephen-meyers-bogus-information-theory.html

In Signature in the Cell, Meyer talks about three different kinds of information: Shannon information, Kolmogorov information, and a third kind that has been invented by ID creationists and has no coherent definition. I'll call the third kind "creationist information".

Shannon's theory is a probabilistic theory. Shannon equated information with a reduction in uncertainty. He measured this by computing the reduction in entropy, where entropy is given by -log2 p and p is a probability. For example, if I flip two coins behind my back, you don't know how either of them turned out, so your information about the results is 0. If I now show you one coin, then I have reduced your uncertainty about the results by -log2 1/2 = 1 bit. If I show you both, I have reduced your uncertainty by -log2 1/4 = 2 bits. Shannon's theory is completely dependent on probability; without a well-defined probability distribution on the objects being discussed, one cannot compute Shannon information. If one cannot realistically estimate the probabilities, any discussion of the relevant information is likely to be bogus.

In contrast, Kolmogorov's theory of information makes no reference to probability distributions at all. It measures the information in a string relative to some universal computing model. Roughly speaking, the Kolmogorov information in (or complexity of) a string x of symbols is the length of the shortest program P and input I such that P outputs x on input I. For example, the Kolmogorov complexity of a bit string of length n that starts 01101010001..., where bit i is 1 if i is a prime and 0 otherwise, is bounded above by log2 n + C, where C is a constant that takes into account the size of the program needed to test primality.

Neither Shannon's nor Kolmogorov's theory has anything to do with meaning. For example, a message can be very meaningful to humans, and yet have little Kolmogorov information (such as the answer "yes" to a marriage proposal), and have little meaning to humans, yet have much Kolmogorov information (such as most strings obtained by 1000 flips of a fair coin).

Both Shannon's and Kolmogorov's theories are well-grounded mathematically, and there are thousands of papers explaining them and their consequences. Shannon and Kolmogorov information obey certain well-understood laws, and the proofs are not in doubt.

...

Also, a mind IS a naturalistic process. Your brain is what is responsible for generating your mind, it is made of cells which are made of atoms and molecules obeying natural laws of physics and chemistry. Consequently, when your "mind" creates information, it is a natural process doing it. If you disagree, you must believe there is something unnatural going on inside your head, please demonstrate that with an experiment.

Obviously aticreationists disagree, but they never present their testable and falsifiable premises that support a naturalistic origin of DNA

Your statement is meaningless. What is it that you say is never presented here? "premises" ? Your premise "what I call information can only come from a mind" isn't actually testable, because you'd have to know everything to be able to make such a statement. How do you know that there isnt some complicated natural process going on, on some distant planet, that can create your speciously defined kind of information? You obviously don't, you have no way of knowing that. You are the one erecting unfalsifiable premises here.

Is it the information IN DNA you think is never explained? The DNA molecules themselves? The genetic code related to protein synthesis?

Funny thing is, I can go to google scholar and drop 20 papers here with testable "naturalistic" models on all three.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Ok so what evidence would convince you that genetic information came from a mind?

I have answered this at least twice already. What about my previous answers is unacceptable?

Your argument is ultimately circular. Clearly if DNA has a natural origin then if DNA meets your definition of "information" then information can arise without a mind. You have to assume that DNA doesn't have a natural origin in order to say that "every time we see information we conclude it comes from a mind", otherwise DNA itself is an example of a case where we don't make that assumption.

Yes, that is the point, if you prove that DNA or anything else that meats my definition of information had a natural origin my argument would be falsified.
¿how can I falsify you “nature did it” hypothesis?

Just to confirm, are you accepting that your argument is circular? You could falsify "nature did it" by proving that no natural process is possible. However, you could improve the viability of an alternative to "nature did it" by demonstrating the existence of a non-natural entity capable of creating life.

Additionally, do all polymers contain information? If not, why not? If they do, can some of those not arise naturally?

Only if the polymer meats my definition of information.

DNA is a kind of polymer. Since the "code" in DNA is obtained by replacing the repeating bits with a letter or other symbol you can equally do this with the repeating bits in any polymer. Polymers can be "complex" (which seems to just mean "long" according to you) and they are as independent as DNA is by your definition.

Also, I question your claim that DNA forms independently of natural laws.

My point is that amino acids have no bias in forming self-replicating proteins, rather than just any piece of useless junk. This is what I mean with independent. In other words I am not saying that DNA itself is independent from nature, but rather that the pattern (or order) in which the units are organized

For example the letters in a book are independent from natural laws in the sense that there is no law that states that ink should form text with meaning rather than a meaningless ink spots.

The hexagonal pattern of an ice crystal is NOT independent because there is a natural law that forces H2O to form hexagonal patterns.
Is the concept of independent clear?

It was clear what you meant, but I don't think you are correct. At least your claim is not substantiated. You are basically asserting that life cannot form naturally as part of your definition, which adds another degree of circularity. Miller-Urey and other experiments have demonstrated a substantial degree of spontaneous self-organization. Just because we don't currently know what natural laws govern this behaviour it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

The problem is that every single one of those hypothesis is untestable or has been falsified

Citation needed for the falsification claim. And which ones are untestable? They may be untestable in the sense that they can't prove how _our_ life formed but they can demonstrate how some life could form.

I gave you two pre-conditions for accepting ID and you ignored them. However, if you proved that DNA could not have come about naturally this would kind of imply a non-natural explanation.

I can´t prove a negative, that is like proving that superman-doesn´t excist, since you claim that DNA had a natural origin (positive claim) you hold the burden proof.

It isn't proving a negative, exactly. For instance, proving that earth was actually ten thousand years old would disprove evolution and probably most abiogenesis hypotheses because the timeline wouldn't likely be sufficient for them to occur by natural processes.

Besides, I didn't claim that DNA had a natural origin, I claimed that parsimony favours a natural origin. Do you agree with that?

Incidentally, this link to your video appears to work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6wkbLgTMWc

Your link was missing a 'c' at the end.

 

[dandan]

Hopefully that will not go over your head and you will see why the box car evolution game fits your definition of information the same way DNA does.[/showmore]

[/quote]

aja, and what premises did you falsified and why?

 

[dandan]

RUMRAKET

Your definition of information has nothing to do with how actual scientists use the term. So the rest of what you say is utterly irrelevant.

Thanks for the feedback, what term should I use instead of “information”?

 

[dandan]

SpecialFrog

Could you explain clearly and unambiguously what is you problem with my argument?

´Premise 1 “what I call information” can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is what “I call information”
Therefore DNA came from a mind

Do you have problems with premise 1 , do you have problems with premise 2? Do you think that the conclusion doesn´t follow logically from the premises? Are you suggesting for example that a polymer fits my definition of information, or are you suggesting that polymers can be created without a mind?

Obvioulsy complex polymers can´t be created without preexisting genetic information, you what is your point?

The argument is logically sound, there is nothing circular in it, I am not arguing that X is true because Y is true and that Y is true because X is true.
The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible

I am not committing such fallacy.

Yes I agree, if 2 comiting hypothesis are equivalent in explanatory power, explanatory scope, probability, and consistency with current knowledge, one should prefer the most parsimonies one.

So we know that an intelligent mind could in theory create Genetic Information, if you prove that a natural mechanism could also in theory create genetic information one should prefer the naturalistic hypothesis.

 

[dandan]

No, I will not, because it is not a false accusation.

Let me try again, then, by re-wording your syllogism:
Premise 1: I have decided information comes from minds only.
Premise 2: I have decided that DNA is information.
Therefore these two pre-decided premises come together nicely in a conclusion that I had already decided was true.

It is circular reasoning because you are the one setting up the premises based on what YOU think. The circular reasoning isn't really the worst part here, but the fact that you seem to think your syllogism is somehow supportive of your argument.

All it does, as I said, is show the erroneous decisions you took on your way to come to a faulty conclusion.

You have made this a discussion about the logical soundness of your syllogism, when that isn't the point at all.

We already KNOW that your belief in a higher power is partly based on a very particular (and wrong) way of looking at scientific realities. You don't have to put that into a syllogism to make it clear to us.

But the argument is not based on what I think, premises are based on what we know with a high degree of certainty, and the premises are also falsifiable,
For example if you prove that DNA lacks any of the attributes that information has (complexity pattern and independence) you would falsify the argument
Or if you prove that something that fits my definition of information can be created without a mind you would also falsify the argument.

 

[Inferno]

RUMRAKET

Your definition of information has nothing to do with how actual scientists use the term. So the rest of what you say is utterly irrelevant.

Thanks for the feedback, what term should I use instead of “information”?

I doubt Rumraket has a problem with the term "information", merely with your definition.
Information theory was developed by Claude E. Shannon, so why don't we start by using his definition? That way, we might avoid some of the errors ID/Creationists have fallen prey to. TalkOrigins has a whole series on the matter.