PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Information
       What do creationists mean by it?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does a dog contain information on how to be a dog?

Does a snowflake contain information on how to be a snowflake?

Does a rock contain information on how to be a rock?

Does a pudding contain information on how to be a pudding?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:21 PM on May 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does a dog contain information on how to be a dog?



Evidently, that is exactly what it has.
Many years and 100's of generations of mutations on fruit flies and bacteria only yield varations of the same basic plan. Where there is info for wings, wings appear, correctly or incorrectly positioned; or no wings. No new and useful anatomy ever arises.
Only genes for dog parts.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:55 AM on May 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidently my ass.

If you don't answer the rest of the questions, that answer is useless.

Where did the "information" for claws, sharp teeth, venom carrying hollow fangs, armor, stalking strategies etc. come from?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:35 AM on May 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As long as a biological hierarchy exists and one creature has to eat another to survive, there is a need for these things -for hunting as well as for self-protection.
Do you think that the desire to be protected caused these protective mechanisms to evolve naturally or were the owners lucky enough to mutate the protective mechanisms over a very long period of time with no particular plan or system of organization?.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:00 PM on May 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you won't answer about the snowflake, the rock and the pudding?

As long as a biological hierarchy exists and one creature has to eat another to survive, there is a need for these things -for hunting as well as for self-protection.
I know they need that.

Won't you even try to defend YEC/ID?

YEC: God didn't put claws in them.
ID: A supernatural intelligence put claws in them.

So?

Do you think that the desire to be protected caused these protective mechanisms to evolve naturally
OMG...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:57 PM on May 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you think that the desire to be protected caused these protective mechanisms to evolve naturally or were the owners lucky enough to mutate the protective mechanisms over a very long period of time with no particular plan or system of organization?.

We see, once again, Lester demonstrating that  he still doesn't have a clue as to how evolution works.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:02 AM on May 3, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:21 PM on May 1, 2009 :
[color=teal]Does a dog contain information on how to be a dog?


Well, A dog contains information on how to create an organism which we would call a dog, so I guess it does.

Does a snowflake contain information on how to be a snowflake?


Now this is just stupid, snowflakes are caused by shivanubis.






-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:23 AM on May 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK Fencer, I'll bite.  What does shivanubis mean?  Witch-craft?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 03:11 AM on May 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shiva/Anubis.

Most likely his idea of a generic god.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:41 AM on May 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Do you think that the desire to be protected caused these protective mechanisms to evolve naturally or were the owners lucky enough to mutate the protective mechanisms over a very long period of time with no particular plan or system of organization?.


It is apparent that Lester doesn't understand what he's arguing against, otherwise he wouldn't make such a statement that demonstrates his ignorance.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:59 PM on May 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester and gluteus don't understand Evolution, they seem to understand very little about creationism, and they don't learn...

I really don't know what they're doing.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:12 PM on May 3, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 03:11 AM on May 3, 2009 :
OK Fencer, I'll bite.  What does shivanubis mean?  Witch-craft?



Not witch-craft, it is a random god I made up for fun, I mostly use it when using sarcasm.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:01 AM on May 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok then, no information on information...


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:56 AM on May 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from sciborg at 12:22 PM on May 12, 2009 :
I STILL want to know what creationists and/or ID proponents mean by "information," especially as it pertains to their claim about "new information" being created as a result of evolution.
I hear ya.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:49 AM on May 12, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

maybe someone will take this up, now that it's been bumped.

information? anyone?

is it genes?  proteins? alleles?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 10:51 AM on May 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Hi been away awhile -always curious to see what's been going on in my absence!

To answer the question about information - Don't know if this is  any different to what I've mentioned before -information is the software of genetics. It is the part that tells the hardware what to make and in what amounts and where to send it and for what purpose. There we go -purpose! That's the important distinction about information.It is a coded message that communicates a purpose.
Does a pudding have information on how to be a pudding?

I see more purpose in a pudding than in a human.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:27 AM on May 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does a pudding have information on how to be a pudding?


As with all things created, the making of a pudding requires information and at the end of the chain where any information is found will be the intelligent creator of that information.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:39 PM on May 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does a pudding have information on how to be a pudding?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:47 PM on May 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Wisp,
Thought you might find this interesting in the light of information.
Protein: The Brainless Wonder
http://www.evolution-facts.org/New-material/PROTEIN.pdf


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:14 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thought you might find this interesting in the light of information.
Protein: The Brainless Wonder
http://www.evolution-facts.org/New-material/PROTEIN.pdf


What a bunch of BS. Your site, like you, doesn't even understand evolution, it still makes the major mistake of claiming evolution is random.  Evolution-facts is worthless.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:03 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right at the start it says (as Demon points out) that complex proteins can't arise by random chance.

Why should i waste more time in such a stupid reading?

You show us what you understand, and tell us if a pudding has information on how to be a pudding.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:35 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your site, like you, doesn't even understand evolution, it still makes the major mistake of claiming evolution is random


Or maybe you don't understand the implications of the random element of mutation?

Why should i waste more time in such a stupid reading?


Because it may help you.

tell us if a pudding has information on how to be a pudding.


No the maker of the pudding has the information. Unlike living things which contain the information themselves.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:20 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you measure information?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:43 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The text starts with a strawman!!

So it's dishonest.

Strawmen = stupidity/ignorance/dishonesty.
There's no way around this.

No the maker of the pudding has the information. Unlike living things which contain the information themselves.
Finally an answer!! Why did it take you so long?

In the case of living creatures (as everything else in This Universe) it's the environment the one that contains the "information".

Evolution works as an "informational" feedback between the creatures and the environment.

To a creature, every other creature is part of its environment.

Actually the ultimate units that are subject to natural selection are the genes. To a gene, every other gene in the gene pool is a part of the environment.

You can call it "information", or you can call it "patterns".

We see patterns emerging naturally, without any intelligence to produce them.

Remember this?

0) Setup a random DNA string (application start)

1) Copy the current DNA sequence and mutate it slightly

2) Use the new DNA to render polygons onto a canvas

3) Compare the canvas to the source image

4) If the new painting looks more like the source image than the previous painting did, then overwrite the current DNA with the new DNA

5) repeat from 1

That's not a simple pattern. But it would look pretty random to someone not acquainted with vertebrates.

"Information" needs a reader to qualify it as such. "Information" is subjective.

To a futuristic matter replicator, a pudding does indeed contain information on how to be a pudding.

The replicator could store that information, and use it to replicate puddings.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:43 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Information" needs a reader to qualify it as such.


RNA is the reader of the code and the various RNA's translate the message into a protein. That's not subjective information.

Without genetic replication, there would have been no mutations and thus variations due to natural selection. You needed code and reader and membranes and energy source and ability to replicate just to get this evolution process started. quite a miracle!


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:02 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nono, i don't mean that at all!

I reckon it might be somewhat confusing.

I meant a consciousness. With no consciousness to apprehend it, there is no possible information.

"Information" is a completely subjective concept.

I'm not trying to deceive you.
I'm not even talking about something factual (information isn't factual, but conceptual, just like God, which is a very important concept to me).

In a sense, "information" is just a word.

In a sense, "information" is the only real thing in the Universe.

Perhaps you should read about the Information Theory. Because i sincerely believe that you're misusing the concept.

If you take a strand of data and try to find out how much information it contains, it would be difficult. I mean, it depends.
If you decode it as a TXT file, and the output makes sense to you, well, you have the amount of information contained in the TXT file.

A DVD with a single small TXT file could be referred to as containing 2 kb of information, or as to containing 4GB of information, bizarrely coded so as there's a lot of 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0

It could also be coded so as to appear random, "actually" containing the full 4GB of information in some strange code.

Well, to make it appear truly random you'd have to lose some space, but you get the point.

Wait... Do you get the point?

A seed can grow in complexity and form a tree. You could say that all the information was already in the seed, but that's not true.

The case of a human is more compelling (specially to people like you, who see humans as the center and most important element of creation).

Even the amount of info in a human genome isn't fixed.

A genome would take about two CDs worth of data, but only if it's stored as a text file storing one copy of each and every DNA letter in your sequence.

That's not the only or the best way to store that information. It kinda depends on your intentions.

If you want to store the data in a raw format for later re-analysis, you're looking at between 2 and 30 terabytes (one terabyte = 1,000 gigabytes). Or so i've read.

But a much more user-friendly format would produce a file containing each and every DNA letter in your genome, which would take up around 1.5 gigabytes (small enough for three genomes to fit on a standard data DVD).

Finally, if you have very accurate sequence data and access to a high-quality reference genome you can compress your sequence down to around 20 megabytes.

But your intuition is right if you feel that you can't squeeze 50 people in a pendrive.

That is because the human grows in complexity by a non-stop intake of data. A constant input. And this comes from the environment.

This is worth considering. It's worth studying. But it's not magic. It's not supernatural.

Well, perhaps it is, depending on your concept of supernatural.

If you claim that every piece of data (ultimately any knowledge) can only come from God, well, i'd have to agree.

We'd disagree on the fact that you seem to say that God cannot produce that information without tinkering with molecules to produce life in a physical direct fashion.

I really hope you understand what i'm saying. Because i think that, if you did, you'd stop using the information argument against Evolution (well, only if you're honest).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:26 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is because the human grows in complexity by a non-stop intake of data. A constant input. And this comes from the environment.


Well if you mean a human is already coded for but the input of data from the environment modifies the effects of the information, I'd have to agree but the meaningful coded information for the production of every protein that needs to be in your body is already there. The input allows the information to be modified as if the one were speaking to the other according to individual needs.

William Dembski had this to say about the contrast between natural and intelligent causes:
Intelligent causes can do things that natural causes cannot. Natural causes can throw scrabble pieces on a board but cannot arrange the pieces to form meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause.
Whether an intelligent cause acts within or outside nature (ie. is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question entirely from whether an intelligent cause has operated.

Whenever we infer design, we must establish 3 things: contingency, complexity and specification.
Contingency ensures that the object in question is not the result of an automatic and thus unintelligent process that had no choice in its production.
Complexity ensures that the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance.
Finally specification ensures that the object exhibits the type of pattern characterisitc of intelligence.  

When called to explain an event, object or structure, we have a decision to make-are we going to attribute it to necessity, chance or design? According to the complexity- specification criterion, to answer this question is to answer 3 simpler ones: Is it contingent? Is it complex? Is it specified?

To recognize intelligent agency we must observe an actualization of one among several competing possibilities, note which possibilities were ruled out and then be able to specify the possibility that was actualized.

What's more, the competing possibilites that were ruled out must be live possibilites and sufficiently numerous so that specifying the possibility that was actualized cannot be attributed to chance.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 3:14 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

William Dembski had this to say about the contrast between natural and intelligent causes:
Intelligent causes can do things that natural causes cannot. Natural causes can throw scrabble pieces on a board but cannot arrange the pieces to form meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause.


Dembski, you mean the guy who won't publish his work for peer review?  Some source.  From here: Dembski

"In fact, the reason Dembski can't publish his work as maths is because it isn't maths. As he writes:

"I'm not and never have been in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity." [3]
This quotation appears in a response to someone who has pointed out that his maths is faulty. [4]. It is good of him to admit it, but we feel that he should stress this point more often when addressing creationists. For example, when Rob Koons described Dembski as "the Isaac Newton of Information Theory"[5], he was probably under the impression the Dembski had proved something --- perhaps even more than one thing --- in the field of information theory. How disappointed he would be to discover that Dembski has proved nothing whatsoever in that particular branch of mathematics, and that Dembski says that it's not his business to try."

So why should we give credence to a guy who doesn't prove anything and admits it?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:23 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:02 PM on May 15, 2009 :
RNA is the reader of the code and the various RNA's translate the message into a protein. That's not subjective information.


Can ;thermal protein be made without information?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:19 AM on May 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is because the human grows in complexity by a non-stop intake of data. A constant input. And this comes from the environment.
Well if you mean a human is already coded for but the input of data from the environment modifies the effects of the information, I'd have to agree
Hum... I think i am saying that, but i'm not sure.

I guess so... The human is already coded before birth, but the person as an individual isn't.

The individual grows in complexity, even if no intelligence (whatever you mean by "intelligence", which, again, is not clear to me at all, since my own definition includes animals) is applied to it. I'm not talking only about humans now (a human would find growing with no intelligences around quite difficult). It applies to seeds, eggs, larvae, fetuses, etc (if i ascribe to your apparent definition of "intelligence").

They all grow in complexity. Don't they?

Whatever you mean by "information" (still not clear at all to me), surely must apply to a growing animal, right?

but the meaningful coded information for the production of every protein
Woah, hold it right there!!
Meaningful proteins????

I know you didn't say exactly that. But hey, i don't think you're meaning "meaningful information that codes for meaningless proteins" (that would be silly, right?), so i think i should assume that you mean what i said. So again...
Meaningful proteins???

You've now made use of yet another obscure concept: "meaning".

And again you use a completely subjective, concept such as "meaning", as something objective.

Do snowflakes mean something?

To some they do. To some they don't. The same with flowers, mice, or people.

that needs to be in your body is already there.
Yeah. That's a given.
The input allows the information to be modified as if the one were speaking to the other according to individual needs.
Then i change my mind. I wasn't saying that. Information doesn't get altered, but it increases.

William Dembski had this to say about the contrast between natural and intelligent causes:
Did you understand it?

If you did, please, explain it in your own words.
If not, please, don't post it.

I believe that your guy is dishonest.

And even if i don't believe you're brilliant, i do have a little amount of faith in your honesty (which is not big enough to say "Hum, you're right, i had not thought of that" or "I don't know", or "I guess that doesn't make any sense..." or "I'm confused about that. Let me think about it and come back later with a better answer.", but i don't think you purposely tell big lies).

Intelligent causes can do things that natural causes cannot.
I guess so... If you define nature as "anything which excludes intelligence".

I think we're natural. I think everything is natural.

"Natural" is just a human concept that means nothing concrete.

If by "natural" you mean "not human", well yeah, humans can do things that other animals (that we know) cannot.

They are the only animals we know of that can understand what their genes want, and yet chose to do different.

Demski
Natural causes can throw scrabble pieces on a board but cannot arrange the pieces to form meaningful words or sentences.
Meaningful to whom?

Please, PLEASE, do answer this:
Is a rabbit warren meaningful?

If you think meaning is objective, answer the question.
If you think it's not, why do you use the word as if it was objective?
Nevertheless, answer the question for yourself (is it meaningful to you?).

To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause.
It requires an intelligent reader.
Well, i can't speak any longer till you answer my previous question.

Whether an intelligent cause acts within or outside nature (ie. is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question entirely from whether an intelligent cause has operated.

Whenever we infer design, we must establish 3 things: contingency, complexity and specification.
Contingency ensures that the object in question is not the result of an automatic and thus unintelligent process that had no choice in its production.
Why do you quote this guy? He throws what you said out of the window.

Isn't it automatic for animals to produce offspring? So their offspring is meaningless. And you're left with nothing.

Complexity ensures that the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance.
???

Do we find that outside of the human world or not?

Finally specification ensures that the object exhibits the type of pattern characterisitc of intelligence.
I don't find that pattern in Dembski's writings.

Man, you have to be VERY biased to read this guy.

Do you believe that real information theorists ALSO developed their theory while trying to disprove your god???

Are they as biased as we are about Evolution??

Why don't you read the real deal?

I mean, i know that actually every branch of science and critical thought denies your beliefs, but you claim that that's not the case, so, again, why don't you read the real deal?

I confess i have not read much about information theory, but i'm confident that i'm a better information theorist than your guy.

When called to explain an event, object or structure, we have a decision to make-are we going to attribute it to necessity, chance or design?
Ok, that's an interesting distinction. The only interesting thing from the quote.

And yet, it doesn't talk much about "information", which was the real subject under discussion.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:14 AM on May 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, the "20 mb" estimate to store an human individual's DNA (could be done in a txt file) relies on having access to a universally accessible reference sequence of high quality. It relies on the common genes. Between any two individuals their DNA will be 99.5% the same.

Nobody told me i was crazy for saying 20mb... Is that because you didn't read me, or you guessed the presuposition? Hahaha!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:17 PM on May 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp
Meaningful proteins???


I suppose that's what you could call them. What it means is that they are coded for by the genome and have a purpose to perform -so they are meaningful or derived from information.

Do snowflakes mean something?


Not like proteins, no, because they don't possess all the qualities of information ie. statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.

I think we're natural. I think everything is natural.

"Natural" is just a human concept that means nothing concrete.


I guess what I mean by natural is 'material' or not supernatural. So I classify a naturalist as a materialist, they are synonymous to me.

Demski
Natural causes can throw scrabble pieces on a board but cannot arrange the pieces to form meaningful words or sentences.


Meaningful to whom?


Meaningful in that there is someone or something (a receiver) to decode the meaning.

Well, i can't speak any longer till you answer my previous question.


Information requires the five levels -statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics to be classified as information. It is non-material and proceeds from an intelligent source.

Why do you quote this guy?


He has attempted to explain the difference between chance and design. I think he has made a good effort to distinguish between the two - it's a necessary exercise in this argument.

I mean, i know that actually every branch of science and critical thought denies your beliefs, but you claim that that's not the case, so, again, why don't you read the real deal?


And every branch of science and critical thought denies your beliefs as well -each branch consists of different people that believe in different things. You get creationist mathematicians and you get evolution-believing mathematicians, same in every other field. We have our interpretation and you have yours.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:43 AM on May 17, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Information requires the five levels -statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics to be classified as information. It is non-material and proceeds from an intelligent source.

So by this definition genes hold no information!  Very good!  Shooting yourself in the foot.  The information in living things genetic structure is MATERIAL.  So I won't even mention that idiotic statement that information proceeds from an intelligent source.  
And you never bothered to comment on the fact that the greatest intelligence we know of is the human mind, there is no evidence for anything else.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:17 AM on May 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:17 AM on May 17, 2009 :
Information requires the five levels -statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics to be classified as information. It is non-material and proceeds from an intelligent source.

So by this definition genes hold no information!  Very good!  Shooting yourself in the foot.  The information in living things genetic structure is MATERIAL.  So I won't even mention that idiotic statement that information proceeds from an intelligent source.  
And you never bothered to comment on the fact that the greatest intelligence we know of is the human mind, there is no evidence for anything else.




Good points.

Since genes are material, if information is non-material, then the genes are apparently irrelevant, and thus the concept of information in genomes is superfluous and a creationist smokescreen.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:16 AM on May 17, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Man! I said PLEASE!!!

Is a rabbit warren meaningful?
Is a rabbit warren meaningful?
Is a rabbit warren meaningful?
Is a rabbit warren meaningful?
Is a rabbit warren meaningful?

"I have no clue", or "I'm confused. Let me think about it and come back to you later" would have been nice. Some honesty would have been nice.

It's ok not to know. It's NOT ok to speak about it anyway, pretending that you do.

Well, i can't speak any longer till you answer my previous question.
Information requires the five levels -statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics to be classified as information. It is non-material and proceeds from an intelligent source.
My question was about rabbit warrens. I don't know what you're answering to.

Meaningful proteins??
I suppose that's what you could call them.
To show some consistency, you should be certain.
But ok, at least you guess consistently.

What it means is that they are coded for by the genome and have a purpose to perform
Meaningful means that it serves some purpose?

I have a little something to say about that.
Well, the Bible does.
Yahweh has a minute plan, according to the Bible. He doesn't fail. So everything should be meaningful. Because everything has a purpose.

If you deny the meaning of any little thing, you're denying Yahweh.

You don't like to treat real subjects, and prefer to discuss obscure concepts. To get lost in words.
Well, when it comes to words, i'll always get you. Not because i'm a sophist, but because your statements don't add up.

But if you think my logic is faulty, please, show me.

-so they are meaningful or derived from information.
Ok. Information = meaning = purpose. Yahweh made everything with a purpose in according to a minute plan. So the distinction is meaningless.

Do snowflakes mean something?
Not like proteins, no,
Now that's not what i asked, was it?
I did not mention proteins in my question.
You're speaking about meaning as if it was objective. So no comparison should be necessary.

because they don't possess all the qualities of information ie. statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
Ok, then the answer is simply "no", regardless of proteins and their properties.

Will you show us, in your own words, the semantics and syntax of proteins?

To me they don't have any. But i'm sure you'll define (with the help of some quote, perhaps) syntax and semantics in a way that can be applied to proteins (well, if you answer to this at all).
Can you do that while leaving snowflakes out? I wonder.

I think we're natural. I think everything is natural.

"Natural" is just a human concept that means nothing concrete.
I guess what I mean by natural is 'material' or not supernatural. So I classify a naturalist as a materialist, they are synonymous to me.
Are you sure you'll stick to your definitions?

Because i'm a naturalist (i think you would agree). Yet i don't even believe in matter (matter is just a human concept to me, and i only use the concept because sometimes it comes in handy).

Meaningful to whom?
Meaningful in that there is someone or something (a receiver) to decode the meaning.
Are you saying that Yahweh cannot decode a simple snowflake? Yahweh does not know its meaning/purpose?

Why do you quote this guy?
He has attempted to explain the difference between chance and design.
He has assumed whatever he needed in order to defend creationism.

I think he has made a good effort to distinguish between the two - it's a necessary exercise in this argument.
Exactly! Completely necessary! To defend creationism!!

True scientists don't do such things. They are not (should not be) advocates.

"Evolutionists" do not try defend the theory of Evolution. It defends itself. We just study it without bias. We learn from our mistakes and move on.

You stick to them. You bend reality to fit to them.

There are thousands of sufficient refutations to your beliefs (dendrochronology, for example, tells us that the Earth is AT LEAST 11k years old -i say it before you say "name one"-), and you stick to them anyway.

You have rehearsed a bunch of silly refutations to Evolution, that don't hold water.

I mean, i know that actually every branch of science and critical thought denies your beliefs, but you claim that that's not the case, so, again, why don't you read the real deal?
And every branch of science and critical thought denies your beliefs as well -each branch consists of different people that believe in different things. You get creationist mathematicians and you get evolution-believing mathematicians, same in every other field. We have our interpretation and you have yours.
Blah blah blah. You're not answering the question.

You purposely choose read the minority. And not any minority. The specific minority that supports your belief.

Just read about information!
Or do you believe that they too developed their theory trying to deny Yahweh?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:59 PM on May 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Demon38
Lester10
Information requires the five levels -statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics to be classified as information. It is non-material and proceeds from an intelligent source.
So by this definition genes hold no information!  Very good!  Shooting yourself in the foot. The information in living things genetic structure is MATERIAL.  So I won't even mention that idiotic statement that information proceeds from an intelligent source.
Good points.

Since genes are material, if information is non-material, then the genes are apparently irrelevant, and thus the concept of information in genomes is superfluous and a creationist smokescreen.
I agree that any reasonable (and useful) definition of syntax and semantics (i won't bother myself checking the meaning of the other 3) should exclude genes, or at least include simpler chemicals. But i'm not sure of what you mean, Demon. The materiality of information, i mean...

And derwood, your statement doesn't seem to work for me. It's clear if you replace genes with DVDs.

"Since DVDs are material, if information is non-material, then the DVDs are apparently irrelevant".

Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics. Perhaps you take an extreme point of view and deem all information as material.

If that's the case, everything is fine. I like extremes. I take the other extreme (that "matter" is non-material, that "matter" is actually information), but it's ultimately the same thing. Extrema se tangvnt.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:17 PM on May 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38
So by this definition genes hold no information!  Very good!  Shooting yourself in the foot.


Not so fast. Genes are material. The coding of the genes is not. Just like scrabble pieces hold information only if they have been ordered by intelligence. Shuffle them up and the material parts remain unchanged. The information, the intelligent ordering, the weightless non-material component is lost.

So I won't even mention that idiotic statement that information proceeds from an intelligent source.


Well that is actually a fact in all systems we know about. In life, evolutionists assume that that law does not hold. That is called prejudice -it is an assumed thing.

And you never bothered to comment on the fact that the greatest intelligence we know of is the human mind, there is no evidence for anything else.


Oh yes, man, with a brain that operates from neuronal material and trillions of synapses that happened together by chance with no plan and no organization. You have a lot of faith! By the way there is no direct evidence for the author of the book I'm reading but I know there is one.

Derwood
Since genes are material, if information is non-material, then the genes are apparently irrelevant


Well that's like saying that the words you are typing are irrelevant but how else do you convey information? You need a material medium for your weightless wisdom.

Wisp
"Evolutionists" do not try defend the theory of Evolution. It defends itself. We just study it without bias. We learn from our mistakes and move on.


Oh Wisp -you are so lost! The theory of evolution needs defending because when the defenders weren't defending they were losing followers. Now they defend in desperation. As for no bias -I don't think you're that stupid. Do you believe that all things can and must be explained by naturalistic means? Well there's your bias. Is the God of the Bible non-existant? If the answer is yes, there's your bias. If the answer is no, there's your bias. We all have a bias. The real question is which bias is it better to be biased with. The truth lies somewhere so where the real objective truth lies, there lies the better bias.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:23 AM on May 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not so fast. Genes are material. The coding of the genes is not.
I happen to agree with you on this one, Lester. Well, except for the part that "Genes are material". Quantum physics tell us that even matter is information.

Just like scrabble pieces hold information only if they have been ordered by intelligence.
I have never meditated on the question of "Does information mean intelligence?". If it does, then i guess the Universe is intelligent. But never supernatural! And never God!
God is greater than our little universe.

Shuffle them up and the material parts remain unchanged. The information, the intelligent ordering, the weightless non-material component is lost.
Exactly. I still don't know what Demon and derwood meant.

In life, evolutionists assume that that law does not hold. That is called prejudice -it is an assumed thing.
Nono, we checked.

We didn't assume that and went to get the evidence for it (like you people do). The evidence showed us that.

You as a christian are not able to defend your beliefs.

Your skepticism only makes you doubt those parts of science that deny your faith (which you accept without skepticism). So it's not a real skepticism.

Oh yes, man, with a brain that operates from neuronal material and trillions of synapses that happened together by chance
Ok, Lester, this is when i lose my temper. Why do you say things like these? Strawmen are not cool! They only show that you have no real arguments, so you try to piss us off.

I'm trying my best to be respectful, but you make it quite hard presenting the same old strawmen.

with no plan
Correct. And it shows.
and no organization.
What??
You have a lot of faith!
We've discussed that before. It's not faith. We have trust in the evidence.

And you say you have the same evidence, yet you remain silent about most of it.

Derwood
Since genes are material, if information is non-material, then the genes are apparently irrelevant
Well that's like saying that the words you are typing are irrelevant
Nono, it would be the other way around. The material part (our computers?) would be irrelevant.
But i get what you mean and i think you're right.

but how else do you convey information? You need a material medium for your weightless wisdom.
Exactly.

"Evolutionists" do not try defend the theory of Evolution. It defends itself. We just study it without bias. We learn from our mistakes and move on.
Oh Wisp -you are so lost!
Show me the evidence for that.
The theory of evolution needs defending because when the defenders weren't defending they were losing followers.
Only among the uneducated masses, but you're correct.
You're incorrect thinking that Evolution needs followers.

Now they defend in desperation.
I honestly see your position as the desperate one. I'm here for the laughs, and to learn about people, and to see if i can make christian reason (perhaps in this forum i should focus on creationists, but perhaps you've noticed that i don't).

But we (some of us) desperately want for the children to learn right things, and take no myths as reality, that would be true...

As for no bias -I don't think you're that stupid.
Thanks, i guess.
Do you believe that all things can and must be explained by naturalistic means?
It depends on your definition of "things". I don't explain mathematical entities in natural terms, so i guess the answer would be no.
Well there's your bias.
Well, i do believe that the natural world is explainable in natural terms.

And that's what the evidence suggests.

Throughout history
every mistery
ever solved
has turned out to be
not magic.

Nothing supernatural. That's a strong evidence that there is NOTHING supernatural. That the concept of "supernatural" was a glitch in our brains. A lazy concept that held on incidentally in the history of human concepts.

Is the God of the Bible non-existant?
Most certainly. I can PROVE it by redvctio ad absvrdvm.
If the answer is yes, there's your bias.
Not if i can PROVE it.
If the answer is no, there's your bias. We all have a bias.
I'm glad you admit yours. But trying to put us in the same sack won't do the trick. Because evidence supports OUR "bias". That's why it's no bias.

The real question is which bias is it better to be biased with. The truth lies somewhere so where the real objective truth lies, there lies the better bias.
You manage to believe that there are two choices. Either there is no god, or there's Yahweh.

Would you call "denying Zeus" a bias?

Why do you deny most of the gods ever invented by men?

Have you even thought about it?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:50 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quantum physics tell us that even matter is information.


Seems to me the information is impressed on the matter much like programming a hard drive. The information component weighs nothing and is just a matter of organization with purpose.


I have never meditated on the question of "Does information mean intelligence?".


I think it is time to meditate on that. The way I see it, there has to be intelligence behind any information.

But never supernatural!


For what reason do you limit that possibility?
Can a chair make itself? Can matter make itself?

God is greater than our little universe.


Supernatural then.

Nono, we checked.


How did you check? I want to check too.

The evidence showed us that.


Show me that evidence.

Your skepticism only makes you doubt those parts of science that deny your faith (which you accept without skepticism). So it's not a real skepticism.


Thats exactly how I feel about you. Skeptical about all except that which you accept by faith -so not truelly a skeptic. That's why I say we all have a bias. The question is just which bias is better supported by the evidence which we all possess?

Ok, Lester, this is when i lose my temper.


What would be the purpose of that? Mutations are random just like spelling mistakes in a document. You might choose the better spelling mistakes by natural selection but you have only selected a random event so ultimately it is random. So it is not a strawman, it is just something evolutionists find it hard to admit to. I suppose they think of it as purposeful randomness of random origin and that apparently makes it less random but to the rest of us, random nonetheless.

They only show that you have no real arguments, so you try to piss us off.


No, it shows that we still don't agree with you and you find it frustrating.

We have trust in the evidence.


You have trust in your biased interpretation of the evidence.

We learn from our mistakes and move on.


You learn from your naturalistic mistakes and press on with your unproven presuppositions intact trying to find other naturalistic solutions.

The theory of evolution needs defending because when the defenders weren't defending they were losing followers.


Only among the uneducated masses, but you're correct.


Sadly it is often the really uneducated ones that stay with their original brainwashing. It is also often intellectual pride that makes people hang in there when the chips are down and logic dictates that they should move on.

Evolution does need followers, it can't hold up without its blind and/or loyal followers.

But we (some of us) desperately want for the children to learn right things, and take no myths as reality


Well there you hit my motivation bang on the head. I don't doubt your sincerity but I am just as sincere in believing that you are wrong. I don't want my children to learn about pointless, aimless amoral evolution as truth because I do not believe that it is true.

Evolution is a vehicle for atheism and is most certainly anti-Christian and anti-God (of the Bible) in every way. Up is down and wrong is right -that's what evolution is and that's what evolution teaches.

Well, i do believe that the natural world is explainable in natural terms.


How did the natural laws  ie gravity etal originate? You have to assume they just happened -I don't assume that.

And that's what the evidence suggests.


No it doesn't suggest that -you believe it and imagine that the evidence suggested it.

Throughout history
every mistery
ever solved
has turned out to be
not magic.


No, every mystery has a plausible natural solution but not necessarily a natural solution. It depends how much you believe in the plausible when the evidence is not clear about the solution.

That's a strong evidence that there is NOTHING supernatural. That the concept of "supernatural" was a glitch in our brains.


Actually there's no evidence as such but it is what you believe.

You manage to believe that there are two choices. Either there is no god, or there's Yahweh.


No the choice is actually natural cause or intelligent cause and science cannot tell us which God that would be, only that there must be one.

Because evidence supports OUR "bias". That's why it's no bias.


But the evidence better supports our bias so ours is the better bias.














-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:09 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not so fast. Genes are material. The coding of the genes is not.

Yes it is, it's just chemicals reacting, there is no real "code" in the genes.

Just like scrabble pieces hold information only if they have been ordered by
intelligence.


Nope, scrabble pieces hold information that we assign to them.  The code is independent of the actual material of the scrabble pieces.  With genes this is not the case.  The "information" is the chemical compostion of the genes.  There is no sysmbolism, no assigned meanings, no code.  Just chemicals reacting.

Well that is actually a fact in all systems we know about.

Yes, it's a fact that all systems of code made by man are made by man...That's about all you're saying here.  As I've pointed out time and time again, we have no evidence of any intelligence greater than ours.  And of course not all informational systems require intelligence.  Is the construction of a bee hive derived from intelligence? (No it's not, if you didn't know).  Does the formation of water require intelligence (a water molecule is always H2O, is intelligence required to get that ratio every time?)  And chemicals reacting in genes is the same thing, just chemicals reacting, no intelligence required.

In life, evolutionists assume that that law does not hold. That is called prejudice -it is an assumed thing.

What law is that?  Please show us how this law works and where it's been empirically supported.  In reality biologists, chemists, astronomers, physicists observe that no intelligence is needed for any natural process.  And no creationist in the history of the world has been able to provide any evidence for any gods or greater than human intelligence or a need for it in natural processes.

Oh yes, man, with a brain that operates from neuronal material and trillions of synapses that happened together by chance with no plan and no organization.

How can you even try to debate evolution when you don't even understand it!  Nothing in biology happens by chance, evolution doesn't happen by chance, chemical reations don't happen by chance.  No matter how many times you say this it is still false.

You have a lot of faith!

You believe in a magic skyman bronze age sheepherders made up who knows everything, is everywhere and can do anything...except show us he really exists, with absolutely NO EVIDENCE.  Talk about faith...  


(Edited by Demon38 5/24/2009 at 06:40 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:36 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quantum physics tell us that even matter is information.
Seems to me the information is impressed on the matter much like programming a hard drive.
I'm sorry if i gave you the impression that it's up to opinion. It's not. Our concept of "matter" has evolved in a "middle world" (not "Middle Earth", mind you). It was useful to our species. But it's just not true.

(Imaginary friends might be helpful too.)

A particle is like a wave. You believe that waves move but it's just the perturbation of the surface of the water what moves.

Except that what undulates in our universe is the quantum field (which is pretty much nothing, or potentially anything, like the Tao, or like a memory stick).

The information component weighs nothing and is just a matter of organization with purpose.
If i show you evolution in a computer you'll say that it's not real. That it's emulated.

Well, so happens to be the case with weigh.
Particles "possess" the "information" so they "know" how to "behave".

"""

""
Human language breaks down when trying to describe the quantum world. Simply because we did not evolve to understand the quantum world. Our language did not evolve to treat quantum entities.

Our language is rich in metaphor.

"Language" comes from "lingua", which means "tongue".

We first develop words for parts of the body, for dangers in nature, for things that can help us. From there we develop metaphor to name abstract concept.

Take an abstract concept like the Declaration of Independence.

"To declare" means to make clear. Like a water stream that's good to drink (you'll say i'm too imaginative, i guess).

"In" = negation. "De" seems to mean "to make". "Pendence", lat. "pendere", to hang, like a pendulum. Like when we used to hang from tree branches. We "depended" on the branch.

Linguistics hold some of the keys to the evolution of the human mind.

So there's yet another imaginative science you'll have a problem with. And the list goes on and on.

I have never meditated on the question of "Does information mean intelligence?".
I think it is time to meditate on that. The way I see it, there has to be intelligence behind any information.
If there's information ANYWHERE, there's information EVERYWHERE. And everything is information. And the Universe is intelligent.

Would you agree?

I think you wouldn't, because your stance is that there's something special about the DNA and information...

But never supernatural!
For what reason do you limit that possibility?
It's not me who limits it. It's that it's not really a possibility. It's a glitch in our brains. Like when we talk about the possibility to travel faster than light, or to travel back in time. It doesn't mean anything. We're just delusional.

Can a chair make itself?
Sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlXh8RvvcuI&NR=1

But why does it have to?

Are we not talking about Evolution here?

If we consistently selected some trees to be comfortable to sit on, they would become chairs.


That's how humans managed to make this:

from this:



Can matter make itself?
Not that we know of, no.
Why do you ask?

God is greater than our little universe.
Supernatural then.
Natural numbers are infinite too. And they're still "natural".

Irrational numbers are even more infinite (it's true). Our universe it not infinite. Therefore irrational numbers are supernatural.

Would you make this claim?

Nono, we checked.
How did you check? I want to check too.
Sure.

Take any natural process. Watch. Don't do anything. There. It happened without intelligence.

Piece of cake, really.

The evidence showed us that.
Show me that evidence.
Sure.

Take an ice cube from your refrigerator. Watch it melt. That melting was a natural process. No intelligence was needed.

I really don't know what you're asking from us.

Your skepticism only makes you doubt those parts of science that deny your faith (which you accept without skepticism). So it's not a real skepticism.
Thats exactly how I feel about you.
Ok. But i don't feel. I reason. And i can back it up.

No part of science denies my beliefs.

Not believing things without any good reason to do so is not a bias. It never is.

I can show you some example of answersingenesis.com talking absolute bullshit, without the slightest shadow of doubt. And you won't be able to say "Yeah, that's bullshit". You can't.

I can.

I call it as i see it.

I have seen articles from evolutionist amateurs (such as myself). They are oftentimes wrong, and i have no problem saying so (if i can spot the mistakes).

Creationists advocate on behalf of creationism. They (try to) develop  strategies. They defend each other. They are very careful about contradicting each other. They promptly accept what other creationists say.

We don't defend each other (like timbrx defends you).

We discuss. We disagree. And our scientists accept something only when they have no choice. If they can disprove something, they will. They are eager to disprove each other (the best ones are eager to disprove themselves).

There's no comparison.

Skeptical about all except that which you accept by faith
We've shown you tons of evidence. So no, no faith.
-so not truelly a skeptic.
Yes i am. I tend not to believe things without a good reason. So you're wrong.

Do you have any good reason to believe in giants, unicorns, talking snakes, etc?

That's why I say we all have a bias.
And we've shown you time and again that you're wrong about that.

There's no reason to believe in Yahweh. And all of your "doubts" about science come from your unconditional belief in the Bible.

That is not a good reason. It's so very clear, and you just don't see it because of your bias.

The question is just which bias is better supported by the evidence which we all possess?
Talk about claws and hollow fangs carrying venom, or be honest and stop saying that.

You can't.

Genesis says that animals lived in harmony.

Most creationists agree that animals in the garden of Eden did not have claws and hollow venomous fangs.

So what happened?

When you ask us we have perhaps more than one possible story. And you complain because of that.

You have none. I complain about that. There's no possible account for claws and hollow fangs that harmonizes with the Bible.

Please, prove me wrong!!

Oh yes, man, with a brain that operates from neuronal material and trillions of synapses that happened together by chance
Ok, Lester, this is when i lose my temper. Why do you say things like these? Strawmen are not cool!
What would be the purpose of that?
Of losing my temper?
None. No purpose.
It's just very annoying to tell gluteus and you tons of times that nobody says it happened by chance.

And you keep saying "can't happen by chance, can't happen by chance". We fucking know that! Stop it already! You're making no point whatsoever!!

Demonstrate the essential randomness in Natural Selection and THEN "can't happen by chance" will mean something.

Not any earlier!

Imagine i try to disprove Yahweh saying that there's no reason for a god to have a beard. You tell me that nobody says that Yahweh has a beard. And i ignore that, and keep saying that Yahweh is ridiculous because an almighty being shouldn't have a beard.

What would you say to someone who used that argument?

What if, after you tell him that nobody says that Yahweh has a beard, he ignores you, and keeps saying "Yahweh can't be God because God should have no beard", like you didn't say anything?

Do you admit that it would be annoying?

I'm really trying to behave, and give you a better treatment... But there's no way around this. You say "by chance" and i say "strawman".

Mutations are random just like spelling mistakes in a document. You might choose the better spelling mistakes by natural selection but you have only selected a random event so ultimately it is random.
We've already told you that you're wrong about this, and we've shown you why.

Take a bunch of coins. Toss them on a table. Save some heads, and toss the rest again. Soon they will be all heads. That is NOT random!

It's like playing cards, and have some of your cards replaced.

I don't know much about card games from other countries, but i believe "bridge" is like this. You keep replacing cards (discarding the cards that don't collaborate with the rest). Your hand will get better.

Yes, yes, yes, you get random cards, but your hand gets better anyway! And this process IS NOT RANDOM!

So it is not a strawman, it is just something evolutionists find it hard to admit to.
Wrong.

Since WE don't say (or admit, if you want) it, but YOU, it IS a strawman the way you use it.
Because you say "can't happen by chance" as if WE said that it did.

Demonstrate that it's random. That it's chance.

It sounds like you'll have a hard time winning at cards if you believe such things.

But until you demonstrate that it's random, you can't say that "that can't happen by chance", because we agree, and it's not an attack.

So what do you think about opening a thread devoted to this subject? RANDOMNESS OF NATURAL SELECTION. Ok?

I suppose they think of it as purposeful randomness
Does it give you pleasure to use strawmen?

Either you're mocking us, or you don't understand Evolution (or both).

If you're not mocking us, with a hand in your heart admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

of random origin
No. No purpose of ANY origin.
and that apparently makes it less random
It's not random. At least not what we're talking about.

Yeah, a tree can fall on a good specimen. Yeah, that would be random. But we're talking about differential survival rates. Those are NOT random. And THOSE are the driving force of Evolution.

So it's crystal clear that it's NOT random. And you don't discuss this subject. You just bring it up time and again, with no justification.

but to the rest of us, random nonetheless.
The "rest of us" is a very small number.

Most uneducated creationists don't care about randomness. And most smart and educated people wouldn't fall for that.

So that "rest of us" margin is insignificant.

They only show that you have no real arguments, so you try to piss us off.
No, it shows that we still don't agree with you and you find it frustrating.
See what you did? You missed a chance to demonstrate your point.

It's not that we just don't agree. I back up my claims. You don't.

We have trust in the evidence.
You have trust in your biased interpretation of the evidence.
Do you know about dendrochronology?

You take trees, cut them down, count the rings (1 per year, normally), you know its age... When you put several trees together and compare their rings, you can see repeated patterns. Very clear, very distinct, a high school boy or girl could match them easily.

You excavate, you find dead trees, you analyze their rings and match them.

Some trees have "mistakes" (sometimes they have an extra ring in some year). No problem. We can spot them by comparing them with the rest of the trees from that time.

We can easily track the oldest known fossil tree with countable rings back to 11k years ago. It's easy. It's a piece of cake. Anyone could do it. There's no discussion. And there's no good reason to think they counted badly. And no good reason to believe that trees used to produce many rings per year (or that light from the stars used to travel faster, or that the decaying rates of radioactive isotopes used to be much higher, or that speciation from the ark happened in fast motion, and then suddenly stopped, or any of those silly things that seem necessary to believe that the biblical myths are true).

You're so biased that you need to deny carbon dating.

"Oh, it gives weird measures for sea creatures!! It's useless!!!".

Well, my toaster doesn't work under water either. That's why i don't use it underwater.

If another person has the same model of toaster i can tell him how long he has to wait for the toast to be done. Our timings will match.

Nobody has any problems with that, except for creationists.

You learn from your naturalistic mistakes and press on with your unproven presuppositions
You see how it's annoying?

Unproven...

Man, theories will ALWAYS remain unproven!

How many times will we need to tell you?

The atomic theory is also unproven.

The cellular theory is also unproven.

The theory of Gravity is also unproven.

intact trying to find other naturalistic solutions.
And mostly succeeding.

This search for naturalistic means has given us all we have in the modern world.

We're playing minesweeper with reality.

We developed a system that works. It's consistent. It's useful.
We have finally learned some useful rules, and creationists say that we should put them aside when the conclusions (that work smoothly) deny biblical myths (that we have no good reasons to believe in).

Let's pretend that there are reasons to believe that light used to travel faster.

That if you shake water with different sediments and let it rest you get layers (even when you can disprove with a fish tank).

That mutations can't add anything (in spite of gene duplication).

That there's a growing percentage of scientists who deny Evolution.

That thermodynamics prevent growing complexity.

Just give it up!

The theory of evolution needs defending because when the defenders weren't defending they were losing followers.
Evolution doesn't need followers.

But your little god seems to do.



It is also often intellectual pride that makes people hang in there when the chips are down and logic dictates that they should move on.
Man, how many of my questions you have gracefully avoided, instead of humbly saying "I don't know", or "I don't understand that"?

You know that many times you just don't. Then you investigate and pretend that you knew. And if you can't find anything, you just remain silent.

THAT is intellectual pride.

You said that the legless lizard lost its legs due to devolution.

I point out that it would mean that just by losing stuff, and degenerating, things could get to imitate one of God's intelligent designs (the snake).

You said nothing. Not even a little "Hum, that makes sense". Nothing.

I asked about claws, horns, spines, hollow fangs, venom, armors, electric shocks... And you answered that the animals needed them (like that clarified anything).

I pointed out that the Bible says that animals lived in harmony and ate grass. That those are positive traits that couldn't have appeared by losing stuff. So how could they have appeared without Evolution?

You remained silent. Nothing. Niente. Nada. Hush.

That's intellectual pride coupled with dishonesty.

You can't find that in any of my posts. If i'm proven wrong about something, i wholeheartedly take it back. If you point out some mistake, i admit it openly. And i believe the same with most evolutionist participants on this forum (but they just make a lot less mistakes than creationists, except for that DiggzDime, and i didn't shut up about his many mistakes like timbrx shuts up about yours, or you shut up about gluteus').

So what are you talking about?

Evolution does need followers, it can't hold up without its blind and/or loyal followers.
It held up long before we were around.

But we (some of us) desperately want for the children to learn right things, and take no myths as reality
Well there you hit my motivation bang on the head. I don't doubt your sincerity but I am just as sincere in believing that you are wrong.
I can believe that, but not that you're as sincere believing that you're right.

Because you avoided the legless lizard.
Because you avoided claws and hollow fangs.
Because you avoided explaining what you mean when you say that we're not apes.
Because you avoided answering if a rabbit warren has information.
Because you overlook gluteus' mistakes (he understands less than you, so i bet you can see some of his mistakes).
Because when asked to back up your claims you play deaf.

I don't want my children
Do you have any?
I have just one. 3 years old.
I'm sympathetic to your interest on the eternal soul of your children. I'm sure you want them to go to Heaven. I would too, if i believed in Heaven.
Nevertheless i have an almost complete trust that your evolution implanted paternal instinct will prevent you from making the logical choice (consequence of your beliefs) of killing them to send them right to heaven, without the chance to lose the path, or the need to suffer in this world.
to learn about pointless,
What do you mean by that word?
aimless
It aims at knowing.
amoral evolution
What about amoral gravity?
as truth because I do not believe that it is true.
I understand. I won't say "But what if you're wrong?". Creationists do that.

Believe me: i have used my understanding of evolutionary principles to polish my morals and my ethics.
Evolution gives you an insight of the reasons why people do what they do. Most of them (like every creationist) are not aware that they use evolutionary stable strategies that have a strong tendency to stupid selfishness.

It is stupid not because i say so. It's stupid because it's blind, like Evolution is blind.
It's stupid because individuals following evolutionary stable strategies want the best for themselves (for their genes), right now. They have no foresight.

We can only be better than that by knowing its principles. Ignoring them in the way that creationism proposes is, to me, immoral.

Evolution is a vehicle for atheism
That is statistically true. And even if i don't call myself an atheist, i believe that atheism is superior to most forms of theism (including the many forms of theism under the single tag of "christianism").
and is most certainly anti-Christian and anti-God (of the Bible) in every way.
Not in "every" way. Mainstream christianism is not affected by Evolution (i'm with you on this one: it should; its members should join creationism, or drop christianism).

Up is down and wrong is right -that's what evolution is and that's what evolution teaches.
You won't be able to back this up, simply because it's not true.

You said that it was "amoral" (not concerned with morals, i happen to agree), so it can't teach anything about right and wrong.

Not by itself at least. Nevertheless it's a tool that can be used to have a clearer look at what's right and what's wrong (only once you have figured what your highest value is).

When you've figured what the highest value is (to you at least), every knowledge is a tool towards a better understanding on what's right and what's wrong (even if very indirectly).

So, i've explained in clear words once again that you were wrong about yet another thing.

If you think you were right, back it up. I have absolutely no problem admitting that i'm wrong (when i'm wrong, of course).

How did the natural laws  ie gravity etal originate?
Natural laws are properties of the Universe.

Many of them (including universal constants like the speed of light or the size of particles) are incomprehensible for us today.

Meaning: I don't know.

I'd love to know more! I'd love to understand more!
And we are right on track!!
By leaving the supernatural out of the field of science we have advanced a great deal. That's an excellent reason to keep doing just that.

Do you have any reason, excellent or not, to change our methods now, back to what they were when we believed that bats were birds and lost crops were due to witchcraft?

Do you want the proposition that a photograph takes away our souls to be taught in classrooms as a possibility?

You have to assume they just happened -I don't assume that.
I'm not sure of what you mean by "just happened", but perhaps you're right in some of the many possible meanings of that phrase.

I can deny at least one of the possible meanings. "To happen" means "in time". And Time is one of the properties of the Universe, just like gravity. It couldn't have "happened" (or "just happened").
And time is mostly the same as the rest of our dimensions (there's a single difference -i can explain it to you if you're interested- that makes it look essentially different to a mind molded by Evolution).
And the four dimensions are no different traits from the rest (including gravity).

So you're right in some obscure sense of "just happened", and wrong in at least the one very precise way i have just explained.

No it doesn't suggest that -you believe it and imagine that the evidence suggested it.
Well, imagination is certainly a part of it.
Without imagination you can't put the pieces together.

But once they have been put together, they strongly suggest that they belong together.

Creationists CAN'T put the pieces together. We can put a lot of them together, even if some of them are missing and some of the pieces that we have have not been exactly placed yet.

It's a puzzle. And evolutionists are constantly solving it.

Sometimes we find a piece, but not the surrounding ones. We say something like 'Ok, we're not sure exactly where, but it's blue, so i'll put it with the other "sky" parts'.

Sometimes they can place the piece exactly even without the surrounding pieces, looking at its color and its pattern.

It's really nothing weird. You could understand it if you wanted.

Not gluteus, he couldn't.

Throughout history
every mistery
ever solved
has turned out to be
not magic.
No,
No????

Please, present an example. Back up this negative.

every mystery has a plausible natural solution but not necessarily a natural solution.
I was talking about the solved ones. Like, i don't know... How women get pregnant, or why the volcanoes erupt. Of course, how life evolves too, but let's leave this one aside so you see my point.

You only accept a natural explanation for those because you have not been very thorough reading your Bible, and you think that it DOESN'T say that Yahweh causes earthquakes and hurricanes and all those things, when it actually DOES say it.

It depends how much you believe in the plausible when the evidence is not clear about the solution.
All things have plausible explanations consistently harmonious with Evolution. That's an excellent parameter to call it a fact.

Very few isolated things are in harmony with creationism (and all of them also harmonize with Evolution). But creationism doesn't stand as anything remotely plausible when you look at the whole.

And the fact that something harmonizes with creationism doesn't make it plausible.

I have this hypothesis that there are some pink crows somewhere. My black watch is in perfect harmony with that hypothesis.

It's the same thing you do when you say common traits are harmonious with a common ancestor and with a common creator.

A common creator could have made things very differently. So there's no necessity.

On top of that there was NEVER any good reason to believe in Yahweh.

The harmony of that hypothesis with a couple of little things doesn't mean anything.

The Matrix hypothesis is consistent with pretty much everything, and yet that's not a good reason to believe it.

You're just bad at reasoning. That's all.

That's a strong evidence that there is NOTHING supernatural. That the concept of "supernatural" was a glitch in our brains.
Actually there's no evidence as such but it is what you believe.
You abuse the word "actually". Specially since you never back up those of your claims preceded by "actually".

I think that for something to be considered evidence (for some hypothesis) harmony is not enough. You also need necessity. I mean to exclude other explanations (or at least make them less likely), instead of harmonizing with them too.

Some cases of vestigiality (you accept it, while timbrx denies it) harmonize with the Theory of Evolution AND with devolution. Like this vestigial behavior of dogs: to give ridiculous little kicks so as to bury their feces.

So i don't use that one. It would be pointless.

Where was i going?

Oh, yeah. There's strong evidence that the supernatural is nothing but a glitch in our brains, caused by the evolution of a dual system for animate and inanimate things, that lead to the concept of spirit, and spirits, and ghosts, and gods. Those are reinforced by our ability to imagine a consciousness different from our own, with no necessity of a bodily wrapping.

Those were important advantages that, sadly, lead to a minor glitch: supernaturalism.

You manage to believe that there are two choices. Either there is no god, or there's Yahweh.
No the choice is actually natural cause or intelligent cause
Might seem obvious to you but...
CAN YOU BACK UP THIS CLAIM?

I can easily produce other choices. Not that they would make sense, but they make as much sense as "intelligent cause".

You want to put it as THE other choice. It's not. It's just a whim.

and science cannot tell us which God that would be, only that there must be one.
Yeah, except that you can't back up this claim.

Man!

Do you believe that we'll let your unsupported claims pass????

Because evidence supports OUR "bias". That's why it's no bias.
But the evidence better supports our bias so ours is the better bias.
Man! Put up or shut up!

How can you keep posting unsupported claims?

Explain how thorns, horns, spines, armors, sharp teeth, electric shocks, hypodermic needles, claws, hollow fangs, venoms, the ability to digest bone...

What about dendrochronology?
What about radio dating?
What about layers?
What about similarities between species of the same genera?

How are those better explained by your bias?


(Edited by wisp 6/1/2009 at 4:22 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:09 PM on May 25, 2009 | IP
Mariel60

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists conjured up a controversy where none has to exist.  The Bible itself has no problem with Science -- and it doesn't pretend to be science.  
They keep trying to "disprove' evolution and find arguments with science, when none of that will turn Genesis into a book of science.  It was never intended to be read literally.  
www.songofgenesis.org
shows all the contradictions in their reasoning.  
God made some of us intelligent enough to understand science.  Understanding does not turn a person into an atheist.  Actually, the more I learn about science, the more I see evidence of a divine creator.


-------
Mariel
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:41 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Understanding has a strong tendency to produce atheists.

I say this even if i'm not one. But it's a fact that you can't ignore.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:57 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, you're not addressing the subjects of the threads you're posting in.

Perhaps you could start one about this site you're promoting.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:58 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Wisp -that took me along time to plough through and to do it justice I'd have to be sitting here for a long time so excuse me if I only answer parts.

If there's information ANYWHERE, there's information EVERYWHERE. And everything is information.


Well I suppose that's true in a sense.But I think that natural law keeps things going the way they are designed to go and information is used where there is specific purpose. Like the parts of your computer are designed to follow certain laws and principles but there is information on the hard drive which is not part of the material world but is carried or transferred by it.

It's not me who limits it. It's that it's not really a possibility. It's a glitch in our brains.


Who says its not really a possibility -you? How can you demonstrate that it's a glitch in our brains? You're the one that says that you back everything up -but you don't you know, you just believe yourself and think that that is good enough.

Can a chair make itself?



Sure.


What are you talking about -explain -my computer could take ten years to download this so I'm not even going to try. If a chair can make itself, then an intelligent person has to programme a machine to do it -the chair can't do it. Whatever, you tell me how.

Can matter make itself?



Not that we know of, no.
Why do you ask?


So where does matter come from. My Bible says that an intelligent eternal being created matter, space and time. Where does matter come from in your opinion?

Nono, we checked.



How did you check? I want to check too.
Take any natural process. Watch. Don't do anything. There. It happened without intelligence.


So where did the natural laws come from? We say that God programmed the natural laws that operate - pretty intelligent hey? So where did you say the natural laws came from??

Take an ice cube from your refrigerator. Watch it melt. That melting was a natural process. No intelligence was needed.


No but natural law was needed. Where does that sort of thing come from?

Ok. But i don't feel. I reason. And i can back it up.


A little bit of shallow rhetoric there. If you backed things up with evidence that makes sense and is not just assumed because of your ability to 'reason', perhaps that would help. By the way, where did your ability to reason come from -random chemical attractions between atoms which happened to evolve into billions of neurons which happened to connect wihtout any plan or purpose?

No part of science denies my beliefs.


No because you're always looking to back up your beliefs and fortify them. Like looking for plausible evolutionary paths for things that exist and plausible evolutionary reasons for why things do what they do. You are reinforcing your belief system constantly.

Creationists advocate on behalf of creationism. They (try to) develop  strategies. They defend each other. They are very careful about contradicting each other. They promptly accept what other creationists say.


Where did you suck this from or do you just believe it? I know lots of creationists that don't accept everything that ID says. To be a creationist does not mean that your brain is switched off and if we don't use your blatent rudeness to drag each other down, it is not necessarily because we agree with everything the others say -that is just your incorrect assumption. Perhaps we encourage one another -we are a minority group after all. But then I see you with Derwood (especially) and some of the others and there is so much back patting going on for nothing particularly intelligent that I can only sit and wonder.

If they can disprove something, they will. They are eager to disprove each other


Maybe with repeatable observable science but not with evolution - unless you get an ego clash like with some of the hominid paleontologists where they contradict the other's imaginary stories all the time just because they hate each other's arrogance.It can get quite ugly but it shows the rest of us just how imaginary their made up stories are.

We disagree.


But not when there are creationists around, just in case they get the wrong idea.

Skeptical about all except that which you accept by faith



We've shown you tons of evidence. So no, no faith.


Remember that problem that I've discussed with you about assuming naturalism in advance of the evidence? No you haven't shown me evidence. You've shown me your interpretations of the evidence and then I tell you why I don't accept your interpretations. Evidence does not tell you anything. You have to interpret it.

Enough for now. I'll come back to the rest of this.









-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:36 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Remember that problem that I've discussed with you about assuming naturalism in advance of the evidence?

There is nothing but nature.  Science doesn't assume naturalism, it's the only thing that can be tested and observed.  there is no evidence of anything else.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:52 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]0) Setup a random DNA string (application start)

1) Copy the current DNA sequence and mutate it slightly

2) Use the new DNA to render polygons onto a canvas

3) Compare the canvas to the source image

4) If the new painting looks more like the source image than the previous painting did, then overwrite the current DNA with the new DNA

5) repeat from 1
[/color]



Actually, this is not a good process for explaining evolution.  Why?  Because using this algorithm you are relying a predetermined answer that guides the "DNA".  

Evolution is not a guided process.





(Edited by Mustrum 6/9/2009 at 4:11 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:11 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there is information on the hard drive which is not part of the material world but is carried or transferred by it


How can information not be physical?


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:14 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe with repeatable observable science but not with evolution - unless you get an ego clash like with some of the hominid paleontologists where they contradict the other's imaginary stories all the time just because they hate each other's arrogance.It can get quite ugly but it shows the rest of us just how imaginary their made up stories are.


I'm sure this must have been noted before, but evolution is one of the pillars of modern science.  There's a reason why Darwin is buried with Newton at Westminster Abbey after all.

There is more agreement among paleontologists than disagreement.  However, the process of science works by having testing different hypotheses to see which ones are supported.  Of course, people will get emotionally involved in such things, as they often do in other areas.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:21 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, this is not a good process for explaining evolution.
Actually, i wasn't trying to explain Evolution.

I was trying to show how randomness can be an ingredient for something that's not random.

Why?  Because using this algorithm you are relying a predetermined answer that guides the "DNA".
Yeap. That's clear.
Evolution is not a guided process.
Depends on your definition of "guided", but yeah, i'm with you, proly.

In my application string there's a single goal, you could say. That makes it guided. Right?

But there are millions of ways to get close to it (using different polygons).

You could say the same thing about life. Only one goal: for the genes to reproduce themselves.
And millions of ways to achieve this.

Look, i know the process quite well. If this example doesn't help you to see anything more clearly, ignore it.

How can information not be physical?
How can matter be anything but information?

Let's not get lost in words.

The same datum (a lock combination) could go through many material codifications. Words, text files in CDs, handwriting, set in a lock, etc.

We would regard the datum as the same in any case. We don't do that with physical entities (except when in deep quantum meditation).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:22 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.