Why is this an argument that ID proponents throw out?
Isn't it sensible that this is actually an argument against design? Why would an all-powerful designer need to make his creations so complex? Is it really sensible that he would throw in vestigial structures? Why would there be so many annoying but necessary processes? I have been told that the annoying parts are in the design because they need to be, but if the designer is all powerful why does he have needs in reference to design? Why would we even have to eat? Why do autoimmune disorders exist? Why do mutations occur?
I won't even get into the similarities between organisms and the lack of creativity that they would entail were they specific creations....
I must be missing something....
QUOTE (DuzmA+Mar 18 2008, 12:00 AM)
Why is this an argument that ID proponents throw out?
Isn't it sensible that this is actually an argument against design? Why would an all-powerful designer need to make his creations so complex? Is it really sensible that he would throw in vestigial structures? Why would there be so many annoying but necessary processes? I have been told that the annoying parts are in the design because they need to be, but if the designer is all powerful why does he have needs in reference to design? Why would we even have to eat? Why do autoimmune disorders exist? Why do mutations occur?
I won't even get into the similarities between organisms and the lack of creativity that they would entail were they specific creations....
I must be missing something....
I'm sitting here, struggling to respond to this appropriately. All I can really say is, I don't know. Beats me why they put out that argument, though it's probably because they're ignorant of evolutionary science.
Isn't it sensible that this is actually an argument against design? Why would an all-powerful designer need to make his creations so complex? Is it really sensible that he would throw in vestigial structures? Why would there be so many annoying but necessary processes? I have been told that the annoying parts are in the design because they need to be, but if the designer is all powerful why does he have needs in reference to design? Why would we even have to eat? Why do autoimmune disorders exist? Why do mutations occur?
I won't even get into the similarities between organisms and the lack of creativity that they would entail were they specific creations....
I must be missing something....
I'm sitting here, struggling to respond to this appropriately. All I can really say is, I don't know. Beats me why they put out that argument, though it's probably because they're ignorant of evolutionary science.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Mar 18 2008, 01:00 PM)
Why is this an argument that ID proponents throw out?
Isn't it sensible that this is actually an argument against design? Why would an all-powerful designer need to make his creations so complex? Is it really sensible that he would throw in vestigial structures? Why would there be so many annoying but necessary processes? I have been told that the annoying parts are in the design because they need to be, but if the designer is all powerful why does he have needs in reference to design? Why would we even have to eat? Why do autoimmune disorders exist? Why do mutations occur?
I won't even get into the similarities between organisms and the lack of creativity that they would entail were they specific creations....
I must be missing something....
I'm in the same boat as TheDoc.
It's further compounded by the fact that most examples or irreducible complexity aren't (like the eye for example)
Isn't it sensible that this is actually an argument against design? Why would an all-powerful designer need to make his creations so complex? Is it really sensible that he would throw in vestigial structures? Why would there be so many annoying but necessary processes? I have been told that the annoying parts are in the design because they need to be, but if the designer is all powerful why does he have needs in reference to design? Why would we even have to eat? Why do autoimmune disorders exist? Why do mutations occur?
I won't even get into the similarities between organisms and the lack of creativity that they would entail were they specific creations....
I must be missing something....
I'm in the same boat as TheDoc.
It's further compounded by the fact that most examples or irreducible complexity aren't (like the eye for example)
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 18 2008, 05:50 AM)
I'm in the same boat as TheDoc.
It's further compounded by the fact that most examples or irreducible complexity aren't (like the eye for example)
I'm honestly baffled by the amount of downright useless arguments the ID'ers put out. "Evolution violates the Laws of Thermodynamics", "Irreducible Complexity", "Life cannot originate from disorder" etc. The member SoLoved once put an argument that said Evolution cannot explain the origin and cause of the Big Bang, and thus was not a plausible theory for the origin of life!
It's all so...how can I say this? I can't, it's that hard to describe.
It's further compounded by the fact that most examples or irreducible complexity aren't (like the eye for example)
I'm honestly baffled by the amount of downright useless arguments the ID'ers put out. "Evolution violates the Laws of Thermodynamics", "Irreducible Complexity", "Life cannot originate from disorder" etc. The member SoLoved once put an argument that said Evolution cannot explain the origin and cause of the Big Bang, and thus was not a plausible theory for the origin of life!
It's all so...how can I say this? I can't, it's that hard to describe.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 18 2008, 07:00 PM)
I'm honestly baffled by the amount of downright useless arguments the ID'ers put out. "Evolution violates the Laws of Thermodynamics", "Irreducible Complexity", "Life cannot originate from disorder" etc. The member SoLoved once put an argument that said Evolution cannot explain the origin and cause of the Big Bang, and thus was not a plausible theory for the origin of life! It's all so...how can I say this? I can't, it's that hard to describe.
It's all so...how can I say this? I can't, it's that hard to describe. QUOTE (Londo Molari+)
But this .. this, this, this is like being nibbled to death by .. what are those Earth creatures called? Feathers, long bill, webbed feet .. go 'quack'?"
"Cats."
"Cats. I'm being nibbled to death by cats
"Cats."
"Cats. I'm being nibbled to death by cats
Hi.
Just to give this some other perspective. Why should intelligence exist at all?. We really are assuming that because we are able to see differences then we can claim a level we can call intelligent.
What will our future generations think. ? Possibly, if it goes long enough we will be rated just above cavemen in the order of intelligence.
Science has a good case for "things just happen". Evolution is a good example of removing intelligent design in place of progressive happenchance. One area that puzzles me though is that any design requires a central database in order to keep things re-occurring even as an evolutionary process.
While science is realistic about what can be proven, it is just as hard on people challenging what it cannot prove (as in this case). Intelligence or a central database exists. What form is quite rightly , hotly debated. Evolution and intelligent design are not so impossibly separated as to not be able to co-exist.
Both creationists and evolutionists , I think, Make the mistake of separating the processes
For instance , energy must be constant in time for conservation. so at any given moment X amount of energy can be used or exist potentially. This barrier must exist for every moment in time as well,otherwise, more or less energy existed than did before and this fundamental fails to be true
Since we have a base energy usage cycle, we also have a limit to the ways it can be represented in any given frame. By necessity, this MUST create a pattern which is discernable, BUT, Is only a correct pattern once it is complete, otherwise it is only Part of a pattern .
Why is that important?
If the universe is not finite, then any measurements of reality are obsolete before they hit the books. If it has not already finished all of the cycles it will go through , then energy is coming from and going to time,NOT space.
The light I will receive from a star will not exist until it actually hits my eye (in any form ) except via the above, because time will not inhabit my reality ,neither past not future.
Remember that either time space and motion co-exist (E=Mc2) or they don't. I was already relative to the light wave when it left the star. It had an effect on my formation as I did on it's motion and direction(because my energy was here in some form or another) but Time was missing from both since this was progressive. The energy never changed except via space.
I can't measure time differently for the light from the star and for myself, so I existed for the same 14 odd billion years as the stars light(in various forms)So despite the distance we are equal in time, meaning we co-existed as energy. The fact that I am mass changes nothing except my ability to outrun the stars wave energy.
Since light was discernable 14 billion (odd) light years ago as we discern light today,Nothing has evolved or become anything at all. The light that reaches my eyes and I discern, does so as a complete act, along with every other action that happens in that moment. They are surely affected by every previous act in an order, but why leave it there. ? Why not count the future as complete as the past, since the database must include a result which is expected . Otherwise energy would still be TOTALLY Chaotic and that could never change
Cheers
Iseason
Just to give this some other perspective. Why should intelligence exist at all?. We really are assuming that because we are able to see differences then we can claim a level we can call intelligent.
What will our future generations think. ? Possibly, if it goes long enough we will be rated just above cavemen in the order of intelligence.
Science has a good case for "things just happen". Evolution is a good example of removing intelligent design in place of progressive happenchance. One area that puzzles me though is that any design requires a central database in order to keep things re-occurring even as an evolutionary process.
While science is realistic about what can be proven, it is just as hard on people challenging what it cannot prove (as in this case). Intelligence or a central database exists. What form is quite rightly , hotly debated. Evolution and intelligent design are not so impossibly separated as to not be able to co-exist.
Both creationists and evolutionists , I think, Make the mistake of separating the processes
For instance , energy must be constant in time for conservation. so at any given moment X amount of energy can be used or exist potentially. This barrier must exist for every moment in time as well,otherwise, more or less energy existed than did before and this fundamental fails to be true
Since we have a base energy usage cycle, we also have a limit to the ways it can be represented in any given frame. By necessity, this MUST create a pattern which is discernable, BUT, Is only a correct pattern once it is complete, otherwise it is only Part of a pattern .
Why is that important?
If the universe is not finite, then any measurements of reality are obsolete before they hit the books. If it has not already finished all of the cycles it will go through , then energy is coming from and going to time,NOT space.
The light I will receive from a star will not exist until it actually hits my eye (in any form ) except via the above, because time will not inhabit my reality ,neither past not future.
Remember that either time space and motion co-exist (E=Mc2) or they don't. I was already relative to the light wave when it left the star. It had an effect on my formation as I did on it's motion and direction(because my energy was here in some form or another) but Time was missing from both since this was progressive. The energy never changed except via space.
I can't measure time differently for the light from the star and for myself, so I existed for the same 14 odd billion years as the stars light(in various forms)So despite the distance we are equal in time, meaning we co-existed as energy. The fact that I am mass changes nothing except my ability to outrun the stars wave energy.
Since light was discernable 14 billion (odd) light years ago as we discern light today,Nothing has evolved or become anything at all. The light that reaches my eyes and I discern, does so as a complete act, along with every other action that happens in that moment. They are surely affected by every previous act in an order, but why leave it there. ? Why not count the future as complete as the past, since the database must include a result which is expected . Otherwise energy would still be TOTALLY Chaotic and that could never change
Cheers
Iseason
Perhaps it is because 'ID' actually stands for 'Inept Desperation'?
g.
g.
They include IC because they think that it disproves evolutionary biology (or, at least, evolutionary origins to essential structures). Maybe they're right about the theory, I dunno for sure.
But I've learned that people who're really good at thinking they've found IC are really bad at double-checking their work.
But I've learned that people who're really good at thinking they've found IC are really bad at double-checking their work.
Evolutionary science provides the only reasonable explanation for complexity that I have heard.
The reason for complexly it because there is many functions that have to governed. The difference between life and non life is the ability to control chemical reaction at will. Anything that controls so many functions is complex. To our currant knowledge machines that can control things can not be made by spontaneous reactions. The reason things has to arrange certain ways. Diffusion only lets things set up randomly. Cristallisation has its limits in the level of complexly only repeating pattern of unit cell. a Also God is being that has been around for very very long time. He had a lot time to think how he want things to be.
QUOTE (thunder8+Mar 18 2008, 09:01 AM)
Also God is being that has been around for very very long time. He had a lot time to think how he want things to be.
And we're the best he could do?
And we're the best he could do?
it looks to me that the IC argument points out that evolutionists can't explain the exact sequence of evolutionary events in certain complex biological systems. However, it doesn't prove that evolution did not occur. And then somehow the flawed conclusion is made that IC proves ID by disproving evolution.
QUOTE (thunder8+Mar 18 2008, 10:01 AM)
The difference between life and non life is the ability to control chemical reaction at will.
ROFLMAO Great definition there, Mr. Hovind.
I saw this machine once that took all of the water over hundreds of square miles, collected it all together and used it to carve a huge swath out of the earth, all the while spreading seeds from local flora and providing a steady source of drinking water to local animals.
It's called the Colorado river.
So if natural processes can create a "machine" which does all that, why is it so hard to believe that natural processes, combined with active interference from the behavior of the organism in question cannot produce a light-sensitive cell?
I saw this machine once that took all of the water over hundreds of square miles, collected it all together and used it to carve a huge swath out of the earth, all the while spreading seeds from local flora and providing a steady source of drinking water to local animals.
It's called the Colorado river.
So if natural processes can create a "machine" which does all that, why is it so hard to believe that natural processes, combined with active interference from the behavior of the organism in question cannot produce a light-sensitive cell?
The reason things has to arrange certain ways.
Could you possibly demonstrate any lesser command of the English language?
According to Wikipedia "Diffusion is the spontaneous net movement of particles from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration in a given volume of fluid (either liquid or gas) down the concentration gradient."
(That's correct, by the way.)
That's not random. That's directed movement from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Keep making this stuff up as you go along, though. [SARCASM]It's not like a position based on incorrect information makes you wrong or anything...[/SARCASM]
According to Wikipedia "Diffusion is the spontaneous net movement of particles from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration in a given volume of fluid (either liquid or gas) down the concentration gradient."
(That's correct, by the way.)
That's not random. That's directed movement from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Keep making this stuff up as you go along, though. [SARCASM]It's not like a position based on incorrect information makes you wrong or anything...[/SARCASM]
Cristallisation has its limits in the level of complexly only repeating pattern of unit cell.
Crystals don't have cells, Mr. Hovind. They have molecules arranged in patterns.
[SARCASM]And yet, for some reason, decided that an appendix which provides hardly any benefit at all, and is prone to inflammation and bursting, thus releasing toxic chemicals into the body and killing the organism is necessary. Apparently, he also thought that including a few sociopaths in the gene pool wouldn't hurt anything, either. And let's not forget Huntington's disease, that's not hurting anything. Nor is Parkinson's, or autism. The HIV virus is of huge benefit to mankind, as well... [/SARCASM]
Seriously, Thunder. If you don't know anything about the subject (which you clearly don't), why the hell would you want to argue it?
ROFLMAO Great definition there, Mr. Hovind.
QUOTE
Anything that controls so many functions is complex. To our currant knowledge machines that can control things can not be made by spontaneous reactions.
I saw this machine once that took all of the water over hundreds of square miles, collected it all together and used it to carve a huge swath out of the earth, all the while spreading seeds from local flora and providing a steady source of drinking water to local animals.
It's called the Colorado river.
So if natural processes can create a "machine" which does all that, why is it so hard to believe that natural processes, combined with active interference from the behavior of the organism in question cannot produce a light-sensitive cell?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anything that controls so many functions is complex. To our currant knowledge machines that can control things can not be made by spontaneous reactions. |
I saw this machine once that took all of the water over hundreds of square miles, collected it all together and used it to carve a huge swath out of the earth, all the while spreading seeds from local flora and providing a steady source of drinking water to local animals.
It's called the Colorado river.
So if natural processes can create a "machine" which does all that, why is it so hard to believe that natural processes, combined with active interference from the behavior of the organism in question cannot produce a light-sensitive cell?
The reason things has to arrange certain ways.
Could you possibly demonstrate any lesser command of the English language?
QUOTE
Diffusion only lets things set up randomly.
According to Wikipedia "Diffusion is the spontaneous net movement of particles from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration in a given volume of fluid (either liquid or gas) down the concentration gradient."
(That's correct, by the way.)
That's not random. That's directed movement from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Keep making this stuff up as you go along, though. [SARCASM]It's not like a position based on incorrect information makes you wrong or anything...[/SARCASM]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Diffusion only lets things set up randomly. |
According to Wikipedia "Diffusion is the spontaneous net movement of particles from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration in a given volume of fluid (either liquid or gas) down the concentration gradient."
(That's correct, by the way.)
That's not random. That's directed movement from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Keep making this stuff up as you go along, though. [SARCASM]It's not like a position based on incorrect information makes you wrong or anything...[/SARCASM]
Cristallisation has its limits in the level of complexly only repeating pattern of unit cell.
Crystals don't have cells, Mr. Hovind. They have molecules arranged in patterns.
QUOTE
a Also God is being that has been around for very very long time. He had a lot time to think how he want things to be.
[SARCASM]And yet, for some reason, decided that an appendix which provides hardly any benefit at all, and is prone to inflammation and bursting, thus releasing toxic chemicals into the body and killing the organism is necessary. Apparently, he also thought that including a few sociopaths in the gene pool wouldn't hurt anything, either. And let's not forget Huntington's disease, that's not hurting anything. Nor is Parkinson's, or autism. The HIV virus is of huge benefit to mankind, as well... [/SARCASM]
Seriously, Thunder. If you don't know anything about the subject (which you clearly don't), why the hell would you want to argue it?
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Mar 18 2008, 09:26 AM)
Perhaps it is because 'ID' actually stands for 'Inept Desperation'?
g.
Irreducible Irreversable Unrepeatable
Evolution is pseudoscience through the arrow of time.
However, the Flyby Anomaly seems real and so hope that there maybe more than one arrow of time. Christians have always had this hope of course. Physics doesn't work by hope, it needs a bullseye.
Irreducible Irreversable Unrepeatable ~ Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evidently Biologists work by hope.
However, most do not make a profession to witness for Christ Jesus through whom and by whom everything was made that we generally call creation.
Creation is under a curse, which imo is the way the "why" questions by the OP should be answered.
MrB.
The TheologyOnLine link is @ Showtopic= 20744 --->
bob b
May 9th, 2006, 08:36 PM
15. Codes, Programs, and Information
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.
The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease.a It seems most reasonable that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.b
Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.c
Life contains matter, energy, and information d. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly.e Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:
• Macroevolution cannot occur.f
• Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.g
• Life could not result from a “big bang.”h
References:
a. “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.
b. The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were generated by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, “Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]
? “This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.” [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.
c. “No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” Abel and Trevors, p. 8.
? “No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.” Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.
d. For example, a computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. That information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u” that directly follows a “q”. After compression, the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.
Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log2[4] = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.
Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.
While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.
? Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3 x 10e24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]
e. “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Ibid., p. 107.
f. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell. Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.
? “The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.” Gitt, p. 124.
g. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also “Second Law of Thermodynamics” on page 27.]
h. If the “big bang” occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.
g.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Seriously, Thunder. If you don't know anything about the subject (which you clearly don't), why the hell would you want to argue it?
Seconded. thunder8, please, take a hike.
Seconded. thunder8, please, take a hike.
QUOTE (thunder8+Mar 19 2008, 04:01 AM)
Cristallisation has its limits in the level of complexly only repeating pattern of unit cell.
Completely wrong.
1. There's no limiting factor on unit cell complexity (YBCO superconducters are many times more complicated then a Pu unit cell).
2. Unit cells aren't the limiting factor in crystaline complexity - you're ignoring defects.
3. Not all inorganic substances are crystalline (many are glassy, and at least one is rubber like).
Completely wrong.
1. There's no limiting factor on unit cell complexity (YBCO superconducters are many times more complicated then a Pu unit cell).
2. Unit cells aren't the limiting factor in crystaline complexity - you're ignoring defects.
3. Not all inorganic substances are crystalline (many are glassy, and at least one is rubber like).
I just want to add I didn't notice thunder8's use of the word "unit" in the quote about crystals I responded to. Crystals do have Unit Cells, but the context in which thunder used the phrase led me to believe he was talking about Lattice Sites, which are, of course, called lattice sites, and not "cells."
Oh, and Trippy's absolutely right.
Oh, and Trippy's absolutely right.
Thunder's posts would be more graceful if he admitted that he had no evidence to support his position, and that no amount of evidence could change his mind. Don't insult us by trying to submit a load of BS as evidence.
Dalmatians can't possibly have spots because zebras have stripes? Are you convinced?
Dalmatians can't possibly have spots because zebras have stripes? Are you convinced?
ok,
BigDumbWeirdo....you first... in a small phrase. What is your best guess at what happenned.
Cheers
Iseason
BigDumbWeirdo....you first... in a small phrase. What is your best guess at what happenned.
Cheers
Iseason
Irreducible Irreversable Unrepeatable
Evolution is pseudoscience through the arrow of time.
However, the Flyby Anomaly seems real and so hope that there maybe more than one arrow of time. Christians have always had this hope of course. Physics doesn't work by hope, it needs a bullseye.
Irreducible Irreversable Unrepeatable ~ Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evidently Biologists work by hope.
However, most do not make a profession to witness for Christ Jesus through whom and by whom everything was made that we generally call creation.
Creation is under a curse, which imo is the way the "why" questions by the OP should be answered.
MrB.
The TheologyOnLine link is @ Showtopic= 20744 --->
bob b
May 9th, 2006, 08:36 PM
15. Codes, Programs, and Information
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.
The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease.a It seems most reasonable that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.b
Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.c
Life contains matter, energy, and information d. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly.e Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:
• Macroevolution cannot occur.f
• Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.g
• Life could not result from a “big bang.”h
References:
a. “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.
b. The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were generated by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, “Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]
? “This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.” [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.
c. “No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” Abel and Trevors, p. 8.
? “No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.” Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.
d. For example, a computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. That information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u” that directly follows a “q”. After compression, the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.
Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log2[4] = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.
Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.
While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.
? Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3 x 10e24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]
e. “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Ibid., p. 107.
f. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell. Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.
? “The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.” Gitt, p. 124.
g. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also “Second Law of Thermodynamics” on page 27.]
h. If the “big bang” occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.
And as if to prove that Creationists are on their last legs, you post THAT. Brilliant!
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 01:32 AM)
Irreducible Irreversable Unrepeatable
Evolution is pseudoscience through the arrow of time.
However, the Flyby Anomaly seems real and so hope that there maybe more than one arrow of time. Christians have always had this hope of course. Physics doesn't work by hope, it needs a bullseye.
Irreducible Irreversable Unrepeatable ~ Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evidently Biologists work by hope.
However, most do not make a profession to witness for Christ Jesus through whom and by whom everything was made that we generally call creation.
Creation is under a curse, which imo is the way the "why" questions by the OP should be answered.
MrB.
Maybe you should go and do some research into chaos theory and sensitivity to initial starting conditions.
Or perhaps you'd like to try and argue that meteorology isn't science.
I'm going to express an opinion.
I am of the opinion that evolution is driven by a chaotic process.
I am of the opinion that if you could reproduce exactly the starting conditions, and reproduce exactly the pressures, and reproduce exactly the events, then you might reprdocue exactly the results.
The problem is, you can't.
But the irony is, in some respects you can - for example, in every predator/prey relationship there is some aspect that undergoes a sort of proliferation, the most obvious example is Cheetahs and Gazelles, with speed, of course, it doesn't make much sense to talk about faster moving trees, now does it?
Evolution is pseudoscience through the arrow of time.
However, the Flyby Anomaly seems real and so hope that there maybe more than one arrow of time. Christians have always had this hope of course. Physics doesn't work by hope, it needs a bullseye.
Irreducible Irreversable Unrepeatable ~ Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evidently Biologists work by hope.
However, most do not make a profession to witness for Christ Jesus through whom and by whom everything was made that we generally call creation.
Creation is under a curse, which imo is the way the "why" questions by the OP should be answered.
MrB.
Maybe you should go and do some research into chaos theory and sensitivity to initial starting conditions.
Or perhaps you'd like to try and argue that meteorology isn't science.
I'm going to express an opinion.
I am of the opinion that evolution is driven by a chaotic process.
I am of the opinion that if you could reproduce exactly the starting conditions, and reproduce exactly the pressures, and reproduce exactly the events, then you might reprdocue exactly the results.
The problem is, you can't.
But the irony is, in some respects you can - for example, in every predator/prey relationship there is some aspect that undergoes a sort of proliferation, the most obvious example is Cheetahs and Gazelles, with speed, of course, it doesn't make much sense to talk about faster moving trees, now does it?
I still don't understand the misconception that an argument against evolution is an argument for an intelligent designer....
If you are bring in the designer to explain complexity wouldn't the designer itself have to be even more complex than what it is used to explain? How would you explain such a designer?
If you are bring in the designer to explain complexity wouldn't the designer itself have to be even more complex than what it is used to explain? How would you explain such a designer?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
Irreducible
A buzzword indicating that one has pretensions of omniscience. In actually, "Irreducible" represents only a personal failure of the imagination of a limited intellect, and it the same sort of anti-science as the engineer who claimed that bees can't fly just because they didn't fly in the same manner as fixed-wing aircraft.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
Irreversable
A technical term of thermodynamics or statistical physics, here indicating that the author has pretensions of understanding either.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
Unrepeatable
A technical term of the scientific method, which does not apply to events of historical record, but only to laboratory experiments. A given historical event is trivially unrepeatable barring the invention of a time machine, but this doesn't mean history, paleontology, archeology, and maximum parsimony phylogenetic trees are not science. A laboratory experiment is repeatable and exposed the general principles which the historian relies upon, so the historian is practicing the same science but in a different laboratory.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
Evolution is pseudoscience
No. Astrology is a pseudoscience, Biology is a science, Evolution is a historical fact available to geologists through biologists through biochemists and medical doctors, and there are various general theories of evolutionary change with greater or lesser support and specific evolutionary hypotheses about exactly what happened when in history. Your inability to use basic terms should be taken an opportunity to learn more.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
through the arrow of time.
Most of what has been written about an arrow of time is pseudoscientic or unscientific philosophy. Most physicists take it for granted that there is a dimension of time, and let the arrow settle out for itself.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
However, the Flyby Anomaly seems real and so hope that there maybe more than one arrow of time.
That is sheer speculation.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
Christians have always had this hope of course.
Document this. Why did Aquinas or the Council of Trent fail to bring this up?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
Physics doesn't work by hope, it needs a bullseye.
But you clearly work by hope by including the Flyby Anomaly, multiple arrows of time, and Christianity. So by your own definitions, you are not doing Physics. Someone who contradicts themselves in a public document is not someone the public will trust to shape their opinions.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
Irreducible Irreversable Unrepeatable ~ Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The second law of physics is that the Total Entropy of a Closed system is a non-diminishing total quantity. But there are no closed systems in nature, and in for life at geothermal vents, or purple photosynthetic bacteria, or lions on the savanna, life works hard at making the most of non-closed systems.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
Evidently Biologists work by hope.
Please provide the evidence you think you have. McCarthy took a list of Jews in the government, crossed off the word Jew and wrote in Communist and started a fear campaign based on a "document" of the Communists working in the State Department. But he never produced the "evidence" because it was a lie. How stupid would we be to fall for that again.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
However, most do not make a profession to witness for Christ Jesus through whom and by whom everything was made that we generally call creation.
Christian Biologists like Ken Miller point out that it helps biology not one bit to incorporate divine authorship of creation. That's meaningless trivia when you are trying to find the function of genes or make a vaccine.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
Creation is under a curse,
Document this factual claim. Document that this curse extends beyond low earth orbit, or concede that material aliens may exist which are not under this curse.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
which imo is the way the "why" questions by the OP should be answered. MrB.
This is argument from ignorance. If we cannot answer a question like why does Venus have phases or why does the moon rise and set at different times, or what causes the planets to move predictably, that does not mean the answer is beyond our grasp, just that we don't have it today.
The TheologyOnLine link is @ Showtopic= 20744 --->
bob b
May 9th, 2006, 08:36 PM
15. Codes, Programs, and Information
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 19 2008, 12:32 PM)
The TheologyOnLine link is @ Showtopic= 20744 --->
bob b
May 9th, 2006, 08:36 PM
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
15. Codes, Programs, and Information
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance.
Prediction: Creationist will now try to use multiple definitions of "code" to confuse the issue.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another.
Incorrect. In cryptography, a code is a way of expressing a human message in a way that requires the knowledge of a regular decryption scheme to render the message understandable. Ideally, the decryption scheme is difficult to determine from the message alone. Human languages are not codes and are not susceptible to general machine translation following regular rules. Among the weakest codes are the single-alphabet substitution ciphers.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
Examples include Morse code and braille.
These are single-alphabet substitution ciphers, which are regular and publicly known.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.
Not true. With public key cryptography, it is possible of the encoder to be ignorant of the decoding scheme and vice-versa.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information.
Untrue. It is not a message or a computer program. You cannot read natural DNA and get a message for humans or computers. It does not control the physical processes of life (that's mostly quantum and statistical mechanics). And yet it has information content.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease.
The content of DNA is binding sites for control proteins and transcrible information content for assembling those proteins. There may also be DNA which can be transcribed into biologically active RNA segments that have functions other than merely messengers to the ribosomes. The function or hypothetical intent of the proteins is not encoded and is a major research subject in molecular biology.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
a It seems most reasonable that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.
So William Paley, author of Natural Theology (1801) might say, but the details of action show that different organisms use different schemes to make proteins from DNA and the same sequence of DNA has different meanings for different organisms and that if you make a maximum parsimony tree from these translation differences, you will reconstruct a tree of life which is yet more evidence of common descent with modification.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
b Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.
Straw-man argument. DNA is not a program.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal.
Not only does this very weak definition include the anthropocentric terms "planned" and "goal", thus ruling out natural processes, but the fact that steps are not anywhere documented in DNA, so DNA is not a program by this definition.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes.
Simulated evolution has been used to create computer programs, so there appears to be no fundamental barrier to natural processes replicating these successes in nature.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.
Actually, humans seen design in the progression of the sun across the sky, in the shapes of water-rounded rocks, in the actions of the very drunk. So the appearance of design is only an appearance until we have a quantifiable test for design.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
c
Life contains matter, energy, and information
Life contains matter, energy, and information
So does a hydrogen molecule. You have failed to make a point.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
d. All isolated systems, including living organisms,
Living organisms are not isolated systems. Isolation kills everything with a metabolism.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
have specific, but perishable, amounts of information.
The fossil record is testimony to the perishing of information. No more trilobites, ever.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly.
Why the weasel words? This statement is already super-untrue. Living things aren't isolated. Isolated systems increase their information content all the time, since information content is synonymous with entropy. There are many more ways for a collection of atoms to be dead than to be alive, so killing something by isolating it (See Dexter) is a way to increase it's information content. There is a whole field dedicated to extracting this post-mortem information in human-usable form.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
e Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it.
Natural processes have a tendency to destroy man-made information. That doesn't mean that there is less information. A badly rusted stop sign has much higher information content than a freshly painted one. So you haven't made a statement which is true in information theory, but only made a value judgment about what information you respect. This is ironic since you don't respect the totality of information in the biological world.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system.
Untrue.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization,
A Big Lie.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
which has three corollaries:
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
* Macroevolution cannot occur.
Based on faulty premise and no syllogism. If your syllogism was valid, it would apply equally well to beneficial mutations at the microevolutional level. Even creationists document that happening in the lab. So we know that either your premise is wrong or you have no syllogism. Further, when you say that this is a corollary, you are lying.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
* Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.
Based on faulty premise and no syllogism. Plus you invite infinite regress with your statement.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
* Life could not result from a “big bang.”
Based on faulty premise and no syllogism. In fact, this is a naked assertion of personal incredulity from someone who does not have very high levels of understanding of any topic discussed here.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
References:
a. “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.
a. “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.
Quote mining of a metaphor. The author is not using code in the sense you do.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
b. The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were generated by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, “Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]
Quote mining of a non-factual hypothetical statement based on a poor understanding of what evolutionists believe. Quote mining from a popular science document which apparently ignores that there are more than 2 RNA transcriptions codes in use. Humans use two.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
? “This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.” [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.
Quote mining of choice which used as a metaphor for natural selection.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
c. “No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” Abel and Trevors, p. 8.
Quote-mining of ignorant statement. Statement is inconsistent with both computer science and information science descriptions of information.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
? “No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.” Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.
Quote-mining of ignorant statement of personal incredulity. Both authors are associated with the Origin-of-Life Foundation, which is to say they are Creationists/IDers. Whew, I found it hard to believe that working scientists would make such stupid statements.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
d. For example, a computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. That information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u” that directly follows a “q”. After compression, the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.
Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log2[4] = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.
Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.
While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.
Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log2[4] = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.
Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.
While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.
This is based on a incorrect understanding of information theory, information content of an object and a false dichotomy between DNA and life.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
? Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3 x 10e24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]
That's generally written as 3e24 bits or 3×10^24 bits. Also, this quote doesn't help any of your claims. It just says that humans are busy places. Great Whales, by inference, are busier places.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
e. “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Ibid., p. 107.
That's either a garbled quote about unitary in quantum physics or a shameless ignorant statement about physics in general.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
f. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell. Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.
That incorrectly says macroevolution is progressive. This is a rehash of Aristotle's ladder of life and Plato's fixity of species, not biology or creationism. You use cannot with astonishing frequency.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
? “The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.” Gitt, p. 124.
Super-humanly stupid quote. And it too comes from Creationist Werner Gitt. The whole purpose of quote mining is to quote respected authorities, not charlatans.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
g. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.]
Heh. Then you misunderstand Maxwell's Demon, the Brownian ratchet and the Hilsch vortex tube.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also “Second Law of Thermodynamics” on page 27.]
No facts or syllogisms support this statement.
No no no - What is on second, and Why is in left field along with Because.
No no no - What is on second, and Why is in left field along with Because.
IF you gave up using HOW and looked at WHAT , then WHERE is HOW you'll find WHY........Capice
Incoherent babble.
QUOTE (bob b+May 9 2006, 08:36 PM)
h. If the “big bang” occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.
The expansion of space creates more information/entropy -- allowing the cooler gas to proceed towards even greater entropy increases. Your analysis is too ignorant of the actual facts and concepts.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 20 2008, 10:42 AM)
A buzzword indicating that one has pretensions of omniscience. In actually, "Irreducible" represents only a personal failure of the imagination of a limited intellect, and it the same sort of anti-science as the engineer who claimed that bees can't fly just because they didn't fly in the same manner as fixed-wing aircraft.
A technical term of thermodynamics or statistical physics, here indicating that the author has pretensions of understanding either.
A technical term of the scientific method, which does not apply to events of historical record, but only to laboratory experiments. A given historical event is trivially unrepeatable barring the invention of a time machine, but this doesn't mean history, paleontology, archeology, and maximum parsimony phylogenetic trees are not science. A laboratory experiment is repeatable and exposed the general principles which the historian relies upon, so the historian is practicing the same science but in a different laboratory.
No. Astrology is a pseudoscience, Biology is a science, Evolution is a historical fact available to geologists through biologists through biochemists and medical doctors, and there are various general theories of evolutionary change with greater or lesser support and specific evolutionary hypotheses about exactly what happened when in history. Your inability to use basic terms should be taken an opportunity to learn more.
Most of what has been written about an arrow of time is pseudoscientic or unscientific philosophy. Most physicists take it for granted that there is a dimension of time, and let the arrow settle out for itself.
That is sheer speculation.
Document this. Why did Aquinas or the Council of Trent fail to bring this up?
But you clearly work by hope by including the Flyby Anomaly, multiple arrows of time, and Christianity. So by your own definitions, you are not doing Physics. Someone who contradicts themselves in a public document is not someone the public will trust to shape their opinions.
The second law of physics is that the Total Entropy of a Closed system is a non-diminishing total quantity. But there are no closed systems in nature, and in for life at geothermal vents, or purple photosynthetic bacteria, or lions on the savanna, life works hard at making the most of non-closed systems.
Please provide the evidence you think you have. McCarthy took a list of Jews in the government, crossed off the word Jew and wrote in Communist and started a fear campaign based on a "document" of the Communists working in the State Department. But he never produced the "evidence" because it was a lie. How stupid would we be to fall for that again.
Christian Biologists like Ken Miller point out that it helps biology not one bit to incorporate divine authorship of creation. That's meaningless trivia when you are trying to find the function of genes or make a vaccine.
Document this factual claim. Document that this curse extends beyond low earth orbit, or concede that material aliens may exist which are not under this curse.This is argument from ignorance. If we cannot answer a question like why does Venus have phases or why does the moon rise and set at different times, or what causes the planets to move predictably, that does not mean the answer is beyond our grasp, just that we don't have it today.
Prediction: Creationist will now try to use multiple definitions of "code" to confuse the issue.
Incorrect. In cryptography, a code is a way of expressing a human message in a way that requires the knowledge of a regular decryption scheme to render the message understandable. Ideally, the decryption scheme is difficult to determine from the message alone. Human languages are not codes and are not susceptible to general machine translation following regular rules. Among the weakest codes are the single-alphabet substitution ciphers.
These are single-alphabet substitution ciphers, which are regular and publicly known.
Not true. With public key cryptography, it is possible of the encoder to be ignorant of the decoding scheme and vice-versa. Untrue. It is not a message or a computer program. You cannot read natural DNA and get a message for humans or computers. It does not control the physical processes of life (that's mostly quantum and statistical mechanics). And yet it has information content.
The content of DNA is binding sites for control proteins and transcrible information content for assembling those proteins. There may also be DNA which can be transcribed into biologically active RNA segments that have functions other than merely messengers to the ribosomes. The function or hypothetical intent of the proteins is not encoded and is a major research subject in molecular biology.
So William Paley, author of Natural Theology (1801) might say, but the details of action show that different organisms use different schemes to make proteins from DNA and the same sequence of DNA has different meanings for different organisms and that if you make a maximum parsimony tree from these translation differences, you will reconstruct a tree of life which is yet more evidence of common descent with modification.
Straw-man argument. DNA is not a program.
Not only does this very weak definition include the anthropocentric terms "planned" and "goal", thus ruling out natural processes, but the fact that steps are not anywhere documented in DNA, so DNA is not a program by this definition.
Simulated evolution has been used to create computer programs, so there appears to be no fundamental barrier to natural processes replicating these successes in nature.
Actually, humans seen design in the progression of the sun across the sky, in the shapes of water-rounded rocks, in the actions of the very drunk. So the appearance of design is only an appearance until we have a quantifiable test for design.
So does a hydrogen molecule. You have failed to make a point.
Living organisms are not isolated systems. Isolation kills everything with a metabolism.
The fossil record is testimony to the perishing of information. No more trilobites, ever.
Why the weasel words? This statement is already super-untrue. Living things aren't isolated. Isolated systems increase their information content all the time, since information content is synonymous with entropy. There are many more ways for a collection of atoms to be dead than to be alive, so killing something by isolating it (See Dexter) is a way to increase it's information content. There is a whole field dedicated to extracting this post-mortem information in human-usable form.
Natural processes have a tendency to destroy man-made information. That doesn't mean that there is less information. A badly rusted stop sign has much higher information content than a freshly painted one. So you haven't made a statement which is true in information theory, but only made a value judgment about what information you respect. This is ironic since you don't respect the totality of information in the biological world. Untrue.
A Big Lie.
Based on faulty premise and no syllogism. If your syllogism was valid, it would apply equally well to beneficial mutations at the microevolutional level. Even creationists document that happening in the lab. So we know that either your premise is wrong or you have no syllogism. Further, when you say that this is a corollary, you are lying.
Based on faulty premise and no syllogism. Plus you invite infinite regress with your statement.
Based on faulty premise and no syllogism. In fact, this is a naked assertion of personal incredulity from someone who does not have very high levels of understanding of any topic discussed here.
Quote mining of a metaphor. The author is not using code in the sense you do.
Quote mining of a non-factual hypothetical statement based on a poor understanding of what evolutionists believe. Quote mining from a popular science document which apparently ignores that there are more than 2 RNA transcriptions codes in use. Humans use two.
Quote mining of choice which used as a metaphor for natural selection.
Quote-mining of ignorant statement. Statement is inconsistent with both computer science and information science descriptions of information.
Quote-mining of ignorant statement of personal incredulity. Both authors are associated with the Origin-of-Life Foundation, which is to say they are Creationists/IDers. Whew, I found it hard to believe that working scientists would make such stupid statements.
This is based on a incorrect understanding of information theory, information content of an object and a false dichotomy between DNA and life.
That's generally written as 3e24 bits or 3×10^24 bits. Also, this quote doesn't help any of your claims. It just says that humans are busy places. Great Whales, by inference, are busier places.
That's either a garbled quote about unitary in quantum physics or a shameless ignorant statement about physics in general.
That incorrectly says macroevolution is progressive. This is a rehash of Aristotle's ladder of life and Plato's fixity of species, not biology or creationism. You use cannot with astonishing frequency.
Super-humanly stupid quote. And it too comes from Creationist Werner Gitt. The whole purpose of quote mining is to quote respected authorities, not charlatans.
Heh. Then you misunderstand Maxwell's Demon, the Brownian ratchet and the Hilsch vortex tube.
No facts or syllogisms support this statement.
The expansion of space creates more information/entropy -- allowing the cooler gas to proceed towards even greater entropy increases. Your analysis is too ignorant of the actual facts and concepts.
Ripener
as for your method of ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Seems to me I've seen it somewhere recently, but G, can't think where....GGimmee a minute and I might be able to think of it.
As to bothering to read what you wrote. I tried for about two paragraphs and then just became really bored. just seemed to be splitting , gee , what describes that post
Well anyway , Christians do have a different way of looking at reality, and they will be found to have missed the big "WHY AM I HERE"question too.
Problem is , your using HOW to find WHY ,WHERE is on second , and WHAT is still NOWHERE to be found. IF you gave up using HOW and looked at WHAT , then WHERE is HOW you'll find WHY........Capice
A technical term of thermodynamics or statistical physics, here indicating that the author has pretensions of understanding either.
A technical term of the scientific method, which does not apply to events of historical record, but only to laboratory experiments. A given historical event is trivially unrepeatable barring the invention of a time machine, but this doesn't mean history, paleontology, archeology, and maximum parsimony phylogenetic trees are not science. A laboratory experiment is repeatable and exposed the general principles which the historian relies upon, so the historian is practicing the same science but in a different laboratory.
No. Astrology is a pseudoscience, Biology is a science, Evolution is a historical fact available to geologists through biologists through biochemists and medical doctors, and there are various general theories of evolutionary change with greater or lesser support and specific evolutionary hypotheses about exactly what happened when in history. Your inability to use basic terms should be taken an opportunity to learn more.
Most of what has been written about an arrow of time is pseudoscientic or unscientific philosophy. Most physicists take it for granted that there is a dimension of time, and let the arrow settle out for itself.
That is sheer speculation.
Document this. Why did Aquinas or the Council of Trent fail to bring this up?
But you clearly work by hope by including the Flyby Anomaly, multiple arrows of time, and Christianity. So by your own definitions, you are not doing Physics. Someone who contradicts themselves in a public document is not someone the public will trust to shape their opinions.
The second law of physics is that the Total Entropy of a Closed system is a non-diminishing total quantity. But there are no closed systems in nature, and in for life at geothermal vents, or purple photosynthetic bacteria, or lions on the savanna, life works hard at making the most of non-closed systems.
Please provide the evidence you think you have. McCarthy took a list of Jews in the government, crossed off the word Jew and wrote in Communist and started a fear campaign based on a "document" of the Communists working in the State Department. But he never produced the "evidence" because it was a lie. How stupid would we be to fall for that again.
Christian Biologists like Ken Miller point out that it helps biology not one bit to incorporate divine authorship of creation. That's meaningless trivia when you are trying to find the function of genes or make a vaccine.
Document this factual claim. Document that this curse extends beyond low earth orbit, or concede that material aliens may exist which are not under this curse.This is argument from ignorance. If we cannot answer a question like why does Venus have phases or why does the moon rise and set at different times, or what causes the planets to move predictably, that does not mean the answer is beyond our grasp, just that we don't have it today.
Prediction: Creationist will now try to use multiple definitions of "code" to confuse the issue.
Incorrect. In cryptography, a code is a way of expressing a human message in a way that requires the knowledge of a regular decryption scheme to render the message understandable. Ideally, the decryption scheme is difficult to determine from the message alone. Human languages are not codes and are not susceptible to general machine translation following regular rules. Among the weakest codes are the single-alphabet substitution ciphers.
These are single-alphabet substitution ciphers, which are regular and publicly known.
Not true. With public key cryptography, it is possible of the encoder to be ignorant of the decoding scheme and vice-versa. Untrue. It is not a message or a computer program. You cannot read natural DNA and get a message for humans or computers. It does not control the physical processes of life (that's mostly quantum and statistical mechanics). And yet it has information content.
The content of DNA is binding sites for control proteins and transcrible information content for assembling those proteins. There may also be DNA which can be transcribed into biologically active RNA segments that have functions other than merely messengers to the ribosomes. The function or hypothetical intent of the proteins is not encoded and is a major research subject in molecular biology.
So William Paley, author of Natural Theology (1801) might say, but the details of action show that different organisms use different schemes to make proteins from DNA and the same sequence of DNA has different meanings for different organisms and that if you make a maximum parsimony tree from these translation differences, you will reconstruct a tree of life which is yet more evidence of common descent with modification.
Straw-man argument. DNA is not a program.
Not only does this very weak definition include the anthropocentric terms "planned" and "goal", thus ruling out natural processes, but the fact that steps are not anywhere documented in DNA, so DNA is not a program by this definition.
Simulated evolution has been used to create computer programs, so there appears to be no fundamental barrier to natural processes replicating these successes in nature.
Actually, humans seen design in the progression of the sun across the sky, in the shapes of water-rounded rocks, in the actions of the very drunk. So the appearance of design is only an appearance until we have a quantifiable test for design.
So does a hydrogen molecule. You have failed to make a point.
Living organisms are not isolated systems. Isolation kills everything with a metabolism.
The fossil record is testimony to the perishing of information. No more trilobites, ever.
Why the weasel words? This statement is already super-untrue. Living things aren't isolated. Isolated systems increase their information content all the time, since information content is synonymous with entropy. There are many more ways for a collection of atoms to be dead than to be alive, so killing something by isolating it (See Dexter) is a way to increase it's information content. There is a whole field dedicated to extracting this post-mortem information in human-usable form.
Natural processes have a tendency to destroy man-made information. That doesn't mean that there is less information. A badly rusted stop sign has much higher information content than a freshly painted one. So you haven't made a statement which is true in information theory, but only made a value judgment about what information you respect. This is ironic since you don't respect the totality of information in the biological world. Untrue.
A Big Lie.
Based on faulty premise and no syllogism. If your syllogism was valid, it would apply equally well to beneficial mutations at the microevolutional level. Even creationists document that happening in the lab. So we know that either your premise is wrong or you have no syllogism. Further, when you say that this is a corollary, you are lying.
Based on faulty premise and no syllogism. Plus you invite infinite regress with your statement.
Based on faulty premise and no syllogism. In fact, this is a naked assertion of personal incredulity from someone who does not have very high levels of understanding of any topic discussed here.
Quote mining of a metaphor. The author is not using code in the sense you do.
Quote mining of a non-factual hypothetical statement based on a poor understanding of what evolutionists believe. Quote mining from a popular science document which apparently ignores that there are more than 2 RNA transcriptions codes in use. Humans use two.
Quote mining of choice which used as a metaphor for natural selection.
Quote-mining of ignorant statement. Statement is inconsistent with both computer science and information science descriptions of information.
Quote-mining of ignorant statement of personal incredulity. Both authors are associated with the Origin-of-Life Foundation, which is to say they are Creationists/IDers. Whew, I found it hard to believe that working scientists would make such stupid statements.
This is based on a incorrect understanding of information theory, information content of an object and a false dichotomy between DNA and life.
That's generally written as 3e24 bits or 3×10^24 bits. Also, this quote doesn't help any of your claims. It just says that humans are busy places. Great Whales, by inference, are busier places.
That's either a garbled quote about unitary in quantum physics or a shameless ignorant statement about physics in general.
That incorrectly says macroevolution is progressive. This is a rehash of Aristotle's ladder of life and Plato's fixity of species, not biology or creationism. You use cannot with astonishing frequency.
Super-humanly stupid quote. And it too comes from Creationist Werner Gitt. The whole purpose of quote mining is to quote respected authorities, not charlatans.
Heh. Then you misunderstand Maxwell's Demon, the Brownian ratchet and the Hilsch vortex tube.
No facts or syllogisms support this statement.
The expansion of space creates more information/entropy -- allowing the cooler gas to proceed towards even greater entropy increases. Your analysis is too ignorant of the actual facts and concepts.
Ripener
as for your method of ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Seems to me I've seen it somewhere recently, but G, can't think where....GGimmee a minute and I might be able to think of it.
As to bothering to read what you wrote. I tried for about two paragraphs and then just became really bored. just seemed to be splitting , gee , what describes that post
Well anyway , Christians do have a different way of looking at reality, and they will be found to have missed the big "WHY AM I HERE"question too.
Problem is , your using HOW to find WHY ,WHERE is on second , and WHAT is still NOWHERE to be found. IF you gave up using HOW and looked at WHAT , then WHERE is HOW you'll find WHY........Capice
QUOTE
Problem is , your using HOW to find WHY ,WHERE is on second , and WHAT is still NOWHERE to be found.
No no no - What is on second, and Why is in left field along with Because.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Problem is , your using HOW to find WHY ,WHERE is on second , and WHAT is still NOWHERE to be found. |
No no no - What is on second, and Why is in left field along with Because.
IF you gave up using HOW and looked at WHAT , then WHERE is HOW you'll find WHY........Capice
Incoherent babble.
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 20 2008, 12:23 AM)
as for your method of ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
But this is not attack. This is gentle as spring sunshine. It is genteel.
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 20 2008, 12:23 AM)
Seems to me I've seen it somewhere recently, but G, can't think where....GGimmee a minute and I might be able to think of it.
It is called fisking and is the most civilized way to debate on the Internet against the posting style of Robert Fisk, or thesisless assemblages of weakly supported claims, or the torrent of made up stuff which is referred to as the Gish Gallop.
No no no - What is on second, and Why is in left field along with Because.
Incoherent babble.
I really did try hard to remember the lines from that radio show , but it was a classic...
My real interest is how the energy I inhabit has been used before and do I have any responsibility for how I am using it now.... Not just the "what " that it's various forms must have been ......via evolution......But where it will end up . There should be consequence to the part we play....not retribution. I think that is very much a human ideal, but what effect if any , the actions we make today and how they are dictated by the past and will impact the future...
I'm not self centered enough to see me , but rather us as creating one , perhaps one of many crossroads where something special happened that affected everything else. we are affected by the sun. yet it just sits there an "Be's hot" . Pluto just sits there and Be's cold. both been doing that for a lot longer than man was here , so perhaps we are special because of our short term existence rather than everything Else around us as being here for so long.
Cheers
Iseason
I had to think for a second and a third; ah yes, "I don't know" is on third.
Science should be good at expressing ignorance. Scientism is some lefthander, "because I said so."
I had to think for a second and a third; ah yes, "I don't know" is on third.
Science should be good at expressing ignorance. Scientism is some lefthander, "because I said so."
As to bothering to read what you wrote. I tried for about two paragraphs and then just became really bored.
Yeah, maybe I should read it.
I did notice the bottom. Rpenner seems all screwed up where it counts! And that is life somehow lowers entropy. That was my point on any anomaly to such a serious science\search as gravity. The answer is not directly found in the Bible{unless you accept Godel and the Earth does not rotate}. Whatever position "why" plays is not really in science's lineup without going over the limit towards a religious perspective. Evolution is a religious team, not a scientific team*. Hence my use of the word pseudoscience. Although, I would agree, astrology bats higher in the lineup.
MrB.
* scientific secular team where the program SETI becomes the counterexample to the exclusive term\team Evolution! Intelligent Design tries to walk this path of open mindedness and cares enough about what science could be that it has formed a wedge movement seperate from Creationism.
QUOTE
In this technique, he provides as many false claims as his alloted time will allow, knowing that his opponents will have to debunk each of his claims, one by one. This way, his opponents will have no time left to present their own points.
But, I had the time. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In this technique, he provides as many false claims as his alloted time will allow, knowing that his opponents will have to debunk each of his claims, one by one. This way, his opponents will have no time left to present their own points. |
But, I had the time. As to bothering to read what you wrote. I tried for about two paragraphs and then just became really bored. just seemed to be splitting , gee , what describes that post
This is the most pointless type of criticism. "I'm not going to read my critics because they use too many words." What's disturbing is that I am far better versed in these subjects than many of the sources which are blindly relied on as authorities. I mean MisterBelfry relies upon bob b, bob b relies on Jack T. Trevors, David L. Abel, and Werner Gitt who have no good reputation in the fields of math, physics, chemistry or biology.
To attack, I would merely have to assume that the untruths were deliberate untruths instead of incredibly shoddy research. Instead, I merely flunk the essays and don't pursue sanctions.
To attack, I would merely have to assume that the untruths were deliberate untruths instead of incredibly shoddy research. Instead, I merely flunk the essays and don't pursue sanctions.
Existence exists! The ONLY question is 'HOW?'
iseason's thoughts are under ATTACK, from Reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
g.
iseason's thoughts are under ATTACK, from Reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
g.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 20 2008, 01:30 PM)
No no no - What is on second, and Why is in left field along with Because.
Incoherent babble.
I really did try hard to remember the lines from that radio show , but it was a classic...
My real interest is how the energy I inhabit has been used before and do I have any responsibility for how I am using it now.... Not just the "what " that it's various forms must have been ......via evolution......But where it will end up . There should be consequence to the part we play....not retribution. I think that is very much a human ideal, but what effect if any , the actions we make today and how they are dictated by the past and will impact the future...
I'm not self centered enough to see me , but rather us as creating one , perhaps one of many crossroads where something special happened that affected everything else. we are affected by the sun. yet it just sits there an "Be's hot" . Pluto just sits there and Be's cold. both been doing that for a lot longer than man was here , so perhaps we are special because of our short term existence rather than everything Else around us as being here for so long.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
I really did try hard to remember the lines from that radio show , but it was a classic...
I had to think for a second and a third; ah yes, "I don't know" is on third.
Science should be good at expressing ignorance. Scientism is some lefthander, "because I said so."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I really did try hard to remember the lines from that radio show , but it was a classic... |
I had to think for a second and a third; ah yes, "I don't know" is on third.
Science should be good at expressing ignorance. Scientism is some lefthander, "because I said so."
As to bothering to read what you wrote. I tried for about two paragraphs and then just became really bored.
Yeah, maybe I should read it.
I did notice the bottom. Rpenner seems all screwed up where it counts! And that is life somehow lowers entropy. That was my point on any anomaly to such a serious science\search as gravity. The answer is not directly found in the Bible{unless you accept Godel and the Earth does not rotate}. Whatever position "why" plays is not really in science's lineup without going over the limit towards a religious perspective. Evolution is a religious team, not a scientific team*. Hence my use of the word pseudoscience. Although, I would agree, astrology bats higher in the lineup.
MrB.
* scientific secular team where the program SETI becomes the counterexample to the exclusive term\team Evolution! Intelligent Design tries to walk this path of open mindedness and cares enough about what science could be that it has formed a wedge movement seperate from Creationism.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 20 2008, 09:43 AM)
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 20 2008, 12:30 AM)
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 20 2008, 12:23 AM)
Problem is , your using HOW to find WHY ,WHERE is on second , and WHAT is still NOWHERE to be found.
No no no - What is on second, and Why is in left field along with Because.
I really did try hard to remember the lines from that radio show , but it was a classic...
I had to think for a second and a third; ah yes, "I don't know" is on third.
I had to think for a second and a third; ah yes, "I don't know" is on third.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
Science should be good at expressing ignorance.
Science often expresses ignorance. But "I don't know" is supposed to be followed with "Let's find out," not "Apollo did it." Even if Apollo was personally responsible for making the sun rise and set, he does it in an especially regular way. You could set your clock by it. Or if you had a really good clock, or other reference, you could do what Astronomers do and calculate the equation of time. This reliable regularity in nature is why Apollo isn't needed anymore. It's what we mean by natural law -- a trusted regularity that no longer seems to be the mere whim of a supernatural being. Thus, we no longer offer sacrifices at the winter solstice to entice the gods to return the longer days of summer and we no longer fear the sun might not rise.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
Scientism is some lefthander, "because I said so."
Scientism means many things to many people. But regardless of your views on scientism, science does not require scientism.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 20 2008, 12:23 AM)
As to bothering to read what you wrote. I tried for about two paragraphs and then just became really bored.
Yeah, maybe I should read it.
Sarcasm aside, how else are you going to learn the difference between good information and bad information unless you willing to read both sides and put them both to the test?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
I did notice the bottom. Rpenner seems all screwed up where it counts!
I wonder why you write this criticism to a third party, when it should properly be addressed to me. Ah, well. No harm done.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
And that is life somehow lowers entropy.
It's not mysterious, and it's not limited to life. Ice crystals are lower entropy than the same mass of water vapor or water. Neither crystal formation nor life processes nor the workings of < insert famous brain here > violate the second law of thermodynamics, because these are not isolated systems, and any local entropy decrease is directly tied to an increase of the universe's entropy.
Like a mighty river running to the sea, the universe is moving downhill in the direction of greater entropy. But this does not mean it is impossible to use the power of this river to move a small amount of water uphill.
http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwater...e_as/lifeas.pdf
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/...rgydiagram.html
http://www.secondlaw.com/
http://www.2ndlaw.com/
http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwater...bs/thesis/6.pdf
Even Answers In Genesis, a famously unreliable site, admits that life doesn't violate thermodynamics. That's because Theologically, if God were to be responsible for supernaturally maintaining every function of every cell, everywhere by act of will and whim, then every virus, every cancer, every birth defect would be personally attributable to God's malice. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i1/water.asp
http://www.americanatheist.org/smr97/T3/thermodynamics.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_5.html
It's not mysterious, and it's not limited to life. Ice crystals are lower entropy than the same mass of water vapor or water. Neither crystal formation nor life processes nor the workings of < insert famous brain here > violate the second law of thermodynamics, because these are not isolated systems, and any local entropy decrease is directly tied to an increase of the universe's entropy.
Like a mighty river running to the sea, the universe is moving downhill in the direction of greater entropy. But this does not mean it is impossible to use the power of this river to move a small amount of water uphill.
http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwater...e_as/lifeas.pdf
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/...rgydiagram.html
http://www.secondlaw.com/
http://www.2ndlaw.com/
http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwater...bs/thesis/6.pdf
Even Answers In Genesis, a famously unreliable site, admits that life doesn't violate thermodynamics. That's because Theologically, if God were to be responsible for supernaturally maintaining every function of every cell, everywhere by act of will and whim, then every virus, every cancer, every birth defect would be personally attributable to God's malice. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i1/water.asp
http://www.americanatheist.org/smr97/T3/thermodynamics.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_5.html
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
That was my point on any anomaly to such a serious science\search as gravity.
What's gravity got to do with it? You haven't explained how an unexplained variance in spacecraft trajectories means that there is more than one arrow of time or what more than one arrow of time would even mean.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
The answer is not directly found in the Bible{unless you accept Godel and the Earth does not rotate}.
You misunderstand the Bible.
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 18, 2008, 02:14 PM)
What a sad day it is for Christianity when the idolatry of biblical so-called literalism is being promoted as an alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning.
But, even with regards to Creationism, the bible has two creation stories. At least one of them must be untruthful.
World-centric, man and woman created at the same time, no garden of Eden, plants on the land created before lights in sky, Sabbath.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...20;&version=31;
Man-centric, man created first before plants, garden of Eden created before other plants, no Sabbath.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...21;&version=31;
The rocks tell us the order was lights in the heavens, then plants on the land, then man, which is a third story without evidence of divine action, magic or talking snakes. There may have been divine action and magic and talking snakes, but then apparently evidence for the above does not fossilize well. The rocks give a very detailed history and show that some species which flourished for very long periods of time are not with us, and that new species would arise, similar to preexisting forms but distinct. The rocks also show that rocks from the sky fall from time to time, like the thing that made the crater near the Yucatan.
The pattern of life we see today shows a great deal of relatedness. In fact the tool we use to solve the “Solomon problem” of true parentage is one of the same tools we use to demonstrate this common descent. Furthermore, all the tools, from rocks to DNA show the same pattern. And while rocks and DNA won’t give use exact dates like “The second Thursday of March, 24,040,288 BC” they agree roughly on the same timeline.
Just like the bible’s two different stories show that it contradicts itself, and is unreliable in some respects, the story of the rocks and the DNA could be proven wrong if it contradicted itself. If a human skeleton was found in rocks prior to the K-T boundary, if trilobites were found after the K-T boundary, if there was a fossil of a monkey with feathers or a mammal with a wholly exotic RNA transcription code, if any of these happened it would prove that common descent can’t be the end-all answer to the diversity of forms. But buried in the DNA of every creationist is a genetic mark which exactly resembles the ends of two different ape chromosomes spliced haphazardly together, demonstrating that ape and man had a common ancestor.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...30;&version=31;
You misunderstand Gödel, who made statements about mathematical logic and the construction of proofs, not about physical or metaphysical truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del...eteness_theorem
You misunderstand General Relativity, which states that you can construct a local coordinate system that disagrees if the observer is rotating with other choices of coordinate system, but cannot be extended globally, because ωR > c for large values of R.
And if "where it counts" is about thermodynamics and life, none of this discussion seems to apply at all.
But, even with regards to Creationism, the bible has two creation stories. At least one of them must be untruthful.
World-centric, man and woman created at the same time, no garden of Eden, plants on the land created before lights in sky, Sabbath.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...20;&version=31;
Man-centric, man created first before plants, garden of Eden created before other plants, no Sabbath.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...21;&version=31;
The rocks tell us the order was lights in the heavens, then plants on the land, then man, which is a third story without evidence of divine action, magic or talking snakes. There may have been divine action and magic and talking snakes, but then apparently evidence for the above does not fossilize well. The rocks give a very detailed history and show that some species which flourished for very long periods of time are not with us, and that new species would arise, similar to preexisting forms but distinct. The rocks also show that rocks from the sky fall from time to time, like the thing that made the crater near the Yucatan.
The pattern of life we see today shows a great deal of relatedness. In fact the tool we use to solve the “Solomon problem” of true parentage is one of the same tools we use to demonstrate this common descent. Furthermore, all the tools, from rocks to DNA show the same pattern. And while rocks and DNA won’t give use exact dates like “The second Thursday of March, 24,040,288 BC” they agree roughly on the same timeline.
Just like the bible’s two different stories show that it contradicts itself, and is unreliable in some respects, the story of the rocks and the DNA could be proven wrong if it contradicted itself. If a human skeleton was found in rocks prior to the K-T boundary, if trilobites were found after the K-T boundary, if there was a fossil of a monkey with feathers or a mammal with a wholly exotic RNA transcription code, if any of these happened it would prove that common descent can’t be the end-all answer to the diversity of forms. But buried in the DNA of every creationist is a genetic mark which exactly resembles the ends of two different ape chromosomes spliced haphazardly together, demonstrating that ape and man had a common ancestor.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...30;&version=31;
You misunderstand Gödel, who made statements about mathematical logic and the construction of proofs, not about physical or metaphysical truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del...eteness_theorem
You misunderstand General Relativity, which states that you can construct a local coordinate system that disagrees if the observer is rotating with other choices of coordinate system, but cannot be extended globally, because ωR > c for large values of R.
And if "where it counts" is about thermodynamics and life, none of this discussion seems to apply at all.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
Whatever position "why" plays is not really in science's lineup without going over the limit towards a religious perspective. Evolution is a religious team, not a scientific team*. Hence my use of the word pseudoscience. Although, I would agree, astrology bats higher in the lineup.
You claim, without support, that evolution is a religious and not scientifically motivated, but fail to make clear if you mean the historical fact of evolution which is observed continuing today, or any one evolutionary theory. Both your untrue claim and your failure to define what you mean by evolution, looks like speaking from ignorance.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionrelig...lutionRelig.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionrelig...lutionRelig.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
MrB.
* scientific secular team where the program SETI becomes the counterexample to the exclusive term\team Evolution!
QUOTE
The idea that evolution might be a religion seems very strange at first glance - after all, we don't see anyone trying to claim that Atomic Theory, Plate Tectonics, or Einstein's Theory of Relativity constitute religions. So why the focus on evolution?
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionrelig...lutionRelig.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The idea that evolution might be a religion seems very strange at first glance - after all, we don't see anyone trying to claim that Atomic Theory, Plate Tectonics, or Einstein's Theory of Relativity constitute religions. So why the focus on evolution? |
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionrelig...lutionRelig.htm
- Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
- Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
- Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
- Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
- Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
- Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
- Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
- Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
- How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
- Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
- Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
- Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts: QUOTEAssuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause. |
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
MrB.
* scientific secular team where the program SETI becomes the counterexample to the exclusive term\team Evolution!
Work on SETI does not require adopting evolutionary theory. Scientifically, it is hard to rule out the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Supernaturally, it would be very wasteful of God to create this universe for the sole benefit of Mankind. In fact, some Christians have proposed that the gates of Heaven have a visible physicality in this Galaxy. So you have not supported the claim that SETI and evolution are related.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 20 2008, 12:43 PM)
Intelligent Design tries to walk this path of open mindedness and cares enough about what science could be that it has formed a wedge movement separate from Creationism.
Complete misstatement.
The Wedge political movement, is creationist. The first line of the Wedge Strategy: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Also, Ben Stein is selling his ID movie only to the Religious.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...eeting-of-minds
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/media_alert.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business...nyt&oref=slogin
I mean to point out it's coming out next month and there is no main-stream advertising.
Intelligent Design did not form the Wedge Movement, the Wedge Movement formed Intelligent Design in order to putApolloGod back in charge of the Sun.
"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." -- Ibid.
And the Intelligent Design movement is based entirely on preconceptions, not observations.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03...g_stupid_ag.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12...id_typology.php
They expel anyone who shows evidence of being open-minded.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2006...on_biologic.php
They expel evidence when it doesn't fit their preconceptions.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/0...ntelligent.html
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/02/whinin..._the_whines.php
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008..._face_of_id.php
And even with their preconceptions, they still can't find enough ID to publish a journal in more than two years. That's because they know that ID is not a scientific truth.
"ISCID is pleased to announce the latest issue of PCID, Volume 4.2 November 2005." http://www.iscid.org/
http://saintgasoline.com/2007/03/12/the-fu...lligent-design/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg (117 minutes)
The Wedge political movement, is creationist. The first line of the Wedge Strategy: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Also, Ben Stein is selling his ID movie only to the Religious.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...eeting-of-minds
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/media_alert.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business...nyt&oref=slogin
I mean to point out it's coming out next month and there is no main-stream advertising.
Intelligent Design did not form the Wedge Movement, the Wedge Movement formed Intelligent Design in order to put
"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." -- Ibid.
And the Intelligent Design movement is based entirely on preconceptions, not observations.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03...g_stupid_ag.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12...id_typology.php
They expel anyone who shows evidence of being open-minded.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2006...on_biologic.php
They expel evidence when it doesn't fit their preconceptions.
QUOTE
[Dr. Ann Gauger] was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/0...ntelligent.html
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/02/whinin..._the_whines.php
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008..._face_of_id.php
And even with their preconceptions, they still can't find enough ID to publish a journal in more than two years. That's because they know that ID is not a scientific truth.
"ISCID is pleased to announce the latest issue of PCID, Volume 4.2 November 2005." http://www.iscid.org/
http://saintgasoline.com/2007/03/12/the-fu...lligent-design/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg (117 minutes)
QUOTE (DuzmA+Mar 19 2008, 06:10 PM)
I still don't understand the misconception that an argument against evolution is an argument for an intelligent designer....
If you are bring in the designer to explain complexity wouldn't the designer itself have to be even more complex than what it is used to explain? How would you explain such a designer?
And I asked this very question when I was first given Genesis to read as a child.
The answers I received ranged from 'God made God', to 'Stop asking stupid questions'.
Why do they want us to take this seriously?
God knows I guess
If you are bring in the designer to explain complexity wouldn't the designer itself have to be even more complex than what it is used to explain? How would you explain such a designer?
And I asked this very question when I was first given Genesis to read as a child.
The answers I received ranged from 'God made God', to 'Stop asking stupid questions'.
Why do they want us to take this seriously?
God knows I guess
To rpenner
I have long been trying to show that everything , including an intelligence capable of affecting change is only possible in retrospect. I am not a believer in "God the creator" as depicted in the bible. This is by far a too much simplified point of view written by the authors. It also humanizes a process which is at odds with what we know of science and evolution. But by far my biggest objection is the personality of " God" is less just than most civilized societies.
So When I am looking at the bible in reference to science , I am looking for other pointers , rather than taking it as a reliably accurate reference. If Time is not (as we view it) a forwardly re creative , recycling event, then "intelligence' can indeed have form. Humans are proof intelligence can exist and systems which repeat in fashion are proof the blueprints to the future are accessible. (otherwise chaos results from chaos. )
Therefore if time were a done deed BEFORE our view of reality existed, or at the very least alongside as part of the process, then the end result drives the beginning and vice versa.
Cheers
Iseason
I have long been trying to show that everything , including an intelligence capable of affecting change is only possible in retrospect. I am not a believer in "God the creator" as depicted in the bible. This is by far a too much simplified point of view written by the authors. It also humanizes a process which is at odds with what we know of science and evolution. But by far my biggest objection is the personality of " God" is less just than most civilized societies.
So When I am looking at the bible in reference to science , I am looking for other pointers , rather than taking it as a reliably accurate reference. If Time is not (as we view it) a forwardly re creative , recycling event, then "intelligence' can indeed have form. Humans are proof intelligence can exist and systems which repeat in fashion are proof the blueprints to the future are accessible. (otherwise chaos results from chaos. )
Therefore if time were a done deed BEFORE our view of reality existed, or at the very least alongside as part of the process, then the end result drives the beginning and vice versa.
Cheers
Iseason
So you think effect precedes cause?
rpenner, I know you're interested in this "Expelled" creationist propaganda movie, so take a look at this.
Posted by: rpenner Today at 5:51 AM
So you think effect precedes cause?
<<<
Maybe he is a fan and doesn't know it of _closed timelike curves_ which is what I was trying to remember with Godel and the Universe revolves around the Earth as part of an exact solution to GTR.
The Bible has more to say about biology than gravity and *that* was my point.
Is poster Rpenner advocating a steady state theory over the big bang?
Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.
The fossil record is testimony to the perishing of information.
The expansion of space creates more information
Yes, I don't know which came first, the documents for a wedge legal move or the Discovery Institute - largely identified with Intelligent Design.
MrB.
QUOTE (PZ Myers in Panda's Thumb Blog+)
There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I'm a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
They expelled a wrong guy.
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I'm a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
They expelled a wrong guy.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 21 2008, 06:51 PM)
So you think effect precedes cause?
rpenner
That's where I started looking. First causality.
It actually made little sense on it's own. IT SHOULD be able to reduce to a first single "energy" and then follow a time line. Problem was that each step forwards was a dead end.. But that didn't change what made sense.....the beginning needed to not be reducible or divisible..otherwise it could not be the first causality...
So causality needed to be true......but a single energy needed to be much more than a first causality. To work , it also needed to be everything that ever happened..The best solution I could see was that the universe in it's entirety, could not contain altered value.
In other words , no "snapshot' of reality could be greater than one or "the smallest energy". This actually agrees with thermodynamics and can work well with relativity.
If we see energy as complete, then the size of the universe is absolutely irrelevant, since 'what are we comparing it to?'. So Whole or one can be both biggest or smallest without any need for inflation or reduction. Order is quite important and this is what we measure time with. We are stuck with order as the only tool that we can measure with but that can be quite deceiving.
When I use this view and stop time,(for those critics, no different than statistical analysis) I expect there to be one measure of energy,or 'the smallest measure possible'.
If I were to experience all time, I would expect there to be 'The largest measure of energy'. But this would not differ from what I was experiencing before.
Cheers
Iseason
rpenner
That's where I started looking. First causality.
It actually made little sense on it's own. IT SHOULD be able to reduce to a first single "energy" and then follow a time line. Problem was that each step forwards was a dead end.. But that didn't change what made sense.....the beginning needed to not be reducible or divisible..otherwise it could not be the first causality...
So causality needed to be true......but a single energy needed to be much more than a first causality. To work , it also needed to be everything that ever happened..The best solution I could see was that the universe in it's entirety, could not contain altered value.
In other words , no "snapshot' of reality could be greater than one or "the smallest energy". This actually agrees with thermodynamics and can work well with relativity.
If we see energy as complete, then the size of the universe is absolutely irrelevant, since 'what are we comparing it to?'. So Whole or one can be both biggest or smallest without any need for inflation or reduction. Order is quite important and this is what we measure time with. We are stuck with order as the only tool that we can measure with but that can be quite deceiving.
When I use this view and stop time,(for those critics, no different than statistical analysis) I expect there to be one measure of energy,or 'the smallest measure possible'.
If I were to experience all time, I would expect there to be 'The largest measure of energy'. But this would not differ from what I was experiencing before.
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason, I just read your post without looking at what you were replying to. Your talking about causuality in terms of time-events. I've influenced the time-continuum to such a level that `things click into place' within limits, I have become my own causuality in `Potential Positions Theory'. Potential Positions in the future (superpositions) decohere relevantly and within limits `click into place'.
Excuse the side-track. Please continue with your topic.
Excuse the side-track. Please continue with your topic.
Posted by: rpenner Today at 5:51 AM
So you think effect precedes cause?
<<<
Maybe he is a fan and doesn't know it of _closed timelike curves_ which is what I was trying to remember with Godel and the Universe revolves around the Earth as part of an exact solution to GTR.
The Bible has more to say about biology than gravity and *that* was my point.
Is poster Rpenner advocating a steady state theory over the big bang?
Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.
The fossil record is testimony to the perishing of information.
The expansion of space creates more information
QUOTE
The Wedge political movement, is creationist.
Yes, I don't know which came first, the documents for a wedge legal move or the Discovery Institute - largely identified with Intelligent Design.
MrB.
Are we using the bible as evidence now?
I have to ask: am I the only person who feels insulted when people suggest that evolutionary theory is religious and pseudoscientific in nature and that ID is real science without religious drivings?
Perhaps I am missing something....
I have to ask: am I the only person who feels insulted when people suggest that evolutionary theory is religious and pseudoscientific in nature and that ID is real science without religious drivings?
Perhaps I am missing something....
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
I have to ask: am I the only person who feels insulted when people suggest that evolutionary theory is religious and pseudoscientific in nature and that ID is real science without religious drivings?
You are not the only one.
You are not the only one.
"The Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) states that we are or will eventually become the creator. We will evolve to the point where we will be able to create events in the past, such as the creation of the universe."
I just posted this in Showtopic= 20892. I had this principle in mind as the standard scientific community's response to the second law of thermodynamics as a statistical phenomenon from equilibrium.
It is all an intuitive input. The anthropic principle came about from cosmological reasons by a scientist whose name escapes me at the moment from the early 1960s. I think the man was thinking ahead of the curve.
However, in spite of Frank Tipler's claim to Christianity, as in the other thread... I think it is CRAP and a whitewash of the literal word of God as Catholics are want to do. Judgment should start with the church. Isaac Newton and I agree on this apostate whore. The correct understanding of gravity, if there ever be one, is beside the point.
MrB.
Here I will leave with some more notes from 2004(I don't seem to have a clear source on this).
It might be the same:
http://www.premier1.net/~raines/story.html
Take your choice:
Universes for free or one created universe
By the late 1970's, the last major opposing model to the Big Bang was the "Oscillating" or "Bouncing Universe" theory. [15] However, by the early eighties it too was shot down. [16]
So what was left to uphold the old Kantian/Hume/ Newtonian infinite universe model? Since you need an infinite number of chance occurrences for us to arrive by chance alone and "there is no infinite in the universe," the only thing left to do is postulate the existence of an infinite number of "parallel" universes.
Various scenarios have been advanced along these lines. In these, an infinite void of nothingness or next to nothingness (an infinite radiation, plasma, or quantum fluxuation field or the like) exists "outside" our universe. This infinite void or radiation field creates an infinite number of universes through quantum "fluctuations." So an infinite number of universes "pop" into existence like virtual particles from nothing (or next to nothing) each with its own physics parameters, amount of matter and energy, etc. Thus, we are here simply because a universe popp
I just posted this in Showtopic= 20892. I had this principle in mind as the standard scientific community's response to the second law of thermodynamics as a statistical phenomenon from equilibrium.
It is all an intuitive input. The anthropic principle came about from cosmological reasons by a scientist whose name escapes me at the moment from the early 1960s. I think the man was thinking ahead of the curve.
However, in spite of Frank Tipler's claim to Christianity, as in the other thread... I think it is CRAP and a whitewash of the literal word of God as Catholics are want to do. Judgment should start with the church. Isaac Newton and I agree on this apostate whore. The correct understanding of gravity, if there ever be one, is beside the point.
MrB.
Here I will leave with some more notes from 2004(I don't seem to have a clear source on this).
It might be the same:
http://www.premier1.net/~raines/story.html
Take your choice:
Universes for free or one created universe
By the late 1970's, the last major opposing model to the Big Bang was the "Oscillating" or "Bouncing Universe" theory. [15] However, by the early eighties it too was shot down. [16]
So what was left to uphold the old Kantian/Hume/ Newtonian infinite universe model? Since you need an infinite number of chance occurrences for us to arrive by chance alone and "there is no infinite in the universe," the only thing left to do is postulate the existence of an infinite number of "parallel" universes.
Various scenarios have been advanced along these lines. In these, an infinite void of nothingness or next to nothingness (an infinite radiation, plasma, or quantum fluxuation field or the like) exists "outside" our universe. This infinite void or radiation field creates an infinite number of universes through quantum "fluctuations." So an infinite number of universes "pop" into existence like virtual particles from nothing (or next to nothing) each with its own physics parameters, amount of matter and energy, etc. Thus, we are here simply because a universe popp