 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
"The fact is Gitt was referring to all information."
You should actually read his book. I posted the essence of it but he gave a very precise definition of the type of information he was referring to. He makes a definite distinction between the two view of information which I tried to explain. He is not to blame if I have not clearly explaine the parameters of his theorems.
In reality what he put in more scientific terms is only the obvious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Would you be able to answer the following questions:
No.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Maybe I am missing something, as I have not read the mammoth entirety of the thread, but what point is trying to be proved. That Big Bang theory is wrong? |
I am not sure. That came from a .doc file posted by Jack. It is a copy of something from New Scientist Magazine. I believe that was the idea of the poster however. If not to show it wrong then to show it could be wrong.
The late Sir Dr. Hoyle never exactly fell in love with the Big Bang either and I still respect him. So showing the Big Bang could be wrong is an entirely reasonable endevour.
Sure would make the universe more interesting long term if Sir Freddy was right.
quote:
If so, there are a number of big bang models that incorporate isotropy, and others that include none. Finding the amount of anisotopy only serves to eliminate some models. Doesn't it?
|
Seems that way to me. No variation at all however would be very hard to fit into any expanding universe model. As I recall the variation COBE found was near the limit of the sattelites capacity to detect it. Especialy you consider the amount of data filtering that had to be done to account for foreground objects.
quote:
Also, some anistropy is created by the motion of the Earth through the substratum. We are travelling at ~620 km/s with respect to the CMB., so doppler shift causes the CMB to be colder in one direction than the other. Although I think that has been corrected out of the COBE results. |
Yes it was part of the data filtering. The entire swath of the middle of the galaxy had to be ignored I think due to all the stars and gas clouds. There have been more observations made since than with balloon mounted instruments that had more sensitive and precise equipment that have been able to show variations on a smaller scale than COBE could but they could only look at small sections of the sky.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Would you be able to answer the following questions:
No. |
How about this one then? Are there significant scientific problems with global flood / ark concept in the bible?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Zacherial and everyone,
Read this article and get back to me so that we are talking about the same thing. If the link doesn't work I will post some excerpts from it. Snow flakes etc. do not contain the same type of information contained in DNA. Please don't waste my time if you don't understand the problem. It is spelled out here:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFil...erspectives.pdf
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Lincoln... randomness can explain the beginning... comment on these statements.
Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms. There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms.
If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity) from scratch, then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)
If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.
Do you agree with these statements?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
You should actually read his book. |
Its not exactly well reviewed from what little I can find about it. He gets about the same amount of respect as Michael Behe. Not much but more than the norm for books on creationism. Its much easier to get information on Behe's stuff. I guess it more popular.
As far as I can tell he thinks that information requires an inteligence. I am not going to buy a book on irriducible complexity which is all this really is. No one has shown the existence of such yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"I am not going to buy a book on irriducible complexity which is all this really is."
Believe me it has nothing to do with irriducible complexity. It is an entirely different field of science.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Lincoln... I am beginning to think you aren't answering this argument, because doing so would disprove your belief of intelligent design.
Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms. There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms.
If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity) from scratch, then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)
If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Lincoln... randomness can explain the beginning... comment on these statements.
Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms. There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms.
If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity) from scratch, then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)
If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.
Do you agree with these statements? |
I hope that you are reading the article that I posted. If you do then you will understand that "Information is [NOT] the container" anymore than a book as a container of information is the same as the information that was put in it by the author. DNA can be and often is simply randomness but it certainly is not now random. It contains coded information. If the container is the same as the information then utter randomness would fit the definition of information.
"There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms."
There is no magic information in a book either it is "just a bunch of atoms." But the information contained in those atoms originated from an intelligent mental source. And no I do not agree with the above statements. If you are talking about cloning then yes, it works. If you are talking about "an endless amount of DNA seaquences" forming themselves into life then no, it must have intelligent input or manipulation so that a code could be formed and viable information can be placed within your theoretical bacteria.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Because God also told him there was this guy called Noah.. who deforested the land for miles around, to build this boat, and he managed to get 2 of every creature, plant and bug and managed to sustain and breed them on this boat.........
|
Don't believe the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible! They often distort the Bible beyond all recognition, and give it strained interpretations that do nothing but confuse the truth contained therein.
There is good reason to believe that Noah was an actual person. His entire world really was flooded. There is new evidence to support the conclusion that a stone age civilization lived in the basin of the Black Sea. About 7000 years ago, this basin was flooded. Putting two of every animal on a raft is a time-honored tradition of all peoples during floods, or when traveling by sea. Here is the National Geographic expedition, in progress:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/flood.html
The point is that the stories in the Bible are truthfully told, but have been interpreted for us by fundamentalists who wish to distort the truth for their own purposes. For instance, in the Noah story, the Bible says the entire earth was flooded, but certainly they are not referring to the globe we know, but the world they knew.
PS. Upon landing his ark, Noah first offered sacrifice to God, then planted a vineyard and got drunk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Sorry everyone I have to go to work. I will try and catch up later
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I said “fraud and incorrect interpretations.” I don’t have the faith that you do to believe 200 years of confusion, fraud and subjective interpretation as fact. |
Of course you do. You have the faith to accept the Bible on no evidence at all. Your repetition here of the term 'fraud' is highly disengenuous. That was what I called you on. There is EXACTLY one case of fraud in all of anthropology. It was ferreted out by anthropologists when it failed to fit scientific deductions.
The use of 'subjective interpretation' is also exceedingly loaded and of a highly dubious nature. Fossils are MEASURED not guessed at. The are inspected, cut, x-rayed, MRIed, subjected to chemical analyisis, compared with modern living animals, and subjected to mechanical analysis on computers to name just part of the battery of OBJECTIVE analysis.
quote:
You solved nothing. But you did build a strawman. |
I did no such thing. It was all fact. Facts even you have agreed are real in other posts.
DNA changes through mutation. Changes accumulate if they don't kill the life and not all changes kill. That is evolution. There is not one bit of speculation in this. To call it a straw man is to speak nonsense.
quote:
If there was a god that created "God" then he would be God wouldn’t he? Is that the only mystery that troubles you? |
Its an infinite regression. Its not a mystery its just evasion. It doesn't trouble me at all. You just keep evading it as you are doing right now. Were did the god come from however many you feel is enough to cover it where did the first one come from?
quote:
I have not got the slightest idea how God came into existence. |
Then its not an answer for how life came into existence. Its just a way to avoid thinking about things.
quote:
Nor do you know where the material that you have assigned magical powers to came from. |
I haven't assigned magical powers to anything. Just physics and chemistry.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of god.
quote:
So if you want to get into a philosophical or theological discussion about the nature of God I am not interested. Maybe you can just answer the questions instead of evading the issue. |
Nice evasion. Accuse me of evasion when I don't to cover up your evasion. I am not talking about any philosphical discussion about a hypothetical being as that is no answer for where life came from. The fact remains
IF life must have a creator
THEN the creator must have a creator
THEREFOR saying god did it is not answering anything.
quote:
I intentionally skipped over your explanation of mutations because I do not dispute the process of micro evolution. |
Except when we talk about information being gained in bacteria. That was what you carefully skipped over.
quote:
It is a term that troubles you because you cannot separate speculation fron fact. |
You don't know what evidence and deduction from evidence is apparently. Its not speculation.
quote:
Macro evolution is speculation. |
No its real. The evidence is clear. Calling it speculation is an attempt to hide from reality.
quote:
It is not fact as you suppose. If you choose to use the same definition for it all then you have lowered the threshold. Separating fact from fiction is a necessary division in science. |
Yes it is. I have not been using fiction. I leave that to creationists. They believe in the fiction in Genesis not me.
As long as you insist on the continued disengenous use of the term 'speculation' you are making it clear the you just want to evade any real discussion.
quote:
I do not deny fact. I do not accept science fiction however as fact.
|
You deny facts every time you call scientific reasoning speculation. And thats not getting into the Flood where you clearly are denying the entire earth.
You deny facts all the time. Its the basis of your continued belief.
quote:
No, I am saying that the obvious source of information (that I defined earlier several times) that is contained in coded form has ALWAYS originated from an intelligent mental source. You are saying in effect that there is an exception here “therefore evolution did it”.. |
If it was obvious you wouldn't have to define it into existence. Information does not require an intelligent mental source and that claim doesn't come up to the level of speculation since I have allready shown that information does not need an inteligent source.
You can't define a universal law into existence. That is what you are trying to do. Evolution is a fact. Even you have admited that change occurs and THAT IS evolution. Since we have now concurred that change happens I have every right to use change and natural selection as a cause of things.
Thats why more experienced creationists deny the real age of the Earth. Micro evolution over a few hundred years cannot be constrained to avoid the eventual Macro results that would clearly ensue over millions and even billions of years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
*snip*
There is no magic information in a book either it is "just a bunch of atoms." But the information contained in those atoms originated from an intelligent mental source. And no I do not agree with the above statements. If you are talking about cloning then yes, it works. If you are talking about "an endless amount of DNA seaquences" forming themselves into life then no, it must have intelligent input or manipulation so that a code could be formed and viable information can be placed within your theoretical bacteria. |
Just plain wrong
If I go through a complete sequence of permutations of DNA then I will recreate the exact structure and sequence of you, every bacteria, and every other being.
To use your book example...
Given an infinite sequence, order and location of atoms for a book.. carbon... etc etc etc. Most of the permutations will not look anything like a book. Some will. Some will look like a book but contain gibberish. Some will contain the bible. Some will have an adendum saying... "I got that bit about creation wrong."
Given massive numbers of permutations anything is possible. The issue is, people have problems conceiving such random behavior, since they have no way to experience it. Its impossible for us to see failed permutations of this process. They never became viable to leave evidence.
In your document, everything relies on the probabilities being beyond the reach of chance. That just ignores QT. The truth is... in other quantum states, life didn't evolve. There are many such quantum states. We just don't happen to perceive those. In our perception it had to, otherwise we wouldn't perceive.
Last edited by MrBaggins on 20-04-2002 at 22:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
Don't believe the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible! They often distort the Bible beyond all recognition, and give it strained interpretations that do nothing but confuse the truth contained therein.
There is good reason to believe that Noah was an actual person. His entire world really was flooded. There is new evidence to support the conclusion that a stone age civilization lived in the basin of the Black Sea. About 7000 years ago, this basin was flooded. Putting two of every animal on a raft is a time-honored tradition of all peoples during floods, or when traveling by sea. Here is the National Geographic expedition, in progress:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/flood.html
The point is that the stories in the Bible are truthfully told, but have been interpreted for us by fundamentalists who wish to distort the truth for their own purposes. For instance, in the Noah story, the Bible says the entire earth was flooded, but certainly they are not referring to the globe we know, but the world they knew.
PS. Upon landing his ark, Noah first offered sacrifice to God, then planted a vineyard and got drunk. |
*GASP*
You don't mean that the bible contained an incorrect mystically-based account of what was a natural event do you?
Why, this might mean that the authors could have gotten other parts of the Bible wrong too. Like... *GASP*... Genesis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Since these early people could not see or conceive of DNA, Quanta, Relativity or a myriad of other principals, wouldn't you say Genesis is their way of dispensing with creation 'as they saw it'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
|
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Since these early people could not see or conceive of DNA, Quanta, Relativity or a myriad of other principals, wouldn't you say Genesis is their way of dispensing with creation 'as they saw it'. |
I believe that the stories in the Bible are truthful tellings of real events. But they can't be taken literally, in the modern sense. The writers have no concern for our notions of scientific reality.
It has already been demonstrated that the Black Sea was suddenly flooded about the time of the Biblical Noah (real science, not the creationist kind). Certainly, the basin would have been a warm spot for the development of agriculture at the end of the last Ice Age. If Ballard can prove there was "advanced" habitation there, well, that would be pretty dramatic. (For the record, this has not been confirmed as yet.)
Last edited by Zachriel on 21-04-2002 at 04:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
A little food for thought below I will post several more disputed and fraudulent claims made concerning the fossil record if anyone is actually interested in something than rhetoric here:
Australopithecine: not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. ”The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)
Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, “Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40
Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, “Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)
Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's. Originally, the evidence consisted of a single tooth which was declared to have characteristics similar to human and ape, and was named Sianthropus Pekinesis. Later, a skull cap was dug out of rock that the finder, Davidson Black declared that the skull size was about 960 cc, just between ape and human, and therefore a missing link. However, visiting scientists such as Grafton Elliot Smith, Marcellin Boule, and von Koenigswald believed that that size was much too large and that the skull was that of an ape. Additional evidence discovered through blasting included broken, shattered skulls with the base of the skulls broken off numbering no more than 14 total skulls, jawbones, portions of thigh bones, two upper arm bones, a wristbone, and 147 teeth and thousands of bones of animals including elephant and deer. Moreso, the skulls were mixed in with the animal bones inside the rock and showed no progression, no change over time even though the depth of the excavation was 150 feet vertically. Unfortunately, the human remains were lost during W.W.II. Clear evidence at the same site showed true man along with a 23 ft. deep ash pile and a limestone mine. All of the skulls of Sianthropus were broken in the same manner as those of monkeys who are eaten for their brains.(Ian Taylor, "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the World Order", Toronto Canada, TFE pub. 1984 p. 234-241) Among the interesting facts surrounding these site, is that for the most part, only Skulls were found, not complete skeletons, until the finding of 6 almost complete fully human skeletons. Other evidences existed for fully human interaction at the site, for there were numerous other animal bones there inside the ash pit. The ash pit was used to a degree that minerals on the sides of the pit were fused due to the heat of the pit.
Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap dug up in 1891 on the banks of the Solo River in Java and a femur that was dug up 50 feet away and year later. It is claimed that the finder, Eugene Dubois, admitted the skull cap was from a gibbon like ape.(Eugene Dubois, “On the gibbon like appearance of Pithecanthropus Erectus", Koniklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Vol 38 Amsterdam Koninklijke Akademie 1935 P.578). Additional questions arise from Dubois calculations. The date chosen by Dubois is suspect, for Dubois was a doctor, a self described anatomist, yet it is he that claimed the 500,000 year old date to make his fossil the missing link.
“Dubois claimed that the skull cap and femur came from a rock stratum known as the Trinil layer, named after a nearby village in central Java. He believed that these rocks were below what is known as the Pleistocene-Pliocene (Tertiary) boundary. Dubois was convinced that ‘real’ humans evolved later in the Middle Pleistocene. Hence, his dating of Java Man was quite appropriate for a missing link. however, his interpretation was not exactly straightforward, as the man who later found other ‘Java Men’ G.H.R. von Koenigswald, tells us:
“When Dubois issued his first description of the fossil Javanese fauna he designated it Pleistocene. But no sooner had he discovered his Pithecanthropus than the fauna had suddenly to become Tertiary. He did everything in his power to diminish the Pleistocene character of the fauna...”
“The criterion was no longer to be the fauna as a whole, but only his Pithecanthropus . Such a primitive form belonged to the Tertiary!”
“Dubois view...did not go uncontested. But there was no getting at him until he had described his whole collection and laid all his cards on the table. That was why we all had to wait for a study of his finds, and to wait in vain.” (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, Meeting Prehistoric Man, Michael Bullock, Trans. , New York, Harper and Brothers, 1956. 38-39).
Not all scientists at the time of Java man agreed that this was a transitional form of any kind, but truly human. “Sir Arthur Kent, the famed Cambridge University anatomist was asked to comment on Dubois paper. He replied that the chief question to be settled on was whether or not the skull cap was human. In answering that question, one had to determine the criterion of a human skull versus an ape skull. To his mind, there were two basic differences: first, the very large cranial capacity of human skulls as compared to ape skulls, and second, the large muscular ridges and processes, connected with the chewing apparatus, which ape skulls have compared to human skulls. On both points Keith declared that the Java man skull cap was distinctly human. (Alan Houghton Brodrick, Early Man, London, Hutchinson’s Scientific and Technical Publications, 1948, p85). The cranial capacity of the anthropoid apes never exceeds 600cc and averages 500cc. On the other hand, the cranial capacity of Dubois’ Java Man was estimated at 1000cc, which is well within the range of humans living today.”
“In 1938, Franz Weidenreich described several femoral fragments of Peking Man. (Both Peking Man and Java Man are now called Homo Erectus). Whereas the skulls of Peking Man and Java Man were quite similar, the Peking Man femora differed from the Java Man femur in the very places where the Java Man femur was similar to modern humans. Since the association of the Peking Man skulls and femora was undisputed, Weidenreich concluded that the Java Man femur was not a true Homo Erectus femur but was instead a modern one. (Bert Theunissen, Eugene Dubois and the Ape Man from Java, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989, p121).”
“The most recent assessment of the Java Man Femur comes to the same conclusion. Michael Day and T.I. Molleson compared the Java Man femur, the Peking femora, and the femur known as Olduvai Hominid 28 (OH-28) found by Louis Leaky in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in unquestioned association with other homo erectus material. They state that OH-28 and the Peking Man femora, although truly human, are much more similar to each other than either is to the Java femur. Their conclusion is that OH-28 and Peking Man represents a Homo Erectus anatomy, whereas the Java femur is more modern.”
The above is typical of the disputes and the outright fraud that pervades the "fact" of evolution. I have hundreds more...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I was addressing Etheired's claim that there was " EXACTLY one case of fraud". I do not dispute real evidence.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-04-2002 20:47
|