NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (cryptoguru @ Feb. 18 2015,15:35) | | Quote | | Crypto, do you have an objection to evolution which hasn't already been answered? |
I didn't get any answers to my questions, just assertions that I'm wrong. |
That, sir, is a flat-out lie.
And even if it were true, you'd be a fine one to talk. You're not exactly forthcoming with honest straightforward answers to questions yourself.
| Quote | | Quite entertaining though ... so I suppose, yeah if you're allowed to redefine what information is to prove that information can magically emerge from randomness, |
You'll note that that is not what I, nor others here, have done.
You'll also note that we have noted that you have not addressed the examples of information emerging from the operation of natural law.
Finally, stop using the word 'randomness' until you provide a precise operational definition. It's not a magic wand that can get you out of trouble.
| Quote | | and say that observing any change means that you've proved evolution, and that if we assume Common Descent is the reason for diversity that we can explain the similarities between different organisms as them having a common ancestor. |
Again with the confusion over assumptions and well-supported conclusions.
I thought lying made baby jesus cry?
| Quote | Yeah I suppose you've all answered all the questions to the satisfaction of someone who would be satisfied with an answer that they themselves gave.
I showed quite clearly how Avida is biasing the results and "proving" that information emerges by rewarding organisms using known targets. But someone said it isn't ... so yeah I reckon they probably proved it beyond all reasonable doubt ... and that's me looking like a TOTAL idiot now.
(now cue everyone quoting my last sentence as though it wasn't sarcastic) |
You've done no such thing.
Most notable is how you continue to shift goal-posts, fail to address substantive points that call your entire schtick into question, and lie continuously about what others say and have said. That last is particularly odd given that the words are all right here.
Stellar spectra are information. They emerge from natural processes. Deal with it.
Provide any case of information arising from non-natural processes. Just be very careful to demonstrate that the alleged 'non-natural causes' are in fact non-natural and yet causal.
Kindly explain how your dismissal of information arising from natural law being impossible is anything other than a bow towards magic, and a flight from science. How else does science function except through examination of the information provided by natural processes?
If you don't know the answers to these questions, if you don't understand the dilemma your own expression of your own position have placed you in, you ought not to be making the "arguments" you make.
|
