RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 134 135 136 137 138 [139] 140 141 142 143 144 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1686
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,05:15   

There's a lot of really fine tard on Conservapedia.  Here's some good stuff from Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge:      
Quote
Quantum Mechanics
Observation of the Wave Function
The second chapter of the Gospel of John describes the conversion of water into wine by Jesus at a wedding reception. John 2:9 states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous calming of the storm is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by Jesus of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."[20] This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.
That is worthy of even BA^77.      
Quote
Wave-Particle Duality
Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: Mark 6:45-54. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:

“  he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, nearly passing it. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been a ghost, and cried out.  ”  

Mark 6:48-49 (italics added).

In a more general sense, Jesus could be viewed as the "particle" and the Holy Spirit as the "wave" of God. A fuller understanding of the Trinity could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

Andy, the next time I pray, I'm going to mention your name.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
Amadan



Posts: 1268
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,08:07   

Quote
The problem is that E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--Andy Schlafly 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)


... but it will increase your CSI! [/JoeG]

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
fusilier



Posts: 216
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,09:19   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 26 2012,05:31)
I would defend Barry if global warming didn't have several well financed propaganda campaigns attacking it.  But I don't think that ever occurred to Barry.

As for Schlafly, he's probably doing fairly well, considering that his mother abandoned her duty to be a stay at home mom devoted only to having and raising children,  keeping house and polishing her kitchen floor to a mirror-like shine for her husband and praising Jesus in order to have a glamourous and well paid career as a public crank.

But if you read the things you suggested, you see right away that he hardly escaped his mother's treachery unscathed.  I shall include the poor soul in my next prayer.

Ceiling Cat,
don't pray for Andy, pray for his poor brother John.  Only undergrad I ever knew at Notre Dame (class of 1971) who wore a suit and tie.

He has to deal with being homosexual, in that family.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,13:03   

Quote (Amadan @ April 26 2012,08:07)
Quote
The problem is that E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--Andy Schlafly 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)


... but it will increase your CSI! [/JoeG]

Nut doesn't understand mass defect, because of cognnitive defect.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,13:09   

Oh for Pete's sake (and don't ask me who Pete is), that pound of cake would remain a pound of atoms and molecules unless something nuclear happens to convert it to kinetic (or some other form of) energy. (In which case the person would be unlikely to make use of that energy anyway.)

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1686
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,23:51   

Yee Haw!!  PZ vs Mario!  Salon magazine noticed PZ's post on Mario Beauregard's article Near Death, Explained they published a couple of days ago and posted it verbatum on Salon.com!  And Mario has promised a reply this weekend at the same website!!

Bring the popcorn!

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,13:52   

Jonathan MCLatchie gives in:
"News" links to an article he wrote on ENV (Nice Try! A Review of Alan Rogers's The Evidence for Evolution) where he finally quits to pretend he is all sciencey and stoops to the old canard "Either it's change within kind, or it is divine intervention" - of course his vocabulary is more refined than mine.

Some tidbtits (not quotes):

- Whales couldn't have evolved within this short time-span.

- Tiktaalik is younger than footprints found elsewhere - gasp! (Joe's favourite argument)

- Same introns can't be used as evidence for common descent.

- The eye is too complicated to have evolved.

Favourite reference for his claims is - wait for it! - Casey Luskin. For heaven's sake, McLatchie is a biology student - why would he need Luskin?

His conclusion:
 
Quote
... the grander claim of universal common ancestry is not justified, nor does the author impart confidence in the adequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism.


Tard


--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2313
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,14:26   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 27 2012,11:52)
Favourite reference for his claims is - wait for it! - Casey Luskin.

We need a new word.  "Fail" doesn't come close.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3606
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,15:05   

Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:26)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 27 2012,11:52)
Favourite reference for his claims is - wait for it! - Casey Luskin.

We need a new word.  "Fail" doesn't come close.

Epic Fail?

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
JohnW



Posts: 2313
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,16:15   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 27 2012,13:05)
Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:26)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 27 2012,11:52)
Favourite reference for his claims is - wait for it! - Casey Luskin.

We need a new word.  "Fail" doesn't come close.

Epic Fail?

"Epic Fail" is a couple of steps into the foothills of these Himalayas of incompetence.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Turncoat



Posts: 124
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,16:27   

Forgive an ad for what I suspect is the most devastating post I'll ever make to my blog. Other folks have pointed out that "active information" is nothing but a performance measure. But I show that Marks has stated outright his misunderstanding of the NFL theorems, and explain how his misrepresentation of performance as information follows. All of you will understand the most important parts of the post, and many of you will understand all of it.

Sorry that I haven't been coming around to play. Keep giving 'em hell.

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2162
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,16:28   

Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:15)
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 27 2012,13:05)
Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:26)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 27 2012,11:52)
Favourite reference for his claims is - wait for it! - Casey Luskin.

We need a new word.  "Fail" doesn't come close.

Epic Fail?

"Epic Fail" is a couple of steps into the foothills of these Himalayas of incompetence.

failaclysm.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Patrick



Posts: 561
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,16:30   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 27 2012,17:28)
Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:15)
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 27 2012,13:05)
 
Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:26)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 27 2012,11:52)
Favourite reference for his claims is - wait for it! - Casey Luskin.

We need a new word.  "Fail" doesn't come close.

Epic Fail?

"Epic Fail" is a couple of steps into the foothills of these Himalayas of incompetence.

failaclysm.

I like that better than failocalypse.

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,16:34   

Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,16:27)
Forgive an ad for what I suspect is the most devastating post I'll ever make to my blog. Other folks have pointed out that "active information" is nothing but a performance measure. But I show that Marks has stated outright his misunderstanding of the NFL theorems, and explain how his misrepresentation of performance as information follows. All of you will understand the most important parts of the post, and many of you will understand all of it.

Sorry that I haven't been coming around to play. Keep giving 'em hell.

Ooh, can I crosspost it at The Skeptical Zone - or would you like to?

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,16:36   

Quote (Patrick @ April 27 2012,16:30)
Quote (fnxtr @ April 27 2012,17:28)
 
Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:15)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 27 2012,13:05)
   
Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:26)
   
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 27 2012,11:52)
Favourite reference for his claims is - wait for it! - Casey Luskin.

We need a new word.  "Fail" doesn't come close.

Epic Fail?

"Epic Fail" is a couple of steps into the foothills of these Himalayas of incompetence.

failaclysm.

I like that better than failocalypse.

The irony: UD keeps banging on about the venality of mainstream science, and here we have a science student ready to crawl up Luskin's ... to secure a job at the DI.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Patrick



Posts: 561
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,16:38   

Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,17:27)
Forgive an ad for what I suspect is the most devastating post I'll ever make to my blog. Other folks have pointed out that "active information" is nothing but a performance measure. But I show that Marks has stated outright his misunderstanding of the NFL theorems, and explain how his misrepresentation of performance as information follows. All of you will understand the most important parts of the post, and many of you will understand all of it.

Sorry that I haven't been coming around to play. Keep giving 'em hell.

Very nice.  I must take issue with one thing in particular that Marks said:
Quote
We have a few responses on blogs, which are unpleasant, and typically personal attacks, so those are to be ignored. We're waiting for, actually, something substantive in response.

I personally don't have a problem with providing a substantive response that includes unpleasant personal attacks.  The intelligent design creationists get the respect they've earned.

  
Turncoat



Posts: 124
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,16:50   

Quote (Febble @ April 27 2012,16:34)
Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,16:27)
Forgive an ad for what I suspect is the most devastating post I'll ever make to my blog. Other folks have pointed out that "active information" is nothing but a performance measure. But I show that Marks has stated outright his misunderstanding of the NFL theorems, and explain how his misrepresentation of performance as information follows. All of you will understand the most important parts of the post, and many of you will understand all of it.

Sorry that I haven't been coming around to play. Keep giving 'em hell.

Ooh, can I crosspost it at The Skeptical Zone - or would you like to?

I'd like very much for you to do that. Thanks so much.

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,17:02   

Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,16:50)
Quote (Febble @ April 27 2012,16:34)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,16:27)
Forgive an ad for what I suspect is the most devastating post I'll ever make to my blog. Other folks have pointed out that "active information" is nothing but a performance measure. But I show that Marks has stated outright his misunderstanding of the NFL theorems, and explain how his misrepresentation of performance as information follows. All of you will understand the most important parts of the post, and many of you will understand all of it.

Sorry that I haven't been coming around to play. Keep giving 'em hell.

Ooh, can I crosspost it at The Skeptical Zone - or would you like to?

I'd like very much for you to do that. Thanks so much.

Thanks!

Done:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....4

And I've added your blog to my blogroll!  Hope that's OK.

  
Turncoat



Posts: 124
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2012,22:03   

Quote (Febble @ April 27 2012,17:02)
                 
Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,16:50)
                 
Quote (Febble @ April 27 2012,16:34)
                   
Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,16:27)
Forgive an ad for what I suspect is the most devastating post I'll ever make to my blog. Other folks have pointed out that "active information" is nothing but a performance measure. But I show that Marks has stated outright his misunderstanding of the NFL theorems, and explain how his misrepresentation of performance as information follows. All of you will understand the most important parts of the post, and many of you will understand all of it.

Sorry that I haven't been coming around to play. Keep giving 'em hell.

Ooh, can I crosspost it at The Skeptical Zone - or would you like to?

I'd like very much for you to do that. Thanks so much.

Thanks!

Done:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....4....wp....4

And I've added your blog to my blogroll!  Hope that's OK.

I'm genuinely flattered. I'll soon unload with the other barrel. But that post has to be more technical. You've evidently got a fine stat background, and it will be perfectly clear to you, when I eliminate the obfuscation of "search," that we're looking at biased sampling. The model I have now is so simple that I feel embarrassed to have missed it for so long.

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
sparc



Posts: 1733
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2012,12:06   

Since this was so prdictable I just repost my last comment from the EN&V thread:
Quote
Stop the presses:
Granville Sewell censored!
AGAIN!!!


Bob Lloyd of Trinity College Dublin debunked Sewell's oft-repeated several times self-plagiarized claims regarding the second law in his article:        
Quote
Is There Any Conflict Between Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Sewell's arguments have been shredded
time and again before before. However, Lloyd dared to publish his work in The Mathematical Intelligencer (Volume 34, Number 1 (2012), 29-33) thus in the very same journal Sewell sneaked the first version of his article in and the editors refused to publish Sewell's reponse.

On a side note: Is it really a good idea to attack a journal run by the same publisher who is currently re-reviewing Biological Information: New Perspectives in which Sewell is repeating his claims.


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2012,12:16   

Oh dear. KF takes a direct aim at our ironymeters:

Quote
Is the dismissal by asserting “fallacy of personal incredulity” itself a fallacy?


His argument is "but we understand this stuff, so it isn't a fallacy" Errm, if you actually understand this stuff and have arguments then it's not a fallacy of personal incredulity. Of course, there may have been a conflagration of strawmen, but they weren't personally incredulous.

Ho hum

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
damitall



Posts: 324
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2012,08:21   

The thing that struck me most about that "fallacy" thread was the manufactured indignation at the picture of three philosophers assumed to be mocking god; not because of anything said, done or written, but just because there are three of them.

But then I guess manufactured indignation is a state of being for some of 'em - especially kairosfocus, whose life would be a desert wasteland if he had nothing to take offence at.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2012,10:13   

Quote
7
tragic mishap

In all fairness kf I think you took Matzke’s statement out of context.

 
Quote
Like you say, science can “comment” on miracles, but only to say “that ought to be impossible, because massive observational evidence and the logic of our understanding of natural laws rules say that that miracle thing can’t happen”.


8
kairosfocus

TM:

With all due respect, the preface does not change the force of the substance of what I cited. He endorses the sentiment in the part I cited, and that endorsement is an endorsement of philosophical naturalism.

ALL CITTION AND ALL HIGHLIGHTING WILL BE SELECTIVE, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT CITATION CHANGES MEANING WHENEVER YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT IT IMPLIES.

REPEAT, NM ENDORSED THE VIEW IN THE LAST PART OF THE CITE, I.E. IT IS HIS VIEW. THAT IS WHAT I AM RESPONDING TO IN THE WIDER CONTEXT THAT ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM. (Caps for emphasis not shouting.)

MN, as a rule, is closely associated with philosophical naturalism, and is often seen as its stalking horse. Turned out to be so in this case and I am taking it up. In so doing, I am correcting that it fails to properly estimate the strengths and limitations of science and inductive reasoning, and expresses a circular, often closed minded argument.

A fallacy.

KF


LOL. Seems like KF is a little bit touchy about being accused of quote mining since the Lewontin quote debacle.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
olegt



Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2012,17:04   

nullasalus twists himself into a pretzel:
Quote

Gregory: Is nullasalus actually suggesting that ‘cosmology’ is not ‘scientific,’ not a ‘science’? His view of ‘science’ is rather small, it seems.

nullasalus: Yeah, Gregory. You may want to check what the cosmological arguments are. No, they’re not science. These are philosophical arguments. This is utterly non-controversial.

This is hilarious.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2012,21:47   

Am I to understand you have all fallen off the anti-creatotard wagon and are hitting the strong UD stuff again?

Edited by Dr.GH on April 30 2012,19:48

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2012,22:30   

fucking drunks

well, it is may.  maybe they got really stoned on hitler's birthday and got the munchies

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2012,02:51   

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 01 2012,03:47)
Am I to understand you have all fallen off the anti-creatotard wagon and are hitting the strong UD stuff again?

But..... but... I didn't inhale and I will never try it again.

ETA: Although it is sooo delicious!
Quote
1
chris haynes

Dr Sewell wrote a paper on “the Second Law of Thermodynamics”

As a Creationist, I deplore those who censure him.

However, it might be a blessing to Creationism, as his paper is unintelligble gobbledegook.

For openers, he didnt bother to state the Second Law, or define entropy, although he applies them, somehow, to information and to evolution. I suspect he is a charlatan, and that he has neither a coherent statement nor a defintion.

Take entropy. It has units of Joules per degree Kelvin. How does temperature apply to information? How is it that the “entropy of information” is less, or greater at higher temperatures?

Perhaps one of Dr Sewell’s defenders could let us know.

Quote
2
PaV

Chris haynes:

You say you’re a “Creationist”, and think and write like an evolutionist. So which is it?

The “Second Law” and “entropy” have already been defined. Consult standard thermodynamic texts. He invented neither term; he’s simply pointing out the more precise understanding of entropy that is lost sight of when people claim that an “decrease of entropy is allowed” as long as it’s an “open system.” But maybe you can’t follow his argument.

Quote
3
chris haynes

Respectfully, you didnt answer the question.

As you said, “the second law and entropy have been defined”. True. But not by Dr Sewell.

Take entropy. It has been defined as: “Entropy is a property of system equal to the lost work, divided by the temperture of the reservoir used to determine the lost work.”
Its units are joules per degree Kelvin

Dr Sewell uses entropy to describe information.
1) Take DNA. What temperaure applies to its information?
2) When information is lost, why does the entropy increase less when the “information is high temperaure?


I hold that such questions reveal the nonsense of Dr Sewell’s work. As a Creationist, I resent that his nonsense damages our outstanding reputation for clear thought.

You disagree.
Okay, but instead of ad-hominems and sweeping generalities, please just answer the questions.

Quote
4
kairosfocus

CH: If you are serious — and right now you unfortunately reek of sock puppet (of which we have had waves here at UD) — start here and onward links. Notice the use of the Clausius expression and the bridge to the micro-statistical view. Here on the bridge to info, noting Gilbert Newton Lewis especially, will also help. And BTW, PAV, one of UD’s most serious commenters and an occasional contributor, is dead right. KF

Quote
5
material.infantacy

Yeah I think it’s entirely possible he’s a sock puppet. Note the ridiculousness of his #1:

   “As a creationist, I deplore those who censure* him.”

Just to note, as a space cowboy, I deplore censorship* myself; and as a stamp collector, I find it simply unbearable. ;-)

   “…his paper is unintelligible gobbledegook.” … “I suspect he is a charlatan, and that he has neither a coherent statement nor a definition.”

Ironically, chris haynes states that he deplores “those who censure*” and then proceeds to censure Sewell in a manner quite lacking any hint of class or grace. Not failing to miss the opportunity, he responds to an article discussing the unfair treatment of Granville Sewell by dishing out more unfair treatment. Double irony bonus points have been awarded here.

He then goes on to fault PaV for ad hominem and sweeping generalities. *snicker* Yeah, sock puppet or oblivious bumbler, or both. Either way it would be amusing in another context — as a creationist, that is.

Quote
6
chris haynes

No answers?
I say youre bluffing.


That’s why you cant defend Dr Sewell properly. And I say nobody can.

Instead you revert to the tactics of science establishment groupies. You insult those who dare question Sewell’s competence. You distract with a link to a long string of generalities. An you invoke the name of big shots like Lewis, to prove God knows what point.

Lets’ deal with Sewell and his claims.
Dr Sewell uses entropy to describe information
Entropy has units of joules per DEGREE KELVIN. That’s temperature!

Temperature and information? I say Dr Sewell is either loony, or a charlatan.

You disagree. Fine, but defend him properly.
Tell us how information entropy is related to temperature.

1) Take DNA. What temperaure applies to its information?

2) When information is lost, what temperature is used to find the entropy increase?

Quote
7
Granville Sewell

Here is my reply to the Lloyd piece in the Mathematical Intelligencer.

Quote
8
butifnot

‘chris haynes’ yes the relation of TSL to information is fascinating. Sewell did not make it up, and you look ignorant for not knowing anything about it.

LOL
Quote
9
Arthur Hunt

Umm, I don’t suppose it would help to point out that increases in entropy actually promote the assembly of macromolecular structures in a cell. Biochemically speaking, the statement (that I believe is implied in Sewell’s piece here, as well as in his many other essays on the subject) that macroscopic ordering in the cell is disallowed by the second law of thermodynamics is uninformed gibberish.

Look at things this way – shake up a mixture of salad oil and water (run a tornado through the cruet) and then let it set a spell. The mixture – bajillions of molecules – will always spontaneously assemble into a highly-orderd state. This is akin to a tornado-stricken town spontaneously rebuilding, with the important difference that the liquids actually do spontaneously order.

Better still, this macroscopic ordering is entropy-driven. It happens because of the second law, not in spite of it. This is what happens in cells. And this is why Sewell’s illustrations are irrelevant when it comes to life and evolution.

Quote
10
Barry Arrington

@Arthur Hunt re [9],
And then put a bunch of scrabble letters in that same blender, hit the puree button, dump it out, and voila! you get the sonnets of Shakespeare. It’s magic.

Quote
11
Eric Anderson

Arthur Hunt:

You are confusing order with specified complexity. Those are two very different things.

High quality tard.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2012,07:40   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 30 2012,21:47)
Am I to understand you have all fallen off the anti-creatotard wagon and are hitting the strong UD stuff again?

*I* have been clean since Ash Wednesday.  Not even followed a link.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2012,07:44   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 30 2012,21:47)
Am I to understand you have all fallen off the anti-creatotard wagon and are hitting the strong UD stuff again?

And can I ask all of you who supply links to UD as tinyurls to somehow flag them as UD links?  I mistakenly clicked on one the other day, and it was like someone had switched my sweeties with candy-coated, M&M-labelled meth.

I'm still twitching.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2012,07:53   

About chris haynes' question...

Thermodynamic entropy and Shannon information are related.  Thermodynamic entropy has units of J/K because Boltzmann's constant has units of J/K.  S = k lnW and all that.

Of course, entropy is constantly increasing, so must information, therefore Dembski's conservation of information is a bunch of hogwash.  Unless creationists would like to distinguish between the differences in W, in which case the second law for thermodynamic entropy does not apply to information.

Thermodynamic entropy is inextricably linked (before Boltzmann) to the simple universal observation that heat flows from hot to cold objects, and dS = q/T does the rest.  Oh dear, those J/K units again!

So if creationists want to make the explicit connection to the second law, they have to show information always flows from high information source to low.  The very fact that we quote them but they do not quote us falsifies that very notion. QED.  :p

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 134 135 136 137 138 [139] 140 141 142 143 144 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]