RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (257) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:33   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?

I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:34   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 03 2010,08:50)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
 
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.

That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?

I understand but not completely.  I've developed a secret written language (SWL). In my SWL, the definition of "aardvark" is written like this:

gkjassdhjkjyenb

Note that the bold type face is part of the SWL definition. If "gkjassdhjkjyenb" is not bolded, it means "platypus."

How much information is contained in my SWL definition? Does the "aardvark" definition contain more information than the "platypus" definition? Does either definition indicate the presence of CSI?

Jim,

Just because you can prove that you are an asshole doesn't mean anything to ID.

Do you understand that?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:36   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 03 2010,09:07)
Hey Joe! I'm sure you're eager to respond to this:

There are many plaster cast copies of Michelangelo's David in existence. They weigh less than the six-ton marble original; solid marble weighs 160 lbs per cubic foot, while plaster weighs 53 lbs per cubic foot. Per your definition of size, although they are of identical physical dimensions and displace identical volumes of identical shape, plaster-cast David and the original David are NOT the same size.

So, if a precise plaster cast copy of David is not, by your definition, the same size as the original David, how much taller would plaster cast David have to be than actual David to be the same size as actual David?

Show your work.

Asshole- it's not my definition of size.

As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.

Do you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3305
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,15:01   

I'm not double posting how chicken you are Joe.  Go to the other thread and show us that you know something other than the word 'asshole'.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4241
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,15:12   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,15:36)
As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.

Ok. It would follow that the size of a statue also includes its height and weight.

So, how much taller would plaster David have to be than original David to be the same size as original David?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2124
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,15:27   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,12:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?

I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

"I know you are but what am I."

QED.

So, Joe, you're saying you just measured the CSI of the definition of an aardvark?

Okay.

Why?

And you still didn't explain whether or not the CSI is the same in other languages.

--------------
"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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,15:29   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:34)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 03 2010,08:50)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
 
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.

That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?

I understand but not completely.  I've developed a secret written language (SWL). In my SWL, the definition of "aardvark" is written like this:

gkjassdhjkjyenb

Note that the bold type face is part of the SWL definition. If "gkjassdhjkjyenb" is not bolded, it means "platypus."

How much information is contained in my SWL definition? Does the "aardvark" definition contain more information than the "platypus" definition? Does either definition indicate the presence of CSI?

Jim,

Just because you can prove that you are an asshole doesn't mean anything to ID.

Do you understand that?

In Joe's little world, the definition of "asshole" is "person who asks questions I can't answer." Which means the world is full of assholes, and I'm in good company.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,15:33   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,17:24   

Hey Joe,

Which has a greater "size":

1.  one cubic foot of granite

or

2.  ten cubic feet of Nerf?

At what dimensions would they have equal "size"?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
khan



Posts: 1482
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,17:36   

How can there even be conversations if no one knows/defines what they/we are talking about?

I've had more satisfying discussions with the cat.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3305
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,18:17   

AFDave's thread was at least more interesting.  He at least knew how to C&P from other websites.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,21:20   

Quote (FrankH @ April 04 2010,06:33)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.

I've just read "The Greatest Show on Earth", Joe should start with that.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,23:33   

Quote (MichaelJ @ April 03 2010,19:20)
I've just read "The Greatest Show on Earth", Joe should start with that.

I dunno, Larry Gonicks excellent Cartoon history of the universe and Cartoon guide to genetics might be closer to Joe's level.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4069
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,01:22   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,07:04)
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.

That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?

The information in a definition was specified by the person who wrote the definition.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,08:03   

Hey Joe,

I gave you an example of evidence for Evolution.

Now I would like to see your evidence for ID.  I would like to see you use CSI or EF to explain what we see in biological organisms.

Thanks in advance

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Mindrover



Posts: 63
Joined: April 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,08:18   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,08:26   

Quote (Mindrover @ April 04 2010,08:18)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.
To add to Mindrover's post, as he's granting that CSI is measuring "information", I'd like to know what is actually being measured?

Joe, could you define or tell what type of information is being measured by CSI?

Can different methods show different degrees or types of information?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,12:10   

Quote (Mindrover @ April 04 2010,06:18)
 
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.

A legit question deserves a legit answer.  Joe can correct me if I get it wrong, but according to Dembski's "Design Inference" :

PREMISE
Information can be measured. (in bits preferebly).

PREMISE
"Specified" information (SI) can be measured unambiguously. (not proven IMO)

IF
 the information is "specified"

AND IF
 the SI exceeds the UPB (Universal Probability Bound)
of ~10^150 (approx 500 bits)

THEN
the information is sufficiently complex and Design (capital D) is inferred.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,12:57   

If we are seriously going to talk about it, here is Dembski's 2005 paper titled, Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence
     
Quote
We thus define the specified complexity of T given H (minus the tilde and context sensitivity) as
X = –log2[ 10^120 · S(T)·P(T|H)].
...
It follows that if 10^120 · S(T)·P(T|H) < 1/2 or, equivalently, that if X = –log2[ 10^120 · S(T)·P(T|H)] > 1, then it is less likely than not on the scale of the whole universe, with all replicational and specificational resources factored in, that E should have occurred according to the chance hypothesis H. Consequently, we should think that E occurred by some process other than one characterized by H.

It is interesting how many ID proponents have not taken the time to understand Dembski's calculation for "specified complexity".

Specified Complexity is nothing more than a fancy way of saying if "...it is less likely than not... [something came about] ...according to the chance hypothesis H...[then it] ...occurred by some process other than one characterized by H."

Dembski then argues design is the only possible alternative.

This is old news and has been argued by people much smarter than I.

My argument with all of this is where anyone, including Dembski, is justified in assuming anything happens by "chance"?  Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic.  We don't know it is random.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,13:08   

Mindrover,

Where did you get that photo of Joe G. for your avatar?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,13:42   

Oops. 10^120, 10^150,  what's 30 orders of magnitude between friends.  Chump change.  I wasn't even off by a whole dembski
 
Quote
Error in dembskis

That error might be measured in a unit called "dembskis" that scaled things in terms of orders of magnitude came up in discussion of errors in an essay by Marks and Dembski. The reference unit of error for the measure is taken from the case mentioned above in the M/N ratio calculation note, where Dembski had an error of about 65 orders of magnitude. "Dave W." formalized the notion with an equation, and W. Kevin Vicklund suggested using a rounded-off value of 150 as the constant in the denominator, based upon Dembski's figure of 10^150 as a universal small probability. Thus, the final form of quantifying error in dembskis (Reed Cartwright proposed the symbol ?) is

? = | ln(erroneous measure) - ln(correct measure) | / 150

There is not yet a consensus on what to term the unit, but two proposals being considered are "Dmb" and "duns".


ETA: Hat tip to Wes for link above

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,17:17   

Well, I hope Joe G. takes this as a serious attempt to see where both sides stand.  So Joe, I and others have done two things:

1:  Presented Evidence that supports Evolution

2:  Shown that many here understand CSI and EF but feel that it is not adequate to do what Dr. Dembski has stated it does.

So are you going to show us an example of evidence FOR ID and how EF and CSI work on biological systems?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Mindrover



Posts: 63
Joined: April 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,18:54   

Quote (keiths @ April 04 2010,13:08)
Mindrover,

Where did you get that photo of Joe G. for your avatar?

This is my son.  Similarities are purely coincidental.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3305
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2010,07:48   

Hey Joe,

Since you can't answer our question about how to measure/calculate whatever it is you think your 'hypothesis' is about, here's a much easier question for you and I'm really curious about the answer.

Do you realize that even if you prove evolution to be false, that does not automatically mean that your 'hypothesis' is correct?  (yes/no)

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:08   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 05 2010,07:48)
Hey Joe,

Since you can't answer our question about how to measure/calculate whatever it is you think your 'hypothesis' is about, here's a much easier question for you and I'm really curious about the answer.

Do you realize that even if you prove evolution to be false, that does not automatically mean that your 'hypothesis' is correct?  (yes/no)

ID stands on the positive evidence.

The evidence I have provided and you have choked on.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:10   

Quote (FrankH @ April 04 2010,17:17)
Well, I hope Joe G. takes this as a serious attempt to see where both sides stand.  So Joe, I and others have done two things:

1:  Presented Evidence that supports Evolution

2:  Shown that many here understand CSI and EF but feel that it is not adequate to do what Dr. Dembski has stated it does.

So are you going to show us an example of evidence FOR ID and how EF and CSI work on biological systems?

Frank,

ID is not anti-evolution. IOW evidence for evolution is meaningless.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any positive evidence for blind, undirected processes.

As for the EF how do you think scientists determine the cause now?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Joe G



Posts: 1384
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:15   

Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,15:33)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.

Yes, Frank I have supported ID:

supporting ID

Also your support for evolution is a joke.

There isn't anything about blind, undirected processes.

Ya see ID is NOT anti-evolution.

Just anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t


BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2124
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:16   

Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,11:10)
Quote (FrankH @ April 04 2010,17:17)
Well, I hope Joe G. takes this as a serious attempt to see where both sides stand.  So Joe, I and others have done two things:

1:  Presented Evidence that supports Evolution

2:  Shown that many here understand CSI and EF but feel that it is not adequate to do what Dr. Dembski has stated it does.

So are you going to show us an example of evidence FOR ID and how EF and CSI work on biological systems?

Frank,

ID is not anti-evolution. IOW evidence for evolution is meaningless.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any positive evidence for blind, undirected processes.

As for the EF how do you think scientists determine the cause now?

IOW, "No."

--------------
"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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,14:43   

Joe.  Larger "size":

1.  one cubic foot of granite

or

2.  10 cubic feet of Nerf?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,14:44   

Joe.

An example of how to tell two objects apart using CSI.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
  7680 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (257) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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