RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (21) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: DI EN&V, Open comments and archive< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 4083
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,10:35   

Information is data that has been collected by an intelligence.

The phenomena that is the subject of that data isn't affected by whether some intelligence has collected information about it.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10249
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,10:37   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,10:30)
I would think it followed deductively rather than inductively.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence.
2. A is information.
3. Therefore intelligence is the cause of A.

I think my wording is a bit clearer.

Problem of induction and all that.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence. (In our very limited experience). And for the level of information required (does not the sound of the wind whistling through the trees tell me its windy?) we can safely replace 'Intelligence" with "man", which is both more honest and precise, but removes their opportunity for analogy wankery.

If they were to try and robustly define 'information' and 'intelligence', one suspects there are a flock of black swans waiting to pounce.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,10:50   

The problem is one of equivocation.

First you abstract biochemistry as "information."

(Isn't that reductionism? I get so confused.)

Then you reason backward, assigning limits to chemistry based on the formal properties of "information."

(Isn't that some form of circular reasoning? I get so confused.)

It's a bit like asserting that people have two eyes showing in profile because Picasso painted people.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10249
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,11:14   



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,11:42   

Of course, in ALL of that and ID and UD (and similar groups)

Information is equal to meaning

Which is, of course, 100% incorrect.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,12:11   

Quote
Information is equal to meaning


That's kind of the point of CSI, isn't it?

Meanwhile, Elizabeth hit them with:

1. The production of CSI requires an intelligent designer
2. Evolution produces CSI
3. Therefore evolution is an intelligent designer.

This was moments before the shit hit the fan and the spew of liable and defamation began.

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

Pat Robertson

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,12:15   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,12:11)
Quote
Information is equal to meaning


That's kind of the point of CSI, isn't it?

Meanwhile, Elizabeth hit them with:

1. The production of CSI requires an intelligent designer
2. Evolution produces CSI
3. Therefore evolution is an intelligent designer.

This was moments before the shit hit the fan and the spew of liable and defamation began.

Oh yeah, I've been saying for months.

Joe just doesn't understand the concept.  Which is odd...

the ID types refuse to speculate on the designer, but they KNOW the designer isn't a natural process.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4083
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,12:58   

I guess circular reasoning is their way of avoiding going off on a tangent?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,09:19   

ENV  seems to have returned to the policy of blocking comments.

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

Pat Robertson

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2011,19:20   

Casey goes to bat again:

Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

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

Pat Robertson

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2142
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2011,22:45   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.

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

  
rossum



Posts: 181
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,06:35   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,22:45)
Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.

A hit, a hit, my kingdom for a hit!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzl6LEfouEE">Shakespearian Baseball</a>

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Lowell



Posts: 101
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,10:38   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,19:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

 
Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

--------------
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,11:37   

Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Lowell



Posts: 101
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,14:01   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,11:37)
Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.

Oh, I know Casey wouldn't hesitate to intentionally misuse a term to score points (at least in his own mind). I'm just not sure he's doing that here. He wouldn't be the first attorney I've seen equate circumstantial with weak. (And you have to keep in mind that he is pretty stupid.) I guess one of us is giving him too much credit one way or the other.

--------------
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,14:08   

Quote (Lowell @ Sep. 09 2011,10:38)
 
Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

Genesis.  God's eyewitness testimony, dictated to Moses.

Cross-examination's going to be a bit of a problem, I'll admit.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,14:10   

Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in  a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,16:34   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,23:45)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

 
Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.

Alas, no joy in Udville.

--------------
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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,18:11   

Quote
Casey is not stupid.


No way, José!  Luskin the Attack Gerbil is quite stupid, quite possibly mentally deficient.  I'm sure he's paid in nickels because he's been told that they're bigger than dimes.

Although he managed to pass the low bar in California and possibly Washington, which is like the Arkansas of the northwest, Luskin has never "worked" as a lawyer, does not represent the DI or anyone as counsel and demonstrates the barest understanding of, well, anything.

If it weren't for the DI paying him in nickels his most frequently uttered phrase would be "May I take your order, please."

Not stupid?  Casey?????  Please, pull the other one!

p.s.  That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI.  But, that's because viciousness requires cunning which Luskin lacks in spades.  He's just a poor, dumb foot soldier.  I wonder how many times in staff meetings Luskin blurts out, "I like bowling!"

  
Amadan



Posts: 1261
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,18:44   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 09 2011,22:34)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,23:45)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

   
Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.

Alas, no joy in Udville.

Fexache Bill!

Courtesy of this discussion I had just discovered the gem of Americana that is Thayer's opus major, and was about to spend my evening writing a parody of it featuring monobrows and unresolved sexuality, the whole pivoting on a witty pun on 'Mudville'.

And you stole first base, so to speak.

Bitch.

--------------
"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.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,19:23   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,14:10)
Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in  a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,19:43   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 10 2011,10:23)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,14:10)
Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in  a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

My take is that Casey is the only true believer in the DI crowd. The rest of the them seem to be in it for the bucks or the culture war and know that their evidence is not that strong.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1957
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,22:06   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

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

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

   
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2011,18:17   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2011,22:01   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 09 2011,16:11)
That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI.

Oh yeah?  Wait until he starts forgiving you.

--------------
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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2011,01:25   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 10 2011,18:17)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.

Actually, the handout in response to Wells was authored by Nick as "Nic Tamzek". Nick stopped using the pseudonym shortly after that, IIRC.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2011,21:13   

Educating Casey Luskin on Publishing

He doesn't allow comments on his original, so I'll just have to blog my response.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2011,08:18   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 16 2011,21:13)
Educating Casey Luskin on Publishing

He doesn't allow comments on his original, so I'll just have to blog my response.

Casey is unfamiliar with the concept of a preprint. In the good old days, preprints were circulated by mail prior to publication. More recently, they are put on the web for people to comment.

Here is a case where the preprint and the published paper were 6 years apart. Both are highly cited and no one complains of self-plagiarism.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2011,11:25   

I left a link to my blog via the Discovery Institute Facebook page.

Should we have a pool concerning when a DI flunky will turn up to delete it?

Given that it is Sunday, I'll take a guess of about 2:30 PM PDT.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2011,21:00   

According to the DI, the butterfly is the new (cue radio voice) ICON OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (/cue radio voice)!

Yes, the flagellum of the bacteria, let's face it, is not very photogenic.  How about a nice butterfly?  Ohhhhh, look at the wings, the eyes, the throax and the little hooky feet!  Must have been DESIGNED because Charles Darwin couldn't make a butterfly!  

DUH!

And which better scientists to decry the design of the butterfly and talk about all it's biological parts than Paul "I'm not a scientists nor do I play one on TV" Nelson and Ann "What, me science?" Gauger.

Seriously, I hope the DI realizes eventually that their ultimate mascot is the shark since they've jumped it so many times.

  
  616 replies since Jan. 20 2011,10:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (21) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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