RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 >   
  Topic: Otangelo's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,10:29   

Quote
Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?


Jesus christ on a pogo stick.

Sorry, I saw that Ogre beat me to the exact questions I was going to ask.

So, Trollangelo, when can we expect your answers? And why should I have any fear of your baseless threats of eternity?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,10:34   

Trollangelo,

Which of this list has more "Specified Complex information"?

           post
           opts
           tops
           stop
           pots
           spot

And give justification for your answer.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,06:38   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 21 2016,20:16)
Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,16:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2016,21:45)

 
Quote
Of course, a mind isn't requiredOf course, a mind isn't required, but your simplistic understanding does.


baseless assertion. Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?

Sure. But to provide the information you want... I need...

Define "coded, specified complex information"

What does "coded" mean in this context? What determines if some information is "coded" or not? Does meaning play any part in that?

What does "specified" mean in this context? Who does the specifying? With what tools and systems? How?

What does "complex" mean in this context? How do you measure complexity? What units? Why?

What does "information" mean in this context? How do you measure it? What units? Why?

What values of the above require a mind? What values do not require a mind? Why?

What is the "mind" that resulted in life as we know it? How do you know?

Also, I note you snipped all the questions AND ignored my challenge. Which I will repeat here for you...

Can you, Otangelo, determine the difference between coded, specified information and random information? I challenge you to do so.

If you cannot, then you have no possible way to determine the answers that you think you already know. If you can, and can do so reliably, then you will have a Nobel prize (or whatever the equivalent is) for mathematics waiting for you.

Just let me know when you are ready. I'll provide two strings. One random and one that is complex, coded, and specified.

eta: I have already provided the information that you requested, however, YOUR definitions seem to reject those systems. Therefore, without precise definitions of what you mean, nothing more can be done.

I'm willing to bet any amount of money that you've never even tried to define or measure those words you keep using.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erstand

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,06:39   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 21 2016,20:55)

the alternative codes are in the pattern expected from common descent //why is that expected ?

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,06:41   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 21 2016,21:06)
Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,17:37)
aham. Because the papper says so, it most be true.

You posted the paper to support your claims you moron.  Are you now saying the paper is false and doesn't support your claims? :D

What a clueless tool.

I posted the paper because of the science and the evidence presented. NOT BECAUSE OF THE BIASED INFERENCE of the author of the paper. Learn the difference.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,06:43   

Quote (RumraketR @ Jan. 22 2016,04:05)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 21 2016,20:55)
Otangelo:

 
Quote

the fact that various genetic codes exist, means, common ancestry, bye bye:


Hmmm... what part of the statement that when examined phylogenetically, the alternative codes are in the pattern expected from common descent is Otangelo having difficulty comprehending?

The whole thing. He does not know what a phylogenetic relationship is. He does not know how one is constructed. He does not know about the logic involved, he has never looked into the inferences. He has zero skill or education in even rudimentary logic or reasoning. He does not understand what a prediction is, he does not understand how falsification happens or what it means. He does not understand why it is even important for something to be falsifiable, or to make predictions. All of these concepts are totally foreign to him.

He thinks scientists are like priests, they just read stuff and believe it really hard, then make up rationalizations after the fact to "save" their worldview from disproof.

After all, that is what he does himself and how he thinks his own authority figures work. But he also believes his own authority figures are "more right" and "more trustworthy" than secular/nonbelieving authority figures, because "his" authority figures are infallibly inspired by an omnipotent god.

wow. it seems you have gone to university to study what i do, or do not know ?

amazing. It seems you know more about me, than i about myself.

Genetic Phylogeny

http://www.detectingdesign.com/genetic....ny.html

mollusks (scallops) are more closely related to deuterostomes (sea urchins) than arthropods (brine shrimp).  Of course, this is not too surprising.  Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp.  So, the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin is not surprising.  However, in this light it is surprising is that a tarantula (also an arthropod) has a 92% correlation with the scallop.  Here we have two different arthropods, a shrimp and an tarantula.  How can a scallop be much more related to one type of arthropod and much less related to the other type of arthropod? This troubling thought led the authors of the Science article to remark:

Different representative species, in this case brine shrimp or tarantula for the arthropods, yield wildly different inferred relationships among phyla. Both trees have strong bootstrap support (percentage at node). . .  The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate to successfully compensate for long branch attraction between the animal phyla. Without knowing the correct tree ahead of time, this question will be hard to answer. However, current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly .

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,06:48   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Jan. 22 2016,10:29)
Quote
Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?


Jesus christ on a pogo stick.

Sorry, I saw that Ogre beat me to the exact questions I was going to ask.

So, Trollangelo, when can we expect your answers? And why should I have any fear of your baseless threats of eternity?

i have not threaten anyone. If you interpret it that way, its your business.

How do u know what i believe about eternity is baseless ? Ever died and came back and know now ?

a universe from nothing, or eternal >> impossible.
fine tuning of the universe by chance >> impossible
abiogenesis >> impossible
a mind from matter >> impossible
biodiversity through macro evolution ==>> impossible.

naturalism ==>> impossible

:O

a universe created by a eternal God >> possible.
fine tuning of the universe by a fine tuner >> possible
biogenesis >> possible
a mind from a mind >> possible
biodiversity through a creator ==>> possible.

theism ==>> possible

:)

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,07:06   

Another Otangelo post; another opportunity for him to answer my simple questions—an opportunity which Otangelo has, once again, declined to take advantage of. Let's see if italicizing the questions makes them any more evident to Otangelo:

Do you have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

What does "new information" look like?


As ever, I look forward to reading Otangelo's answers to my questions.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,07:14   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 23 2016,07:48)
   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Jan. 22 2016,10:29)
   
Quote
Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?


Jesus christ on a pogo stick.

Sorry, I saw that Ogre beat me to the exact questions I was going to ask.

So, Trollangelo, when can we expect your answers? And why should I have any fear of your baseless threats of eternity?

i have not threaten anyone. If you interpret it that way, its your business.

How do u know what i believe about eternity is baseless ? Ever died and came back and know now ?

You first.
It's never happened, on the evidence.
 
Quote
a universe from nothing, or eternal >> impossible.
Prove it.
   
Quote
fine tuning of the universe by chance >> impossible
 Prove it.  Start by proving the universe is actually 'fine tuned'.  That the fundamental constants of physics appear to be tightly coupled is no more sign of an "exterior" tuner than the tight coupling between pi and the circumference and radius of a circle.
   
Quote
abiogenesis >> impossible
 Prove it.  Highly improbable != impossible.
   
Quote
a mind from matter >> impossible
 Prove it.  Unbelievable by you != impossible.  What more than matter and energy is there?
   
Quote
biodiversity through macro evolution ==>> impossible.
 Prove it.  Highly unlikely != impossible.  Unbelievable by you != impossible
   
Quote
naturalism ==>> impossible
 Prove it.  Use only non-natural means.  Unaccepted by you != impossible.

...

   
Quote
a universe created by a eternal God >> possible.
 False.  Requires equivocation on 'create' such that the term becomes meaningless.  Proven false in countless ways, countless times.  Acquaint yourself with the primary literature, not the pre-digested third-hand prejudicial accounts you seem to have a taste for.
   
Quote
fine tuning of the universe by a fine tuner >> possible
 False, as 'fine tuning' in the sense required has yet to be demonstrated.  And ultimately this falls to the same logic as non-natural "cause" interacting with nature.
   
Quote
biogenesis >> possible
 Of course.  But not in the sense you intend, for the reasons given above.  Biogenesis logically requires abiogenesis or you fall to infinite regress -- which you reject in your silly "universe from nothing, or eternal >> impossible" assertion.[/quote]
   
Quote
a mind from a mind >> possible
 Probably, but far from a given and not yet accomplished, on the evidence.
   
Quote
biodiversity through a creator ==>> possible.
Not in the supernaturalist sense you intend.  Otherwise banal and trivial -- witness dogs, cats, wheat, etc.

 
Quote
theism ==>> possible

Given that this is identical to the claim 'error ==>> possible' or 'incorrect belief ==>> possible', yes, of course.  Trivially true.
Theism ==> true remains an unproven assertion based on faulty logic enabled by incoherent definitions.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,07:58   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,17:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2016,21:45)

 
Quote
Of course, a mind isn't requiredOf course, a mind isn't required, but your simplistic understanding does.


baseless assertion. Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?

Hilarious!

Tell you what.  You identify ten instances coded, specified, complex information (showing your work and reasoning, of course) and we'll critique them.

BTW, it's not our job to disprove your garbage,  You claim it, you support it.

But you can't. It's a shame; that would be really fun.

{ABE} Your link does not provide any operational definitions or examples.


  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,08:20   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 23 2016,04:48)
   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Jan. 22 2016,10:29)
     
Quote
Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?


Jesus christ on a pogo stick.

Sorry, I saw that Ogre beat me to the exact questions I was going to ask.

So, Trollangelo, when can we expect your answers? And why should I have any fear of your baseless threats of eternity?

i have not threaten anyone. If you interpret it that way, its your business.

How do u know what i believe about eternity is baseless ? Ever died and came back and know now ?

a universe from nothing, or eternal >> impossible.
fine tuning of the universe by chance >> impossible
abiogenesis >> impossible
a mind from matter >> impossible
biodiversity through macro evolution ==>> impossible.

naturalism ==>> impossible

:O

a universe created by a eternal God >> possible.
fine tuning of the universe by a fine tuner >> possible
biogenesis >> possible
a mind from a mind >> possible
biodiversity through a creator ==>> possible.

theism ==>> possible

:)

Otangelo, how do you know that what you believe about eternity is not baseless? Have you ever died and been to eternity to verify your belief?

"a universe from nothing, or eternal >> impossible."

Why is a universe from nothing or eternal impossible, but your chosen, so-called "God", that you obviously believe is a fact, is (allegedly) from nothing and eternal?

"fine tuning of the universe by chance >> impossible"

Fine tuning for what, humans? The vast majority of the universe would kill humans, and most of Earth would too without protective gear, vessels, etc. And what's with the "chance" crap? Does anyone or everyone who doesn't believe as you do assert that everything is the result of only "chance"?

"abiogenesis >> impossible"

Why? How do you know?

"a mind from matter >> impossible"

Where was your mind before you were born?

"biodiversity through macro evolution ==>> impossible."

Define biodiversity and macro evolution.

"naturalism ==>> impossible"

Define naturalism.

"a universe created by a eternal God >> possible.
fine tuning of the universe by a fine tuner >> possible
biogenesis >> possible
a mind from a mind >> possible
biodiversity through a creator ==>> possible.

theism ==>> possible"

Which so-called "God", of the thousands of so-called 'Gods' that people have imagined, created the universe and how do you know? How do you know that "God" is eternal? How did/does "God" fine tune the universe and how do you know? How did "God" do biogenesis on Earth and how do you know? Did/does "God" do biogenesis throughout the universe or only on Earth and how do you know? If a mind comes from a mind, which mind did 'God's' mind come from and how do you know? Does a two headed human have two minds or one? Do slugs, dogs, chimpanzees, elephants, butterflies, dolphins, snakes, and plants have minds? Is "biodiversity through a creator" called Ra, Achamán, Zeus, or Tupã possible? Define theism, and is all theism possible?

Is it possible that an eternal pink unicorn created the universe?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,10:33   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 23 2016,06:38)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 21 2016,20:16)
Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,16:23)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2016,21:45)

   
Quote
Of course, a mind isn't requiredOf course, a mind isn't required, but your simplistic understanding does.


baseless assertion. Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?

Sure. But to provide the information you want... I need...

Define "coded, specified complex information"

What does "coded" mean in this context? What determines if some information is "coded" or not? Does meaning play any part in that?

What does "specified" mean in this context? Who does the specifying? With what tools and systems? How?

What does "complex" mean in this context? How do you measure complexity? What units? Why?

What does "information" mean in this context? How do you measure it? What units? Why?

What values of the above require a mind? What values do not require a mind? Why?

What is the "mind" that resulted in life as we know it? How do you know?

Also, I note you snipped all the questions AND ignored my challenge. Which I will repeat here for you...

Can you, Otangelo, determine the difference between coded, specified information and random information? I challenge you to do so.

If you cannot, then you have no possible way to determine the answers that you think you already know. If you can, and can do so reliably, then you will have a Nobel prize (or whatever the equivalent is) for mathematics waiting for you.

Just let me know when you are ready. I'll provide two strings. One random and one that is complex, coded, and specified.

eta: I have already provided the information that you requested, however, YOUR definitions seem to reject those systems. Therefore, without precise definitions of what you mean, nothing more can be done.

I'm willing to bet any amount of money that you've never even tried to define or measure those words you keep using.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erstand

So you don't know either. Fair enough, then I would suggest you quit using the argument.

It's obvious to anyone who pays attention that no one at UD (including Dembski) knows what this stuff means... other than there is some arbitrary point that any random series of results will cross and therefore design (god).

It's been fun, but you have no idea what's going on.

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

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

   
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,12:18   

What a trashy place here. It even smells bad. Don 't know if i come back.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,12:29   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 23 2016,12:18)
What a trashy place here. It even smells bad. Don 't know if i come back.

When you leave the smell of your bullshit will leave with you.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2016,12:46   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 23 2016,13:18)
What a trashy place here. It even smells bad. Don 't know if i come back.

You have promised to leave before.
I thought there was something about not breaking promises in your 'big book of rules'?

On the other hand, if you're detecting aromas on specific web sites, seek professional help.  That's a sign of serious psychiatric disturbance.
If you ever want to mess with a psychologist/psychiatrist, use smell words when describing your take on rorschach images.

Back on topic -- how can we miss you if you won't leave?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2016,13:58   

It's smellamentary!

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2016,14:57   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 23 2016,12:18)
What a trashy place here. It even smells bad. Don 't know if i come back.

In other words, you can't answer any questions asked of you. It's making you look bad. And you're just going to leave instead. IN 3-4 months you will return continuing where you left off as if none of will remember (or hit the previous page button) and not ask you embarrassing questions again.

Typical.

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

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2016,02:42   

Quote
What a trashy place here. It even smells bad. Don 't know if i come back.


Just a minute, Trollangelo, I'll open a window for you. Don't worry about smelling we are used to the stench of IDiots.

Now how about answering some questions...

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2016,02:48   

Quote
I hope you will get the curve before its too late. Because then you will still enjoy a meaningful life here on earth, and a happy time in eternity.


Isn't that a threat, albeit a veiled one, of your Hell, Trollangelo?

It seems as though you are unable to understand your own words not just biology.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2016,21:06   

Open questions in biology, biochemistry, and evolution

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2299-o....olution

When methodological naturalism is applied, the only explanation for the origin of life is abiogenesis, and of biodiversity, Darwins Theory of evolution. Proponents repeat like a mantra : Evolution is a fact. If that were the case, there would exist far more convincing , clear scientific answers to  almost all relevant scientific questions and issues. This is far from being the case. Based on scientific papers, quite a different picture arises. Instead of compelling answers, questionmarks and lack of understanding, generalized ignorance in regard of almost all relevant issues,  and conceptual problems are the most common. Since the information is widely sparse and scattered amongst thousands of scientific papers, its not so evident that this is the factual state of matter. The general public is duped by effect slogans, that give the false impression of certainty of naturalism. The standard answer, when proponents of naturalism are confronted with this situation, is: "We are working on it". Or: "We don't know yet". As if naturalism would be the answer in the future, no matter what. Aren't these not a prima facie of  " evolution of the gaps" arguments ? The question is: If a certain line of reasoning  is not persuasive or convincing, or only leads to dead ends, then why do proponents of materialism not change their mind because of it? The more scientific papers are published, the less likely the scenario of evolution  and abiogenesis and cosmic evolution becomes. The gaps are NOT being closed. They widen more and more. Some evolutionary predictions have even been falsified. We should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on several key issues and subjects. All discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in vague suppositions and guesswork, statements of blind faith, made up scenarios,  or in a confession of ignorance.  Fact is  there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This lack of understanding is not just ignorance about some secondary details; it is a big conceptual gap.  The reach of the end of the road is evident in the matter of almost all major questions. The major questions of evolutionary novelties and abiogenesis  are very far from being clearly formulated, even understood,  and nowhere near being solved, and for most, there is no solution at all at sight. But proponents of evolution firmly believe, one day a solution will be found. It doesn't take a couple of month, and a new scientific paper with wild speculations about abiogenesis is published, and eagerly swallowed by the anscious public, that finally wants its preferred world view being confirmed.  We don't know yet, therefore evolution and abiogenesis ? That way, the design hypothesis remains out of the equation in the beginning, and out at the end, and never receives a serious and honest consideration. If the scientific evidence does not provide satisfactory explanations through naturalism, why should we not change your minds and look somewhere else ?  I see only one reason : there is a emotional commitment to naturalism. Reason is not on the side of the materialist. The believer in creation imho has good reasons to hold his world view. Reason is on his side. The evidence points massive in that direction. There is certainly the oponent just right on the corner, eagerly waiting to claim " argument of ignorance ". Because evolution is not true, intelligent design is ?! I suggest to read the answer here : http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1983-i....norance

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2016,22:47   

Well, that about wraps it up for biology then, doesn't it.

Otangelo clearly knows more than all the scientists who have ever lived. He sees what no-one else can.

Yawn.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2016,23:43   

Curious: In spite of the boldfacing, italics, and oversized letters, Otangelo apparently managed to miss the most-recent iteration of the two questions I'd like him to answer. Well… perhaps making them an attention-getting color will help…

Do you have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

What does "new information" look like?


As ever, I look forward to reading Otangelo's answers to my questions.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2016,04:40   

Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 09 2016,23:43)
Curious: In spite of the boldfacing, italics, and oversized letters, Otangelo apparently managed to miss the most-recent iteration of the two questions I'd like him to answer. Well… perhaps making them an attention-getting color will help…

Do you have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

What does "new information" look like?


As ever, I look forward to reading Otangelo's answers to my questions.

Confirmation of intelligent design predictions

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-c....ictions

In order to make design prediction, it must be established what can be recognized as design in nature :

Something having the PROPERTIES that we might attribute to that of a designed system:
1) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX
2) Acts as an informational processing systems, -
3) a system which uses some form of digital code, translated into instructions by another universal language translation (universal genetic code). This is LANGUAGE, MEANING.
4) Appearance of highly complex dependencies thus giving the appearence of Implicit intelligence (although not intelligent itself, indicates an origin involving intelligence.. )
5) use of molecular machinery on a scale and complexity which mankind has never IMAGINED possible - all with appearence of exact purpose, intent, function and dependencies
6) exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory genes controlling gene expression - conceptually teh same as a logical software layer controlling teh underlying system.
7) another layer of complex 3 Dimensional control and access, and adaptation to environment: Epiogentics.
8  Implicit built in ERROR checking from the get go: reducing mutations to a minimal
9) Display the DESIGN of complex software, designed to adapt and EVOLVE in a very controlled and careful way - while at the same time minimizing mutations. A system designed to EVOLVE and SURVIVE. (gene splicing ) ..
10) Something which as well as exhibiting all of the above, also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means, : or something whose existence and origins appears to defy all known scientific understanding. Something which requires the application of alot of FAITH and IMAGINATION of some theories to describe its origins through natural means alone.
So the application of COMMON SENSE and inference, from observations from the world around us (information processing systems) might indicate to us certain things having these above PROPERTIES, would fall into the category of things that have been DESIGNED.
One of the most intelligent concepts in the known universe is the concept of Evolution itself.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2016,07:04   

And our Trollangelo is back after his last flounce. I wonder how long he will last this time before his sad arse cannot take any more kicking.

Trollangelo, what is "digital" about a DNA molecule? Does this mean that every chemical reaction is digital?

Please give us some evidence for your preposterous claims about molecules. (Not that I expect a reply as you have none to give.).

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2016,07:05   

Now you have ignored my last questions please give us an example of irreducible complexity that has not yet been trashed.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2016,08:28   

In other words, you define "new information" to be "information which is created by god".

I should point out that, before you can use those properties of design, you first have to establish that a non-intelligent system cannot generate those properties.

1) It's already been shown that non-intelligent systems can result in irreducible complexity.

2) It's already been shown that non-intelligent systems can result in an information processing system.

3) Conflates information with meaning. Tell me does "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." have meaning... even though you don't understand the language? Does EnCt24683abbf1d511ae4ba1af8e9fe0925375e0ba1714683abbf1d511ae4ba1af8e9kgpXKel=JgB
SAoBHu1ZPKhK7aPjUiH4kguGMWRmUdG9Gbo4ad8up4fUgNqCZE25n3zPDwrgpXi3ces3DcannlVs=IwE
mS
have meaning, even though you can't see it?

4) Known systems can generate complexity without intelligence. Of course, it also depends on how you define complexity. Jupiter is extremely complex.

5) So, mankind doesn't know a lot of things. You make this claim now, but in 15 years, will this statement still be valid?

6) Non-intelligently designed systems have done this.

7) You have no idea what epigenetics is do you?

8) This isn't even a real feature of biological systems.

9) In other words. It's designed because it evolves?!?!?

10) "also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means" THIS is what you have utterly failed to show. You have no way of judging this, especially with your limited understanding of reality.

11) COMMON SENSE is meaningless. If common sense controlled our universe, then the sun would orbit Earth and things like quantum physics wouldn't exist. But you don't understand that because that's all you have to use. You don't understand biology, chemistry, or physics. So you use the flawed concept of common sense, combined with a structured belief system that must come to a specific conclusion, mixing in your utter misunderstanding of high school level concepts and the result, as expected, is utter gibberish that you can't even talk intelligently about, much less support with evidence.

Decrypt it at https://encipher.it/....pher.it

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

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2016,08:32   

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,05:40)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 09 2016,23:43)
Curious: In spite of the boldfacing, italics, and oversized letters, Otangelo apparently managed to miss the most-recent iteration of the two questions I'd like him to answer. Well… perhaps making them an attention-getting color will help…

Do you have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

What does "new information" look like?


As ever, I look forward to reading Otangelo's answers to my questions.

Confirmation of intelligent design predictions

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-c....ictions

In order to make design prediction, it must be established what can be recognized as design in nature :

Something having the PROPERTIES that we might attribute to that of a designed system:
1) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX

Countless designs are not 'irreducibly complex'.  Countless manufactured items are not 'irreducibly complex'.  Insofar as the notion is coherent and useful, it is not a marker of design.
 
Quote
2) Acts as an informational processing systems, -
Vague to the point of meaninglessness.  What is 'information'?  The Amazon rain forest does an amazing job at processing the information it receives about temperature gradients.  It continually processes those temperature gradients so as to minimize them.
 
Quote
3) a system which uses some form of digital code, translated into instructions by another universal language translation (universal genetic code). This is LANGUAGE, MEANING.
Simply wrong-headed in the extreme.
Digital != language.  DNA is not a digital code.  Chemistry is not a digital code nor a language in any precise sense of the term.
 
Quote
4) Appearance of highly complex dependencies thus giving the appearence of Implicit intelligence (although not intelligent itself, indicates an origin involving intelligence.. )
Absurd -- you're begging the question.  This requires citations and  examples.  'Highly complex dependencies' is vague to the point of uselessness.  How is complexity measured?  At what point does it become 'highly complex' as opposed to merely 'complex'?  Appearance is not an intrinsic characteristic of external objects, events, or processes.  Things appear to intelligence as ...  The nature of the appearance is as heavily dependent on the perceiver as it is the thing perceived.
 
Quote
5) use of molecular machinery on a scale and complexity which mankind has never IMAGINED possible - all with appearence of exact purpose, intent, function and dependencies
Assumes the conclusion.  What is the difference between the various chemical reactions and systems of reactions such that some are 'machinery' and some are not?  You are being distracted and misled by analogies.  Bad analogies at that.
 
Quote
6) exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory genes controlling gene expression - conceptually teh same as a logical software layer controlling teh underlying system.
Assuming your conclusion again.  Countless systems exhibit functional layers.  The weather system springs immediately to mind.  One could argue that it is inherent to systems that they exhibit functional layering.  Particularly so when one takes in the full range of phenomena to be accounted for -- sub-atomic particles to atoms to molecules to systems of molecules to systems of systems ...
 
Quote
7) another layer of complex 3 Dimensional control and access, and adaptation to environment: Epiogentics.
Not a proper point in and of itself.  When you can't even correctly spell the technical term for the phenomenon you are calling on for support,  you've already failed.
 
Quote
8  Implicit built in ERROR checking from the get go: reducing mutations to a minimal
Asserts facts not in evidence, requires citation, and most of all, requires support against the argument that systems, as such, have implicit functionality, that the mere presence (or absence) of this or that function is to be expected in the complex world of complex systems.
 
Quote
9) Display the DESIGN of complex software, designed to adapt and EVOLVE in a very controlled and careful way - while at the same time minimizing mutations. A system designed to EVOLVE and SURVIVE. (gene splicing ) ..
Assuming your conclusion.  This is not supportive of your point, it rather represents the challenge you and your ilk need to face up to -- you have to sh ow that the system was designed, was manufactured, and works as intended.  In this as in all such matters, this requires recourse to the designer -- these features cannot be read off the thing as such.
 
Quote
10) Something which as well as exhibiting all of the above, also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means, : or something whose existence and origins appears to defy all known scientific understanding. Something which requires the application of alot of FAITH and IMAGINATION of some theories to describe its origins through natural means alone.
Appeal to "we don't know the answer today therefore we'll never know the answer, there is no answer, buy my superstition please."  You have no explanation, nor any conceptual basis for an explanation of the phenomenon.
Worse, you have nothing but your own incredulity and prejudice as (failed) warrant for asserting, without support, that there are reactions or systems of reactions that are inherently impossible to nature  and yet occur.
What are they and how do you know?
Quote
So the application of COMMON SENSE and inference, from observations from the world around us (information processing systems) might indicate to us certain things having these above PROPERTIES, would fall into the category of things that have been DESIGNED.
One of the most intelligent concepts in the known universe is the concept of Evolution itself.

Your response was, as per usual, non-responsive.
The application of 'common sense' is starkly missing from your screed.  It's really more by way of a rant alongside an agenda rather than an argument, isn't it?

As always, boring fail.  You have nothing to suggest that naturalistic explanations cannot, in principle, address any of the concerns you copy/paste without comprehending.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2016,08:59   

Quote (Otangelo @ Feb. 10 2016,04:40)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 09 2016,23:43)
Curious: In spite of the boldfacing, italics, and oversized letters, Otangelo apparently managed to miss the most-recent iteration of the two questions I'd like him to answer. Well… perhaps making them an attention-getting color will help…

Do you have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

What does "new information" look like?


As ever, I look forward to reading Otangelo's answers to my questions.

Confirmation of intelligent design predictions

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-c....ictions

In order to make design prediction, it must be established what can be recognized as design in nature :

You may be right. I await your answers to the two questions I've been asking.
 
Quote
Something having the PROPERTIES that we might attribute to that of a designed system:
1) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
2) Acts as an informational processing systems, -

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
3) a system which uses some form of digital code, translated into instructions by another universal language translation (universal genetic code). This is LANGUAGE, MEANING.

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
4) Appearance of highly complex dependencies thus giving the appearence of Implicit intelligence (although not intelligent itself, indicates an origin involving intelligence.. )

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
5) use of molecular machinery on a scale and complexity which mankind has never IMAGINED possible - all with appearence of exact purpose, intent, function and dependencies

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
6) exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory genes controlling gene expression - conceptually teh same as a logical software layer controlling teh underlying system.

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
7) another layer of complex 3 Dimensional control and access, and adaptation to environment: Epiogentics.

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
8  Implicit built in ERROR checking from the get go: reducing mutations to a minimal

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
9) Display the DESIGN of complex software, designed to adapt and EVOLVE in a very controlled and careful way - while at the same time minimizing mutations. A system designed to EVOLVE and SURVIVE. (gene splicing ) ..

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
10) Something which as well as exhibiting all of the above, also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means, : or something whose existence and origins appears to defy all known scientific understanding. Something which requires the application of alot of FAITH and IMAGINATION of some theories to describe its origins through natural means alone.

This bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.
 
Quote
So the application of COMMON SENSE and inference, from observations from the world around us (information processing systems) might indicate to us certain things having these above PROPERTIES, would fall into the category of things that have been DESIGNED.
One of the most intelligent concepts in the known universe is the concept of Evolution itself.

And, finally, this bit is neither evidence that "information-rich" systems can be produced by non-human intelligent agents, nor an explanation of how one can recognize "new information" when one sees it.

At this point, I think it appropriate to remind you that I have never disputed the proposition that "intelligent agents" can produce "information-rich systems", nor have I ever disputed that there is, indeed, plenty of evidence to support the proposition that "intelligent agents" can produce "information-rich systems".

What I have done, instead, is point out that we have plenty of evidence that "information-rich systems" have been produced by the specific class of "intelligent agents" known as human beings, and, further, that we have no evidence of "information-rich systems" ever having been produced by any "intelligent agents" other than human beings. How, then, can any "system" which existed prior to the emergence of humans, be an "information-rich system"? Are you arguing for time-travel, perhaps?

Likewise, it's appropriate to remind you that I have never disputed the proposition that "new information" exists;; I have, instead, asked you to explain how you recognize this 'new information' stuff when you see it. Since a part of your argumentation is apparently dependent on the properties of "new information", I would have thought that you'd be able to explain how the heck you recognize it when you see it…

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2016,16:56   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 10 2016,07:05)
Now you have ignored my last questions please give us an example of irreducible complexity that has not yet been trashed.

A list of irreducible complex systems

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a....systems

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2016,17:01   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 10 2016,08:28)
In other words, you define "new information" to be "information which is created by god".

I should point out that, before you can use those properties of design, you first have to establish that a non-intelligent system cannot generate those properties.

1) It's already been shown that non-intelligent systems can result in irreducible complexity.

2) It's already been shown that non-intelligent systems can result in an information processing system.

3) Conflates information with meaning. Tell me does "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." have meaning... even though you don't understand the language? Does EnCt24683abbf1d511ae4ba1af8e9fe0925375e0ba1714683abbf1d511ae4ba1af8e9kgpXKel=JgB
SAoBHu1ZPKhK7aPjUiH4kguGMWRmUdG9Gbo4ad8up4fUgNqCZE25n3zPDwrgpXi3ces3DcannlVs=IwE
mS
have meaning, even though you can't see it?

4) Known systems can generate complexity without intelligence. Of course, it also depends on how you define complexity. Jupiter is extremely complex.

5) So, mankind doesn't know a lot of things. You make this claim now, but in 15 years, will this statement still be valid?

6) Non-intelligently designed systems have done this.

7) You have no idea what epigenetics is do you?

8) This isn't even a real feature of biological systems.

9) In other words. It's designed because it evolves?!?!?

10) "also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means" THIS is what you have utterly failed to show. You have no way of judging this, especially with your limited understanding of reality.

11) COMMON SENSE is meaningless. If common sense controlled our universe, then the sun would orbit Earth and things like quantum physics wouldn't exist. But you don't understand that because that's all you have to use. You don't understand biology, chemistry, or physics. So you use the flawed concept of common sense, combined with a structured belief system that must come to a specific conclusion, mixing in your utter misunderstanding of high school level concepts and the result, as expected, is utter gibberish that you can't even talk intelligently about, much less support with evidence.

Decrypt it at https://encipher.it/....phe....pher.it

1) It's already been shown that non-intelligent systems can result in irreducible complexity.

show me.

2) It's already been shown that non-intelligent systems can result in an information processing system.

show me how the software and hardware of the cell could arise without intelligence.

3) Paul Davies: Although DNA is a material structure, it is pregnant with meaning. The arrangement of the atoms along the helical strands of your DNA determines how you look and even, to a certain extent, how you feel and behave. DNA is nothing less than a blueprint—or, more accurately, an algorithm or instruction manual—for building a living, breathing, thinking human being.

Where does biological information come from?

4) the cell is the most complex factory in the universe. How could it arise without intelligence ?

5) yes, we will discover that there will be even more questions than answers.

6) show me.

7) Epigenetics

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2098-e....enetics



The argument of the genetic piano
1. Dr. Kohzoh Mitsuya [University of Texas Health Science Center] who studies genes says the work of epigenetics “corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music. Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce.”
2. “Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used.”
3. After watching the response of mice deficient in the RNA, he said, “It shows how one note is played on the piano. The symphony has only just come into view. We can hear it, but we need to learn how all the parts are being played.”
4. Here the questions are: who’s the pianist and who’s the conductor?
5. The environment cannot be the musician; it is oblivious to the needs of the organism.  Heredity cannot be the musician; it has no foresight to read or comprehend a collection of processes organized into a work.
6. Thus, this discovery and explanation of Dr. Mitsuya causes trouble for Darwin while it fits precisely into the intelligent design theory.
7. There must be an origin of the information required to produce function.
8. A classical answer to this by the evolutionists is: “this evolved, that’s why it is there.”
9. Answering this we say: “Science is supposed to seek efficient causes, not just-so stories or appeals to chance based on circular reasoning. For example, in his book The Making of the Fittest, Sean Carroll writes “the degree of similarity in DNA is an index of the [evolutionary] relatedness of species.” [98] This can only make sense if we first assume evolution is true. But Carroll’s book is a defense of evolution, intended to demonstrate that the theory is true without first assuming it is true. He seeks to prove evolution is true, but he begins with evolutionary reasoning and interpretations. That is circular reasoning.”
10. The alternative and only explanation is therefore intelligent design with a known cause sufficient to produce functional information: intelligence. Only intelligence can organize atoms or building blocks into order and activities. There is no other experience of anything else putting things into order and motion.
11. Intelligent design means intelligence of the greatest scientist all men call God.
12. God exists.

  
  490 replies since Nov. 15 2015,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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