or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie - Page 10

post #361 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post




waaaaaaaaasupppp!

not much....

cmon, dmz, think deeply

God appears to moses in a burning bush - metaphor - sexual desire of seeing a fertile pussy!
Pharoh has a hardening heart - metaphor - sexual hangup
Moses keeps playing with his 'rod of god' - making it stiff and then serpent - metaphor, i dont need to spell that one out
Plagues afflict pharoah - emotional torment of keeping the 'children of isreal' captive - metaphor - sexual disfunction of not having a release - children of israel=sperm.
moses and his thousands of children are eventually released and go on a journey - metaphor - moses nails the 'burning bush' and the 'children of israel' are released.
Moses passes the red sea - metaphor - the burning bush was actually a virgin.
Pharohs' army has to die at this point - metaphor the fear of shagging is dispelled once you are inside!
Moses and his children wander in the desert looking for a volcano - metaphor - sperm swimming up the vagina heading towards the cervix.

And the real kicker
Before they reach the destination, they all die except Moses who transforms into someone else - metaphor - of all the sperm that embark on the journey, only one can fertilize the egg and transforms itself into new life, thus dying, but becoming reborn.

If you cant see that, you must be bliiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnddddd!!!!!!!!!!!
post #362 of 424
Thread Starter 
More intellectual dishonesty and cowardice, please!

- Can you tell me what you think it means to say "build information systems"?
- Can you, at the very least, provide your username at Pharyngula so we can see these discussions you claim to have been a part of?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #363 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

Moses passes the red sea - metaphor - the burning bush was actually a virgin

How dare you! You know good and well that was just the wind blowing on the reed sea. I wouldn't dare to follow where that metaphor leads.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #364 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


If you cant see that, you must be bliiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnddddd!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmm, that would be an interesting theory to bring up at a Bible study group!

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #365 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

How dare you! You know good and well that was just the wind blowing on the reed sea. I wouldn't dare to follow where that metaphor leads.

I bet you'd love too!

what I think is interesting is that what we would consider primitive people actually knew so much about the mechanics of it all. Did they have microscopes in those days? How would they know?

As we have now dissected the fist two books to be completely metaphoric - thus showing the stories to be both true and totally symbolic when understood in context, isn't it time to stop this literalist nonsence, and start spreading the truth about the bible stories.

What does it achieve to continue spreading this creationist ID nonsense?
post #366 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Hmm, that would be an interesting theory to bring up at a Bible study group!


id guess you'd be stoned to death for the love of a peaceful, merciful God.
post #367 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

start spreading the truth about the bible stories.

You mean like Jesus is a sun god and Exodus is about sex?
post #368 of 424
Evolution is no more responsible for the task of explaining the origin of life than my gym teacher was responsible for explaining calculus to me.

All ID has to do is show some evidence to support their claims. Not a lack of evidence in on one corner of the Metropolis that is evolutionary theory. Actual EVIDENCE. Something testable. That's all that's required. Present evidence that something could not have evolved because it is impossible, rather than telling us something SEEMS so complex that it couldn't have and then calling it a day without looking further into it.

I'll not be holding my breath.

---

I have a general question I would like answered. It is slightly OT, but is within context. If we are to believe in the Theory of Intelligent Design, that is the theory that all that we see was created for a specific purpose by a being capable of designing it, why then do those who support it oppose things such as cloning and stem-cell research and where do we draw the line at what is acceptable creation and what is unacceptable creation?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #369 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You mean like Jesus is a sun god and Exodus is about sex?

And Genesis is about birth and consciousness and growing up.

i'd rather that than barefaced lies and deliberate misunderstandings that serve no purpose except to radicalise and fundamentalize people.

Perhaps the real truth of the bible, is that it is not a supernatural story full of miracles outside our capability and understanding, but it is the natural story of mankind written by mankind to teach mankind about humanity.

A story about you and me, and 6 billion other people, written by no-one in particular, yet written by us all.

That would be the real supernatural miracle. Enlightening mankind about mankind. Then we could stop blowing each other up in the name of (false) Gods and oil.
post #370 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

I bet you'd love too!

what I think is interesting is that what we would consider primitive people actually knew so much about the mechanics of it all. Did they have microscopes in those days? How would they know?

As we have now dissected the fist two books to be completely metaphoric - thus showing the stories to be both true and totally symbolic when understood in context, isn't it time to stop this literalist nonsence, and start spreading the truth about the bible stories.

What does it achieve to continue spreading this creationist ID nonsense?

OT, but I just read pretty cool journal article. By a guy, who, although he was a liberal theologian, had issues with reducing an event like Sinai to physical phenomena while still retaining the "God said" part of it. Once it was reduced to a subjective "equivocal" event, he reckoned it emptied the event of it's content.

And content is king.

The same is true about the genome. You reduce things to deterministic causes, and then you end up chasing a causality chain out of your field of experience. But then still want to bar God ?? -- that's profoundly self-contradictory.

This business with ID and "creationist nonsense" has much to do with people insisting that Darwinism is applicable to information theory. And it isn't, there's no way in hell you can throw truisms "oh they just got stronger -- evolution did it" at building self-replicating information storage and retrieval systems. Now, any of you who have pulled your hair out from everything From Hypercard to C++ know damn well that instructions, data, etc, don't come all by their lonesome, they have a telos or purpose, they exist in context of syntax or the fact that they will be compiled, etc. Data gotten, data in transit, data applied to the function....bla bla bla.

Set horizontal transfers, shuffling alleles, etc., aside for the moment.

How did we build the original systems' data sets? What modern evolutionist are asking is for some sort of double or triple evolution, and it's ludicrous. You have to have proteins binding on one level (think OSI levels) surviving that context and functioning, then generating a word or bit in the correct syntax to generate information gain in the digital code -- another ditch to jump -- which finally produces 3-D features within the operational context of the body plan. Well, unless Information and a Chaotic series of events can be demonstrated to be equivalent, the academy has a big problem on it's hands. I think they already know that abiogenesis is a problem, but broadly, someone needs to model if this sort of bank-shot evolution -- which is really chemical evolution followed by series of truisms: "oh, and then it made things better" is even possible.

The response? -- a condescending provincial attitude: You're questioning evolution because of religion, which needs to be reduced to the role similar to knitting, since it ruins everything, and is child abuse. The sort of response of somebody getting in somebody else's head by threatening their pony. Besides, I'm not questioning Darwinism because of my religion, I'm questioning it because of it's idiotic application. So are a lot of other people. And the provincial attitude only makes things worse, it breeds irritation.

Regardless, some other theory needs to be adopted that makes sense of this -- and short of conflating Chaos and Order, Darwinism's role is going to be a shadow of it's former self.

/rant

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #371 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

Evolution is no more responsible for the task of explaining the origin of life than my gym teacher was responsible for explaining calculus to me.

All ID has to do is show some evidence to support their claims. Not a lack of evidence in on one corner of the Metropolis that is evolutionary theory. Actual EVIDENCE. Something testable. That's all that's required. Present evidence that something could not have evolved because it is impossible, rather than telling us something SEEMS so complex that it couldn't have and then calling it a day without looking further into it.

I'll not be holding my breath.

---

I have a general question I would like answered. It is slightly OT, but is within context. If we are to believe in the Theory of Intelligent Design, that is the theory that all that we see was created for a specific purpose by a being capable of designing it, why then do those who support it oppose things such as cloning and stem-cell research and where do we draw the line at what is acceptable creation and what is unacceptable creation?

It more than that rageous, there are some rock-ribbed determinists out there -- that for one reason or another, simply won't cop to that belief and the real uncertainties of Existence. Even a little Plato, or Epictetus would go a long way. Hell, I'd kiss all their asses if they were 'down' with Kierkegaard.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #372 of 424
Thread Starter 
dmz:

Quote:
The same is true about the genome. You reduce things to deterministic causes, and then you end up chasing a causality chain out of your field of experience. But then still want to bar God ?? -- that's profoundly self-contradictory.

It's not about barring god. God isn't a concept that answers any questions. God has no use in the scientific method because it is a concept without any value as far as explaining things. Not only that, it's an exploration-killer; being a false answer.

Quote:
This business with ID and "creationist nonsense" has much to do with people insisting that Darwinism is applicable to information theory. And it isn't, there's no way in hell you can throw truisms "oh they just got stronger -- evolution did it" at building self-replicating information storage and retrieval systems.

It's a good thing we don't need to throw truisms at building self-replicating information storage and retrieval systems. RNA could take care of that; it is very simple chemically and is capable of duplicating, transmitting, and storing genetic information.

Quote:
Now, any of you who have pulled your hair out from everything From Hypercard to C++ know damn well that instructions, data, etc, don't come all by their lonesome, they have a telos or purpose, they exist in context of syntax or the fact that they will be compiled, etc. Data gotten, data in transit, data applied to the function....bla bla bla.

What do man-made languages have to do with evolution?

Quote:
How did we build the original systems' data sets?

RNA is a possibility. There are many others.

Should we expect to have concrete answers to all these questions by now?

Quote:
What modern evolutionist are asking is for some sort of double or triple evolution, and it's ludicrous. You have to have proteins binding on one level (think OSI levels) surviving that context and functioning, then generating a word or bit in the correct syntax to generate information gain in the digital code -- another ditch to jump -- which finally produces 3-D features within the operational context of the body plan.

How is this "double or triple evolution"? A given thing can be successful in more than one context at any given time.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #373 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You mean like Jesus is a sun god and Exodus is about sex?

Is everyone using the standard reply as opposed to the quick reply?
post #374 of 424
any half-wit knows that god is really & truly a flying spaghetti monster. Who the hell expects a plate of flying spaghetti to design anything intelligently?

http://lilytears.com/spirituality/th.../berashith.htm
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
post #375 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

OT, but I just read pretty cool journal article. By a guy, who, although he was a liberal theologian, had issues with reducing an event like Sinai to physical phenomena while still retaining the "God said" part of it. Once it was reduced to a subjective "equivocal" event, he reckoned it emptied the event of it's content.

And content is king.

The same is true about the genome. You reduce things to deterministic causes, and then you end up chasing a causality chain out of your field of experience. But then still want to bar God ?? -- that's profoundly self-contradictory.

This business with ID and "creationist nonsense" has much to do with people insisting that Darwinism is applicable to information theory. And it isn't, there's no way in hell you can throw truisms "oh they just got stronger -- evolution did it" at building self-replicating information storage and retrieval systems. Now, any of you who have pulled your hair out from everything From Hypercard to C++ know damn well that instructions, data, etc, don't come all by their lonesome, they have a telos or purpose, they exist in context of syntax or the fact that they will be compiled, etc. Data gotten, data in transit, data applied to the function....bla bla bla.

Set horizontal transfers, shuffling alleles, etc., aside for the moment.

How did we build the original systems' data sets? What modern evolutionist are asking is for some sort of double or triple evolution, and it's ludicrous. You have to have proteins binding on one level (think OSI levels) surviving that context and functioning, then generating a word or bit in the correct syntax to generate information gain in the digital code -- another ditch to jump -- which finally produces 3-D features within the operational context of the body plan. Well, unless Information and a Chaotic series of events can be demonstrated to be equivalent, the academy has a big problem on it's hands. I think they already know that abiogenesis is a problem, but broadly, someone needs to model if this sort of bank-shot evolution -- which is really chemical evolution followed by series of truisms: "oh, and then it made things better" is even possible.

The response? -- a condescending provincial attitude: You're questioning evolution because of religion, which needs to be reduced to the role similar to knitting, since it ruins everything, and is child abuse. The sort of response of somebody getting in somebody else's head by threatening their pony. Besides, I'm not questioning Darwinism because of my religion, I'm questioning it because of it's idiotic application. So are a lot of other people. And the provincial attitude only makes things worse, it breeds irritation.

Regardless, some other theory needs to be adopted that makes sense of this -- and short of conflating Chaos and Order, Darwinism's role is going to be a shadow of it's former self.

/rant

well, the thing is dmz, I've known you long enough to say, that youre no ignoramus when it comes to understanding the context of biblical truth, so why belittle yourself by aligning yourself to one of the most perverse, idiotic forms of biblical understanding there has ever been?

Whatever God maybe - he inspired some of the greatest minds and philosophers of human history to write parables - threads of stories, layered upon layers, so that we might study them and become wise and knowledgable as we tease out new meanings, refine existing ones and delve deep into the minds of great unknown philosophers, so that we may become great like them.

And creationism comes along as says screw this, give me the literal word, give me instant gratification, and make me proud to be ignorant.

This isn't confined to creationism though, this culture of shallowness pervades all of western society - and that is why it is failing miserably. Instant gratification, binge profiteering, narrowmindedness, excessive consumption...western culture is a celebration of perversity and sin, of mental illness and foolishness - and creationism doesn't stand opposed to it, Creationism is what happens when all of these things pervade a religious movement.
post #376 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by user23 View Post

any half-wit knows that god is really & truly a flying spaghetti monster. Who the hell expects a plate of flying spaghetti to design anything intelligently?

http://lilytears.com/spirituality/th.../berashith.htm

im keeping my eye of horus on you!
post #377 of 424
Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

[CENTER]
Quote:
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #378 of 424
Another expulsion vindicated

Quote:
Last December, I mentioned the case of a creationist named Nathaniel Abraham who was fired from his job at Woods Hole he had the gall to apply for a post-doctoral position in an evolution and development lab, and the PI dismissed him for being incapable of supporting the full range of "evolutionary implications and interpretations" of the work he would have to do. Abraham sued him for a half million dollars in reply.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #379 of 424
HOW SCIENCE GETS SWIFTBOATED

Quote:
Ben Stein has done good things and funny things during his more than three decades as an actor, economist and writer (going back to his days as a Nixon speechwriter). His latest work, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," is not that good and not that funny. There's something creepy about the documentary, which blends a no-holds-barred assault on evolutionary theory with what sounds like a high-minded cry for academic freedom. It's a 90-minute campaign ad, aimed at swiftboating science.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #380 of 424

The ID proponents swing into action!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You mean like Jesus is a sun god and Exodus is about sex?

Don't forget that most Christian holidays are based on Pagan fertility rites!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #381 of 424
MarcUK: I hear you -- but think about that univocal vs. equivocal take on what happened at Siani. We have to have something anthropological to explain the the Passover, etc., -- but when we reduce it to the phenomenal word, but still want the voice of God, that's a little screwy.




**Alert**


This is the best thing I've seen on the Evo/ID debate -- the fairest thing I've seen yet.

http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/sh...ligent-design/


http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/sh...n-mind-closed/

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #382 of 424
dmz,

you are still obsessed with information... which, if you understood the subject matter at all, isn't what you think it is. the entropic content of a system is related to it's information content, and this is the complete opposite of what you are using as information. In fact, the maintenance of a pristine genome for all time is highly unlikely due to the fact that it fails to qualify for reality under the second law of thermodynamics.

Unless you are willing to forgo ALL human knowledge including the ultimately established LAWS of thermodynamics, your arguments concerning information have no bearing here or anywhere.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #383 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

dmz:



It's not about barring god. God isn't a concept that answers any questions. God has no use in the scientific method because it is a concept without any value as far as explaining things. Not only that, it's an exploration-killer; being a false answer.



It's a good thing we don't need to throw truisms at building self-replicating information storage and retrieval systems. RNA could take care of that; it is very simple chemically and is capable of duplicating, transmitting, and storing genetic information.



What do man-made languages have to do with evolution?



RNA is a possibility. There are many others.

Should we expect to have concrete answers to all these questions by now?



How is this "double or triple evolution"? A given thing can be successful in more than one context at any given time.

No it's not an "exploration killer" and it never has been. That's a boogie man, especially in the light the research is conducted with Dawkins' "apparent" design in mind.


Citing RNA is interesting, but that will probably just move the goalposts, and make thing an order of magnitude more complex than they are now. Something Darwinists probably don't need at the moment.


What man-made languages have to do with this is to analogically model what is happening with the genome. You have two things to contend with: the information, and the mechanics of preserving and transferring, and maintaining that information.

Unless the Essence of the mechanics is the Information, then you have two different entities to model/contend with. You have to model protein bindings in the context of not breaking the genome chemically, and you have to model the information gain in an orderly fashion -- where additions don't disrupt whatever syntactical structure exists.

You can't conflate the two, the code and the mechanics -- and that is being done out of convenience. But in any case "natural selection" comes well after the fact of both these things, the chemical additions, and the information gain. What needs to happen is for evolutionists to put their money where their mouths are, and start to develop models to show if this is possible, or at least countenance that fact that they have uncovered something which is beyond what Darwinism is able to address.

We should be able to see something by now -- the numbers that viruses and bacteria reproduce at should have been able to show information gain, not reshuffling information. If we can model a nuclear detonation, we should be able to brute force a solution to the path that the information gain took, if not the path that the mechanics followed.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #384 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

This is the best thing I've seen on the Evo/ID debate -- the fairest thing I've seen yet.

http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/sh...ligent-design/


http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/sh...n-mind-closed/

He's an idiot pushing the same talking points you push just in fewer words.
post #385 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

dmz,

you are still obsessed with information... which, if you understood the subject matter at all, isn't what you think it is. the entropic content of a system is related to it's information content, and this is the complete opposite of what you are using as information. In fact, the maintenance of a pristine genome for all time is highly unlikely due to the fact that it fails to qualify for reality under the second law of thermodynamics.

Unless you are willing to forgo ALL human knowledge including the ultimately established LAWS of thermodynamics, your arguments concerning information have no bearing here or anywhere.

You need a perfect genome to maintain in the first place.

The content and what holds it work on two different levels with two different sets of rules -- they are different entities. if you try to conflate the two -- saying that the universe's qualities naturally produce both the information and the what carries the content in unison -- you have stepped off the page with the religious and have begun to tout Determinism. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

It's one thing argue Determinism, and say "I don't know how this happened, it just did," but it's another thing to call that "Science" and press on dogmatically, trying to throw inadequate theories at problems where those theories have no application.


In any case, these things have yet to be modeled.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #386 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

MarcUK: I hear you -- but think about that univocal vs. equivocal take on what happened at Siani. We have to have something anthropological to explain the the Passover, etc., -- but when we reduce it to the phenomenal word, but still want the voice of God, that's a little screwy.




**Alert**


This is the best thing I've seen on the Evo/ID debate -- the fairest thing I've seen yet.

http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/sh...ligent-design/


http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/sh...n-mind-closed/

... a one sided argument is another, especially if that argument carries no weight in the realm of science, when that argument is about the science.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #387 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Endlessly relying on reshuffling alleles and existing information is tired, and ultimately no solution at all.

Your own words are insufficient, please provide a link that either supports or rejects your words.

Otherwise your words are meaningless.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #388 of 424
Spread it on the lawn, franksargent.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #389 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

You need a perfect genome to maintain in the first place.

The content and what holds it work on two different levels with two different sets of rules -- they are different entities. if you try to conflate the two -- saying that the universe's qualities naturally produce both the information and the what carries the content in unison -- you have stepped off the page with the religious and have begun to tout Determinism. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

It's one thing argue Determinism, and say "I don't know how this happened, it just did," but it's another thing to call that "Science" and press on dogmatically, trying to throw inadequate theories at problems where those theories have no application.


In any case, these things have yet to be modeled.

Is the creation of galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets also a violation of the the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

From chaos comes order.

[CENTER]
Quote:
Another objection is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which states that "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium". In other words, an ideal isolated system's entropy (a measure of the dispersal of energy in a physical system so that it is not available to do mechanical work) will tend to increase or stay the same, not decrease. Creationists argue that evolution violates this physical law by requiring a decrease in entropy, or disorder, over time.

However, this claim ignores the fact that this law applies only to isolated systems. Organisms, in contrast, are open systems, as all organisms exchange energy and matter with their environment, and similarly the Earth receives energy from the Sun and emits energy back into space. Simple calculations show that the Sun-Earth-space system does not violate the second law, because the enormous increase in entropy due to the Sun and Earth radiating into space dwarfs the small decrease in entropy caused by the evolution of self-organizing life.

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #390 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

You need a perfect genome to maintain in the first place.

no, the point wasn't that the genome is perfect... you are just being intentionally obtuse.

Quote:
The content and what holds it work on two different levels with two different sets of rules -- they are different entities.

actually no, they aren't. the rules are fundamentally the same, they have to obey physical laws, the conservation of energy and all that. They are fundamentally the same, when your information system IS your content as it is in the DNA-RNA-Protein central DOGMA, you cannot separate the content from that which holds it. No information system can last that way. Even the data on the spinning platters in your hard drive is meaningless without those platters. Your perceived notion of the information stored is another issue, and one which is so irrelevant that right now I am laughing at you.

Quote:
if you try to conflate the two -- saying that the universe's qualities naturally produce both the information and the what carries the content in unison -- you have stepped off the page with the religious and have begun to tout Determinism.

First of all, you don't know the difference between a scientist saying a system is deterministic and Determinism. Secondly, you are using very very very poor logic here. Determinism, itself, makes no claims as to the production of information and the system for carrying it. All Determinism suggests is that to varying degrees the chain of events leading to an occurrence are causal. What that has to do with the price of beans is beyond me. As far as scientist go, evolution is deterministic only in the sense that the (mutational/selection) events leading to an organism are causally related to the final entity. At the same time, it isn't deterministic in that there isn't only ONE path to any individual entity.

You are off in some sort of irrelevant thought experiment again, dmz... none of us has full knowledge of the information content of a working cell, people are certainly trying and discovering more and more that perceptions like your own have no operative faculty in describing an organism. Indeed, they are finding that even in clonal populations of bacteria, for instance, levels of protein expression are path dependent -- meaning, while the phenotype is related to the genotype (in the sense that the genotype describes the limits of the system), individual paths, like the proportion of two different proteins in the halves of a dividing cell can produce wild (chaotic determinism) changes in phenotype...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #391 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

You can't conflate the two, the code and the mechanics -- and that is being done out of convenience. But in any case "natural selection" comes well after the fact of both these things, the chemical additions, and the information gain. What needs to happen is for evolutionists to put their money where their mouths are, and start to develop models to show if this is possible, or at least countenance that fact that they have uncovered something which is beyond what Darwinism is able to address.

Yeah, like discretizing the universe at or below the Planck constant and integrating a system of probabilistic-deterministic-chaotic PDE's, when the Standard Model itself isn't "perfect."

Hey dmz, I just pulled a rabbit out of a hat, satisfied now that evolution is a scientific fact?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #392 of 424
Thread Starter 
dmz:

Quote:
No it's not an "exploration killer" and it never has been. That's a boogie man, especially in the light the research is conducted with Dawkins' "apparent" design in mind.

It's an exploration killer in two senses: (1) when religious people literally stop people from asking questions, which has undeniable historical precedent and (2) when belief in a god satisfies a person's curiosity.

Dawkins is only remarkable as a thinker because he is unsatisfied with god as an answer. Religious people will even acknowledge the value of uncertainty.

Quote:
Citing RNA is interesting, but that will probably just move the goalposts, and make thing an order of magnitude more complex than they are now.

What is "interesting" about it. You haven't shown a shred of actual knowledge on this issue, much less the ability to dismiss a theory as merely "interesting".

And how would the gradual move from simple compounds to DNA being fleshed out by sound theories make things more complicated? There is an obvious link between RNA and DNA today. This isn't something we have to twist around, it's something that's in front of our eyes and inside of our bodies right now.

Quote:
What man-made languages have to do with this is to analogically model what is happening with the genome. You have two things to contend with: the information, and the mechanics of preserving and transferring, and maintaining that information.

And we can contend with that. There are myriad theories regarding precellular life. RNA world theory is just one of them. RNA can act as a gene and as an enzyme. Process, transmission, and storage are all done within RNA. RNA is self-replication, so through mutation and recombination they evolve. Amino acids bind with the RNA and this creates proteins, and from then on it's a cakewalk.

The issue here is that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Making me look like an expert is quite a feat, but you handle it with aplomb.

Quote:
Unless the Essence of the mechanics is the Information, then you have two different entities to model/contend with. You have to model protein bindings in the context of not breaking the genome chemically, and you have to model the information gain in an orderly fashion -- where additions don't disrupt whatever syntactical structure exists.

Why can't we disrupt the structure? That's what evolution is, that's the entire point of natural selection. You're building some thoroughly asinine "irreducible complexity" argument that assumes a beginning point, an end point, and a linear progression between. If mutation and recombination are unsuccessful 1 trillion times it doesn't matter so long as the mutation and/or recombination improves survivability/reproduction a single time. Success is allowed to be rare.

Quote:
You can't conflate the two, the code and the mechanics -- and that is being done out of convenience.

What is the difference? The code is physical. Do you think nucleic acids are immaterial? Do you not think they have a physical structure that interacts with other physical structures? Just because something is microscopic does not mean it lacks mass.

Even digital code inside a computer is a matter of physical/chemical/electrical reality.

Quote:
But in any case "natural selection" comes well after the fact of both these things, the chemical additions, and the information gain. What needs to happen is for evolutionists to put their money where their mouths are, and start to develop models to show if this is possible, or at least countenance that fact that they have uncovered something which is beyond what Darwinism is able to address.

To know that Darwinism is unable to address something you have to understand Darwinism and that which is being addressed. You understand neither. It's like me saying a rocket can't hit a target if I know nothing about the rocket and nothing about the target.

Quote:
We should be able to see something by now -- the numbers that viruses and bacteria reproduce at should have been able to show information gain, not reshuffling information. If we can model a nuclear detonation, we should be able to brute force a solution to the path that the information gain took, if not the path that the mechanics followed.

We see evolution happen all the time. Every year we scramble to deal with the evolving influenza virus.

This "information gain" crap is hilarious, as if the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to evolution. Let me give you a picture hint as to why we don't have to rely on simple recombination of existing structures.




If you would like for me to explain this I would be happy to.

Quote:
You need a perfect genome to maintain in the first place.

What the fuck is a "perfect genome"?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #393 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Spread it on the lawn, franksargent.

... because your lawn is already full of it!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #394 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

This "information gain" crap is hilarious, as if the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to evolution. Let me give you a picture hint as to why we don't have to rely on simple recombination of existing structures.

Hey... the 2nd law does apply... it's just that people don't understand that the information content is the seeming randomness (entropy) of the system as opposed to the actual gene...

think about it this way... evaluate the 'information' content of a population of cells evolving at a single locus, each taking it's own path... the information increases (that is the number of different mutants/phenotypes), yes? that is the second law of thermodynamics in action...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #395 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

no, the point wasn't that the genome is perfect... you are just being intentionally obtuse.



actually no, they aren't. the rules are fundamentally the same, they have to obey physical laws, the conservation of energy and all that. They are fundamentally the same, when your information system IS your content as it is in the DNA-RNA-Protein central DOGMA, you cannot separate the content from that which holds it. No information system can last that way. Even the data on the spinning platters in your hard drive is meaningless without those platters. Your perceived notion of the information stored is another issue, and one which is so irrelevant that right now I am laughing at you.



First of all, you don't know the difference between a scientist saying a system is deterministic and Determinism. Secondly, you are using very very very poor logic here. Determinism, itself, makes no claims as to the production of information and the system for carrying it. All Determinism suggests is that to varying degrees the chain of events leading to an occurrence are causal. What that has to do with the price of beans is beyond me. As far as scientist go, evolution is deterministic only in the sense that the (mutational/selection) events leading to an organism are causally related to the final entity. At the same time, it isn't deterministic in that there isn't only ONE path to any individual entity.

You are off in some sort of irrelevant thought experiment again, dmz... none of us has full knowledge of the information content of a working cell, people are certainly trying and discovering more and more that perceptions like your own have no operative faculty in describing an organism. Indeed, they are finding that even in clonal populations of bacteria, for instance, levels of protein expression are path dependent -- meaning, while the phenotype is related to the genotype (in the sense that the genotype describes the limits of the system), individual paths, like the proportion of two different proteins in the halves of a dividing cell can produce wild (chaotic determinism) changes in phenotype...

Determinism is being used, but not acknowledged -- to the exclusion of other philosophies. Exclusion being "reduced to the status of knitting."

As to the information being part of the structure that carries it -- you've made the information an Essential property of the chemicals. We don't see this anywhere else. Information can't be reduced to any quality of the memory chip, the silicone literally has nothing to do with the information. You could know the exact placement of all the atoms in a Xeon processor at any given moment, but that wouldn't tell you a thing about what instructions were being pushed.

So for anyone to even implicitly conflate the two -- there's a whole lot of Determinism goin' on. Why not cop to the philosophical position and be done with it?

Maybe Buddhism would be more to your taste?






Edit: groverat: I think we have argued as far as we can go -- you need information gain to build 3-D structures, you certainly need information gains to have different 3-D structures interoperate. The 2nd law is just going to tear things up, Parmenides, notwithstanding.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #396 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Determinism is being used, but not acknowledged -- to the exclusion of other philosophies. Exclusion being "reduced to the status of knitting."

As to the information being part of the structure that carries it -- you've made the information an Essential property of the chemicals. We don't see this anywhere else. Information can't be reduced to any quality of the memory chip, the silicone literally has nothing to do with the information. You could know the exact placement of all the atoms in a Xeon processor at any given moment, but that wouldn't tell you a thing about what instructions were being pushed.

So for anyone to even implicitly conflate the two -- there's a whole lot of Determinism goin' on. Why not cop to the philosophical position and be done with it?

Maybe Buddhism would be more to your taste?

You clearly do not understand deterministic and probabilistic systems, they are not separate and/or exclusive.

The problem is one of scale.

Now I'm being obtuse since I know what the essential paradox is to begin with.

And you don't, and apparently never will.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #397 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

As to the information being part of the structure that carries it -- you've made the information an Essential property of the chemicals. We don't see this anywhere else. Information can't be reduced to any quality of the memory chip, the silicone literally has nothing to do with the information. You could know the exact placement of all the atoms in a Xeon processor at any given moment, but that wouldn't tell you a thing about what instructions were being pushed.

Hahahahahaahahahaahahahahhahaaaa!



You believe that god is in your Xeon processor?


Heh...

Oh, and btw, you are wrong... if you know the relevant details of the processor you could figure out exactly what it was doing...

Information is stored in the chemicals, it is changed through chemical changes, but that the chemicals have the property of informational storage is only relevant when you realize that other sets of chemicals don't. it is a property that arises SPONTANEOUSLY...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #398 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Determinism is being used, but not acknowledged -- to the exclusion of other philosophies. Exclusion being "reduced to the status of knitting."

As to the information being part of the structure that carries it -- you've made the information an Essential property of the chemicals. We don't see this anywhere else. Information can't be reduced to any quality of the memory chip, the silicone literally has nothing to do with the information. You could know the exact placement of all the atoms in a Xeon processor at any given moment, but that wouldn't tell you a thing about what instructions were being pushed.

So for anyone to even implicitly conflate the two -- there's a whole lot of Determinism goin' on. Why not cop to the philosophical position and be done with it?

Maybe Buddhism would be more to your taste?

Edit: groverat: I think we have argued as far as we can go -- you need information gain to build 3-D structures, you certainly need information gains to have different 3-D structures interoperate. The 2nd law is just going to tear things up, Parmenides, notwithstanding.

Information gain in a closed or open system? BTW it's a trick question.

It is now quite clear that you don't know what your talking about, thus the obtuse and dodgy language.

As you "out" yourself as to what you think you know about the scientific fact of evolution.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #399 of 424
dmz do you think evolution denies god?

If so why?

It does no such thing.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #400 of 424
Thread Starter 
dmz has too many dance partners, so I'll ignore his sophistry so long as it is being dealt with otherwise. It is not as if he answers straight questions anyway, having already lied through his teeth already about participating in information theory discussions at Pharyngula as an attempt to duck questions.

Quote:
As to the information being part of the structure that carries it -- you've made the information an Essential property of the chemicals. We don't see this anywhere else.

You see that everywhere information exists. If we could slow the workings of the brain to the appropriate levels and read the chemical and electric reactions within it we could read thoughts. The same is true of processors.

All information has a physical representation somewhere, even if it is microscopic.

Quote:
You could know the exact placement of all the atoms in a Xeon processor at any given moment, but that wouldn't tell you a thing about what instructions were being pushed.

Yes, it would. Otherwise, computers wouldn't work. They are a self-contained information unit that require a certain level of physical consistency. If you drill holes in your hard drive or urinate on the transistors of your processor while it's running the information is lost. Even a child understands this.

Quote:
I think we have argued as far as we can go -- you need information gain to build 3-D structures, you certainly need information gains to have different 3-D structures interoperate. The 2nd law is just going to tear things up, Parmenides, notwithstanding.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. Organic functions are not closed systems.

Again, the sun and radiation. Those are two sources of tremendous energy and force that act on organic molecules every nanosecond.

You have argued as far as you can, perhaps, because your ignorance is as profound as your desire to deny that you are ignorant on this subject.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie