Creationist argument about DNA and information

[steenkh]

Have you ever called one of the Customer Service lines in Bangalore and after a few minutes you realise that the guy on the other end of the phone has no actual knowledge of the topic you are discussing but is simply reading a script that has been prepared in advance by someone who knew just a bit more than him but he has to pretend that he is an expert?

I get the same feeling when I read this thread.

When his quotes are demolished, he never acknowledges it. Not once is he saying that he is sorry. Those who prepared his script probably never thought somebody would check the quotes.

 

[Rincewind]

Indeed. Daniel said somewhere in one of his two threads (sorry, but I really don't want to have to trawl though all of them again) that he was trying to lead people to Jesus.
If the character traits he is displaying are indicative of what kind of person you become if you accept his faith, then he has done an excellent job of dissuading me from ever contemplating such a move.
This is my assessment of Daniel, based on his posting style and content, and it is not pretty reading: He is arrogant, confrontational, scornful, dismissive of disagreement, dishonest and ignorant (or at least wilfully uneducated).
To add to this, I'm fairly sure Jesus said something about blessed peacemakers, and the meek inheriting the earth.
Daniel: was Jesus wrong to say this? If not, can you reconcile your behaviour with the teachings of your master?

Exactly what I was thinking.

His way is a great way to make friends and influence people

Maybe he's working for the Devil - doing his best to ensure that nobody believes in JC, etc?

 

[turingtest]

Indeed. Daniel said somewhere in one of his two threads (sorry, but I really don't want to have to trawl though all of them again) that he was trying to lead people to Jesus.
If the character traits he is displaying are indicative of what kind of person you become if you accept his faith, then he has done an excellent job of dissuading me from ever contemplating such a move.
This is my assessment of Daniel, based on his posting style and content, and it is not pretty reading: He is arrogant, confrontational, scornful, dismissive of disagreement, dishonest and ignorant (or at least wilfully uneducated).
To add to this, I'm fairly sure Jesus said something about blessed peacemakers, and the meek inheriting the earth.
Daniel: was Jesus wrong to say this? If not, can you reconcile your behaviour with the teachings of your master?

I think Daniel picked this subject because the TOE offends his Christian sensibilities- he needs to validate what he believes. Why that should be, I don't know- any number of Christians (including my wife) have no problem with it; but maybe Daniel really is the only true Scotsman.

I think the childish tone is more down to offended ego- he needs to validate what he thinks he is, the smartest person in the room who can brook no disagreement (even from actual experts on the subject) with his conclusions.

(Shrug) "Holier than thou" mixed with "smarter than thou" makes a toxic combination.

 

[Daniel]

Good catch!

oh brother.

Did I miss any comma splices? You and your cohorts are so Absolutely Bankrupt... devoid of any substance based arguments, you frenetically search out and Stage 5 Cling to juvenile nonsensical minutia.

The really scary thing is, you then POST IT!!! Thanks

It's quite hilarious.


regards

 

[Daniel]

Indeed. Daniel said somewhere in one of his two threads (sorry, but I really don't want to have to trawl though all of them again) that he was trying to lead people to Jesus.
If the character traits he is displaying are indicative of what kind of person you become if you accept his faith, then he has done an excellent job of dissuading me from ever contemplating such a move.
This is my assessment of Daniel, based on his posting style and content, and it is not pretty reading: He is arrogant, confrontational, scornful, dismissive of disagreement, dishonest and ignorant (or at least wilfully uneducated).
To add to this, I'm fairly sure Jesus said something about blessed peacemakers, and the meek inheriting the earth.
Daniel: was Jesus wrong to say this? If not, can you reconcile your behaviour with the teachings of your master?

Thanks for the Color Commentary. We can add it to the ever growing pile...in the hundreds by now.
On a "SCIENCE" topic no less.

As mentioned, I'm not trying to persuade you or lead you anywhere...it's to EXPOSE YOU.

This thread is a shining testimony to that fact.


Any other Op-Ed's you wanna share?


regards

 

[Daniel]

When his quotes are demolished, he never acknowledges it. Not once is he saying that he is sorry. Those who prepared his script probably never thought somebody would check the quotes.

You and your cohorts are an embarrassment, I haven't found one that could pass 5th Grade General Science.

All you and you cohorts can do is post "WIKI" links ROTFLOL. And Carpet Bomb Baseless Assertion (Fallacies) with Op-Ed Color Commentaries. rinse/repeat, rinse/repeat ad nauseam.

Have you read through this Thread


oy vey

 

[Perpetual Student]

2nd law of thermodynamics
SIR: I am referring to the article entitled "Physical Chemistry," C&EN, June 2, page 20. Toward the end of that article is stated: "Another area where physical chemistry likely has important biological applications is the study of the properties of steady states far from equilibrium. These are stable systems that do not follow the second law of thermodynamics; instead they require a continual supply of energy from outside the system to maintain themselves." Please be advised that there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.

I recognize that it is very difficult to write an article on as broad a subject as physical chemistry in two pages, and ordinarily I would not bother to point out minor errors. However, there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
John Ross
Professor of Chemistry, Harvard University

RussDill
Note that once again, the person you are quoting is actually stating the exact opposite of your claim. He is stating that biological systems are not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics even though their entropy can decrease over time. He is also being overly pedantic. He's just saying that the second law, which is that "the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase" is always true.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Good catch!

oh brother.

Did I miss any comma splices? You and your cohorts are so Absolutely Bankrupt... devoid of any substance based arguments, you frenetically search out and Stage 5 Cling to juvenile nonsensical minutia.

The really scary thing is, you then POST IT!!! Thanks

It's quite hilarious.


regards

The fact of the matter is that you were discovered to mine a quote, take some of it out of context to make the author appear to be claiming the opposite of his actual statement. You should be ashamed and embarrassed instead of continuing your dishonesty and posturing.

 

[abaddon]

You and your cohorts are an embarrassment, I haven't found one that could pass 5th Grade General Science.

All you and you cohorts can do is post "WIKI" links ROTFLOL. And Carpet Bomb Baseless Assertion (Fallacies) with Op-Ed Color Commentaries. rinse/repeat, rinse/repeat ad nauseam.

Have you read through this Thread


oy vey

Wrong. Again.

For example, you have been linked multiple times to the entire 500+ page text of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". You simply didn't bother reading it.

 

[Daniel]

Lets get back on Topic shall we ??


I've been told better than 20 times in this thread, that " My " definition of "Information" is wrong.

LOL

How many have posted a Definition of Information so as to REFUTE in this THREAD???

ZERO !!! That's how many.

R-Ya-Kiddin me??

Perhaps if you are unable to post it, consider heading on over to: Philosophy, Baseless Assertion, Color Commentary Op-Ed, or Cake Decorating thread so as to ply your wares.


oy vey

 

[Perpetual Student]

Lets get back on Topic shall we ??


I've been told better than 20 times in this thread, that " My " definition of "Information" is wrong.

LOL

How many have posted a Definition of Information so as to REFUTE in this THREAD???

ZERO !!! That's how many.

R-Ya-Kiddin me??

Perhaps if you are unable to post it, consider heading on over to: Philosophy, Baseless Assertion, Color Commentary Op-Ed, or Cake Decorating thread so as to ply your wares.


oy vey

Begging for a semantic argument? I think most posters here are on to you.
The word "information" is not confined to the narrow anthropomorphic usage you hawk in a vain attempt to win debating points. Most people here are into the actual science, not semantic gamesmanship.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

You and your cohorts are an embarrassment, I haven't found one that could pass 5th Grade General Science.

All you and you cohorts can do is post "WIKI" links ROTFLOL. And Carpet Bomb Baseless Assertion (Fallacies) with Op-Ed Color Commentaries. rinse/repeat, rinse/repeat ad nauseam.

Have you read through this Thread


oy vey

You have posted nothing but personal definitions and creationist anti-science spam. Your insults, especially about understanding science, only serve to expose both your lack of knowledge and lack of a decent upbringing. Your parents must be proud (do they even know you're posing as a grown-up on the interwebz?).

You don't even realize that the folks here are just toying with you until someone with actual reasoning abilities comes along.

You are a misguided pawn in a political game. No more.

 

[abaddon]

Lets get back on Topic shall we ??


I've been told better than 20 times in this thread, that " My " definition of "Information" is wrong.

LOL

How many have posted a Definition of Information so as to REFUTE in this THREAD???

ZERO !!! That's how many.

R-Ya-Kiddin me??

Perhaps if you are unable to post it, consider heading on over to: Philosophy, Baseless Assertion, Color Commentary Op-Ed, or Cake Decorating thread so as to ply your wares.


oy vey

21. Your definition of "information" is wrong.

 

[rwguinn]

For someone who "can't pass a 5th grade general science test, we're doing pretty good guessing.
We have folks who have put satellites in orbit around faraway moving objects; who have designed and/or built some incredible buildings; who have put things together in new ways; developed computer code that can take you anywhere/anywhen, and as a side note, none of the satellites or airplanes I have been analyzing have come screaming out of the sky without cause, and the other vehicles I designed/analyzed have several million miles of non-failure operation...
Not bad for idiots, huh?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

For someone who "can't pass a 5th grade general science test, we're doing pretty good guessing.
We have folks who have put satellites in orbit around faraway moving objects; who have designed and/or built some incredible buildings; who have put things together in new ways; developed computer code that can take you anywhere/anywhen, and as a side note, none of the satellites or airplanes I have been analyzing have come screaming out of the sky without cause, and the other vehicles I designed/analyzed have several million miles of non-failure operation...
Not bad for idiots, huh?

Technology is not science!

Texas strawman of the golden middle fallacy!

You can't "develop" computer code, it's not film.

Develop:

a. To process (a photosensitive medium such as exposed film) in order to produce a photographic image.

b. To produce (a photographic image) by use of a photosensitive medium or by printing from a digital file.

A five year old can see that. I know cuz I are one. Skeptics are poopy heads.

 

[TheAdversary]

'How many have posted a Definition of Information so as to REFUTE in this THREAD???

ZERO !!! That's how many.

R-Ya-Kiddin me??'

Scroll back to my first post in this thread. It starts with Shannon Information Theory.

 

[marplots]

"Information" isn't an easy thing to get one's head around. Here are some of the nuances in the word: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information/

I don't think we'll get a reasonable definition out of Daniel, but one can hope.

 

[TheAdversary]

I personally love Shannon's definition, and that the concept of Entropy therein is exactly (Except for Bolzmann's constant, but that's just to make the units
work out.) the same as the definition from Physics. So Matrix-like, if you catch my drift ...

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Lets try this again then.
Where in bought nucleotide monomers is hidden the information to generate functional rybozimes when you string them together in a random sequence? And why is it only creationists that can access this information?
Having it would have saved me (and several colleagues at the time) at least 2-3 years of work when we had to fish out the correct ones from the mix.

 

[marplots]

I personally love Shannon's definition, and that the concept of Entropy therein is exactly (Except for Bolzmann's constant, but that's just to make the units
work out.) the same as the definition from Physics. So Matrix-like, if you catch my drift ...

The problem I have with Shannon is there's no "about-ness" about it. But my preferred version, a state change, also suffers from that too.

 

[Son of Inigo]

You and your cohorts are an embarrassment, I haven't found one that could pass 5th Grade General Science.

All you and you cohorts can do is post "WIKI" links ROTFLOL. And Carpet Bomb Baseless Assertion (Fallacies) with Op-Ed Color Commentaries. rinse/repeat, rinse/repeat ad nauseam.

Have you read through this Thread


oy vey

Oh Daniel, I did not post wiki links. I read the source material you were trying to quote mine. Let me say that again. I read the sources. And your mined quotes do not support your arguments when taking in context of the entire article or paper.

Everyone not named Daniel in this thread knows it. It is plain as day. You 'think' you are going to pull one over on us. You 'think' you are smarter than a real scientist, doing real science. But your quote mines are blowing up in your face, each and every one of them. And any rational person can see that.

And you never engage in any conversation about them, once they are exposed. You just run back to your Creationists source, grab a couple more, and hope we will not check those. Rinse and repeat.

You are trying to use us Daniel, to show how enlightened and smart you are. You said up thread that you are wanting to lead people to Jesus. Well, I must say, I am using you. Yup, you are being used Daniel. Used to expose the absolutely mind numbing stupidity that is Creation 'science'. I am using you, and your inane arguments against science, to plant a seed in your fellow travelers. And plant seeds we have. Those seeds may grow someday, and cause fellow travelers to fall from grace. They may lose their salvation (or reject it, if they are like me) because of you Daniel. It will be your fault that they reject a biblical world view, and come to accept a rational science based world view. Our debunking of your arguments will be the starting point in their journey.

If you care for your eternal soul Daniel, I advise you to never ever show this site to any of your fellow travelers. Because, by the dictates of your religion, you will have to stand in front of god on judgement day and answer to your involvement in leading people astray.