Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
So what cult do you belong to?
Is name calling a virtue in your cult? Would your cult leader be proud of you?the exposure I’ve had to your posts indicate to me you could belong to a cult and not know it.
which is how you got outted in first place, confucius.
That's quite bold to come in here trolling right off the streets
Are you back to your reading incomprehension position again?
What’s pretentious is clinging to the godless liberal NEA position
No and being disingenuous, as you have been from day one
I could just as easily point out your projections early on
So that you would no doubt have a way to squirm out of your embarassments.
Well, how could you when all of them are seen as threats to your cult?
No, the truth is your “arguments” pretty much are projections from the outset
And I told you that was a pitiful comeback...do you not understand it was a pitiful comeback, or what?
take your statement and look in the mirror replace “YOU” with...
This is always going to be the implication in the mind of any evo-cultist!
but you HAVE been duped by the cult of evolution!
Great cultist answer.
Would that be the theory or the cult?
but you’re apparently too obtuse to recognize it.
Again, YOU pretending like you’re some authority on objectivity is frankly quite laughable!
No that's your strawman.
But as we all know when it comes to the cult of evolution there are these bizarre exceptions and things are made up as you go along!
like the cult of evolution requires?
Godlessness.
too many people are handling the theory like a cult.
My hope is that people are intelligent enough to recognize a cult be it religiously or scientifically.
Lol- you started a thread just for me? I’m honored lol- J/K will read through it some later
[[Life goes on, so there must be some kind of feedback system that insures at least some things are able to keep it going. Considering entropy and all.]]
Can’t argue with that- however, as I mentioned above, I think it’s a minor system within the major regulatory system which must have been inplace to begin with
If DNA degrades over many replications, there must be some kind of feedback mechanism that keeps life itself from extinction. You’d think the designer would have provided some mechanism to compensate for copy errors.
Boelsche was Ernst Haeckel's disciple. He helped Haeckel found the Monistenbund. Germans learned evolution from Haeckel and Boelsche. Hitler probably read Boelsche too. Is he qualified to speak on evolution? He's about as qualified as any number of other charlatan evolutionists, like Haeckel, Sir Arthur Keith, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, Karl Pearson, Francis Galton, Herbert Spencer, Thomas Huxley, John Baker, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Charles Davenport, Eugen Fischer, Samuel Holmes, Edwin Conklin, and Richard Dawkins. Which is to say, in good company of the qualified.
Anti-truth = anti-science.
It should be noted that the same thing has occurred on the evo side. I hardly ever venture into crevo threads, yet I've been told numerous times that "evolution doesn't address the origins of life."
Yeah. Tell that to Carl Sagan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l82vN_x3Pg
Yes, this claim is too funny. I mean, a famous evolutionist named Henry Fairfield Osborn even wrote a book about abiogenesis and goo-to-you evolution. Paul Erhlich's evolution textbook begins with abiogenesis. And then there's the classic evolutionary abiogenesis fable foisted on the public: Huxley's and Haeckel's Bathybius.
"Bathybius... is a vast sheet of living matter enveloping the whole earth beneath the seas." -- Huxley
Win Ben Stein's mind, by Roger Ebert
You're still lying about what I post, and playing silly word games. Do you think that advances your cause any?
This is the definition that I post, showing your deliberate misrepresentation.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. SourceFor the lurkers, the source is a CalTech physics website so this definition is not exactly fringe material.
But ECO insists on misrepresenting this definition--lying actually--to make it into the opposite of what it really says.
Guess that's the only argument he has against science: lies and distortions.
Thanks for making my point.
Everytime your cult is challenged, you’re the ones name-calling with tired failed debunked garbage like “Inquisition”, “burnings at the stake”, “anti-science”, “religious attacks on science”, “theocracy” and so on, ad infinatum...thread after thread after thread.
The very definition of a cult, for all to see. What you posted was just observations of your cult. Because very little if any actual science is offered in rebuttal to critiques of your cult. It’s the same old tired failed arguments.
I suggest if you don’t like seeing your own behaviors then I would recommend either a cult deprogramming or simply stop!
LOL...that’s pretty funny coyoteman. Roger Ebert...who knows next to nothing about movies and now is an expert on science!
TWO THUMBS UP!
LOL
By the way, my last 50 posts also included this...now I wonder why it is you would leave this out:
But speaking of evidence:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
****************************************************
OKAY js....I really didn’t wonder why you left that out...and obviously the vast majority, it appears, don’t wonder why you dishonestly left that out either!
Excellently put CottShop!
Others have tried to argue this metainfo, or CSI came from nature, flowed from nature to the species, but they know the weakness of their hypothesis, an have had extreme difficulty explaining how nature could have caused such complex metainfo in the first place, let alone, flowed to species in a stepwise manner while the species waited around in apparent static suspension in it’s incompleteness. Naturalist need to explain how CSI, or metainfo caused a ‘one fell swoop’ flow of metainfo from nature into a species, because it is clear that species need all 5 points of hierarchy inplace and functioning in synchronized harmony in order to survive.
Yes, naturalists will need to do that. But the problem is, there is no know source or origin of information within the natural world. So they've got their work cut out for them.
I'm continuing to think about these problems, too, CottShop. It looks to me like Williams' model is a very good one, indeed. We need to remember that it refers to the minimal requirements for a biological organism to exist, not to the evolution of species.
I left it out because none of includes any contribution to the discussion of science. Your personal comments contribute nothing but name calling.
And why should anyone care about the majority opinion of people not trained in science? Science isn't democratic.
A file cabinet might be a metaphor for Cottshop's point.
Whether or not each sheet of paper is readable, no matter how big a file cabinet gets, it is worthless just sitting there. It must be used.
When speaking of information theory and molecular biology, many of our correspondents think it is all about the message, in this case the DNA.
But information theory is not about the message, it's about the communication of the message. The elements are always message, sender, encoder, channel, noise, decoder, receiver.
The message (e.g. DNA, RNA) by itself accomplishes nothing. It just sits there like a sheet of paper in the unused file cabinet.
And it does no good to write a memo in Spanish if the recipient only reads German. Both the sender and the receiver must speak the same language. Indeed, information requires there be a language (semiosis.)
And it does no good to send a letter to the wrong address. Likewise, if a person received all messages from anyone any where in the world all at once, he would be overwhelmed. There must be a channel (autonomy.)
The origin of information theory is Shannon's Mathematical Theory of Communications.
Like Shannon's theory, Williams' argument doesn't narrow in on a single unexplained complexity but rather on the entire structure which must be in place in a living organism.
Wow. What an outstanding observation, dearest sister in Christ! The file cabinet analogy is spot-on.
I've been meditating the IC/AP model, and am about to draw a picture! LOLOL! Maybe I'll even post it in due course. On the basis of your observation, levels (iv) and (v) need further scrutiny....
Just a question. CottShop recently gave an example of why metainformation can't be the simple sum of information pertaining to any lower level of the hierarchy. He wrote:
...it would be unreasonable to think that piling info on info could result in an evolving synchronized metainfo system, much the same way that adding digital info to a system of established digital info couldn’t add to the controlling metainfo already established unless the metainfo were already predesigned to accommodate this new info in the first place....I think the "piling up" assumption is "unreasonable," too. Here's my question: Under CottShop's scenario, would it be incorrect to say that the "additive" digital information would be simply "noise" at the level at which it was introduced, it lacking a metainfo in place at that level (e.g., a program)?
Thank you ever so much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
No, you left it out because you’re a cultist.
Science isn’t democratic? Ummm how it’s taught in this country it most certainly is so...or so it should be.
And when it’s not people CLEARLY just abandon the system.
As far as I understand it, if a person is trained in science, then they participate in the process...but like a cult the evo-fascists pretend that they and they alone own ALL the keys to science, suing, threatening, etc. those that disagree.
Here’s a last clue, the people “own” science just as much as the scientists. If scientists are abusing science they’ll be called out on it. And yes this includes your side too.
Or at least that’s how it should be...besides, one of your cohorts argued science “is owned” by science “consumers”.
[[I think the “piling up” assumption is “unreasonable,” too. Here’s my question: Under CottShop’s scenario, would it be incorrect to say that the “additive” digital information would be simply “noise” at the level at which it was introduced, it lacking a metainfo in place at that level (e.g., a program)?]]
Noise with a modicum of reasults I would htink- it’s possible I suppose that info added could accidently affect an organism, either for a bit of good, or ill, but woudl be worthless really without some metainfo controlling and directing and making sure it all meshes with everythign else. When you start introducing info into compelx systems, you NEED to make sure it meshes not just where it’s inserted, but in every level htroughout the whole systems, otherwise oyu’re just goign to create chaos in the end. As well, there would be a tremendous amount of severely negative efects until nature ‘got it right’ IF metainfo were to be a natural accumulation of lower infos over time.
Think about it like a person completely computer illiterate, trying to muck with the code of a highly complex system- by some minor miracle, they MIGHT get one hting right (but htey wouldn’t know how they did it), but the mass majority of alterations via the blind mucking of hte code by the innexperienced person would be very detrimental to the computer program-
No, I’m quite confident metainfo is an absolute necessity BEFORE any lower info could function properly in the greater picture of hte whole system
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.