he doesn't know the difference between data(meaninless - such as the number 18), information (has meaning - such as the fact that someone is over 18 years old)and knowledge(interpreted information- this 18-year old is now under different laws because of their age)...... knowledge is derived from information, this guy got confused between info and knowledge, and doesn't know that his "non-information" is actually data....
I know this is an older video,but I think I may know what the persons underlying point was(even thought they butchered info theory).Nomatter how we got here there was a state of non-existence,If nothing existed,what exactly would trigger this universe to come to be?The first answer isan outside source,that has no involvement inthe current nonexistence of this single universe(assuming there is a multiverse).Science fails tofind what this is and most people fill this in with a divine explanation.
Likely on the weighted die case with multiple outcomes it information of the higher probabilties have the lower informative gain. Again, this is due to the fact that "with a high probabilty" we can assume that that outcome will result. However, with a lower probabillity outcome will contain more information because it was unexpected. Its like saying David beating Goliath wasn't expected. However, the fact that he "did" "being unexpected" has brought us more insight. At least thats my opinion
The idea of information used in the equations stems in some sense of knowing something about the environment. The equations themselves do not delineate information vs. noninformation. They justify what the ideal reasonable informative gain is of a system. All systems have information but the equations try to answer the question "Is it useful information?" If a coin flip always comes up heads then that system has no usefulness since we already know the outcome. 50/50 coin we however get somthin
My dad gave me a good rule after you have read a page 3 times and it still makes no sense it probably is not worth the effort. It may have only been once. If you understand something it really is not that difficult to explain it. So if someone appears to be talking nonsense then you have to ask yourself what they are hiding. If you don't understand what JZ is saying sorry forget the rule you are just dumb.
I looked over In The Beginning Was Information Then based on what you said no; Is truth knowable? standing on an molecules to people worldview/atheism, what is truth? What seperates life from nonlife? How can we know anything? What is intelligence (An AI Example: data plus stored data) intellegence comes from intelligence ? Know you are loved! Jesus is the way truth, and life
@1FeetHands some truths can be known through investigation, but absolute certainty may not be possible. Reasonable certainty can be found though.
What separates life from nonlife you ask? well, what separates the Eiffel tower from the metal it's made of? Life IS non living matter, it's only the way it's arranged that is special. Life is a pattern of matter, an arrangement of matter. A very complicated way the non living particles of nature can get caught up in a self-replicating system of eddies
At first it seems to make sense to say that when you flick the coin the information come from your brain, your arm / hands, the coin, gravity and possibly a breeze in the air. But where does that information come from? The Earth? I think the ultimate, but rather vague answer is that the information comes from the universe. The information was there before and its parts simply came together.
I think by information they meant living. So how did raw non living matter form or gain information by organizing in a way to acquire a living state. Information (in there point of view) is something living organisms have that separates it from non living.
@1FeetHands Would you call light from the sun information? People don't normally think of the sun as intelligent, although it does have a complex dynamic. But sunlight is meaningful to us because we can measure it and it gives us heat and of course light. If you think about it then you might agree that there is a very fine line between intelligence and complex dynamics.
The laws of our universe only exist within our universe. Big Bang was probably a singularity with no such laws. If conditions were slightly different, so would our laws. How information works in our universe has nothing to do with its creation or how it was created. It is like disproving man created Myth Religions & concluding there is no Creator.
The kid is technically correct in that total information of the universe cannot increase. This is due to the "unitarity" condition of quantum field theory. However, this information includes all of the eigenstates of EVERY particle in the universe. Hence, though the total information of the entire freaking universe (or any other closed system for that matter) can't increase, there's plenty of room for information to be "transferred" from one system to another.
@unhealthytruthseeker I don't claim to fully understand what you were talking about. but if the total information content of DNA increases, doesn't that mean that the total information content of the universe also increased?
@TpendragonT To have more information, the DNA must be longer, it must have more base pairs. This requires that somewhere else has fewer particles, and thus fewer possible configurations.
Assuming they weren't just trolling it sounds like a classic class of Fourth Quartile Thinking ie someone who is too dumb to even realise how dumb they are.
.cont: so, if the wind blows they assert that they KNOW a powerful (but invisible) being is causing the air to move. That's really just an imaginative expression of their ignorance, which they paper over with "logic" (I can offer a totally logical argument that invisible entities cause winds--as long as I'm allowed to be ignorant of modern science). One of these days I'm going to get around to making a vid about that kind of cognitive failing :)
Still, in a way, I AGREE with supernaturalists. All they're really saying (even if they don't realize it) is that there are things we don't know that are required to explain reality as it is now (and no scientist would disagree with that), and therefore, those things are (in a vague and loosely defined way) "super" natural.
Their crime is not believing in the supernatural, but in claiming to KNOW about it's workings--when actually they're only describing the details of their ignorance. more
"Did the creator have a creatior or is he just a non-creation creator who's not a created creation?" x1000 and swap the world "creation" with "informaiton and intelligence".
nice glasses fag. they loook like my brown eye aka my cornhole. there for i present to you " where the FUCK do you get off thinking you can make these worthless dick sucking video" i would love a response in return. another question that i thought of when typing this was how gayer could you get ???? and two part question. eli manning sucks balls and go fuck your self. thanks for your coroperation have a shitty day :)
its called Abiogenesis or biopoesis or Primordial soup. theoretically fatty acids formed abiotically around geysers. We know fatty acids can self-assemble into lipid bilayers completely by themselves, without any information or energy needed. an RNA-like polymer made its way inside the lipid vesicles. this polymer had two properties: it was able to copy itself (acting like an enzyme) and also the ability to store the information necessary for its own synthesis. spawning evolution
oh shit... here we go with the classical music, well at least we dont have to see all that hair over his eyes anymore because that was fucking ridiculous. anyways to make along story short we evolved from simple organisms through natural selection and surval of the fittest through successive generations over millions of years.
CONTINUED: It's landing will not consistently give 1 bit of information, as would be suggested by the supposition that the number of possibilities defines the amount of information gained. You would gain either ~4.3 bits of info, if it landed on it's flat base, or ~.074 bits of information, if it landed on it's side.
Of course, you already admitted you don't know too much about this yet, so it's 'kay really. Thanks for informing other people too. ^_^
My only issue with what you said is pretty nit-picky. It's not the number of possibilities that defines the amount of information gained unless the possibilities are all of equal probability. That is, the probability defines the information gained. Say you toss a chess pawn, or a bullet, or something else with radial symmetry normal to a single flat base into the air, and just say we know it has a 5% chance of landing on it's flat base, and a 95% chance of not doing so.
@GameStar1300 Look up "fair coin" on Wikipedia. We're using one of those. It's the same as if we ignore it whenever the coin lands ambiguously and flip it again, recording that result as though it were the first.
If you know the probability of a coin landing on it's side though, you can measure the information gained by flipping it a little differently I suppose.
your opponents probably gave bad examples and showed lack of understanding of information theory. but you are guilty of the same (towards the end of the video).
but the crux is: if the universe really came from nothing (nothing "before" the "Big Bang"), then special pleading of an Intelligent Designer is not unreasonable. but if the universe (or just the Laws of Physics) existed all the while, or is self-existent, then the universe itself can replace "Intelligent Designer".
@Heissenburger although if there are millions or even trillions of pre-big bang universes still in existence (just outside our field of understanding) that could mean that everything we know is just random chance
the only reason things are so ideal for life where it exists is because it wouldn't survive elsewhere so it must be in these 'randomly' generated 'perfect' environments
As a mathematician, I'd say you demonstrated the acquisition of information very well.
The person with whom you were debating has swallowed a "Kent Hovind"ish presentation. Not a single one of the dozen such presentations has any validity or grounding. Each time these presentations are bound in emotion, baseless faith, and out-andout wrong interpretation of the basics.
Perhaps you're taking this a little too seriously.
I'm glad you are going to read the book I suggested, and I'm also glad you have subscribed to AronRa's channel. I promise you that if you approach both with an open mind you will reach the only logical conclusion. Evolution happens and is massively supported.
So, since you appear to be getting upset, perhaps I'll just leave you to your own ideas on reality. Good luck!
@SH1PIT - "If Astronauts find a space craft on Mars one day, would they assume it was not designed because they don't know who designed it?"
Since space craft (or mt, rushmore) have no known mechanism for self-assembling, we would assume it was designed. Since we know that natural organic molecules DO have known mechanisms for self-assembling, we know that they were not. We also know the mechanisms of evolution, but then, you don't accept that either it seems.
@SH1PIT "You need to actually refute my position for me to lose an argument, and thus far you've failed to do so"
I've refuted lots of your positions. That you don't want to accept it, is not my problem. It's not even my concern. Whether or not you agree is as important to me as whether or not a stoneage bushman in Africa believes diseases are caused by germs.
@SH1PIT - "My logic demands a first cause and it is this first cause that Christians would call God."
You can assert a first cause, no problem. The problem comes when you attach qualities to that first cause when you have absolutely no idea of knowing whether or not they are true. That's the difference. You've ascribed intelligence, and therefore purpose, to a first cause you know nothing about.
@SH1PIT - "I'm asking you by what law of science do you believe this would be the case?"
It's not a law of science. It's a law of SH1PIT.
What I am doing is applying your own logic against your own argument. Thus, proving both to be fatally flawed. Remember, YOU are the one that says a designer is necessary. Ok, I'm taking you at your word, now tell me, (since one is necessary), WHO designed the designer?
You've accepted nothing, because you are to grounded in a religous bias, ie. creationism. As I've said before, you will not be able to accept any evidence even though I've given you tons of it even in these tiny 500 character comment windows. You can't even accept the obvious logical flaw of your own argument, namely, who designed the designer?
@SH1PIT - "Yes, and we also know that dogs and wolves are the same species of animal"
So you DO believe that wolves can evolve into something like a weiner dog. Well, that's progress. What criteria did you use to accept this fact that Evolutionary science has given you? DNA? Because the exact same evidence links all life to one common progenitor.
@SH1PIT - "If the first cause was, in fact, the First cause, then the first cause , by definition, needs no cause and does not violate the Law of Causality."
So you are saying, once you assert ANY first cause, you are no longer obligated to prove it is true. Brilliant, this allows you to conjure any first cause that pops into your head and yet, never be bothered with explaining it. Could this be how gods are invented?
@SH1PIT - "self assembling amino acids are your Gods"
Science doesn't claim to know what it cannot prove. The proof for Evolution is clear and overwhelming. What you are talking about is Abiogenesis, which is a much younger science yet we are making steady progress. No thanks to the religous 'stone-age-thinkers' who have alway stood in the way of progress.
Watch /watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE for a quick primer on the science of Abiogenesis.
@SH1PIT "Galileo's helio-centric theories were dismissed"
Yes, they were dismissed, by the church.
I'm really beginning to question your education. You consistently get these facts wrong. Like how we found the origin of HIV for example.
Galileo was prosecuted by the church, he was put before the Inquisition, his books were banned, and he was imprisoned. Really SH1PIT, this is getting embarrassing for you.
@SH1PIT "Galileo was convicted of heresy and incarcerated"
Notice here how SH1PIT provides his own evidence at how wrong he was to suggest Galileo's fellow scientist were the ones who dismissed him. He has plainly read that the man was prosecuted by the church for his scientific findings. They tried to discredit Darwin too. Luckily their power was diminished by then. Still have a few people trying to stand in the way of real science though.....SH1PIT.
@SH1PIT - "Who says the a more complex designer needs an explanation? By what law do you make this assertion?"
You, SH1PIT, say the more complex designer needs an explanation. YOU say it. That is the flaw in your logic. Yet you can't even recognise it when it's held up right in front of your eyes, like I just did.
In the same way you can't reason away the obvious evolutionary explanation for modern chickens having teeth DNA. You're are blinded by your bias.
@SH1PIT - "How did life begin is actually simple when you realize that it was designed."
What you are doing here is just giving up. You're saying you don't really want to know or understand the natural world so you'll just stop here where you feel most comfortable.
And just to follow your twisted logic pretzel a little further. Are you suggesting that the designer you have in mind for all life including all it's supporting systems is the product of a LESS complex organism then we are?
@SH1PIT - " I have attached NO qualities to the first cause"
SH1PIT can't even get his own story straight. He believes in ID, or Intelligent Design. Yet he has the temerity to say he's attached NO qualities to the first cause. He even writes NO in capital letters. He seems incapable of realizing when he's put his foot in his mouth. INTELLIGENCE is a quality, isn't it? Design suggests PURPOSE, which is also a quality, isn't it.
@SH1PIT - "I've made no claim to who or what the designer is, nor have I made any claim of his/her/it's complexity."
You've lost the arguement either way. Again, you don't seem to be able to follow logic. If the designer is MORE complex, then it requires an even more complex designer. If the designer is LESS complex, then it too requires a designer which will again be LESS complex. Either way, your logic does not allow a beginning.
Verified does not mean a casual agreement on a bias. It means stating a claim and then showing it to be true with evidence. For example, DNA acquires new information through evolution. This isn't just a statement, it's been shown with solid evidence in the sources I've already given you.
You however can only ever produce people who simply share the same bias, without any evidence to support that bias.
@SH1PIT - "Actually, it was the scientific community that believed the Earth was flat."
No. In fact, the last president of the Flat Earth Society died in 2002. His basis of reasoning was exactly the same as yours, that is to say, personal bias masquerading as 'self-evident truth'.
Do you know who Samuel Rowbotham is? Have you read any of his debates? You'll notice that this Flat Earther argues exactly the same was as you do.
@SH1PIT - "Similarly, you can't prove logic is reliable via the scientific method"
What you are claiming as logic is actually just your own personal bias projected onto the natural world. As I said, your "logic" doesn't even pass the first hurdle. Who designed the designer?
That hurdle wasn't erected by me. You did that yourself remember. You begin by insisting a designer is required for complexity, yet you ignore your own criteria when forced to apply it to your own solution.
@SH1PIT - "The information in question is the information that came from rocks."
Why do you say "The information in question is the information that came from rocks."? What do rocks have to do with anything? In the study of abiogenesis we know that the building blocks of life were ORGANIC molecules. Do you realize that the universe is full of organic molecules? Google "Two Highly Complex Organic Molecules Detected In Space" and read the Science Daily article.
@SH1PIT "You can't get life without organic molecules and you can't get organic molecules without life."
So obviously SH1PIT hasn't read THAT source article I've given him either (yet another example of me backing up what I say while he just putters out his personal bias).
You CAN get organic molecules without life. The universe if full of organic molecules. Read the article, the IRAM telescope discovered organic molecules near "Sagittarius B2, close to the center of our galaxy".
Here, I found another one for you to consider SH1PIT.
Google "Astronomer To Search Space For Precursors Of Life" and read the Science Daily article so you understand that organic molecules are EVERYWHERE.
"...Many of the organic molecules that make up life on Earth have also been found in space. A University of Michigan astronomer ...to study these chemical compounds in new detail in the warm clouds of gas and dust around young stars."
@SH1PIT - "I've added him to my channel and I'll check him out sometime."
Great! I'm actually very happy to hear you say that. I'd suggest watching all of them in order. BTW - I do recall he gets quite angry when his parrot interupts his videos. Other than that, cool as a cucumber.
I'll warn you, it's going to make you angry at first. Fight through that and follow the logic. Remember what Gloria Steinem said..."the truth will set you free, but first it's going to piss you off".
I think it's clear to everyone reading along that I am not the one confused. And this isn't a debate, it's a schooling. If it were a debate you would actually be making counter arguments, but then ID never does have a counter argument. You really should read the trial transcripts for Dover and Arkansas. You just may (finally) realize how shallow an argument ID is. It doesn't even pass the first test, "who designed the designer?".
It's means it's been reviewed by experts in the field before it even gets published. It also means that once it IS published everyone else gets a chance to tear it apart, find holes in the arguments, expose flaws in the experiments, in other words prove it false. Science is a meritocracy.
This is why ID can't produce any science. They can't stand the heat of cross-examination. Unlike Darwin's Theory, which has stood the heat for 150 years....and counting.
@SH1PIT - "You point is irrelevant to the validity of ID."..."The legal system is a joke"
Actually, the legal system considers ID a joke. A complete joke. It's a religion masquerading as science. You realize that and ID "expert" (LOL) would have a chance to get his complete argument in a public record forever and ever. Yet they ALWAYS seem to run away when they get the chance. It's because they can't stand the cross examination.
Look. It's already quite clear that I'm far more informed on the topic of ID than you are yet you claim to be it's defender? Tell me. Have you read the trial transcripts of either the Arkansas case or the Dover case? Have you read the back and forth testimony between to two sides? Do you realise how embarrassing the case for ID is when they can't answer the simplist cross-examination? Oh wait...maybe you do.
@SH1PIT - BTW - I know you don't actually think that I am indoctrinated. It's just your defense mechanism to state it, because you can't actual produce any proof of anything you've been saying. Whereas I've been showing proof that everything you 've been saying is exactly wrong. You know of course, that everyone following along realized this long ago. They're wondering "why can't SH1PIT back up anything he says?".
@SH1PIT -"You education didn't teach you how to think for yourself"
So you, SH1PIT, are coming from an educational tradition (religious) where people thought the earth was flat, matter was made of earth/fire/air/water, that sky was a giant crystal dome and that the planet was resting on the shoulders of a giant man but you think I am the one who is indoctrinated?
@SH1PIT -"Wrong again. As I already told you, I don't have a religion. Unless you consider truth a religion."
Since you believe in an Intelligent Designer, you believe in God or Gods. Yet, you can't see the flaw in your own logic. You reject the obvious evidence for evolution because you say that 'complex' life on Earth needs a 'more complex' designer. But in your scenario, this 'more complex' designer ALSO needs an explanation.
@SH1PIT - (cont.) So what you have done is take a difficult question "how did life begin and how does it evolve" and you've made it even MORE difficult. Remember, you set the criteria at the begin. Your logic dictates that complexity requires explanation and the only solution you allow yourself to see is a 'more complex' designer. You haven't solved anything, you've just fooled yourself into avoiding the original question. Yet you claim to be logical?
@SH1PIT - "refuse to debate the greatest minds in the Intelligent Design movement"
Further on this "refuse to debate" business. Do you know enough about American creationist movement to know that whenever a significant trial comes up the "greatest minds" tend to flee the scene? During Dover, Dembski, Meyer and Cambell all left town just before they were to take the stand. Why?
@SH1PIT - Why indeed? They had a clear chance to lay out there case for the public record, take as much time as the needed, while being lead through their "evidence" by a lawyer for their own side. So why flee the scene with you tail tucked between your legs? Perhaps because they would also be cross-examined by the real experts? This is common in the ID world. Dean Kenyon did the same thing in the Arkansa trial. He bolted.
@SH1PIT - "You also are implying i need a degree to discuss this, which is absurd." Not a degree, just an ongoing education. That's not an insult, everyone needs an ongoing education, constant questioning, etc.. I feel you are one of those people that stopped questioning as soon as you found the answer you 'liked' best, not the answer that was most true.
@SH1PIT - "who ever presents the best evidence will win."
I'm not trying to "win" anything. You are not a prize to be sought after SH1PIT. I've said it multiple times, it makes no difference to me what you believe. It really doesn't. I'm a little worried for your children, but I can't do much about that.
@SH1PIT - "seems to have some anger management issues" - really? I've never seen him get angry. I've seen plenty of situations where he had the right to get angry, but he remains pretty cool headed.
"like you, resorts to belittlement and name calling" - I invite everyone to reread all our comments, in order, and judge who began with the belittlement and name calling. Try to find the first incident and the name that went with it.
@SH1PIT - "Is it a study or is it a paper on a few biased opinions of scientists that want to see a link between a chicken and a dinosaur. Hey, we have teeth, does that mean we are part dinosaur too?"
It's a scientific paper, published and review in scientific journals. It's also free to read online, complete with pictures. And no, we aren't part dinosaur and we don't have archosaurian teeth.
@SH1PIT - " ID is not Creationism".... ID is the latest term put forward by the Creationist movement. It's actually a legal strategy. The word "creationism" is the preferred term on your side, but it's not allowed in highschool textbooks because it is religious. Therefore, you tried to do an end run around the courts with the term Intelligent Design. LOL- Have you heard of the term "cdesign proponentsists". /watch?v=dqNH-Hnsfgg
@SH1PIT - " I ask for one book that explains your theory clearly and you give me a list of things to read and watch"..... so I give you 3 or 4 options and this is somehow a bad thing? Just pick one if reading multiple books is a problem for you.
@SH1PIT - "refuse to debate these so called stupid Creationists." In most cases you are correct, they are just stupid. In other cases they aren't stupid but seriously deluded. Would you want to debate Tom Cruise on the truth of Scientology? Would you debate an Islamic fundamentalist on the number of virgins he'll get in heaven or would you consider it a waste of your time.
@SH1PIT - "Also, how do you know the bird with teeth is 70m years old" So you don't believe in physics either. Are you in denial about all the sciences. We may as well clear that up right now.
@SH1PIT - "perhaps, there was a time where birds just had teeth to adapt to their environments"
Now ask yourself... why do modern chickens have the DNA to grow teeth? Why is there a connection between MODERN birds and the "perhaps there was a time where birds just had teeth" birds. Ask yourself honestly.
@SH1PIT - "Any claim of what happened in the past is completely unscientific and is pure conjecture." Good thing you're a computer programmer and not a cop. By your reasoning, when you come across a murder scene you couldn't arrest anyone unless you were actually there to witness the crime. I suppose you could always pray that you arrest the right person. I mean, no need for science in a situation like that.... right?
@SH1PIT - I haven't refused to explain my position properly, however you have already decided not to be educated. I knew this of course before I started. As I said, you would have to give up your cultural position (religion) in order to accept scientific truth. You can't do that so you will never allow yourself to be convinced. You are in the same trap that people were in during the dark ages of human history.
@SH1PIT - HIV has crossed species BTW. There are two species now, evolved over a very short time. In regards to species... we know that all modern dogs are decended from wolves. Do you accept that? or do you think poodles wondered out of a forest somewhere? Do you consider wolves and poodles to be different species?
@SH1PIT - Wrong, they didn't trace the CASES of AIDS. And once they were in Africa, they didn't interview the wild monkey population to ask them where they've been either. Wow, you're getting a little tedious SH1PIT. Please watch "Origin of HIV, or Where Does HIV Come From?" on youtube for a good explanation. /watch?v=UF3JGrt9Zvo
@SH1PIT - BTW - The faith healer didn't help Dembski's son, and he wasted all the money he paid him to pray on his behalf. For the people following along, I suggest watching the youtube video "There are No Theists in Hospital Waiting Rooms" to get an understanding of the real tragic impact religion has on sick children. Remember, the "logically minded" SH1PIT is a defender of this sort of practice.
@SH1PIT - Google "Birds with teeth turn the clock back 70m years" and read the Timesonline article. That's a good simple example. The reason birds still have the DNA code buried within them to create pointy sharp teeth is because they are decended from dinosaurs. The full study is called "The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant" and can be read online at the Cell(dot)com website.
@SH1PIT - You claim to be open to reason but I doubt that you really are. Creationist give very superficial explanations for all their claims and when you look into them you will find that every single one has been refuted repeatedly. BTW - I assume you do not believe that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. Correct? Can you explain why the DNA for growing dinosaur teeth is still present in chickens? (cont..)
@SH1PIT - "Rain and win erosion carving out faces in a mountain side would convince me that information can come from random chaos."
Search for Girnar Mountain on google. Then switch to the images tab, scroll down and find the ones showing the famous face. They are called mimetoliths and you will learn about them when you study geology. There are lots of examples on earth and other planets.
@SH1PIT - "This is not true. A horse, cow, or bird giving birth to something that's not a horse cow or bird would convince me that macro-evolution is true."
This shows that you do not have an understanding of evolution, since the Theory of Evolution tells us that this is impossible. You have presented yet another straw-man argument. There are no giant leaps but only gradual change.
@SH1PIT - Those sources for laymen. Once you've finished that you can start the real study at university in things like chemistry, biology, geology, etc.. All the natural sciences support evolution. As Dobzhansky said "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". BTW - "Nothing in..." is not just a quip, but an entire essay which is online. You should read that too.
@SH1PIT - "I'd offer you some material to look up as well, but I know you won't bother."..."At least I'm open minded enough to learn both sides of an argument, though."
I think it's clear to everyone that I know both sides of the argument much better than you do. You admitted that you haven't even read Dembski's No Free Lunch book, which is the holy grail of ID.
@SH1PIT - RE: Evolution; Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" is a very good book. It's written for creationists. Also, since you say you are a logical person you would appreciate AronRa on youtube. Though I'm sure you've heard of him already. I suggest you watch all of his videos and visit his website "locolobo". But first, start with Berkeley'S "Evolution 101" online course.
@SH1PIT - You're a computer programmer? Perhaps you should seek out and read Mark Chu-Carroll. He has a PhD in computer science, a google software engineer and is a good critic of Dembski. He's shown him to be wrong numerous times. Just flat out wrong on his interpretation of Information Theory.
@SH1PIT - "every Christian I know completely accepts the scientific fact of evolution. It's the theory of evolution that says we share a common ancestry with apes, avocados and apples that they have a problem with"
So you accept evolution, except when it shows how things evolve. Brilliant.
@SH1PIT - Perhaps you should begin by accepting that the people who DO have degreess in microbiology, high level mathematics, chemistry, geology, palentology, etc etc etc, actually know what they are talking about.
And I have no interest in 'converting' you. I'm not a missionary. Why would I want to spend time giving you an education in the basic natural sciences through a 500 character comment window. You won't accept it anyway, you've already decided not to.
@SH1PIT - Not sure what you're getting at here. All viruses evolve. Take HIV for example, there are now different strains in different parts of the world. BTW - How do you thing scientists know the origin of HIV is in Africa? Why,,, because the Theory of Evolution allowed them to construct a phylogenic tree (Darwin's invention) to prove it's lineage. Meanwhile, Dembski takes his son to faith healers. That's true BTW.
@SH1PIT - "Here you try to discredit Dembski rather than answer"
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't try to discredit Dembski, I DO discredit Dembski. And it isn't ad hominem to do that. If someone claims they are a brain surgeon and I show that they have never operated on a brain I am not attacking the man I'm attacking his claim. Ergo...you are wrong...again.
@SH1PIT - "Why don't you try quoting the part where they prove it was written in jello."
SH1PIT, you haven't read any of the things I've pointed you to have you. Or do you expect me to copy and past entire articles and papers into a 500 character comment window?
@SH1PIT - "Even Einsten realized that the existence of God was self evident."
You can believe in the existence of god, most people do. Most people who believe in evolution also believe in god. The difference here is you have been sold a bill of goods by a very small group of christians who say you cannot accept the evidence for evolution AND believe in god. This is a lie, just ask the pope.
@SH1PIT - Nothing I can give you will convince you of the scientific reality of our planet. You have decided in advance that you will believe in god or gods. This is a stone age mindset and not open to reason. It, of course, makes no difference to me what you believe.
@SH1PIT - I completely believe that you have never heard of the names I'm producing, yet you claim to know what you are talking about in regards to information theory. You don't know the work of Wolpert yet you accept without argument Dembski's incompetent interpretation of it. Doesn't that embarrase you?
@SH1PIT - ID doesn't base it's "opinions" on any scientific evidence what's-so-ever. As proven by their inability to produce any science at all in support of their claims. Everyone following along will notice that even in this very limiting comment thread I have been the one to produce scientific papers where as you have produced nothing.
@SH1PIT - And BTW - if you want an example of evolution ACROSS species, you could always research all those example science has been studying for the last, ohhhh 100 years or so. Start with the Owen Hybrids. Google "Owen, Salsify, Speciation". Yet another creationist argument that fails immediately. "Living things can't evolve into different species" - WRONG. Demonstrably WRONG.
@SH1PIT - "yet it is still bacteria..Imagine that". Yes, this is a creationist reply. As if you expect Lenski to compress millions of years within the confines of his lab and short lifetime. The terms of evolution are very well defined indeed. It is a very small group of christians who are trying to redefine them in order to make there ideologue appear reasonable in the modern world. It's not working. Naturalist invented the world species and they are firmly on the side of evolution.
@SH1PIT - I have to respond to this one as well. When I say you are 100% wrong I'm responding specifically to your claim that "Micro-evolution (the only scientifically valid form of evolution) has never been shown to add new information to DNA". If you reread my comments you will see that I am very clear on that. I give you at least one paper where it was in fact proven to add new information (Kimura). I also give you Lenski. So on that point you are in fact, 100% wrong.
@SH1PIT - You claim to wait for empirical evidence, yet I have given you several sources even here within the limits of a youtube comment stream. There are universities full of empirical evidence. Yet Dembski and Meyer and all the rest have never once...not ONCE... produced one paragraph of empirical evidence. Not one scientific paper, nothing. Even when they have a chance to present there case in court they run away (research Dembski\Dover).
@SH1PIT - With your comments on tree rings and ice cores I see you have a confused idea of what information is. That is what creationist intentionally do you know? Confuse their disciples.
SH1PIT says re: Dembski and Meyer- "Credible or not, they have good arguments that have yet to be refuted".
Anyone wonder why these creationists will never let go of there biblical blindfolds. I mean to actually type out a sentence like that without a hint of embarrassment. SH1PIT says that whether they are "CREDIBLE OR NOT", they still have "good arguments yet to be refuted".
You are admitting for everyone that it doesn't matter what proof you are shown, you freely choose to remain deluded.
@SH1PIT - Google "Dembski Wolpert and Jello", find an article written by Wolpert entitled "WILLIAM DEMBSKI'S TREATMENT OF THE NO FREE LUNCH THEOREMS IS WRITTEN IN JELLO". Within that article you will read..."..Dembski's arguments are fatally informal and imprecise. Like monographs on any philosophical topic in the first category, Dembski's is written in jello."
Tell me SH1PIT, as a devotee of Dempski, does this not give you pause? He based his book on this guys work. Do you understand?
@SH1PIT - The entire information/math argument originates from Dembski's book No Free Lunch. I assume you've read it. The NFL book is grounded in the No Free Lunch Theorems discovered by David Wolpert in 1997. They are so important to Dembski that he even titled his book after them. He was trying to be clever I suppose. Now, what do you supposed David Wolpert thinks of Dembski's interpretation of this very high level math? I'm sure you've researched it. Right?
@SH1PIT - You have a habit of misusing terms, like ad hominem and semantics. As if my reply did not include actual scientific papers and a very high level critique from a real expert on information theory (again...Search Jeff Shallit and "No Free Lunch"). He is only one of many math experts who have shown exactly where and how Dembski (and therefore Meyer) is wrong. I'll give you another one if you are prepared for it...(I'll post it right after this one).
@SH1PIT - Again, you will not be able to accept any of these obvious proofs because it would force you to give up too much of the cultural indoctrination you were raised with. You find the same sort of resistance in the fundamentalist islamic world. You will continue to construct easily refuted strawmen no matter what you are shown. This, of course, is not a problem for science because science continues without your participation. However, for you, personally, it is a very sad state of affairs.
@SH1PIT - Also add the work of Lenski to the list. You claim (without merit) that evolution has never been shown to add information to DNA, yet Lenski did exactly that when the 31,500th generation of his lab evolved bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate. That's just one of the new traits. Creationists say this sort of thing can never happen. But there it is, scientifically studied and published for all the world to see. No conjecture, 100% scientific proof of evolution.
@SH1PIT - You are (of course) 100% wrong. The Kimura (published scientific) paper show precisely how natural selection adds new information. Does Dembski or Meyer dare challenge that paper or the many others which do the same thing? Of course not. The are not competent in the field. (if you read the Shallit critique you will see that Dembski is not even capable of correctly calculating the amount of information in the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL").
So your "information" concern is not a concern at all. Its been thoroughly answered for at least 49 yrs. Better yet. Dembski's (creationist) diatribe has been refuted directly by real experts. Like Jeff Shallit for example (Bach.Degree in mathematics Princeton, Ph.D in mathematics Berkley, Currently a professor - University of Waterloo). His rebuttal is famous and can be read online. Search Jeff Shallit and "No Free Lunch".
3)-The papers of Nehaniv and Rhodes (1997) showing how, in a finite automation model, complexity can evolve in a biological systems
The "Information argument" raised by creationists were invented by Dembski and Meyer. Dembski is the mathematician but he is in no way an expert in the field. In fact, he hasn't published any work whatsoever on Information Theory. He only relies on layman (like you SH1PIT) to swallow what he's selling hook line and sinker.
@SH1PIT - Yes, there is no convincing you, you are correct. You would have to abandon too much of the indoctrination you were raised with. Take for example your original question of information and DNA. There are plenty of scientific papers proving that evolutionary processes naturally add information into the genome. You have...
1)-Kimura's paper (1961) where he shows how natural selection can increase Shannon Information.
2)-Wicken's book on evolution and information (Wicken, 1987)
@SH1PIT - Very accurate quote in terms of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In the Schopenhauer scale we are now passing fully into stage three. Acceptance of evolution as being self-evident. There are (of course) a handful of religious holdouts. Mostly in christian conservative america, and the islamic middle east. United at last in opposition to the obvious.
@SH1PIT - If you're determined to believe in god, then you will of course reply to any challenge in the exact same way that you just did. However, what you are regurgitating is just the cultural mythology instilled in you by your parents. It has nothing to do with the truth. Your blindspots don't make any difference to me. Science will continue to advance step by step and discover everything there is to know about the origins of life (abiogenisis), just as it continues to do with evolution.
@SH1PIT - RE - DNA: we already know how nucleotides form naturally, and how polynucleotides form naturally. We're still working on the sugars that make up the 'spines' of the molecule. Your chicken and egg dilemma is an old one that keeps getting pushed back. Once upon a time we had no idea how amino acids formed either. Then Miller did his lightning in a bottle trick to show how nature can do it. Chicken/egg arguments are how we give ourselves permission to stop investigating.
@SH1PIT - DNA had no pre-defined function either all those billions of years ago. It just went on it's way according to the laws of basic chemistry. It's current functions were acquired through evolution. Step by step by step.
What are you? A super idiot. Confusing the material that carries information and information, right off the bat?! Is ink and paper the same as a well written sentence? Take off your glasses of darkness and take a look at your self. Geeeese!
Creationist morons. Just keep repeating: While the amount of entropy in a local region may decrease, the total amount of entropy in the universe is always increasing.
i have a question? u said that when u flip a penny it proves information come from no information. but the penny is actully iformaton in its self so im not buying that.. any way u look at it info has to come from info it is a infinite regression. don't try to wrap your mind around it u will go crazy. best of wishes in your travels.
he doesn't know the difference between data(meaninless - such as the number 18), information (has meaning - such as the fact that someone is over 18 years old)and knowledge(interpreted information- this 18-year old is now under different laws because of their age)...... knowledge is derived from information, this guy got confused between info and knowledge, and doesn't know that his "non-information" is actually data....
doombybbr 1 month ago
U lost me at "Information" :D lol kidding
Yacovsup 2 months ago
I know this is an older video,but I think I may know what the persons underlying point was(even thought they butchered info theory).Nomatter how we got here there was a state of non-existence,If nothing existed,what exactly would trigger this universe to come to be?The first answer isan outside source,that has no involvement inthe current nonexistence of this single universe(assuming there is a multiverse).Science fails tofind what this is and most people fill this in with a divine explanation.
sagehawk12 2 months ago
Likely on the weighted die case with multiple outcomes it information of the higher probabilties have the lower informative gain. Again, this is due to the fact that "with a high probabilty" we can assume that that outcome will result. However, with a lower probabillity outcome will contain more information because it was unexpected. Its like saying David beating Goliath wasn't expected. However, the fact that he "did" "being unexpected" has brought us more insight. At least thats my opinion
jameshopkinsipg 4 months ago
The idea of information used in the equations stems in some sense of knowing something about the environment. The equations themselves do not delineate information vs. noninformation. They justify what the ideal reasonable informative gain is of a system. All systems have information but the equations try to answer the question "Is it useful information?" If a coin flip always comes up heads then that system has no usefulness since we already know the outcome. 50/50 coin we however get somthin
jameshopkinsipg 4 months ago
So... information is that which we fill in our obliviousness (non-information) with?
Vortex289 5 months ago
My dad gave me a good rule after you have read a page 3 times and it still makes no sense it probably is not worth the effort. It may have only been once. If you understand something it really is not that difficult to explain it. So if someone appears to be talking nonsense then you have to ask yourself what they are hiding. If you don't understand what JZ is saying sorry forget the rule you are just dumb.
way2jaded1 6 months ago
IT*S A TRAP
paimail21 6 months ago
I looked over In The Beginning Was Information Then based on what you said no; Is truth knowable? standing on an molecules to people worldview/atheism, what is truth? What seperates life from nonlife? How can we know anything? What is intelligence (An AI Example: data plus stored data) intellegence comes from intelligence ? Know you are loved! Jesus is the way truth, and life
1FeetHands 9 months ago
Edit; The Way, The Truth, and The Life
1FeetHands 9 months ago
@1FeetHands In the beginning of what? What is TRUTH? What if you don't have a worldview?
How can we know anything...read a science book dummy.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@1FeetHands some truths can be known through investigation, but absolute certainty may not be possible. Reasonable certainty can be found though.
What separates life from nonlife you ask? well, what separates the Eiffel tower from the metal it's made of? Life IS non living matter, it's only the way it's arranged that is special. Life is a pattern of matter, an arrangement of matter. A very complicated way the non living particles of nature can get caught up in a self-replicating system of eddies
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
At first it seems to make sense to say that when you flick the coin the information come from your brain, your arm / hands, the coin, gravity and possibly a breeze in the air. But where does that information come from? The Earth? I think the ultimate, but rather vague answer is that the information comes from the universe. The information was there before and its parts simply came together.
tyebillion 9 months ago
I need a thinker like you to help with a project. Are you interested in collaborating on a data compression R&D project?
MindsEdge2006 9 months ago
I think by information they meant living. So how did raw non living matter form or gain information by organizing in a way to acquire a living state. Information (in there point of view) is something living organisms have that separates it from non living.
TamaNewb 9 months ago
The first minute and a half I could understand. I always wonder about how much meaning is assigned by humans and how much of that builds culture.
s0nnyburnett 10 months ago
data is meaningless information. information is data with meaning. information requires a sender, receiver and intelligent source
1FeetHands 1 year ago
@1FeetHands Would you call light from the sun information? People don't normally think of the sun as intelligent, although it does have a complex dynamic. But sunlight is meaningful to us because we can measure it and it gives us heat and of course light. If you think about it then you might agree that there is a very fine line between intelligence and complex dynamics.
tyebillion 9 months ago
im going to die if he says information again XD jk but any way grate video
rcatstott 1 year ago
I suggest that no one watch this while smoking weed; it is a real buzz killer. I see a bit of Kant figuring into this discussion.
whiff1962 1 year ago
The laws of our universe only exist within our universe. Big Bang was probably a singularity with no such laws. If conditions were slightly different, so would our laws. How information works in our universe has nothing to do with its creation or how it was created. It is like disproving man created Myth Religions & concluding there is no Creator.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
you made a poor choice by taking this kid seriously.
sum1unxpected 1 year ago
Bill nine the science guy testicles thier im right youre both rong
Avery1599 1 year ago
The kid is technically correct in that total information of the universe cannot increase. This is due to the "unitarity" condition of quantum field theory. However, this information includes all of the eigenstates of EVERY particle in the universe. Hence, though the total information of the entire freaking universe (or any other closed system for that matter) can't increase, there's plenty of room for information to be "transferred" from one system to another.
unhealthytruthseeker 1 year ago
@unhealthytruthseeker Thus, since life is NOT a closed system, it is possible for the total information content of DNA to increase.
unhealthytruthseeker 1 year ago
@unhealthytruthseeker I don't claim to fully understand what you were talking about. but if the total information content of DNA increases, doesn't that mean that the total information content of the universe also increased?
TpendragonT 1 year ago
@TpendragonT No, because the total information content from other places decreases by the same amount. Thus, the total is the same.
unhealthytruthseeker 1 year ago
@unhealthytruthseeker How does the increase in DNA information decrease information somewhere else in the universe?
TpendragonT 1 year ago
@TpendragonT To have more information, the DNA must be longer, it must have more base pairs. This requires that somewhere else has fewer particles, and thus fewer possible configurations.
unhealthytruthseeker 1 year ago
Assuming they weren't just trolling it sounds like a classic class of Fourth Quartile Thinking ie someone who is too dumb to even realise how dumb they are.
chrisofnottingham 1 year ago
What about listening to this idiot she it.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 lol wut?
MrPudster1 1 year ago
Can I borrow your brain for a minute? I have some friends who need some new perspective on reality.
keetonrules 1 year ago
INFORMATION: KILL.
UrbanBeast55 1 year ago
.cont: so, if the wind blows they assert that they KNOW a powerful (but invisible) being is causing the air to move. That's really just an imaginative expression of their ignorance, which they paper over with "logic" (I can offer a totally logical argument that invisible entities cause winds--as long as I'm allowed to be ignorant of modern science). One of these days I'm going to get around to making a vid about that kind of cognitive failing :)
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Still, in a way, I AGREE with supernaturalists. All they're really saying (even if they don't realize it) is that there are things we don't know that are required to explain reality as it is now (and no scientist would disagree with that), and therefore, those things are (in a vague and loosely defined way) "super" natural.
Their crime is not believing in the supernatural, but in claiming to KNOW about it's workings--when actually they're only describing the details of their ignorance. more
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
"Did the creator have a creatior or is he just a non-creation creator who's not a created creation?" x1000 and swap the world "creation" with "informaiton and intelligence".
David1531992 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice glasses fag. they loook like my brown eye aka my cornhole. there for i present to you " where the FUCK do you get off thinking you can make these worthless dick sucking video" i would love a response in return. another question that i thought of when typing this was how gayer could you get ???? and two part question. eli manning sucks balls and go fuck your self. thanks for your coroperation have a shitty day :)
nortongor 1 year ago
@nortongor Ur An Asshole. GTFO!
SuperCosbySweater 1 year ago 2
I actually like this one, nice job
masterjesse7 1 year ago
The only fact of life... "I think therefore I am" so everything is non-information!
masterjesse7 1 year ago
Comment removed
masterjesse7 1 year ago
its called Abiogenesis or biopoesis or Primordial soup. theoretically fatty acids formed abiotically around geysers. We know fatty acids can self-assemble into lipid bilayers completely by themselves, without any information or energy needed. an RNA-like polymer made its way inside the lipid vesicles. this polymer had two properties: it was able to copy itself (acting like an enzyme) and also the ability to store the information necessary for its own synthesis. spawning evolution
dav37777777 1 year ago
oh shit... here we go with the classical music, well at least we dont have to see all that hair over his eyes anymore because that was fucking ridiculous. anyways to make along story short we evolved from simple organisms through natural selection and surval of the fittest through successive generations over millions of years.
dav37777777 1 year ago
SHEMALE!!!!!!!!!!
oMisFiTx 1 year ago
CONTINUED: It's landing will not consistently give 1 bit of information, as would be suggested by the supposition that the number of possibilities defines the amount of information gained. You would gain either ~4.3 bits of info, if it landed on it's flat base, or ~.074 bits of information, if it landed on it's side.
Of course, you already admitted you don't know too much about this yet, so it's 'kay really. Thanks for informing other people too. ^_^
ZizooMoDaI 1 year ago
My only issue with what you said is pretty nit-picky. It's not the number of possibilities that defines the amount of information gained unless the possibilities are all of equal probability. That is, the probability defines the information gained. Say you toss a chess pawn, or a bullet, or something else with radial symmetry normal to a single flat base into the air, and just say we know it has a 5% chance of landing on it's flat base, and a 95% chance of not doing so.
ZizooMoDaI 1 year ago
what if the penny lands on the side
GameStar1300 1 year ago
@GameStar1300 Look up "fair coin" on Wikipedia. We're using one of those. It's the same as if we ignore it whenever the coin lands ambiguously and flip it again, recording that result as though it were the first.
If you know the probability of a coin landing on it's side though, you can measure the information gained by flipping it a little differently I suppose.
ZizooMoDaI 1 year ago
your opponents probably gave bad examples and showed lack of understanding of information theory. but you are guilty of the same (towards the end of the video).
but the crux is: if the universe really came from nothing (nothing "before" the "Big Bang"), then special pleading of an Intelligent Designer is not unreasonable. but if the universe (or just the Laws of Physics) existed all the while, or is self-existent, then the universe itself can replace "Intelligent Designer".
Heissenburger 1 year ago
@Heissenburger although if there are millions or even trillions of pre-big bang universes still in existence (just outside our field of understanding) that could mean that everything we know is just random chance
the only reason things are so ideal for life where it exists is because it wouldn't survive elsewhere so it must be in these 'randomly' generated 'perfect' environments
not an argument just my take on things =D
thundasc 1 year ago
Black and white ideology is already a proven disaster.
Languages and symbols can't depict all details of reality, they are our abstract.
beancube2010 1 year ago
As a mathematician, I'd say you demonstrated the acquisition of information very well.
The person with whom you were debating has swallowed a "Kent Hovind"ish presentation. Not a single one of the dozen such presentations has any validity or grounding. Each time these presentations are bound in emotion, baseless faith, and out-andout wrong interpretation of the basics.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Grow the fuck up dickweed"
Perhaps you're taking this a little too seriously.
I'm glad you are going to read the book I suggested, and I'm also glad you have subscribed to AronRa's channel. I promise you that if you approach both with an open mind you will reach the only logical conclusion. Evolution happens and is massively supported.
So, since you appear to be getting upset, perhaps I'll just leave you to your own ideas on reality. Good luck!
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "If Astronauts find a space craft on Mars one day, would they assume it was not designed because they don't know who designed it?"
Since space craft (or mt, rushmore) have no known mechanism for self-assembling, we would assume it was designed. Since we know that natural organic molecules DO have known mechanisms for self-assembling, we know that they were not. We also know the mechanisms of evolution, but then, you don't accept that either it seems.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT "You need to actually refute my position for me to lose an argument, and thus far you've failed to do so"
I've refuted lots of your positions. That you don't want to accept it, is not my problem. It's not even my concern. Whether or not you agree is as important to me as whether or not a stoneage bushman in Africa believes diseases are caused by germs.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "My logic demands a first cause and it is this first cause that Christians would call God."
You can assert a first cause, no problem. The problem comes when you attach qualities to that first cause when you have absolutely no idea of knowing whether or not they are true. That's the difference. You've ascribed intelligence, and therefore purpose, to a first cause you know nothing about.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "I'm asking you by what law of science do you believe this would be the case?"
It's not a law of science. It's a law of SH1PIT.
What I am doing is applying your own logic against your own argument. Thus, proving both to be fatally flawed. Remember, YOU are the one that says a designer is necessary. Ok, I'm taking you at your word, now tell me, (since one is necessary), WHO designed the designer?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "You've proven nothing"
You've accepted nothing, because you are to grounded in a religous bias, ie. creationism. As I've said before, you will not be able to accept any evidence even though I've given you tons of it even in these tiny 500 character comment windows. You can't even accept the obvious logical flaw of your own argument, namely, who designed the designer?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Yes, and we also know that dogs and wolves are the same species of animal"
So you DO believe that wolves can evolve into something like a weiner dog. Well, that's progress. What criteria did you use to accept this fact that Evolutionary science has given you? DNA? Because the exact same evidence links all life to one common progenitor.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "1. Information can only come from an intelligence."
Wrong.
As is already been shown, you don't understand what information is. You've simply conjured something that supports your bias.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "If the first cause was, in fact, the First cause, then the first cause , by definition, needs no cause and does not violate the Law of Causality."
So you are saying, once you assert ANY first cause, you are no longer obligated to prove it is true. Brilliant, this allows you to conjure any first cause that pops into your head and yet, never be bothered with explaining it. Could this be how gods are invented?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
Everyone catch that? SH1PIT just said...
"You were the one to insist the designer is required for complexity"
Than he said...
"Information can only come from an intelligence."
So he is saying that his designer, the one capable of creating an entire universe..... contains no information.
See what I mean about the flaw in your logic?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
Comment removed
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "self assembling amino acids are your Gods"
Science doesn't claim to know what it cannot prove. The proof for Evolution is clear and overwhelming. What you are talking about is Abiogenesis, which is a much younger science yet we are making steady progress. No thanks to the religous 'stone-age-thinkers' who have alway stood in the way of progress.
Watch /watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE for a quick primer on the science of Abiogenesis.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT "Galileo's helio-centric theories were dismissed"
Yes, they were dismissed, by the church.
I'm really beginning to question your education. You consistently get these facts wrong. Like how we found the origin of HIV for example.
Galileo was prosecuted by the church, he was put before the Inquisition, his books were banned, and he was imprisoned. Really SH1PIT, this is getting embarrassing for you.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT "Galileo was convicted of heresy and incarcerated"
Notice here how SH1PIT provides his own evidence at how wrong he was to suggest Galileo's fellow scientist were the ones who dismissed him. He has plainly read that the man was prosecuted by the church for his scientific findings. They tried to discredit Darwin too. Luckily their power was diminished by then. Still have a few people trying to stand in the way of real science though.....SH1PIT.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Who says the a more complex designer needs an explanation? By what law do you make this assertion?"
You, SH1PIT, say the more complex designer needs an explanation. YOU say it. That is the flaw in your logic. Yet you can't even recognise it when it's held up right in front of your eyes, like I just did.
In the same way you can't reason away the obvious evolutionary explanation for modern chickens having teeth DNA. You're are blinded by your bias.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "How did life begin is actually simple when you realize that it was designed."
What you are doing here is just giving up. You're saying you don't really want to know or understand the natural world so you'll just stop here where you feel most comfortable.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - (cont.)
And just to follow your twisted logic pretzel a little further. Are you suggesting that the designer you have in mind for all life including all it's supporting systems is the product of a LESS complex organism then we are?
Brilliant.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - " I have attached NO qualities to the first cause"
SH1PIT can't even get his own story straight. He believes in ID, or Intelligent Design. Yet he has the temerity to say he's attached NO qualities to the first cause. He even writes NO in capital letters. He seems incapable of realizing when he's put his foot in his mouth. INTELLIGENCE is a quality, isn't it? Design suggests PURPOSE, which is also a quality, isn't it.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "I've made no claim to who or what the designer is, nor have I made any claim of his/her/it's complexity."
You've lost the arguement either way. Again, you don't seem to be able to follow logic. If the designer is MORE complex, then it requires an even more complex designer. If the designer is LESS complex, then it too requires a designer which will again be LESS complex. Either way, your logic does not allow a beginning.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Verified by who? Fellow believers?"
Verified does not mean a casual agreement on a bias. It means stating a claim and then showing it to be true with evidence. For example, DNA acquires new information through evolution. This isn't just a statement, it's been shown with solid evidence in the sources I've already given you.
You however can only ever produce people who simply share the same bias, without any evidence to support that bias.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Actually, it was the scientific community that believed the Earth was flat."
No. In fact, the last president of the Flat Earth Society died in 2002. His basis of reasoning was exactly the same as yours, that is to say, personal bias masquerading as 'self-evident truth'.
Do you know who Samuel Rowbotham is? Have you read any of his debates? You'll notice that this Flat Earther argues exactly the same was as you do.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Similarly, you can't prove logic is reliable via the scientific method"
What you are claiming as logic is actually just your own personal bias projected onto the natural world. As I said, your "logic" doesn't even pass the first hurdle. Who designed the designer?
That hurdle wasn't erected by me. You did that yourself remember. You begin by insisting a designer is required for complexity, yet you ignore your own criteria when forced to apply it to your own solution.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "I've told you countless times that I claim no religion."
You don't give your god a name, but it is none-the-less a god. In otherwords, something you've conjured to keep you from accepting proven facts.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "The information in question is the information that came from rocks."
Why do you say "The information in question is the information that came from rocks."? What do rocks have to do with anything? In the study of abiogenesis we know that the building blocks of life were ORGANIC molecules. Do you realize that the universe is full of organic molecules? Google "Two Highly Complex Organic Molecules Detected In Space" and read the Science Daily article.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT "You can't get life without organic molecules and you can't get organic molecules without life."
So obviously SH1PIT hasn't read THAT source article I've given him either (yet another example of me backing up what I say while he just putters out his personal bias).
You CAN get organic molecules without life. The universe if full of organic molecules. Read the article, the IRAM telescope discovered organic molecules near "Sagittarius B2, close to the center of our galaxy".
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT (cont.)
Here, I found another one for you to consider SH1PIT.
Google "Astronomer To Search Space For Precursors Of Life" and read the Science Daily article so you understand that organic molecules are EVERYWHERE.
"...Many of the organic molecules that make up life on Earth have also been found in space. A University of Michigan astronomer ...to study these chemical compounds in new detail in the warm clouds of gas and dust around young stars."
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg
"You can't get life without organic molecules and you can't get organic molecules without life."
Interesting assertion. Assumption or just a wild guess?
What about egg and chicken?
If our religious definition of the creator god is completed, can the creator god create another god who has more power?
beancube2010 1 year ago
@beancube2010 - are you responding to me or to the person I quoted the "You can't get life..." comment from?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "I've added him to my channel and I'll check him out sometime."
Great! I'm actually very happy to hear you say that. I'd suggest watching all of them in order. BTW - I do recall he gets quite angry when his parrot interupts his videos. Other than that, cool as a cucumber.
I'll warn you, it's going to make you angry at first. Fight through that and follow the logic. Remember what Gloria Steinem said..."the truth will set you free, but first it's going to piss you off".
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT "utterly confused and brainwashed"
I think it's clear to everyone reading along that I am not the one confused. And this isn't a debate, it's a schooling. If it were a debate you would actually be making counter arguments, but then ID never does have a counter argument. You really should read the trial transcripts for Dover and Arkansas. You just may (finally) realize how shallow an argument ID is. It doesn't even pass the first test, "who designed the designer?".
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Why would they defend Creationism when they weren't Creationists?"
Right, right, sorry about that. They're actually "cdesign proponentsists".
Have you looked that up yet?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "What does that mean?"
It's means it's been reviewed by experts in the field before it even gets published. It also means that once it IS published everyone else gets a chance to tear it apart, find holes in the arguments, expose flaws in the experiments, in other words prove it false. Science is a meritocracy.
This is why ID can't produce any science. They can't stand the heat of cross-examination. Unlike Darwin's Theory, which has stood the heat for 150 years....and counting.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "You point is irrelevant to the validity of ID."..."The legal system is a joke"
Actually, the legal system considers ID a joke. A complete joke. It's a religion masquerading as science. You realize that and ID "expert" (LOL) would have a chance to get his complete argument in a public record forever and ever. Yet they ALWAYS seem to run away when they get the chance. It's because they can't stand the cross examination.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - (cont.)
Look. It's already quite clear that I'm far more informed on the topic of ID than you are yet you claim to be it's defender? Tell me. Have you read the trial transcripts of either the Arkansas case or the Dover case? Have you read the back and forth testimony between to two sides? Do you realise how embarrassing the case for ID is when they can't answer the simplist cross-examination? Oh wait...maybe you do.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - BTW - I know you don't actually think that I am indoctrinated. It's just your defense mechanism to state it, because you can't actual produce any proof of anything you've been saying. Whereas I've been showing proof that everything you 've been saying is exactly wrong. You know of course, that everyone following along realized this long ago. They're wondering "why can't SH1PIT back up anything he says?".
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT -"You education didn't teach you how to think for yourself"
So you, SH1PIT, are coming from an educational tradition (religious) where people thought the earth was flat, matter was made of earth/fire/air/water, that sky was a giant crystal dome and that the planet was resting on the shoulders of a giant man but you think I am the one who is indoctrinated?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT -"Wrong again. As I already told you, I don't have a religion. Unless you consider truth a religion."
Since you believe in an Intelligent Designer, you believe in God or Gods. Yet, you can't see the flaw in your own logic. You reject the obvious evidence for evolution because you say that 'complex' life on Earth needs a 'more complex' designer. But in your scenario, this 'more complex' designer ALSO needs an explanation.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - (cont.) So what you have done is take a difficult question "how did life begin and how does it evolve" and you've made it even MORE difficult. Remember, you set the criteria at the begin. Your logic dictates that complexity requires explanation and the only solution you allow yourself to see is a 'more complex' designer. You haven't solved anything, you've just fooled yourself into avoiding the original question. Yet you claim to be logical?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Can you be so sure that you aren't the one who's trapped?"
Yes, positive. Because everything I say can be verified, however, in your case you are simply repeating a religious position.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SH1PIT - "refuse to debate the greatest minds in the Intelligent Design movement"
Further on this "refuse to debate" business. Do you know enough about American creationist movement to know that whenever a significant trial comes up the "greatest minds" tend to flee the scene? During Dover, Dembski, Meyer and Cambell all left town just before they were to take the stand. Why?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Why indeed? They had a clear chance to lay out there case for the public record, take as much time as the needed, while being lead through their "evidence" by a lawyer for their own side. So why flee the scene with you tail tucked between your legs? Perhaps because they would also be cross-examined by the real experts? This is common in the ID world. Dean Kenyon did the same thing in the Arkansa trial. He bolted.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "You also are implying i need a degree to discuss this, which is absurd." Not a degree, just an ongoing education. That's not an insult, everyone needs an ongoing education, constant questioning, etc.. I feel you are one of those people that stopped questioning as soon as you found the answer you 'liked' best, not the answer that was most true.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Science cannot be produced."
ohhh, brother. The logic pretzels you guys manage to twist yourselves into are incredible.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "who ever presents the best evidence will win."
I'm not trying to "win" anything. You are not a prize to be sought after SH1PIT. I've said it multiple times, it makes no difference to me what you believe. It really doesn't. I'm a little worried for your children, but I can't do much about that.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SH1PIT "reflecting your inability to answer my questions to too many sources."
SH1PIT considers the one book, one website, and one youtube contributer I suggested "too many sources". I'm sorry if I'm overwhelming you SH1PIT.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "seems to have some anger management issues" - really? I've never seen him get angry. I've seen plenty of situations where he had the right to get angry, but he remains pretty cool headed.
"like you, resorts to belittlement and name calling" - I invite everyone to reread all our comments, in order, and judge who began with the belittlement and name calling. Try to find the first incident and the name that went with it.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Is it a study or is it a paper on a few biased opinions of scientists that want to see a link between a chicken and a dinosaur. Hey, we have teeth, does that mean we are part dinosaur too?"
It's a scientific paper, published and review in scientific journals. It's also free to read online, complete with pictures. And no, we aren't part dinosaur and we don't have archosaurian teeth.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - " ID is not Creationism".... ID is the latest term put forward by the Creationist movement. It's actually a legal strategy. The word "creationism" is the preferred term on your side, but it's not allowed in highschool textbooks because it is religious. Therefore, you tried to do an end run around the courts with the term Intelligent Design. LOL- Have you heard of the term "cdesign proponentsists". /watch?v=dqNH-Hnsfgg
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - " ID uses science to point out what is self evident about the world around us." ..... Give me an example of where ID has used science.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - " I ask for one book that explains your theory clearly and you give me a list of things to read and watch"..... so I give you 3 or 4 options and this is somehow a bad thing? Just pick one if reading multiple books is a problem for you.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "refuse to debate these so called stupid Creationists." In most cases you are correct, they are just stupid. In other cases they aren't stupid but seriously deluded. Would you want to debate Tom Cruise on the truth of Scientology? Would you debate an Islamic fundamentalist on the number of virgins he'll get in heaven or would you consider it a waste of your time.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Also, how do you know the bird with teeth is 70m years old" So you don't believe in physics either. Are you in denial about all the sciences. We may as well clear that up right now.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "perhaps, there was a time where birds just had teeth to adapt to their environments"
Now ask yourself... why do modern chickens have the DNA to grow teeth? Why is there a connection between MODERN birds and the "perhaps there was a time where birds just had teeth" birds. Ask yourself honestly.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Any claim of what happened in the past is completely unscientific and is pure conjecture." Good thing you're a computer programmer and not a cop. By your reasoning, when you come across a murder scene you couldn't arrest anyone unless you were actually there to witness the crime. I suppose you could always pray that you arrest the right person. I mean, no need for science in a situation like that.... right?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - I haven't refused to explain my position properly, however you have already decided not to be educated. I knew this of course before I started. As I said, you would have to give up your cultural position (religion) in order to accept scientific truth. You can't do that so you will never allow yourself to be convinced. You are in the same trap that people were in during the dark ages of human history.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - HIV has crossed species BTW. There are two species now, evolved over a very short time. In regards to species... we know that all modern dogs are decended from wolves. Do you accept that? or do you think poodles wondered out of a forest somewhere? Do you consider wolves and poodles to be different species?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Wrong, they didn't trace the CASES of AIDS. And once they were in Africa, they didn't interview the wild monkey population to ask them where they've been either. Wow, you're getting a little tedious SH1PIT. Please watch "Origin of HIV, or Where Does HIV Come From?" on youtube for a good explanation. /watch?v=UF3JGrt9Zvo
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - BTW - The faith healer didn't help Dembski's son, and he wasted all the money he paid him to pray on his behalf. For the people following along, I suggest watching the youtube video "There are No Theists in Hospital Waiting Rooms" to get an understanding of the real tragic impact religion has on sick children. Remember, the "logically minded" SH1PIT is a defender of this sort of practice.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Creationists are hopelessly confused on the topic of information. That's exactly how Dembsi wants you to be. You sound very young SH1PIT.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Google "Birds with teeth turn the clock back 70m years" and read the Timesonline article. That's a good simple example. The reason birds still have the DNA code buried within them to create pointy sharp teeth is because they are decended from dinosaurs. The full study is called "The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant" and can be read online at the Cell(dot)com website.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - You claim to be open to reason but I doubt that you really are. Creationist give very superficial explanations for all their claims and when you look into them you will find that every single one has been refuted repeatedly. BTW - I assume you do not believe that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. Correct? Can you explain why the DNA for growing dinosaur teeth is still present in chickens? (cont..)
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Rain and win erosion carving out faces in a mountain side would convince me that information can come from random chaos."
Search for Girnar Mountain on google. Then switch to the images tab, scroll down and find the ones showing the famous face. They are called mimetoliths and you will learn about them when you study geology. There are lots of examples on earth and other planets.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "This is not true. A horse, cow, or bird giving birth to something that's not a horse cow or bird would convince me that macro-evolution is true."
This shows that you do not have an understanding of evolution, since the Theory of Evolution tells us that this is impossible. You have presented yet another straw-man argument. There are no giant leaps but only gradual change.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Those sources for laymen. Once you've finished that you can start the real study at university in things like chemistry, biology, geology, etc.. All the natural sciences support evolution. As Dobzhansky said "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". BTW - "Nothing in..." is not just a quip, but an entire essay which is online. You should read that too.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SH1PIT - "I'd offer you some material to look up as well, but I know you won't bother."..."At least I'm open minded enough to learn both sides of an argument, though."
I think it's clear to everyone that I know both sides of the argument much better than you do. You admitted that you haven't even read Dembski's No Free Lunch book, which is the holy grail of ID.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - RE: Evolution; Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" is a very good book. It's written for creationists. Also, since you say you are a logical person you would appreciate AronRa on youtube. Though I'm sure you've heard of him already. I suggest you watch all of his videos and visit his website "locolobo". But first, start with Berkeley'S "Evolution 101" online course.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - You're a computer programmer? Perhaps you should seek out and read Mark Chu-Carroll. He has a PhD in computer science, a google software engineer and is a good critic of Dembski. He's shown him to be wrong numerous times. Just flat out wrong on his interpretation of Information Theory.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "every Christian I know completely accepts the scientific fact of evolution. It's the theory of evolution that says we share a common ancestry with apes, avocados and apples that they have a problem with"
So you accept evolution, except when it shows how things evolve. Brilliant.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Perhaps you should begin by accepting that the people who DO have degreess in microbiology, high level mathematics, chemistry, geology, palentology, etc etc etc, actually know what they are talking about.
And I have no interest in 'converting' you. I'm not a missionary. Why would I want to spend time giving you an education in the basic natural sciences through a 500 character comment window. You won't accept it anyway, you've already decided not to.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - I've never participated in a Talk Origins forum, I don't think I've even read a Talk Origins forum.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Not sure what you're getting at here. All viruses evolve. Take HIV for example, there are now different strains in different parts of the world. BTW - How do you thing scientists know the origin of HIV is in Africa? Why,,, because the Theory of Evolution allowed them to construct a phylogenic tree (Darwin's invention) to prove it's lineage. Meanwhile, Dembski takes his son to faith healers. That's true BTW.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Here you try to discredit Dembski rather than answer"
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't try to discredit Dembski, I DO discredit Dembski. And it isn't ad hominem to do that. If someone claims they are a brain surgeon and I show that they have never operated on a brain I am not attacking the man I'm attacking his claim. Ergo...you are wrong...again.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Why don't you try quoting the part where they prove it was written in jello."
SH1PIT, you haven't read any of the things I've pointed you to have you. Or do you expect me to copy and past entire articles and papers into a 500 character comment window?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "Even Einsten realized that the existence of God was self evident."
You can believe in the existence of god, most people do. Most people who believe in evolution also believe in god. The difference here is you have been sold a bill of goods by a very small group of christians who say you cannot accept the evidence for evolution AND believe in god. This is a lie, just ask the pope.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Nothing I can give you will convince you of the scientific reality of our planet. You have decided in advance that you will believe in god or gods. This is a stone age mindset and not open to reason. It, of course, makes no difference to me what you believe.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - I completely believe that you have never heard of the names I'm producing, yet you claim to know what you are talking about in regards to information theory. You don't know the work of Wolpert yet you accept without argument Dembski's incompetent interpretation of it. Doesn't that embarrase you?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - ID doesn't base it's "opinions" on any scientific evidence what's-so-ever. As proven by their inability to produce any science at all in support of their claims. Everyone following along will notice that even in this very limiting comment thread I have been the one to produce scientific papers where as you have produced nothing.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - And BTW - if you want an example of evolution ACROSS species, you could always research all those example science has been studying for the last, ohhhh 100 years or so. Start with the Owen Hybrids. Google "Owen, Salsify, Speciation". Yet another creationist argument that fails immediately. "Living things can't evolve into different species" - WRONG. Demonstrably WRONG.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - "yet it is still bacteria..Imagine that". Yes, this is a creationist reply. As if you expect Lenski to compress millions of years within the confines of his lab and short lifetime. The terms of evolution are very well defined indeed. It is a very small group of christians who are trying to redefine them in order to make there ideologue appear reasonable in the modern world. It's not working. Naturalist invented the world species and they are firmly on the side of evolution.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - I have to respond to this one as well. When I say you are 100% wrong I'm responding specifically to your claim that "Micro-evolution (the only scientifically valid form of evolution) has never been shown to add new information to DNA". If you reread my comments you will see that I am very clear on that. I give you at least one paper where it was in fact proven to add new information (Kimura). I also give you Lenski. So on that point you are in fact, 100% wrong.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - You claim to wait for empirical evidence, yet I have given you several sources even here within the limits of a youtube comment stream. There are universities full of empirical evidence. Yet Dembski and Meyer and all the rest have never once...not ONCE... produced one paragraph of empirical evidence. Not one scientific paper, nothing. Even when they have a chance to present there case in court they run away (research Dembski\Dover).
They only sell pop culture books to christians.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - With your comments on tree rings and ice cores I see you have a confused idea of what information is. That is what creationist intentionally do you know? Confuse their disciples.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
SH1PIT says re: Dembski and Meyer- "Credible or not, they have good arguments that have yet to be refuted".
Anyone wonder why these creationists will never let go of there biblical blindfolds. I mean to actually type out a sentence like that without a hint of embarrassment. SH1PIT says that whether they are "CREDIBLE OR NOT", they still have "good arguments yet to be refuted".
You are admitting for everyone that it doesn't matter what proof you are shown, you freely choose to remain deluded.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Google "Dembski Wolpert and Jello", find an article written by Wolpert entitled "WILLIAM DEMBSKI'S TREATMENT OF THE NO FREE LUNCH THEOREMS IS WRITTEN IN JELLO". Within that article you will read..."..Dembski's arguments are fatally informal and imprecise. Like monographs on any philosophical topic in the first category, Dembski's is written in jello."
Tell me SH1PIT, as a devotee of Dempski, does this not give you pause? He based his book on this guys work. Do you understand?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - The entire information/math argument originates from Dembski's book No Free Lunch. I assume you've read it. The NFL book is grounded in the No Free Lunch Theorems discovered by David Wolpert in 1997. They are so important to Dembski that he even titled his book after them. He was trying to be clever I suppose. Now, what do you supposed David Wolpert thinks of Dembski's interpretation of this very high level math? I'm sure you've researched it. Right?
I'll post it next...
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - You have a habit of misusing terms, like ad hominem and semantics. As if my reply did not include actual scientific papers and a very high level critique from a real expert on information theory (again...Search Jeff Shallit and "No Free Lunch"). He is only one of many math experts who have shown exactly where and how Dembski (and therefore Meyer) is wrong. I'll give you another one if you are prepared for it...(I'll post it right after this one).
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Again, you will not be able to accept any of these obvious proofs because it would force you to give up too much of the cultural indoctrination you were raised with. You find the same sort of resistance in the fundamentalist islamic world. You will continue to construct easily refuted strawmen no matter what you are shown. This, of course, is not a problem for science because science continues without your participation. However, for you, personally, it is a very sad state of affairs.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Also add the work of Lenski to the list. You claim (without merit) that evolution has never been shown to add information to DNA, yet Lenski did exactly that when the 31,500th generation of his lab evolved bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate. That's just one of the new traits. Creationists say this sort of thing can never happen. But there it is, scientifically studied and published for all the world to see. No conjecture, 100% scientific proof of evolution.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - You are (of course) 100% wrong. The Kimura (published scientific) paper show precisely how natural selection adds new information. Does Dembski or Meyer dare challenge that paper or the many others which do the same thing? Of course not. The are not competent in the field. (if you read the Shallit critique you will see that Dembski is not even capable of correctly calculating the amount of information in the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL").
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
YE5! I just did a vid about information myself, because of a similar argument I had with a Creationist!
Logic ftw.
EricZombie 1 year ago
@SH1PIT (cont.)
So your "information" concern is not a concern at all. Its been thoroughly answered for at least 49 yrs. Better yet. Dembski's (creationist) diatribe has been refuted directly by real experts. Like Jeff Shallit for example (Bach.Degree in mathematics Princeton, Ph.D in mathematics Berkley, Currently a professor - University of Waterloo). His rebuttal is famous and can be read online. Search Jeff Shallit and "No Free Lunch".
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - (cont.)
You also have...
3)-The papers of Nehaniv and Rhodes (1997) showing how, in a finite automation model, complexity can evolve in a biological systems
The "Information argument" raised by creationists were invented by Dembski and Meyer. Dembski is the mathematician but he is in no way an expert in the field. In fact, he hasn't published any work whatsoever on Information Theory. He only relies on layman (like you SH1PIT) to swallow what he's selling hook line and sinker.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Yes, there is no convincing you, you are correct. You would have to abandon too much of the indoctrination you were raised with. Take for example your original question of information and DNA. There are plenty of scientific papers proving that evolutionary processes naturally add information into the genome. You have...
1)-Kimura's paper (1961) where he shows how natural selection can increase Shannon Information.
2)-Wicken's book on evolution and information (Wicken, 1987)
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - Very accurate quote in terms of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In the Schopenhauer scale we are now passing fully into stage three. Acceptance of evolution as being self-evident. There are (of course) a handful of religious holdouts. Mostly in christian conservative america, and the islamic middle east. United at last in opposition to the obvious.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - If you're determined to believe in god, then you will of course reply to any challenge in the exact same way that you just did. However, what you are regurgitating is just the cultural mythology instilled in you by your parents. It has nothing to do with the truth. Your blindspots don't make any difference to me. Science will continue to advance step by step and discover everything there is to know about the origins of life (abiogenisis), just as it continues to do with evolution.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - RE - DNA: we already know how nucleotides form naturally, and how polynucleotides form naturally. We're still working on the sugars that make up the 'spines' of the molecule. Your chicken and egg dilemma is an old one that keeps getting pushed back. Once upon a time we had no idea how amino acids formed either. Then Miller did his lightning in a bottle trick to show how nature can do it. Chicken/egg arguments are how we give ourselves permission to stop investigating.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@SH1PIT - DNA had no pre-defined function either all those billions of years ago. It just went on it's way according to the laws of basic chemistry. It's current functions were acquired through evolution. Step by step by step.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
woah your a dude ?!
utsavman47 1 year ago
weird...I don't really get it or care.
you rock that look though, lol
over18irish 1 year ago
Information Theory FTW!
I'm a big fan of Info Theory, actually... and yes, ZJemptv has hit the nail on the head.
In the mathematical "Information Theory" sense, 'information' can be produced by random, natural means very easily.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
What are you? A super idiot. Confusing the material that carries information and information, right off the bat?! Is ink and paper the same as a well written sentence? Take off your glasses of darkness and take a look at your self. Geeeese!
Howie47 2 years ago
Creationist morons. Just keep repeating: While the amount of entropy in a local region may decrease, the total amount of entropy in the universe is always increasing.
badnewswade 2 years ago
i have a question? u said that when u flip a penny it proves information come from no information. but the penny is actully iformaton in its self so im not buying that.. any way u look at it info has to come from info it is a infinite regression. don't try to wrap your mind around it u will go crazy. best of wishes in your travels.
coleleo86 2 years ago
Take off the stupid glasses, you're inside. There's no sun.
JakeEwing5 2 years ago
Cool glasses.
IKrazyIKenn 2 years ago 4
I *adore* your videos! <3
so happy i stumbled across your channel! Keep on being lovely! ^^
ShinigamiAnnie 2 years ago
You sound like a Information Theory Extremist.
You are wrong, you are so wrong in so many things you say.
live4Cha 2 years ago
Information theory is actually a very well established field. The concepts of information theory are the reason you're even able to