The Big Think Creationism debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2013, 02:12 AM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(21-03-2013 10:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  



Watching this right now. The US needs programming like this. But we have 'Dancing with the Stars' instead Dodgy

My favorite quote thus far is from James O'Brein around 10:05 when he says
"If a child turns up at school and receives bullying for believing a lie, the blame lies with the person who has told them the lies."

I like that. Parents (I am one now, so I don't feel as hypocritical by criticizing parents) want to believe that A) their children will always revere them as a preeminent scholar on all things and that B) their "truths" can trump reality and that ridiculous ideas shouldn't be criticized because some people wholly believe them.

At 8:59 point, the host states that the guy's website says "men without beards look like lady boy faggots"... he just lost all his credibilityLaughat. His speech was actually alright-ish...

Music is my religion
- Jimi Hendrix
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 03:22 AM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 08:10 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 07:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  The UPM is not universal - it's a subjective reading by pre-supposionalists.
No serious scientist accepts that.

David Abel? Seriously?
So you know more than Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. David Abel is not a serious scientist. Here is a list of peer reviewed publications of Dr. David Abel
http://davidlabel.blogspot.com.au/

I think you are burying your head in the sand.

I read some of his papers. For instance, in "Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems", the authors make an unsupported leap that the biochemical pathways cannot have arisen through blind algorithmic processes and must have been programmed. Their confusion seems to rest on their over-fondness of their metaphor of computer systems to biologic systems.

They go on to make the unwarranted conclusion that the DNA coding is prescriptive in the sense that the purpose was imposed.

Quote:All of these features at a minimum meet the definition of an algorithm and when combined with the data from the mRNA, satisfy the rule that Algorithm = data + control. Remembering that mere constraints cannot serve as bona fide formal controls, we therefore conclude that the ribosome is a physical instantiation of an algorithm.
There is a synergy between the machinery of the ribosome and its coherence with the language context of the DNA/RNA environment, reinforcing the prescribed algorithmic operations of the ribosome. There is no known physicodynamic cause for the codon to tRNA translation scheme. Since all genes can be modeled using rules (be they grammar or logical) rather than physicodynamic determinism, we inductively assert that the operation and organization of the genome operate under the influence of a programming language.

Quote:The correlation between linguistic properties examined and implemented using Automata theory give us a formalistic tool to study the language and grammar of biological systems in a similar manner to how we study computational cybernetic systems. These examples define a dichotomy in the definition of Prescriptive Information. We therefore suggest that the term Prescriptive Information (PI) be subdivided into two categories: 1) Prescriptive data and 2) Prescribed (executing) algorithm.

It is interesting to note that the CPU of an electronic computer is an instance of a prescriptive algorithm instantiated into an electronic circuit, whereas the software under execution is read and processed by the CPU to prescribe the program's desired output. Both hardware and software are prescriptive.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-08-2013, 08:22 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2013 08:30 PM by theword.)
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(24-08-2013 03:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 08:10 PM)excubitor Wrote:  So you know more than Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. David Abel is not a serious scientist. Here is a list of peer reviewed publications of Dr. David Abel
http://davidlabel.blogspot.com.au/

I think you are burying your head in the sand.

I read some of his papers. For instance, in "Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems", the authors make an unsupported leap that the biochemical pathways cannot have arisen through blind algorithmic processes and must have been programmed. Their confusion seems to rest on their over-fondness of their metaphor of computer systems to biologic systems.

They go on to make the unwarranted conclusion that the DNA coding is prescriptive in the sense that the purpose was imposed.

Quote:All of these features at a minimum meet the definition of an algorithm and when combined with the data from the mRNA, satisfy the rule that Algorithm = data + control. Remembering that mere constraints cannot serve as bona fide formal controls, we therefore conclude that the ribosome is a physical instantiation of an algorithm.
There is a synergy between the machinery of the ribosome and its coherence with the language context of the DNA/RNA environment, reinforcing the prescribed algorithmic operations of the ribosome. There is no known physicodynamic cause for the codon to tRNA translation scheme. Since all genes can be modeled using rules (be they grammar or logical) rather than physicodynamic determinism, we inductively assert that the operation and organization of the genome operate under the influence of a programming language.

Quote:The correlation between linguistic properties examined and implemented using Automata theory give us a formalistic tool to study the language and grammar of biological systems in a similar manner to how we study computational cybernetic systems. These examples define a dichotomy in the definition of Prescriptive Information. We therefore suggest that the term Prescriptive Information (PI) be subdivided into two categories: 1) Prescriptive data and 2) Prescribed (executing) algorithm.

It is interesting to note that the CPU of an electronic computer is an instance of a prescriptive algorithm instantiated into an electronic circuit, whereas the software under execution is read and processed by the CPU to prescribe the program's desired output. Both hardware and software are prescriptive.
I love it! You guys are wacked! There is no proof for evolution and you may think by using the blah blah blah to study cybernetic systems is proof that man evolved form a rock is nonsense. You have no proof. Admit it, you have a senseless theory to fit your Godless lifestyle and that is it! Period!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 08:33 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(24-08-2013 08:22 PM)theword Wrote:  I love it! You guys are wacked! There is no proof for evolution and you may think by using the blah blah blah to study cybernetic systems is proof that man evolved form a rock is nonsense. You have no proof. Admit it, you have a senseless theory to fit your Godless lifestyle and that is it! Period!

Evolving from rocks; I've never heard such a theory before. But it would explain why you have the intellect of one.

No proof, except for the part where life exhibits variation, variation entails selection, and selection determines heredity of said variation and...

No, fuck it, it's not worth it.



... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
24-08-2013, 09:11 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(24-08-2013 08:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-08-2013 08:22 PM)theword Wrote:  I love it! You guys are wacked! There is no proof for evolution and you may think by using the blah blah blah to study cybernetic systems is proof that man evolved form a rock is nonsense. You have no proof. Admit it, you have a senseless theory to fit your Godless lifestyle and that is it! Period!

Evolving from rocks; I've never heard such a theory before. But it would explain why you have the intellect of one.

No proof, except for the part where life exhibits variation, variation entails selection, and selection determines heredity of said variation and...

No, fuck it, it's not worth it.


We all have the same intellect! And that proves evolution over creation?
Variation, really! So, I mix my pug with a German Shepard and due to evolution I get a pug-Shepard, or whatever? Nice try... still no proof whatsoever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 09:14 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(24-08-2013 09:11 PM)theword Wrote:  We all have the same intellect! And that proves evolution over creation?
Variation, really! So, I mix my pug with a German Shepard and due to evolution I get a pug-Shepard, or whatever? Nice try... still no proof whatsoever.

Oh, child. We do not.

Speciation does not occur over one generation. You're either a profound idiot, or you get off to playing one on TV.

(16-08-2013 09:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Here, I'll do your work for you.
(12-06-2013 09:53 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Speciation: evidence for, speculation on, and discussion of.
Some
examples
from
the
past
year.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 09:24 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(24-08-2013 09:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-08-2013 09:11 PM)theword Wrote:  We all have the same intellect! And that proves evolution over creation?
Variation, really! So, I mix my pug with a German Shepard and due to evolution I get a pug-Shepard, or whatever? Nice try... still no proof whatsoever.

Oh, child. We do not.

Speciation does not occur over one generation. You're either a profound idiot, or you get off to playing one on TV.

(16-08-2013 09:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Here, I'll do your work for you.
Thank you so much for your reply and calling me a child. I take that as a compliment being that I am probably much older, and far more educated than you. I do marvel at the fact that evolutionists always hide behind species taking millions of years to evolve. The reason for that is because we have never seen a species evolve. You see, evolution, as you describe has not only ever been proved, it has obviously never been seen. Which is what makes your little theory a fairy tale.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(24-08-2013 09:24 PM)theword Wrote:  Thank you so much for your reply and calling me a child. I take that as a compliment being that I am probably much older, and far more educated than you. I do marvel at the fact that evolutionists always hide behind species taking millions of years to evolve. The reason for that is because we have never seen a species evolve. You see, evolution, as you describe has not only ever been proved, it has obviously never been seen. Which is what makes your little theory a fairy tale.

Yeah, you... didn't read word one of those articles.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
24-08-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(24-08-2013 09:24 PM)theword Wrote:  Thank you so much for your reply and calling me a child. I take that as a compliment being that I am probably much older, and far more educated than you.

Soooo, the education just didn't take or what? You're profoundly ignorant for such a smarty pants.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 09:36 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(24-08-2013 09:33 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(24-08-2013 09:24 PM)theword Wrote:  Thank you so much for your reply and calling me a child. I take that as a compliment being that I am probably much older, and far more educated than you.

Soooo, the education just didn't take or what? You're profoundly ignorant for such a smarty pants.

Careful, evenheathen. Those degrees in Truthology from Christian Tech cost him a lot of postage.

Unfortunately his academic connections don't seem to give him access to current scholastic journal databases, or he'd've made the attempt at actually reading the literature I thoughtfully provided.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: