Synthese issue on "Evolution and its rivals"

Thanks! Let me add that James H. Fetzer of the University of Minnesota, Duluth, coedited the issue with me.

Oops. I should have mentioned that too, former Minnesotan that I am and brother of a UMD graduate to boot.

None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system. Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about.

That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

Ah, the "Law Of Conservation Of Information" ... I know it well:

http://www.vectorsite.net/taifevo.html

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system. Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about. That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

Mike Elzinga said: (2) “Complex specified information” is not a state variable. It is a fabricated term that has no consistent meaning among ID/creationists.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

There's also the question of what if anything "cognitive input" might mean. For an evolving gene pool, it gets input of data from its environment; that's how it "learns", in a way loosely analogous to how an individual organism learns stuff.

Henry J said: There's also the question of what if anything "cognitive input" might mean. For an evolving gene pool, it gets input of data from its environment; that's how it "learns", in a way loosely analogous to how an individual organism learns stuff.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable;

you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

Fair warning: Any comments from the fake Michael Behe go to the Bathroom Wall, as do comments responding to that troll.

Has it been established that the poster going by "Michael Behe" is in fact that esteemed scientist? If not, shouldn't those posts be moderated until they're verified? We shouldn't allow someone to sully Dr. Behe's good scientific name before he gets another chance to do it himself.

It's not the Michael Behe of Lehigh, it's a troll. Don't feed it and make more work for me cleaning up the thread, please.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system. Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about. That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system.

Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about.

cognitively isloated[sic]

wtf does that even mean?

I would translate it as literally meaning: isolated from knowledge and reason, which of course, the concept he refers to actually IS...

and think this guy is deliberately playing word games for fun.

Ichthyic said: cognitively isloated[sic] wtf does that even mean?

darwinnism.dogbarf() said:

"That is why ID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed."

To that I echo the Church Lady: Isn't that special?

Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about.

That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points.

How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system. Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about.

Joe Felsenstein said: If so, note that this is not the same as Peter Medawar's Law of Conservation of Information.

If so, note that this is not the same as Peter Medawar's Law of Conservation of Information.

mrg said:

Joe Felsenstein said: If so, note that this is not the same as Peter Medawar's Law of Conservation of Information.

I wasn't familiar with Medawar's concept -- sounds a bit like "garbage in garbage out", a computer simulation is no more valid than the assumptions on which it is based.

That is what the law of conservation of information is about.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: That is what the law of conservation of information is about.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system. Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about. That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

Mike said: Why is it that I get the feeling that this is just reobfuscated 2nd law of thermodynamics falsehoods?

Mike said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: That is what the law of conservation of information is about.

Why is it that I get the feeling that this is just reobfuscated 2nd law of thermodynamics falsehoods?

Isn't it an "interesting" law, the only use for which is to point out that it is violaated?

The Law of Conservation of Blah. But blah is not conserved. Therefore Blah must be flubboxed.

Stuart Weinstein said: "cognitively isolated". Unfortunately ID proponents suffer cognitive disbaility.

Cubist said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

The ID concept of "complex specified information" is not meaningful. If you think otherwise, perhaps you might like to tell us all how one goes about measuring 'complex specified information'? Let me give you some instances of objects/entities which are clearly Designed; I would greatly appreciate it if you could pick at least one of those object/entities, measure how much 'complex specified information' it has, and explain how you went about measuring the stuff. • A ham sandwich • A copy of the vinyl LP edition of the MEET THE BEATLES album • An F-111 fighter plane • A live performance of Beethoven's 5th Symphony If it's just not possible to measure the 'complex specified information' in any of these four objects/entities, please pick one of them and explain why it's not possible to measure that objrect/entity's 'complex specified information'. Thanks in advance!

An interesting paper is out in Science this week on the scientifically correct version of "irreducible complexity." The authors found that new genes in fruit flies quickly become essential for viability.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.full

Matt G said: An interesting paper is out in Science this week on the scientifically correct version of "irreducible complexity." The authors found that new genes in fruit flies quickly become essential for viability. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.full

mrg said:

Mike said: Why is it that I get the feeling that this is just reobfuscated 2nd law of thermodynamics falsehoods?

Same algorithm: "An unmade bed never makes itself. An intelligence has to make it up."

marilyn said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system. Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about. That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

Hello again Mr. Dogbarf, You must have missed my query on another thread, since you did not respond. I am wondering, since you seem to be quite knowledgeable on the subject, if you could please state for me the theory of intelligent design. I am not familiar with it and would like to have a concise statement of what it entails. If you could also provide me with a few references that provide support for the theory, that would be superb. Thank you very much.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: It it too hard for the average evolutionst, so be forewarned.

Mike Elzinga said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system. Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about. That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

There are far deeper reasons intelligent design “theory” can’t identify deities. (1) There is no such concept as “conservation of information.” And why “it is always constant or in decline” makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for something that is supposed to be “conserved.”

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Information, like energy is conserved.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: I guess I should have explained myself more clearly. Information, like energy is conserved. Complex specified information is like the reciprocal of entropy. It decreases or stays constant in a cognitively isolated environment just like entropy must increase in a spontaneous, endothermic chemical reacion at constant pressure and temperature.

SWT said: If, as you assert, "complex specified information" can decrease in an isolated environment, then CSI is not a conserved quantity.

mrg said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Information, like energy is conserved.

So, if I delete a data file ... what happens to the information in it?

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Yes, this {unmade bed} is a good example.

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

mrg said:

Mike said: Why is it that I get the feeling that this is just reobfuscated 2nd law of thermodynamics falsehoods?

Same algorithm: "An unmade bed never makes itself. An intelligence has to make it up."

Yes, this is a good example.

mrg said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Information, like energy is conserved.

So, if I delete a data file ... what happens to the information in it?

darwinism.dogbarf() said: The information increase in your mind is equal to the informaton content in the delted file.

And yet, dogbarf, who apparently can not spell well, and who's science education is limited to glancing at creationist misinformation propaganda, still refuses to explain why his deliberately unreasonable skepticism and deliberate scientific ignorance are supposed to trump actual science.

And then there is the fact that dogbarf still has yet to explain how Intelligent Design is supposed to be an explanation when none of its proponents have ever bothered to explain anything with it.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: I guess I should have explained myself more clearly. Information, like energy is conserved. Complex specified information is like the reciprocal of entropy. It decreases or stays constant in a cognitively isolated environment just like entropy must increase in a spontaneous, endothermic chemical reacion at constant pressure and temperature.

stevaroni said: And even the tiniest grain of salt has far, far, far more complexity than the (apparent) order of an unmade bed.

I guess I should have explained myself more clearly. Information, like energy is conserved.

mrg said: But what if it's a picture that I took and accidentally deleted without having a chance to see it?

John Vanko said: Why that unobserved, unappreciated information goes back to the bosom of The Designer to be redistributed into the Universe when and as she sees fit! ;-)

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Yes, intelligent design theory states that certain features of life, the universe and everything

The reasons for this affirmation of common sense can be found in the deep and subtil mathematical exposition of William Dembski. It it too hard for the average evolutionst, so be forewarned.

mrg said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: The information increase in your mind is equal to the informaton content in the delted file.

But what if it's a picture that I took and accidentally deleted without having a chance to see it?

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Information, like energy is conserved. Complex specified information is like the reciprocal of entropy. It decreases or stays constant in a cognitively isolated environment just like entropy must increase in a spontaneous, endothermic chemical reacion at constant pressure and temperature.

Dear DD,

I am admittedly inexpert in these things. I've never read any papers or books by Dembski. As you seem to be familiar at least with his terminology, perhaps you could help me out.

For instance the term "complex specified information" implies to me that there must also be simple unspecified information. Is that true? Could you help me understand by giving a clear example of each, so that I can see the difference? How complex is "complex"? Is there a detectable dividing line between simple and complex?

And "specified"--who specified it? In a manmade artifact I can understand that there were specifications for its manufacture, which may be met more or less perfectly, so that it could be said to contain the "specified information," which, I suppose, could be considered complex. But who does the specifying for a living thing? If you say it's "the Designer," that's just begging the question. You're assuming from the start that there is a Designer to do the specifying, rather than natural processes that don't really "specify" anything (except maybe by selectively eliminating those too far "off the specs," which can vary as the environment changes).

Oh well, I might as well go all the way. Does the Intelligent Designer contain CSI? Surely he(?) must contain more CSI than any of his(?) designs. And since the presence of CSI is a sure indicator that something was designed...

Dear Mr. Dogbarf,

Thank you for stating the theory of ID. I have never been able to find it stated anywhere before. You neglected to provide me with any references describing experiments that support the theory, but perhaps you'll need some more time to come up with those. Meanwhile, maybe you can explain someting about the theory to me. You said "intelligent design theory states that certain features of life, the universe and everything have features that can only be explained with reference to intelligent causes that require cognitive input." If features of "everything" can only be explained with reference to intelligent causes, you're saying the "intelligent causes" exist outside of "everything". Isn't "everything", well, "everything"? I don't understand. Where do these "intelligent causes" exist, and where did THEY come from? What are THEIR features, and how do we explain them? It seems to me you're just talking in circles.

I'm thinking "dogbarf()" is a Loki troll. The bit about Dembski's CSI being too "subtil" seemed to have a lot of tongue in the cheek, being primarily known from the spelling in the King James Version of the Bible.

mrg said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: The information increase in your mind is equal to the informaton content in the delted file.

But what if it's a picture that I took and accidentally deleted without having a chance to see it?

mrg said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: The information increase in your mind is equal to the informaton content in the delted file.

But what if it's a picture that I took and accidentally deleted without having a chance to see it?

raven said:

I guess I should have explained myself more clearly. Information, like energy is conserved.

No, you were clear. It is just plain wrong. Information doesn't even exist by itself. It is an attribute of mass-energy.

Colin said: The information is still there and it could be retrieved with appropriate software.

Just Bob said: Dear DD, I am admittedly inexpert in these things. I've never read any papers or books by Dembski. As you seem to be familiar at least with his terminology, perhaps you could help me out. For instance the term "complex specified information" implies to me that there must also be simple unspecified information. Is that true? Could you help me understand by giving a clear example of each, so that I can see the difference? How complex is "complex"? Is there a detectable dividing line between simple and complex? And "specified"--who specified it? In a manmade artifact I can understand that there were specifications for its manufacture, which may be met more or less perfectly, so that it could be said to contain the "specified information," which, I suppose, could be considered complex. But who does the specifying for a living thing? If you say it's "the Designer," that's just begging the question. You're assuming from the start that there is a Designer to do the specifying, rather than natural processes that don't really "specify" anything (except maybe by selectively eliminating those too far "off the specs," which can vary as the environment changes). Oh well, I might as well go all the way. Does the Intelligent Designer contain CSI? Surely he(?) must contain more CSI than any of his(?) designs. And since the presence of CSI is a sure indicator that something was designed...

mrg said:

Colin said: The information is still there and it could be retrieved with appropriate software.

So I copy it into a flash drive and it falls into a crusher, to be turned into dust. Or better ... suppose I write a document on my PC, don't save it, and suddenly the power goes down, with the document wiped out of RAM. (Now WHO out there who is computer-literate has never got caught short like that?) Where does the information go? C'mon guys. WE know you're just making this all up. But do YOU?

Dr. Who said:

mrg said:

Colin said: The information is still there and it could be retrieved with appropriate software.

So I copy it into a flash drive and it falls into a crusher, to be turned into dust. Or better ... suppose I write a document on my PC, don't save it, and suddenly the power goes down, with the document wiped out of RAM. (Now WHO out there who is computer-literate has never got caught short like that?) Where does the information go? C'mon guys. WE know you're just making this all up. But do YOU?

You're moving the goalposts, a lot.

Dr. Who said: You're moving the goalposts, a lot.

Yes, he is.

mrg said:

Dr. Who said: You're moving the goalposts, a lot.

Now do you mean me or DD? Energy is a conserved quantity -- we can trace out where it goes under all circumstances. Now if I write a document on my PC and the power goes down, I would say the information in that document simply disappears forever. (Just the same as things I forget in my leaky brain memory disappear forever.) This seems like a very ordinary example of a loss of information. I would say it says information is not a conserved quantity ... and therefore there is no "Law of Conservation Of Information".

Yes, he is.

You really DON'T know you're making all this up, do you? First rule of cons: "Never believe your own baloney."

...intelligent design theory states that certain features of life, the universe and everything have features that can only be explained with reference to intelligent causes that require cognitive input.

Dr. Who said: Since my reply was to you I meant you ...

... and you're still trying to move the goalposts even further.

ben said: This isn't a scientific theory, it's a trivially obvious fact -- some stuff is designed.

mrg said:

Dr. Who said: Since my reply was to you I meant you ...

I just wasn't sure. I've got nailed on misunderstandings before so I am cautious.

... and you're still trying to move the goalposts even further.

OK, let me state as a given that I am asking a question about information theory that has (as far as I am concerned) nothing to do with biology. The question about information theory is that some folks claim that there is a "Law of Conservation of Information" and so by direct implication information is a conserved quantity. I don't believe it is. I use as an example losing a document when the power goes down. Now if you're saying that the whole issue of "conservation of information" is irrelevant and not worth discussing further, I would agree, it's totally irrelevant (though I would have to add that I'm not the one who proposed the idea). If it is relevant, then so is my example, and I think complaints about "moving the goalposts" are just a (not at all convincing way) of trying to conceal (without success) that you don't have the least idea of what you are talking about.

Dr. Who said: I didn't say anything about the "Law of Conservation of Information" ...

I would like to amend the questions I asked above to make them more specific, and I'll add one.

Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between all species, both extinct and extant? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between no life and the origin of life on this planet? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between apes and the origin of humans?

Since scientists often refer to life forms as simple or complex, how complex is complex and how simple is simple, and is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between them?

If so, what specifications are used to detect and substantiate all those lines?

Dr. Who said: I would like to amend the questions I asked above to make them more specific, and I'll add one. Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between all species, both extinct and extant? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between no life and the origin of life on this planet? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between apes and the origin of humans? Since scientists often refer to life forms as simple or complex, how complex is complex and how simple is simple, and is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between them? If so, what specifications are used to detect and substantiate all those lines?

Dr. Who said: I only replied accurately to what you originally asked. A file you delete can be retrieved with appropriate software. You later added all the other things about a crushed flash drive, a power outage, the "Law of Conservation of Information", etc. That is moving the goalposts.

SWT said: Second, the presenting question remains regardless of the method by which the file is destroyed. It doesn't matter if the original repository of that information is overwritten or physically destroyed -- if information is conserved, the information that was in the file has to show up somewhere else. That's what "conserved" means.

SWT said: You're wrong on a couple of counts. First, the file cannot always be retrieved with appropriate software -- there are programs that overwrite the sectors used by the deleted file so that the deletion is secure. Or, a subsequent file save can over-write enough of the deleted file to make it unrecoverable. Second, the presenting question remains regardless of the method by which the file is destroyed. It doesn't matter if the original repository of that information is overwritten or physically destroyed -- if information is conserved, the information that was in the file has to show up somewhere else. That's what "conserved" means.

This is the original question > "So, if I delete a data file … what happens to the information in it?"

mrg said:

SWT said: Second, the presenting question remains regardless of the method by which the file is destroyed. It doesn't matter if the original repository of that information is overwritten or physically destroyed -- if information is conserved, the information that was in the file has to show up somewhere else. That's what "conserved" means.

Yeah, correct, that's the question I'm asking. I don't believe that information is a conserved quantity. If it is, what happens to the information if a file is deleted -- PERMANENTLY deleted, as in "completely beyond recovery"?

That is a different question.

That is a different question.

Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between all species, both extinct and extant?

Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between no life and the origin of life on this planet?

Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between apes and the origin of humans?

mrg said:

That is a different question.

Correct. I originally asked: "What happens to the information in data file when I delete it?" The answer was: "Nothing, you can recover it." Reply: "But what if it's unrecoverable? What happens to the information then?" Still haven't got an answer.

SWT said: You're far too charitable. The intent of your original question was clear, and the nit-picking reply you got was a non-responsive bit of obfuscation.

Dr. Who said: I would like to amend the questions I asked above to make them more specific, and I'll add one. Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between all species, both extinct and extant? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between no life and the origin of life on this planet? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between apes and the origin of humans? Since scientists often refer to life forms as simple or complex, how complex is complex and how simple is simple, and is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between them? If so, what specifications are used to detect and substantiate all those lines?

DS said: This also means that species definitions, as well as all higher taxonomic constructs, are somewhat arbitrary and artificial. This is not in general a problem for evolutionary theory, only for those who want simple black and white, cut and dried answers. Reality doesn't work that way.

As for simple and complex, those are relative terms. In general, they have no well defined technical meaning. Most attempts to quantify complexity are also somewhat arbitrary.

Even the categorization of industrial products can get iffy.

Take cars. A Malibu is a car. No one would dispute that. But how about a "crossover SUV"? A Hummer? A WWII era Jeep? A Ford Ranchero? Is a Smart Car really a car, or just a 4-wheeled motorcycle with AC? How about a 3-wheeled Morgan? An Amphicar?

The problem with the classification is not the existence of hard-to-classify vehicles, but with our arbitrary terminology--the same as with the identity of individual species.

(BTW, even the meaning of "car" has evolved. There were things called "cars" long before there were any motorized vehicles. And, I suspect, the meaning of "species" has evolved, along with our understanding of biological interrelationships. Does it mean the same thing to a modern taxonomist as it did to Linnaeus?)

Just Bob said: Take cars. A Malibu is a car. No one would dispute that. But how about a "crossover SUV"? A Hummer? A WWII era Jeep? A Ford Ranchero? Is a Smart Car really a car, or just a 4-wheeled motorcycle with AC? How about a 3-wheeled Morgan? An Amphicar?

Anybody can identify individual icicles hanging from the eaves. Any kind of dendritic growth can have individual branches labeled.

But it is silly to ask at the molecular level, during the incipient formation of branches, just exactly at which point a new branch forms.

People who demand answers to such questions are simply broadcasting to the entire world that they are incapable of grasping simple ideas and that they still think like babies.

There's two other things about making a fuss about species definitions:

1: Under modern evolutionary theory, a fuzzy definition of species is EXPECTED, since MET envisions species as two populations gradually diverging from a common ancestral population, gradually losing the ability to interbreed until it is clearly impossible for them to do so. Crisply
defined species would be incompatible with MET.

2: Even if MET were completely discredited -- fat chance -- the difficulty in defining species would remain pretty much the same. That is, it would make as much or more trouble for any other theory as it does for MET.

Yep. Works the same way for languages. Are Frencn and Walloons different languages? Flemish and Dutch? Portuguese and Spanish? Dutch and Afrikaans?

mrg said:

That is a different question.

Correct. I originally asked: "What happens to the information in data file when I delete it?" The answer was: "Nothing, you can recover it." Reply: "But what if it's unrecoverable? What happens to the information then?" Still haven't got an answer.

Kris said:

mrg said:

That is a different question.

Correct. I originally asked: "What happens to the information in data file when I delete it?" The answer was: "Nothing, you can recover it." Reply: "But what if it's unrecoverable? What happens to the information then?" Still haven't got an answer.

Nice job of misquoting you did there, and I see that you and others think it's ok for you to move goalposts but not for creationists to do so. Nothing changes here; the hypocrisy just keeps going and going and going and................

SWT said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: I guess I should have explained myself more clearly. Information, like energy is conserved. Complex specified information is like the reciprocal of entropy. It decreases or stays constant in a cognitively isolated environment just like entropy must increase in a spontaneous, endothermic chemical reacion at constant pressure and temperature.

If, as you assert, "complex specified information" can decrease in an isolated environment, then CSI is not a conserved quantity.

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

SWT said: If, as you assert, "complex specified information" can decrease in an isolated environment, then CSI is not a conserved quantity.

That is correct. Information is the conserved quantity, but complex specifed information will always go down in a cognitively isolated environment. In such an environment, the rate of decay of complex specified information approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero. (It works like the third law of thermodynamics.)

Dr. Who (the Hell are You) said: Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between all species, both extinct and extant? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between no life and the origin of life on this planet? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between apes and the origin of humans? Since scientists often refer to life forms as simple or complex, how complex is complex and how simple is simple, and is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between them? If so, what specifications are used to detect and substantiate all those lines?

darwinism.dogbarf() said: ... complex specifed information will always go down in a cognitively isolated environment. ...

Basically the Law of Conservation of Information is a windy way of saying: a watch, a complicated device, implies a watchmaker, a designer, and so complicated organisms imply a Designer as well.
It's just dressing it up in made-up talk about
information and conservation laws.

One can just as easily reason that since a piggy bank is designed, then a real pig had to be Designed as well.

Or, in other words, if humans imitate nature, then that implies nature imitates humans. One must add, of course, that there are some people who honestly think that's logical.

Made it through the Sarkar article. Basically, he says that when religion is removed from all that has been said and written about ID, there is nothing of substance left at all. That we're looking at "intelligence" without any intelligent agent or intent, and at "design" without any plan or purpose. And that without these things, the words themselves have no referent; they don't MEAN anything. Essentially, creationists have changed the spelling of their god, and claimed they changed the meaning as well. But they of course did not.

Flint said: Made it through the Sarkar article. Basically, he says that when religion is removed from all that has been said and written about ID, there is nothing That we're looking at of substance left at all. "intelligence" without any intelligent agent or intent, and at "design" without any plan or purpose. And that without these things, the words themselves have no referent; they don't MEAN anything. Essentially, creationists have changed the spelling of their god, and claimed they changed the meaning as well. But they of course did not.

when religion is removed from all that has been said and written about ID, there is nothing of substance left at all.

which means there was nothing of substance to begin with.

...which doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, does it?

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

SWT said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: I guess I should have explained myself more clearly. Information, like energy is conserved. Complex specified information is like the reciprocal of entropy. It decreases or stays constant in a cognitively isolated environment just like entropy must increase in a spontaneous, endothermic chemical reacion at constant pressure and temperature.

If, as you assert, "complex specified information" can decrease in an isolated environment, then CSI is not a conserved quantity.

That is correct. Information is the conserved quantity, but complex specifed information will always go down in a cognitively isolated environment. In such an environment, the rate of decay of complex specified information approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero. (It works like the third law of thermodynamics.)

SWT said:

Kris said:

mrg said:

That is a different question.

Correct. I originally asked: "What happens to the information in data file when I delete it?" The answer was: "Nothing, you can recover it." Reply: "But what if it's unrecoverable? What happens to the information then?" Still haven't got an answer.

Nice job of misquoting you did there, and I see that you and others think it's ok for you to move goalposts but not for creationists to do so. Nothing changes here; the hypocrisy just keeps going and going and going and................

If you truly think that mrg has moved the goalposts here, you don't understand the intent of his question. The simple fact is, file on computer drives can be deleted permanently. So, mrg's question is, if information is conserved, where does the information go when a file is permanently deleted? If you have a substantive response to the actual question (rather than a simplistic attempt at obfuscation such as Dr.Who's, or yet more allegations of poor behavior), I'd like to hear it.

Dale Husband said:

Dr. Who (the Hell are You) said: Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between all species, both extinct and extant? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between no life and the origin of life on this planet? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between apes and the origin of humans? Since scientists often refer to life forms as simple or complex, how complex is complex and how simple is simple, and is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between them? If so, what specifications are used to detect and substantiate all those lines?

If those questions had definite answers, evolution wouldn't be a valid concept. Therefore, you have been asking trick questions we need not bother with.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Dr. Who (the Hell are You) said: Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between all species, both extinct and extant? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between no life and the origin of life on this planet? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between apes and the origin of humans? Since scientists often refer to life forms as simple or complex, how complex is complex and how simple is simple, and is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between them? If so, what specifications are used to detect and substantiate all those lines?

If those questions had definite answers, evolution wouldn't be a valid concept. Therefore, you have been asking trick questions we need not bother with.

If those questions had definite answers, evolution wouldn't be a valid concept? Really? Well, in that case, the specifications you guys ask for and expect from creationists, to substantiate their concepts, claims or theories, are just trick questions, and if creationists could or would answer your questions and expectations it would invalidate their concepts, claims, or theories. I guess you guys better stop asking questions and expecting answers. Practice what you preach.

Kris said: The "intent" of his question??

A few questions to all:

Is information derived from matter?

Is information matter?

Can matter be destroyed (become non-existent)?

Is information subject to the theory of evolution?

Kris said: Oh, by the way, many scientists are and have been trying to find answers to those "trick" questions for a long time. Why do you suppose that is, if "we need not bother with" them?

Scott F said:

Kris said: Oh, by the way, many scientists are and have been trying to find answers to those "trick" questions for a long time. Why do you suppose that is, if "we need not bother with" them?

You really have no clue what you're talking about. I'm no "scientist" let alone a biologist, or anthropologist, or whatever (just a "software engineer"), and yet the intent and meaning of Mr. Husband's statement was plainly, factually correct. And yours is just as plainly and factually not.

Kris said: A few questions to all: Is information derived from matter? Is information matter? Can matter be destroyed (become non-existent)? Is information subject to the theory of evolution?

Kris said:

Scott F said:

Kris said: Oh, by the way, many scientists are and have been trying to find answers to those "trick" questions for a long time. Why do you suppose that is, if "we need not bother with" them?

You really have no clue what you're talking about. I'm no "scientist" let alone a biologist, or anthropologist, or whatever (just a "software engineer"), and yet the intent and meaning of Mr. Husband's statement was plainly, factually correct. And yours is just as plainly and factually not.

Are you saying that no scientists are trying, or have tried, to find answers to those questions?

Is Kris' brain broken?

scientists want to know!

I don’t mean to be rude

he's nothing but stinky cheese bait.

go ahead, be rude.

it's OK.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Dr. Who (the Hell are You) said: Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between all species, both extinct and extant? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between no life and the origin of life on this planet? Is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between apes and the origin of humans? Since scientists often refer to life forms as simple or complex, how complex is complex and how simple is simple, and is there a scientifically detectable dividing line between them? If so, what specifications are used to detect and substantiate all those lines?

If those questions had definite answers, evolution wouldn't be a valid concept. Therefore, you have been asking trick questions we need not bother with.

If those questions had definite answers, evolution wouldn't be a valid concept? Really? Well, in that case, the specifications you guys ask for and expect from creationists, to substantiate their concepts, claims or theories, are just trick questions, and if creationists could or would answer your questions and expectations it would invalidate their concepts, claims, or theories. I guess you guys better stop asking questions and expecting answers. Practice what you preach.

Kris the pathological liar said:

Scott F said:

Kris said: Oh, by the way, many scientists are and have been trying to find answers to those "trick" questions for a long time. Why do you suppose that is, if "we need not bother with" them?

You really have no clue what you're talking about. I'm no "scientist" let alone a biologist, or anthropologist, or whatever (just a "software engineer"), and yet the intent and meaning of Mr. Husband's statement was plainly, factually correct. And yours is just as plainly and factually not.

Are you saying that no scientists are trying, or have tried, to find answers to those questions?

Dale Husband said:

Kris the pathological liar said:

Scott F said:

Kris said: Oh, by the way, many scientists are and have been trying to find answers to those "trick" questions for a long time. Why do you suppose that is, if "we need not bother with" them?

You really have no clue what you're talking about. I'm no "scientist" let alone a biologist, or anthropologist, or whatever (just a "software engineer"), and yet the intent and meaning of Mr. Husband's statement was plainly, factually correct. And yours is just as plainly and factually not.

Are you saying that no scientists are trying, or have tried, to find answers to those questions?

No, he is saying that you are a fraud and just got busted over your inability to deal with reality. :)

fnxtr said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

SWT said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: I guess I should have explained myself more clearly. Information, like energy is conserved. Complex specified information is like the reciprocal of entropy. It decreases or stays constant in a cognitively isolated environment just like entropy must increase in a spontaneous, endothermic chemical reaction at constant pressure and temperature.

If, as you assert, "complex specified information" can decrease in an isolated environment, then CSI is not a conserved quantity.

That is correct. Information is the conserved quantity, but complex specified information will always go down in a cognitively isolated environment. In such an environment, the rate of decay of complex specified information approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero. (It works like the third law of thermodynamics.)

Okay, I'll play: "information" is conserved, but "complex specified information" isn't?!? Well then, complex specified information must somehow change into just plain information, right? 'Cause one is conserved but the other isn't? Right? Does it just lose it's complexity and specification, and somehow remain "information"?

And what the heck is a "cognitively isolated environment"?

You're just making shit up, aren't you, d.db?

Scott F said:

Kris said: A few questions to all: Is information derived from matter? Is information matter? Can matter be destroyed (become non-existent)? Is information subject to the theory of evolution?

I'm no expert (and I'm sure the experts here will correct me if I'm wrong), but I will try to answer your questions. [First, you don't define what "information" is in this context (and as I'm no expert I probably wouldn't understand a detailed definition anyway), so I will make some assumptions.] To answer your questions: 1. Is information derived from matter? "Information" is not derived from matter. (Depending of course on which specific definition of "derived" you are talking about.) [Again, I am not an expert, so this may be in-artfully stated.] As I understand it, information is the arrangement of matter (and/or energy) in particular ways. 2. Is information matter? "Information" is not "matter". For example, a proton is not "information". An electron is not "information". A photon is not "information. See question #1. However, an electron bound to a proton in it's lowest energy state is information, as distinct from another electron bound to another proton in a different energy state. Similarly, a photon being in a particular place at a particular time is also information. 3. Can matter be destroyed (become non-existent)? Yes. "Matter" can be destroyed. We (humans) do it all the time. Does it become "non-existent"? Well, that depends on your definitions. Matter can cease to be "matter", but in doing so it is typically converted into energy. If by that you mean "non-existent", then yes matter can become non-existent. In the special case where matter is converted into warped space-time, my limited understanding is that there is no scientific consensus yet on whether the matter has become "non-existent" or not. So, I'll have to punt on the second part of your question, as it is beyond my current limited knowledge. 4. Is information subject to the theory of evolution? As I understand the Theory of Evolution, the answer is, no, by itself "information" is not subject to the Theory of Evolution. For example, there is "information" in a stream of electrons or photons, and such a stream of particles is not subject to the Theory of Evolution. Do I pass the quiz? (I presume that you know the answers to these questions, or you wouldn't be asking them.) If these are not the answers you were looking for, please clarify your definitions and I will try again. Thanks. I enjoy technical quizzes. It allows me to hone and clarify my understanding of things.

Kris said: (i.e. nutcase who makes up his own religion from selected parts of Christianity and/or others)

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

And what the heck is a "cognitively isolated environment"?

It is an environment with no intelligent input, like the random explosions evolutionists are so fond of.

You're just making shit up, aren't you, d.db?

Even if I am, what bearing does that have on the truth of my thesis?

How about some definitions of "matter" to make it interesting.

Definition:

Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Photons have no mass, so they are an example of something in physics is not comprised of matter. They are also not considered "objects" in the traditional sense, as they cannot exist in a stationary state.

Phases of Matter
Matter can exist in various phases: solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. Most substances can transition between these phases based on the amount of heat the material absorbs (or loses).

--------------------------------------

mat·ter (mtr)
n.
1.
a. Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.
b. Physics Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

--------------------------------------

b : material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy

a : the indeterminate subject of reality; especially : the element in the universe that undergoes formation and alteration

-------------------------------------

mat·ter
/ˈmætər/ Show Spelled[mat-er] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2.
physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, esp. as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3.
something that occupies space.

Philosophy .
a.
that which by integrative organization forms chemical substances and living things.
b.
Aristotelianism . that which relates to form as potentiality does to actuality.

-------------------------------------

Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist.[1][2] Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume.[3] In practice however there is no single correct scientific meaning of "matter," as different fields use the term in different and sometimes incompatible ways.

For much of the history of the natural sciences people have contemplated the exact nature of matter. The idea that matter was built of discrete building blocks, the so-called particulate theory of matter, was first put forward by the Greek philosophers Leucippus (~490 BC) and Democritus (~470–380 BC).[4] Over time an increasingly fine structure for matter was discovered: objects are made from molecules, molecules consist of atoms, which in turn consist of interacting subatomic particles like protons and electrons.[5][6]

Matter is commonly said to exist in four states (or phases): solid, liquid, gas and plasma. However, advances in experimental techniques have realized other phases, previously only theoretical constructs, such as Bose–Einstein condensates and fermionic condensates. A focus on an elementary-particle view of matter also leads to new phases of matter, such as the quark–gluon plasma.[7]

In physics and chemistry, matter exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties, the so-called wave–particle duality.[8][9][10]

In the realm of cosmology, extensions of the term matter are invoked to include dark matter and dark energy, concepts introduced to explain some odd phenomena of the observable universe, such as the galactic rotation curve. These exotic forms of "matter" do not refer to matter as "building blocks", but rather to currently poorly understood forms of mass and energy.[11

--------------------------------------

Matter is anything that has mass and occupies space.

One [contemporary] view on matter takes it as all scientifically observable entities whatsoever. Matter can more accurately be defined as the energy that has a low vibratory rate, a compressed energy state. Commonly, the definition is limited to such entities explored by physics.

The definition pursued here is of matter as whatever the smallest, most fundamental entities in physics seem to be.

Thus matter can be seen as material consisting of particles which are fermions and therefore obey the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that no two fermions can be in the same quantum state. Because of this principle, the particles which comprise matter do not all end up in their lowest energy state, and hence it is possible to create stable structures out of fermions. Many of these fermions are atoms and ions and their component parts, subatomic particles.

In addition, the Pauli exclusion principle ensures that two pieces of matter will not occupy the same location at the same time, and therefore two pieces of matter in which most energy states are filled will tend to collide with each other rather than passing through each other as with energy fields such as light.

The matter that we observe most commonly takes the form of compounds, polymers, alloys, or pure elements.

In response to different thermodynamic conditions such as temperature and pressure, matter can exist in different "phases", the most familar of which are solid, liquid, and gas. Others include plasma, superfluid, and Bose-Einstein condensate. When matter changes from one phase to another, it undergoes what is known as a phase transition, a phenomenon studied in the field of thermodynamics.

"Matter" is also used in contrast to form, in the sense of content.

--------------------------------------

mat·ter (mat′ər)

noun

1. what a thing is made of; constituent substance or material
2. what all (material) things are made of; whatever occupies space and is perceptible to the senses in some way: in modern physics, matter and energy are regarded as equivalents, mutually convertible according to Einstein's formula, E = mc (i.e., energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light); in dualistic thinking, matter is regarded as the opposite of mind, spirit, etc.

--------------------------------------

Phases of matter - Definition

In the physical sciences, a phase is a set of states of a macroscopic physical system that have relatively uniform chemical composition and physical properties (i.e. density, crystal structure, index of refraction, and so forth.) The most familiar examples of phases are solids, liquids, and gases. Less familiar phases include plasmas, Bose-Einstein condensates and fermionic condensates, strange matter, liquid crystals, superfluids and supersolids and the paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases of magnetic materials.

Phases are sometimes called states of matter, but this term can lead to confusion with thermodynamic states. For example, two gases maintained at different pressures are in different thermodynamic states, but the same "state of matter".

-------------------------------------

Antimatter:

Antimatter is matter that is composed of the antiparticles of those that constitute normal matter. In 1929-31, Paul Dirac put forward a theory that for each type of particle, there is an antiparticle for which each additive quantum number has the negative of the value it has for the normal matter particle. The sign reversal applies only to quantum numbers (properties) which are additive, such as charge, and not to mass, for example. So, the antiparticle of the normal electron is called the positron, as it has a positive charge, but the same mass as the electron. An atom of antihydrogen, for instance, is composed of a negatively-charged antiproton being orbited by a positively-charged positron. Paul Dirac's theory has been experimentally verified and today a wide range of antiparticles have been detected. This is one of the few examples of a fundamental particle being predicted in theory and later discovered by experiment.

If a particle/antiparticle pair comes in contact with each other, the two annihilate and produce a burst of energy, which may manifest itself in the form of other particles and antiparticles or electromagnetic radiation. In these reactions, rest mass is not conserved, although (as in any other reaction), mass-energy is conserved.

Scientists in 1995 succeeded in producing anti-atoms of hydrogen, and also anti-deuteron nuclei, made out of an antiproton and an antineutron, but not yet more complex antimatter. In principle, sufficiently large quantities of antimatter could produce anti-nuclei of other elements, which would have exactly the same properties as their positive-matter counterparts. However, such a "periodic table of anti-elements" is thought to be, at best, highly unlikely, as the quantities of antimatter required would be, quite literally, astronomical.

Antiparticles are created elsewhere in the universe where there are high-energy particle collisions, such as in the center of our galaxy, but none have been detected that are residual from the Big Bang, as most normal matter is [1] (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29may_1m.htm). The unequal distribution between matter and antimatter in the universe has long been a mystery. The solution likely lies in an asymmetry in the properties of B-mesons and anti-B-mesons [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2159498.stm).

Positrons and antiprotons can individually be stored in a device called a Penning trap, which uses a combination of magnetic and electric fields to hold charged particles in a vacuum. Two international collaborations (ATRAP and ATHENA) used these devices to produce thousands of slowly moving antihydrogen atoms in 2002. It is the goal of these collaborations to probe the energy level structure of antihydrogen to compare it with that of hydrogen as a test of the CPT theorem. One way to do this is to confine the anti-atoms in an inhomogenous magnetic field (one cannot use electric fields since the anti-atom is neutral) and interrogate them with lasers. If the anti-atoms have too much kinetic energy they will be able to escape the magnetic trap, and it is therefore essential that the anti-atoms are produced with as little energy as possible. This is the key difference between the antihydrogen that ATRAP and ATHENA produced, which was made at very low temperatures, and the antihydrogen produced in 1995 which was moving at a speed close to the speed of light.

The symbol used to denote an antiparticle is the same symbol used to denote its normal matter counterpart, but with an overstrike. For example, a proton is denoted with a "p", and an antiproton is denoted by a "p" with a line over its top $(\backslash bar\{\backslash mbox\{p\}\})$ .$$

Antimatter/matter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, see Positron emission tomography (PET). In some kinds of beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and neutrinos are also given off). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use.

Dave Lovell said:

Kris said: (i.e. nutcase who makes up his own religion from selected parts of Christianity and/or others)

God help is if real Christians were like that. We'd probably end up swamped in tens of thousands of different denominations.

Too late. It has already happened. A similar thing often happens in science.

Kris said:

Kris said: Is information derived from matter? Is information matter?

Scott F said: As I understand it, information is the arrangement of matter (and/or energy) in particular ways. Do I pass the quiz? If these are not the answers you were looking for, please clarify your definitions and I will try again.

Here are some definitions for information, data, and raw data I found online. It might be interesting to hear how others here define "information".

Kris said: Hey Mr. agnostic Unitarian Universalist (i.e. nutcase who makes up his own religion from selected parts of Christianity and/or others), let's see you answer the questions if you know so much about reality. Oh, and you might want to remember the six sources, and especially the one(s) about love, compassion, justice, and all that jazz. You apparently forgot them.

Scott F said: And here I thought you were asking honest questions in good faith. Silly me.

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system. Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about. That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

Get back to us after reading the Elsberry and Shallit essay from the Synthese issue, taking special note of section 7 for demolishing claims of a "law of conservation of information". ID can't even answer whether a thing is designed, if one accepts that it is Dembski's CSI that is supposed to be used in the identification. Everything which is supposedly explained by a design inference is better and more simply explained by Specified Anti-Information (SAI, introduced in Elsberry and Shallit 2003, in the appendices).

darwinism.dogbarf() said: You lose.

mrg said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: You lose.

So you're saying that snowflakes demand an intelligent designer?

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Dembski has never calculated the precise complex specified information in snowflakes, but I think it could be possible.

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated system. Without cognitive input, complex specifed information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about. That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

Get back to us after reading the Elsberry and Shallit essay from the Synthese issue, taking special note of section 7 for demolishing claims of a "law of conservation of information". ID can't even answer whether a thing is designed, if one accepts that it is Dembski's CSI that is supposed to be used in the identification. Everything which is supposedly explained by a design inference is better and more simply explained by Specified Anti-Information (SAI, introduced in Elsberry and Shallit 2003, in the appendices).

No, these essays do not distinguish between information and complex specified information. They have failed to explain how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated environment. You lose.

I think it's Bathroom Wall time for our dearly "beloved" Kris: Dale Husband said: You come in here with your snarky attitude and now even posting llllllllllllllloooooooooooonnnnnnnggggggggggg posts to try to overwhelm us with how brilliant you are, and you expect us to take you seriously? Really? You are a desperate piece of crap. I suggest you get the hell out of your momma's basement and get some real life for a while.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Dembski has never calculated the precise complex specified information in snowflakes...

On a somewhat different tack, since no one else had mentioned it, let me be the first. Wish every a very happy and Merry Kitzmas!

Today's Philadelphia Inquirer has an excellent article on Judge Jones's ruling and its implications five years later:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20101220_Five_years_ago___quot_intelligent_design_quot__ruling_in_Dover_case_set_a_legal_landmark.html

Apparently Bill Dembski is on Facebook. I sent him this terse greeting about an hour ago:

Merry Kitzmas, Bill. Can we expect yet another video of Judge Jones with flatulence in the background anytime soon? You know, you'd be perfect for Monty Python. Can't wait to send you a Klingon honor guard to keep you company day and night. Can't think of anyone more worthy of such an honor.

Science Avenger said: Or anything else for that matter. The reason is obvious.

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said: And here I thought you were asking honest questions in good faith. Silly me.

I don’t think that Kris realizes that those two posts with “definitions” of information and matter give a much better profile of him than they do of information and matter. Like every ID/creationist he resorts to tossing around “authoritative” definitions rather than demonstrating any conceptual understanding of anything.

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

mrg said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: You lose.

So you're saying that snowflakes demand an intelligent designer?

Dembski has never calculated the precise complex specified information in snowflakes, but I think it could be possible.

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

mrg said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: You lose.

So you're saying that snowflakes demand an intelligent designer?

Dembski has never calculated the precise complex specified information in snowflakes, but I think it could be possible.

Religion is exactly the opposite. There ARE 40,000 or more Christian sects because there IS NO WAY to resolve disputes. Things become true in religions because someone SAYS they are true, and you accept and believe it or you do not.

QFT

Flint is dead on here, IMO*.

*and not just because he said so.
:)

mrg said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Dembski has never calculated the precise complex specified information in snowflakes, but I think it could be possible.

So ... you mean to say that snowflakes cannot be explained by chemistry and the rules of chemical bonding, but are instead only explained by Intelligent Design?

Ichthyic said:

Flint said:Religion is exactly the opposite. There ARE 40,000 or more Christian sects because there IS NO WAY to resolve disputes. Things become true in religions because someone SAYS they are true, and you accept and believe it or you do not.

QFT Flint is dead on here, IMO*. *and not just because he said so. :)

SWT said: And what happens to the information in them when they melt?

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said: And here I thought you were asking honest questions in good faith. Silly me.

I don’t think that Kris realizes that those two posts with “definitions” of information and matter give a much better profile of him than they do of information and matter. Like every ID/creationist he resorts to tossing around “authoritative” definitions rather than demonstrating any conceptual understanding of anything.

I was noticing that too. But more to my other point, this gets to the heart of the problem where creationists change the definition of words without notification. If "information" means any or all of these things, then they seem to feel free to use any of these definitions at any point in time. The answer to my other question to Kris is that there are multiple definitions of terms, because each definition depends on "context". It's why real scientists go to so much trouble to nail down the definitions they are using in the current context. Creationists use context-free definitions willy nilly, and see no problem with it. Or, rather, they freely mix and match definitions to fit whatever point they are trying to "gotcha" with at the moment.

Kris, the point they are making is that it is not possible to have a rational conversation with you because you are not bringing anything to the table. If you wish to use the term "information" in a discussion, weneed to know precisely what you mean by it in that context. Otherwise, you are saying nothing.

Malchus said: Kris, the point they are making is that it is not possible to have a rational conversation with you because you are not bringing anything to the table. If you wish to use the term "information" in a discussion, weneed to know precisely what you mean by it in that context. Otherwise, you are saying nothing.

Kris the whiny little @$$hole said: Pick any definition you like. I provided all those definitions so that anyone could pick whichever one they think fits best into the discussion. You or anyone else can make up your own definition if you want to, and see what kind of responses you get. When I read your last response last night I thought you might actually want to discuss something intelligently, but I guess I was wrong. It appears that most people here, by far, have their minds made up about absolutely everything and have no desire to even consider other viewpoints or anything that may pertain to their current viewpoint. I guess you all know everything already and have everything in the universe figured out and don't need to study or learn or even discuss anything else. Maybe you should all get together and write a book titled "The universe and absolutely everything in it and outside it, for Dummies". I'm sure it would be a best seller. It's clear that the reason you guys say you don't believe there's a god is simply because you believe you are greater than any god. I've always thought that religious zealots are the arrogant and self righteous ones. Actually, they're starting to look pretty humble compared to most of you.

Stanton said:

Ichthyic said:

Flint said:Religion is exactly the opposite. There ARE 40,000 or more Christian sects because there IS NO WAY to resolve disputes. Things become true in religions because someone SAYS they are true, and you accept and believe it or you do not.

QFT Flint is dead on here, IMO*. *and not just because he said so. :)

There are actually two methods Christians have used to successfully resolve religious disputes for the past 2 millenia: force the disagreer to agree with you under pain of torture and death, or simply kill anyone and everyone who disagrees. Sometimes both methods are used together.

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said: And here I thought you were asking honest questions in good faith. Silly me.

I don’t think that Kris realizes that those two posts with “definitions” of information and matter give a much better profile of him than they do of information and matter. Like every ID/creationist he resorts to tossing around “authoritative” definitions rather than demonstrating any conceptual understanding of anything.

Mike Elzinga said:

Malchus said: Kris, the point they are making is that it is not possible to have a rational conversation with you because you are not bringing anything to the table. If you wish to use the term "information" in a discussion, weneed to know precisely what you mean by it in that context. Otherwise, you are saying nothing.

He appears to be using a variant of a trick many ID/creationist rubes use; namely, convincing himself that science and scientists are evil and nasty thereby justify his sticking with ID/creationism even though he can’t support such pseudoscience with any rational arguments. By taunting scientists and making up crap and then having this tactic exposed by the very people he is taunting, he “proves” what ID/creationist leaders teach their followers about the “closed-mindedness” of scientists. This tactic goes all the way back into the 1960s and 70s with Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and the other founders of “scientific” creationism. It is part of their “we’re being persecuted” shtick; and it is really getting threadbare.

Dale Husband said: How can you ask us to discuss anything intelligently when you already stopped doing so? That and you lie outright all over this post below......

Kris the whiny little @$$hole said: Pick any definition you like. I provided all those definitions so that anyone could pick whichever one they think fits best into the discussion. You or anyone else can make up your own definition if you want to, and see what kind of responses you get. When I read your last response last night I thought you might actually want to discuss something intelligently, but I guess I was wrong. It appears that most people here, by far, have their minds made up about absolutely everything and have no desire to even consider other viewpoints or anything that may pertain to their current viewpoint. I guess you all know everything already and have everything in the universe figured out and don't need to study or learn or even discuss anything else. Maybe you should all get together and write a book titled "The universe and absolutely everything in it and outside it, for Dummies". I'm sure it would be a best seller. It's clear that the reason you guys say you don't believe there's a god is simply because you believe you are greater than any god. I've always thought that religious zealots are the arrogant and self righteous ones. Actually, they're starting to look pretty humble compared to most of you.

Have you considered getting mental help?

have you considered you're projecting?

have you considered just how worthless you are?

things worth considering.

Kris the hateful nutcase said: Mike (and pretty much everyone else here), do you have nightmares about creationists? Are there creationist monsters hiding under your bed and in your closets, and in the shadows in your house? Are you afraid to go outside because you think some creationist monsters are waiting out there to get you? Are you always looking over your shoulder to see if creationists are sneaking up on you? Do you jump whenever you hear a noise behind you and go running to your mommy for comfort? Were you beaten or molested by a creationist when you were a child? Why are you so afraid of creationists? Have you considered getting mental help? Maybe some scientific method can be used to help you deal with your fears. Hey, it's worth a try! Speaking of projection. You are totally psycho.

John Kwok said: Sorry my delusional intellectually challenged dogpoop, but you're going up against the legendary Wesley Elsberry who has, along with mathematician Jeffrey Shallit, made ample mincemeat - or dare I say poop - of Complex Specified Information and other pseudomathematical crap emanating from the mind of that great mathematical "genius" Bill Dembski:

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isolated system. Without cognitive input, complex specified information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about. That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

Get back to us after reading the Elsberry and Shallit essay from the Synthese issue, taking special note of section 7 for demolishing claims of a "law of conservation of information". ID can't even answer whether a thing is designed, if one accepts that it is Dembski's CSI that is supposed to be used in the identification. Everything which is supposedly explained by a design inference is better and more simply explained by Specified Anti-Information (SAI, introduced in Elsberry and Shallit 2003, in the appendices).

No, these essays do not distinguish between information and complex specified information. They have failed to explain how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isolated environment. You lose.

darwinism.dogbarf() said: Dembski's deep and subtil arguments paralyze the brain of evolutionists. That's why they can't understand.

Flint said:

Too late. It has already happened. A similar thing often happens in science.

This is actually an important point. Disputes and disagreements often happen in science. It could be argued that every hypothesis represents a test of whether the evidence more closely indicates one of two or more alternatives. But we notice that science uses reality as the court of only resort, and so eventually all scientists come to agree on what was once in dispute, because the state of the art made the reality clear. It is extremely rare to find long-standing antagonistic schools of thought in science, because any such differences immediately suggest tests to resolve them. If no such test is possible in principle, then at least one of the competing claims cannot be scientific. Religion is exactly the opposite. There ARE 40,000 or more Christian sects because there IS NO WAY to resolve disputes. Things become true in religions because someone SAYS they are true, and you accept and believe it or you do not. But there are in principle no possible tests to resolve disputes. As several of the authors in this journal point out, not one single testable hypothesis to accept or reject ID has ever been put forward, despite decades of requests for one. The Templeton Foundation offered a million dollars to any "ID scientist" who proposed such a test, and there were no takers. So in religion, what you do if you disagree is, you start your own sect. What matters isn't the correctness of your beliefs, which can't be determined anyway, but rather the intensity of those beliefs. As we've seen in Iraq, in Ireland, in many other places. In science, ultimately reality will be well enough understood to decide. In religion, ultimately one claim wins if those holding competing beliefs are exterminated or marginalized.

Kris said:

Flint said:

Too late. It has already happened. A similar thing often happens in science.

This is actually an important point. Disputes and disagreements often happen in science. It could be argued that every hypothesis represents a test of whether the evidence more closely indicates one of two or more alternatives. But we notice that science uses reality as the court of only resort, and so eventually all scientists come to agree on what was once in dispute, because the state of the art made the reality clear. It is extremely rare to find long-standing antagonistic schools of thought in science, because any such differences immediately suggest tests to resolve them. If no such test is possible in principle, then at least one of the competing claims cannot be scientific. Religion is exactly the opposite. There ARE 40,000 or more Christian sects because there IS NO WAY to resolve disputes. Things become true in religions because someone SAYS they are true, and you accept and believe it or you do not. But there are in principle no possible tests to resolve disputes. As several of the authors in this journal point out, not one single testable hypothesis to accept or reject ID has ever been put forward, despite decades of requests for one. The Templeton Foundation offered a million dollars to any "ID scientist" who proposed such a test, and there were no takers. So in religion, what you do if you disagree is, you start your own sect. What matters isn't the correctness of your beliefs, which can't be determined anyway, but rather the intensity of those beliefs. As we've seen in Iraq, in Ireland, in many other places. In science, ultimately reality will be well enough understood to decide. In religion, ultimately one claim wins if those holding competing beliefs are exterminated or marginalized.

I disagree that it is extremely rare to find long-standing antagonistic schools of thought in science, or that eventually all scientists come to agree on what was once in dispute.

Many things that are put forth by so-called scientists as scientific evidence or proof are either very questionable or absolute crap...

Many things in science that are touted as evidence or proof are based on eyewitness or earwitness testimony, with no verifiable or testable evidence or proof.

Dale Husband said: What a hypocrite you indeed are! LOL! GROW THE FUK UP! You opinions will continue to be worth their weight in shyt until you do!

Kris the hateful nutcase said: Mike (and pretty much everyone else here), do you have nightmares about creationists? Are there creationist monsters hiding under your bed and in your closets, and in the shadows in your house? Are you afraid to go outside because you think some creationist monsters are waiting out there to get you? Are you always looking over your shoulder to see if creationists are sneaking up on you? Do you jump whenever you hear a noise behind you and go running to your mommy for comfort? Were you beaten or molested by a creationist when you were a child? Why are you so afraid of creationists? Have you considered getting mental help? Maybe some scientific method can be used to help you deal with your fears. Hey, it's worth a try! Speaking of projection. You are totally psycho.

Well let's compare shall we?

"I disagree that it is extremely rare to find long-standing antagonistic schools of thought in science, or that eventually all scientists come to agree on what was once in dispute.

On what grounds do you disagree? Perhaps you’d care to name some counter-examples?"

Science: gravity, geocentrism, relativity (general and special), plate tectonics, germ theory, DNA, transposons, neutral theory, punctuated equilibrium (All resolved and current consensus)

Religion: Thousands of separate sects, all in fundamental disagreement, no possible hope of any resolution, often resulting in wars, genocides, jihads, inquisitions, etc.

"Many things that are put forth by so-called scientists as scientific evidence or proof are either very questionable or absolute crap…

Many”? Alright; please name five of this “many”. If you actually do know of “many” such examples, naming five shouldn’t be difficult for you, right?"

Science - no real scientist has EVER claimed absolute "proof" for anything (and no mathematic proofs don't count). This is just a bold faced lie by someone who doesn't understand how science works. And even if someone were to claim this, they wouldn't be doing science or following the scientific method, so no one would care.

Religion - turtles, young earth, world wide flood, dinosaurs on the ark, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. etc. etc.

"Many things in science that are touted as evidence or proof are based on eyewitness or earwitness testimony, with no verifiable or testable evidence or proof.

“Many”? Please name five of this “many”. If you actually do know of “many” such examples, naming five shouldn’t be difficult for you, right?"

See above.

Kris said: Now here's a thought from me: You're nutz.

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

John Kwok said: Sorry my delusional intellectually challenged dogpoop, but you're going up against the legendary Wesley Elsberry who has, along with mathematician Jeffrey Shallit, made ample mincemeat - or dare I say poop - of Complex Specified Information and other pseudomathematical crap emanating from the mind of that great mathematical "genius" Bill Dembski:

darwinism.dogbarf() said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

darwinism.dogbarf() said: None of those essays explains how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isolated system. Without cognitive input, complex specified information is always constant or in decline. That is what the law of conservation of information is about. That having been said, complex specified information is a state variable; you can only know its beginning and end points. How it got there can not be determined. That is whyID can not answer who the designer is and when he designed it, only that a thing is designed.

Get back to us after reading the Elsberry and Shallit essay from the Synthese issue, taking special note of section 7 for demolishing claims of a "law of conservation of information". ID can't even answer whether a thing is designed, if one accepts that it is Dembski's CSI that is supposed to be used in the identification. Everything which is supposedly explained by a design inference is better and more simply explained by Specified Anti-Information (SAI, introduced in Elsberry and Shallit 2003, in the appendices).

No, these essays do not distinguish between information and complex specified information. They have failed to explain how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isolated environment. You lose.

Kwok, like most evolutionists can not comprehend the difference between barf and poop. One comes from the mouth and the other from the anus. This is not surprising, since on evolutionists like Kwok they are actually the same thing. Dembski's deep and subtil arguments paralyze the brain of evolutionists. That's why they can't understand.

This comment has been moved to the bathroom wall. Any further discussion should occur there.

I second these requests. As Einstein said, it only takes one exception to show it's wrong.

I only wish Kris were more articulate and more knowledgeable. He continues to cite "many" and "often" but never cites a single actual instance of anything.

I suppose it's true that at the edge of the unknown, scientists conjecture and speculate and guess. That's the grist from which hypotheses are formed. Hypotheses lead to tests, which lead to empirical results, which resolve disputes and solidify (and usually reject) conjectures. Perhaps an exception is conjectures like brane theory or string theory, where experiments or even observations are impossible to make, and which probably isn't science so much as "fun with math".

Kris's continued insistence on "proof" is a disturbing indication that he doesn't understand that science does not and CAN not EVER prove anything. The best science can offer is strong but always conditional support.

Kris seems to reject the overall point of my post, however, which is that science has reality as a yardstick, against which conjectures can be tested and rejected. And THAT is why all scientists come to accept the probable accuracy of explanations over time - becuase they are probably right. And it's a most wonderful contrast that "creation" (or ID) "scientists" reject what has passed literally millions of stringent and wide-ranging tests for well over a century - because that material fails religious tests, which rely on faith and evidence is irrelevant. People like Behe are part of a religious schism, not any kind of scientific dispute.

Cubist said:

Kris said:

Flint said:

Too late. It has already happened. A similar thing often happens in science.

This is actually an important point. Disputes and disagreements often happen in science. It could be argued that every hypothesis represents a test of whether the evidence more closely indicates one of two or more alternatives. But we notice that science uses reality as the court of only resort, and so eventually all scientists come to agree on what was once in dispute, because the state of the art made the reality clear. It is extremely rare to find long-standing antagonistic schools of thought in science, because any such differences immediately suggest tests to resolve them. If no such test is possible in principle, then at least one of the competing claims cannot be scientific. Religion is exactly the opposite. There ARE 40,000 or more Christian sects because there IS NO WAY to resolve disputes. Things become true in religions because someone SAYS they are true, and you accept and believe it or you do not. But there are in principle no possible tests to resolve disputes. As several of the authors in this journal point out, not one single testable hypothesis to accept or reject ID has ever been put forward, despite decades of requests for one. The Templeton Foundation offered a million dollars to any "ID scientist" who proposed such a test, and there were no takers. So in religion, what you do if you disagree is, you start your own sect. What matters isn't the correctness of your beliefs, which can't be determined anyway, but rather the intensity of those beliefs. As we've seen in Iraq, in Ireland, in many other places. In science, ultimately reality will be well enough understood to decide. In religion, ultimately one claim wins if those holding competing beliefs are exterminated or marginalized.

I disagree that it is extremely rare to find long-standing antagonistic schools of thought in science, or that eventually all scientists come to agree on what was once in dispute.

On what grounds do you disagree? Perhaps you'd care to name some counter-examples?

Many things that are put forth by so-called scientists as scientific evidence or proof are either very questionable or absolute crap...

"Many"? Alright; please name five of this "many". If you actually do know of "many" such examples, naming five shouldn't be difficult for you, right?

Many things in science that are touted as evidence or proof are based on eyewitness or earwitness testimony, with no verifiable or testable evidence or proof.

"Many"? Please name five of this "many". If you actually do know of "many" such examples, naming five shouldn't be difficult for you, right?

John Kwok said: Thanks for the admission, Kris. I knew you were delusional quite some time ago, and you've merely reaffirmed that in your bizarre exchanges with Dale, Stanton, and virtually everyone else here, including yours truly:

Kris said: Now here's a thought from me: You're nutz.

Kris said: Many things... ...many things... Many things... Many things... Many of those things... Some things... Some things... Many things... I pretty much agree... I'm not sure it's all true... I also don't feel completely comfortable... Some religious people have likely... I'd like to think...

DS said:

"Science: gravity, geocentrism, relativity (general and special), plate tectonics, germ theory, DNA, transposons, neutral theory, punctuated equilibrium (All resolved and current consensus)"

Are you actually saying that ALL scientists agree on ALL aspects of ALL the things you listed, and that ALL of them are resolved in every way??

And putting geocentrism in with DNA or gravity or plate tectonics or relativity is ridiculous. The others I'm not sure about.

DS also said:

"Science - no real scientist has EVER claimed absolute “proof” for anything (and no mathematic proofs don’t count). This is just a bold faced lie by someone who doesn’t understand how science works. And even if someone were to claim this, they wouldn’t be doing science or following the scientific method, so no one would care.

Oh, so now it's no "real" scientist. In other words, any scientist who does that isn't a "real" one.

Take a look at this, and be sure to notice the word "prove" in a quoted statement from Eric Alm. You better go tell him he's not a real scientist, and since that study wasn't done by a real scientist, no one will care about it. Yeah, sure.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101219140815.htm

Why don't "mathematic proofs" count?

Kris said: How old is the universe?

That should read:

"Religions debate this as being between 6,000 years and 14+ [billion] years, a range of multiple orders of magnitude."

In case it isn't obvious, Kris is playing the timeworn game of pretending every disagreement is equal in scope. It's ye ol' black/white fallacy: there's either 100% agreement, or not. No other distinctions allowed.

You give away that you are no scientist with every post Kris. Try reading this:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

It'll help clear that problem up for you.

Kris said: Take a look at this, and be sure to notice the word "prove" in a quoted statement from Eric Alm.

Ah, finally a useful list of "scientific disputes", though a bit of a mixed bag. Some of these aren't scientific at all, some are cases where insufficient data provides about equal support for multiple interpretations, some are political (or matters of opinion). Some categorization seems called for.

Perhaps we can separate these into a first-order distinction between issues where sufficient data would eliminate disputes, and issues where sufficient data is simply not the problem. For example, questions about "ideal" populations, or about gods, or about "threats" are political, such that complete information wouldn't resolve any dispute. Those aren't scientific.

Among cases where complete data would eliminate dispute, we can further subdivide between cases where such data could become available with sufficient research (and investment in that research), and where it's probably forever beyond our knowledge. And for example, even when the Sphinx was carved, there were probably differences of opinion among those responsible as to whether and why it should be done.

It's important to draw a qualitative distinction between how many wolverines there are (can be determined in principle with an exhaustive census), and how many is too many (depends on a fairly large number of interdependent value judgments). Many if not most of these "disputes" hinge on such value judgments - whether something ought to be done, whether something is worth the cost, whether something eliminates or adds to communication difficulties, how likely an explanation has to be to be considered acceptable, etc.

And in this respect, I think Kris raises (but misunderstands) an important point. Scientists are people with values and opinions, science as an enterprise is not. Science may be able to specify with considerable precision the impact of removing the mountain goats, yet two scientists equipped with this information can STILL strongly disagree about whether the goats OUGHT to be removed. That's a political dispute, not a scientific dispute.

Then we have cases of extrapolation. IF we do X, what is the probability that the result will be Y? In real world cases (like the environmental scientists debating in courts), any given action will have HUNDREDS of impacts, few if any of which can be exactly quantified, and all of which are likely to have costs and benefits paid and enjoyed by different groups. These again aren't quite scientific disputes.

So OK, we have scientists, like anyone else, debating whether this or that cost of combating global warming is worth paying. How much benefit per dollar spent, how is benefit measured, who enjoys it, who pays, etc.? This is political. We often have solid statistical bases for determining what sorts of side-effects drugs will have, and how many will suffer them. How bad a side effect is too bad, how many instances is too many? Science simply can't address those questions.

(And it's probably also important to recognize that scientific (not necessarily political) disagreement is critical to science, because it shapes research. When existing data about equally support two competing explanations, it focuses research on how those explanations differ.)

Science Avenger said:

Kris said: How old is the universe?

OK, let's play: Scientists debate this as being between 13+ and 14+ billion years, a range of less than 8%. Religions debate this as being between 6,000 years and 14+ years, a range of multiple orders of magnitude. You really think the two are comparable?

OK, I'm going to make an executive ruling. Flint's analysis seems to me to be right on, and anyone (I'm looking at you, Kris) who fails to understand its relevance to this discussion is off to the Bathroom Wall forthwith.

Further slippery semantic silliness of the sort with which Kris has littered this thread is hereby out of bounds. I should close the thread on Flint's note, but I'm curious to see if anything penetrates Kris's armor.

Kris the Creationist defender said:

Science Avenger said:

Kris said: How old is the universe?

OK, let's play: Scientists debate this as being between 13+ and 14+ billion years, a range of less than 8%. Religions debate this as being between 6,000 years and 14+ years, a range of multiple orders of magnitude. You really think the two are comparable?

No, they're not compatible, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I KNOW that some creationists are nuts and believe things that are absurd, but it's still a fact that scientists do not all agree on the age of the universe, and many other things about the universe. Some scientists believe the universe could be or is much, much older than 13 or 14 billion years. I've seen an article or two recently where scientists said the universe could be 150,000,000,000+ years old. NOBODY knows for sure.

I’ve seen an article or two recently where scientists said the universe could be 150,000,000,000+ years old. NOBODY knows for sure.

Kris said: In one of my fields (Lepidoptera), there are constant disagreements, disputes, and fights (some quite heated) over many things.

Want to see some disputes, and some questionable or debatable evidence? Look into these, for a start: Is the Ivory Billed Woodpecker extinct or extant? How old is the universe? Are Barred Owls a threat to Spotted Owls? How much land should be set aside to make sure that Spotted Owls will live and thrive? What kind of land and how exactly should it be determined? Are aberrated butterflies rare, or just rarely observed? Is the name Echo Blue or Echo Azure and scientific name Celestrina echo more valid than the name Spring Azure and scientific name Celestrina ladon or Celestrina argolius or Celastrina argiolus echo or a bunch of other ones? You want to see some disputes? Just look into butterfly taxonomy/systematics.

Flint said:

I’ve seen an article or two recently where scientists said the universe could be 150,000,000,000+ years old. NOBODY knows for sure.

But science isn't about absolute certainty, science is about finding explanations that best fit our observations. I recently saw an article where someone had observations which can sensibly be interpreted as indicating that our universe existed before the big bang, and may be cyclical. That sort of thing is worth following up. If it stands up to further investigation, then we must redefine "age of the universe" in some way yet to be determined. I think we can say that science is happening ONLY where there is dispute and disagreement. Science is a process of learning, not a collection of "proved factoids". I'm starting to smell the usual creationist distrust of science because the greatest strength of science (it keeps learning new and better) strikes the creationist as its biggest weakness (it keeps changing its mind, it doesn't hold still like superstition does.)

Science Avenger said:

Kris said: Take a look at this, and be sure to notice the word "prove" in a quoted statement from Eric Alm.

Typical dishonest semantic games. Why don't you send Eric Alm an email and see if he agrees with your interpretation of his use of the word "prove" as "absolute proof"? Want to bet what the answer will be? Your argument is the equivalent of someone walking into a Bible study and asking "if Jesus was the lamb of god, then where is his wool?" Unimpressive to say the least, and not at all scientific.

Flint said: Ah, finally a useful list of "scientific disputes", though a bit of a mixed bag. Some of these aren't scientific at all, some are cases where insufficient data provides about equal support for multiple interpretations, some are political (or matters of opinion). Some categorization seems called for. Perhaps we can separate these into a first-order distinction between issues where sufficient data would eliminate disputes, and issues where sufficient data is simply not the problem. For example, questions about "ideal" populations, or about gods, or about "threats" are political, such that complete information wouldn't resolve any dispute. Those aren't scientific. Among cases where complete data would eliminate dispute, we can further subdivide between cases where such data could become available with sufficient research (and investment in that research), and where it's probably forever beyond our knowledge. And for example, even when the Sphinx was carved, there were probably differences of opinion among those responsible as to whether and why it should be done. It's important to draw a qualitative distinction between how many wolverines there are (can be determined in principle with an exhaustive census), and how many is too many (depends on a fairly large number of interdependent value judgments). Many if not most of these "disputes" hinge on such value judgments - whether something ought to be done, whether something is worth the cost, whether something eliminates or adds to communication difficulties, how likely an explanation has to be to be considered acceptable, etc. And in this respect, I think Kris raises (but misunderstands) an important point. Scientists are people with values and opinions, science as an enterprise is not. Science may be able to specify with considerable precision the impact of removing the mountain goats, yet two scientists equipped with this information can STILL strongly disagree about whether the goats OUGHT to be removed. That's a political dispute, not a scientific dispute. Then we have cases of extrapolation. IF we do X, what is the probability that the result will be Y? In real world cases (like the environmental scientists debating in courts), any given action will have HUNDREDS of impacts, few if any of which can be exactly quantified, and all of which are likely to have costs and benefits paid and enjoyed by different groups. These again aren't quite scientific disputes. So OK, we have scientists, like anyone else, debating whether this or that cost of combating global warming is worth paying. How much benefit per dollar spent, how is benefit measured, who enjoys it, who pays, etc.? This is political. We often have solid statistical bases for determining what sorts of side-effects drugs will have, and how many will suffer them. How bad a side effect is too bad, how many instances is too many? Science simply can't address those questions. (And it's probably also important to recognize that scientific (not necessarily political) disagreement is critical to science, because it shapes research. When existing data about equally support two competing explanations, it focuses research on how those explanations differ.)

RBH said: OK, I'm going to make an executive ruling. Flint's analysis seems to me to be right on, and anyone (I'm looking at you, Kris) who fails to understand its relevance to this discussion is off to the Bathroom Wall forthwith. Further slippery semantic silliness of the sort with which Kris has littered this thread is hereby out of bounds. I should close the thread on Flint's note, but I'm curious to see if anything penetrates Kris's armor.

Kris the bigoted lunatic said: All of the things I listed involve scientists, and disagreements, disputes, or even downright heated arguments in some cases between scientists. Some involve lawsuits, with opposing scientific testimony. The things I listed more than satisfy the demands for examples. I don't have to prove who's right or wrong in the disputes, disagreements, or fights; only that there are disputes disagreements, or fights. And some of those are "long-standing".

All of the things I listed involve scientists, and disagreements, disputes, or even downright heated arguments in some cases between scientists. Some involve lawsuits, with opposing scientific testimony.

The things I listed more than satisfy the demands for examples.

I don’t have to prove who’s right or wrong in the disputes, disagreements, or fights; only that there are disputes disagreements, or fights. And some of those are “long-standing”.

Kris said: All of the things I listed involve scientists, and disagreements, disputes, or even downright heated arguments in some cases between scientists. Some involve lawsuits, with opposing scientific testimony.

The things I listed more than satisfy the demands for examples.

I don't have to prove who's right or wrong in the disputes, disagreements, or fights; only that there are disputes disagreements, or fights. And some of those are "long-standing".

It's evident that there is no penetrating the armor of Kris's skull. Somewhere, IIRC, Kris claimed to be a scientist. I strongly doubt that: Kris shows no signs of awareness of what scientific disputes are, how they arise, or how they're resolved. He can't tell the difference between a scientific dispute and a political one: He'd be right at home on Faux News.

Further playing with him, though of some amusement value and perhaps educational for spectators, is basically a waste of electrons. There's ample illustration of the mindset already in the thread, particularly these last few comments. Hence I'm closing it, with thanks to those of you who worked so well to show how the kind of mindset Kris has is impermeable to new facts and learning, and particular thanks to Flint for his analysis above.

It'll take me a few minutes to close the thread--I'm having connectivity issues--but close it I will shortly.

[...] That is what the law of conservation of information is about.

No, these essays do not distinguish between information and complex specified information. They have failed to explain how complex specified information rises in a cognitively isloated environment. You lose.

Not all commentators on Dembski’s work have appreciated that CSI is not information in the accepted senses of the word as used by information theorists; in particular, it is neither Shannon’s entropy, surprisal, nor Kolmogorov complexity.