Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Book Recommedation
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Devils Advocaat
Sep 15, 2012, 4:23:55 PM9/15/12
to
The Nature of Information
Paul Young
Copyright 1987
I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
Especially one person.
Andrew.
As it will hopefully correct one of his misunderstandings.
Happy reading everyone.
Paul Young
Copyright 1987
I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
Especially one person.
Andrew.
As it will hopefully correct one of his misunderstandings.
Happy reading everyone.
Smiler
Sep 15, 2012, 7:55:36 PM9/15/12
to
considered reasonable.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
John Locke
Sep 15, 2012, 9:02:49 PM9/15/12
to
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Nature of Information
>Paul Young
>Copyright 1987
>
>I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
>
It's a good recommendation. Thank you. I will simply add this comment
<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Nature of Information
>Paul Young
>Copyright 1987
>
>I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
>
I found by Paul Young himself:
In my book, The Nature of Information, I describe a mechanism by which
"information" can be seen to be an entirely physical or material
process, resulting not only in the natural unification of matter and
mind, thereby solving, conceptually, the mind-body or brain-mind
problem, but identification of the fundamental creative and control
mechanism immanent in the universe by which physical systems generate
and regulate their organization and behavior, obviating the need for
any metaphysical or supernatural element, ingredient, or force, to
explain them. In this worldview, the idea of God is a concept for
which there actually is no place or role, because the creative and
control functions of the universe are immanent in the system.
>Especially one person.
>
>Andrew.
>
>As it will hopefully correct one of his misunderstandings.
>
>Happy reading everyone.
>
...except for the theists. They will not be happy.
skye...@yahoo.com
Sep 16, 2012, 3:28:07 AM9/16/12
to
On Sep 15, 6:02 pm, John Locke <johnnydemon...@demonmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Devils Advocaat
Sep 16, 2012, 4:10:39 AM9/16/12
to
On 16 Sep, 00:55, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:23:55 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > The Nature of Information
> > Paul Young
> > Copyright 1987
>
> > I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
>
> > Especially one person.
>
> > Andrew.
>
> > As it will hopefully correct one of his misunderstandings.
>
> > Happy reading everyone.
>
> Your hope far exceeds that, by all the available evidence, which can be
> considered reasonable.
One can always hope my toothy-faced little buddy. :)
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:23:55 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > The Nature of Information
> > Paul Young
> > Copyright 1987
>
> > I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
>
> > Especially one person.
>
> > Andrew.
>
> > As it will hopefully correct one of his misunderstandings.
>
> > Happy reading everyone.
>
> Your hope far exceeds that, by all the available evidence, which can be
> considered reasonable.
Andrew
Sep 16, 2012, 5:22:35 AM9/16/12
to
"Smiler" wrote in message news:pan.2012.09.15....@JoeKing.com...
http://www.p2l.it/14c
1. No information can exist without a code.
2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. No information can exist without a will.
These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
http://www.p2l.it/14b
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:23:55 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>
>> The Nature of Information
>> Paul Young
>> Copyright 1987
>>
>> I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
>>
>> Especially one person.
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> As it will hopefully correct one of his misunderstandings.
>>
>> Happy reading everyone.
>
> Your hope far exceeds that, by all the available evidence, which can be
> considered reasonable.
**********************************************************
>
>> The Nature of Information
>> Paul Young
>> Copyright 1987
>>
>> I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
>>
>> Especially one person.
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> As it will hopefully correct one of his misunderstandings.
>>
>> Happy reading everyone.
>
> Your hope far exceeds that, by all the available evidence, which can be
> considered reasonable.
http://www.p2l.it/14c
1. No information can exist without a code.
2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. No information can exist without a will.
These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
http://www.p2l.it/14b
Jeanne Douglas
Sep 16, 2012, 5:54:31 AM9/16/12
to
In article <3JqdnXwSZ9xhBMjN...@earthlink.com>,
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Smiler" wrote in message news:pan.2012.09.15....@JoeKing.com...
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:23:55 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> >
> >> The Nature of Information
> >> Paul Young
> >> Copyright 1987
> >>
> >> I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
> >>
> >> Especially one person.
> >>
> >> Andrew.
> >>
> >> As it will hopefully correct one of his misunderstandings.
> >>
> >> Happy reading everyone.
> >
> > Your hope far exceeds that, by all the available evidence, which can be
> > considered reasonable.
>
> **********************************************************
>
> http://www.p2l.it/14c
Why do you believe this shite?
> "Smiler" wrote in message news:pan.2012.09.15....@JoeKing.com...
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:23:55 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> >
> >> The Nature of Information
> >> Paul Young
> >> Copyright 1987
> >>
> >> I've just started reading this and would recommend it to anyone.
> >>
> >> Especially one person.
> >>
> >> Andrew.
> >>
> >> As it will hopefully correct one of his misunderstandings.
> >>
> >> Happy reading everyone.
> >
> > Your hope far exceeds that, by all the available evidence, which can be
> > considered reasonable.
>
> **********************************************************
>
> http://www.p2l.it/14c
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Devils Advocaat
Sep 16, 2012, 6:04:19 AM9/16/12
to
On 16 Sep, 10:21, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Smiler" wrote in messagenews:pan.2012.09.15....@JoeKing.com...
Are you using the article about Werner Gitt's ideas on information
found on the talk origins website?
> "Smiler" wrote in messagenews:pan.2012.09.15....@JoeKing.com...
found on the talk origins website?
Devils Advocaat
Sep 16, 2012, 6:10:41 AM9/16/12
to
On 16 Sep, 10:21, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Smiler" wrote in messagenews:pan.2012.09.15....@JoeKing.com...
Ralph
Sep 16, 2012, 4:55:46 PM9/16/12
to
On 9/16/2012 5:22 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "Smiler" wrote in messagenews:pan.2012.09.15....@JoeKing.com...
What a reviewer of this book says:
The "creationist comedy" genre is experiencing a neo-medieval revival,
and this book is a solid addition to the wide but shallow repertoire of
error, distortion, and pseudoscience that typifies the category.
Anyone familiar with information theory must question whether Gitt has
even cursory knowledge of the topic. He consistently arrives at
conclusions before comprehending what he's talking about. Logic and
sequence aside, regurgitating hairballs of erroneous prose (ala Dembski
- perhaps they collaborated), does not constitute scholarship, cogent
reasoning, or proof.
Gitt twits around Shannon information theory just long enough to
showcase his befuddlement, and then proceeds to make hefty deposits to
the bank of cluelessness with comments like:
"The highest information density known to us is that of the DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules of living cells. This chemical storage
medium is 2 nm in diameter and has a 3.4 NM helix pitch (see Figure 1).
This results in a volume of 10.68 x 10-21 cm3 per spiral. Each spiral
contains ten chemical letters (nucleotides), resulting in a volumetric
information density of 0.94 x 1021 letters/cm3. In the genetic alphabet,
the DNA molecules contain only the four nucleotide bases, that is,
adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. The information content of such
a letter is 2 bits/nucleotide. Thus, the statistical information density
is 1.88 x 1021 bits/cm3."
Sounds impressive, but lacks substance. DNA does not possess the
"highest information density known." The very concept of information
density is poorly defined in the scientific literature - and Gitt
doesn't even attempt to present a working, let alone workable definition
in his creationist faux-science alternative. How do you compare the
"information density" of a DNA molecule with the information density of
an electromagnetic wave emitted by a pulsar? It's a meaningless comparison.
Gitt then claims that Shannon theory is incomplete because (as intended
by Shannon), it focuses on a quantitative measure of information. It
doesn't care what the message means. He sets out to "fix" this
nonexistent problem by positing five layers of information: statistics,
syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics. Gitt then pontificates
that Shannon theory, and information theory as a whole, only concerns
itself with statistics because it doesn't differentiate between
syntactically valid and invalid information. Gitt's scheme, which has
more in common with linguistics than information theory, enshrines
Apobetics (a word he invents) as the most important attribute, and
defines it as the "purpose" of the message (for reasons that will soon
become clear).
Throughout "In the Beginning Was Information" Gitt is constantly
inventing "theorems." He doesn't seem to understand what the word means
in this context, because Gitt's "theorems" are just statements that he
hopes are true, but which are unproven, and are often unproveable.
Here are just a few of Gitt's theorems (in the interests of relative
brevity I've omitted his "Empirical Principles, Necessary Conditions,
and Sufficient Conditions"):
"Theorem 4: A code is an absolutely necessary condition for the
representation of information."
"Theorem 5: The assignment of the symbol set is based on convention and
constitutes a mental process."
"Theorem 6: Once the code has been freely defined by convention, this
definition must be strictly observed thereafter."
"Theorem 7: The code used must be known both to the transmitter and
receiver if the information is to be understood."
"Theorem 8: Only those structures that are based on a code can represent
information (because of Theorem 4). This is a necessary, but still
inadequate, condition for the existence of information."
"Theorem 9: Only that which contains semantics is information."
"Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the
beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter)."
How does Gitt conclude that a code is a necessary condition for the
representation of information? He just asserts it. Worse, how does he
conclude that only things that are based on a code represent
information? Again, just an assertion - but at least in this case a
reasonable one. Gitt asserts that nothing without structured encoding is
information. And this is also the absolute crux of his argument:
information only exists as a part of a code designed by an intelligent
"mental source" (Gitt's God).
Despite the fact that Gitt claims to be completing Shannon theory, there
is no math in the rest of his argument. It's like watching the all
words, all assertions, all the time channel.
Gitt's tottering house of cards continues to outreach his grasp as he
piles on additional theorems:
"Theorem 11: The apobetic aspect of information is the most important,
because it embraces the objective of the transmitter. The entire effort
involved in the four lower levels is necessary only as a means to an end
in order to achieve this objective."
After this literal instance of special revelation, Gitt reaches his
pseudo-information theory apotheosis by brazenly asserting that he has
mathematically completed Shannon's information theory! He then gushes
about how the "most important empirical principles relating to the
concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems."
Ultimately, to Gitt, a theorem is nothing but a "form," a syntactic
structure, and his entire argument, as put forth in this book, is
mathematically complete. Note to Gitt: not in this quantum reality. Next
time do some serious, honest, and real science by offering a
mathematically rigorous proof, not a loopy creationist "poof" as in
"snapping fingers together and magically poofing things into existence."
After chapters of mind-numbing dreck and detritus Gitt discloses his
real agenda:
"The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original
groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit
their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the
mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ."
Gitt culminates his descent into gibberish with:
"We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with
information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the
science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the
guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."
It's a grand mal seizure moment - pure epileptic epiphany unconstrained
by any nuance of reality or reason: DNA is a message with the highest
possible information density because it encodes the literal uber-mind of
the creator, God. Gitt also claims that said deity left behind a written
and inerrant version of the creation event (in a less information dense
form) known as the Book of Genesis, and that this myth masquerading as
fact - along with the rest of the Bible - constitutes the ultimate moral
and scientific truth in the universe, overthrowing over all extent or
contemplated materialist skullduggery. Second note to Gitt: don't expect
the Nobel Prize Committee (for Science, Peace, or Literature) to call
any time soon.
As usual the twits (or Gitts) who write this stuff pretend to string
together logical, scientific, and mathematically rigorous arguments for
the existence of God - but they can only deliver this "miraculous"
outcome by resorting to sleight-of-hand circular reasoning that
specifically includes God as a necessary premise (implicitly woven
throughout Gitt's Empirical Principles, Theorems, and Conditions).
"In the Beginning Was Information" has nothing honest, useful, or
scientific to say about beginnings or information. The edifice of
science based on methodological naturalism remains unshaken by Gitt's
faith-based delusions and just-so story assertions. For a book that
claims to be about information, very little is actually present. "
Other problems with Gitt's bullshit:
"
Errors in Werner Gitt's work with Information Theory
On this page is an evaluation of the work of Werner Gitt in light of the
Ev program <http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/%7Etoms/paper/ev>.
* Werner Gitt's web site <http://www.werner-gitt.de/>, Documents and
books. <http://www.werner-gitt.de/down_eng.html>
* google Werner Gitt
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Werner+Gitt&btnG=Google+Search>
* His book In the Beginning Was Information
<http://www.google.com/search?q=In+the+Beginning+Was+Information>. A
quick glance through indicates that it is full of errors.
* Information, science and biology
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp> by
Werner Gitt, TJ 10(2):181-187, August 1996.
o
Yes, paradoxical though it may sound, considered from the
point of view of information theory, a random sequence of
letters possesses the maximum information content, whereas a
text of equal length, although linguistically meaningful, is
assigned a lower value.
Here Gitt falls into a standard misunderstanding Information Is
Not Entropy, Information Is Not Uncertainty!
<http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/%7Etoms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html>
That is, he forgets to subtract.
o
*Theorem 1*: The statistical information content of a chain
of symbols is a quantitative concept. It is given in bits
(binary digits).
This is a definition, not a theorem. Gitt does not prove it.
o
*Theorem 2*: According to Shannon's theory, a disturbed
signal generally contains more information than an
undisturbed signal, because, in comparison with the
undisturbed transmission, it originates from a larger
quantity of possible alternatives.
This is incorrect. Gitt has fully fallen into the pitfall (see
above) and is stuck. He has confused /H_before / with
information. From now on he is doomed. In this case, /he
directly contradicts Shannon's own theorem and writings/! That
is, Shannon used the fact that a disturbance /decreases/ the
information to prove his theorem! See Shannon1948
<http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html> Part
II, Section 11, PART II: THE DISCRETE CHANNEL WITH NOISE 11.
REPRESENTATION OF A NOISY DISCRETE CHANNEL. Page 21, Figure 8.
*Since Gitt has gotten Shannon backwards, his writing is
completely scrambled and confused. *
o
*Theorem 3:* Since Shannon's definition of information
relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of
chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic
aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for
the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning.
This is a claim, not a theorem. It is based on 'meaning', an
undefined term.
o
*Theorem 5:* The assignment of the symbol set is based on
convention and constitutes a mental process.
This claim is disproven by the code generated by the Ev program.
o Note that Gitt uses the word 'theorem' but does not give his
axioms nor does he prove his theorems using axioms.
o
*Theorem 4:* A code is an absolutely necessary condition for
the representation of information.
and *Theorem 8:*
Only those structures that are based on a code can represent
information (because of Theorem 4). This is a necessary, but
still inadequate, condition for the existence of information.
are two "theorems" that depend on each other! It's a nice case
of circular (non)reasoning.
o
If, for example, a basic code is found in any system, it can
be concluded that the system originates from a mental concept.
o
o
o
Presumably, 'mental concepts' (another ill defined term) must
come from humans or other intelligences, then This claim is
disproven by the Ev program. The program starts with no code and
evolves one independently of humans. So this statement is
incorrect.
o
Meanings always represent mental concepts; we can therefore
further state:
*Theorem 10*: Each item of information needs, if it is
traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a
mental source (transmitter).
Theorems 9 and 10 basically link information to a
transmitter (intelligent information source).
While many people have attempted to define 'meaning', none have
done so mathematically. "*Theorem 10*" is shown to be incorrect
since Ev generates information from mutation, replication and
selection. The 'meaning' in Ev (and biology in general) is, if
anything, functional. That is, the patterns work such that the
organism survives. No 'mind' is involved, so the conclusion that
an intelligent information source is required is false. The
environment provides selection and hence is effectively the
source of the information (in the loose English sense).
o
*SC2*: A sequence of symbols does not represent information
if it is based on randomness.
This 'sufficient condition' contradicts his 'theorem' 2! (Recall
that Theorem 2 claims that information is randomness.) Boy is he
confused!
o
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
This is demonstrated to be incorrect by the Ev program."
More on Gitt's "theories":
Report on the 2005 Creation Mega Conference, Part Five
By Jason Rosenhouse <http://www.math.jmu.edu/%7Erosenhjd> on July 26,
2005 7:18 PM | 75 Comments
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/report-on-the-2-4.html#comments> |
2 TrackBacks
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/report-on-the-2-4.html#trackbacks>
*Tuesday, July 19. Morning.*
I had survived my first full day of the conference without calling too
much attention to myself. That would change on the second day.
It was only with tremendous effort that I dragged myself out of bed in
time for the first talk of the day, at 8:50 in the morning. I skipped
the morning devotional entirely. I'm not naturally a morning person, you
see, and the thought of going forth into the ridiculous Lynchburg heat
at that hour was not appealing. Nonetheless, since the conference
schedule promised a true embarrassment of riches, I dragged myself out
of bed anyway. The basic track was offering �Fearfully and Wonderfully
Made,� by David Menton. The advanced track had �Two Hundred Years of
Christian Compromise on the Age of the Earth,� by Terry Mortenson. I
chose the latter.
I trudged into the classroom just as Mortenson was beginning. He opened
with a prayer, then got down to business. No science this time around,
just a rogue's gallery of confused Christians unwilling to tow the party
line on the age of the Earth. After a brief history of geology from 1770
to 1830, Mortenson rattled off a list of pioneer compromisers. These
were the scamps who paved the way for the modern heresies so many modern
Christians claim to believe.
There was Thomas Chalmers, who fathered the �Gap Theory�, and George
Stanley Faber, who concocted the �Day-Age Theory�. There were people who
argued for a local, as opposed to global, flood, like John Pye Smith,
and those like William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick who argued for a
global, but geologically limited flood.
A particularly noteworthy example here was John Fleming, who apparently
wrote about a �tranquil flood� and once claimed that the flood left no
evidence. The geology mavens in the audience had a good laugh at that one.
Actually, the audience reactions were the most interesting part of this
talk. At one point Mortenson put up the following quote from Charles Lyell:
I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an
observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said
that for the sake of revelation as well as of science - of truth in
every form - the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be
conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence.
This brought loud groans from the audience. Incidentally, the source for
this quotation was an article by M. J. S. Rudwick in the /British
Journal for the History of Science/. It's another example of using
secondary rather than primary sources, as I remarked upon in a previous
entry in this series.
Also bringing groans was a reference to Charles Templeton, who was a
Christian evangelist who fell away from the faith and ultimately wrote a
book called, �Farewell to God,� and a statistic that one third of
Anglican ministers don't believe in God. My esteem for the Anglican
church went up when I heard that, but mine was not the typical reaction.
I had a hard time getting worked up over this one; Christians can argue
all they want among themselves about this sort of trivia. I was already
psyching myself up for Werner Gitt's talk, �In the Beginning was
Information.� The alternative was �Fossils, the Flood and the Age of the
Earth,� by Tas Walker.
Gitt was kind enough to provide extensive notes to accompany his talk.
Here is the introduction from those notes:
We will set out in a new direction, by seeking a definition of
information with which it is possible to formulate laws of nature
about it. Information is a nonmaterial entity and this is the first
time that a law of nature has been formulated for a mental concept.
First, we will describe the dstinguishing attributes of information,
formulate its definition, state the laws themselves and draw six
strong conclusions. Since we have successfully discovered and
formulated 10 laws of nature about information, we will refer to
this definition of information as Laws of Nature about Information
(LNI).
While you're trying to figure out what any of that means, consider the
strong conclusions Witt is going to draw from his model:
1. God Exists; Refutation of atheism.
2. There is only one God, who is all-knowing and eternal.
3. God is immensely powerful.
4. God is spirit.
5. No human being without a soul; Refutation of materialism.
6. No evolution.
Those are copied verbatim from the notes he provided. Now, we really
could stop here and dismiss Witt as a crank. There is simply no way any
bit of armchair theorizing or abstract modelling could possibly lead to
the breathtaking conclusions Gitt is trying to draw. Nonetheless, let us
consider some of his specifics.
Witt began by answering the question, �What is a Law of Nature?� He writes,
Laws of nature describe events, phenomena and occurrences which
consistently and repeatedly take place. They are thus universally
valid laws. They can be formulated in science, hence laws of nature
for /material/ entities in physics and chemistry (e.g. energy,
momentum, electrical current, chemical reactions) and /non-material
entities/ (e.g. information, consciousness). Due to their
explanatory power, and their correspondence to reality, laws of
nature represent the highest level of significance in science. The
following points about laws of nature are especially significant:
* Laws of nature know no exceptions.
* Laws of nature are unchanging in time (past, present or future).
* Laws of nature can tell us whether a process being contemplated
is even possible or not.
* Laws of nature exist prior to, and independent of, their
discovery and formulation.
* Laws of nature can always be successfully applied to unknown
situations.
(Emphasis in original)
There is an awful lot to discuss here, but actually I think the subtext
is more important than the text. I suspect most scientists are
instinctively uncomfortable with the sorts of sweeping generalizations
Gitt is making here. To the extent that scientists talk about natural
laws at all, they really just mean certain generalizations that have
consistently been successful in predicting the results of experiments.
The key criterion is usefulness, not capital-T, metaphysical truth.
Science is a way of bringing order and predictability to the
observations we make about nature. We need a word to describe those
theories and models that have consistently proven themelves to be
useful, and the word that is chosen for that purpose is �true.�
But that's too wishy-washy for creationists. They don't care about
�generalizations scientists find useful.� Not at all. They want Truth.
Like the Bible provides. As I have mentioned previously, the only reason
they ever talk about science is that society requires that of them if
they are to receive any hearing at all for their ideas. This is why they
are so unreceptive to the perfectly sensible argument that hypotheses
about God's actions in the world are not scientific because they don't
lead to anything scientists can use to further their work.
That is why Gitt, and his supporters, are so happy to talk in such
sweeping terms. They're not trying to further scientific research.
They're trying to justify their faith in terms that won't get them
laughed at.
Okay, back to the talk. Gitt provides the following �Natural Law
Definition of Information�:
Information is an encoded, symbolic representation of material
realities or conceptual relationships conveying expected action and
intended purpose. Information is always present when, in an
observable system, all of the following five hierarchical levels (or
attributes) are present: Statistics, syntax (code), semantics
(meaning), pragmatics (action) and apobetics (purpose).
For completeness, let me list his ten laws of nature about information:
1. A purely material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.
2. Information is a non-material fundamental entity.
3. Information is the non-material foundation for all program-directed
technological systems and all biological systems.
4. There can be no information without a code.
5. Every code is the result of a freely-willed convention.
6. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful
sender.
7. Allocating meaning to a set of symbols by a sender, and determining
meaning from a set of symbols by a recipient, are mental processes
requiring intelligence.
8. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
9. The storage and transmission of information requires a material medium.
Where did these laws come from? According to Gitt they are
generalizations from scientific observations.
There's a lot to criticize in those �laws� but let's stay big picture
for the moment. What sorts of things does Gitt have in mind in
formulating his definition? Well, certainly human languages. And
computer programming languages, or things like Morse code would no doubt
fit his definition. But since those are all things that human beings
constructed themselves, it is not surprising that they have no existence
without the input of intelligence. In fact, by building meaning and
purpose into his definition of information, it's hard to see how
information could possibly exist without intelligent agents to perceive it.
Anything else? I think we all know what Gitt is building up to here.
He's going to claim that the genetic code fits his definition of
information. Indeed, in justifying the first of his six conclusions, he
writes,
Because all forms of life contain a code (DNA, RNA), as well as all
the other levels of information, we are within the definition domain
of information. We can therefore conclude that: /There must be an
intelligent Sender/. (Emphasis in original)
Whoa! Stop the presses! Does the information encoded in our genes really
possess the properties Gitt requires? Is Gitt really attributing to
genes meaning and purpose? What could this possibly mean? He might say
that the purpose of genes is to produce proteins. But is that the genes'
purpose, or is that simply what genes do?
Or consider Gitt's explanation of what constitutes �Pragmatics (Action):
�Information invites action. Every transmission of information is
nevertheless associated with the intention, from the side of the sender,
of generating a particular result or effect on the receiver.�
Who is the sender and who is the receiver in the case of DNA?
Our genes, after all, do not know that human observers are attributing
to them the property of containing informaion. They, and the associated
cellular machinery that transforms them into proteins, are simply doing
whatever it is that they do, governed by various principles of physics
and chemistry. Describing them with terms generally reserved for the
actions of intelligent agents can never be anything more than a vague
analogy.
Which brings us to the most fundamental problem of all with what Gitt is
doing here. He was constantly talking about the information content of
our genes. He would talk about the quantity of information increasing or
decreasing in some context or other. He would say things like the cell
contains more information than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. /But at no
point did he ever tell us how to measure information!/
That's right. His constant challenge to evolutionists was to produce a
natural nechanism that could increase the information content of our
genome. But there's no hope of answering that question until we know
precisely how to measure information.
During the talk Gitt explicitly differentiated what he was doing from
Shannon's conception of information. He pointed out that Shannon's
theory deals adequately with the �Statistical� level of information (the
number of symbols in the message). This has the advantage of allowing a
mathematical formulation of information, but it sacrifices many aspects
of the everyday meaning of the word (like, well, meaning).
He also distinguished himself from William Dembski's ideas about complex
specificed information. He said that Dembski's definition had the virtue
of being easy to understand, but that his ideas had no clear domain of
definition and that no strong conclusions are possible from it.
Gitt even said explicitly in his talk that his notion of information
does not admit any mathematical formulation.
We will revisit this point momentarily.
Gitt concluded his talk. The collisseum erupted into enthusiastic
applause. Before long, everyone except me was standing. Ken Ham took the
stage and boasted that this was one of the most powerful apologetic
arguments he had ever heard.
So I decided to hang around for the Q and A. I was more aggressive this
time, and worked my through the crowd. I was standing pretty close to
Dr. Gitt, part of a crowd of about forty or so people. The questions
being asked were the usual fawning silliness, until Gitt got to the
person standing next to me. Though he was clearly a supporter of AiG and
Gitt, he asked what I thought was a very perceptive question.
He asked Gitt what his peers (by which he meant other scientists)
thought about his natural laws of information. He pointed out that
something like the law of gravity could claim universal acceptance among
scientists. Could the same be said for his natural laws of information?
Gitt, incredibly, replied that his ideas have wide acceptance among
scientists. He boasted of various seminars at which he had spoken in
mainstream universities and talked about the enthusiastic response he
generally got. He claimed to have published this material in secular
journals.
He then started gushing about how all it would take to refute his ideas
is for a scientist to produce a single natural mechanism that could
increase the information content of the geneome. That's it! Just one!
That's all it would take! But they couldn't do it!!
That was all I could stands, I couldn't stands no more. So I said,
loudly enough for everyone to hear (which, as those of you who have
heard me speak can attest, means I was speaking in my normal tone of
voice), �What effect does a genetic mutation have on the information
content of the genome?�
Silence as forty pairs of eyes turned towards me. I swallowed hard and
continued, �As I'm sure you're aware, genes mutate all the time. Before
I can answer your challenge I need to have a better understanding of
your notion of information. So tell me how a simple point mutation
changes the information content of the gene.�
He gave the standard response that genetic mutation invariably leads to
a loss or degradation of information. So I went in for the kill. �You
keep talking about information going up or information going down. You
talked about the cell containing more information than an encyclopedia.
But at no point did you tell us how to measure information. And without
such a measure it's not even meaningful to talk about information
content increasing or decreasing.� I went on to say �Now, usually when
scientists talk about information they have in mind Shannon's concept.
When it comes time to measure information, is that what you have in mind?�
There was a high school student standing next to Gitt who was not amused
by my question. He told me, rather condescendingly, that I should
consult /The Answers Book/, by which he meant a specfic book on sale in
the bookstore, which, he assured me, would answer my question.
It's useful to be very well read when you attend one of these
conferences. As it happened, I had read the book the student was
referring to and knew that it did not address the point that I was
making. So I flashed him my most withering look and said, �I've read
that book and it does not answer my question. Now if you don't mind I'd
like to hear what Dr. Gitt has to say.� That shut him up quickly.
He hemmed and hawed a bit but eventually conceded that information can
only be quantified at the �Statistical� level and that for the purposes
of measuring information that is what was important.
So I replied, �If that is what you mean, then there are several
well-known mechanisms that can lead to an increase in information
content. Here's one. A gene can duplicate, leaving two copies of the
same gene. One of those genes can then mutate, leading to two different
genes. If you are measuring information in Shannon's sense, then it's a
simple calculation to show that you now have more information than you
started with. You can find this process described in any genetics
textbook. Why is this not an andequate response to your challenge?�
He replied with the standard creationist evasion at this point: He
argued that duplicating a gene does not produce new information. Phillip
Johnson said the same thing in addressing this point in his book, /The
Wedge of Truth./ It's a jaw-dropping reply, since it simply ignores the
part where the duplicate gene subsequently mutates.
Anyway, we went at it for several minutes. His answers always came down
to either misunderstanding the process I was describing, or changing
what it meant to measure information. At one point he started talking
about computer programs, and argued, typically, that if you mutate a
computer program that will almost certainly crash the program. He argued
that this was analogous to what happens when a gene mutates.
Alas, in the heat of the moment I didn't think to mention that programs
mutating and producing new and better programs is exactly what happens
in artificial life experiments. Instead I simply replied that likening
genes to computer programs was a bad analogy in this context. When you
mutate computer code you will almost certainly produce something that is
not meaningful in the particular computer language you are using. That's
not the case with DNA. Every three-letter DNA �word� codes for some
protein or other, making it very difficult to speak in general terms
about what happens to the information content of the gene as the result
of a mutation. He shrugged and agreed that was a good point. (!!)
At this point I felt my mission had been accomplished. I knew there was
litle hope of actually winning the argument, but I made it clear that
there are answers to the idiotic arguments he made in his talk, and
everyone had a chance to see that there were people who were totally
unintimidated by the great Dr. Gitt. There was still a large crowd of
people gathered around him waiting to ask questions, so I decided this
was a good time to bow out of the conversation.
Nonetheless, I couldn't resist one parting shot. �There is one more
point I wanted to raise before I go,� I said. �In your reply to the
previous gentleman you said that your ideas about information are
well-received by other scientists. But even you would have to agree that
evolution is the dominant paradigm among scientists. Since you made it
quite clear in your talk that your ideas absolutely rule out the
possibility of evolution, I don't think it's really true that scientists
agree with you here.�
At this point Amazing Thing Number One happened. He replied that there
was no contradiction here because you could accept both God and
evolution. That was definitely not the party line at this conference,
and I saw some definite frowns among the poeple gathered around.
I pressed on. But we're not talking about believing in God and
evolution. We're talking about accepting your particular theories about
information on the one hand and evolution on the other. You said
explicitly that that was impossible. So you were being disingenuous when
you told the other fellow that scientists accept your ideas.
And this is where Amazing Thing Number Two happened. He shrugged and
looked down at the floor. He actually looked abashed! Since I didn't
think creationists were capable of shame, I considered this a major victory.
So I shook his hand, thanked him for his time and started to walk away.
I was mentally patting myself on the back for a job well-done, and I was
thinking about how badly I wanted another one of those delicious fajita
burritos. The sun was shining, the birds were chirping, and all was
right with the universe.
And that was when I heard this skanky, malodorous she-hag say, �You're
really very ignorant about biology. You should learn a bit more before
you start talking about it.�
Pause.
Pause.
Those of you who only know me through my writing may find this hard to
believe, but I'm actually capable of great tact when I feel the
situation calls for it. So I resisted the temptation to damage her
physically in some way. I likewise resisted the temptation to unleash
upon her a barrage of profanity so disgusting it would have made her
ears melt right off her head. No. All I did was approach her casually,
and in my most winning and charming manner (which is /very/ winning and
/very/ charming, if I do say so myself) say, �Really, how so?�
I don't recall her precise answer, but I do recall that it was deeply
stupid. She had completely missed my point about needing a way to
measure information before you can talk about information increase or
decrease. I tried to explain it to her. At times she seemed to get it,
but then moments later it would be lost.
At one point we got hung up on the distinction between a new gene, and a
merely different gene. I pointed out, again, that even a simple point
mutation results in the production of a different gene, and I asked,
again, how that changed the its information content. My point was that
if she couldn't even make a statement about the information change that
occurs as the result of one of the simplest genetic processes there is,
how could she make sweeping generalizations about what could and could
not happen in the course of evolution?
That wasn't what she heard. She thought it was a big concession that I
had said different this time, whereas earlier I had referred to the
production of a new gene. So I said that the gene produced by a mutation
is new in the sense that it wasn't there a minute ago. But she was too
busy congratulating herself on her cleverness to bother understanding
this point.
Actually, though, she was not the only one I was talking to. Her son,
who I would guess was about eleven or twelve, was listening as well. In
fact, he was listening intently. He even threw in an occasional comment
that was far more intelligent than anything his mother was saying.
While we were having this conversation several other people wandered
over and joined the fray, all of them trying to come up with the zinger
that would make me shut up. At one point, in response to a comment I
made about mutations, one gentleman made the usual creationist remark
that mutations always lead to the loss or degradation of information,
and therefore couldn't lead to information increase. To seal the deal he
gave me an example.
The example was the mutation that leads to sickle cell anemia.
Ugh. I rolled my eyes and said that actually the sickle cell anemia
mutation was a perfect illustration of the point I was making.
Increasing the risk for sickle cell anemia is only one effect of that
particular gene. Another effect is to confer a resistance to malaria.
So, in some vague sense, you can say that you have lost information
regarding the proper formation of red blood cells. But you have also
gained information with respect to avoiding malaria.
He agreed and replied that it was a trade-off. Exactly, I replied. So
what was the net change in information as the result of that particular
mutation? He shrugged and said he didn't know. I said, �And yet just
moments ago you told me that this mutation led to a loss of information.
What basis did you have for making that statement?�
Somewhere in here another fellow came over and asked what I meant by
Shannon information. I proceeded to launch into a non-technical
explanation of the concept that was so clear and easy to follow, you'd
have thought no one could have been confused at the end of it. He shot
back with, �Oh, that's just an assumption you are making.�
Pause. Deep breath.
No, I said, that's a definition, not an assumption.
But you're assuming that's a good way to measure information. I replied
that it's a way that scientists have found useful in a variety of
different contexts, and that if he had something else in mind it was for
him to tell me what he meant.
This went on for quite some time, but I still haven't come to the most
surreal part of the argument. That occurred when sickle-cell guy
conceded the point that natural mechanisms could increase information
content in the Shannon sense, but that really Gitt was talking about
complex, specified information (CSI).
Ah, you're talking about William Dembski's idea, right? He replied that
he was. I pointed out that Gitt said specifically in his talk that what
he was doing was different from what Dembski was doing. Sickle-cell guy
shrugged.
Now, I happen to believe that Dembski's notion of CSI is a lot of
nonsense. Establishing that information is complex in his sense requires
that we carry out probability calculations that in any practical
situation can not be carried out. Establishing that some given
information is specified requires that we match it up to some
recognizable pattern, but there is no method for doing that in a
non-arbitrary way. Perhaps I should simply have said that.
Instead I replied that since Dembski was the one claiming that something
was fundamentally impossible (natural mechanisms increasing CSI) it was
really for him to justify that claim. Sickle-cell guy then came back
with his own version of Dembski's arguments, and that's where things
totally entered the Twilight Zone.
His description of Dembski's work was ridiculous, you see. Somehow he
had gotten it into his head that in Dembski's world, all information was
complex specified information (leaving its origin as the only mystery),
and that information was intimately linked with the idea of
communicating a message instead of merely being related to certain
probability calculations.
So I now spent about ten minutes having to explain what Dembski was
actually saying, over sickle-cell guy's repeated objections. That's
right! These guys are so confused they can't even parrot their own
arguments properly. And there I am trying to give a clear explanation of
Dembski's nonsense, just so this nimrod will understand what it is that
I am refuting. Grrrrrrrr.
I finally persuaded him that he had Dembski wrong by showing that the
things he (sickle-cell guy) was saying were obviously wrong, whereas the
things Dembski was really saying were wrong for (slightly) more subtle
reasons. I think I finally convinced him on the point.
Anyway, we went on like this for quite a while. I don't know if I
convinced anyone of anything, but I certainly wiped the smug smile off
that woman's face. And I suspect about five years down the line, her son
is going to rebel /hard/.
We shook hands, and I walked out of the collisseum. Drove over to the
Mexican restaurant, and got another one of those most excellent fajita
burritos. The end to a perfect morning.
Next up: A rare point of agreement between me and the conference
presenters. The ID folks are a bunch of weenies.
> "Smiler" wrote in messagenews:pan.2012.09.15....@JoeKing.com...
The "creationist comedy" genre is experiencing a neo-medieval revival,
and this book is a solid addition to the wide but shallow repertoire of
error, distortion, and pseudoscience that typifies the category.
Anyone familiar with information theory must question whether Gitt has
even cursory knowledge of the topic. He consistently arrives at
conclusions before comprehending what he's talking about. Logic and
sequence aside, regurgitating hairballs of erroneous prose (ala Dembski
- perhaps they collaborated), does not constitute scholarship, cogent
reasoning, or proof.
Gitt twits around Shannon information theory just long enough to
showcase his befuddlement, and then proceeds to make hefty deposits to
the bank of cluelessness with comments like:
"The highest information density known to us is that of the DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules of living cells. This chemical storage
medium is 2 nm in diameter and has a 3.4 NM helix pitch (see Figure 1).
This results in a volume of 10.68 x 10-21 cm3 per spiral. Each spiral
contains ten chemical letters (nucleotides), resulting in a volumetric
information density of 0.94 x 1021 letters/cm3. In the genetic alphabet,
the DNA molecules contain only the four nucleotide bases, that is,
adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. The information content of such
a letter is 2 bits/nucleotide. Thus, the statistical information density
is 1.88 x 1021 bits/cm3."
Sounds impressive, but lacks substance. DNA does not possess the
"highest information density known." The very concept of information
density is poorly defined in the scientific literature - and Gitt
doesn't even attempt to present a working, let alone workable definition
in his creationist faux-science alternative. How do you compare the
"information density" of a DNA molecule with the information density of
an electromagnetic wave emitted by a pulsar? It's a meaningless comparison.
Gitt then claims that Shannon theory is incomplete because (as intended
by Shannon), it focuses on a quantitative measure of information. It
doesn't care what the message means. He sets out to "fix" this
nonexistent problem by positing five layers of information: statistics,
syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics. Gitt then pontificates
that Shannon theory, and information theory as a whole, only concerns
itself with statistics because it doesn't differentiate between
syntactically valid and invalid information. Gitt's scheme, which has
more in common with linguistics than information theory, enshrines
Apobetics (a word he invents) as the most important attribute, and
defines it as the "purpose" of the message (for reasons that will soon
become clear).
Throughout "In the Beginning Was Information" Gitt is constantly
inventing "theorems." He doesn't seem to understand what the word means
in this context, because Gitt's "theorems" are just statements that he
hopes are true, but which are unproven, and are often unproveable.
Here are just a few of Gitt's theorems (in the interests of relative
brevity I've omitted his "Empirical Principles, Necessary Conditions,
and Sufficient Conditions"):
"Theorem 4: A code is an absolutely necessary condition for the
representation of information."
"Theorem 5: The assignment of the symbol set is based on convention and
constitutes a mental process."
"Theorem 6: Once the code has been freely defined by convention, this
definition must be strictly observed thereafter."
"Theorem 7: The code used must be known both to the transmitter and
receiver if the information is to be understood."
"Theorem 8: Only those structures that are based on a code can represent
information (because of Theorem 4). This is a necessary, but still
inadequate, condition for the existence of information."
"Theorem 9: Only that which contains semantics is information."
"Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the
beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter)."
How does Gitt conclude that a code is a necessary condition for the
representation of information? He just asserts it. Worse, how does he
conclude that only things that are based on a code represent
information? Again, just an assertion - but at least in this case a
reasonable one. Gitt asserts that nothing without structured encoding is
information. And this is also the absolute crux of his argument:
information only exists as a part of a code designed by an intelligent
"mental source" (Gitt's God).
Despite the fact that Gitt claims to be completing Shannon theory, there
is no math in the rest of his argument. It's like watching the all
words, all assertions, all the time channel.
Gitt's tottering house of cards continues to outreach his grasp as he
piles on additional theorems:
"Theorem 11: The apobetic aspect of information is the most important,
because it embraces the objective of the transmitter. The entire effort
involved in the four lower levels is necessary only as a means to an end
in order to achieve this objective."
After this literal instance of special revelation, Gitt reaches his
pseudo-information theory apotheosis by brazenly asserting that he has
mathematically completed Shannon's information theory! He then gushes
about how the "most important empirical principles relating to the
concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems."
Ultimately, to Gitt, a theorem is nothing but a "form," a syntactic
structure, and his entire argument, as put forth in this book, is
mathematically complete. Note to Gitt: not in this quantum reality. Next
time do some serious, honest, and real science by offering a
mathematically rigorous proof, not a loopy creationist "poof" as in
"snapping fingers together and magically poofing things into existence."
After chapters of mind-numbing dreck and detritus Gitt discloses his
real agenda:
"The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original
groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit
their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the
mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ."
Gitt culminates his descent into gibberish with:
"We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with
information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the
science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the
guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."
It's a grand mal seizure moment - pure epileptic epiphany unconstrained
by any nuance of reality or reason: DNA is a message with the highest
possible information density because it encodes the literal uber-mind of
the creator, God. Gitt also claims that said deity left behind a written
and inerrant version of the creation event (in a less information dense
form) known as the Book of Genesis, and that this myth masquerading as
fact - along with the rest of the Bible - constitutes the ultimate moral
and scientific truth in the universe, overthrowing over all extent or
contemplated materialist skullduggery. Second note to Gitt: don't expect
the Nobel Prize Committee (for Science, Peace, or Literature) to call
any time soon.
As usual the twits (or Gitts) who write this stuff pretend to string
together logical, scientific, and mathematically rigorous arguments for
the existence of God - but they can only deliver this "miraculous"
outcome by resorting to sleight-of-hand circular reasoning that
specifically includes God as a necessary premise (implicitly woven
throughout Gitt's Empirical Principles, Theorems, and Conditions).
"In the Beginning Was Information" has nothing honest, useful, or
scientific to say about beginnings or information. The edifice of
science based on methodological naturalism remains unshaken by Gitt's
faith-based delusions and just-so story assertions. For a book that
claims to be about information, very little is actually present. "
Other problems with Gitt's bullshit:
"
Errors in Werner Gitt's work with Information Theory
On this page is an evaluation of the work of Werner Gitt in light of the
Ev program <http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/%7Etoms/paper/ev>.
* Werner Gitt's web site <http://www.werner-gitt.de/>, Documents and
books. <http://www.werner-gitt.de/down_eng.html>
* google Werner Gitt
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Werner+Gitt&btnG=Google+Search>
* His book In the Beginning Was Information
<http://www.google.com/search?q=In+the+Beginning+Was+Information>. A
quick glance through indicates that it is full of errors.
* Information, science and biology
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp> by
Werner Gitt, TJ 10(2):181-187, August 1996.
o
Yes, paradoxical though it may sound, considered from the
point of view of information theory, a random sequence of
letters possesses the maximum information content, whereas a
text of equal length, although linguistically meaningful, is
assigned a lower value.
Here Gitt falls into a standard misunderstanding Information Is
Not Entropy, Information Is Not Uncertainty!
<http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/%7Etoms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html>
That is, he forgets to subtract.
o
*Theorem 1*: The statistical information content of a chain
of symbols is a quantitative concept. It is given in bits
(binary digits).
This is a definition, not a theorem. Gitt does not prove it.
o
*Theorem 2*: According to Shannon's theory, a disturbed
signal generally contains more information than an
undisturbed signal, because, in comparison with the
undisturbed transmission, it originates from a larger
quantity of possible alternatives.
This is incorrect. Gitt has fully fallen into the pitfall (see
above) and is stuck. He has confused /H_before / with
information. From now on he is doomed. In this case, /he
directly contradicts Shannon's own theorem and writings/! That
is, Shannon used the fact that a disturbance /decreases/ the
information to prove his theorem! See Shannon1948
<http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html> Part
II, Section 11, PART II: THE DISCRETE CHANNEL WITH NOISE 11.
REPRESENTATION OF A NOISY DISCRETE CHANNEL. Page 21, Figure 8.
*Since Gitt has gotten Shannon backwards, his writing is
completely scrambled and confused. *
o
*Theorem 3:* Since Shannon's definition of information
relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of
chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic
aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for
the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning.
This is a claim, not a theorem. It is based on 'meaning', an
undefined term.
o
*Theorem 5:* The assignment of the symbol set is based on
convention and constitutes a mental process.
This claim is disproven by the code generated by the Ev program.
o Note that Gitt uses the word 'theorem' but does not give his
axioms nor does he prove his theorems using axioms.
o
*Theorem 4:* A code is an absolutely necessary condition for
the representation of information.
and *Theorem 8:*
Only those structures that are based on a code can represent
information (because of Theorem 4). This is a necessary, but
still inadequate, condition for the existence of information.
are two "theorems" that depend on each other! It's a nice case
of circular (non)reasoning.
o
If, for example, a basic code is found in any system, it can
be concluded that the system originates from a mental concept.
o
o
o
Presumably, 'mental concepts' (another ill defined term) must
come from humans or other intelligences, then This claim is
disproven by the Ev program. The program starts with no code and
evolves one independently of humans. So this statement is
incorrect.
o
Meanings always represent mental concepts; we can therefore
further state:
*Theorem 10*: Each item of information needs, if it is
traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a
mental source (transmitter).
Theorems 9 and 10 basically link information to a
transmitter (intelligent information source).
While many people have attempted to define 'meaning', none have
done so mathematically. "*Theorem 10*" is shown to be incorrect
since Ev generates information from mutation, replication and
selection. The 'meaning' in Ev (and biology in general) is, if
anything, functional. That is, the patterns work such that the
organism survives. No 'mind' is involved, so the conclusion that
an intelligent information source is required is false. The
environment provides selection and hence is effectively the
source of the information (in the loose English sense).
o
*SC2*: A sequence of symbols does not represent information
if it is based on randomness.
This 'sufficient condition' contradicts his 'theorem' 2! (Recall
that Theorem 2 claims that information is randomness.) Boy is he
confused!
o
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
More on Gitt's "theories":
Report on the 2005 Creation Mega Conference, Part Five
By Jason Rosenhouse <http://www.math.jmu.edu/%7Erosenhjd> on July 26,
2005 7:18 PM | 75 Comments
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/report-on-the-2-4.html#comments> |
2 TrackBacks
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/report-on-the-2-4.html#trackbacks>
*Tuesday, July 19. Morning.*
I had survived my first full day of the conference without calling too
much attention to myself. That would change on the second day.
It was only with tremendous effort that I dragged myself out of bed in
time for the first talk of the day, at 8:50 in the morning. I skipped
the morning devotional entirely. I'm not naturally a morning person, you
see, and the thought of going forth into the ridiculous Lynchburg heat
at that hour was not appealing. Nonetheless, since the conference
schedule promised a true embarrassment of riches, I dragged myself out
of bed anyway. The basic track was offering �Fearfully and Wonderfully
Made,� by David Menton. The advanced track had �Two Hundred Years of
Christian Compromise on the Age of the Earth,� by Terry Mortenson. I
chose the latter.
I trudged into the classroom just as Mortenson was beginning. He opened
with a prayer, then got down to business. No science this time around,
just a rogue's gallery of confused Christians unwilling to tow the party
line on the age of the Earth. After a brief history of geology from 1770
to 1830, Mortenson rattled off a list of pioneer compromisers. These
were the scamps who paved the way for the modern heresies so many modern
Christians claim to believe.
There was Thomas Chalmers, who fathered the �Gap Theory�, and George
Stanley Faber, who concocted the �Day-Age Theory�. There were people who
argued for a local, as opposed to global, flood, like John Pye Smith,
and those like William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick who argued for a
global, but geologically limited flood.
A particularly noteworthy example here was John Fleming, who apparently
wrote about a �tranquil flood� and once claimed that the flood left no
evidence. The geology mavens in the audience had a good laugh at that one.
Actually, the audience reactions were the most interesting part of this
talk. At one point Mortenson put up the following quote from Charles Lyell:
I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an
observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said
that for the sake of revelation as well as of science - of truth in
every form - the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be
conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence.
This brought loud groans from the audience. Incidentally, the source for
this quotation was an article by M. J. S. Rudwick in the /British
Journal for the History of Science/. It's another example of using
secondary rather than primary sources, as I remarked upon in a previous
entry in this series.
Also bringing groans was a reference to Charles Templeton, who was a
Christian evangelist who fell away from the faith and ultimately wrote a
book called, �Farewell to God,� and a statistic that one third of
Anglican ministers don't believe in God. My esteem for the Anglican
church went up when I heard that, but mine was not the typical reaction.
I had a hard time getting worked up over this one; Christians can argue
all they want among themselves about this sort of trivia. I was already
psyching myself up for Werner Gitt's talk, �In the Beginning was
Information.� The alternative was �Fossils, the Flood and the Age of the
Earth,� by Tas Walker.
Gitt was kind enough to provide extensive notes to accompany his talk.
Here is the introduction from those notes:
We will set out in a new direction, by seeking a definition of
information with which it is possible to formulate laws of nature
about it. Information is a nonmaterial entity and this is the first
time that a law of nature has been formulated for a mental concept.
First, we will describe the dstinguishing attributes of information,
formulate its definition, state the laws themselves and draw six
strong conclusions. Since we have successfully discovered and
formulated 10 laws of nature about information, we will refer to
this definition of information as Laws of Nature about Information
(LNI).
While you're trying to figure out what any of that means, consider the
strong conclusions Witt is going to draw from his model:
1. God Exists; Refutation of atheism.
2. There is only one God, who is all-knowing and eternal.
3. God is immensely powerful.
4. God is spirit.
5. No human being without a soul; Refutation of materialism.
6. No evolution.
Those are copied verbatim from the notes he provided. Now, we really
could stop here and dismiss Witt as a crank. There is simply no way any
bit of armchair theorizing or abstract modelling could possibly lead to
the breathtaking conclusions Gitt is trying to draw. Nonetheless, let us
consider some of his specifics.
Witt began by answering the question, �What is a Law of Nature?� He writes,
Laws of nature describe events, phenomena and occurrences which
consistently and repeatedly take place. They are thus universally
valid laws. They can be formulated in science, hence laws of nature
for /material/ entities in physics and chemistry (e.g. energy,
momentum, electrical current, chemical reactions) and /non-material
entities/ (e.g. information, consciousness). Due to their
explanatory power, and their correspondence to reality, laws of
nature represent the highest level of significance in science. The
following points about laws of nature are especially significant:
* Laws of nature know no exceptions.
* Laws of nature are unchanging in time (past, present or future).
* Laws of nature can tell us whether a process being contemplated
is even possible or not.
* Laws of nature exist prior to, and independent of, their
discovery and formulation.
* Laws of nature can always be successfully applied to unknown
situations.
(Emphasis in original)
There is an awful lot to discuss here, but actually I think the subtext
is more important than the text. I suspect most scientists are
instinctively uncomfortable with the sorts of sweeping generalizations
Gitt is making here. To the extent that scientists talk about natural
laws at all, they really just mean certain generalizations that have
consistently been successful in predicting the results of experiments.
The key criterion is usefulness, not capital-T, metaphysical truth.
Science is a way of bringing order and predictability to the
observations we make about nature. We need a word to describe those
theories and models that have consistently proven themelves to be
useful, and the word that is chosen for that purpose is �true.�
But that's too wishy-washy for creationists. They don't care about
�generalizations scientists find useful.� Not at all. They want Truth.
Like the Bible provides. As I have mentioned previously, the only reason
they ever talk about science is that society requires that of them if
they are to receive any hearing at all for their ideas. This is why they
are so unreceptive to the perfectly sensible argument that hypotheses
about God's actions in the world are not scientific because they don't
lead to anything scientists can use to further their work.
That is why Gitt, and his supporters, are so happy to talk in such
sweeping terms. They're not trying to further scientific research.
They're trying to justify their faith in terms that won't get them
laughed at.
Okay, back to the talk. Gitt provides the following �Natural Law
Definition of Information�:
Information is an encoded, symbolic representation of material
realities or conceptual relationships conveying expected action and
intended purpose. Information is always present when, in an
observable system, all of the following five hierarchical levels (or
attributes) are present: Statistics, syntax (code), semantics
(meaning), pragmatics (action) and apobetics (purpose).
For completeness, let me list his ten laws of nature about information:
1. A purely material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.
2. Information is a non-material fundamental entity.
3. Information is the non-material foundation for all program-directed
technological systems and all biological systems.
4. There can be no information without a code.
5. Every code is the result of a freely-willed convention.
6. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful
sender.
7. Allocating meaning to a set of symbols by a sender, and determining
meaning from a set of symbols by a recipient, are mental processes
requiring intelligence.
8. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
9. The storage and transmission of information requires a material medium.
Where did these laws come from? According to Gitt they are
generalizations from scientific observations.
There's a lot to criticize in those �laws� but let's stay big picture
for the moment. What sorts of things does Gitt have in mind in
formulating his definition? Well, certainly human languages. And
computer programming languages, or things like Morse code would no doubt
fit his definition. But since those are all things that human beings
constructed themselves, it is not surprising that they have no existence
without the input of intelligence. In fact, by building meaning and
purpose into his definition of information, it's hard to see how
information could possibly exist without intelligent agents to perceive it.
Anything else? I think we all know what Gitt is building up to here.
He's going to claim that the genetic code fits his definition of
information. Indeed, in justifying the first of his six conclusions, he
writes,
Because all forms of life contain a code (DNA, RNA), as well as all
the other levels of information, we are within the definition domain
of information. We can therefore conclude that: /There must be an
intelligent Sender/. (Emphasis in original)
Whoa! Stop the presses! Does the information encoded in our genes really
possess the properties Gitt requires? Is Gitt really attributing to
genes meaning and purpose? What could this possibly mean? He might say
that the purpose of genes is to produce proteins. But is that the genes'
purpose, or is that simply what genes do?
Or consider Gitt's explanation of what constitutes �Pragmatics (Action):
�Information invites action. Every transmission of information is
nevertheless associated with the intention, from the side of the sender,
of generating a particular result or effect on the receiver.�
Who is the sender and who is the receiver in the case of DNA?
Our genes, after all, do not know that human observers are attributing
to them the property of containing informaion. They, and the associated
cellular machinery that transforms them into proteins, are simply doing
whatever it is that they do, governed by various principles of physics
and chemistry. Describing them with terms generally reserved for the
actions of intelligent agents can never be anything more than a vague
analogy.
Which brings us to the most fundamental problem of all with what Gitt is
doing here. He was constantly talking about the information content of
our genes. He would talk about the quantity of information increasing or
decreasing in some context or other. He would say things like the cell
contains more information than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. /But at no
point did he ever tell us how to measure information!/
That's right. His constant challenge to evolutionists was to produce a
natural nechanism that could increase the information content of our
genome. But there's no hope of answering that question until we know
precisely how to measure information.
During the talk Gitt explicitly differentiated what he was doing from
Shannon's conception of information. He pointed out that Shannon's
theory deals adequately with the �Statistical� level of information (the
number of symbols in the message). This has the advantage of allowing a
mathematical formulation of information, but it sacrifices many aspects
of the everyday meaning of the word (like, well, meaning).
He also distinguished himself from William Dembski's ideas about complex
specificed information. He said that Dembski's definition had the virtue
of being easy to understand, but that his ideas had no clear domain of
definition and that no strong conclusions are possible from it.
Gitt even said explicitly in his talk that his notion of information
does not admit any mathematical formulation.
We will revisit this point momentarily.
Gitt concluded his talk. The collisseum erupted into enthusiastic
applause. Before long, everyone except me was standing. Ken Ham took the
stage and boasted that this was one of the most powerful apologetic
arguments he had ever heard.
So I decided to hang around for the Q and A. I was more aggressive this
time, and worked my through the crowd. I was standing pretty close to
Dr. Gitt, part of a crowd of about forty or so people. The questions
being asked were the usual fawning silliness, until Gitt got to the
person standing next to me. Though he was clearly a supporter of AiG and
Gitt, he asked what I thought was a very perceptive question.
He asked Gitt what his peers (by which he meant other scientists)
thought about his natural laws of information. He pointed out that
something like the law of gravity could claim universal acceptance among
scientists. Could the same be said for his natural laws of information?
Gitt, incredibly, replied that his ideas have wide acceptance among
scientists. He boasted of various seminars at which he had spoken in
mainstream universities and talked about the enthusiastic response he
generally got. He claimed to have published this material in secular
journals.
He then started gushing about how all it would take to refute his ideas
is for a scientist to produce a single natural mechanism that could
increase the information content of the geneome. That's it! Just one!
That's all it would take! But they couldn't do it!!
That was all I could stands, I couldn't stands no more. So I said,
loudly enough for everyone to hear (which, as those of you who have
heard me speak can attest, means I was speaking in my normal tone of
voice), �What effect does a genetic mutation have on the information
content of the genome?�
Silence as forty pairs of eyes turned towards me. I swallowed hard and
continued, �As I'm sure you're aware, genes mutate all the time. Before
I can answer your challenge I need to have a better understanding of
your notion of information. So tell me how a simple point mutation
changes the information content of the gene.�
He gave the standard response that genetic mutation invariably leads to
a loss or degradation of information. So I went in for the kill. �You
keep talking about information going up or information going down. You
talked about the cell containing more information than an encyclopedia.
But at no point did you tell us how to measure information. And without
such a measure it's not even meaningful to talk about information
content increasing or decreasing.� I went on to say �Now, usually when
scientists talk about information they have in mind Shannon's concept.
When it comes time to measure information, is that what you have in mind?�
There was a high school student standing next to Gitt who was not amused
by my question. He told me, rather condescendingly, that I should
consult /The Answers Book/, by which he meant a specfic book on sale in
the bookstore, which, he assured me, would answer my question.
It's useful to be very well read when you attend one of these
conferences. As it happened, I had read the book the student was
referring to and knew that it did not address the point that I was
making. So I flashed him my most withering look and said, �I've read
that book and it does not answer my question. Now if you don't mind I'd
like to hear what Dr. Gitt has to say.� That shut him up quickly.
He hemmed and hawed a bit but eventually conceded that information can
only be quantified at the �Statistical� level and that for the purposes
of measuring information that is what was important.
So I replied, �If that is what you mean, then there are several
well-known mechanisms that can lead to an increase in information
content. Here's one. A gene can duplicate, leaving two copies of the
same gene. One of those genes can then mutate, leading to two different
genes. If you are measuring information in Shannon's sense, then it's a
simple calculation to show that you now have more information than you
started with. You can find this process described in any genetics
textbook. Why is this not an andequate response to your challenge?�
He replied with the standard creationist evasion at this point: He
argued that duplicating a gene does not produce new information. Phillip
Johnson said the same thing in addressing this point in his book, /The
Wedge of Truth./ It's a jaw-dropping reply, since it simply ignores the
part where the duplicate gene subsequently mutates.
Anyway, we went at it for several minutes. His answers always came down
to either misunderstanding the process I was describing, or changing
what it meant to measure information. At one point he started talking
about computer programs, and argued, typically, that if you mutate a
computer program that will almost certainly crash the program. He argued
that this was analogous to what happens when a gene mutates.
Alas, in the heat of the moment I didn't think to mention that programs
mutating and producing new and better programs is exactly what happens
in artificial life experiments. Instead I simply replied that likening
genes to computer programs was a bad analogy in this context. When you
mutate computer code you will almost certainly produce something that is
not meaningful in the particular computer language you are using. That's
not the case with DNA. Every three-letter DNA �word� codes for some
protein or other, making it very difficult to speak in general terms
about what happens to the information content of the gene as the result
of a mutation. He shrugged and agreed that was a good point. (!!)
At this point I felt my mission had been accomplished. I knew there was
litle hope of actually winning the argument, but I made it clear that
there are answers to the idiotic arguments he made in his talk, and
everyone had a chance to see that there were people who were totally
unintimidated by the great Dr. Gitt. There was still a large crowd of
people gathered around him waiting to ask questions, so I decided this
was a good time to bow out of the conversation.
Nonetheless, I couldn't resist one parting shot. �There is one more
point I wanted to raise before I go,� I said. �In your reply to the
previous gentleman you said that your ideas about information are
well-received by other scientists. But even you would have to agree that
evolution is the dominant paradigm among scientists. Since you made it
quite clear in your talk that your ideas absolutely rule out the
possibility of evolution, I don't think it's really true that scientists
agree with you here.�
At this point Amazing Thing Number One happened. He replied that there
was no contradiction here because you could accept both God and
evolution. That was definitely not the party line at this conference,
and I saw some definite frowns among the poeple gathered around.
I pressed on. But we're not talking about believing in God and
evolution. We're talking about accepting your particular theories about
information on the one hand and evolution on the other. You said
explicitly that that was impossible. So you were being disingenuous when
you told the other fellow that scientists accept your ideas.
And this is where Amazing Thing Number Two happened. He shrugged and
looked down at the floor. He actually looked abashed! Since I didn't
think creationists were capable of shame, I considered this a major victory.
So I shook his hand, thanked him for his time and started to walk away.
I was mentally patting myself on the back for a job well-done, and I was
thinking about how badly I wanted another one of those delicious fajita
burritos. The sun was shining, the birds were chirping, and all was
right with the universe.
And that was when I heard this skanky, malodorous she-hag say, �You're
really very ignorant about biology. You should learn a bit more before
you start talking about it.�
Pause.
Pause.
Those of you who only know me through my writing may find this hard to
believe, but I'm actually capable of great tact when I feel the
situation calls for it. So I resisted the temptation to damage her
physically in some way. I likewise resisted the temptation to unleash
upon her a barrage of profanity so disgusting it would have made her
ears melt right off her head. No. All I did was approach her casually,
and in my most winning and charming manner (which is /very/ winning and
/very/ charming, if I do say so myself) say, �Really, how so?�
I don't recall her precise answer, but I do recall that it was deeply
stupid. She had completely missed my point about needing a way to
measure information before you can talk about information increase or
decrease. I tried to explain it to her. At times she seemed to get it,
but then moments later it would be lost.
At one point we got hung up on the distinction between a new gene, and a
merely different gene. I pointed out, again, that even a simple point
mutation results in the production of a different gene, and I asked,
again, how that changed the its information content. My point was that
if she couldn't even make a statement about the information change that
occurs as the result of one of the simplest genetic processes there is,
how could she make sweeping generalizations about what could and could
not happen in the course of evolution?
That wasn't what she heard. She thought it was a big concession that I
had said different this time, whereas earlier I had referred to the
production of a new gene. So I said that the gene produced by a mutation
is new in the sense that it wasn't there a minute ago. But she was too
busy congratulating herself on her cleverness to bother understanding
this point.
Actually, though, she was not the only one I was talking to. Her son,
who I would guess was about eleven or twelve, was listening as well. In
fact, he was listening intently. He even threw in an occasional comment
that was far more intelligent than anything his mother was saying.
While we were having this conversation several other people wandered
over and joined the fray, all of them trying to come up with the zinger
that would make me shut up. At one point, in response to a comment I
made about mutations, one gentleman made the usual creationist remark
that mutations always lead to the loss or degradation of information,
and therefore couldn't lead to information increase. To seal the deal he
gave me an example.
The example was the mutation that leads to sickle cell anemia.
Ugh. I rolled my eyes and said that actually the sickle cell anemia
mutation was a perfect illustration of the point I was making.
Increasing the risk for sickle cell anemia is only one effect of that
particular gene. Another effect is to confer a resistance to malaria.
So, in some vague sense, you can say that you have lost information
regarding the proper formation of red blood cells. But you have also
gained information with respect to avoiding malaria.
He agreed and replied that it was a trade-off. Exactly, I replied. So
what was the net change in information as the result of that particular
mutation? He shrugged and said he didn't know. I said, �And yet just
moments ago you told me that this mutation led to a loss of information.
What basis did you have for making that statement?�
Somewhere in here another fellow came over and asked what I meant by
Shannon information. I proceeded to launch into a non-technical
explanation of the concept that was so clear and easy to follow, you'd
have thought no one could have been confused at the end of it. He shot
back with, �Oh, that's just an assumption you are making.�
Pause. Deep breath.
No, I said, that's a definition, not an assumption.
But you're assuming that's a good way to measure information. I replied
that it's a way that scientists have found useful in a variety of
different contexts, and that if he had something else in mind it was for
him to tell me what he meant.
This went on for quite some time, but I still haven't come to the most
surreal part of the argument. That occurred when sickle-cell guy
conceded the point that natural mechanisms could increase information
content in the Shannon sense, but that really Gitt was talking about
complex, specified information (CSI).
Ah, you're talking about William Dembski's idea, right? He replied that
he was. I pointed out that Gitt said specifically in his talk that what
he was doing was different from what Dembski was doing. Sickle-cell guy
shrugged.
Now, I happen to believe that Dembski's notion of CSI is a lot of
nonsense. Establishing that information is complex in his sense requires
that we carry out probability calculations that in any practical
situation can not be carried out. Establishing that some given
information is specified requires that we match it up to some
recognizable pattern, but there is no method for doing that in a
non-arbitrary way. Perhaps I should simply have said that.
Instead I replied that since Dembski was the one claiming that something
was fundamentally impossible (natural mechanisms increasing CSI) it was
really for him to justify that claim. Sickle-cell guy then came back
with his own version of Dembski's arguments, and that's where things
totally entered the Twilight Zone.
His description of Dembski's work was ridiculous, you see. Somehow he
had gotten it into his head that in Dembski's world, all information was
complex specified information (leaving its origin as the only mystery),
and that information was intimately linked with the idea of
communicating a message instead of merely being related to certain
probability calculations.
So I now spent about ten minutes having to explain what Dembski was
actually saying, over sickle-cell guy's repeated objections. That's
right! These guys are so confused they can't even parrot their own
arguments properly. And there I am trying to give a clear explanation of
Dembski's nonsense, just so this nimrod will understand what it is that
I am refuting. Grrrrrrrr.
I finally persuaded him that he had Dembski wrong by showing that the
things he (sickle-cell guy) was saying were obviously wrong, whereas the
things Dembski was really saying were wrong for (slightly) more subtle
reasons. I think I finally convinced him on the point.
Anyway, we went on like this for quite a while. I don't know if I
convinced anyone of anything, but I certainly wiped the smug smile off
that woman's face. And I suspect about five years down the line, her son
is going to rebel /hard/.
We shook hands, and I walked out of the collisseum. Drove over to the
Mexican restaurant, and got another one of those most excellent fajita
burritos. The end to a perfect morning.
Next up: A rare point of agreement between me and the conference
presenters. The ID folks are a bunch of weenies.
John Locke
Sep 16, 2012, 5:35:47 PM9/16/12
to
the allure of an eternal paradise has apparently trumped common sense.
Budikka666
Sep 16, 2012, 6:35:21 PM9/16/12
to
which would correct Andrew-a-Blank's failings. Tha's not testimony to
his faith, it's testimony to his stupidity, blindess and irremediable
ignorance.
Budikka
Budikka666
Sep 16, 2012, 6:45:55 PM9/16/12
to
On Sep 16, 4:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>
> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>
> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>
> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>
> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>
> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>
> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>
> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>
> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
Anyone can post unsupported bullshit on Usenet, and you're the
> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>
> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>
> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>
> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>
> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>
> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>
> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>
> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>
> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
acknowledged expert on how to post LIES and exhibit rank cowardice in
the face of your being called out on your lies, but I gave to admit
right here that you actually have established *two* things beyond any
refutation:
1. You have established the truth of the fact that you cannot
scientifically or independently support *anything* you claim
and
2. You have established the truth of the fact that you have
absolutely no faith whatsoever in this farcical god you continue to
blindly champion
But once again, it's time for you to show us what a miraculously clean
pair of heels you have.
Here's your starting gun: Please post postive scientific support for
all of your statements made above and let's you and me formally debate
them right here in this thread.
You claim you have an omnipotent god backing you up, so why would you
of all people be so consistently terrifed of taking a stand for that
god and debating me?
As always, your refusal to support your claims with science and/or
independent objective evidence in response to this challenge will be
your open and uncondional admission that you have once again LIED
abotu everything above that you posted.
Budikka
Devils Advocaat
Sep 17, 2012, 2:57:46 AM9/17/12
to
Andrew
Sep 17, 2012, 6:44:42 AM9/17/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:f07a750a-1188-4edf...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
remain accurate and factual.
Now please answer my question. Can you explain the *origin* of
biological information apart from a Creation by a super intelligent
Creator? No.
Then the debate is over.
Now no more foolish "Disproving Creation" posts.
Thank you.
Andrew
> On Sep 16, 4:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>>
>> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>>
>> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
>> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>>
>> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>>
>> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>>
>> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>>
>> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
>> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>>
>> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>>
>> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
>> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
>
> Anyone can post unsupported bullshit on Usenet,
Can you intelligently refute it? No. Therefore the above theorems
>> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>>
>> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>>
>> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
>> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>>
>> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>>
>> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>>
>> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>>
>> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
>> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>>
>> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>>
>> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
>> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
>
> Anyone can post unsupported bullshit on Usenet,
remain accurate and factual.
Now please answer my question. Can you explain the *origin* of
biological information apart from a Creation by a super intelligent
Creator? No.
Then the debate is over.
Now no more foolish "Disproving Creation" posts.
Thank you.
Andrew
Ralph
Sep 17, 2012, 7:20:12 PM9/17/12
to
is your job to support your assertions.
I gave you several examples where the assertions made by your source
have been refuted. You said nothing,
why is that Andrew?
Andrew
Sep 17, 2012, 10:56:39 PM9/17/12
to
"Ralph" wrote in message news:RIOdnfIzYfutLcrN...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
.>
> I gave you several examples where the assertions made by your source have
> been refuted. You said nothing,
A distinction needs to be made between the nuances of the word "information,"
and the two main kinds of application of informational concepts. One of these
is the weak or minimal sense that Shannon talks about, but there is also another
and stronger sense as explained by Dr. Gitt, a professor of informatics.
The theorems of information that Dr.Gitt discovered are applicable to biological
information. This is why atheists become very nervous and agitated when talking
about it, because it uncovers positive evidence for Creation by a super-intelligent
Agent.
God.
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>>>>
>>>> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>>>>
>>>> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
>>>> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>>>>
>>>> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>>>>
>>>> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>>>>
>>>> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>>>>
>>>> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
>>>> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>>>>
>>>> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>>>>
>>>> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
>>>> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
>>>
>>> Anyone can post unsupported bullshit on Usenet,
>>
>> Can you intelligently refute it? No. Therefore the above theorems
>> remain accurate and factual.
>>
>> Now please answer my question. Can you explain the *origin* of
>> biological information apart from a Creation by a super intelligent
>> Creator? No.
>>
>> Then the debate is over.
>>
>> Now no more foolish "Disproving Creation" posts.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
.>> Andrew
>>>> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>>>>
>>>> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>>>>
>>>> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
>>>> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>>>>
>>>> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>>>>
>>>> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>>>>
>>>> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>>>>
>>>> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
>>>> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>>>>
>>>> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>>>>
>>>> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
>>>> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
>>>
>>> Anyone can post unsupported bullshit on Usenet,
>>
>> Can you intelligently refute it? No. Therefore the above theorems
>> remain accurate and factual.
>>
>> Now please answer my question. Can you explain the *origin* of
>> biological information apart from a Creation by a super intelligent
>> Creator? No.
>>
>> Then the debate is over.
>>
>> Now no more foolish "Disproving Creation" posts.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
.>
> It isn't his job to refute it, you presented it as your position and it is your
> job to support your assertions.
-------> http://www.p2l.it/14c
> job to support your assertions.
> I gave you several examples where the assertions made by your source have
> been refuted. You said nothing,
and the two main kinds of application of informational concepts. One of these
is the weak or minimal sense that Shannon talks about, but there is also another
and stronger sense as explained by Dr. Gitt, a professor of informatics.
The theorems of information that Dr.Gitt discovered are applicable to biological
information. This is why atheists become very nervous and agitated when talking
about it, because it uncovers positive evidence for Creation by a super-intelligent
Agent.
God.
Syd Maniac
Sep 18, 2012, 1:07:56 PM9/18/12
to
Sad that you are so afraid of new knowledge.
--
PDW
Check out my comic blogs:
http://theincognitomultiverse.blogspot.com/
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://warintime.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
Syd Maniac
Sep 18, 2012, 1:08:26 PM9/18/12
to
Syd Maniac
Sep 18, 2012, 1:09:24 PM9/18/12
to
worker.
Syd Maniac
Sep 18, 2012, 1:10:41 PM9/18/12
to
Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:f07a750a-1188-4edf...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 16, 4:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>>>
>>> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>>>
>>> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
>>> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>>>
>>> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>>>
>>> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>>>
>>> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>>>
>>> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
>>> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>>>
>>> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>>>
>>> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
>>> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
>>
>> Anyone can post unsupported bullshit on Usenet,
>
> Can you intelligently refute it? No. Therefore the above theorems
> remain accurate and factual.
>
>
We could indeed refute them all, asshole, but it would make no
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:f07a750a-1188-4edf...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 16, 4:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>>>
>>> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>>>
>>> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
>>> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>>>
>>> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>>>
>>> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>>>
>>> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>>>
>>> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
>>> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>>>
>>> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>>>
>>> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
>>> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
>>
>> Anyone can post unsupported bullshit on Usenet,
>
> Can you intelligently refute it? No. Therefore the above theorems
> remain accurate and factual.
>
>
difference in that thick beam of concrete you call a head.
Syd Maniac
Sep 18, 2012, 1:13:01 PM9/18/12
to
pushing zero. Nothing you have proposed is proven, and all are, in fact,
rendered false by REAL science.
No wonder you hate real science. It refuses to support your delusions.
Mike Painter
Sep 18, 2012, 1:46:46 PM9/18/12
to
is no sound.
But it did remind me of a joke.
The erudite college professor was telling his class that while double
negatives are commonly used to express a positive "no counterexample
has ever been found" to show that a double positive has ever been used
to express a negative.
A bored voice from the back of the room was heard to say "yeah, yeah."
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 18, 2012, 2:26:24 PM9/18/12
to
On 9/18/2012 1:46 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
> These "theorems" seem to imply that if a tree fall in the forest there
> is no sound.
There would be no sound unless someone, or some animal, heard the tree fall.
> These "theorems" seem to imply that if a tree fall in the forest there
> is no sound.
Sound-
1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by
vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2. Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be
heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
--
If a man said something while in the forest, and there was no woman
there, would he still be wrong?
Budikka666
Sep 18, 2012, 5:16:01 PM9/18/12
to
You have my written word given right here that I *will* intelligently
refute it with support if you accept my offer to formally debate the 8-
point outline that you posted here on September 16th, but until and
unless you actually debate me and *make* *a* *supported* *case* for the
outline you posted, there is *nothing* to refute because there is not a
single person here on alt.atheism who will take *your word* for
*anything*.
Just posting your claim is *not* the same as establishing that claim.
You need to support it with independent objective evidence.
The question is *do* *you* *have* *the* *guts* to formally debate me for
once in your life? All I ask of you right now is that you find the guts
you have never been able to find before and simply offer a one-word
answer to this question ("Will you formally debate me on your 8 points
you posted?"): answer either 'Yes' or 'No'
Or will you run from even giving a simple one word answer as you have
done countless times before?
If you run, then you need to understand that your continued cowardice is
nothing more nor less than your open confession here in these public
forums that *you* *have* *no* *faith* in this supposedly omnipotent
creator you claim exists, and if you have no faith as you have repeatedly
proven, then why should we have any?
Do you understand that?
I await your single word answer.
Budikka
refute it with support if you accept my offer to formally debate the 8-
point outline that you posted here on September 16th, but until and
unless you actually debate me and *make* *a* *supported* *case* for the
outline you posted, there is *nothing* to refute because there is not a
single person here on alt.atheism who will take *your word* for
*anything*.
Just posting your claim is *not* the same as establishing that claim.
You need to support it with independent objective evidence.
The question is *do* *you* *have* *the* *guts* to formally debate me for
once in your life? All I ask of you right now is that you find the guts
you have never been able to find before and simply offer a one-word
answer to this question ("Will you formally debate me on your 8 points
you posted?"): answer either 'Yes' or 'No'
Or will you run from even giving a simple one word answer as you have
done countless times before?
If you run, then you need to understand that your continued cowardice is
nothing more nor less than your open confession here in these public
forums that *you* *have* *no* *faith* in this supposedly omnipotent
creator you claim exists, and if you have no faith as you have repeatedly
proven, then why should we have any?
Do you understand that?
I await your single word answer.
Budikka
Smiler
Sep 18, 2012, 8:09:42 PM9/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:26:24 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 1:46 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
>
>> These "theorems" seem to imply that if a tree fall in the forest there
>> is no sound.
>
> There would be no sound unless someone, or some animal, heard the tree
> fall.
>
> Sound-
> 1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by
> vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
>
> 2. Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be
> heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
Even if the sound vibrations don't reach an animal's or human's ear, they
> On 9/18/2012 1:46 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
>
>> These "theorems" seem to imply that if a tree fall in the forest there
>> is no sound.
>
> There would be no sound unless someone, or some animal, heard the tree
> fall.
>
> Sound-
> 1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by
> vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
>
> 2. Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be
> heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
will still be there.
Dakota
Sep 19, 2012, 7:09:56 AM9/19/12
to
On 9/18/2012 7:09 PM, Smiler wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:26:24 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
>> On 9/18/2012 1:46 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
>>
>>> These "theorems" seem to imply that if a tree fall in the forest there
>>> is no sound.
>>
>> There would be no sound unless someone, or some animal, heard the tree
>> fall.
>>
>> Sound-
>> 1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by
>> vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
>>
>> 2. Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be
>> heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
>
> Even if the sound vibrations don't reach an animal's or human's ear, they
> will still be there.
>
The sound vibrations would be detected by the millions of insects that
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:26:24 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
>> On 9/18/2012 1:46 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
>>
>>> These "theorems" seem to imply that if a tree fall in the forest there
>>> is no sound.
>>
>> There would be no sound unless someone, or some animal, heard the tree
>> fall.
>>
>> Sound-
>> 1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by
>> vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
>>
>> 2. Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be
>> heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
>
> Even if the sound vibrations don't reach an animal's or human's ear, they
> will still be there.
>
inhabit the forest. Animals and humans aren't the only living things
that detect sound.
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 19, 2012, 9:27:19 AM9/19/12
to
Insects are also members of the Animal kingdom.
You're welcome.
Alex W.
Sep 19, 2012, 2:13:00 PM9/19/12
to
Whether or not there are organs that are capable of detecting
these oscillations is another issue, it would seem to me. Two
icebergs crashing into each other on the methane seas of Titan
create soundwaves, whether there is anyone to perceive them or
not. One might as well claim that light does not exist unless
someone is there to see it.
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 19, 2012, 4:26:55 PM9/19/12
to
telling us what you think sound is?
Sound-
The Magpie
Sep 19, 2012, 5:39:12 PM9/19/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 18/09/2012 03:56, Andrew wrote:
>
> A distinction needs to be made between the nuances of the word "information,"
> and the two main kinds of application of informational concepts. One of these
> is the weak or minimal sense that Shannon talks about, but there is also another
> and stronger sense as explained by Dr. Gitt, a professor of informatics.
>
Are you *SERIOUSLY* going to try and claim that Shannon - the father
of information theory himself - did not understand information?
Not only that, but the only "Dr. Gitt" I can find is the *CREATIONIST*
engineer Dr. Werner Gitt, who *claims* to have been made "head of
informatics" at a German institute which does not appear to exist (or
at least does not turn up on a Google search for it) at all.
In short, this is complete bullcrap, Andrew. Serious *fail* again.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQWjuAAAoJEKy1URILypCGr3IH/1r9FRZ13WiIX5r53eWu6eEz
dqFnya920fEmCYfKH1W4yP9BY1ecJ404Dtx6yJz5DG5h/dmZVlYWKPPAX1dYVlL6
jidqQLe9+zGGeBqFS+H19DbksPzkm4RGIoky8WCrfeUhBpfbRw8NOQcK5WPSb18l
ppvNfl6IRUjmuYqYVVPY5nyzA0feAmQe1TPZuc+gXWyAeILEZfwsbh3/K2PEqqPS
XlrowO+lvkTRS8YeeNVvXWfpUc2NGLvQo2oHeuS/LFAfnbHxOMJs+/8gKvax4V3R
MZ0QcZ6Se+ZhApIGPGeCmPyula/mCzWpUooOAmdJK4WbbSKwxmXocQSqMR+owx4=
=gAnQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 18/09/2012 03:56, Andrew wrote:
>
> A distinction needs to be made between the nuances of the word "information,"
> and the two main kinds of application of informational concepts. One of these
> is the weak or minimal sense that Shannon talks about, but there is also another
> and stronger sense as explained by Dr. Gitt, a professor of informatics.
>
of information theory himself - did not understand information?
Not only that, but the only "Dr. Gitt" I can find is the *CREATIONIST*
engineer Dr. Werner Gitt, who *claims* to have been made "head of
informatics" at a German institute which does not appear to exist (or
at least does not turn up on a Google search for it) at all.
In short, this is complete bullcrap, Andrew. Serious *fail* again.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQWjuAAAoJEKy1URILypCGr3IH/1r9FRZ13WiIX5r53eWu6eEz
dqFnya920fEmCYfKH1W4yP9BY1ecJ404Dtx6yJz5DG5h/dmZVlYWKPPAX1dYVlL6
jidqQLe9+zGGeBqFS+H19DbksPzkm4RGIoky8WCrfeUhBpfbRw8NOQcK5WPSb18l
ppvNfl6IRUjmuYqYVVPY5nyzA0feAmQe1TPZuc+gXWyAeILEZfwsbh3/K2PEqqPS
XlrowO+lvkTRS8YeeNVvXWfpUc2NGLvQo2oHeuS/LFAfnbHxOMJs+/8gKvax4V3R
MZ0QcZ6Se+ZhApIGPGeCmPyula/mCzWpUooOAmdJK4WbbSKwxmXocQSqMR+owx4=
=gAnQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Smiler
Sep 19, 2012, 6:43:31 PM9/19/12
to
>
> Insects are also members of the Animal kingdom.
>
> You're welcome.
You're ignorant.
Budikka666
Sep 19, 2012, 11:20:33 PM9/19/12
to
creator backing him up, yet who has ZERO fiath in that god, and who
can't even find the guts to post a simple, honest 'yes' or 'no' in
answer to whether he's got the courage to face me in a debate?
Do you know how many of your own ilk are losing all faith in *you* as
they see you run time after time after time after time from me?
Budikka
WangoTango
Sep 20, 2012, 2:29:33 PM9/20/12
to
In article <NrmdnTNXrp0sf8rN...@earthlink.com>,
andrew....@usa.net says...
Interesting how you now think you speak for "God".
LOL, talk about pride, isn't that one of the 7 deadly sins?
No matter, no atheist get nervous about genetic information, it is
plainly, and simply, accounted for by evolution. If it weren't you
wouldn't have 80+% of the NAS listing themselves as atheist. Isn't it
strange how the higher your intelligence the less likely you are to
believe in mythical beings?
andrew....@usa.net says...
LOL, talk about pride, isn't that one of the 7 deadly sins?
No matter, no atheist get nervous about genetic information, it is
plainly, and simply, accounted for by evolution. If it weren't you
wouldn't have 80+% of the NAS listing themselves as atheist. Isn't it
strange how the higher your intelligence the less likely you are to
believe in mythical beings?
WangoTango
Sep 20, 2012, 2:30:44 PM9/20/12
to
In article <5Yq6s.543405$LO.2...@fx26.am4>, use...@pigsinspace.co.uk
says...
have are lies. First and foremost, they lie to themselves, after that
the rest is easy.
says...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 18/09/2012 03:56, Andrew wrote:
> >
> > A distinction needs to be made between the nuances of the word "information,"
> > and the two main kinds of application of informational concepts. One of these
> > is the weak or minimal sense that Shannon talks about, but there is also another
> > and stronger sense as explained by Dr. Gitt, a professor of informatics.
> >
> Are you *SERIOUSLY* going to try and claim that Shannon - the father
> of information theory himself - did not understand information?
>
> Not only that, but the only "Dr. Gitt" I can find is the *CREATIONIST*
> engineer Dr. Werner Gitt, who *claims* to have been made "head of
> informatics" at a German institute which does not appear to exist (or
> at least does not turn up on a Google search for it) at all.
>
> In short, this is complete bullcrap, Andrew. Serious *fail* again.
Well, yeah, the first, last, and ONLY thing these stupid creationists
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 18/09/2012 03:56, Andrew wrote:
> >
> > A distinction needs to be made between the nuances of the word "information,"
> > and the two main kinds of application of informational concepts. One of these
> > is the weak or minimal sense that Shannon talks about, but there is also another
> > and stronger sense as explained by Dr. Gitt, a professor of informatics.
> >
> Are you *SERIOUSLY* going to try and claim that Shannon - the father
> of information theory himself - did not understand information?
>
> Not only that, but the only "Dr. Gitt" I can find is the *CREATIONIST*
> engineer Dr. Werner Gitt, who *claims* to have been made "head of
> informatics" at a German institute which does not appear to exist (or
> at least does not turn up on a Google search for it) at all.
>
> In short, this is complete bullcrap, Andrew. Serious *fail* again.
have are lies. First and foremost, they lie to themselves, after that
the rest is easy.
Budikka666
Sep 20, 2012, 6:26:22 PM9/20/12
to
Given the chance to formally debate his 8 unsupported claims about
information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.
Budikka
information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.
Budikka
Budikka666
Sep 21, 2012, 7:57:43 PM9/21/12
to
Budikka666
Sep 26, 2012, 4:54:01 PM9/26/12
to
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Budikka
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Budikka
Budikka666
Sep 29, 2012, 7:33:44 AM9/29/12
to
On Sep 26, 3:54 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
> simultaneously:http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ruhttps://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e...
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
> Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
> authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
> Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
> turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
> proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
> If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
> any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
> have taken me up on my debate offer.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9rm86ajhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4...
> authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
> Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
> turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
> proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
> If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
> any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
> have taken me up on my debate offer.
>
> Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
> existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
> support his LIES by turning
> tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
> he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
> an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> up on my debate offer.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmghttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a8427...
> existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
> support his LIES by turning
> tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
> he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
> an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> up on my debate offer.
>
> Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
> Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
> admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
> running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
> ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
> omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> up on my debate offer.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2vhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe...
> Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
> admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
> running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
> ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
> omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> up on my debate offer.
>
> Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
> evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
> support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
> he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
> fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
> loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
> support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/986crjkhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb677165...
> evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
> support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
> he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
> fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
> loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
> support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
>
> Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
> latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
> admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
> running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
> ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
> omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> up on my debate offer.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadmhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453...
> latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
> admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
> running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
> ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
> omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> up on my debate offer.
>
> Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
> unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
> Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
> turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
> proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
> If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
> any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
> have taken me up on my debate offer.
> So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
> truly believe in this god he espouses!
> End of story.
>
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
> *another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7ohttp://tinyurl.com/76a8chmhttp://tinyurl.com/6q3q498http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsrhttp://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyuhttp://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
> unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
> Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
> turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
> proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
> If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
> any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
> have taken me up on my debate offer.
> So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
> truly believe in this god he espouses!
> End of story.
>
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
>
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
> another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsbhttp://tinyurl.com/7t47anqhttp://tinyurl.com/7wvegqchttp://tinyurl.com/6rg67wchttp://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fwhttp://tinyurl.com/77bopo8http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtdhttp://tinyurl.com/7eknx73http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
>
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wnhttp://tinyurl.com/74h455ehttp://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
>
> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=enhttps://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e...http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4...
>
> Budikka
Still running I see, and every cowardly step you flee is just one more
in a long line of admissions that you have no faith at all in this
farcical god you try to push on us. lol!
Budikka
Budikka666
Sep 30, 2012, 7:43:50 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 29, 6:33 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 3:54 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
> > simultaneously:http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ruhttps://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism......
> On Sep 26, 3:54 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
> > Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
> > authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
> > Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
> > turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
> > proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
> > If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
> > any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
> > have taken me up on my debate offer.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/9rm86ajhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/......
> > authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
> > Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
> > turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
> > proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
> > If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
> > any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
> > have taken me up on my debate offer.
>
> > Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
> > existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
> > support his LIES by turning
> > tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
> > he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
> > an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> > would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> > up on my debate offer.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmghttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/......
> > existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
> > support his LIES by turning
> > tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
> > he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
> > an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> > would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> > up on my debate offer.
>
> > Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
> > Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
> > admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
> > running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
> > ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
> > omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> > would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> > up on my debate offer.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2vhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/......
> > Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
> > admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
> > running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
> > ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
> > omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> > would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> > up on my debate offer.
>
> > Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
> > evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
> > support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
> > he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
> > fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
> > loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
> > support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/986crjkhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/......
> > evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
> > support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
> > he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
> > fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
> > loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
> > support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
>
> > Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
> > latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
> > admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
> > running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
> > ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
> > omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> > would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> > up on my debate offer.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadmhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/......
> > latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
> > admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
> > running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
> > ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
> > omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
> > would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
> > up on my debate offer.
>
> > Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
> > unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
> > Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
> > turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
> > proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
> > If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
> > any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
> > have taken me up on my debate offer.
> > So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
> > truly believe in this god he espouses!
> > End of story.
>
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
> > *another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7ohttp://tinyurl.com/76a8chmhttp://tinyurl.co...
> > unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
> > Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
> > turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
> > proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
> > If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
> > any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
> > have taken me up on my debate offer.
> > So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
> > truly believe in this god he espouses!
> > End of story.
>
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
>
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
> > another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsbhttp://tinyurl.com/7t47anqhttp://tinyurl.co...
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
>
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wnhttp://tinyurl.com/74h455ehttp://tinyurl.co...
>
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=e......
>
> > Budikka
>
> Still running I see, and every cowardly step you flee is just one more
> in a long line of admissions that you have no faith at all in this
> farcical god you try to push on us. lol!
>
> Budikka
I guess it's "Run Awayyyyyy" yet again for Andrew-Another-Blank.
> > Budikka
>
> Still running I see, and every cowardly step you flee is just one more
> in a long line of admissions that you have no faith at all in this
> farcical god you try to push on us. lol!
>
> Budikka
Kepe running you Chickenshit for Christt™, it's what you do best,
after all.
Budikka
Budikka666
Oct 2, 2012, 12:19:23 AM10/2/12
to
So you have RUN from me countless times, every time admitting that you
cannot support what you claim, you cannot refute what I've posted, and
you are so lacking in faith in your "creator" helping you that you are
TERRIFIED of facing me in a one-on-one debate.
And you call that witnessing? I call it witless.
Budikka
cannot support what you claim, you cannot refute what I've posted, and
you are so lacking in faith in your "creator" helping you that you are
TERRIFIED of facing me in a one-on-one debate.
And you call that witnessing? I call it witless.
Budikka
Ralph
Oct 2, 2012, 8:28:01 PM10/2/12
to
On 9/17/2012 10:56 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:RIOdnfIzYfutLcrN...@giganews.com...
Still haven't refuted the assertions made by Gitt.
> "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:RIOdnfIzYfutLcrN...@giganews.com...
Budikka666
Oct 2, 2012, 9:30:05 PM10/2/12
to
On Sep 17, 5:43 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:f07a750a-1188-4edf...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > acknowledged expert on how to post LIES and exhibit rank cowardice in
> > the face of your being called out on your lies, but I gave to admit
> > right here that you actually have established *two* things beyond any
> > refutation:
> > 1. You have established the truth of the fact that you cannot
> > scientifically or independently support *anything* you claim
> > and
> > 2. You have established the truth of the fact that you have
> > absolutely no faith whatsoever in this farcical god you continue to
> > blindly champion
>
> > But once again, it's time for you to show us what a miraculously clean
> > pair of heels you have.
>
> > Here's your starting gun: Please post postive scientific support for
> > all of your statements made above and let's you and me formally debate
> > them right here in this thread.
>
> > You claim you have an omnipotent god backing you up, so why would you
> > of all people be so consistently terrifed of taking a stand for that
> > god and debating me?
>
> > As always, your refusal to support your claims with science and/or
> > independent objective evidence in response to this challenge will be
> > your open and uncondional admission that you have once again LIED
> > abotu everything above that you posted.
>
> > Budikka
Don't worry about this thread Andy-Pandy. I have two more new ones to
keep you running.
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:f07a750a-1188-4edf...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 16, 4:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>
> >> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>
> >> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
> >> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>
> >> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>
> >> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>
> >> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>
> >> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
> >> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>
> >> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>
> >> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
> >> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
>
> > Anyone can post unsupported bullshit on Usenet,
>
> Can you intelligently refute it? No. Therefore the above theorems
> remain accurate and factual.
>
> Now please answer my question. Can you explain the *origin* of
> biological information apart from a Creation by a super intelligent
> Creator? No.
>
> Then the debate is over.
>
> Now no more foolish "Disproving Creation" posts.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Andrew
> >> 1. No information can exist without a code.
>
> >> 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
>
> >> 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
> >> statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
>
> >> 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
>
> >> 5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
>
> >> 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
>
> >> 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
> >> that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
>
> >> 8. No information can exist without a will.
>
> >> These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
> >> thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found.
>
> > Anyone can post unsupported bullshit on Usenet,
>
> Can you intelligently refute it? No. Therefore the above theorems
> remain accurate and factual.
>
> Now please answer my question. Can you explain the *origin* of
> biological information apart from a Creation by a super intelligent
> Creator? No.
>
> Then the debate is over.
>
> Now no more foolish "Disproving Creation" posts.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > acknowledged expert on how to post LIES and exhibit rank cowardice in
> > the face of your being called out on your lies, but I gave to admit
> > right here that you actually have established *two* things beyond any
> > refutation:
> > 1. You have established the truth of the fact that you cannot
> > scientifically or independently support *anything* you claim
> > and
> > 2. You have established the truth of the fact that you have
> > absolutely no faith whatsoever in this farcical god you continue to
> > blindly champion
>
> > But once again, it's time for you to show us what a miraculously clean
> > pair of heels you have.
>
> > Here's your starting gun: Please post postive scientific support for
> > all of your statements made above and let's you and me formally debate
> > them right here in this thread.
>
> > You claim you have an omnipotent god backing you up, so why would you
> > of all people be so consistently terrifed of taking a stand for that
> > god and debating me?
>
> > As always, your refusal to support your claims with science and/or
> > independent objective evidence in response to this challenge will be
> > your open and uncondional admission that you have once again LIED
> > abotu everything above that you posted.
>
> > Budikka
Don't worry about this thread Andy-Pandy. I have two more new ones to
keep you running.
Budikka
0 new messages