Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@Setanta,

You are correct I am sorry. you are showing you don't want to discuss the details of my statements that you do not understand. I would rather discuss the details then have you just say you don't understand them by saying you think they're word salad. I think my view of the universe is different and you're not wrong. I wish you would Comment on specific points and point out where they're wrong.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

. . . you are showing you don't want to discuss the details of my statements that you do not understand.

This is just more insult, and arrogant BS. As always, you have the burden of
demonstrating your claims--no one is obliged to disprove them. You have no idea what I do understand and what I don't understand. One thing which is clear to me and to any other native speaker of English is when people are just stringing meaningless phrases together, and then pretending they represent profound insights.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

farmers lab experiments where they are trying to replicate abiogeisis are created by a scientist's intelligence that is outside the frame of reference of the lab experiment that it is being run in.

Does this even make sense? Of course someones intelligence designed the "EXPEERIMENT". It was a design to solve the methodology that nature used in the original spark of life. How does this allow you to conclude som kind of Supernatural intervention??
You realize that matter and ions are being created all over the universe right now (Or at least at a time equivalent to the "light Years" in which that crucible is doing its work. If you study the periodic table you can see how the energies of combination and ionic radii occur in groups(like why is chlorine a mightier oxidizing agent than is oxygen itself?)

You revealed your worldview bases as being drawn from a bunch of religions and a-religions. WHY is that important ? I think you have this need to be comforted that this whole plane of existence isnt just complex reaction gone amuk for a time to be disclosed later.

I dont think youre impressing anyone here with your phraseological incongruities. I know its fun to screw with techy language that way but(if you are relly interestee in science) you should actually be spending time on understanding the principles and finding some conclusive arguments that can be built, Not generate phrase infested bumper stickers.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

It was a design to solve the methodology that nature used.

. What is methodology? What is using it? Methodology is a predetermined program created to solve a problem. (Initiate life) Nature is the hardware running the program that solves the problem. If a scientist or someone else enters the methodology into the system, one thing is always true, someone enters the methodology into system always. (Except this one time? Not hardly.)

Once i concluded that to be true, i tried to discover its identity of the person who inserted the methodology into the hardware. Excuse me for being curious.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

You act like words like “methodology” and “used” had different meanings millions of years ago than they do today, Farmer.

0 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

Quote:

Information doesn't exist independent of the perceiver.

What would you call the information encoded in DNA before Crick et al?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Methodology is a predetermined program

Its merely a way , based upon past experience and recognition of scientific Laws , to determine WHETHER OR NOT IT MAY WORK. Science is far and away mostly covered with incorrect "methodologies" we learn from our mistakes and gradually circle in on what appears to be fact .(NOT ever knowing whether we are correct wr to nature or not). Laws of Superposition and Uniformitarianism seem to work pretty well.

Youre still parsing words. Try gaining a deeper understanding of those things you claim you know.

Quote:

Once i concluded that to be true,

Your "conclusions" appear to be evidence-free and merely based on a predigested world view.
All these pages and youve really gone nowhere .

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

What would you call the information encoded in DNA before Crick et al

It isnt information till its communicated. So what does arguing about , "what is , is",, have to do with anything

PS, you better watch, you are dangerously approaching the realization that laws of science are interminable and ,like all good IDers , youd have to deny one of your major tenets that"IF WE DIDNT EXPERIENCE IT or WITNESS IT, IT JUST DIDNT HAPPEN" or the LAWS of RADIODECAY have changed since the Big Bang,

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"What would you call the information encoded in DNA before Crick et al "

Farmer replied:
It isnt information till its communicated.

I'm sure you have heard of mRNA. The 'm' stands for 'messenger' so obviously information is being communicated.

Quote:

So what does arguing about , "what is , is",, have to do with anything

Did you throw that in just to obscure the issue? Usually you use a lot more jargon than that. This sounds more like a Bill Clinton attempt at it.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Give examples ros and sen. You are showing your ignorance by not giving examples and explaining why you think the way you do.

It isn't ignorance, it's disdain. You haven't presented any information even worthy of a response yet.

I pointed you to a web site which demonstrates that random words can sound meaningful even when we know they aren't because they are produced by a mindless machine. And I even provided you with a description of what the site was doing so as not to "fool" you. Then Jerlands responded to a quote as though it were real, and you agreed with Deepak's philosophy as though it were real. And when I challenged you both with what that site was doing, you both doubled-down on your blind rhetoric. You two can't even differentiate between babble and thought even when it's shown to be babble.

Then while stumbling through that minefield, bouncing from one explosion to another, you just continued to spew more inanity further demonstrating my point. It's beyond pitiful.

No single snowflake is responsible for the blizzard. You two have left us in a snow drift of nonsense and are now asking us to show you which piece of nonsense caused the drift.

I'm trying to pry my eyes away from this train-wreck of discourse, but it's just mesmerizing, like a slow motion disaster with parts and debris flying everywhere.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Random words that sound meaningful are meaningful even if produced randomly. There is more meaning behind the words than just the definition of the words. The words could not exist without the hardware running the algorithm solving the problem of “how can I generate words”. And then, that same hardware solves the next problem of how can I share that newly generated information with Brian to prove a point.

If you would not have told me that a computer generated the phrase I would have assumed a person did. The phrase was philosophical so I would have assumed the person was a philosopher. (If the phrase would have been E equals M C squared, I would have assumed it was Einstein).

Instead I found out a much more sophisticated and technically savvy (intelligent) person produced the phrase by creating a machine, programmed it with simple artificial intelligence (its simple because it can’t recognize the value of the information it is creating) to create new information, turn it into print so we can read and discuss it.

You left out the most important part of the message, and that is:

1. The message reveals the intelligence and characteristics of the person that created the machine, that created the words in a phrase and printed it.

2. The message reveals the intelligence and characteristics of the person sharing the message from the machine (rosborne979) with me while he is trying to make a point.

The message reveals these characteristics about Rosborne to me:

1. He tries to present bits of information to make a point without putting the information into the context of all other information that is related to it. (Which according to quantum mechanics is all the information in the universe.)

2. When I put the information into context (and I use all the information in the whole universe and then try to sort out what is relevant to the discussion for instance I left out the surface temp of our computer screens),sometimes Rosborne feels disdain because the broader context changes his initial point he was trying to make.

I am only putting back in the original information (information someone chose to exclude)back into the topic to clarify and bring a greater understanding to the subject matter. (objectivity).

Did you purposely exclude the related but important information from the discussion that I reinserted for clarity?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

I have never observed information that was written by itself. All information is created from a frame of reference outside of the information.

This is an interesting observation and one I was attempting to understand and illustrate in the notion that 1=∞ (infinity) and that all information comes from ∞ (infinity.) I think understanding the origin of number can shed light on this very important notion that no information is written by itself. And all this through simple mathematics.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

1 (man) is trying to understand Infinity (GOD). All information comes from God. He wrote us into existence, conscience beings that can create and understand new ideas. The problem is the ideas aren’t new to God. He wrote the algorithm our mind is operating and the input data it is taking in while it creates new ideas. The ideas are new to us, He saw them coming, we are introducing them into the universe for him like Ros’s random word generated introduced new words for the creator of his computer and the writer of the program it was running.
You are talking about concepts in a way that early man did before language was fully developed and numbers were used to count as well as convey other abstract ideas because there were not any words to fully describe the idea.

We have a sophisticated language now, and a scientific understanding of the universe, and God entered the universe and described himself, so there is no longer a need to communicate that way. We no longer communicate that way so you are confusing most readers.

But you are revealing that ancient man grasped these complicated concepts, was communicating them in folklore, and you are starting to understand what they understood.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

NOW as per mDNA, theres some logic. We name something simply by its structural function now magically its got a brain. OK, this keeps getting to be more fun.

Quote:

Did you throw that in just to obscure the issue? Usually you use a lot more jargon than that. This sounds more like a Bill Clinton attempt at it.

Im not the one whose arguing meanings over substance(Well, I guess I am now by paying attention to your last post)

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

You are talking about concepts in a way that early man did before language was fully developed and numbers were used to count as well as convey other abstract ideas because there were not any words to fully describe the idea.

We have a sophisticated language now, and a scientific understanding of the universe, and God entered the universe and described himself, so there is no longer a need to communicate that way. We no longer communicate that way so you are confusing most readers.

But you are revealing that ancient man grasped these complicated concepts, was communicating them in folklore, and you are starting to understand what they understood.

I think this is a false perception of reality in that you believe we can perceive it more completely through our conventional process than through ancient process.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

∞ (infinity) that is.. the notion of infinity is still considered and I don't believe fully comprehended using modern tools.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

What I don't understand is the lack of appreciation for the foundation. It's the attitude 'we're sophisticated' that's so puzzling.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

Quote:

I this is a false perception of reality that you believe we can perceive it more completely through our conventional process than through ancient process.

Its all the same process. We are further down the process now. They we are first graders, we are in Junior high.

Unless you are suggesting there was a time that is different than now when men’s sensory perception of the universe was better then than now, (a better process)but I don’t know if that would qualify as the same process. Something would have had to have changed the way we gather and process information for that to be true, like a devolution of man or nature. What evidence do you have of that.

3 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Quote:
I this is a false perception of reality that you believe we can perceive it more completely through our conventional process than through ancient process.
Its all the same process. We are further down the process now. They we are first graders, we are in Junior high.

Unless you are suggesting there was a time that is different than now when men’s sensory perception of the universe was better then than now, but I don’t know if that would qualify as the same process. Something would have had to have changed the way we gather and process information for that to be true, like a devolution of man or nature. What evidence do you have of that.

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know