I'll take that as a yes. Although it was already fairly obvious.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
As an example of being neither patient or detailed - Notice this quote from Barbarian: "Instead of being resentful, learn about these things and you'll be able to keep up. If your pride leads you into arguing about things you don't understand, you can hardly blame others for that."
It name calls by calling me resentful, unlearned, prideful, and self-imposed non-understanding. If one were to try and engage with him in civil discussion, one would have to admit to all these pejoratives even if they aren't true.
I'm not resentful, I understand the argument and I'm okay if he doesn't want to discuss it civilly.
I'm not unlearned, I'm a former programmer that worked on compression functions (hint, knowing Shannon really helps).
I'm not prideful, I considered his actual arguments thoughtfully with the understanding I could be wrong.
I don't have a self-imposed non-understanding, I'm thankful when someone opposes my wrong ideas. But in previous arguments Barbarian has shown me right, not wrong, on this topic.
His only substance was the following quote: "Both entropy and information are mathematical terms. They are calculated, not assumed. If you can't do it, that's curable. Go find out."
Even here he can't help his thick passive aggressive nature. But I don't blame him on this quote since he's already being treated like the troll he is this is his best defense.
If one discusses entropy and information, they rarely use math. Especially, let's say, if someone is trying to get laymen to understand the concepts. In previous discussions with Barbarian on this topic, he wanted the discussion to be about the math but it was already acknowledged that the math he was using was sound. It wasn't the math, it was the application of it that mattered - but Barbarian was neither patient enough to see the argument, and his details about math were obvious attempts to obfuscate. That's why Stripe is quick to point out when smart people like Barbarian will do anything in a discussion about common descent except discuss common descent.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Don’t put words in my mouth.
Have you forgotten about what Knight said in this thread? Must’ve come as a blow to a few:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-Crossroads&p=5324022&viewfull=1#post5324022
Stripe, Barbarian is correct. You are behaving like a Flat Earther.
Stripe, these are real terms with real meaning. You can't just make up a new meaning for scientific terms as you go along.
Then show us that you understand. Show us what processes required for common descent are ruled out by "information" or "entropy."
If you can do it without math, take a shot at it. Remember, that each of these are mathematical terms.
I don't enjoy math much more than you seem to enjoy it. But that's how these work. I'll set aside all the names you've called me, and forget about it. I'll even let it pass if you continue to resent it that I called you prideful and said you were ignorant of these things.
Lay out, for us, a compelling case for your belief that common descent is ruled out by one or both of these.
You're on.
Thanks for the link. I was unaware of this. I think I owe Knight an apology as well. And I do regret any unkind things I may have ever said to him or about him.
Barbarian observes:
Both entropy and information are mathematical terms.
How so?
Common usage at dictionary.com
noun
(used with a singular verb) the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.
(used with a singular or plural verb) mathematical procedures, operations, or properties.
Dictionary of Science:
mathematics
n
a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement
Synonyms:
math, maths
Type of:
science, scientific discipline
a particular branch of scientific knowledge
I would say it's a way of understanding information. One obtains information, and then does math to understand what it means.
The results would also be information.
Both entropy and information are mathematical terms.
How so?
Common usage at dictionary.com
noun
(used with a singular verb) the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.
(used with a singular or plural verb) mathematical procedures, operations, or properties.
Dictionary of Science:
mathematics
n
a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement
Synonyms:
math, maths
Type of:
science, scientific discipline
a particular branch of scientific knowledge
I would say it's a way of understanding information. One obtains information, and then does math to understand what it means.
The results would also be information.
I didn't. :idunno:
We provided the definitions we were using. They are perfectly fine. If you think otherwise, tell us how they should be improved.
However, you didn't do anything of the sort, preferring to launch into your narrative using completely different definitions. Complete equivocation and astoundingly arrogant stuff.
Patient? Here is what he says next: "I don't enjoy math much more than you seem to enjoy it. But that's how these work. I'll set aside all the names you've called me, and forget about it. I'll even let it pass if you continue to resent it that I called you prideful and said you were ignorant of these things."
That's the whole sentence he supplies to bury the hatchet and have a civil conversation... but as you see, he doesn't bury it at all. Don't you love that line that he'll be magnanimous enough to let it pass that I supposedly resent him calling me names? Certainly in the hopes of having a fruitful patient and detailed conversation like one could be tricked into believing he's calling for here, this would be the time to commit to stop his passive aggressive name calling, wouldn't it?
No. The word "information" is used in more than one context, even for scientists. And "entropy" is also used in more than one context, even scientifically. If the discussion starts with a particular definition, and it is made clear from the beginning, a charitable reading by someone patient and detailed would respond using that definition. Because either the term would not apply to the point or the definition could be wrong. Or... it could apply and be right.
And beyond that, for one to say "adding noise to the signal is no way to add information to it" doesn't require math. And that's exactly what Barbarian did. His math was correct. But I suppose we'll get into that in the other thread.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Perhaps we could just set aside all our resentments, and you show us which process, required for evolution, you think is ruled out by "entropy" or "information?"
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I agree that math is no more information than is logic information. Math and logic are informationally void. Both disciplines are formal in nature, and do not require any information at all to work. You don't need to have the information e.g. of what you're counting when you calculate that 2+2=4---you don't need to know "4 of what?" in order for math to work, and the same goes for logic.
And that 2+2=4 works, is just because it's logical, but that gets into the foundations of math and logic, and the relationship between them, which is beyond I think the subject here. (It appears to me anyway that math is founded upon logic, fwiw, basically what Russell argued. iow, math is somehow an expansion upon logic; in a way math Is logic, just logic applied to, as your post indicates, things like "quantity and shape and arrangement.")
So, since we're talking evolution, we should use "information" as scientists define it in population genetics.
Cornell U.
Quantitative Biology > Populations and Evolution
Information Theory and Population Genetics
Reginald D. Smith
(Submitted on 21 Mar 2011 (v1), last revised 8 Jun 2012
The key findings of classical population genetics are derived using a framework based on information theory using the entropies of the allele frequency distribution as a basis. The common results for drift, mutation, selection, and gene flow will be rewritten both in terms of information theoretic measurements and used to draw the classic conclusions for balance conditions and common features of one locus dynamics. Linkage disequilibrium will also be discussed including the relationship between mutual information and r^2 and a simple model of hitchhiking.
A new allele is not "noise", since it is a functional message. However, noise does increase information, since it raises the uncertainty of what the particular allele will be in an individual, before testing. An allele that was non-functional (such as a defective second copy of an existing allele) would be an example. That is the entropy of the genome with respect to that particular gene.
Which is what Shannon's equation shows.
Yes. That works.
If I hadn't offered to set aside any resentment I might have against you, while saying that I'm not asking you to do the same, you'd have criticized me for it.
If I set aside any offense you gave me, and said that I expected you to do the same for me, you'd have criticized me for making a demand of you.
If I only said I would forgive any offense you gave me, and said nothing about you, you'd find a way to take offense at that.
We all understand that. I'm suggesting that we both set it all aside. And maybe you'd be willing to tell everyone what process, required for common descent is ruled out by entropy and information. If you think you can do it without math, let's take a look at it. If not, show us your math.
Fair enough?
Nope.
As we are talking about the challenge to Darwinism from entropy, we should use the ideas the challengers present.
Assuming the truth of your theory — ie, bowing to what you want the discussion to be about — is anti-science religious fanaticism.
When you drop your resentment toward those who hold the Biblical account in high esteem, you might be able to function in a rational discussion.
Until then, you remain nothing but a troll.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
That you are among "those" above, is a proposition you'll have to establish if you're going to use it in your argument.
Catholicism believes that Catholics should be free to believe in Darwinism.
I don't, and The Barbarian does.
You need to establish that your ecclesiology is correct and that the Catholicism's ecclesiology is incorrect, because if Catholicism's ecclesiology is correct, then the Church is free to believe in Darwinism; and The Barbarian does, and I do not. I despise Darwinism because it presumes that Catholicism is fictional, and I despise that even many Catholics do not address this plain fact. But you and me, we disagree over how the earth is young, but not that it is young, which is just fine so far as things go, but we differ extremely when it concerns ecclesiology, and I think the main disagreement that you and The Barbarian have is that he heeds the men holding the office of a bishop (verbatim of 1Ti3:1KJV), but you don't. So you don't see the world as a place where others have a right to believe in Darwinism without fear of fellow members of the Body of Christ penalizing them in any way for so believing, and The Barbarian does, and so do I.
You don't have to worry that you're a bad Christian if you just feel in your gut that somehow Darwinism is true, even though Darwinism, in order to be true, proves that Catholicism is false. You are free, as a Catholic Christian, to do that.
I don't do that and The Barbarian does do it. I have no authorization to penalize The Barbarian for believing in Darwinism, it's objectively incorrect for me to try in any way, however passive-, or micro-aggressively---even up to 'gas lighting'---that it might be, to penalize him for this.
Compared with our shared ecclesiology, this matter cannot possibly divide us, not like how you and me are permanently divided unless one of us changed their ecclesiology, because our ecclesiologies are not just different, they are militantly contrary to each other, and mutually exclusive. Only one of them can be correct. And whichever one is correct, once that's exposed, it will Kill the other one.
The Bible says "six days" and "the whole Earth" to describe creation and the flood. The plain meaning of those phrases has not been sensibly challenged. Until good reason is provided that the Bible cannot mean what it plainly says, we are justified in sticking with what we believe and rejecting "billions of years" as anti-Biblical nonsense.
Or we could stick with the science.
I don't care what people believe; I care whether they are capable of engaging sensibly.
You can believe we were all created yesterday if you want, as long as you're willing to engage rationally.
And you're free to believe that trolls live in your attic.
I don't have any resentments to set aside. And I've already had this discussion with you and since you haven't changed there is no need to have it again.
I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about common descent.
:darwinsm: LOL. You can't help but project.
I did. You replied that noise *does* add information to the signal. Weaver would disagree with you.
| It is thus clear where the joker is in saying that the received signal has more information. Some of this information is spurious and undesirable and has been introduced via the noise. To get the useful information in the received signal we must subtract out this spurious portion. |
Do you count it as calling you a name if Weaver does it and I point it out? Would you call me names in return?