Originally posted by lemon limeI challenged a claim in an article you posted and asked you to clarify where I was getting it wrong (if I am wrong). You didn't take the time to read my claim, nor the article, instead you saw the word Shakespere that you vaguely recalled from the article then said Bool Sheet without even considering what was being said. Sorry, but it is not me that is full of Bool Sheet.
You're right... I should have just said Bool Sheet and left it at that.
Originally posted by twhiteheadComputer programming is your area of expertise, not mine. Maybe someone else can help untangle this problem if indeed it is a problem. Dembskis primary area of expertise is math, so maybe he got it wrong and maybe he didn't. I'm not in a position to say if he is right or wrong or if you are right or wrong.
I challenged a claim in an article you posted and asked you to clarify where I was getting it wrong (if I am wrong). You didn't take the time to read my claim, nor the article, instead you saw the word Shakespere that you vaguely recalled from the article then said Bool Sheet without even considering what was being said. Sorry, but it is not me that is full of Bool Sheet.
I don't know what your point was or what it was intended to show, all I know is Dembski is working up to his main points but hasn't quite gotten there yet. You may claim victory by reason of my not having a working knowledge of computer programming if you wish. Having said that, I'm not so much interested in Dembskis analysis of information from that perspective as I am in seeing what he does with it.
Originally posted by humyWhat do you mean according to me? That's like me asking what is evolution according to you, as though you had anything to do with formulating the theory of evolution.
So, tell us, what is ID according to you hand how does it differ from the way I described it?
By the way, your complaint about me insulting you is ridiculous and childish. You routinely call people you disagree with idiots and morons. I've even seen you call someone a hypocrite... do you know what a hypocrite is? A hypocrite is someone who complains about people doing the same as he does, or expects people to do things he refuses to do. You are long on demanding explanations and short on providing any yourself... other than to run to wiki everytime you need help with something. Blowing smoke and claiming victory is a game for fools, so go find yourself a fool to play with.
Originally posted by lemon limeActually it has very little to do with programming. You certainly do not need to know any programming to understand the concepts involved here.
Computer programming is your area of expertise, not mine.
Maybe someone else can help untangle this problem if indeed it is a problem. Dembskis primary area of expertise is math, so maybe he got it wrong and maybe he didn't. I'm not in a position to say if he is right or wrong or if you are right or wrong.
Well I say he's wrong.
I don't know what your point was or what it was intended to show,
Well I wanted clarification as to what he means by information. I also think that he got it wrong. The problem is, that if he got it wrong, then he doesn't really have a handle on information and can stop right there, because anything that follows is going to be wrong too.
But we can't resolve this, because you don't understand what he was talking about, so you too should not be supporting his paper because you don't understand it anyway.
Having said that, I'm not so much interested in Dembskis analysis of information from that perspective as I am in seeing what he does with it.
How can he do anything with it if he doesn't know what it is? If I can spot this error, then how did his paper get past the review process?
And I expect an apology for you uncalled for rudeness earlier when you didn't bother to read my post, now admit to not having understood it, and yet chose to call it Bool Sheet.
Originally posted by lemon limeTake it from me, twhitehead, is no expert in computer programming. I have had enough converstations with him to know that.
Computer programming is your area of expertise, not mine. Maybe someone else can help untangle this problem if indeed it is a problem. Dembskis primary area of expertise is math, so maybe he got it wrong and maybe he didn't. I'm not in a position to say if he is right or wrong or if you are right or wrong.
I don't know what your point was ...[text shortened]... nalysis of information from that perspective as I am in seeing what he does with it.
The Instructor
Originally posted by lemon limeyet again, you respond to a post that contains no insults with a post that has insults. Yes I have given out insults, sometimes justly but sometimes unjustly I admit and I do not pretend to be anywhere near perfect in that respect. But I do not believe that's an excuse to just keep dishing them out when none were called for such as when I merely ask a question.
What do you mean according to me? That's like me asking what is evolution according to you, as though you had anything to do with formulating the theory of evolution.
By the way, your complaint about me insulting you is ridiculous and childish. You routinely call people you disagree with idiots and morons. I've even seen you call s ...[text shortened]... owing smoke and claiming victory is a game for fools, so go find yourself a fool to play with.
I would not respond with insults to your post if you merely asked a question in that post and without insults -instead, I would actually answer it if I can and, if I can't, I would explain why not. If you don't believe me, try it!
What do you mean according to me? That's like me asking what is evolution according to you, as though you had anything to do with formulating the theory of evolution.
No, it would not be as though I had anything to do with formulating the theory of evolution if I just claimed to you that what you say/imply evolution is differs from what it actually is and then you asked me the question “so tell us, what is evolution according to you and how does it differ from the way I described it? “ -that question would not imply you had anything with formulating the theory any more than me asking you (as I just did) “so tell us, what is ID according to you and how does it differ from the way I described it?” if you had just claimed (as you did) to me that what I say/imply ID is differs from what it actually is.
I am not implying anything -only asking. And you still haven't answered. So what is your answer?
P.S. Note the above post contains NO insults. I will wait and see if you respond to that with a post that has insults but still give no answer to my question.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIntelligent Design is the name scientist have given the discoveries that imply creation by the supernatural, because science has no way to deal with the supernatural at present. The natural question is intelligently designed by WHO? Scientist don't want to deal with the WHO of Intelligent Design, so most just say it is bogus science and hope it goes away.
Since when is intelligent design not a form of creationism?
The Instructor
Originally posted by lemon limeEvolution not a form of atheism in disguise. Many theists would accept evolution.
Since when is evolution not a form of atheism?
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
Intelligent design is a form of creationism in disguise. Very few if any that reject ID would accept creationism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
“Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Intelligent_design
“ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in U.S. public schools “
-the above explains what ID is really about -its about creationism.
And before you have a chance to start saying that is not real ID yet again (along with the insults), what, according to you is real ID and how does that differ from whatever you imagine I think it is?
Originally posted by RJHinds
Intelligent Design is the name scientist have given the discoveries that imply creation by the supernatural, because science has no way to deal with the supernatural at present. The natural question is intelligently designed by WHO? Scientist don't want to deal with the WHO of Intelligent Design, so most just say it is bogus science and hope it goes away.
The Instructor
The natural question is intelligently designed by WHO?
That, of course, would only be a natural question if what you refer to HAS been intelligently designed else its a stupid question.
Originally posted by humyOne of the scientist, on the video I posted the link to, said that as a scientist he must go were the evidence leads regardless of the theology implications. If the discovery of intelligent design in the cell implies there is a creator God, then so be it.The natural question is intelligently designed by WHO?
That, of course, would only be a natural question if what you refer to HAS been intelligently designed else its a stupid question.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you can tell whether God exists or not then he isn't omnipotent, which has always been a definition for the tradition you are in.
One of the scientist, on the video I posted the link to, said that as a scientist he must go were the evidence leads regardless of the theology implications. If the discovery of intelligent design in the cell implies there is a creator God, then so be it.
The Instructor
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
Irreducible complexity means that the function of a complex machine is not maintained if we take away any of its core parts. Behe’s main argument is that Irreducible complex machines like the flagellum cannot reasonably be the product of direct Darwinian pathways, because the function only emerges when the machine is wholly assembled, and therefore cannot be selected before. That is supported by the observation that there are no technically detailed descriptions of such pathways in the scientific literature.
So, Darwinists have tried to devise for Irreducible complex machines indirect Darwinian pathways, using the notion of cooption, or exaptation, which more or less means: even if the parts or sub-assemblies of the machine cannot express the final function, they can have different functions, be selected for them, and then be coopted for the new function.
The TTSS (Type Three Secretory System) is suggested as an example of such a possible co-opted mechanism. The Darwinist argument is that there is strong homology between the proteins of the TTSS and a subset of the proteins of the flagellum which are part of a substructure in the basal body of the flagellum itself. Therefore, the flagellum could have reutilized an existing system.
The hypothesis has some empirical basis in the homology between the two systems: but that should not surprise us, because both the TTSS and the “homologue” subset in the flagellum accomplish a similar function: they pump proteins through a membrane. So, it is somewhat like saying that an airplane and a cart are similar because both have wheels. It is true, but an airplane is not a cart. For, the flagellum is not a TTSS; it is much more. And the sub-machine which pumps proteins in the basal body of the flagellum is similar to, but not the same as the TTSS. It is at least as credible to argue that the TTSS is a devolution, than that it is a candidate prior functional sub-assembly.
Even if the functions of the TTSS and of the sub-machine in the flagellum are similar, the two machines are in fact different,and the proteins in the two machines are not the same. Homology does not mean identity. The overall function of the flagellum cannot be accomplished by any simpler subset. That means that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. And anyway, the TTSS itself is irreducibly complex.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/