Originally posted by FreakyKBH I've stated and restated already. Marshall asserts that all information comes from a mind, and that no one would be able to point to any example of any information which arises without the aid of a mind. His conclusion is that life--- specifically, DNA--- arises from a mind.
Firstly I dont see any definition for the word 'information' which is vague at best when dealing with this kind of topic.
Well if that is his assertion then it is flawed from the onset. He is basically trying to claim without proof that all information comes from a mind and concluding from his own unproved assertion that any information that apparently violates his assertion must come from Gods mind.
If you start with his first assertion (that no one can give and example of information which arises without the aid of a mind) then I can immediately give an example - DNA. The only way he (or anyone) could show that this is not a valid example is by proving that DNA was created by a mind. But if you have that proof then why the whole argument in the first place.
If I had a concrete definition of the word 'information' I could either show that DNA does not fit that definition or that there are many many examples of information which does not come from a mind.
Originally posted by David C Apparently your smugness blocked irony at the gate.
I've never claimed to be anything other than I am. You, on the other hand, are playing a game not even Paschal would touch.
Must be mentally disturbed if I thought grandeur would grace someone with a moniker which contained "Freaky."
What's in a name? That which we call bull**** by any other word would smell the same.[/b]
I've never claimed to be anything other than I am. The irony statement that you missed was directed at your use of the word "hyperbole" in describing my assertions. As I am not usually given to hyperbole, I offered one in response to your (intended, but misguided) insult. Thus, the irony.
You, on the other hand, are playing a game not even Paschal would touch. Paschal, to my knowledge, was not a known game-toucher. He did enjoy an occasional contest of charades, however, and was given to making a fair amount of side money on the bets he placed. Thus, Paschal's Wager.
What's in a name? That which we call bull**** by any other word would smell the same. Ah, the poor man's bullet: the blank. Good aim, though.
Originally posted by twhitehead Firstly I dont see any definition for the word 'information' which is vague at best when dealing with this kind of topic.
Well if that is his assertion then it is flawed from the onset. He is basically trying to claim without proof that all information comes from a mind and concluding from his own unproved assertion that any information that apparently v ...[text shortened]... inition or that there are many many examples of information which does not come from a mind.
Have you read the discussion from the link provided? Your objections have all been raised, addressed and refuted.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Have you read the discussion from the link provided? Your objections have all been raised, addressed and refuted.
not my objections: I aint read the site because though, Im willing to takeon the guy's ideas , I'm waiting to see just how "information" is relevant to the subject. So you should enlighten me with your superior knowlege about the subject matter, i.e. if you want to debate it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Have you read the discussion from the link provided? Your objections have all been raised, addressed and refuted.
Why are you so unwilling to talk for yourself? Everything is about making other people read some website. That takes a ton of time and effort, which is odd considering how hard you're trying not to put any effort into this thread.
Originally posted by frogstomp not my objections: I aint read the site because though, Im willing to takeon the guy's ideas , I'm waiting to see just how "information" is relevant to the subject. So you should enlighten me with your superior knowlege about the subject matter, i.e. if you want to debate it.
Which scenario makes more sense to you:
1.) Recreate the entire discussion here; or
2.) Allow the readers herein to read the discussion full bloom elsewhere, returning here to discuss their opinions once informed (kinda like a book club on a miniature scale)?
I no where claimed superior knowledge on the subject, but have provided the salient points of the argument, as culled from reading both the entire debate and the originating website's postings in approximately 20 minutes. I understand if you don't have the time.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Why are you so unwilling to talk for yourself? Everything is about making other people read some website. That takes a ton of time and effort, which is odd considering how hard you're trying not to put any effort into this thread.
Read post above. I don't have the energy to post it again.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Which scenario makes more sense to you:
1.) Recreate the entire discussion here; or
2.) Allow the readers herein to read the discussion full bloom elsewhere, returning here to discuss their opinions once informed (kinda like a book club on a miniature scale)?
I no where claimed superior knowledge on the subject, but have provided the salient points ...[text shortened]... ting website's postings in approximately 20 minutes. I understand if you don't have the time.
You just did claim "superior knowlege" and salient points need to be outlined before I will bother discussing them.
that btw goes
1)a
b
etc
2) a
b
etc
I'll take that as a concession from all of you that you either do not understand the argument, or that you agree with its assertion. Thanks for playing.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH I'll take that as a concession from all of you that you either do not understand the argument, or that you agree with its assertion. Thanks for playing.
As I have said, I don't have time to search out every bit of junk science and garbage arguments from your site so if you want to say that I dont know what you are talking about, that's ok, neither do you.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH I'll take that as a concession from all of you that you either do not understand the argument, or that you agree with its assertion. Thanks for playing.
Your take is incorrect. Your intellectual dishonesty is repulsive.
15 May '06 09:36
Information = ?
Back to Top