Information = ?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And your laziness is funny.

He is responding to your lazy demands on our time in kind.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
He is responding to your lazy demands on our time in kind.

Nemesio

Sure, Nemmy. I'm being lazy by referring any takers to a conversation already in progress. I suppose if I were to post each and every post on here, that would prove that I'm workin' hard for ya, which, in turn, would prompt responses? Get real. How hard is it for anyone to simply copy and paste a link, spend a few minutes reading (as stated, it took about 20 minutes to read the entire conversation and associated links on the provided website).

But that's just your style, isn't it? Forget the point of the conversation, instead redirect it to any number of irrelevant points. Job well done, again. Thanks for adding to the conversation.

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.

I have already replied to your summary of the arguement. You have refused to get into a discussion about it claiming that it has been refuted by others (which I do not see).
If there are other arguements on his website please summarise them as the website is badly designed and totally disorganised.

To reiterate, your summary said that due to lack of examples to the contrary a particular statement is true, then you give an example to the contrary and declare that it cannot be contrary due to the truthfullness of the statement in question. This fails even basic logic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have refused to get into a discussion about it claiming that it has been refuted by others (which I do not see).

This is his pattern. Post something (which, excepting his bizarre stance on the Christian
permissiveness on abortion, has proven to be not his material) and then when objections arise
(as they often do given the content of his illogical posts), he merely asserts that the objections
have been refuted in advance.

What a crock!

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Sure, Nemmy. I'm being lazy by referring any takers to a conversation already in progress. I suppose if I were to post each and every post on here, that would prove that I'm workin' hard for ya, which, in turn, would prompt responses? Get real. How hard is it for anyone to simply copy and paste a link, spend a few minutes reading (as stated, it took ab ...[text shortened]... number of irrelevant points. Job well done, again. Thanks for adding to the conversation.

You clearly misunderstand.

You aren't saying: Here's an interesting conversation, have a look and tell me what you think.

You are saying: Here is proof against evolution, you heathen (for you find a theist who believes in
evolution to be a contradiction in terms). And, when objections to the absurd argument are raised,
you say: You didn't read carefully enough!

Can you fathom why no one wants to play ball with you?

Nemesio

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have already replied to your summary of the arguement. You have refused to get into a discussion about it claiming that it has been refuted by others (which I do not see).
If there are other arguements on his website please summarise them as the website is badly designed and totally disorganised.

To reiterate, your summary said that due to lack of e ...[text shortened]... be contrary due to the truthfullness of the statement in question. This fails even basic logic.

No, your reply is that 'information' (apparently using the same loosely agreed-upon definition that others are utilizing) is found in DNA. That's cute: use the proof of the argument against the argument itself. What the man is saying is that all of life reveals many patterns, matter and energy follow consistent 'rules' and yet language never arises without the aid of a mind.

He is saying that information is a property, in the same manner as are matter and energy. From where does that information originate? According to your response, all of the information produced by man is simply an imitation of the language somehow magically produced by nature. Either you haven't thought the thought through, or you are the one being "intellectually dishonest."

Originally posted by Nemesio
You clearly misunderstand.

You aren't saying: Here's an interesting conversation, have a look and tell me what you think.

You are saying: Here is proof against evolution, you heathen (for you find a theist who believes in
evolution to be a contradiction in terms). And, when objections to the absurd argument are raised,
you say: You didn't read carefully enough!

Can you fathom why no one wants to play ball with you?

Nemesio

You clearly misunderstand.
Doesn't that always seem to be the case. Teach me, oh learned one, teach me. Get a life, you blowhard.

You aren't saying: Here's an interesting conversation, have a look and tell me what you think.
Oh really? I suppose it is my laziness that prevents me from posting all the postings of this thread in every posting, as well. How dare I expect you to actually read the posts of this thread, let alone go to a separate link and read those posts, too! What was I thinking?!

Your attempts at misdirection are cute, but your characterizations of easily verifed conversations simply reveal your true agenda: pot-stirring. You refuse to have a real conversation, but only you can answer for yourself whether that is due to lack of ammunition or petty misery.

For the record, this is part of what the first post of the thread offered:

"For those die-hard evolutionists (who inexplicably choose to hang out in a spirituality forum), here's a link you may wish to check out. The author picks a fight along the lines that information can only result from a mind."

Funny, to my mind so muddled in misunderstanding, that sounds like an invite to, I dunno, check something out.

And, when objections to the absurd argument are raised, you say: You didn't read carefully enough!
How trite. The argument is absurd, yet you haven't read it. Kinda like the doctrine of the divine decree: you refuse to read it, but are an expert on all parts of it nonetheless. Your sense of inquiry really needs an overhaul. Wait! I forgot, you are Nemesio god of vengence, he who must be believed above all others. Silly little man: tricks are for kids.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You clearly misunderstand.
Doesn't that always seem to be the case. Teach me, oh learned one, teach me. Get a life, you blowhard.

You aren't saying: Here's an interesting conversation, have a look and tell me what you think.
Oh really? I suppose it is my laziness that prevents me from posting all the postings of this thread in ...[text shortened]... gence, he who must be believed above all others. Silly little man: tricks are for kids.[/b]

Now I get what you and that site is driving at and of course you're wrong, as usual. Quantum probabilities determine evolution nothing more. Once more you god botherers try to undermine science, but you won't be successful in this endeavor, as there's too much data behind quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You clearly misunderstand.
Doesn't that always seem to be the case. Teach me, oh learned one, teach me. Get a life, you blowhard.

You aren't saying: Here's an interesting conversation, have a look and tell me what you think.
Oh really? I suppose it is my laziness that prevents me from posting all the postings of this thread in ...[text shortened]... gence, he who must be believed above all others. Silly little man: tricks are for kids.[/b]

Funny, to my mind so muddled in misunderstanding, that sounds like an invite to, I dunno, check something out.

I checked it out.

I am not lazy when it comes to responding on this forum. For example:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20290