I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 113 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Vidqun

  A Ha, welcome to a debating forum. That's what one does in a debate. You bring up an objection to my argument. I attempt to overcome the objection. You state your point. If I disagree, I say so and give you the reason, and so forth. Some arguments will be good, others bad, and some in between.

  But you remind me of Cofty. He likes to state his case. Beware if anybody disagrees with him. Then you will be accused of many things, including dishonesty. You are doing exactly the same thing. If you feel that DNA is not part of an information system, that's your problem. Feel free to believe what you want. I know what I believe. And evolutionary arguments are contrary to logic, something that my simple mind is unable to grasp. Please do not hold it against me.

  When I hear of an abused person staying loyal to his or her spouse who does the abusing, I always think of the humble Amoeba. The Amoeba is "intelligent" enough to move away from adversity. But we as intelligent human beings are sometimes plain stupid. We often remain where we are. The person who is abused becomes the accomplice of the abuser (Oprah).

  Or the little swallow knows not to defecate in his own nest. We, as "intelligent" humans have not learnt from it. We continue abusing the planet and everything on it (Vidqun).

  And this is why I view discussions of evolution vs. creation important. If there is a Creator, then everything belongs to Him. He will not allow humans to go past the point of no return. He will also rid Himself of those that cannot or do not want to be rehabilitated. That's unfortunately the way I see it, whether you like it or not. I know, it's is contrary to your beliefs. And that's what debating is all about, see?
• 

  fukitol

  You've got to keep in mind that Cofty used to be a JW preacher, used to be a preachy born again Christian, and now he's a preachy atheist. He just has to preach, period.
• 

  redpilltwice

  Vidqun and those interested, this is interesting regarding DNA and information.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWnSXJOFXyk
• 

  A Ha

  A Ha, welcome to a debating forum. That's what one does in a debate. You bring up an objection to my argument. I attempt to overcome the objection. You state your point. If I disagree, I say so and give you the reason, and so forth. Some arguments will be good, others bad, and some in between.

  You seem to be defending your dishonesty as "that's what one does in a debate." That isn't what I do. I attempt to make good arguments, and if I get an argument or fact wrong, I'm happy to acknowledge it and I'll never use it again.

  But you remind me of Cofty. He likes to state his case. Beware if anybody disagrees with him. Then you will be accused of many things, including dishonesty. You are doing exactly the same thing.

  I've accused you of dishonesty because I pointed out an error in your argument half a dozen times and each and every time you just ignored it and changed your definition. When I pointed out the problem with your new definition, you went back to the first definition. Rinse and repeat. If you were making your best argument and made a mistake, that's fine and I wouldn't accuse you of dishonesty for making a mistake. But when you are shown the error and just repeat it, what is that besides dishonesty? I'm not sure why you're playing the persecution card now, after you've admitted you use underhanded tactics in a debate.
  

  If you feel that DNA is not part of an information system, that's your problem.

  I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but how am I supposed to change my mind when your argument is inconsistent and fails even by your unique definitions? You gave a novel definition of information and I said, 'OK, let's work with that definition, but here's a problem with it...' and your response has been equivocation after equivocation.

  And this is why I view discussions of evolution vs. creation important.

  If you view it as important, then treat the discussion with the respect it deserves. Don't use arguments you know to be fallacious. If a problem with your argument is pointed out to you, fix the problem (and, optionally, acknowledge the error and resolve not to repeat it).

  
  
• 

  TD

  Vidqun,

  Are we perhaps outside the bounds of Werner Gitt's argument? (I've not read his book, so I honestly don't know...)

  The idea of something well below the level of a somatic reflex in mammals still being a form of intelligence is reminiscent of Lewis Carroll shifting definitions for the sake of humor:
  

  "Alice did not wish to offend the Dormouse again, so she began very cautiously: `But I don’t understand. Where did they draw the treacle from?’

  `You can draw water out of a water-well,’ said the Hatter; `so I should think you could draw treacle out of a treacle-well–eh, stupid?’

  'But they were IN the well,’ Alice said to the Dormouse, not choosing to notice this last remark.

  `Of course they were’, said the Dormouse. `They were learning to draw,’ and they drew all manner of things–everything that begins with an M–‘

  `Why with an M?’ said Alice.

  `Why not?’ said the March Hare.

  Alice was silent.
• 

  Vidqun

  A Ha and TD, the problem might lie with my interpretation of Gitt's thesis. Putting it in one's own words is not always the answer. Then one's own interpretation comes through and not always that of the author. So let me again work through what he says and perhaps I can clarify some of the points. I know he distinguishes between information and Universal Information (UI). He does questions and answers in his book "Without Excuse." Let me give the questions. If anyone is interested in an answer, let me know and I will give his specific wording for it.

  Your criteria seem to be mostly subjective?

  Is it information when I am both sender and receiver at the same time?

  Would a photograph be Universal Information according to your definition?

  Is Universal Information created when lottery numbers are drawn?

  Is there a conservation law for UI similar to the law of Conservation of Energy?

  Does UI have anything to do with entropy as stated in the Law of Thermodynamics?

  Natural languages are changing all the time. Doesn't this contradict your thesis that coding conventions should be conserved?

  Are synergetics, founded by German physicist Hermann Haken, an indication that order can emerge from disorder and thus evolution would be possible?

  What is your view of the Miller experiments that are cited as proof of chemical evolution?

  The SOS signal is periodic and is viewed as UI. Doesn't that contradict the conditions of UI?

  Can new UI be created through mutations?

  When the structure of a crystal is studied under a microscope, who is the sender in this instance?

  Has your definition of information been selected arbitrarily? Could there not be other possibilities?

  Biological systems are more complex than technological systems. Should there not be a specific definition of information from biological systems?

  Biological systems often has the capacity to adapt to the environment. Shouldn't this be seen as either an increase or creation of UI by material means?

  Can scientific laws change with time?

  Does the sender also belong to your definition of UI? If that were true then the conclusion is, of course, that the sender exists.

  Doesn't the application - scientific laws have no exceptions - preclude a priori process that may exist?

  How many scientific laws are there?

  Have you presented your concept of the Scientific Laws of Universal Information to your peers? How long have you taken to compile the concept in its present form?
• 

  A Ha

  I know he distinguishes between information and Universal Information (UI).

  And does he say why he does this? I think I know why, but does he say so in his books?

  I have a number of problems with what he says, and maybe I'll get into more detail later, but here are a few of the main problems:

  HE BEGS THE QUESTION: In trying to prove an intelligent information source, he says information must have an intelligent originator. This is fallacious and kills his argument at step one.

  HE TRIES TO DEFINE HIS WAY TO VICTORY: He defines information as requiring a conscious, intelligent, willful sender, then uses that definition to claim that DNA must have a conscious, intelligent, willful sender.

  HE FAILS TO DEFINE OTHER IMPORTANT TERMS: So much of his claim hinges on how we define "meaning," but he doesn't attempt to define it. (Information specialists say "meaning" is very difficult to define properly, and the Godfather of Information Science, Shannon, doesn't even try to.) To not define such a critical term to his argument is fatal for him.

  HE IGNORES HIS OWN REASONING: This is from the lecture he gave in the video you linked. This is his work, which negates his claims.

  
  

  He makes sure to give examples of information or codes that have an originating intelligence, but then glosses over the fact that his recipient must then be a conscious intelligence. This is why I asked about the intelligence of the receiver. If you want to define this "intelligence" as a non-conscious natural process or eventuality (survival of the organism or species) then the sender can also be a non-conscious natural process, and his claims die.

  He says, "Laws of nature know no exceptions," and--even given his incorrect definitions--DNA is an exception.
  

  There are other problems but if he can't get past those, there's probably no use listing the others.
  
  
• 

  TD

  I guess I'm not understanding why the "recipient" needs to be intelligent. Does he give a reason for that?
  
• 

  A Ha

  It's baked in because he's describing a full communication channel, and to him the most important part is the top rung of the ladder (apobetics). He says communication is all about one agent trying to get another to enact a result. He uses the example of "simple" communication from a washing detergent company trying to persuade the recipient to buy their product. Without a conscious agent on the receiving end, there can be no understanding of the meaning and no will to act on it. He's stuck with this because he has asserted a conscious agent must be on the sending end who has the will to affect an outcome and the intelligence to encode their meaning.

  And just to be clear, this isn't my interpretation of his words; he says many times himself that the information channel requires intelligence on both ends.
• 

  TD

  Thanks! I'm going to have to read his book I guess.
  

  To me that definition sounds more along the line of linguistics (i.e. What constitutes a living language) than about the encoding and transfer of information, which can be almost completely one sided in terms of anything we would call intelligence.