Posts by Mad Dawg

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Mad Dawg

MD: I suspect you was drunk last night, or just cant control your temper,

Drunk? Temper? I am not angry about anything. I meant it when I said that I have been laughing at you all the way.

So right from the onset i have introduced two measures of information/complexity from the general litterature, but i am clearly not saying one of those is used in the article: I am asking hooberus if one of those or a 3rd unknown is used.

Indeed, you did. You were slamming the author for not specifying which of the three he was using. Then you went on without specifying which of the three you were using.

In the very next post i am SUPPOSED to have:

MD: "you used the word "information" in a way that suggested it was the same as what the author was using"

In reality, what i wrote in THAT VERY POST was:

Bohm: "...the central term in the article [information] remain undefined ... and evolution CAN create information, it is observed in the laboratory"

Whether you intended to or not, your sentence structure - particularly your use of the word "and" - indicates that the meaning of information is the same in both instances. It is one of those nuances of the English language.

In reality, what you want whoever you write this to to believe is that when i critisize an article for not defining its central term, I AM REALLY trying to say: "i know how the author define his central term in the article and I can make a positive claim about it".

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please quote where I believe you know what the author meant. What I have repeatedly said is that you criticize the author for something you turned around and did yourself.

No, but when I in the previous post introduced two scientific measures of information, it should be obvious that i was referring to those.

Oh? Well, which one? Or does it fall under "what"? Regardless, why didn't you simply clarify it as soon as it was pointed out that it wasn't clear?

Your post would be more accurate if you said: "You did not define what you mean by evolution once more so i didnt have to arse myself to scroll up and re-read it, or have to use my short-term memory",

Your posts would be more accurate if you were to say: "I was too lazy to define the term and my ego is so bloated that I can't admit that it wasn't clear."

Notice that its still you who bicker over definitions.

And you are still trying to dodge the fact that your post wasn't clear. As for bickering over definitions, how does it feel to be on the receiving end?

Since you are so fond of asking me questions, let me ask you a couple. I hope you will answer them one at a time with clarity like you demanded of me:

No problem.

did i or did i not introduce two measures of information, kolmogorov complexity and entropy, in my very first post on this thread? (page 2 - quoted above).

Yes, you did. I have not disputed that.

did i or did i not state the author do not define his terms?

Yes, you did. I have not disputed that either.

Is it logical to say, at the same time, "the central term in the article [information] is not defined" AND make positive statements about that term?

No, it is not logical. Which is why I fell on the floor laughing when you did it.

In that case, is it not more logical to assume i use one (or both) of the measures of information I INTRODUCED MYSELF rather than a measure in an article i claim is ill-defined?

Why should I have to assume anything? Why didn't you simply clarify it when I pointed out that it was unclear? That would have saved us both a lot of typing. That I would have to "assume" something means that it was not clear.

How much do you have to drink last night?

I have had nothing to drink in the past several weeks.

How about the following part of my last post, was the last line prophetic or are you going to give me an appolegy?

I am not going to start such a thread, but not for the reasons you believe. On the face of it, your "bet" is stupid.

· If/when I give an apology, it is because I sincerely wish to offer one, not because of a bet or because my mommy told me to.

· I do not want an apology from you. You do not owe one.

· I don't want you off this board. It is too much fun watching you squirm because the standards you apply to others have been applied to you.

· If you want a bet, put up something of value to me. To me, what you put up has less value than a bucket of chicken manure.

If you have more questions, let me know.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Mad Dawg

I made an off-hand comment in jest. It is fascinating that you felt the need to take it so seriously. Just as you did the "evolving from rocks" comment. Frankly, if you had ignored it, that would have been the end of it.

Honestly, I think it is funny that the OP was "Do atheists believe…" and you spent 7 pages trying to figure out the meaning of the word "believe". I was in no way hurt or offended by that thread. I fully recognize that people believe all sorts of things and I don't care what they believe.

Your post #2345 was the first one to really come on my radar screen. Regardless of what you intended to convey, you used the word "information" in a way that suggested it was the same as what the author was using. In this post, you did not define your use of "information". Not that I think you did it deliberately.

You are absolutely correct in your observations about the color green - which is in fact my favorite color. Your use of "information" suggested "I don't know what his favorite color is, but it is the same as mine." You cast aspersions on the author for doing the same thing you did. I am not mad, angry, hurt, or any such thing. I think it is funny. BTW, I have been laughing at you throughout this entire thread.

If you had simply said "Ooops, let me clarify that", that would have been pretty much the end of it. However, it seems that you are unable to admit to something as minor as a flawed structuring of sentences. Instead of clarify, it was defend! defend! defend!

When these topics has gone on for a length of time, its because others have opposing viewpoints they hold to as much as i hold on to mine. (emphasis added)

So, it is not about discussion or learning, it is about defending a position. Perhaps this explains why you get so uptight about us evolving from rocks. As I said before, correct me if I am wrong. If you don't know what we came from, what difference does it make that I guess it was from rocks? Would it bother you if I went around saying, "We evolved from fish"?

I fail to understand why you took so long to answer the question that was asked instead of going on about information theory. If my question was unclear, why didn't ask for clarification?

Your summation of my question is interesting - and wrong. I never asked if the word in the article had a specific meaning. I asked if they had the same meaning. It is interesting that you still don't get it. This is the source of my JW comments. I can repeatedly ask them a very specific question and they will answer a question that I did not ask. Granted, it would be a similar question, but not the one that was asked.

This question was asked to put the finger on your flawed structure of sentences and your undefined "information". And I didn't hide that was the reason. As an aside, if I were to ask someone, "Is x the same price as y?", I then would know whether or not they were the same price without knowing the price of either. Unless they didn't know themselves.

You state:

no, i admit no such thing because my claim is demonstrably true

Again, I have stated absolutely, positively NOTHING about your claim. For or against. It has been about your post #2345 and watching you dodge the fact, within that post, you did what you accused the author of doing - used an undefined term. Show me where in post #2345 you defined it.

Honestly, I had no idea that English was not your native language. I will keep that in mind going forward.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Mad Dawg

MD: Look, what the heck are you trying to accomplish?

I made an offhand comment about you arguing over the definition because that is something you frequently do. Arguing with you over definitions with you is a total waste of time. You argued, on another thread, for 7 pages, over the word believe. Yet, on this thread you were able to define it in 4 words.

In your response, you stated that we can't discuss it because of an undefined term. Then you made a positive statement using the same undefined term that you complained that the author had used - without defining it. And you made this statement as if it proved something.

I believe i have debunked the article completely, and demonstrated the author is making an unscientific claim that amount to nothing else than intimidating language.

Completely? You have got to be kidding. I see where you made some claims, but you didn't demonstrate anything.

What about you? What are you doing?

I am showing why it is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you. It is like trying to discuss something with debator or scholar. I don't agree with much that Leaving WT or Sammielee have to say, but at least they are honest and consistent and they don't pay word games.

You dont seem to defend the article, its not even clear if you agree with the author or not (and you have not read it).

Ok, think hard on this one. How can I defend an article or agree with its author if I haven't read it?

Rather you seem to single me out and, well, show the world what a bad person i am to argue with?

It is not so much you, it is about your inability to give straight answers.

So you find a question for me, namely if a word in the article has some specific meaning,

HELLO, McFLY!?! THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED!!

and you keep asking me this even though i 6 pages back said i dont know what the author mean by that word.

And I kept telling you that was not the question I asked.

Its not a valid question -- i cannot answer it. Surely you must see that.

It would have been a valid question if you had answered the question I asked.

So i point that out to you again and again -- i cant answer your question, i dont know what meaning the author assign to that word.

And I pointed out again and again that you didn't answer my question - which I repeated again and again. For the record, the question was: " In the above statement, are you referring to the same use of "information" as in the article?"

Yes, you did answer that you didn't know what the author meant. Here's the problem, as I said early on, your use of the word "information" implies that it was the same type of information that you were claiming not to know what the author was talking about. That is the only way your "information" statement would make any sense. To say that it is not the same or you don't know is to render your statement meaningless. In the end, after endlessly dodging the question, you admit to writing a meaningless statement.

Then i finally give the answer you want me to say - "I dont know"

Actually, I really didn't care what your answer was. I just wanted a straight answer.

- and you parade it around like you have accomplished something by making me say those words.

Parade it around? What a joke. I merely pointed out that you finally gave an answer to the question that was actually asked.

but surely you could have told yourself this from the beginning.

Given the inconsistency of your statement, I honestly didn't know what your answer would be.

And what have you accomplished? It does not invalidate what i wrote about the article, and i simply dont see what it show about me.

At the very least, it shows your inability to give a straight answer. It confirmed my suspicion that you really don't read other people's posts, or maybe you have a problem grasping simple grammar. Either is rather odd for someone who presents himself as some sort of expert on information.

The best part is you accuse me of being polemic, argue over words, etc. etc. etc., but who are talking about science and who are arguing over words?

We both were. But that is where you typically start. Seven pages on the word "believe". Seven pages on this one and you still don't grasp what my question was.

It seem to me you have given up on actually arguing science, and you are now accusing others of engaging in polemic bullshit when what you have done for the past couple of days is clearly not science, rather about character and about silly questions.

I made no pretense in this thread that my discussion with you was about science. I stated very clearly it is about you obfuscating the issue before anyone could ever get to the issue. I flat said so using simple grammar. I don't know how you could have missed it. But that is assuming you actually read and comprehended the post.

Maybe next time you will think twice before you pounce on an off-hand comment and try to make hay with it.

If you want people to take you more serious, you should drop the fancy slogans ("rocks turning into men") and begin to talk about something with real content.

meh

Fancy slogans? Wow. It doesn't take much to impress you does it? BTW, I really don't understand why the thought of evolving from rocks bothers you so much. If you wish to correct me, do so. If it is unknown, what is the problem in guessing that the minerals came from rocks? You really need to take yourself less seriously.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Mad Dawg

Darn, another double.

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

Then that is not what I am saying.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Mad Dawg

Bohm said:

Its whining and moaning to point out the main claim of the article is not testable and not supported by any evidence or theory?

It is when you do the same thing, refuse to answer simple questions, answer questions that were not asked instead of the one that was, accuse me of saying things I haven't said, and then complain about someone else doing it.

As far as answering your question, i have pointed out again and again that when the author does not define what he mean by information,

Indeed you did, but that didn't answer the question that was asked.

i cannot say if i use information in the same sence as the author.

Very good and what took you so long to say that?

Your question is not a valid yes/no question.

Granted, yes/no doesn't cover the full spectrum in this case. Still, what took you do long to say "I don't know"? Any 8 year old would have said "I don't know" the first time.

I am doing the author a favor here, because all common measures of information as defined and used in information theory trivially allow evolution to create information.

And what? Have you noticed that I am not talking about the author or the article?

Since you even seem to agree with me that the article…

I don't know how you reached that conclusion when I have previously stated that I have not read the article and that I was not commenting on the article. I have said so using simple grammar. You really should brush up on your reading and comprehension.

i dont understand why you are so hell-bend on accusing me of being pedantic, whining, moaning and god knows what else.

Because that is what you do in addition to misquoting, answering questions that weren't asked instead of the one that was, and playing three card monte with the words "useful" and "information" (or, are you going to tell me that "useful" and "information" are synonyms?), and reading into statements things that simply aren't there.

Bohm said earlier:

(E)volution CAN create information.

I responded with:

Your statement implies that evolution can create the same information as what the article was talking about. Which would mean that you understood the definition the author was using. If this wasn't implied, then what was the point of the statement?

First off, if your going to quote me, quote me correctly without the paranthesis.

Very well, here is the whole quote from your post #2345 on page two of this thread:

MD: ...and you cant refute that the central term in the article remain undefined. The word "Information" is merely used to restate the conclusion as an argument; nothing is added because nothing is defined in a meaningfull way.

and evolution CAN create information, it is observed in the laboratory.

Despite your poor grammar, it was obvious that the quote I used was a sentence unto itself. It has no connection to the previous sentence. Deleting the phrase at the end did not change what was left. The only actual change I made was to drop the "and" and capitalize the "e". I hid nothing when I did it. In fact, I used parenthesis to ensure people saw what I had done. Further, it is a standard practice.

Second off, I am implying no such thing since my main point has been again and again the author does not define what he mean. How can you read it any differently?

Go back and reread your post my statement was actually referring to.

then more add-hominem

Have you figured out yet, that I am not talking about the article, or do I need to say it a few more times?

What a noble goal.

Thank you. Somebody has to pull on the hip boots wade through your polemic bull.

Trying to pin you down as to what you mean on any given point is like trying to nail pudding to the wall.

Like when you asked me what the word "bullshit" or "usefull" meant right after you accused me of being pedantic and arguing over words?

Exactly. It is refreshing to know that you actually understood that as an example of what I was talking about.

The experience has been not one bit different than trying to get JW's to answer a question they simply don't want to answer.

wtf?

They trained you well.

who are "they" who has trained me?

Deny it if you wish, but JW's also deny what they do until they can take a step away from it.

deny what? step away from what?

bleh.

Typical JW responses. If you weren't a JW, you hung around them too long.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Mad Dawg

Actually, this is the first time you that have given a plain answer - "I don't know". All you have done so far is whine and moan about the author of said article and answer questions that weren't asked. If you don't know if you were using the same definition as the auhor of the article, why did you say:

(E)volution CAN create information.

Your statement implies that evolution can create the same information as what the article was talking about. Which would mean that you understood the definition the author was using. If this wasn't implied, then what was the point of the statement?

My whole point of this is to show that trying to carry on an intellectual exchange with you is an exercise in futility. Trying to pin you down as to what you mean on any given point is like trying to nail pudding to the wall. The experience has been not one bit different than trying to get JW's to answer a question they simply don't want to answer. They trained you well. Deny it if you wish, but JW's also deny what they do until they can take a step away from it.

My thanks goes to Freeminds.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Mad Dawg

Double

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

Only if you are saying it can be done in regards to Genesis.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Mad Dawg

I didn't ask what the article is about. Do you remember saying:

(E)volution CAN create information.

My question was whether you were using the same definition of information as the author of the article or not. Simple question asked using simple grammar.

The "response" has been nothing but typical obfuscation on your part. A specific question is asked and you answer one that wasn't asked. Just as you did with substituting "useful" for "information". How can we get to the article you wish to discuss if we can't get past your slight-of-hand muddying of the waters.