Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 2:47 PM
421 online now:
Chiroptera, Dr Adequate, frako, jar, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, Stile, Tangle, vimesey (10 members, 411 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,559 Year: 10,165/21,208 Month: 3,252/2,674 Week: 668/961 Day: 130/151 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
19Next
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
Larni
Member
Posts: 3941
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 196 of 281 (676346)
10-22-2012 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:31 AM


Re: New information
Of course there is information in a snow flake.

Look at one side of a snow flake: now you know what the other side looks like.

Can you really be this set in your ways? Children understand this.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:31 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:32 PM Larni has responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1350 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 197 of 281 (676347)
10-22-2012 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Coyote
10-21-2012 8:00 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
Not the cat's impression, Coy. What ulterior motives ID theorists may or may not have is irrelevant. Anybody is motivated by something or other. They may crave to have been designed and created by a highly intelligent friend. What's wrong with that motivation if it helps to do the job well?
And their job is to aim for the jugular of you lot's contradictions. If they find the target and strike it well, the cat is satisfied. That serves the advance of science better than you do.
The point is if you build your hypothesis on impossible premises, somebody will knock it down.
Face it, something from nothing you borrow from bigbangism is invalid. Impossible creationism.
They point it out to you. Instead of thanking them for identifying your conceptual errors you lot go into impotent rage. How scientific is that?

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 10-21-2012 8:00 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Taq, posted 10-22-2012 1:25 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1350 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 198 of 281 (676348)
10-22-2012 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by onifre
10-21-2012 7:08 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
That's not what they mean though, Oni. The theory goes that 13.7 billion years away from here the absence of space and time and matter was no more. Whereas if that is just the observable cosmos is of that age like it is in your sentence, then it is an entirely different proposition.

Not an explosion of space. Then the observable part of cosmos is expanding into the unobservable part of it. Matter moving in outward uniform direction into the accommodating outside volume, not space itself expanding and the measurable duration of that process since its beginning till the present day is 13.7 billion years. Is that what you believe is the case?

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by onifre, posted 10-21-2012 7:08 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15562
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 199 of 281 (676352)
10-22-2012 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:04 AM


Re: Revised Suggestion
ICANT writes:

Can you produce some information that was generated without a guided process?

We already know you don't understand information theory, there's no need for you to go about proving it yet again. Perhaps you could find a thread where information theory is the topic and we'll have another go at helping you understand it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:04 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:18 PM Percy has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 200 of 281 (676353)
10-22-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-21-2012 4:15 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Mad writes:

Panda writes:

Do you have any friends? Have you ever shown them what you write on this forum?


Yes, Panda's Thumby, I link Bill Gaede and his mates in Rational Science on FB to the cat's discussions on cosmogony with the simian professors here. They love an occasional chuckle at the expense of the prevaricating big-bangist re-ificators.

So, the answer to my question is: "No, Panda. I have not shown any friends what I write on this forum."
I suggest that you do.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 4:15 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 201 of 281 (676358)
10-22-2012 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Percy
10-22-2012 8:50 AM


Re: Revised Suggestion
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

We already know you don't understand information theory, there's no need for you to go about proving it yet again. Perhaps you could find a thread where information theory is the topic and we'll have another go at helping you understand it.

I understand information theory enough to know that to have a language, information you must have:
A transmitter.
A receiver.

DNA is the transmitter and the ribosome is the receiver.

The information transmitted has alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent.

Every cell in a human body contains all the information needed to build that human body.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 10-22-2012 8:50 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 10-22-2012 12:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 216 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 5:28 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 202 of 281 (676359)
10-22-2012 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Larni
10-22-2012 3:38 AM


Re: New information
Hi Larni,

Larni writes:

f course there is information in a snow flake.
Look at one side of a snow flake: now you know what the other side looks like.

What information in the snow flake tells you what the other side looks like?

You assume it looks the same but if you put it under a microscope it will look different.

Patterns are simply created by matter and energy and never produce an exact copy. No information is required nor is any present.

Unless you are saying the snow flake has DNA, is that what you are saying?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 3:38 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 12:42 PM ICANT has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3941
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 203 of 281 (676361)
10-22-2012 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:32 PM


Re: New information
Snow flakes are symetrical. If you know what one side looks like you now have information about the other side.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:32 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 1:02 PM Larni has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 204 of 281 (676363)
10-22-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Coyote
10-22-2012 1:12 AM


Re: New information
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

I showed you a picture that contains some information, whether you say yea or nay. You been whupped, boy!

The picture contains no information apart from your observation of the picture.

The snow flake contains no information.

It has no transmitter or receiver.

Coyote writes:

Clouds for example. Meteorologists can infer quiet a bit from the nature and behavior of clouds, and they too appear "quite literally out of thin air."

Notice the word infer. That means the meterologist can observe how the clouds move and things they do and draw conclusion based upon that observation.

There is no information stored in the cloud to cause it to do anything.

Unless you are saying the clouds have DNA, is that what you are saying?

Coyote writes:

And on occasion I hear that so many hundredths of an inch of rain fell--important information for farmers and a lot of other folks.

Yes it is a very important observation that an amount of rain has fallen to a farmer.

The rain falls whether the farmer knows it fell or not. It does not send him a message that it has fallen. He can observe it is falling if he can see it fall.

By the way what is your definition of information?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2012 1:12 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 10-22-2012 12:58 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15562
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 205 of 281 (676364)
10-22-2012 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:18 PM


Re: Revised Suggestion
ICANT writes:

I understand information theory enough to know that to have a language, information you must have:
...
The information transmitted has alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent.

As I said and as the above demonstrates, we already know you don't understand information theory, but this isn't the right thread to discuss it. If you propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics then in my moderator role I will review it as quickly as time permits.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15562
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 206 of 281 (676365)
10-22-2012 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:52 PM


Re: New information
ICANT, please, the topic of this thread is not information theory. Please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 207 of 281 (676367)
10-22-2012 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Larni
10-22-2012 12:42 PM


Re: New information
Hi Larni,

Larni writes:

Snow flakes are symetrical. If you know what one side looks like you now have information about the other side.

quote:
First, not all snowflakes are the same on all sides. Uneven temperatures, presence of dirt, and other factors may cause a snowflake to be lop-sided. Yet it is true that many snowflakes are symmetrical and intricate.
http://chemistry.about.com/...culescompounds/a/snowflake.htm

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 12:42 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 1:14 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 220 by Panda, posted 10-22-2012 6:43 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6088
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 208 of 281 (676369)
10-22-2012 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ICANT
10-20-2012 12:51 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
If there are no fossils how do you prove there was life?

By looking for the chemistry of life. One of the biggest pieces of evidence are the banded iron formations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation

Production of oxygen from water just doesn't happen regularly in abiotic reactions. However, it does happen regularly in photosynthetic reactions within organisms. This causes a massive buildup of oxygen in the atmosphere where it was not found before. This resulted in the oxidation of iron that was found in water. When iron is oxidated it produces iron oxide, also known as rust, and it become insoluble. This produced massive iron deposits. This is a sure sign of life.

These same biochemical reactions also tend to favor one isotope of carbon over another. This can possibly also be used as evidence for the presence of life:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11537367

It does have limitations, but it is shaping up as a promising technology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 12:51 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6088
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 209 of 281 (676370)
10-22-2012 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ICANT
10-20-2012 1:36 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Darwin seemed to think life produced the first life forms on earth.

No he didn't. Darwin, in that quote, stated that the higher animals evolved from lower life forms. That is, complex life evolved from simple life. For the actual origin of the first life he has a much more theistic description:

"having been originally breathed into a few forme or into one "

It also has proven that non-life can not produce life.

No it hasn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 1:36 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3941
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 210 of 281 (676371)
10-22-2012 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ICANT
10-22-2012 1:02 PM


Re: New information
You don't have have 100% accuracy to be information. It is still information.

See?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 1:02 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Stile, posted 10-23-2012 2:00 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017