Fine. Explain what exactly did you not like about it.
He's pretending that he's doing "information theory", which he isn't. Instead, he's just writing down a bunch of dumb creationist daydreams and calling them "information theory".
I might as well write:
Theorems of information theory:
Theorem 1: All the information in DNA was produced by evolution.
Theorem 2: Everything creationists say about information is rubbish.
Theorem 3: I win.
In fact, this would be better than Gitt's maunderings, because it would have the benefit of being
true. But it still wouldn't be "information theory".
I know it is. I never said it wasn't. Gitt wasn't making any new model of information. He was taking all the existing concepts of information, and explaining how they work in general.
No. In particular, his concept of information is entirely opposed to Shannon's.
Where exactly did Gitt lie?
For one thing, he's pretending that what he's doing is "information theory". For another thing, he claims to have proved the creationist nonsense he's reciting.
That's true. But he wasn't doing that, now was he? If you think he was, than explain how.
He's redefining "information" in order to bullshit people such as yourself.
But, as I have written elsewhere:
By analogy, if Mr Gitt was a devout believer in the Norse gods, he might redefine "lightning" as "the effect produced when the thunder-god Thor swings his magic hammer Mjllnir". But this definition does not answer any substantive question about lightning: it would merely raise the question of whether there is any such thing as "lightning" in Mr Gitt's sense of the word.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2