Search This Blog

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Darwinist Priests can only sing in one key - Darwin's Rottweiler brought down by a flea


The Darwinism Broadcasting Network is playing 24/7 around the world.   Jon Woolf and creeper and chaos engineer and those guys should be HAPPY!
But they are NOT!  Instead they come to this little dumb old blog and fight me tooth and nail.  Why?

Well,  credit where credit is due.  Guys like that have the cojones to stand up to the things that I assert and try to represent their side of the metaphysical questions of existence.  They also try to stand up for their view of the scientific questions of origins and various related disciplines of science.

Good for you, Woolf and creeper and your cohorts, for at least coming here and firing back at me!   Too bad your more celebrated friends will not do so in public against credentialed scientists!

What frightens Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott and others of their ilk, according to news reports and various creationist sources?  

Dialogue


Evidence


The free exchange of ideas

Nothing frightens Richard Dawkins more (apparently) than another youtube fiasco or another Ben Stein interview on a wider scale.  Imagine if he had to debate Jonathan Sarfati in open debate in front of a huge audience?   Imagine if he had to present facts rather than make grandiose claims that he knows he cannot support?  Like the kid who brags to his friends about how he could beat up the guy who lives on the next street but skulks a block out of his way to get home without seeing the said bloke, Dawkins and Myers make scathing remarks about creationists like Sarfati but make sure they stay far away from him.

The vast majority of Darwinists are religious zealots who probably know little of what they maintain to be true, like actors reading lines to a play they do not understand.   Having had the same fifty-seven lies repeated to you over and over will make them believable to you and eventually you accept them as yours and protect them like the soft underbelly of your heart.   Many of you reading this will not understand why I say this, for you have not read the comment threads and been assaulted by the drumbeat of Darwinist propaganda there.  But if you read things and watch things on the television and go to movies and listen to the radio you have been inundated by them anyway, perhaps not quite as clearly or as stark-naked of evidence as you read them here.

For all of you who have followed this blog for a period of time,  I thank you for your interest!   I sincerely am amazed that people from the six major inhabited continents regularly come to visit.  I saw last night that people from far North in Ireland and Canada and Alaska and in the far South like New Zealand and Argentina and from China and Europe and across the USA and Africa and the Middle East and so on had stopped by.   Of course many are one-time google hits and a few are very occasional visitors but I also know there are regulars and most of them do not make a comment.  Blog research indicates:

Jakob Nielsen’s latest study finds that 90% of online community users are lurkers (read or observe without contributing) with only 9% of users contributing ‘a little’ and 1% actively contributing. 

So 1% of your blog’s users are actively engaging with your blog and the rest are at best occasional contributors.
.
With ease I have pointed out to the Darwinists that information has no material form and is not produced by natural processes and yet is vital to their very existence!  Darwinists have fumed and sputtered but utterly failed to refute this.

Therefore the amazing amount of information found in every cell is inexplicable by atheistic naturalistic materialistic means.    Information requires an intelligence to be produced and matter is not intelligent.

They have been shown that life itself cannot be defined or measured materially.  They have been reminded that abiogenesis says life only comes from life and they try to talk their way around it, failing miserably.  

Gradualism in geology was part and parcel to the Darwinist story, even though we know now that catastrophism is the only possible cause of the sedimentary rock layers.  

Fallacies like the peppered moths and the Haeckel embryo chart and others are still being taught in the 21st century.  School science teachers are literally several decades behind the findings of operational science.   Children are being told a series of fairy tales,

They have been shown the Laws of Thermodynamics and they deny them by hiding behind the phrase, "open system."  Hey, the entire Universe could be called an open system.  But the Second Law of Thermodynamics was proposed, tested and proven here on Earth and it applies throughout the known Universe.  Darwinist Evolution is the opposite of what we observe.

I have not modeled my blog after the suggestions on that particular page per se, although most of what they suggest I was already doing.   But I can kind of sum up the kinds of things that are said in the blog comments thread by simply copying a typical comment!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. creeper saith:  ""Scientists do not lie. Scientists do not rant. Scientists properly ask questions during a question period, briefly and clearly, and make sure others have a turn. Anti-scientists must lie because they have nothing truthful to report, and they do their best to make sure that no one else has a chance to reveal the fact that all they have to report are superstitions, frauds, and forgeries"

Well, here we are. You've been asked questions and you've been given ample opportunity to respond.

Here are the questions again, just to make sure you're clear on this:

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

3. By "secondary historical evidence", did you mean the Bible and, more specifically, Genesis? Please confirm or correct. If so, how does the particular part of the Bible you have in mind count as objective evidence? The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you have an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, can you share it with us?


It's pretty hypocritical that a man who makes such a big deal out of other people not choosing to engage him regarding evidence is unable to come up with evidence to support his own position.

You've defaulted, Mr. Mastropaolo.

-- creeper 

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 


Actually, both Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo and I have posted his Science Prize links and the information concerning them and he has specifically sent challenges to hundreds of Darwinists.   The reason he does not engage in the discussion during the comments thread is that he has put up money challenging Darwinists to put their money where their mouths are and meet him in open court where only evidence, not hearsay or opinion or assumption, is allowed to be entered.   The chance to win an easy ten thousand dollars is there waiting, creeper, why don't you go get it?   

There used to be a saying about an alligator mouth and a butterfly...abdomen.  Darwinists in general meet that criteria, from what I can tell.   After all, I challenged them to give me one piece of evidence that can be observed, objective evidence for macroevolution and they failed miserably to present even one.   So the following article from Creation.com should come as no surprise to those who come here often.   Sarfati's book (which I have read, it really is quite brilliant) easily tears the pseudoscience of Dawkins into tatters and sets it on fire.   Then he brushes the ashes into the dustpan, dumps them in the trash and goes back to his normal routine.  

I am trying to remember creeper's answer to where information comes from but I think it was much like Dawkin's answer on the youtube.  I do remember Jon Woolf tying himself into knots trying to prove that information was material in nature and then that DNA could not contain information if there was no intelligence to receive it.  I think I answered that rather well.  Well, without further ado (which is a phrase that has a very interesting genesis, by the way), may I present a paper authored by a very nice guy and a terrific scientist about a wonderful guy who is a terrific scientist and a better chess player than you are as well - by Gary Bates about Jonathan Sarfati (who had never reminded me of a flea before reading this) but then a flea is one of the strongest creatures on the planet for its size, so...the Darwinists flee the Mighty Flea!!!


Evolution’s pesky flea

Sarfati’s new book rattles the cages of the atheists

by Gary Bates, CEO, CMI–US
Published: 12 August 2010 (GMT+10)
This article first appeared in a CMI newsletter in June 2010
Nearly 500 people attended the Countering the Rise of Atheism seminar in Melbourne.
Nearly 500 people attended the Countering the Rise of Atheism seminar in Melbourne.

In case you’re wondering about the strange title, let me explain.
A few months ago, the Global Atheist Convention called The Rise of Atheism was being held in Melbourne, Australia. It featured heavy-hitters of the atheist/humanist movement in the world today, including scientists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. Some months before, our Australian office asked the organizers if they would be willing to pit the best amongst them against some of the world’s leading creationists from CMI in a creation/evolution debate. The offer was rejected in a torrent of insults and invectives, particularly from Myers and his followers, (read World atheist convention rejects Australian creationist debate challenge). So CMI decided to arrange its own conference in the same city, same weekend. Attendees in the packed auditorium were visibly excited and motivated to see that there are answers to the claims of such rabid antitheists. (See Countering the Rise of Atheism.)

CMI’s conference was also the launch of a very important book by our own Dr Jonathan Sarfati, called The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution. As you can glean from the title, it is a response to the recently released magnum opus by the Oxford professor Dawkins called The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Dawkins’ book is touted as presenting the best evidences for evolution—and long ages—in one volume. Jonathan’s response, in the short time it has been released, is proving to be a sensation. Jonathan documents how Dawkins uses fallacious and straw man arguments in an attempt to discredit creationists. (Remember, Dawkins is the one who suggested that teaching creation was equivalent to child abuse.) But the main reason The Greatest Hoax? is making an impact is because it demonstrates that creationists have a very sound grasp of the science, despite claims to the contrary. Tony D. emailed Dr Sarfati and said (of one chapter):
“But of course you showed a consummate ease in dealing with origin of life issues. Abiogenesis is right up your alley as a chemist and it shows. Thanks once again for the many hours of hard work you must have put into this book for the benefit of the saints.”

So why the flea?

When Prof. Dawkins became aware of our response, he called it the latest ‘flea’. Dawkins is quite fond of being called ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’ (in Darwin’s day, evolutionary promulgator Thomas Huxley was called ‘Darwin’s bulldog’). Dawkins’ self-image of being the ‘big dog’ of evolution, being pestered by no more than a flea (Sarfati) displays all the arrogance of some sort of intellectual superiority. We’ve noticed this increasingly agitated and hostile attitude towards creationists by the followers of Dawkins and Myers et al, and what followed on Dawkins’ blog was a ‘hatefest’ of spiteful comments aimed at Dr Sarfati, such as:
“To his credit the one thing that Sarfati does undertand [sic] is about being stupid. He’s in a world class lead there.”
In commenting about Jonathan’s world-class chess credentials, one wrote:
“Afterwards, Bonzo the chimp took on 98 creationists simultaneously and beat them all in 7 moves while the creationists were trying to figure out why there are two different colors on the board and why the bishop wasn’t in charge.”
And others on his book:
“There are probably just a bunch of blank pages in there except for the first page that says, ‘God did it’. Now wasn’t that much easier than doing science?”
“If I dismiss this book without reading it then I am as closed minded as religious people who refuse to read Mr Dawkins’ book.”1
These ‘new atheist’ leaders need to be held accountable for inciting the type of hatred and anger that is being vented by their supporters.

The last comment is odd, because that’s exactly what Jonathan did—read Dawkins’ book, and refute it point by point. There were other comments much worse than this, but I’m sure you get the point. These comments really lack any credibility, particularly from the side that claims to have a monopoly on correctly understanding ‘science’. I believe that these ‘new atheist’ leaders need to be held accountable for inciting the type of hatred and anger that is being vented by their supporters. In short, rather than have calm, reasonable, rational debate, the skeptics display all the dubious tactics of ‘playing the man’ rather than the ball, and arguing from authority. By not dealing with the facts, and instead attacking personalities, it amounts to no more than religious vilification. The one ‘religion’ that is always singled out for this treatment is Christianity. Similar criticisms of Islam, for example, would simply not be tolerated. Ironically and logically, I suppose, it’s no problem for atheists to hurl invectives as much as they feel, as they themselves have no logical basis for seeming morality. However, Christians would be judged more harshly because it would not be in keeping with Christian morality, for example.

The one ‘religion’ that is always singled out for this treatment is Christianity. Similar criticisms of Islam, for example, would simply not be tolerated.

It’s ultimately a spiritual battle—but the science is important

The point of highlighting this is because it demonstrates the crying need for informing people about origins. It’s obvious that the skeptics are criticizing what they don’t understand, often because they’ve never been exposed to alternative information before. Sometimes a well-meaning Christian friend has given them amateur/misinformed arguments for creation, which only hardens their stance. This is why your continued support is vital. It changes lives by allowing our staff to produce such excellent resources like The Greatest Hoax? (see the enclosed special sheet) and it also allows us to continue ministry outreach so we can disseminate information and overcome prejudice. Lyle L. understood this when he wrote of this new book:
“I couldn’t put the jolly thing down, it was FANTASTIC. … But it’s just so WONDERFUL to see that Dawkins is rebutted so comprehensively in this book. CONGRATULATIONS and a huge thank you to everyone at CMI who put in the big effort to get this book out so quickly. I can’t tell you how much of an encouragement this is to me.”
Most of all please continue to pray for all our staff, even those who answer the phones and receive similar comments to above. Thanks for standing with us.

Related articles

Further reading

Reference

  1. , 15 April, 2010. Return to text.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi,

We are new company which offer SEO services. For all customer who contact us in 5 day we will made a special offer.
If you sign agreement for 12 months we don't charge you within first 6 month.
Be first and visit our site and ask us about special offer for you.

SEO/SEM [url=http://www.budownictwo-swiatowe.nowa-architektura.com.pl/]Buildings Site[/url]

Masage for forum moderator: Please don't delete this massage and contact us. We have special offer for you.
We can increase traffic of your forum for free (only if you will not cancel this massage).

Best Regards
SEO/SEM Manager
Adam Tolman
[url=http://www.miejsca.wyprawyturystyczne.info.pl/]Nice place[/url]

Anonymous said...

"The reason he does not engage in the discussion during the comments thread is that he has put up money challenging Darwinists to put their money where their mouths are and meet him in open court where only evidence, not hearsay or opinion or assumption, is allowed to be entered."

Let me get this straight: Dr. Mastropaolo does not engage in discussion HERE because he prefers a more reputable venue, one where "only evidence, not hearsay or opinion or assumption, is allowed to be entered".

Perhaps you want to think about that a little, Radar.

Does it not strike you that that is exactly the reason why all those scientists don't want to debate Dr. Mastropaolo in the first place? They already have such reputable venues, and Dr. Mastropaolo is more than welcome to engage in them. Add to that the fact that Dr. Mastropaolo's website indicates a distinct lack of intellectual rigor, and the prospect of

(a) tying up 10,000 bucks of one's own capital, held hostage to the whims of such an odd, unserious debate partner,

(b) investing precious time, during which it is likely that one could generate more than the award itself, and

(c) quite possibly being subjected to Dr. Mastropaolo's lies in public

is not something that will have many actual scientists salivating at the thought of an "easy" 10,000 bucks.

And surely Dr. Mastropaolo is aware of the actual court cases that already took place?

Anonymous said...

"The reason he does not engage in the discussion during the comments thread is that he has put up money challenging Darwinists to put their money where their mouths are"

How is that a reason not to explain what evidence there is for devolution (and nothing but devolution)? The fact that he hides behind this challenge should give you a clue that he's in this for PR, not for open and honest discussion, and that despite all his bluster he lacks confidence in the solidity of his case.

And why should this stop him to explain what he means by "secondary historical evidence"? He's given some vague response and now refuses to explain what he means by it. So anybody who is mildly interested in finding out what is in this crackpot's head has to put 10K into escrow? You seriously can't see the warning signs of a charlatan here?

"Darwinists" have no need for Mastropaolo's silly PR stunt and fake "court trial", seeing as:

1. They've already presented their case in actual court trials more than once, successfully so. You can throw ad hominems at these cases all you want, but so far you've incapable of addressing the court trials or even acknowledging that evidence was presented.

Mastropaolo's actions are a bit like the Black Knight who won't acknowledge his missing limbs, or someone who loses once, says "best out of three", loses again, says "best out of five".

2. Scientists have their ideas tested all the time, by peers and by competing scientists. If you have a better scientific theory and it holds up, then you will indeed be famous beyond belief in short order. But somehow YECs are unwilling to accept that their hypothesis does not meet these tests.

"and meet him in open court where only evidence, not hearsay or opinion or assumption, is allowed to be entered."

"Only evidence, not hearsay or opinion or assumption" is exactly what is permitted in peer-reviewed papers as well as in the court cases that already took place. If you disagree, provide specific examples. It's easy to complain how the system is unfair or how it's supposedly corrupt . If something significant along these lines took place in the court cases, are there sufficient grounds for appeal?

"The chance to win an easy ten thousand dollars is there waiting, creeper, why don't you go get it?"

I don't know about that. I've received several amazing offers by e-mail just this week that would most certainly be an easier road to riches. It's highly confidential and I can't disclose too many details, but suffice it to say that by merely assisting a certain millionaire in a distant country with the transfer of some funds, I can make a rather tidy sum on the transaction. That strikes me as an easier way to lay my hands on some cash than Mastropaolo's PR stunt.

But seriously, take a look at Mastropaolo's comments in the aforementioned thread, in particular his obfuscation when asked to support his assertions. Does he come across as a person capable of rational discussion? I strongly suspect that he would obfuscate and evade while misrepresenting and lying about any interaction one would have with him. An easy 10,000? Riiiight. If that sounds plausible to you, I could put you in touch with this gentleman regarding that financial transaction if you'd like.

"So 1% of your blog’s users are actively engaging with your blog and the rest are at best occasional contributors."

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that you have 99 lurkers for every one active contributor, as you probably know.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Actually, both Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo and I have posted his Science Prize links and the information concerning them"

And the reason Mastropaolo can't even explain his own challenge is what exactly?

Perhaps you and Mastropaolo missed this question, posted numerous times?

Could you [Mastropaolo] explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

Is Mastropaolo incapable of explaining the reasoning behind his own challenge? How, then, does he expect anyone to take him seriously?

"and he has specifically sent challenges to hundreds of Darwinists."

And he was ignored? You don't say. Well if his behavior in this thread is any indication, he appears hardly capable of rational discussion. Pose a straightforward question and you get a pile of "Alice in Wonderland"-style obfuscation and evasion. And now, apparently, a demand for 10K to be put in escrow before he will bless you with further droppings from his mind.

Evidence for evolution is a mere google search (and a leap past your and his built-in logical fallacies) away; if Mastropaolo were in any way interested, he would find it quite easily.

If he wishes to challenge the theory of evolution, he can come up with testable, falsifiable hypotheses, test them, and if he obtains positive results he can publish his work. If peer-reviewed journals reject them unfairly, he can make a big stink about that and enjoy the publicity. But if his hypotheses should not be confirmed by observable evidence, then he has no cause for complaint.

All this whining about "totalitarian censorship" bears little weight if you don't have the goods. Anyone can moan about how mean the teacher is, but if you don't have, say, a paper worthy of an A that the teacher gave an F, then you don't have much of an argument.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

”With ease I have pointed out to the Darwinists that information has no material form”

Information not having material form is unremarkable and not germane to the discussion. If you disagree, kindly explain why.

”and is not produced by natural processes”

That is something you have so far failed to demonstrate.

”and yet is vital to their very existence! Darwinists have fumed and sputtered but utterly failed to refute this.”

That it is vital to our very existence? There was no “fuming and sputtering”, since there would have been no disagreement.

”Therefore the amazing amount of information found in every cell is inexplicable by atheistic naturalistic materialistic means.”

Your premises don’t add up, so your conclusion is lacking. Information found in the cell is indeed explicable by the theory of evolution.

” Information requires an intelligence to be produced and matter is not intelligent.”

Can we take this as a retraction of your earlier claim that information requires an intelligence to receive it? Jon refuted this - are you now agreeing with him? If you stick to your earlier claim, kindly explain why and how.

As for information requiring an intelligence to produce it, this was also refuted some time ago, not least through scohen’s example of genetic algorithms. Read up on this and try to figure out where the added information comes from; you might be closer to your answer then.

”They have been shown that life itself cannot be defined or measured materially.”

Where do you think that happened? You just went on about how life and the absence of life did not result in a difference in weight. Of course life in the biological sense can and is defined materially: “the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.”

”They have been reminded that abiogenesis says life only comes from life”

You're getting mighty confused here. “Abiogenesis” says no such thing as “life only comes from life”. You’ve now pulled the amazing stunt of not only making up something called a "law of abiogenesis" - a creationist creation based on nothing whatsoever - but you've come full circle by confusing the "Law of Biogenesis" with “abiogensis”, which is of course not the same thing at all. At all. Seriously.

Not only did you not “remind us of this”, you made the erroneous statement and you were corrected on it, again and again and again. The law of biogenesis, dating back centuries, referred to complex, advanced forms of life such as mice, fungi, maggots. It is not related to modern research in abiogenesis, which deals with the formation of extremely simple forms of life.

”and they try to talk their way around it, failing miserably. “

Since you’ve never come up with an intelligent response to the above statements, the failure lies with you. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "I can't hear you!" does not win you any arguments.

”Gradualism in geology was part and parcel to the Darwinist story, even though we know now that catastrophism is the only possible cause of the sedimentary rock layers."

Wrong. There is evidence of some catastrophes in the geological record, but that does not contradict the principle of uniformitarianism as it is currently understood in geology. And as Jon has pointed out numerous times, there are features in the rock record that are inexplicable in a YEC scenario. If you can't surmount those, then how can you hold on to your theory?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

”Fallacies like the peppered moths and the Haeckel embryo chart and others are still being taught in the 21st century.”

In what specific way? What exactly is the fallacy of the peppered moth?

”School science teachers are literally several decades behind the findings of operational science."

You haven’t been able to present any such findings that contradict the theory of evolution. Your recent postings on the subject have merely been instances of an Argument from Incredulity as well as several misunderstandings of certain aspects of biology and the theory of evolution.

”Children are being told a series of fairy tales,”

You’d have to disprove evolution before you can make that statement.

”They have been shown the Laws of Thermodynamics and they deny them by hiding behind the phrase, "open system." “

That is one of the logical objections to the creationist complaint. The basic misunderstanding that YECs bring to the table is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics supposedly states that entropy increases everywhere equally, which is simply not true and a strawman version of the 2nd LOT. We see entropy decrease locally all the time.

That’s what the “open system” rejoinder is about.
But that is not the only counter-argument.

”Hey, the entire Universe could be called an open system.”

Actually, no it couldn’t. The Universe as a whole is a closed system.

”But the Second Law of Thermodynamics was proposed, tested and proven here on Earth and it applies throughout the known Universe.”

That’s right, and evolution happens not to be in violation of it.

Is reproduction with variation in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? (Hint: it isn’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be here.)

Is natural selection (i.e. the greater survival and reproduction of organisms with beneficial traits) in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

If these two are not in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then neither is evolution.

”Darwinist Evolution is the opposite of what we observe.”

Wrong again. You were presented with literally dozens of pieces of evidence that indicates that we observe evolution in all kinds of ways. You've run away from this consistently.

And of course the sorting of fossils in the rock layer is predicted by the theory of evolution and falsifies the YEC scenario. If you proceeded scientifically at this point, you would have to discard the YEC hypothesis.

But this one here's a doozy:

”What frightens Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott and others of their ilk, according to news reports and various creationist sources?

Dialogue

Evidence

The free exchange of ideas”


This on the very same blog where you, Radar, run away from numerous pieces of evidence that contradict your claims and then either lie about how they’ve been answered or they don't exist at all or you cast ad hominems in lieu of addressing them openly, where you’ve misrepresented just about every opposing argument at some point or another, and where you champion a hypocrite like Mastropaolo who whines on about how people won’t answer his questions while he can’t answer the most basic questions himself?

If you want to have dialogue, Radar, then respond to the discussions that are being opened with you.

If you want to discuss evidence, then have the common decency to acknowledge the evidence that is being presented to you.

If you want to have a free exchange of ideas, then acknowledge the ideas being presented to you on their own terms, not in some caricatured strawman form.

Alternatively, if you want none of those things, keep doing exactly what you’re doing, and expect to be called out for it on a regular basis.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Radar wrote: "Information requires an intelligence to be produced and matter is not intelligent."

I could say something extremely snarky in response to that ... but I won't. Instead, I'll simply ask: if matter can't be intelligent, then what about the human brain? It is undeniably intelligent, and it is undeniably made of matter.

I thought about trying to review the history of the exchange between radar and numerous commenters concerning "information" and its origins, but it's spread too widely over too many posts and there's too much repetition and multithreading going on. Instead, I'll simply summarize:

Radar tried to get away with rigging the argument by using a transparently self-serving, logically invalid definition of "information." Presented with several chances to use a more sensible definition, he declined, and instead ended up taking the even-more-ridiculous position that there had to be an intelligence at both ends of a data transmission before the transmission qualified as information. I then pointed out that there is no intelligence present to receive a transmission of DNA sequences in a cell, so by Radar's own definition there couldn't be any information in DNA. At the time he ignored this, but now we see that he's quietly changed his definition of "information" to avoid that particular boobytrap.