Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Quotes from Scientists about Evidence for the Creation by God Theory

Occam's Razor.   Do you ever just sit back and think about everything?

How can it be that there are naturalists in the world today?   

We had an unusual evening in which my oldest son and one of my teens,Kyle, from youth group just went out to eat and talk over some spicy foods and the background of the Bulls-Pacers game playing on various television sets in the Pizza joint.   The really unusual part was that the Bulls actually lost!   

My oldest son loves history and is working towards becoming a high school History teacher.  He is also a music lover and a big fan of comics and especially Marvel comics.    I am also big into history and music but far more into science than my son Rob.   Kyle is not much for sports but loves computers and mechanical things and is now thinking about being either an auto mechanic or a computer technician.   He obtained his initial Cisco certifications while a Sophomore in high school, so he really understands computer-related things.   We all considered how ridiculous the idea of evolution really is by thinking on what a man would think if he discovered a computer sitting out in a field.  Would he think it EVOLVED?  

We talked about all the components necessary to make a computer actually operational and then I said, wait, but it also has to find another computer and be able to mate with it and reproduce more computers!!!   I mean, a computer requires all sorts of different hardware and sophisticated components, a basic operating system for the underlayer to the programs that will run on it, power to make it all work and cooling fans to keep some parts from overheating.  But also someone had to write the programs to run on it and devised the code that could "talk" to the hardware and software and cause pieces of metal and silicon and plastic and other things to be able to convert the input of people via mouse and keyboard into a language that the software and machinery can respond or send that information on to be stored or perhaps interact with other computers over the internet.   If you break down all the logical and physical layers involved in networking and then consider how complex even one computer actually is, you know it cannot possibly have been a result of a bunch of random accidents and collisions and mistakes!

A human being is remarkably and infinitely more complex than the world's most powerful computer.   One of our cells is more remarkable than a big honking Dell rack server with the latest and greatest muliple-core Westmere processors and loads of Ram.

Some of the great scientists have stepped back, looked at the world and admitted that it could not be an infinite collection of miraculous accidents.   In some cases, despite themselves!!!   

 credit

 

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe


by Rich Deem

Introduction

Does science lead us down a road that ends in the naturalistic explanation of everything we see? In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:
"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1)
The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it. Here is what they say:

The quotes


Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)


References Top of page

  1. Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
  2. Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
  3. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
  4. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
  5. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
  6. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
  7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
  8. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
  9. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
  10. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
  11. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
  12. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
  13. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
  14. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
  15. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
  16. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
  17. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
  18. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
  19. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
  20. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
  21. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
  22. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
  23. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
  24. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
  25. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
  26. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
  27. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 credit

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

He almost "gets it."  All science is intimately connected with religion.   Belief in naturalism is a religion in every way like a belief in creationism.   Both depend upon a beginning presupposition and both view the evidence from the point of view based on that presupposition.   Naturalists like to say their religion is "science" but they have no more right to the word than do I, in fact, since the inventors of modern science were creationists, they are in fact thieves of the word!   

Science used to be the investigation into how the world that God made worked, not how the world managed to make itself! Such a pursuit is a dog chasing it's tail, never amounting to anything other than a lot of wasted resources.   At least the dog has the good sense to quit and lie down now and then.  

Darwinists sound like a massive flock of crows in a small forest of trees, their continual cawing drowning out the rest of the noise of the forest and making no sense to anyone other than each other.  Thus encouraged, they go off to spread their nonsensical cries around the rest of the area...and we have to wash the cars again.  

Darwinists claim nothing made life, nothing made information, in fact they claim that nothing made absolutely everything by no means or method and in opposition to all natural  laws (the last part is especially amusing)!  Darwinism is built on nothing and then proceeds to pretend to add while subtracting.   Mistakes are given credit for marvelous designs, accidents for inventing intricate systems and producing astounding beauty, form and function!   Well, if you want to BELIEVE that you are free to do it, but it is in actuality a religion and a poor one at that. 

    60 comments:

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    Ah, the hypocrisy. Of course Christianity depends on getting something from nothing - they just say that this particular something ("God") is exceptional.

    So no need to crow, Radar. You're in no way ahead, your just blind to the logical flaw in your own argument.

    radar said...

    Funny that, because since the ancients the concept of the Creator God has been the default setting. It is actually the only worldview that makes sense.

    Teleological argument. William Paley. Look them up and get back to me. Right now you are saying absolutely nothing, which is not a surprise since you think absolutely nothing created and designed everything. Duh.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    Way to skip the argument.

    "Funny that, because since the ancients the concept of the Creator God has been the default setting."

    Does that make it any more logical? Does it mean that the speculation of a creator god is somehow NOT getting something from nothing?

    No.

    The default setting for an explanation of thunder and lightning was also "god(s) did it"... until a scientific explanation was found. The same happened with the explanation for the variety of species, when a scientific explanation provided a more rational explanation than ancient mythology.

    "Teleological argument. William Paley. Look them up and get back to me."

    Don't need to, I know them well. What's your point? "Because I think it looks designed, it must be designed" isn't much of an argument.

    "Right now you are saying absolutely nothing, which is not a surprise since you think absolutely nothing created and designed everything. Duh."

    You're putting words in my mouth. A strawman argument. Duh. No, I don't think absolutely nothing created and designed everything.

    AmericanVet said...

    No, the argument from incredulity is not applicable to organisms with obvious design and information to the nth degree. It is the refuge of the intellectually challenged with no other argument to make.

    And yes, Darwinists who promote the Big Bang believe nothing created everything. You either believe that or you believe a Designer designed it all. There is no third option. The Universe is neither eternal nor infinite. So make your mind up.

    Paley was right and Dawkins can write a thousand books and still not get it. The more we know about complexity and design and metainformation and so on about organisms, the more we find we learn from them! God is a better designer than mankind. You want to say *poof* made everything? Then you expect to sound reasonable? See, when people really think about it they realize that nothing cannot make everything and accidents are not designers.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "No, the argument from incredulity is not applicable to organisms with obvious design and information to the nth degree. It is the refuge of the intellectually challenged with no other argument to make."

    Way to misunderstand the argument from incredulity. That's exactly where it applies. You're saying that something is too complicated for you to be able to understand how it originated, and so you choose the "God did it" option. A classic argument from incredulity.

    Since you make the claim that it doesn't apply, can you explain your reasoning why this should be exempt?

    "And yes, Darwinists who promote the Big Bang believe nothing created everything. You either believe that or you believe a Designer designed it all. There is no third option. The Universe is neither eternal nor infinite. So make your mind up."

    Other options:

    The Universe is eternal and/or infinite.

    There is something before the Big Bang that is beyond our current comprehension, including mankind's tendency to think in mythological terms. The conclusion that this thing we don't understand has to correspond to a particular mythological figure is completely unfounded - and is IMO actually somewhat suspicious because it so closely corresponds to human psychological needs.

    "The more we know about complexity and design and metainformation and so on about organisms, the more we find we learn from them!"

    It's difficult to take this argument seriously when it comes from someone who has not yet grasped how information can be generated spontaneously through a process of mutation and selection, as modeled in genetic algorithms.

    If you are blind to an opposing argument and simply ignore it, you don't get to win the argument.

    "God is a better designer than mankind."

    We have no evidence of anything designed by God.

    "You want to say *poof* made everything?"

    No, that's Genesis, i.e. what you're arguing for.

    "See, when people really think about it they realize that nothing cannot make everything and accidents are not designers."

    I expect that when they really think about it they can spot your silly strawman arguments. Radar, those are not the arguments being made by the other side.

    AmericanVet said...

    Information is not generated by Genetic Algorithms. My friend Kevin neatly killed that idea off. For those of you who do not know, Kevin is a megabrain who is about to graduate from the "MIT of the Midwest" and his expenses were paid by Microsoft in exchange for his consideration of a job offer. That is how smart and accomplished Kevin is.

    Kevin and SChohen had a email exchange going when Cohen rather creepily tracked Kevin down like a stalker and tried to convince him that GA "invents" information. Kevin tried to explain to Cohen just as I have presented to people on this blog that GA is a formal program written by intelligence designed to produce randomized outputs in hopes of optimal random combinations of design features. In other words, it is programmed to speed up the work of people experimenting with various designs.

    A formal computer program running on designed hardware and operating systems and so on, entirely an invention of intelligence, and you Darwinists think it is making information from thin air? What a desperate and pitiful straw to grasp at...you are wrong. Dead wrong!

    A blog post on the argument from incredulity will need to be on the schedule. People so propagandized they cannot think critically and logically use this as a lifesaver against logic and reason and it is time to put an end to it.

    As to your appeal to an unknown scenario before a mythical big bang? Entirely unscientific and takes you out of the realm of naturalism into mysticism. You want to think *poof* has powers and there are magical indecipherable aspects to the Universe without explanation to which you can cling in order to avoid the idea of God? Go for it! But please don't think anyone is going to consider it science.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    It's not surprising that, when called on the fact that you haven't grasped how information can be generated through mutation and selection, you promptly demonstrate that lack of understanding.

    Your entire complaint about genetic algorithms evades the principle that is being modeled and instead focuses on the fact that it is a model, which is true, which nobody is arguing against, and which is entirely irrelevant to what is actually being modeled.

    If your friend Kevin "killed off" the idea that information is not generated by GAs, unfortunately it doesn't appear on your blog. Could you tell us more?

    "Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

    "As to your appeal to an unknown scenario before a mythical big bang? Entirely unscientific and takes you out of the realm of naturalism into mysticism."

    Whoa, how backwards is this? Whatsit said that it is an option that there is something before the Big Bang that is beyond our current comprehension. It's not meant to be the basis for a scientific hypothesis, but it is a completely rational statement that even a Christian should completely agree with. If you think the Big Bang was God's moment of creation, then of course whatever came before that is beyond your current comprehension, isn't it?

    "You want to think *poof* has powers and there are magical indecipherable aspects to the Universe without explanation to which you can cling in order to avoid the idea of God? Go for it! But please don't think anyone is going to consider it science."

    The *poof* that has powers is your own god, Radar. Saying "God did it" is speculation and outside of science. Saying "we don't know yet what happened, but we may find out in future" is completely correct, rational and has been a consistent trend throughout human history. First we explain the unknown by plugging in some version of "gods did it" - and then we find out that there are in fact perfectly applicable naturalistic explanations.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    I found this post - radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2011/02/you-have-audience-who-is-your-audience.html - on Google, and it seems to be the most relevant of your posts on the topic, but it doesn't make the case that GAs don't generate information at all.

    This whole subject is oddly beyond your grasp, I suspect almost entirely because of your bias blinders. Ask yourself: in NASA's use of GA to design antennas -

    Is there any information in existence after the process that wasn't there before?

    If yes, where did that information originate? Do you think it came from the programmer who designed the algorithm? If so, how was it provided?

    AmericanVet said...

    GA is hardly beyond my grasp. I have a fistful of emails from Kevin going over them in detail. GA are generated by a computer program which was designed by intelligence run on a computer designed by intelligence. The entire concept comes from intelligence and the random part is simply a matter of automating the method of trial and error, in order to save time. Edison would have loved to have had a filament-generation program to help him figure out what to use for the first light bulb.

    So, no, GA does not in any way support Darwinism because it is not information produced by natural means, it is produced by intelligence. It is a smart method of speeding up trial and error.

    As to whatsit, you have nothing in your answer bag. God is a logical first cause of the Universe. Nothing is not. Special pleading about magical events that we have no evidence for being responsible for the so-called big bang does not sound like science.

    Science used to include God as a default setting. We have a great deal of historical evidence for the God of the Bible. We have no such evidence for *poof*

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "GA is hardly beyond my grasp."

    It clearly is. You're doing everything you can to avoid addressing the substance of the argument.

    "I have a fistful of emails from Kevin going over them in detail."

    Then show us where he killed the idea that GAs don't generate information. Don't paraphrase it, show us where you think he made that claim.

    "GA are generated by a computer program which was designed by intelligence run on a computer designed by intelligence. The entire concept comes from intelligence and the random part is simply a matter of automating the method of trial and error, in order to save time."

    Ah, "automating the method of trial and error". Now we're getting somewhere. Do you think that a process of repeated trial and error can yield information (for example, about how something can work) that wasn't there before?

    "Edison would have loved to have had a filament-generation program to help him figure out what to use for the first light bulb."

    Indeed he would have, GAs are very useful.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "So, no, GA does not in any way support Darwinism because it is not information produced by natural means, it is produced by intelligence. It is a smart method of speeding up trial and error."

    And natural selection is what, exactly, if not a process of trial and error?

    "As to whatsit, you have nothing in your answer bag. God is a logical first cause of the Universe."

    God is a potential first cause of the Universe, if one is required.

    "Nothing is not."

    You're posing a strawman argument. (Surprise.) "There may or may not be a logical first cause of the Universe, and we currently have no way of knowing the nature of such a first cause if it does exist" is a correct statement.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "Special pleading about magical events that we have no evidence for being responsible for the so-called big bang does not sound like science."

    Which is why the Bible is no longer seen as a science textbook.

    "Science used to include God as a default setting."

    As a tacit assumption, perhaps. But that doesn't mean it's correct.

    "We have a great deal of historical evidence for the God of the Bible."

    We have none whatsoever. The Bible is perfectly consistent with a mythological text written by the people of its time without the aid of a supernatural being, similar to many other such religious texts whose deities you easily dismiss as being non-existent.

    "We have no such evidence for *poof*"

    Exactly, which is why we don't use *poof* in science, only in church. See Genesis.

    scohen said...

    a couple things:

    "Cohen rather creepily tracked Kevin down like a stalker"

    Yes, emailing someone once is exactly the same thing as stalking them.

    Secondly, you repeatedly say that genetic algorithms don't generate information. Kevin disagrees with you, but don't take my word for it.

    I'm posting the entire conversation between Kevin and I (with his last name an email obscured) so everyone can see for themselves what went on between us.

    If you say that he "neatly killed that idea off", then I'd like you to point to where he said that GAs don't generate information, because I can't find it anywhere in our exchange.

    The closest thing Kevin said to what you said above is that GAs aren't proof of evolution, but that was never my point.

    Furthermore, I feel that our conversation was nowhere near done, but he was busy for the summer and I broke my hip, so I let the whole thing fall through the cracks. I'd be more than willing to talk to him about this subject more.


    Here's the conversation in its entirety:

    kevin dot scohen dot org

    Oh, and for what it's worth, it appears that blogger is much more willing to flag a comment as spam if it includes a URL, and if this happens, it doesn't leave a mark, despite what Radar has claimed in the past.

    AmericanVet said...

    Scohen,

    No, I said if I erase a comment it leaves a mark. I did not speak to what blogger does.

    Yes, I thought tracking down a student was a bit creepy and Kevin asked me about it when it happened. He gave me the full list of emails when the conversation was done. He is certain that GA does not in any way generate information by material means and no one who gives it much thought would disagree unless you think the computer, BIOS, software programs and programmer also evolved?

    scohen said...

    "No, I said if I erase a comment it leaves a mark. I did not speak to what blogger does."

    Fair enough, I think other people were confused at what was happening. I was also suggesting a way for them to avoid the spam filter, which seems to be turned up very high on this blog.

    "He is certain that GA does not in any way generate information by material means"

    "You say that genetic algorithms produce information that was
    not there before. I agree, but so does a brute force algorithm."

    -Kevin

    Thus, GAs produce information that wasn't there before, which has been my argument all along. You added the 'material means' part, which I don't understand. Do they produce information by immaterial means?

    "unless you think the computer, BIOS, software programs and programmer also evolved?"

    Well, I think the programmer evolved, but it's comments like this that makes me think you don't really understand the crux my argument at all. GAs model evolution and produce information, they don't mirror biogenesis and evolution. Think of them as akin to an orrery. An orrery isn't the same thing as the solar system, it's a device that models the solar system's motion. Your above comment is akin to pointing out that the composition of the planets on the orrery isn't correct, of that their masses or distance from the sun isn't exactly the same as the real solar system.

    "He gave me the full list of emails when the conversation was done."

    In my mind, the conversation was far from done, as he left several of my queries unanswered (as shown on my site), and we hadn't even started to get to Hartnett's equation. The nice thing is that I also have all of the conversations as well, which is precisely why I wanted to speak with Kevin either on this blog or directly via email.

    If he wants to talk more, I'm game, but I don't think the email exchange validates your above statements.

    AmericanVet said...

    If you cannot understand that a program that has been designed to find and identify a set of random outcomes as a result of a design that produces the outcomes, designed by a programmer and run on a computer, none of which just simply evolve, then GA is therefore not related to evolution in any way. GA are formally produced by intelligent beings using hardware and software designed by intelligent beings and manufactured by intelligent beings. You inability to understand this astounds me!

    Can you identify the programmer of organisms who determines the program that identifies optimal outcomes and adds them to the genome? Of course not!

    In fact an organism has no ruler or organizer or programmer unless you count the God who initially created it. No one has figured out how life can come from non-life, but we have found that there are molecular-level chemical barriers which prohibit such a process from ever happening.

    The good news is that you are not evolved from an ape! The bad news is that the God you avoid is responsible for making you. Cheers!

    scohen said...

    Radar, you're getting off point. Earlier you said:

    "Information is not generated by Genetic Algorithms." (from the comments on this post)

    This is wrong according to Kevin, who said:

    "You say that genetic algorithms produce information that was
    not there before. I agree, but so does a brute force algorithm."

    Again, it's pretty clear that you don't understand my point.

    "The bad news is that the God you avoid..."

    You remember that I'm not an atheist, right?

    Anonymous said...

    I hope Kevin follows the path of other/most fundamentalist christians that visit Reddit.

    http://i.imgur.com/6XMl3.jpg

    The bonds of religious indoctrination are pretty strong, thankfully logic and reason are stronger. I think Kevin will figure things out eventually.

    ~Canucklehead.

    Anonymous said...

    I mean, it's only a matter of time, really.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/why-atheism-will-replace-religion

    It actually kinda explains why conservative churches rail against so called "obamacare". Not to mention all the fear they peddle on a daily basis. It's because when people feel safer, they don't need an imaginary sky daddy to look after them.

    -Canucklehead.

    scohen said...

    Canucklehead,
    None of this has anything to do with atheism or Kevin turning into an atheist. Honestly, I don't care what Kevin's beliefs are, so long as they don't stop his intellect from working. I've met many Christians with unhindered intellects, and I'm fine with that.

    So long as he's happy, that's the right decision.

    Anonymous said...

    scohen, I am in no way saying that you had ulterior motives in contacting Kevin. In fact, I'm glad you were able to counter Radar's slanderous statements about your contact with him. I'm also glad that you don't care about Kevin's beliefs (although deep down I'm sure that (like me) you care that he may be hadcuffed professionally by certain aspects of said beliefs). And I'm also happy that you appear to be aware that if Kevin is as intelligent as he seems, he won't actually share many aspects of Radar's ridiculous worldview, at least not for long.

    I simply noted that Kevin mentioned the website Reddit in his exchange with you and knowing the large atheist community there, I thought I'd let Radar in on what happens to evangelicals when they leave the nest and their belief systems are challenged by logic and reason. For example, Kevin's resistance to the theory of evolution, that you address in your exchange. You and I both know that this is just a remnant of the religious indoctrination he experienced as a child, and if he continues to pursue more education this holdout belief will go the way of the Dodo, much like the rest of his childhood worldview. I don't know, maybe he'll become something of a "lapsed evangelical", so that they still allow him to enjoy the holidays and come to the parties. ;)

    -Canucklehead.

    creeper said...

    Well look at that, Kevin and scohen had an intelligent, civilized, open, respectful discussion, even though their worldviews are presumably quite different... and the world didn't come to an end, Kevin lives to tell the tale etc. Is this really what Radar was so afraid of? Really? This is the open discussion he was so determined to avoid?

    For anyone who doesn't know what's going on here, check out this blog post: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2011/02/you-have-audience-who-is-your-audience.html

    -- creeper

    creeper said...

    Radar, it's abundantly clear that you've been twisting Kevin's words to suit your own purposes, as we all strongly suspected when you were so eager to avoid any open discussion between Kevin and scohen back then. It is also clear that you were a poor intermediary between Kevin and scohen, either due to your own obvious lack of understanding or your fervent desire as a self-proclaimed foot soldier in some alleged "war" to win at all costs, truth be damned.

    Apparently now you're under the impression that Kevin "killed off" the idea that information is not generated by genetic algorithms. When you read Kevin's own thoughts, unfiltered by your own bias (and, let's not beat around the bush here, blatant dishonesty), it's clear that Kevin doesn't think that at all. Are you man enough to retract your statement? If not, how about you show us a direct quote where Kevin made such a claim?

    -- creeper

    creeper said...

    Radar,

    As for your ongoing arguments regarding GA, they are already addressed in the comment section there. Note especially this comment, to which you never replied: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2011/02/you-have-audience-who-is-your-audience.html?showComment=1297068885135#c3432224638645397880

    -- creeper

    scohen said...

    Creeper,
    Here's a nice quote from that post you linked to:

    "Kevin and I had a nice long discussion of Genetic Algorithms, as he has designed them and is quite familiar with them"
    -Radar

    And another from my exchange with Kevin, which was months after that post:

    "To start, I have never designed a genetic algorithm, but I am familiar with how they work"
    -Kevin, from our exchange.

    Interesting

    AmericanVet said...

    The last thing cohen said is true, my first conversation with Kevin led me to believe he designed them and later he corrected me and sent me all the emails. He told me that you, scohen, do not understand that GA runs on formal systems and he was politely talking with you but did not think you would ever comprehend why that is important.

    In fact Kevin was working on things like touch screen technology and gaming for Microsoft and will be working for them on graduation. He and I both agree GA does nothing to support evolution. The emails that I have may or may not reflect what has been posted because frankly I do not have time to see if cohen put everything up or not nor do I care.

    You believe what you want, GA will never help evolution just like Dawkin's Weasel program.

    scohen said...

    "The last thing cohen said is true..."

    It would have been awesome if you would have posted a correction or a clarification to the original post. You talk about your journalistic credentials, isn't this what a journalist would have done?

    "He told me that you, scohen, do not understand that GA runs on formal systems"

    You know radar, I'm through having you stand in as a filter for Kevin. If he wants to say such things to me, let him send me an email.

    The Kevin that you describe comes across as an arrogant jerk, not at all like the Kevin I talked to.

    "He and I both agree GA does nothing to support evolution"

    Where he differs from your position, is his acknowledgement of the fact that GAs generate information. I'll let the ramifications of that fact sink in. Furthermore, by his own admission, Kevin doesn't know much about evolution, so despite his formidable computer knowledge, his opinion on it isn't worth very much.

    "The emails that I have may or may not reflect what has been posted because frankly I do not have time to see if cohen put everything up"

    Well, if you're going to throw out thinly veiled accusations of censoring what Kevin said to me (and I did no such thing), then I would think it'd be in your interest to prove to the world that I'm being dishonest. Failing this, you should probably retract your accusation.

    "But it runs on chains", Radar said of the orrery, "The planets are too close together, and their relative sizes and masses aren't correct".

    "But it shows their motion flawlessly" scohen replied.

    radar said...

    Kevin is a young man of good character and good manners and a very high IQ. I have never represented him as an arrogant jerk. You should go look in a mirror.

    You, scohen, contacted him rather creepily and he reached out to me about it when it happened, a bit surprised. If you, scohen, were a person of good character you would not have stalked one of my students AND you would have admitted you were wrong about Hartnett when it was pointed out to you that you were wrong. As I just did when someone said I had said Kevin designed GA.

    You see, when I saw that quote I admitted I had been mistaken. At the time I wrote it I thought it was true. Unlike you, I can admit when I am wrong. Unlike you, I have a standard of conduct that would have prohibited me from stalking a young college student and pestering him about GA when he was trying to keep his "A" average and prepare for his career.

    Kevin will work at Microsoft to start and will likely be a success in business and in life. You, on the other hand, are the one commenter who may cause me to moderate comments. Your attitude and lack of character has brought me to the point where I do not really care to hear from you any longer.

    scohen, kindly take your comments elsewhere. I am tired of wasting my time with a man who cannot admit he is wrong under any circumstances, annoys my students and has nothing worthwhile to say. Feel free to believe what you will. I no longer care to deal with you. I didn't want to go look at how you probably spun the emails between you and Kevin but Kevin sent them all to me and he did NOT say that GA supports evolution. I know, I have the emails.

    I am sorry I ever thought you were worth my time, scohen, and I will no longer make that mistake in the future.

    scohen said...

    "Kevin is a young man of good character and good manners"

    You'll get no argument from me. However, what you relate doesn't match what I know about him from our conversations.

    "If you, scohen, were a person of good character you would not have stalked..."

    There you go using that word again. I emailed Kevin once, and had he not replied, that would have been the end of any and all contact between us. I replied to him when he emailed me, and when he stopped, I stopped. The tone of my emails was friendly, respectful and cordial, and I repeatedly offered him assistance in helping find work when he graduated.

    Similarly, your accusations of pestering are unfounded, as I only sent a single email, and it took him well over a month to reply. In that time, I sent a total of zero additional messages. You'd know this if you would just read the conversation that I posted.

    You admitted that you embellished in your previous post, but you have not admitted that genetic algorithms create information. So all your other statements about Hartnett (and seriously, do you think I've not talked to mathematicians about that?) aren't right. If you want to carry the torch of being ready to admit your mistakes, then just say that you were wrong and genetic algorithms generate information and make me look like a fool.

    "he did NOT say that GA supports evolution"

    And I didn't say that he said that GAs support evolution. I said that he said that GAs *generate information*. I don't know how I can be more clear. By the way, I can't think of a better example of why having you as an intermediary between Kevin and I would be a bad idea. You don't even know what point I'm trying to make.

    "You, on the other hand, are the one commenter who may cause me to moderate comments"

    It's your blog Radar, though this would hardly reflect well on you. Throughout this conversation, I've ignored your character assassination and insults and have offered none of my own in return. I've posted the entire, uncensored conversation between Kevin and I for all to see, while you have offered nothing. I've asked you to support your accusation that Kevin "neatly killed that idea [that GAs generate information] off" by citing a piece of our conversation and you've come up empty.

    It is abundantly clear why you want to silence me.

    AmericanVet said...

    To all other commenters. What scohen says is not true. He has refused to acknowledge his error concerning Hartnett and claims I painted Kevin as arrogant, which I certainly did not. Also, Kevin asked me about emailing scohen before replying. we both agreed it as a bit creepy, but we both thought what the heck, why not?

    I already explained why GA does not generate information BY NATURAL MEANS which is what is needed, among other things, to have evolution.

    We saw what happened when a commenter pointed out an error I made, I immediately admitted it when I saw it. scohen apparently cannot admit he is wrong under any circumstances. So I am tired of dealing with his spun information and broken logic and his false accusations.

    So just so everyone understands, I am not going to answer him any longer. If he is profane, I will delete his comments. Otherwise, no matter what he says that is not profane or inappropriate, it will just hang there in space and be ignored. Does everyone comprehend this? I do not care to have anything to do with the guy any longer, there are better uses of my time.

    No, I will not censor him for disagreeing or slandering or anything else. Just for breaking the rules. End of story.

    anonymouse said...

    eRadar,
    With all respect, those are pretty lame reasons for shunning scohen. When has he ever been profane or slandered anyone on this blog? Surely not when I've been reading.

    The statement:
    "He told me that you, scohen, do not understand that GA runs on formal systems and he was politely talking with you but did not think you would ever comprehend why that is important."

    Is clearly arrogant. Why would Kevin think that when he didn't even bring it up or try to explain it during their conversation? It's also worth noting that scohen never said Kevin was arrogant, only that your interpretation of what he said was arrogant.

    You also never used the word 'natural' before when talking about genetic algorithms, and Kevin's emails directly contradict the claim you made further up the page.

    Scohen is right, this doesn't reflect well on you.

    anonymouse said...

    Also,
    scohen has a point regarding Hartnett, no reasonable human being would use an integral to multiply two numbers together, even though the math can be made to work as Hartnett did.

    I think his blog post was too strident, but his logic was sound.

    creeper said...

    "What scohen says is not true. He has refused to acknowledge his error concerning Hartnett"

    scohen has not made any error concerning Hartnett - again, you have misrepresented (and possibly genuinely misunderstood) what scohen actually argued, even though he spelled this out for you in detail more than once - but don't take the words of our "evil" commenters: Kevin will support scohen's argument. Not your self-serving rephrasing of it, but scohen's actual argument.

    "Also, Kevin asked me about emailing scohen before replying. we both agreed it as a bit creepy, but we both thought what the heck, why not?"

    Here's what I don't get. You supposedly thought "why not?" So what did scohen subsequently do that has you in such a rage? He had a civil, mutually respectful discussion with Kevin. Nothing that would paint him as dishonorable etc. Ask Kevin if he felt that the exchange with scohen was honorable and respectful.

    Of course, any reader can check out the exchange themselves at kevin DOT scohen DOT org and make up their own minds.

    The only thing that happened that you clearly don't like is that it became clear that you were a poor (if not deceptive) intermediary (as we all knew), that Kevin didn't exactly share your views on GAs, and that you had misrepresented Kevin's views on your blog. It was egg on your face, but the fault for that lies with you for being so deceptive (or delusional) in the first place.

    -- creeper

    creeper said...

    "We saw what happened when a commenter pointed out an error I made, I immediately admitted it when I saw it."

    Your reluctance to admit fault is legendary, Radar. You're in no position to paint yourself as the guy who immediately admits to an error, not by a long shot.

    If you disagree, I'd be happy to dig out some examples.

    -- creeper

    creeper said...

    anonymouse,

    "I think his blog post was too strident, but his logic was sound."

    I've looked over the e-mails posted at kevin DOT scohen DOT org a couple times now and can't find anything strident about scohen's writings there - is there anything particular there that strikes you as strident?

    -- creeper

    creeper said...

    "You see, when I saw that quote I admitted I had been mistaken. At the time I wrote it I thought it was true."

    Are you willing to admit that Kevin does not agree that GAs don't generate information, contrary to your earlier claims?

    -- creeper

    creeper said...

    "Also, Kevin asked me about emailing scohen before replying. we both agreed it as a bit creepy, but we both thought what the heck, why not?"

    That's your perspective of the situation. Did you notice that Kevin himself says that what drove him to respond to scohen were the inconsistencies in your blog post - i.e. that you had misrepresented what he had said? Which is exactly what we had suspected all along, and now it's confirmed.

    -- creeper

    AmericanVet said...

    scohen was strident and dishonest with me about Hartnett and stalked a student. Kevin and I have had many conversations about this. I know what Kevin said about the situation and he was polite to scohen but not terribly interested and we both agreed schohen does not realize that GA are formal and there are no computers in mud puddles trying to create life.

    Again, when it was pointed out I made a misstatement about Kevin I immediately admitted it. scohen cannot do this and furthermore we had sent emails back and forth some time ago to me personally so I thought he would respect the request to not bother my student.

    When a guy tracks down a then-underage student to bug him about GA when that student is trying to get his grades and qualify for grants it ticked me off. Now that he is using Kevin to support evolution, which Kevin clearly does not do, it also ticks me off and since he lies about Hartnett and will not admit his error I give up on him.

    The guy never should have contacted Kevin in the first place and he was just an annoyance to him.

    anonymouse said...

    Creeper
    I was referring to scohen's original blog post, which I can't reference because it seems that his blog is off the internet.

    Nothing in the email exchange was anything except polite.

    anonymouse said...

    o"scohen was strident and dishonest with me about Hartnett and stalked a student"

    scohen sent a student an email, and that student replied after you both agreed to do that, and now you're mad at him? That makes little sense. Scohen also explained his objection to Hartnett in his emails to Kevin, and it's fundamentally correct.

    If this was such an imposition on Kevin, why did he bother replying?

    "Now that he is using Kevin to support evolution,"

    Not really, he's just using Kevin to discredit something you've repeatedly said on this blog, which isn't the same thing as supporting evolution.

    I also seriously doubt that scohen doesn't realize that there aren't computers in mud puddles.

    Radar, none of your reasons add up. If you were concerned about contacting an underage (under what age) student, then why have that student reply? Same goes for valuing the student's time. There's something else that really infuriated you, and we all can see what it is.

    Anonymous said...

    Radar,
    You should really stop resorting to slander when dealing with commenters.

    I read scohen's discussion with Kevin and it was nothing like you describe. If Kevin was disinterested, he didn't seem it and even wrote programs (with graphs) to test out his ideas. That seems downright engaged.

    You claim scohen was strident, but you're often strident, and in this discussion has shrugged off every one of your barbs and replied calmly.

    If you have evidence to the contrary, now would be the time to show it.

    Anonymous said...

    Wow. That's some impressive impotent rage you've got going there, Radar. Embarrassed much? As has been pointed out already, if you were consulted by Kevin initially regarding responding to scohen, and your response was akin to "why not", then where is all this rage coming from? It's clear that you're just pissed because you have been exposed as a deceptive liar (again). I mean, it's just par for the course, really. In that you have been proven, yet again, to be a big fat liar for Jesus. Willing to do or say absolutely anything in order to "win" your supposed "war of the worldviews".

    Oh and I bet Kevin would be absolutely mortified to hear that Radar refers to him as one of his "students". And Radar, this is just more of your self described problematic "pride issue" popping up anyway, with you trying to take partial credit for Kevin's apparent success. Keep working on it though, I'm sure someday you'll figure things out. As they say, admitting you have a problem is just the "first step".

    -Canucklehead.

    Anonymous said...

    A single email does not a stalker make. And you know it Radar. And every time you say it, it makes you look worse. You brought Kevin into this in the first place, and if you were really worried about someone contacting him maybe you shouldn't have used his real name (as I initially assumed) or posted specific details about the guy. And if you were concerned about negatively affecting his studies, as you say, why did YOU bother him with this in the first place? In the end had you facilitated anonymous open contact between scohen and Kevin, none of this would have occurred. But you were never going to do that, because, as we just witnessed, you were dishonestly misrepresenting Kevin''s positions from the beginning. Something he himself noted in his email to scohen. You know, the ones scohen posted, that you "don't have time to read". LOLOLOL

    Oh and another LOL at your "To All Other Commenters" line. As if anyone here is going to listen to your take on anything, especially after this. You're simply embarrassed for being publicly shamed. And are now trying to cast doubt on scohen's posted exchange with Kevin, all the while claiming you don't have time to check them out. What a crock. You are mad that you were caught in a lie and your predictable reaction is to try to spin more lies. Classic.

    -Canucklehead.

    AmericanVet said...

    I am not infuriated. I am disgusted. scohen was wrong about Hartnett and called me a liar about it for about two years until I proved he was wrong and he would not admit it. Then he stalked a student and, if Kevin and I knew what he would do with those emails neither of us would likely have thought it wise to reply.

    Again, when what I had said about Kevin that WAS wrong was pointed out to me I immediately admitted my mistake. When scohen was called out on his mistake he refusees to admit it and then takes private emails from an underage student and uses them to promote a worldview both Kevin and I think preposterous?

    Yes, had I known that was happening I would have suggested to Kevin to ignore the guy. Now I am going to ignore the guy. So now if you people want to talk about him go ahead but since in the beginning he pretended to be friendly and was just using me and Kevin to promote his own wacky worldview I consider him not worth my time. The same goes for this discussion.

    Hartnett was right and cohen cannot admit to it.

    GA does not produce information naturally, it is a program that speeds up the trial and error process and there are no programs in mud puddles. As I said before, that a program designed by intelligent beings run on software and OS made by intelligence and run on hardware produced by intelligence produces information, that is in no way supportive of a natural source for information. Can you all understand that? Thank you. Get back to me when mud puddles create computers.

    AmericanVet said...

    I did not lie, Canucklehead, and Kevin was one of my students and in fact came back home on break over Christmas and we had time to get together, watch a couple of movies at my house and hang out. Kevin and I are friends and he is a young man of great character. Your baseless accusations are typical of your lack of courtesy and manners. Trolls...I feed them so I get stuff like this.

    anonymouse said...

    "GA does not produce information naturally,"

    Oh, so now it's naturally? Why have you never used that word before? Do you think scohen believes that GAs produce information naturally (what does that mean, btw)? What did you mean when you wrote: "Information is not generated by Genetic Algorithms." on this very comment thread?

    I think what's happening here is that you are upset from the strain that moving the goalposts has caused you.

    Again, it'd really be awesome if you'd stop smearing scohen and just respond to his facts.

    anonymouse said...

    "then takes private emails from an underage student and uses them to promote a worldview both Kevin and I think preposterous"

    Kevin knew those emails weren't private:
    "I am writing assuming that this conversation
    will eventually show up on a blog somewhere..."

    Also, scohen wasn't promoting a worldview, just pointing out your mistake, which you still haven't acknowledged by the way, when you say:

    "Information is not generated by Genetic Algorithms"

    Notice how you've moved the goalposts and now add "naturally" at the end.

    AmericanVet said...

    First, it would be really awesome if he would admit he was wrong about Hartnett and apologize for calling me a liar about it.

    Second, NATURAL production of information was what cohen asserted in the first place and GA does not represent that. The entire point was that information only comes from intelligence and cohen claimed GA refuted this. It doesn't.

    Research all the times cohen smeared me with his false accusations and when I made a post showing how Hartnett was right and cohen wrong he STILL would not admit it.

    Now I am going back to work and dropping this issue. I no longer care what cohen thinks. GA does NOT show that information is produced naturally so his entire point is moot.

    creeper said...

    "The guy never should have contacted Kevin in the first place and he was just an annoyance to him."

    Since you've misrepresented Kevin's statements before (and I hope Kevin takes note of that), we're all going to have to take your claims regarding Kevin's opinions with a massive dose of salt. As it stands, there is no trace of annoyance in the correspondence between Kevin and scohen.

    BTW, what's this about "underage"? You mentioned this in the previous post, and it was just as puzzling then. He was and is well over 18. Now the drinking age is important for some reason? Huh?

    "Again, when it was pointed out I made a misstatement about Kevin I immediately admitted it."

    Again, are you willing to admit that Kevin does not agree that GAs don't generate information, contrary to your earlier claims?

    -- creeper

    creeper said...

    "When a guy tracks down a then-underage student to bug him about GA when that student is trying to get his grades and qualify for grants it ticked me off."

    Kevin wrote three long e-mails, at his own pace. Is Kevin of the opinion that this impaired his academic work or his qualification for grants? No, seriously, is that his opinion? Obviously we can't trust you to act as a filter.

    "Now that he is using Kevin to support evolution, which Kevin clearly does not do,"

    Kevin doesn't need to support evolution to conclude that GAs do generate information. Here's the thing, Radar: it doesn't matter to your worldview one bit if GAs generate information. That fact is perfectly compatible with creationism, as it is with evolution. It doesn't blow creationism out of the water.

    "it also ticks me off and since he lies about Hartnett and will not admit his error I give up on him."

    If you look at what scohen has actually said about Hartnett, you'll find that scohen didn't lie, not even a little bit. This is just one of several subjects on which you are incredibly short-sighted, and it's only because you project something else onto his statements that you now accuse scohen of lying.

    -- creeper

    anonymouse said...

    "First, it would be really awesome if he would admit he was wrong about Hartnett and apologize for calling me a liar about it."

    But that would make him a liar since he's not wrong. I also don't remember scohen calling you a liar. Could you provide a link to the comment where he did so?

    "Second, NATURAL production of information was what cohen asserted in the first place"

    Where did he say this?

    "Research all the times cohen smeared me with his false accusations "

    I've tried to find some, but I haven't found any. I've found a lot of evidence of you smearing him, and not just on this page.

    "GA does NOT show that information is produced naturally so his entire point is moot."

    Neither you nor scohen ever used the word naturally before. You always used the unqualified: GAs do not produce information. The evidence is right above us, and doesn't even require a google search.

    What's interesting though is you bringing up the past and refusing to deal with the present. I can see how scohen conducted himself right here and contrast that with how you are behaving. He looks pretty good.

    creeper said...

    "First, it would be really awesome if he would admit he was wrong about Hartnett and apologize for calling me a liar about it."

    scohen wasn't wrong about Hartnett. Look at what scohen actually said about the subject. He was right, and Kevin agreed with him.

    -- creeper

    creeper said...

    "Second, NATURAL production of information was what cohen asserted in the first place and GA does not represent that. The entire point was that information only comes from intelligence and cohen claimed GA refuted this. It doesn't."

    Two questions:

    1. Where does the added information that a GA produces come from?

    2. What do the different parts of the GA represent? This is the key issue where you're confused. (See scohen's example of the orrery.)

    -- creeper

    creeper said...

    "Research all the times cohen smeared me with his false accusations"

    Can you name a single false accusation that scohen leveled at you?

    Just one?

    -- creeper

    scohen said...

    "Now the drinking age is important for some reason? Huh?"

    Yeah, I shipped him a crate of Jonhnny Walker blue after our conversation ended. Sorry about that.

    Also, Radar is telling the truth when he says he hasn't read the email exchange on my site. Unfortunately this makes all of his claims of me 'spinning' things inaccurate.

    anonymouse:
    Yeah, that blog post was a bit strident, I wish I hadn't labelled hartnett a 'carrgo cult scientist' as it immediately put radar on the defensive and made him incapable of hearing my actual argument. I'm just glad that everyone else understands what I'm saying.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    And Radar skulks off with his tail between his legs...

    Rich Deem said...

    Rich Deem, whose article you "borrowed," believes that God created the Big Bang, especially since God Himself says in the Bible that the universe is expanding from when He first created it. In fact, the Bible predicted creation from nothing long before scientists thought that the Bible even had a beginning (the assumption had been that the universe was eternal).

    radar said...

    Dear Rich, your website says , "Internet Use Policy: Since Jesus Christ has freely offered to me, as His disciple, and as part of my spiritual service of worship, I offer all information at this site free for use by all who desire to use it..."

    As I attributed the source and posted the link and followed the site policy, why did you make it seem that I did something wrong by using "borrowed" in your comment?

    radar said...

    Declaring victory without evidence = Darwinist arguments 101. You have done it again.