Search This Blog

Friday, August 31, 2012

Darwinists fail Information Final Exam. "F" is final grade.

 

Reverend Fun and Ian Juby are helping me out with this post!   All the cartoons are linked and all Ian Juby videos come from Wazooloo channel.   Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand away we go!!! 

Oh, and at the end I might have a surprise guest.  No, not Clint, he was already booked!



For quite some time I have invited Darwinists to provide me with a natural source for information.   Really, I gave them an easy final exam.    It consisted of one question asked in various way like this:

What is a natural source for information? 
Give me a natural source for information?
Go ahead and present a valid natural source for information...  

Go ahead and check out their comments. Go ahead, make my day!!! 

Well, they couldn't do it.  They didn't have any bullets in their gun, as it turns out.  A whole lot of nuthin' from Darwinists!


link

Several posts.  Lots of comments and none of them able to answer the question.   Go to:

The Great Darwinist Information Invitation

What do we get?  Well, I can tell you what we do NOT get...an answer!  The commenters had a few lame answers that were obviously incorrect and then began to try to conduct their own test for me but that was not the point.  The point was to give them a chance to give me, to give us ONE ANSWER.

Now, my IQ tests and SAT and ACT tests all classify me as a genius and I could join MENSA if I liked.  But the fact is that I am just really good at taking tests.   I am very competitive and when I got into college I wanted to get all "A" report cards and be on the Dean's list.   My grade point average not counting the semester the Army drafted me and took me physically away from class with two finals yet to come?  3.88 GPA.   I tested out at 99th percentile on SAT and ACT exams.   So I am smart.  But I am not a genius.   Jonathan Sarfati?  Now THAT guy is a genius!   Ian Juby did join MENSA in Canada and I believe he did so to aid his ministry.  He may well be an actual genius.  I love his youtubes!   I am not going to pay for the label of "genius" just because I am good at taking tests.   But I am smart.  It is a fact.  I was born into a smart family, had a mother who taught me to read at an early age and a father who encouraged me to read books.   

 

Yes, I do think Ian Juby IS a genius!   Thanks, Ian!!!


I had lots of advantages.  I am thankful for those advantages.  My parents wanted me to be what I wanted to be.  In the end, I wanted a family and a wife and a great life more than I wanted money.   So I have lots of kids and am beginning to pile up grandkids and that makes driving older cars worthwhile.  My wife shops carefully and we are trying to make it through the Obama economy until Romney wins and business picks up again.  Thank God for thrift shops and Aldi Foods!!!

I know the difference between an answer and a non-answer.   If you were taking a math exam and were asked to provide the square root of 81 you have only one possible correct response.   If you put down something like "Is a rectangle also a square?" you will have missed the question.  The answer is 9 by the way.   Only a correct response works.    I now invite all of you to read the comments thread of the above-linked post and identify an answer?  I tried to lure them and coerce them into just giving me a doggone answer several times and I even asked the question or tried to draw them out in subsequent posts:


Information? Is this an answer???!!!

More information!!!! Darwinists claim DNA does not hold information? Seriously?

What Darwinist commenters do is either change the subject or ask questions instead of stepping up to answer.   As it happens, my primary journalism teacher gave two of his students the right to grade a stack of papers for him in exchange for getting to leave early for the holidays.   Brian and I were both in the top five in the class and he trusted us and we did go through the papers and check them for various errors in spelling and so on, using the AP Style Guide as our reference when there was a question.   I still have that style guide.  The tests were part essay and part multiple choice answers, so we had no problems grading the multiple choice questions and we weeded out spelling errors and obvious grammatical mistakes in the essays and left Mr. Brady with the task of determining the quality of said essay answers.

We were culling through information!   We needed intelligence to be able to do so, the people taking the tests needed intelligence to answer and in the end Mr. Brady would determine the quality of the information provided in the essay answers.  Now I work in the information industry and I know the difference between the containers of information and the information itself.  My commenters pretend that they do NOT know this because that is one way to dodge the issue.  Too bad, so sad and you still fail the course!

link


I do wish today's journalists would at least try to separate news from editorials.  We used to be taught to know the difference.   For your information, since this is a blog it is in essence an editorial page published online, consisting of my opinions backed up by articles, references and quotes.  I rarely do a news report (although I do news stories on another blog) here because it is my opinion page.  It is a worldview blog.   So commenters choose to come here and I let them.   They claimed they could answer questions about information so I gave them a platform to do so and they have failed abysmally to do it.   They have earned their "F!"

Suppose you were in a courtroom and had been sworn in and an attorney asked you for your name.  Could you give him the answer, or would you ask him to define "name" and then ask him if he could discuss the heritage of his own surname and give a dissertation on common usage of various popular first names in the 20th Century?   Do you think he would allow you to go on and on?  Would the judge allow you to ramble on?  No.  You would be required to state your name.   If you did not know your name, poor thing, then you would have to admit this under oath.  

But this is not a court of law and commenters are not required to appear.  They do not have to answer the question.  They could ignore the entire thing.   How telling is it that they try and fail?  Anyway, today is the last day of August.   We have the Labor Day Weekend before us here in the USA.  So it is a long weekend.   I plan to do some reading.   I plan to have some fun.   I definitely plan to relax and get ready to work hard in September and have some success.   What I will not do is bother with asking Darwinists to answer this question again.    There is obviously no point to it.  It is like asking a dog to translate French into Russian. 

So we have come to the end of the trail with Darwinism and information.   Not one commenter could give me an answer to the question.   So I refer one and all to my very comprehensive post on the subject, an online publication memorializing the failure of Darwinism to address this basic question:

The Ultimate Information Post

I published that on Sunday, January 23, 2011 and it remains as relevant now as it did then, a clear and comprehensive look at the subject of information and the fact that information is NOT material in form or substance and has NO NATURAL SOURCE!!!

But I do have another question for Darwinists and I am sure they will squirm and worm and wriggle to avoid answering it as well.  Stay tuned and try to have a safe and enjoyable LOOOOOOOOOOOONG WEEEEEEEEEEEKEND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

link

 



HMMMMMMMMMMM. Do you wonder what the next question that Darwinists will probably NOT be able to answer?





Me and my boys are addicted to HIM!  A little old-school DC Talk and Carman to close...

21 comments:

Jon W said...

What you didn't and don't understand, Radar, is that we commenters have gotten tired of the way you play games with words and their definitions. No one can have a meaningful discussion, of any subject whatsoever, if they don't agree on the terms and concepts under discussion. Se we're trying to find consistent definitions of terms like 'information' which are useful in this context, not logically flawed, and compatible with the real world. Only after we agree on those definitions can we start to answer your question.

Anonymous said...

Funny that you post the clint eastwood video. While an awesome actor in his day, he is just kind of a parody of the typical republican these days--- old, flustered white man, confused on the facts and fighting against, not the real obama, but some figment of their imagination they place in an empty chair on a stage.

And back to Radar being a genius!!!! Thank you for reminding us once again, because the level of insight and coherent thought you display throughout this blog would lead an irregular reader to think otherwise of you!

lava

Anonymous said...

Ah, the typical Radar knee-jerk reaction:

Make some claims with terms as vague as possible, get frustrated when the definition of these terms is challenged instead of getting the answer he wants, run away from the topic alltogether when some questions prove too difficult, and claim victory in a new article.

That's the good 'ol Radar we all know...

radar said...

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman (Brainy Quotes)

Perhaps you can fool yourself. Perhaps you can fool others as well. But I posted this blogpost to make sure you know this - you do not fool me. You know there is no natural source of information and it drives you mad because this cuts Darwinism off at the knees. There is no possible way a code such as DNA was cobbled together by chance, not in a billion billion billion years.

You are the runners, you who are given one simple question and asked to give a response. It is time to heed the further advice of Heynman. You see, Darwinism fails to pass any tests.


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard Heynman. (Brainy Quotes)

So you are now and forever wrong. I am not frustrated, I am sorry for you. Pathos.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Radar fails to complete information discussion. "Incomplete" recorded for now.

The following easy questions were not answered and so you once again ran away from the discussion. What are you afraid of?

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information. Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Name an experiment that doesn't agree with an old Earth and the theory of evolution.

Radiometric dating blows YEC out of the water, so heed Heynman's advice and admit that YEC as a theory is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Two things Radar:

1. It's Feynman.

2. Richard Feynman, if he were alive today, would have nothing but contempt for you and your ilk.

Anonymous said...

Hint for Radar: if you're trying to look erudite, don't announce the fact that you're getting your wisdom from brainquote dotcom.

radar said...

So you want me to just quote people without attribution? Wow. Lava cries when I quote Nancy Pelosi without attribution and then someone cries because I put in an attribution? Feynman said what he said. That is life.

Radiometric dating doesn't support long ages, I already blew that nonsense out of the water earlier this year. So that comment was useless and besides it doesn't answer the question.

Those of my ilk? Hahahaha! I will tell you what those of YOUR ilk are:

Darwinist ILK - "I Lack Knowledge" and the first example is that you all lack knowledge concerning information. You do not know where it comes from and you pretend to dodge the question whereas you obviously cannot answer it.

I asked a straightforward question and you have run away from it for years. You keep running and running away from the question. Puff up your chests and pretend but you are still wimping out on the question.

I just hope none of you actually teach science of any kind or anything for that matter. Ignorance squared is far worse than ignorance.

What is the natural source for information? Hmmmmm?

radar said...

An experiment or actual evidence that kills off Old Earth?

Helium atoms in granitic zircons.

Polonium radiohalo evidence.

Cooler than expected magma temperatures in the areas that rapid plate subduction would have occurred during the Flood.

The magnetic poles of the planets.

Active volcanic activities on planets and moons.

The position and movement of our Moon.

Gas giant planets generating more heat than they take in from the Sun.

The Pioneer Anomaly.

The Law of Biogenesis.

The Laws of Thermodynamics.

The failure to produce evolution in myriad generations of fruit flies and bacteria.

The discovery of actual flesh remains in so-called ancient dinosaur and amphibian fossils.

That is a few to gnaw on to begin with.

radar said...

And Jon Woolf will NEVER be able to answer my question. He knows it and I know it.

Anonymous said...

So pray tell, what does the pioneer anomaly have to do with evolution or information?

And why do you think it's unsolved?

Actually, Radar, a number of things on your list are know now, but weren't before.

That's how science works, and how creationism doesn't. Feynman knew that better than most people, and if you knew anything about the man, you'd know that too.

radar said...

What is a natural source of information?

Why should I care what a dead Feynman thought about evolution? I am quite sure he has changed his mind now.

The list I posted? I have posted on every one of those subjects.

What is a natural source of information? Still waiting...

Anonymous whatsit said...

I'm glad to see you're interested in continuing this discussion. Okay, answer these and then two more questions and we'll have this resolved:

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information. Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.

Anonymous said...

"And Jon Woolf will NEVER be able to answer my question. He knows it and I know it."

Did you for some strange reason miss the first three dozen times he answered the question?

Anonymous said...

Lava cries when I quote Nancy Pelosi without attribution and then someone cries because I put in an attribution?

I called you out when you quoted Pelosi as saying "nationalize industry." You haven't been able to provide any context to that since you allegedly heard her say it 3-4 years ago on tv. And instead of providing context, you fabricate a conspiracy theory about Pelosi "scrubbing" the internet.

And then you questioned my credibility. I have never lied on this blog. I asked you for an instance where I've lied or misled or misrepresented on this blog....you never provided any. Your buddy Dr. M would call that a default judgment (technically a wrong use of that term).

As a Christian who tries to flout the moral superiority of believers in god, you are not setting a very good example Radar.

lava

Anonymous said...

"Why should I care what a dead Feynman thought about evolution?"

Usually, people quote other people in order to further their arguments because they believe that the person being quoted agrees with them and having them agree adds gravitas to their argument.

Apparently, you just quote people because you believe that now that they're dead they agree with you.

You're a strange and beautiful creature, Radar.

We've given you the source for information, but you won't accept it. Lead a horse to water and all that.

radar said...

Anonymous said...

"And Jon Woolf will NEVER be able to answer my question. He knows it and I know it."

Did you for some strange reason miss the first three dozen times he answered the question?


Now THAT was funny!!! Jon Woolf couldn't answer that question if his house was on fire and the answer was water!

Anonymous whatsit said...

I'm glad to see you're interested in continuing this discussion. Okay, answer these and then two more questions and we'll have this resolved:

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information. Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.

You're not afraid, are you?

radar said...

What is the natural source for information?

Answer it or admit you do not know.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Answer it or admit you do not know."

That's a false dichotomy, for starters. It also implies that this question hasn't already been answered multiple times.

Are you really saying you don't know the answers to the three rather simple questions above?

What are you afraid of?