Search This Blog

Friday, August 24, 2012

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

really?

Lets see what real science thinks.   The operative word is "information" here.  I will bold and blue the word when it is used.   The article uses that specific word five times and also uses words associated with information several times:  Data.  Read.  Write.  Instruction.  Author.  Code.  The scientists did not use Darwinist blather to accomplish this.  They recognized that DNA is a complex and rich coding tool/medium and used it to store information, although not as efficiently as the actual DNA in a living cell because that is more complicated.   They also recognized that errors (mutations) in their own writings needed to be error-checked and prevented.   Because mutations don't provide information, they ruin it.  Just keeping it real...

Book written in DNA code

Scientists who encoded the book say it could soon be cheaper to store information in DNA than in conventional digital devices
Two molecules of DNA
Book of life: DNA is the ultimate compact storage medium. Photograph: Alamy
Scientists have for the first time used DNA to encode the contents of a book. At 53,000 words, and including 11 images and a computer program, it is the largest amount of data yet stored artificially using the genetic material.

The researchers claim that the cost of DNA coding is dropping so quickly that within five to 10 years it could be cheaper to store information using this method than in conventional digital devices.

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA – the chemical that stores genetic instructions in almost all known organisms – has an impressive data capacity. One gram can store up to 455bn gigabytes: the contents of more than 100bn DVDs, making it the ultimate in compact storage media.

A three-strong team led by Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School has now demonstrated that the technology to store data in DNA, while still slow, is becoming more practical. They report in the journal Science that the 5.27 megabit collection of data they stored is more than 600 times bigger than the largest dataset previously encoded this way.

Writing the data to DNA took several days. "This is currently something for archival storage," explained co-author Dr Sriram Kosuri of Harvard's Wyss Institute, "but the timing is continually improving."

DNA has numerous advantages over traditional digital storage media. It can be easily copied, and is often still readable after thousands of years in non-ideal conditions. Unlike ever-changing electronic storage formats such as magnetic tape and DVDs, the fundamental techniques required to read and write DNA information are as old as life on Earth.

The researchers, who have filed a provisional patent application covering the idea, used off-the-shelf components to demonstrate their technique.

To maximise the reliability of their method, and keep costs down, they avoided the need to create very long sequences of code – something that is much more expensive than creating lots of short chunks of DNA. The data was split into fragments that could be written very reliably, and was accompanied by an address book listing where to find each code section.

Digital data is traditionally stored as binary code: ones and zeros. Although DNA offers the ability to use four "numbers": A, C, G and T, to minimise errors Church's team decided to stick with binary encoding, with A and C both indicating zero, and G and T representing one.

The sequence of the artificial DNA was built up letter by letter using existing methods with the string of As, Cs, Ts and Gs coding for the letters of the book.

The team developed a system in which an inkjet printer embeds short fragments of that artificially synthesised DNA onto a glass chip. Each DNA fragment also contains a digital address code that denotes its location within the original file.

The fragments on the chip can later be "read" using standard techniques of the sort used to decipher the sequence of ancient DNA found in archeological material. A computer can then reassemble the original file in the right order using the address codes.

The book – an HTML draft of a volume co-authored by the team leader – was written to the DNA with images embedded to demonstrate the storage medium's versatility.

DNA is such a dense storage system because it is three-dimensional. Other advanced storage media, including experimental ones such as positioning individual atoms on a surface, are essentially confined to two dimensions.

The work did not involve living organisms, which would have introduced unnecessary complications and some risks. The biological function of a cell could be affected and portions of DNA not used by the cell could be removed or mutated. "If the goal is information storage, there's no need to use a cell," said Kosuri.

The data cannot be overwritten but, given the storage capacity, that is seen as a minor issue. The exercise was not completely error-free, but of the 5.27m bits stored, only 10 were found to be incorrect. The team suggests common error-checking techniques could be implemented in future, including multiple copies of the same information so mistakes can be easily identified.

The costs of DNA-handling tools are not yet competitive enough to make this a large-scale storage medium. But the costs and scale of the tools are dropping much more quickly than their electronic equivalents. For example, handheld DNA sequencers are becoming available, which the authors suggest should greatly simplify information stored in DNA.

Kosuri foresees this revolution in DNA technologies continuing. "We may hit a wall, but there's no fundamental reason why it shouldn't continue."

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

All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.   All data is information, but not all information is data.   


"The data cannot be overwritten but, given the storage capacity, that is seen as a minor issue. The exercise was not completely error-free, but of the 5.27m bits stored, only 10 were found to be incorrect. The team suggests common error-checking techniques could be implemented in future, including multiple copies of the same information so mistakes can be easily identified."

Yes, just as real DNA has error-checking functions and redundancies to avoid mutations, the team writing information into DNA recognized that their "mutations" were harmful and recognized the need to come up with ways to prevent them from happening as much as possible.

Soon such research will all begin to fit together - Information science, Biomimetics, Biomimicry, Cellular Microbiology, Genetics...and of course Intelligent Design research...and then the world of science will suddenly realize that Darwinism is backwards - it describes devolution, the destruction of life rather than the creation of life.   Those who built reputations as pro-Darwinist will have to change their tunes or leave the world of real science altogether.    Then advances in medicine in particular will move along faster and the world of academia will join real science in renouncing Darwinism.    Finally popular culture will realize that Darwinism was a charade and a farce and move on.

Evolution is stupid!

From that website:

  • The big bang exists only on the blackboard, and in the imagination.
  • The formation of the universe exists only in drawings and the imagination.
  • The formation of the solar system exists only in drawings and the imagination.
  • The beginnings of life on earth are products of the imagination and nothing more.
  • The so-called "soup" from which life had its beginnings never existed.
  • The rise of life from non-life is not possible, and is a fairy tale.
  • The rise of complexity in life is also a fairy tale, and product of the imagination.
  • The transformation from "simple" to more complex life forms could not have occurred.
  • Mutations, which supposedly drive evolution, do no such thing, and you know it.
  • There is no way that the diversity of life could be a product of chance, and you know it.
  • There is no way that human beings could have come from single-celled organisms.
  • And you know it.
Yes, I know it.   Eventually the whole world will figure it out!  Animaxander was wrong and Darwin was just another atheopath looking for a way out of dealing with God.  Darwinism is not science.  It is just bad philosophy converted into widely-accepted mythology. 




source




27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow, Radar's going off the deep end. Is this a parody blog after all?

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

Under the self-serving dictionary definition you posted, that claim would be correct, but that only tells us that the definition isn't applicable in this context. Which only blows apart your self-serving teleological argument.

"All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs."

Correct.

"All data is information, but not all information is data."

Completely and stunningly backwards.

All information is data.
Not all data is information.

Can you point us to any information that doesn't contain data in some form?

Tree rings, as you pointed out, are data. They become information when we are able to interpret them to gain knowledge from them.

Information is data made useful to gain knowledge or resulting in a practical effect of some kind.

When a meteorological office gathers data of weather conditions all over the country, the data don't become information until they are put to some use, i.e. to show patterns that show low/high pressure areas etc.

radar said...

This anonymous poster represents the intentional ignorance that Darwinists bring to the table.

First, my "self-serving definition" of information comes from Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. So to claim my definition is self-serving is ignorant in the extreme.

Secondly, it is quite easy to present information that is not data. Are you thinking something? Is is held within your mind? In what way would you call a thought that has not been transmitted to anyone "data?"

Data is information that is input into material containers. But information held within the conscious mind has not yet been stored materially. It may be that you will write it down and you could then consider it data. Or, you may have a fleeting thought and not consider recording it or sharing it with someone else. It will not be data.

Tree rings are NOT data until someone makes an intelligent analysis of them and convert them into data. Every tree has tree rings, few of them are cut and counted and only when they are counted and analyzed do they produce data. The tree rings themselves are never going to be data, they are simply plants that man has observed and from observation has produced data.

You have all this upside down and backwards.

Anonymous said...

"First, my "self-serving definition" of information comes from Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. So to claim my definition is self-serving is ignorant in the extreme."

It was one of a number of different definitions, each intended for a different context. That alone should clue you in that each definition is not applicable in each of the contexts. You pick one that you like and apply it to a context where it turns out it doesn't fit.

"Secondly, it is quite easy to present information that is not data. Are you thinking something? Is is held within your mind? In what way would you call a thought that has not been transmitted to anyone "data?""

In what way would you call a "thought" information? They are not synonymous, are they?

"But information held within the conscious mind has not yet been stored materially."

Why, were is it stored, if not in your brain cells?

radar said...

Quit shucking and jiving and either give people a natural source for information or give up.

Do you have any proof that every thought we have is stored in some way within the human mind? If so, do you have proof that it was in some manner material before it was stored within the mind? Can you take a brain from a dead person and read memories and thoughts from that brain? In fact, do you have any proof that consciousness itself is stored materially? Or does it exist without being generated by matter?

We have not found a pond or rock or an atom that produces thought. We have not found animals who actually can reason abstractly. Giving a chimpanzee a paintbrush will never produce a Mona Lisa.

Whether a dog cares for you or not and mourns your death, it is quite possible that after a week alone with your body the dog would begin to eat it rather than starve. We have no proof that dogs have morality but rather they can be trained to understand what is acceptable and unacceptable to the master. I deal with my dogs knowing pack mentality. I am the alpha and they accept my superiority. They are gregarious, so they like being with and playing with each other and with me and my family. They have been trained to understand behavior that is rewarded and behavior that is forbidden and punished.

My dogs do not urinate or defecate inside my home. They are trained to go outside. This was not a moral decision, it was a matter of being punished for going in the house and being praised for going outside.

I also trained my children. But they did reach an age quickly where they had an inherent understanding of both right and wrong. I was amazed at how they demonstrated rebellion at an early age and carefully worked to teach them to submit their will to the parents without breaking that will. I did not want to crush my children, just put them in a box of safety and obedience. I then worked to put the box inside each child so that they did know right from wrong and could become good citizens and Christians.

Dogs never learn to make moral decisions and think abstractly. They do not learn to actually talk but they can communicate some basic needs and desires. I would not deny they are intelligent. But they are still animals.

You commenters are people and therefore you can truly understand the question I have been asking. Since you cannot answer it, are you willing to admit now that there is no natural source of information? You are not dogs so I have the expectation that you can rationally consider this and answer honestly.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Do you have any proof that every thought we have is stored in some way within the human mind?"

Is there any particular aspect of neurological research that you'd like to dispute, and if so, on what basis?

"If so, do you have proof that it was in some manner material before it was stored within the mind?"

As far as that goes, I guess this is a good example of information being acquired and physically stored by the human mind. Let's say a man walks through a forest and falls in a pit. He climbs back out and is now aware that there is a pit at that location. Information has been generated in his mind and is stored there. The next time he comes to that place in the woods, he doesn't fall in the pit.

As for your example of basic morality/altruism, this is of course beneficial to survival in many cases, so evolution can explain it quite handily.

"are you willing to admit now that there is no natural source of information?"

Are you that certain that answering those simple questions will land you with a losing argument that you have to insist on an ultimatum instead of answering them? Are you that afraid of debating a Darwinist?

Anonymous said...

Just want to advance this to an actual active thread since I don't think you're reading The Obama 2016 post comments anymore...

you first said:

Nancy Pelosi has used the term "nationalize industry" which was no doubt a slip,

were called out on it and then said:

I did not make up anything about Pelosi, during the bailout craze in 2008 and 2009 I heard her say it on television while answering reporters. I looked for a youtube of that but couldn't find it. Strange.

Really? Totally unbelievable, but even if believed, still really irresponsible "reporting" or "blogging" or whatever you want to call it.


lava

radar said...

lava,

Since I am a journalist with a degree in journalism (albeit a junior college equivalent) my reporting is at least as valid as that of an Associated Press reporter. The idea that any references to Nancy's blooper have been scrubbed from the internet is a likely one. But since I did hear her say it I will stand by my report. Furthermore, the fact remains that the government has at least partially nationalized both GM and Chrysler. You think your children and grandchildren deserve to pay for this?

drivebycommenter said...

"Since I am a journalist with a degree in journalism (albeit a junior college equivalent) my reporting is at least as valid as that of an Associated Press reporter."

The logic fail in this sentence alone invalidates the meaning you're trying to get across. The (purported) fact that you have the junior college equivalent of a journalism degree doesn't make your reporting valid in any way whatsoever, and a journalist shouldn't be making this kind of elementary logic error. What would make your reporting valid is reliance on facts, logic etc.

And for a complete failure on that front, we only have to skip forward a sentence or two:

"Furthermore, the fact remains that the government has at least partially nationalized both GM and Chrysler. You think your children and grandchildren deserve to pay for this?"

Try to keep up: www DOT treasury DOT gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1253.aspx

Oh that evil Obama and his nefarious socialist agenda!

radar said...

Seems as if you have no concept of what reporting might be? When a journalist reports, he takes notes or records an interview or gets quotes as accurately as he can. I can tell you the media are very sloppy about this.

I heard Nancy Pelosi say "Nationalize industry." That exact phrase. Like an AP reporter I am therefore a witness and I quoted her.

Don't pretend you know anything about journalism because it is obvious you are clueless. Maybe you have some ivory tower idea of how things are done. You have never written cutlines or headlines, laid out copy, gone on an interview, taken and developed and printed and cut photographs or any of the other grunt work of the business so you are showing ignorance. I've done all that as well as written news stories, features, editorials, radio copy and even created political cartoons. I have been offered writing jobs within this past year. Have you? Didn't think you had...

drivebycommenter said...

"I heard Nancy Pelosi say "Nationalize industry." That exact phrase. Like an AP reporter I am therefore a witness and I quoted her."

And what might the rest of the sentence have been that you were witness to? Any idea?

"Don't pretend you know anything about journalism because it is obvious you are clueless."

I know that having a junior college equivalent of a journalism degree isn't a guarantee that your reporting right now is "valid", which apparently is more than you know. If you think reliance on facts and logic is some kind of "ivory tower idea of how things are done", that tells us volumes about your blog.

"You have never written cutlines or headlines, laid out copy, gone on an interview, taken and developed and printed and cut photographs or any of the other grunt work of the business so you are showing ignorance. I've done all that as well as written news stories, features, editorials, radio copy and even created political cartoons. I have been offered writing jobs within this past year. Have you? Didn't think you had..."

Why do you assume that I haven't?

radar said...

Drive, why do I doubt you know what the heck you are talking about? Because if you had you would know that if a reporter hears someone say a phrase they can report it as an eyewitness. I heard her say it, I am the witness, boomshakalaka!

The NYT still has a story up concerning her ideas on banks and industry - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1346170432-aiONuoFF3R1Jr6JQIsMdIg
In this one a look at what the idea means, pretty good article done in 2009.

Did find Nancy discussing nationalizing banks in 2009 (probably shortly after her nationalize industry comment)-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nancy-pelosi-nationalizin_n_169655.html
It is breathless coverage in which the reporter seems to swallow the idea whole. Wow. But then it was the Huffington Post.

There used to be a youtube of Dem Ed Hinchley saying government should nationalize oil refineries and there used to be a Maxine Waters video in which she wanted to socialize, to take over, the oil industry. That one was taken down, too. It was here: http://www.youtube.com/v/PUaY3LhJ-IQ&hl=en

Apparently the news conference in which Pelosi said "nationalize industry" has been buried but we have scraps of similar statements from her and other Dems from 2008 and 2009. Their socialism is showing.

See, the Dems have often slipped and said "socialize" and "nationalize" but their media buddies cover it up later. Journalism has become a farce per the big three networks and major newspapers. Liberals dominate the media. Therefore you have to get your news primarily from the internet to find out what is actually going on.

Sometimes the NYT and WSJ keep things up despite pressure from the Administration. The Old Grey Lady is a shell of the once-great news resource it once was, having gone quite lefty. But even they get it right sometimes.

Anonymous said...

The difference between the ap and you being an eyewitness is that the ap has some integrity, standards, and credibility. You don't. You are quoting a phrase, completely out of context, that you allegedly heard on tv 3-4 yrs ago. But there is absolutely no evidence of that statement and that's Because of a conspiracy to "scrub" the Internet.

REALLY RADAR????


lava

drivebycommenter said...

"Drive, why do I doubt you know what the heck you are talking about?"

I have no idea. Maybe you should try being specific about what part you find so objectionable.

"Because if you had you would know that if a reporter hears someone say a phrase they can report it as an eyewitness."

Remind me where I disputed that. Oh, and why you think it's in any way relevant.

"I heard her say it, I am the witness, boomshakalaka!"

Wow, congratulations, you think you heard Pelosi say the words "nationalize industry" on TV a few years back, but you can't remember the context in which she said it. Why does this excite you so much?

Here's a link to some Republicans using the words "nationalizing the banks": www DOT huffingtonpost DOT com/2009/02/15/graham-nationalizing-bank_n_167048.html

Whoopdeedoo.

"The NYT still has a story up concerning her ideas on banks and industry - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1346170432-aiONuoFF3R1Jr6JQIsMdIg
In this one a look at what the idea means, pretty good article done in 2009."

It's a good article. Maybe you should read it and try to understand it.

"Did find Nancy discussing nationalizing banks in 2009 (probably shortly after her nationalize industry comment)-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nancy-pelosi-nationalizin_n_169655.html
It is breathless coverage in which the reporter seems to swallow the idea whole. Wow. But then it was the Huffington Post."

"Swallow the idea whole" tells me you haven't really absorbed what the debate was all about. You seem to think Pelosi and other Dems were on the barricades pushing to nationalize the banks wholesale. Instead they were reacting to the crisis in the banking sector, as were Republicans incidentally.

Should the taxpayer simply hand over money to the banks to prop them up, or should they get something in return? Did you think this was a bad idea when Bush did it? Maybe your wily reporter brain missed the fact that this article was published all of five days into Obama's presidency.

"There used to be a youtube of Dem Ed Hinchley saying government should nationalize oil refineries and there used to be a Maxine Waters video in which she wanted to socialize, to take over, the oil industry. That one was taken down, too. It was here: http://www.youtube.com/v/PUaY3LhJ-IQ&hl=en"

The context being what exactly? See, this is where I think your junior college journalism education seems to have, shall we say, worn off. The part about "context" seems to have eroded away entirely. You're all hung up about having people say words like "socialize" and "nationalize" without any sign of understanding the context, situation or arguments.

"Apparently the news conference in which Pelosi said "nationalize industry" has been buried but we have scraps of similar statements from her and other Dems from 2008 and 2009. Their socialism is showing."

Again, here are some similar statements from Reps: www DOT huffingtonpost DOT com/2009/02/15/graham-nationalizing-bank_n_167048.html Is their socialism showing?

"See, the Dems have often slipped and said "socialize" and "nationalize" but their media buddies cover it up later. Journalism has become a farce per the big three networks and major newspapers. Liberals dominate the media. Therefore you have to get your news primarily from the internet to find out what is actually going on."

Yeah, and it's so easy to "cover up" things in the media in the Internet age, right Radar? And Internet sources are so impartial.

"Sometimes the NYT and WSJ keep things up despite pressure from the Administration."

Said the guy with the junior college equivalent of a journalism degree, blithely making accusations of government pressure on the media without any evidence whatsoever.

radar said...

Duh. Pat yourself on the back, drive, and move along. This Administration has already basically nationalized the student loan industry and much of the mortgage industry, a good portion of the automobile industry and they are ready to get their hooks into more. You cannot see the forest for the trees, if you can even see the trees?

What will happen if Romney/Ryan win the election is growth in every industry EXCEPT government. There will be a lot of EPA, IRS, NEA, ATF and other agency wonks looking for jobs in the real world. As soon as Obamacare gets defunded and undone, small businesses can expand and big business will invest in the USA again.

drivebycommenter said...

"Duh. Pat yourself on the back, drive, and move along. This Administration has already basically nationalized the student loan industry and much of the mortgage industry, a good portion of the automobile industry and they are ready to get their hooks into more. You cannot see the forest for the trees, if you can even see the trees?"

How about some research there instead of just spouting opinion, Mr. Journalist? For example, could you back up your claim that the Obama Administration has "already basically nationalized a good portion of the automobile industry"? Your earlier comments already make it clear you don't have a clue about the issues and think that saying the words "nationalize industry" is somehow significant.

"What will happen if Romney/Ryan win the election is growth in every industry EXCEPT government."

Obama's already been pretty good at slowing down the growth of government jobs, and since Romney/Ryan won't win, you won't be all that disappointed.

Oh yeah, and where's that evidence about the Administration putting pressure on the NYT and WSJ to make stories disappear from the Internet?

Anonymous said...

Discussing the merits of the government "nationalizing industry" is just a red herring here. The reason I brought up the quote you provided was merely to call into question your credibility and integrity. This is just another example of you making something up, getting called out on it, and then sticking to your guns (and fabricating some conspiracy to "scrub" pelosi's alleged comment from the internet--- SERIOUSLY!?!?!?! RIDICULOUS RADAR).

You credibility is near zero Radar. You cannot be believed and anything you write must be questioned.

lava

radar said...

Go fish, lava. If I was reporting on Nancy in 2009 I would have the link and the quote. I just mentioned what she said in passing. You want to make a big deal of it even after I found references to her discussing nationalizing and socializing banks? Really, I do not really care if you consider me credible or not since I do not consider you credible. So maybe we are even.

But yes, the Obama Administration does pressure people to remove things from the internet. For instance the last Pelosi youtube I put up was removed. How about this one, below? MSM and the website made a photo disappear from most locations: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/11/Scrubbed-Photo-of-President-Obama-Removed-Just-Days-After-Book-Exposes-Agenda-To-Eliminate-Suburbs

Thing is, Breitbart had a copy and saved it. Too bad for Obama!

Maybe if I looked hard enough I would find a youtube of Pelosi that was not removed. But it is not worth my time. If I found it you would just tell me she was misconstrued.

Besides, this is about information. So suppose you tell me where information comes from instead of dodging the question?

Go ahead, lava. Got anything at all?

Anonymous said...

Go fish, lava. If I was reporting on Nancy in 2009 I would have the link and the quote.

but you don't

I just mentioned what she said in passing.

fabricated a direct quote in passing, you mean?

You want to make a big deal of it even after I found references to her discussing nationalizing and socializing banks?

you just don't get it. this was a direct quote, completely out of context, from 3-4 years ago that you believe you saw on the TV. do you not see how that is irresponsible journalism?

Really, I do not really care if you consider me credible or not since I do not consider you credible. So maybe we are even.

and I'm not credible because I make up quotes like you? where have I ever lied/misrepresented/misled on this blog???

But yes, the Obama Administration does pressure people to remove things from the internet. For instance the last
Pelosi youtube I put up was removed. How about this one, below? MSM and the website made a photo disappear from most locations: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/11/Scrubbed-Photo-of-President-Obama-Removed-Just-Days-After-Book-Exposes-Agenda-To-Eliminate-Suburbs


Did you read the article? What are you trying to prove here?

f I found it you would just tell me she was misconstrued.

if you provided context???? You haven't bothered to make up the context despite being asked...WHAT IS IT RADAR, WHAT WAS THE WHOLE SENTENCE PELOSI USED WHEN SHE SAID "NATIONALIZE INDUSTRY" 3-4 YEARS AGO ON THE TELEVISION?

Go ahead, lava. Got anything at all?

I don't know how life arose. I don't know how DNA came about. I don't know a lot of things about pre-history. NEITHER DO YOU.


lava

radar said...

Lava,

So you have a big mouth. Why don't you use it to give us a natural source of information and quit wasting everybody's time?

Pelosi said it, she said other things like it, she believes it, she is the Red Queen and no doubt would love to have the power to lop off heads. Who cares? You are just standing on the sidelines screaming, a heckler with nothing to say.

A natural source of information?

Bueller?

Anonymous said...

Mature response radar. Still not giving context for the alleged quote.

I can't tell if you're just being dishonest with your readers or if you have convinced yourself what you say is true.

Science is certainly not my best subject--- it is a little BS issue like this ( a statement you could have just retracted and apologized for, but, no, you fight tooth and nail and look like a fool in the process) that lets me know one can't believe a word that comes out of your mouth when it comes to your science post.

lava

radar said...

Be happily ignorant if you wish, this is about information not Nancy Pelosi. I heard her say the phrase and I mentioned it in passing. So if lava wants to say it did not happen then he is lying. But who cares, the important thing is that lava cannot answer the information question, which means his fundamental worldview has no foundation. Congratulations!

Anonymous said...

"Be happily ignorant if you wish, this is about information not Nancy Pelosi. I heard her say the phrase and I mentioned it in passing. So if lava wants to say it did not happen then he is lying."

It also became about Pelosi when you mentioned Pelosi. You apparently heard her say two words that, without context, are completely unremarkable, and you still can't come up with the context. While obtaining your junior college equivalent of a journalism degree, you might have learned that context is kinda important. Maybe your years spent trawling propaganda sites to prop up your religious views have taught you that context is often inconvenient when trying to win arguments for YEC etc.

Other links have been posted here of Republicans talking about nationalizing industry. At the same time, we do have context of Pelosi talking about the subject that completely contradicts your own caricatured view of Pelosi (and the Obama Administration) of wanting to nationalize everything.

"But yes, the Obama Administration does pressure people to remove things from the internet."

You were asked for evidence of this. Instead you're just restating the claim.

"For instance the last Pelosi youtube I put up was removed."

Where's the evidence of Obama Administration involvement?

"How about this one, below? MSM and the website made a photo disappear from most locations: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/11/Scrubbed-Photo-of-President-Obama-Removed-Just-Days-After-Book-Exposes-Agenda-To-Eliminate-Suburbs"

Where's the evidence of Obama Administration involvement?

Do you even realize how far in tinfoil hat territory you are?

Anonymous said...

"But who cares, the important thing is that lava cannot answer the information question, which means his fundamental worldview has no foundation. Congratulations!"

Yours is based entirely on a speculative supernatural entity. Congratulations.

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?

Anonymous said...

Radar are you that afraid of some simple questions that you have to keep running away from them?

What's so terrifying about them, hmmm?

Anonymous said...

Why don't you people answer the quesion that was posed?