Search This Blog

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Diogenes and I are looking for an honest Darwinist

Diogenes looking


If you research my recent posts on information, or older posts on information, or the !Ultimate Information Post in my links list, you will find that I have defined information using Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster and have sought out Information scientists (including the estimable Dr. Werner Gitt) to make two points:

1) Organisms are packed full of information.   (Specified information unique to the organism.  While all organisms are coded by DNA and have similarities in that code, all organisms have unique genetic codes with meta-information that makes sure all children are the same kind of organism as the parents and even error-checking mechanisms to identify and remove mutations).

2) Information has no natural source and is not material in form or substance.   (Information comes only from intelligence or from things made by intelligence.  Containers of information can be quantified objectively but the quality and amount of usable information held within said information can only be determined subjectively).

I then invited Darwinists to give me a natural source for information.  They have done everything BUT answer the question.   Thus, I have amongst the anonymous commenters no intellectual honesty.   They try to take the conversation away from the question now because all of their answers have been proven to be in error and they dare not admit the truth.   Naturalism depends upon only natural solutions to all problems.  I have literally given them YEARS to come up with an answer and I finally called them out, to put up or shut up.   They cannot.  

That is why Scientism has taken the place of science in much of the so-called scientific community.  The religion of Naturalism has been imposed on science.   Naturalism has hindered scientific research for many decades.   The real science of Intelligent Design is beginning to awaken scientific minds to the massive problems with Naturalism and the certainty that organisms are designed.   Intelligent Design scientists usually do not try to identify the source of the design.  Creationists are quite comfortable giving God the credit.  After all, He told us when He did it and in what order and how long it took and why. 

I therefore call on the memory of Diogenes.   We have lots of second-hand information about Diogenes, unlike the great amount of materials which allow us to declare we have The Bible in hand today.   However, the general story of the man is below, with my comments interspersed and the font colors obvious:

Diogenes

412-323 BC

Born in Sinope (today's Turkey), Diogenes studied in Athens under Antisthenes after forcing himself into his school.

Diogenes was to be what we today call an ascet, eating plainly, wearing shredded clothes and sleeping in the streets. Though an eccentric, he was greatly admired by his time and is sometimes called the founder of the Cynic school instead of Antisthenes.

When traveling to Aegina he was captured and sold as a slave by pirates. Xeniades of Corinth bought him, set him free and had him teach his children.

Diogenes often visited the famous prostitute Lais, and said that the difference between what costs money and what does not cost anything one can see at the nearest brothel.

There are many anecdotes about this man, who laughed at aristocrats and is said to have walked around Corinth with a lit lamp in daytime, looking for "a human being". The most famous one is the one about his meeting with Alexander the Great. When Alexander asked the cynic, who lived in a barrel (actually, it was a huge clay jar), what he could do for him, Diogenes replied that he could step out of his sunlight, something which greatly impressed the king, who said "truly, were I not Alexander I would have wished to be Diogenes".

Diogenes also said that each man should find either a true friend or mortal enemy, so that he would either get loving attention or angry scrutinization. In that way, he would not commit wrongful actions.

Tradition holds that Diogenes died on the same day as Alexander the Great. He was 96 years old, and died in his barrel in Corinth. Though the philosopher had requested his body be thrown in some ditch, he was given a magnificent funeral.

"Most men are within a finger's breadth of being mad."

If you do not know the meaning of life, I would imagine so...

"Nothing can be produced out of nothing." 

Darwinists base their worldview on everything being produced by nothing.

"It takes a wise man to discover a wise man." 

It takes a wise God to call a man.  It takes a Godly man to become wise.

"The sun too penetrates into privies, but is not polluted by them."

Nothing is hidden from God, even those places the Sun cannot reach.

"I am looking for an honest man." 

I AM LOOKING FOR AN HONEST DARWINIST!  One who will admit that he cannot identify a natural source for information.

My blog is my lamp.  The images below are from the linked site.
I



Ian Juby  points out that the idea of Darwinism is on its way out and deals with commenters with moderation.  I have not yet resorted to moderation.   But the price you pay for no moderation is to get my honest opinion of your lies and evasions.   

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can you tell us - without any evasions - whether you think a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection could result in an increase in information?

Do you degree with that principle in general, and if so, on what specific, logical basis?

Anonymous said...

degree = disagree

radar said...

Anonymous, you give me a natural source of information OR admit you do not know of any and then I will answer this question. It is a good question. But I am not going to answer any side questions by any commenters unless they answer the question that has been awaiting an answer.

So, you answer mine and I'll answer yours. Since I asked mine far before you asked yours that is fair. So, ready to go?

radar said...

By the way, your question is easy to answer and I will answer it promptly. But, on principle, because Darwinists have been evading the information question I am insisting on an answer to my question first. Then I will gladly answer yours as it is one of the few intelligent questions I have been asked recently. Maybe the only intelligent question for at least a week. So shall we answer each others valid questions?

Anonymous said...

I already gave you the answer. It's up to you to present a cogent counter-argument if you happen to be able to think of one.

radar said...

I have read your comments. You asked a question, then edited that question. You have given no answer.

Anonymous said...

A process of reproduction with variation filtered by natural selection can result in an increase in information.

radar said...

Anonymous said...

A process of reproduction with variation filtered by natural selection can result in an increase in information.


Nice myth. First, that does not answer where the information came from in the first place.

Second, no experiment has ever supported your hypothesis. Darwinists have had 150 years to come up with one and so far we have zero nada nyet nothing.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Wow, this is too funny. Anonymous says:

"Can you tell us - without any evasions - whether you think a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection could result in an increase in information?

Do you degree with that principle in general, and if so, on what specific, logical basis?"


First thing out of Radar's keyboard - an evasion: "I am not going to answer any side questions by any commenters unless they answer the question that has been awaiting an answer."

Anonymous said...

Well, I did say "without any evasions", and these responses from Radar are both actually evasions. I'll answer them both anyway.

"that does not answer where the information came from in the first place"

One thing at a time... Do you disagree with the statement "A process of reproduction with variation filtered by natural selection can result in an increase in information"?

"no experiment has ever supported your hypothesis"

By "experiment", do you mean something that models or mimics this process in a laboratory environment or an observation of such a process in a completely natural environment?

Do you think a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection could result in an increase in information? If not, can you give a logical reason why not?

radar said...

I should take this comments thread and make it into a post.

Again, a commenter tries to avoid the question and asks me questions instead and then some other commenter accuses me of evasion.

No, anonymous, YOU ARE EVADING because you did not answer my question and mine came first.

Look, this is simple. The question hanging is this:

What is a natural source for information?

I gave that anonymous commenter the benefit of the doubt and agreed to answer his questions if he would be the first ever Darwinist to actually answer my question.

But he was here on false pretenses, bringing in more questions rather than answering the first question.

Every single question you guys ask without first answering my question are evasions. I am not evading, I am waiting.

Whatsit, give it up! I know you can't answer the question. Let's see if this anonymous guy is honest or just another troll.

What's it going to be? You answer my question then I answer yours OR I will lump you in with all the other evaders who dare not answer?

radar said...

One thing at a time indeed! So answer my question because that is the first thing!

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Sorry, Radar, but Anonymous's "no evasions" clearly came before your stipulation that you wouldn't answer the question unless some other question was answered first - which is of course an evasion.

But anyway, can you argue logically or can't you? Is this kind of childish taunting and boasting all you've got? I haven't seen behavior like this outside of grade school or the playground.

In case you haven't realized it, the question even contains the answer to another question of yours...

So, do you think a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection can result in an increase in information? If not, can you give a logical reason why not?

radar said...

No, Lips, my post came first and it is a challenge to answer the question. Anonymous has not established the right to ask a question until he answers mine. Therefore his questions and your complaints are the evasions.

Name a natural source of information.

Such a simple question. So many evasions. My question came first. He can have his answer after I get mine. That is the way it is.

If he wants his own blog and poses those questions on his blog, he would expect the commenters to answer. I have the same expectation. So like Diogenes I am still holding that lamp. No commenter in this thread has passed inspection.

Anonymous said...

"Such a simple question. So many evasions."

Indeed. Why not answer the question? Why hide behind such childish games?

Do you think a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection can result in an increase in information? If not, can you give a logical reason why not?

Here's the answer to your question:

A process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection can result in an increase in information and can therefore be a source of information.

You have not yet shown anything to the contrary, nor have you attempted to argue against it with anything other than evasions.

Regarding your first response: no, logically speaking if the statement is true, then it doesn't necessarily need information to begin with. What it needs is a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection to begin with.

Regarding your second response: "no experiment has ever supported your hypothesis"

By "experiment", do you mean something that models or mimics this process in a laboratory environment or an observation of such a process in a completely natural environment?

radar said...

Here's the answer to your question:

A process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection can result in an increase in information and can therefore be a source of information.


No. First you already have information in organisms today. I am asking where that information came from. You are not answering that.

Secondly, there is no experiment that has EVER shown an increase in information via reproduction. Reproduction is overseen by the cell using DNA to provide the genetic code for building the child and the traits that are inherited from the parents. Variation is simply the choices made from pre-existing information in the genome. So no new information there.

There are bacteria that are able to trade/share genetic information. But that is not new information.

Then there are mutations, which are mistakes in the code, copying errors. Most are fatal or harmful or stutters, that is, repeats of the same information. No experiment has detected any new information in these cases.

In fact, DNA has an error-check-and-correct mechanism to weed out mutations. It cannot stop them all, so organisms are piling up broken pieces of the original information and this will eventually kill off all life on Earth unless we figure out ways to nullify or correct mutations in both humans and other kinds of organisms.

radar said...

All of you trolls really need to study the makeup of organisms. You seem to be completely unaware of the degree of sophistication of the miniature machines that are running within your body and the thousands of operations taking place every second within you. You have upwards of 100 trillion cells in your body, and about ten fellow travelers in and on the outside of it, bacteria and fungi and etc. You are a fantastic planet with ten living creatures for every cell you have!

Within those cells complex processes requiring specific information are continually operating, DNA is continually being replicated and is a complex four-dimensional code that has a four letter relationship with RNA with U replacing T when the coding is taking place. The ATP Synthase process must continually run to power the operations of the cell, the cell needs to be coded by DNA and operate based on instructions from DNA but DNA needs both cell and ATP, while ATP needs DNA and the cell and the cell needs DNA and ATP.

These processes and mechanisms and all the operations all have a huge amount of information that oversee and direct them. Where did that first information come from?

Don't tell me that a bolt of lightning hit a mud puddle.

Anonymous said...

"No. First you already have information in organisms today. I am asking where that information came from."

You asked for a natural source of information.

"You are not answering that."

On what basis do you claim that information in organisms today can not have been formed by a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection?

"Secondly, there is no experiment that has EVER shown an increase in information via reproduction."

By "experiment", do you mean something that models or mimics this process in a laboratory environment or an observation of such a process in a completely natural environment?

Anonymous said...

"All of you trolls really need to study the makeup of organisms."

Derision is still not an argument.

"You seem to be completely unaware of the degree of sophistication of the miniature machines that are running within your body and the thousands of operations taking place every second within you. You have upwards of 100 trillion cells in your body, and about ten fellow travelers in and on the outside of it, bacteria and fungi and etc. You are a fantastic planet with ten living creatures for every cell you have!"

And the argument from incredulity is still a logical fallacy.

Anonymous said...

"Then there are mutations, which are mistakes in the code, copying errors. Most are fatal or harmful or stutters, that is, repeats of the same information."

"In fact, DNA has an error-check-and-correct mechanism to weed out mutations. It cannot stop them all"

Notice how the parts in bold - correct and necessary though they are - invalidate the point you're trying to make?

radar said...

An argument from incredulity is only valid if the credulity is not stretched to the breaking point by investigation. Years of studying organisms have concluded design features are in all of them. Period. Vast amounts of information in the simplest. Period. DNA codes in all of them. Period.

You still haven't provide one source for information. Where did the information for the first living creatures come from?

Also, allowing for mutations does not invalidate my point because mutations are mistakes, they are the 2LOT being lived out. If you think that rust is a new part for your car, then you think mutations are new information. But they are broken information, twisted information, part of a general movement from organization to disorder that is happening all over the Universe.

radar said...

If this was a class in logic the prof would have failed you all by mid-term, or maybe advised you to withdraw and save your GPA. Your grasp on logic is tenuous at best.

Anonymous said...

"An argument from incredulity is only valid if the credulity is not stretched to the breaking point by investigation. Years of studying organisms have concluded design features are in all of them. Period. Vast amounts of information in the simplest. Period. DNA codes in all of them. Period."

No, it is merely an argument from incredulity repeated. Investigation has not found "design features" but functionality that is explainable by evolution.

"You still haven't provide one source for information."

Yes I did, a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection.

"Where did the information for the first living creatures come from?"

Like I said, logically speaking there doesn't need to be information as such to begin with for information to be generated. It's almost a chicken-or-the-egg situation, but not quite. If a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection can occur spontaneously, then it can generate information from scratch.

"allowing for mutations does not invalidate my point because mutations are mistakes"

And some mistakes are beneficial and filtered out by selection. So your point is not valid.

"If you think that rust is a new part for your car, then you think mutations are new information"

No, but if cars were organisms that reproduced with variation and the rust turned out to have some benefit, for example for survival or reproduction, and the rust could be passed on to the next generation, then it would become information in the form of a new function of the organism.

"If this was a class in logic the prof would have failed you all by mid-term"

I don't see how someone who makes such basic errors in logic as you did in the past handful of comments would be capable of making such a judgement.

radar said...

Mistakes in logic? Wouldn't those be mutations, making me improved by your odd logic?

"An argument from incredulity is only valid if the credulity is not stretched to the breaking point by investigation. Years of studying organisms have concluded design features are in all of them. Period. Vast amounts of information in the simplest. Period. DNA codes in all of them. Period."


No, it is merely an argument from incredulity repeated. Investigation has not found "design features" but functionality that is explainable by evolution.

No, we have not seen one single instance of evolution in over 150 years of lab work and field study. Now that we know how DNA works and reproduction works, evolution becomes unscientific.

"You still haven't provide one source for information."

Yes I did, a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection.

You have to have information in order for it to vary. I am asking where did the massive amounts of information come from in the first place?

"Where did the information for the first living creatures come from?"

Like I said, logically speaking there doesn't need to be information as such to begin with for information to be generated. It's almost a chicken-or-the-egg situation, but not quite. If a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection can occur spontaneously, then it can generate information from scratch.

Adam Sandler monologue! Science proved long ago that life does not emerge spontaneously. Information does not emerge spontaneously. Also, your pet "variation as filtered by selection" was identfied by a creationist and has been shown to be a designed operation.

radar said...

allowing for mutations does not invalidate my point because mutations are mistakes"

And some mistakes are beneficial and filtered out by selection. So your point is not valid.

Yes it is, because all mutations are mistakes so they are broken and missing information. Every single mutation we have identified that has survived was a loss of functionality. At times it has a temporary benefit, such as the citrase bacteria, but once those bacteria were given normal choices for sustenance the citrase versions were cast aside and the normal oness prevailed. Take the wingless beetles off of Medeira and Desertas and put them on the mainland and if they have code left in them for wings the winged kind will be back.

"If you think that rust is a new part for your car, then you think mutations are new information"

No, but if cars were organisms that reproduced with variation and the rust turned out to have some benefit, for example for survival or reproduction, and the rust could be passed on to the next generation, then it would become information in the form of a new function of the organism.

Rust is a breakdown of the composition of metal. It is detrimental to the vehicle. That is why most mutations do not get passed down because they hinder the organism. Again, no cases of mutation adding new features, building new operations or improving the organism in over 150 years! Not one.

"If this was a class in logic the prof would have failed you all by mid-term"

I don't see how someone who makes such basic errors in logic as you did in the past handful of comments would be capable of making such a judgement.

I don't make errors in logic, I research the topics and use them to show you your errors in logic. Special pleading by you does not move me. You cannot seem to understand that natural selection requires a huge amount of information and a population of living creatures before it can operate. Natural selection does not operate on rocks or mud. Your magic phrase is no use to you no matter how much you need it.

Conclusion - Darwinists think natural selection is a magic wand rather than a function of organisms. They do not realize the cell and DNA in combination prohibit one kind of animal to be changed to another. They call for an argument from incredulity when they cannot explain design in organisms, which is childish. Acknowledge what real operational science has proved in the last few decades and then decide if your worldview can handle it. But you are fooling yourself.

radar said...

"Anonymous said...

Can you tell us - without any evasions - whether you think a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection could result in an increase in information?

Do you degree with that principle in general, and if so, on what specific, logical basis?


I refused to answer this question because the commenter was dodging the information question. Now that Lava has admitted that there is no natural source for information, I will answer.

The process you describes is a filtering process. Filtering removes rather than adds. So by language usage you have already answered your own question with a no.

But also as I have asserted no natural source for information, there is no place in the process you describe where new information may be accessed. So we have another no.

No new information can possibly result from the process you describe because the mother organism takes pre-existing information from mother and father and from that information assembles the child.

There could be duplicates of old information passed on because of accidental replication but that is not new. With some life like bacteria genetic information can be passed around but it is not new. Mutation might add some noise to the system, non-information in the midst of the information meant to be there. Like static on an old AM radio, it would be more noise but unwanted and meaningless.

The verdict. New information? No.
More information? No.
More containers of information? occasionally.