Who are you talking to?
- Status
K
kbachler
Guest
K
kbachler
Guest
Why not? You were willing to assume meaning when you saw SOS? Why not when you see a light flashing or detect a signal flashing at regular intervals?I
kbachler:
No, I would not.
Because your example does not provide enough information to know anything.
Because there is a specific pattern that is readily discerned from background.
K
kbachler
Guest
So in once case, you see pebbles which appear to be aligned in an SOS, and you assume meaning.
In a second case, you see a regularly flashing light, or detect a regularly flashing radio signal, and feel there is not enough information.
Do you care to resolve this?
In the first case, we have pebbles aligned. There is no evidence of technology. The pebbles could have been aligned naturally, or by an animal. You don’t know if there were a lot of pebbles or a few, you don’t know if the SOS was well defined or obliquely defined. But you assume meaning.
In the second case, we have a light or radio signal, flashing regularly, in either case creating an indication that technology might be involved, and you feel that there is insufficient information.
This is where personal bias and hypocrisy of knowledge creep in, isn’t it VZ? And this is exactly the example of why we can NEVER assume meaning without proof.
So, let’s see you resolve this.
Sure. There is more information contained in the letters spelled out on the sand then there is in your described flashing signal.
The extra information makes a great deal of difference.
No, this has been addressed earlier in the thread.
It was likely contained in the many posts you have not read.
The SOS spelled out in the sand were spelled out. They did not just appear.
And there is no naturally occurring phenomena that would account for the letters.
I was told an SOS spelled out in pebbles on the beach.
That is sufficient information to discern a message.
No, EM and light occur in nature all the time.
A regular blink could easily be something passing between me and the source.
Unless you are thinking of some other type of signal. But you did not provide that information, so we do not know.
This is not an example of bias or hypocrisy.
It is an example of someone believing they have conveyed more information then they actually conveyed.
R
rossum
Guest
You were failed by your misunderstanding of the source.
The four mutations were on the Y chromosomes. Not on the whole genome. You really need to read the source more carefully. Remember that this is a population of two. My figure of 900 billion is for a population of six billion. Naturally the numbers are different.
rossum
A very wise statistics professor once said ‘Two does not equal a trend.’
He was right.
If the study was really based on a sampling of only 2 then the study itself is in question.
K
kbachler
Guest
Sorry, VC, this is an extreme example of bias and hypocrisy, and a great example of exactly why we should not assume meaning.
There was no indication that the “letters” did not just appear.
How about if you saw the light or radio wave “flash” 1 time every second? Once every 8 seconds? Once every millisecond? How do you know it isn’t someone who needs help and set up a flashing beacon to get your attention?
So how about that radio wave? What if you detected it “flash” 1 time every second? Once every 8 seconds? Once every millisecond? How do you know it isn’t someone who needs help and set up a flashing beacon to get your attention?
No. There is no more information in the letters than in the light; although you have ASSUMED there is. Consider the next response.
Again, there is no information in my example (here or in any of my previous examples) of how many pebbles were used, whether the letters were clear or unclear, whether the pebbles we all of one type or different types. Nothing other than the pebbles were arranged in the shape of an SOS. There was nothing about how they were arranged, or by whom, whether one or more animals kicked them around (including humans) or whether they were placed purposefully. Not ONE shred of evidence. But because they appeared to be letters, you accept it as a message. And there ARE naturally occurring phenomena that can arrange move pebbles, so yes, there is naturally occurring phenomena that would account for the letters.
There was no indication that the “letters” did not just appear.
No, it isn’t. If it is, then I will tell you that pictures show a giant face on Mars (they do!) Is that sufficient evidence to discern a message/creative act?
So do pebbles. Wind. Rain. I bet that I can go many places and find pebbles arranged in an SOS.
Between you and the source regularly, periodically?
How about if you saw the light or radio wave “flash” 1 time every second? Once every 8 seconds? Once every millisecond? How do you know it isn’t someone who needs help and set up a flashing beacon to get your attention?
It’s an extreme example of bias and hypocrisy. You’ve already proven it by assuming more for information for the pebbles than was given. The issue isn’t that I think I conveyed more information than I did, the issue is that you’ve assumed more information about the pebbles than you care to admit.
So how about that radio wave? What if you detected it “flash” 1 time every second? Once every 8 seconds? Once every millisecond? How do you know it isn’t someone who needs help and set up a flashing beacon to get your attention?
R
rossum
Guest
Your first error is not reading the piece:
Three sequences were used, not two. The used the “human genome project” to provide a reference sequence.
Your second error is in not realising that the study was looking at base pairs of DNA. How many base pairs of DNA are there in a Y chromosome? (Hint: there are more than three.)
Scientists know what they are doing. Internet amateurs often do not. That is why I tend to trust scientists more than I trust internet amateurs.
That is why I post scientific references (like at the bottom of that news item from the Wellcome Trust). That is why ID has a major problem by not posting scientific references.
rossum
K
kbachler
Guest
I never claimed it was true. I claimed it was possible. For the argument I only need to demonstrate that it is reasonably possible.
And there is a chance that the study of particle physics can prove the existence of an infinite number of universes.
I’m not talking about personal bias, I’m talking about actual logic and actual science. For the atheist many things are true. For the Christian many things are true. For the Muslim many things are true.There is nothing in that assumption which eliminates God as creator.
Well, I don’t agree. For the atheist there is everything in that assumption that eliminates God as Creator, just as the atheist Dawkins said that the theory of evolution went a long way toward making atheism respectable.
I am done for tonight.
But in reality, very few of the things that they believe to be true are actually true. Dawkins can deliver all the personal opinion he desires. A well-reasoned argument will show that personal opinion to be just that; personal opinion.
But that doesn’t make me a Dawkins supporter (I’m not a supporter of his personal atheistic beliefs) or a horrible person because I wish to be upright and work with ACTUAL science rather than either Dawkin’s personal opinion, or the personal opinions of ID supporters.
People really need to learn to discern science from opinion.
B
buffalo
Guest
I’ll take that bet. Just find me one.
B
buffalo
Guest
Including you.
K
kbachler
Guest
Quantum Electrodynamics shows that there is chance in the universe. Furthermore, dating back even to relatively early studies of light (the study of which falls under QED) we could see that if we performed experiment A, light appeared to be wave-like in nature, but if we performed experiment B, light appeared to be particle-like in nature. For a long time this duality caused an issue; how could light be both, it must be one or the other.
But then the answer came - it really is both (and frankly, this is true of all matter) and if we test it one way it appears to be a wave, and test it another way, it appears to be a particle. In other words, the results of the test were determined by the choice of the test. This is very arguably an example of free will in action.
But this leads to a new possibility - one that is very odd, but that has never been discounted, and that has some (albeit slight) evidence behind it. That possibility is that every time there IS a choice that the universe actually splits. Assuming you choice A, you are aware of the choice A universe only; the one of you that chose choice B is aware of the choice B universe only.
Thus, the choices add up to either an infinite (or essentially an infinite) number of universes, as upon each choice in each universe there is a new splitting.
Note that this possibility is not necessarily at odds with Catholic teachings.
Also note that this possibility was raised with respect to dealing with another possibility (not an actual reality.) A poster claimed that there would necessarily be more chaotic universes than orderly ones. For all sorts of reasons previously given, that isn’t at all clear, BUT IN ADDITION TO those reasons, we can point out (as a response to a hypothetical) that if there are an infinite number of universes (something that we cannot yet rule out) that his assertion would necessarily be false.
Hence, if he wishes to make his assertion, he needs to deal with the possibility of an infinite number of universes.
K
kbachler
Guest
Well Buffalo, given the version of Rossum or of you, it’s easy to tell that Rossum offers science, and that you offer pseudo-science - opinion disguised as science.
We all, always continue to need to learn more. But when we can point to EASY, consistent, logical and scientific errors made by posters to this forum, and when those posters aren’t open to criticism, then we have an issue.
Have you noticed that I am willing to listen to arguments and change my opinion if a rational argument, if scientific evidence is given. Have you noticed that you are not?
I can see that Rossum does. I can see that Don Snow does not. I wish he would. Walking around with that kind of closemindedness isn’t good for people.
Granny is trying to be open, and trying to reconcile to her faith. You can see it. This isn’t always easy for her, and I think often her difficulties arise from getting used to differences in language.
But this massive, seemingly forum-wide distrust about science, this huge bias, needs to stop. It’s bad for Catholicism. It’s bad for Christians. It’s bad for those in the faith, and bad for trying to bring new people to the faith.
If we need to disagree with something in science, it needs to be for a real reason, a well-reasoned, reason. Not because they are all dirty atheists like Dawkins.
I can’t believe the hate speech I read here from “Christians”.
K
kbachler
Guest
OK. Send the cash. I just went to the parking lot and did it.
P
Peepers
Guest
Would someone please provide me with an example of “irreducible complexity” in biology? I don’t understand what is meant by that.
B
buffalo
Guest
No and no one else has either. I always give scientific evidence.
You can start by refuting any of the peer reviewed science papers I reference, not dismissing them out of hand as is your habit. rossum to his credit comes back with his papers/sources, and around and around we go. (and have for quite a few years).
You on the other hand post like a talking head making pronouncements. I tend to believe you are reading from a talking points memo you received from the NCSE.
The people who reason their science are the one’s who need to be credible and many are not. Even the peer review process has issues. Is it your contention that thinking people should not question science? How about the church?
(can’t have it both ways)Challenging the science does not lead people away from the faith. It is a valid exercise and science must be ready to defend it and not ask for a pass as you just did.
And just for your information, I have learned much here at CAF from other posters who present well. After studying the faith and reasoning issues for many many years I am confident in my posts and I back them with modern science’s own research. As others continually claim, that is how good science is done. Remember, science moves forward a funeral at a time. What funeral are we attending now? The modern synthesis.
B
buffalo
Guest
Post the photo.
- Status