A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Friday, March 4, 2016
IM Skeptical: Bully AND Coward
I replied to each block of IMS' comments regarding my post, just yesterday, on his blog.
He accused Pogge (Science Against Evolution) of not admitting something that he did talk about in one of his Thermodynamics articles. IMS is so committed to scientism and materialism that it blinds him.
You really should read what I wrote. I did NOT say that he didn't talk about it at all. I said he glossed over it, which he DID. And I showed you an article from a REAL scientist on that very same topic.
@im-skeptical: Split the hairs all you like. You're right... because you said so. You're intellectually superior... because you said so. You're our moral superior... because you said so. And for no other reason.
You're not a liar; you honestly believe that anything you say is the truth, and any tactic is viable as long as it supports your narrative. Your narrative is going to hurt someone in the real world, someday, as well as ensure your steady, gradual movement away from Reality and out into the Nothing. You have, through your living on the internet, already shown you prefer the Nothing to Reality.
No wonder your sort turns so quickly to Nihilism. I would too, if I believed any of the self-contradictory crap you've been shoveling here, and practiced the rhetorical tricks you've indulged in.
I would invite you to use actual Reason and Logic, but those are kryptonite to your narrative. Now get off the computer and go do something good for someone besides yourself in the real world.
Let's just talk about moral superiority for a moment.
If Stan had an ounce of integrity, he might have considered saying something like "Oops, I was mistaken." He might have put that on the post where people could see it. But he didn't.
Now, I understand that it is his philosophical position that I inhabit a moral and intellectual VOID, and he probably thinks that gives him license to say whatever he likes about me. He also says that atheists always claim superiority. And it seems this philosophy is accepted you and others here, as well.
But I did make an attempt to explain the flaw in his philosophical thinking. You don't have to listen to what I say. But you might take a look at the comments right here, and see for yourself who's not being honest, and who's assuming an air of superiority.
I went there twice and my responses were not there. Apparently now they are. I don't believe I was mistaken; perhaps I was. I do know that you are a mental case, as many others have attested. How many sites have banned you already?
It won't take much more of your constant trash talk here to get yourself banned.
IMS, I read those comments again, and I remember quoting the first comment you had about Pogge back to him (about how he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that he has a Junior High understanding or something). He's the one that told me you were wrong, and that he didn't say what you think he did.
You also label people that don't believe in evolution creationists, and accuse them of believing in superstition. If that's not being an a**hole, then I don't know what is. I can see why you were banned from a few sites.
Your comments were there all along, dude. And I replied to every one of them. I gave serious answers, and I didn't use your tactics of shouting down and ad hominem attacks. You really need to look in the mirror, dude.
Let me give this one more try. Yes, he mentioned on the first page that entropy can decrease. Fine - we all agree so far. Now, look at the second page. He presents the argument from science that says entropy can decrease, and then the argues against it by saying that entropy only increases. Read it for yourself. It's true that entropy increases globally, but he has completely GLOSSED OVER the fact of localized decreases of entropy. I showed you another article to compare how they explain this. He's giving you the HIGH SCHOOL answer, and the scientist is giving you a more complete understanding, provided you care to learn and understand it.
Plus, his explanation is self-contradictory. If he thinks he can account for the formation of a snowflake, then why can't he apply the same thermodynamic principle in the formation of organic molecules?
Finally, you told me that he is not a creationist. I looked at his site, and saw that he is definitely a creationist. I do not use this term in any pejorative sense. It simply means one who believes that life has supernatural origins, as opposed to naturalist or materialist, who believes that life developed without any supernatural influence.
IMS, It's really very simple. Ice crystals are homogenous clusters of H2O. When entropy works on them so that their energy is decreased, they tend to clump in a fashion that is controlled by their molecular asymmetry. Nothing has changed or been created, except for their loss of energy due to entropy. A crystal is merely a solid which has had its complexity reduced to a form which is algorithmically describable.
DNA and RNA are heterogenous molecules which contain coded information, not random complexity but non-algorithmic complexity, containing meaningful information which is not the result of loss of energy when entropy is occurring, which is always, nor the result of adding energy, which bears no information, just heat. Adding heat to a system assists the system's decomposition; loss of heat in a system is part of the system's decomposition process.
Entropy is part of the arrow of time, and time does not reverse itself. Entropy does not reverse itself. There is no system which becomes more complex during excess energy input. Either system sheds the unnecessary energy, or it fries. No broken egg ever re-assembles when excess energy is added to it.
Finally, Neither RNA or DNA has been created from their component elements in any laboratory. It's not for lack of trying, because to do so would be a major scientific coup. Most labs have stopped even trying. Neither RNA or DNA are found in non-organic nature, and in organic, living things they are always found together along with RNA-ase and other molecules which are essential to the recreation of amino acids and the replication of DNA during reproduction.
The only question now is how you will go about denying this in order to salvage your worldview from its own decomposition.
That is a strong claim, made contrary to all the literature; further, you do not make any positive claim for information entropy. I presume that you just made that up. In other words, Prove it.
In fact, start by proving that making random changes to alphabet letters in a book makes for superior information in the book, especially if it is an instruction manual, but also any book as a general case.
Here is a lecture on of Shannon information theory. Beginning on page 22, it describes entropy. You will note that this is quite different from the concept thermodynamic entropy. It is literally a measure of information content. On page 26, it raises the question of how the two are related. It goes on to discuss this later on in the lecture. Go ahead and read it.
IMS, I contacted Pogge again, and here's what he had to say:
Quote"Yes, the two types of entropy are different. They were given the same name because they behave similarly. Heat naturally becomes disordered. Information naturally becomes disordered.
Saying, “why can't he apply the same thermodynamic principle in the formation of organic molecules? “ is like saying, “ why can't he apply the same thermodynamic principle in the formation of skyscrapers? ”
When snowflakes form they release energy. When organic molecules form they absorb energy. Walls naturally fall down into a lower energy state. Walls don’t naturally fall up into a higher energy state."Quote
The classic example of information disorder is the random changing of individual alphabetic characters in a book, with the book being an instruction manual to be more specifically applicable to changes in DNA. Disordering is disordering. Ordering is not created, and this is especially true in the terms of meaning (utility for creating).
What the evolutionists are wishing for (emphasis on WISHING), is the ability to actually reverse a firmly established law of physics in order to pretend that it has creative powers instead of destructive powers. Shannon's entropy was not about creative powers and any electrical engineer will tell you exactly that. Information can certainly be lost in transmission; it is not created. And it doesn't matter how wide the channel is. Further, Shannon's transmission theory presupposes an existing support structure, including a cogent transmitter, an existing channel for transmission, and a cogent receiver. And the "meaning" in the transmission is not a consideration; only the state of the signal sent compared to the state of the signal received.
Even a cursory look at the anentopic hypothesis logic demonstrates its absurdity: let's say that a randomly formed molecule is given one bit of "meaning" in the form of new mutations. That would require that a) the bit is "meaningful" outside of its presence in the molecule, because b) its utility is not yet established, and c) most importantly, there is no corresponding cogent support system to make any use of that bit.
Now look at a molecule that has received 4.98x10^19 meaningful bits, all in the correct order, of course, but needs just a few more meaningful bits. There is still no cogent support structure for using the bits and further, the random destruction of the "meaningful" bits which do exist is well underway, and the destruction of meaning proceeds at a far, far more rapid rate than the creation of the final few "meaningful" bits can possibly proceed. This, btw, is the logic behind the Kimura box, discussed elsewhere.
The result is a rational lock-out; not only is there no useful, cogent support structure capable of utilizing any "meaning" in the molecule, the "meaning" in the molecule is degrading far more rapidly than it is progressing.
It is not possible that "meaning" is created in this fashion. The entire subject of anentropic creation is absurd. Not only is there no evidence for it, either of reverse entropy or of information creation by accidental modification, but there also is no logical deduction which can pass Reductio for supporting such an obviously desperate hypothesis.
Best reference on information theory as applied to evolution:
Yockey, Hubert P.; "Information theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life"; Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Energy is not equivalent to entropy. And I'm not going to debate your creationist buddy through you as an intermediary. He's wrong, and any real scientist will tell you that. I gave you a whole list of articles, on both sides of the issue, that you can read if you are interested in knowing the truth. Only the creationists agree with him. Everyone else, including the entire scientific community, is telling a different story. You can ignore and deny the science if you want to. That's your choice.
I didn't say anything about "creative powers". I don't WISH for reality to be a certain way. Leave that to the theists. I have devoted considerable effort in my life to learning about reality through the study of science. I know a few things, like the fact that entropy in thermodynamics id not the same as entropy in information theory. You conflated them as if they're the same, and demanded that I "prove it". When I did, you brushed it off as if you were right all along. And now you're trying to lecture me on what any electrical engineer should know. And you're still wrong about thermodynamics (which happens to be something that electrical engineers study). It doesn't get much more phony than that.
"Looking for the origin of life in physics and chemistry is like looking for the origin of literature in the chemistry of ink." - Hubert Yockey
You will never get a scientific explanation from a creationist.
And you will never get logic or reason from an atheist. Or good manners, for that matter. Or, actually, very much beyond insult, accusation, illogic, self-contradiction and various ways of shouting 'shut up!' In short, the behavior one expects from a very small child brought up in a careless household.
You keep reiterating that Stan's wrong but you cannot a) point to a specific failure and b) provide contrary evidence. A blanket rejection without proper justification is absurd. Sure, you gave a link and a quote from that link but you are unable to defend the information you provided.
23 comments:
I am on there now, and I see your comments.
OK; Good.
He accused Pogge (Science Against Evolution) of not admitting something that he did talk about in one of his Thermodynamics articles. IMS is so committed to scientism and materialism that it blinds him.
Well someone's a liar. It isn't me.
JBsptfn,
You really should read what I wrote. I did NOT say that he didn't talk about it at all. I said he glossed over it, which he DID. And I showed you an article from a REAL scientist on that very same topic.
@im-skeptical: Split the hairs all you like. You're right... because you said so. You're intellectually superior... because you said so. You're our moral superior... because you said so. And for no other reason.
You're not a liar; you honestly believe that anything you say is the truth, and any tactic is viable as long as it supports your narrative. Your narrative is going to hurt someone in the real world, someday, as well as ensure your steady, gradual movement away from Reality and out into the Nothing. You have, through your living on the internet, already shown you prefer the Nothing to Reality.
No wonder your sort turns so quickly to Nihilism. I would too, if I believed any of the self-contradictory crap you've been shoveling here, and practiced the rhetorical tricks you've indulged in.
I would invite you to use actual Reason and Logic, but those are kryptonite to your narrative. Now get off the computer and go do something good for someone besides yourself in the real world.
Let's just talk about moral superiority for a moment.
If Stan had an ounce of integrity, he might have considered saying something like "Oops, I was mistaken." He might have put that on the post where people could see it. But he didn't.
Now, I understand that it is his philosophical position that I inhabit a moral and intellectual VOID, and he probably thinks that gives him license to say whatever he likes about me. He also says that atheists always claim superiority. And it seems this philosophy is accepted you and others here, as well.
But I did make an attempt to explain the flaw in his philosophical thinking. You don't have to listen to what I say. But you might take a look at the comments right here, and see for yourself who's not being honest, and who's assuming an air of superiority.
I went there twice and my responses were not there. Apparently now they are. I don't believe I was mistaken; perhaps I was. I do know that you are a mental case, as many others have attested. How many sites have banned you already?
It won't take much more of your constant trash talk here to get yourself banned.
IMS, I read those comments again, and I remember quoting the first comment you had about Pogge back to him (about how he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that he has a Junior High understanding or something). He's the one that told me you were wrong, and that he didn't say what you think he did.
You also label people that don't believe in evolution creationists, and accuse them of believing in superstition. If that's not being an a**hole, then I don't know what is. I can see why you were banned from a few sites.
Stan,
Your comments were there all along, dude. And I replied to every one of them. I gave serious answers, and I didn't use your tactics of shouting down and ad hominem attacks. You really need to look in the mirror, dude.
JBsptfn,
Let me give this one more try. Yes, he mentioned on the first page that entropy can decrease. Fine - we all agree so far. Now, look at the second page. He presents the argument from science that says entropy can decrease, and then the argues against it by saying that entropy only increases. Read it for yourself. It's true that entropy increases globally, but he has completely GLOSSED OVER the fact of localized decreases of entropy. I showed you another article to compare how they explain this. He's giving you the HIGH SCHOOL answer, and the scientist is giving you a more complete understanding, provided you care to learn and understand it.
Plus, his explanation is self-contradictory. If he thinks he can account for the formation of a snowflake, then why can't he apply the same thermodynamic principle in the formation of organic molecules?
Finally, you told me that he is not a creationist. I looked at his site, and saw that he is definitely a creationist. I do not use this term in any pejorative sense. It simply means one who believes that life has supernatural origins, as opposed to naturalist or materialist, who believes that life developed without any supernatural influence.
IMS,
It's really very simple. Ice crystals are homogenous clusters of H2O. When entropy works on them so that their energy is decreased, they tend to clump in a fashion that is controlled by their molecular asymmetry. Nothing has changed or been created, except for their loss of energy due to entropy. A crystal is merely a solid which has had its complexity reduced to a form which is algorithmically describable.
DNA and RNA are heterogenous molecules which contain coded information, not random complexity but non-algorithmic complexity, containing meaningful information which is not the result of loss of energy when entropy is occurring, which is always, nor the result of adding energy, which bears no information, just heat. Adding heat to a system assists the system's decomposition; loss of heat in a system is part of the system's decomposition process.
Entropy is part of the arrow of time, and time does not reverse itself. Entropy does not reverse itself. There is no system which becomes more complex during excess energy input. Either system sheds the unnecessary energy, or it fries. No broken egg ever re-assembles when excess energy is added to it.
Finally, Neither RNA or DNA has been created from their component elements in any laboratory. It's not for lack of trying, because to do so would be a major scientific coup. Most labs have stopped even trying. Neither RNA or DNA are found in non-organic nature, and in organic, living things they are always found together along with RNA-ase and other molecules which are essential to the recreation of amino acids and the replication of DNA during reproduction.
The only question now is how you will go about denying this in order to salvage your worldview from its own decomposition.
It is not valid to conflate entropy from thermodynamics with entropy from information theory. They're not the same.
That is a strong claim, made contrary to all the literature; further, you do not make any positive claim for information entropy. I presume that you just made that up. In other words, Prove it.
In fact, start by proving that making random changes to alphabet letters in a book makes for superior information in the book, especially if it is an instruction manual, but also any book as a general case.
Here is a lecture on of Shannon information theory. Beginning on page 22, it describes entropy. You will note that this is quite different from the concept thermodynamic entropy. It is literally a measure of information content. On page 26, it raises the question of how the two are related. It goes on to discuss this later on in the lecture. Go ahead and read it.
IMS, I contacted Pogge again, and here's what he had to say:
Quote"Yes, the two types of entropy are different. They were given the same name because they behave similarly. Heat naturally becomes disordered. Information naturally becomes disordered.
Saying, “why can't he apply the same thermodynamic principle in the formation of organic molecules? “ is like saying, “
why can't he apply the same thermodynamic principle in the formation of skyscrapers? ”
When snowflakes form they release energy. When organic molecules form they absorb energy. Walls naturally fall down into a lower energy state. Walls don’t naturally fall up into a higher energy state."Quote
The classic example of information disorder is the random changing of individual alphabetic characters in a book, with the book being an instruction manual to be more specifically applicable to changes in DNA. Disordering is disordering. Ordering is not created, and this is especially true in the terms of meaning (utility for creating).
What the evolutionists are wishing for (emphasis on WISHING), is the ability to actually reverse a firmly established law of physics in order to pretend that it has creative powers instead of destructive powers. Shannon's entropy was not about creative powers and any electrical engineer will tell you exactly that. Information can certainly be lost in transmission; it is not created. And it doesn't matter how wide the channel is. Further, Shannon's transmission theory presupposes an existing support structure, including a cogent transmitter, an existing channel for transmission, and a cogent receiver. And the "meaning" in the transmission is not a consideration; only the state of the signal sent compared to the state of the signal received.
Even a cursory look at the anentopic hypothesis logic demonstrates its absurdity: let's say that a randomly formed molecule is given one bit of "meaning" in the form of new mutations. That would require that a) the bit is "meaningful" outside of its presence in the molecule, because b) its utility is not yet established, and c) most importantly, there is no corresponding cogent support system to make any use of that bit.
Now look at a molecule that has received 4.98x10^19 meaningful bits, all in the correct order, of course, but needs just a few more meaningful bits. There is still no cogent support structure for using the bits and further, the random destruction of the "meaningful" bits which do exist is well underway, and the destruction of meaning proceeds at a far, far more rapid rate than the creation of the final few "meaningful" bits can possibly proceed. This, btw, is the logic behind the Kimura box, discussed elsewhere.
The result is a rational lock-out; not only is there no useful, cogent support structure capable of utilizing any "meaning" in the molecule, the "meaning" in the molecule is degrading far more rapidly than it is progressing.
It is not possible that "meaning" is created in this fashion. The entire subject of anentropic creation is absurd. Not only is there no evidence for it, either of reverse entropy or of information creation by accidental modification, but there also is no logical deduction which can pass Reductio for supporting such an obviously desperate hypothesis.
Best reference on information theory as applied to evolution:
Yockey, Hubert P.; "Information theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life"; Cambridge University Press, 2005.
JBsptfn,
Energy is not equivalent to entropy. And I'm not going to debate your creationist buddy through you as an intermediary. He's wrong, and any real scientist will tell you that. I gave you a whole list of articles, on both sides of the issue, that you can read if you are interested in knowing the truth. Only the creationists agree with him. Everyone else, including the entire scientific community, is telling a different story. You can ignore and deny the science if you want to. That's your choice.
Stan,
I didn't say anything about "creative powers". I don't WISH for reality to be a certain way. Leave that to the theists. I have devoted considerable effort in my life to learning about reality through the study of science. I know a few things, like the fact that entropy in thermodynamics id not the same as entropy in information theory. You conflated them as if they're the same, and demanded that I "prove it". When I did, you brushed it off as if you were right all along. And now you're trying to lecture me on what any electrical engineer should know. And you're still wrong about thermodynamics (which happens to be something that electrical engineers study). It doesn't get much more phony than that.
"Looking for the origin of life in physics and chemistry is like looking for the origin of literature in the chemistry of ink." - Hubert Yockey
You will never get a scientific explanation from a creationist.
And you will never get logic or reason from an atheist. Or good manners, for that matter. Or, actually, very much beyond insult, accusation, illogic, self-contradiction and various ways of shouting 'shut up!' In short, the behavior one expects from a very small child brought up in a careless household.
Because: that's all they got.
@IMS
You keep reiterating that Stan's wrong but you cannot a) point to a specific failure and b) provide contrary evidence. A blanket rejection without proper justification is absurd. Sure, you gave a link and a quote from that link but you are unable to defend the information you provided.
Post a Comment