Kurieuo wrote:Audie, to help you answer your own question here...Audie wrote:Does a photon bouncing off something acquire specific coded information?
For a primer on CSI can I recommend the following two links to you:
I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts on why a photon bouncing off something is/isn't CSI?
Well if anyone doesn't know, and they want to know, then they can read those two links.Audie wrote:Im more interested to see if anyone who believes in CSIKurieuo wrote:Audie, to help you answer your own question here...Audie wrote:Does a photon bouncing off something acquire specific coded information?
For a primer on CSI can I recommend the following two links to you:
I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts on why a photon bouncing off something is/isn't CSI?
knows what it is they believe in.
Do you think you can speak about it w/o reference to source material ?Kurieuo wrote:Well if anyone doesn't know, and they want to know, then they can read those two links.Audie wrote:Im more interested to see if anyone who believes in CSIKurieuo wrote:Audie, to help you answer your own question here...Audie wrote:Does a photon bouncing off something acquire specific coded information?
For a primer on CSI can I recommend the following two links to you:
I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts on why a photon bouncing off something is/isn't CSI?
knows what it is they believe in.
Answering a q widda q isnt much of a discussion either.Kurieuo wrote:What feature of photons bouncing are specified?
It seems to me that you're just plain avoiding now because you don't understand CSI.Audie wrote:Answering a q widda q isnt much of a discussion either.Kurieuo wrote:What feature of photons bouncing are specified?
Audi, explaining csi thoroughly isn't possible in one or a few posts, but since you say you understand it the allow me to give u a very basic example. It is in fact the example that hit me like a ton of bricks when I was still an evolutionist.Audie wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Audie, to help you answer your own question here...Audie wrote:Does a photon bouncing off something acquire specific coded information?
For a primer on CSI can I recommend the following two links to you:
I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts on why a photon bouncing off something is/isn't CSI?
Im more interested to see if anyone who believes in CSI
knows what it is they believe in.
ok ok I'm a dork so sue me ) advanved philosophy courses .Seems to me you just answered a q with a q, and then made that my fault somehow.Kurieuo wrote:It seems to me that you're just plain avoiding now because you don't understand CSI.Audie wrote:Answering a q widda q isnt much of a discussion either.Kurieuo wrote:What feature of photons bouncing are specified?
You refuse to even budge one step in trying to understand, at least that is how it feels to me.
To answer your question, I need more details to know whether there is anything significant to the behaviour of photons bouncing.
A lesser question is whether there is any inherent "information content" to a photon bouncing?
Your question in order to be valid assumes that there is information to do with photons bouncing.
For example, it doesn't make sense to as what the colour of something is (e.g., morality) if such has no colour.
If I don't understand what morality is, then I might ask whether it has the property of a colour? What is wrong with that.
I really don't know whether "photons bouncing" have information content, so I seek further details from you.
What you're asking is like whether "this book" has CSI? Without knowing more details for all I know the book contains blank pages.
So the question can't be answered. Stop trying to be smart if you really want your question answered.
I need to know what information you are seeing in photons bouncing that makes your question valid?
I plead ignorance to the behaviour of photons.
For example, there is information to digital stuff in the form of binary.
There is information content on this board in the form of written language, structured ABCs and the like.
There is information content even in the form of shapes and structures.
There is information content in DNA in the form of chemical bases.
If there is no information content to a photon's bouncing, then it can't be specified.
On the other hand if it exhibits information, then it needs to be determined what form and then whether it is specified can be entertained.
bippy123 wrote:Audi, explaining csi thoroughly isn't possible in one or a few posts, but since you say you understand it the allow me to give u a very basic example. It is in fact the example that hit me like a ton of bricks when I was still an evolutionist.Audie wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Audie, to help you answer your own question here...Audie wrote:Does a photon bouncing off something acquire specific coded information?
For a primer on CSI can I recommend the following two links to you:
I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts on why a photon bouncing off something is/isn't CSI?
Im more interested to see if anyone who believes in CSI
knows what it is they believe in.
Stephen meyer gave the example of magnetic letters on a fridge wall, but lets start with a simple message on the beach.
The message says ""Steve loves Sandi , but wishes sandi loved Steve back""
Simple right ?
Lets say you discovered this message drawn in the sand . Would u say that a mind was responsible for this specifically willed message or would you conclude that this message was forked in some way by the waves crashing in the sand a few hundred thousand times of even a million times ?
Of course u would conclude that the message was formed by a mind of some sort.
This is a very bareboned example of specified complex information.
There is same involved, there are holes in the sand involved to create the message , but the message is. Ore then just the holes in the Sand and the Sand itself.
This video below explains it even better ,especially with the specified complex info within DNA and how the specified complex info within it is on a magnitude many times more then my sand example because the nucleotide bases and their attachement points aren't dependent on Chemical affinity for ten ur arrangements . In fact they all possess the same chemical properties at the attachment point. This tells us that the csi within that spot within the DNA molecule is coming from outside DNA itself.
Pay special attention to minutes 3 through 6
http://youtu.be/yLeWh8Df3k8
It's a very powerful argument . It is in fact the argument that changed the mind of one of the top if not THE TOP atheist philosophers of the last half of the 20th century doctor Antony flew which caused him to change his mind in believing that there had to be a creator . He acknowledge the fine tuning argument for the universe was strong, but it paled in comparison to the , as he called it "the integrated complexity of life . It wasn't any religious book that changed Doctor Flew's mind , it was DNA itself . Flew's philosophical papers are still required readers in specific (get it
http://youtu.be/SNkxpTIbCIw
When foew announced that he believed in a creator in 2004 it sent which waves into the secular realm.
But like I said I and stephen meyer gave a very bare one definition of csi.
If you need to look at it in a deeper sense I would recommend perry Marshall's website cosmic finger prints .
Perry doesn't really specify if this intelligent designer used evolution of intelligent design to accomplish this but shows that this type of information couldn't have come through purely materialistic means . So perry is ok with either ID or evolution .
http://cosmicfingerprints.com
Nope it's not irreducible complexity . I'm not a huge pusher if irreducible complexity simply because I don't know it too well and it was never the theory that pushed me away from evolution. It was CSI and Macroevolution that did it but specifically CSI.Audie wrote:bippy123 wrote:Audi, explaining csi thoroughly isn't possible in one or a few posts, but since you say you understand it the allow me to give u a very basic example. It is in fact the example that hit me like a ton of bricks when I was still an evolutionist.Audie wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Audie, to help you answer your own question here...Audie wrote:Does a photon bouncing off something acquire specific coded information?
For a primer on CSI can I recommend the following two links to you:
I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts on why a photon bouncing off something is/isn't CSI?
Im more interested to see if anyone who believes in CSI
knows what it is they believe in.
Stephen meyer gave the example of magnetic letters on a fridge wall, but lets start with a simple message on the beach.
The message says ""Steve loves Sandi , but wishes sandi loved Steve back""
Simple right ?
Lets say you discovered this message drawn in the sand . Would u say that a mind was responsible for this specifically willed message or would you conclude that this message was forked in some way by the waves crashing in the sand a few hundred thousand times of even a million times ?
Of course u would conclude that the message was formed by a mind of some sort.
This is a very bareboned example of specified complex information.
There is same involved, there are holes in the sand involved to create the message , but the message is. Ore then just the holes in the Sand and the Sand itself.
This video below explains it even better ,especially with the specified complex info within DNA and how the specified complex info within it is on a magnitude many times more then my sand example because the nucleotide bases and their attachement points aren't dependent on Chemical affinity for ten ur arrangements . In fact they all possess the same chemical properties at the attachment point. This tells us that the csi within that spot within the DNA molecule is coming from outside DNA itself.
Pay special attention to minutes 3 through 6
http://youtu.be/yLeWh8Df3k8
It's a very powerful argument . It is in fact the argument that changed the mind of one of the top if not THE TOP atheist philosophers of the last half of the 20th century doctor Antony flew which caused him to change his mind in believing that there had to be a creator . He acknowledge the fine tuning argument for the universe was strong, but it paled in comparison to the , as he called it "the integrated complexity of life . It wasn't any religious book that changed Doctor Flew's mind , it was DNA itself . Flew's philosophical papers are still required readers in specific (get it
http://youtu.be/SNkxpTIbCIw
When foew announced that he believed in a creator in 2004 it sent which waves into the secular realm.
But like I said I and stephen meyer gave a very bare one definition of csi.
If you need to look at it in a deeper sense I would recommend perry Marshall's website cosmic finger prints .
Perry doesn't really specify if this intelligent designer used evolution of intelligent design to accomplish this but shows that this type of information couldn't have come through purely materialistic means . So perry is ok with either ID or evolution .
http://cosmicfingerprints.com
First let me say as I said to another, that testimonials are of no interest to me and are without evidentiary value. The son of a bible scholar who went off the reservation for a while, and then returned, for whatever reason, is of no interest to me here.
Nor is reference to links, I can find my own. I'd like to see how those who believe in CSI can defend it. I dont need to post links to understand how evolution works, or explain aspects to anyone with the capacity to listen.
The thing about letters on reefer or sand is an analogy, which, if valid, is of course utterly convincing.
But is it valid?
Is this not "irreducible complexity" presented in different terms.?
Perhaps you'd like to say if you think photons are coming to you coded with information, complex, specified, or otherwise. If not why not, if so why so. And how they get coded, if they are? How do you get info from them, if they are not?
Based on your definition photons then are a communication channel.Audie wrote:Seems to me you just answered a q with a q, and then made that my fault somehow.Kurieuo wrote:It seems to me that you're just plain avoiding now because you don't understand CSI.Audie wrote:Answering a q widda q isnt much of a discussion either.Kurieuo wrote:What feature of photons bouncing are specified?
You refuse to even budge one step in trying to understand, at least that is how it feels to me.
To answer your question, I need more details to know whether there is anything significant to the behaviour of photons bouncing.
A lesser question is whether there is any inherent "information content" to a photon bouncing?
Your question in order to be valid assumes that there is information to do with photons bouncing.
For example, it doesn't make sense to as what the colour of something is (e.g., morality) if such has no colour.
If I don't understand what morality is, then I might ask whether it has the property of a colour? What is wrong with that.
I really don't know whether "photons bouncing" have information content, so I seek further details from you.
What you're asking is like whether "this book" has CSI? Without knowing more details for all I know the book contains blank pages.
So the question can't be answered. Stop trying to be smart if you really want your question answered.
I need to know what information you are seeing in photons bouncing that makes your question valid?
I plead ignorance to the behaviour of photons.
For example, there is information to digital stuff in the form of binary.
There is information content on this board in the form of written language, structured ABCs and the like.
There is information content even in the form of shapes and structures.
There is information content in DNA in the form of chemical bases.
If there is no information content to a photon's bouncing, then it can't be specified.
On the other hand if it exhibits information, then it needs to be determined what form and then whether it is specified can be entertained.
It seems to me you dont know much about "information" specified or otherwise if you cant see whether a photon is coded with information when it bounces off something.
The photon question is extremely simple and straightforward. No in depth knowledge of photos required, at all. It was offered as an opportunity to think about what might be meant by coding, and information. Its a valid question regardless of what conditions you wish to try to impose on it.
Photons visiting your eye from the computer screen are coded with info about what is on the screen. Photos from distant galaxies tell us how fast they are moving away, among other things.
If you are familiar with CSI you might be able to say if that is "specified" if so why, if not why not.
If by "quit trying to be smart" you mean intelligent, no deal; if you mean like, quit being a smarty pants, that is a deep cheap shot, unworthy of you, and has no value other than to try to degrade me. Please specify your intent, clearly, for all.
""Here is another complexity Q. Take a coke bottle, and smash it. The new arrangement is far more complex than the intelligently designed coke bottle.""Audie wrote:I dont mean to be dismissive of a noted philosopher as "just' something.
Regardless, the story of the preacher's son who fell away, and returned is as old as the hills, and is, as I said, a testimonial of no evidentiary value. No relevant facts or data offered,
With regard to "no known" mechanism, I've not checked into idea on that. It is, howevet, an argument from ignorance.
Could you define for us what "specified" means?
Relate it to this, if you can; we all know that reefer magnets are done by people, intelligent agents coding it.
......... if you think photons are coming to you coded with information, complex, specified, or otherwise. If not why not, if so why so. And how they get coded, if they are? How do you get info from them, if they are not?
Here is another complexity Q. Take a coke bottle, and smash it. The new arrangement is far more complex than the intelligently designed coke bottle.
How, other than intelligent design or evolution, do you suppose DNA got its info?
Is there some 3rd possibility?
Side issue, but how did "macroevolution push you" away from ToE?
)I'm sorry you went to such an appallingly bad college as that. "Never ever question?" That is truly bad.bippy123 wrote:""Here is another complexity Q. Take a coke bottle, and smash it. The new arrangement is far more complex than the intelligently designed coke bottle.""Audie wrote:I dont mean to be dismissive of a noted philosopher as "just' something.
Regardless, the story of the preacher's son who fell away, and returned is as old as the hills, and is, as I said, a testimonial of no evidentiary value. No relevant facts or data offered,
With regard to "no known" mechanism, I've not checked into idea on that. It is, howevet, an argument from ignorance.
Could you define for us what "specified" means?
Relate it to this, if you can; we all know that reefer magnets are done by people, intelligent agents coding it.
......... if you think photons are coming to you coded with information, complex, specified, or otherwise. If not why not, if so why so. And how they get coded, if they are? How do you get info from them, if they are not?
Here is another complexity Q. Take a coke bottle, and smash it. The new arrangement is far more complex than the intelligently designed coke bottle.
How, other than intelligent design or evolution, do you suppose DNA got its info?
Is there some 3rd possibility?
Side issue, but how did "macroevolution push you" away from ToE?
But it's not specified . Not only that each time u smash it it's a way different arrangement . There is nothing specified about it and there is no willed purpose .
As far as Macroevolution that is a secondary issue for me as well as other ID'sts as some bodies in common descent and some don't . My problem is that Macroevolution demolishes the slow and gradual Darwinian evolution because we don't see any gradualism at all. What in fact we do see is leaps from one fully formed animal to another .
Take a look at whale evolution for instance which takes a multitude of changes to happen and the transitional fossil chart is already strained to its limit to even make this feasible .
This was demolished when paleontologists found a basilasaurus fossil dating back to 49 million years swimming the oceans at the same time as ambulocetas . Why is this significant you ask ? (Well u didn't ask but u probably will
Ambulocetas is the key in the whale transitionary charts as it was supposed to be the transitionary stage animals between whales and their supposed land dwelling ancestor and basilasaurus was the first full whale in the chart .
What was already a strained chart now has gotten even worse . The transitionary chart is strained because u have even less animals in it then the other transitionary chart does .
I know the chart well as outside of the Permian and Carboniferous I was most intrigued with whale evolution when I was an evolutionist , and coming out of college I was taught to never ever doubt or question the scientific fact if evolution and I never did , too I stumbled upon Meyers signature in the cell video many years later.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... oblem-for-