Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:What feature of photons bouncing are specified?

Answering a q widda q isnt much of a discussion either.

It seems to me that you're just plain avoiding now because you don't understand CSI.
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.

Seems to me you just answered a q with a q, and then made that my fault somehow.

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.

Based on your definition photons then are a communication channel.
Much like copper wires or fibre optics. They are not the information but convey to our eyes.
Just because photons allow me to read the words on this screen, doesn't mean that it is the information.
Therefore it isn't just not specified or complex, it is not information.

I'd encourage you to read those previous links, and if you know what CSI is, well then great.
It's not a concept to really argued against I'd think, if that be your intention... but I really can't tell with you sometimes Audie.
You're such a complicated person who I like to think I can predict, but really can't at times.

very simple. Do the photons bouncing from your surroundings get coded with information?

if not where zactly does the info about your room come from, how does it get to you?

Audie wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

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?

""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.""

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-

I'm sorry you went to such an appallingly bad college as that. "Never ever question?" That is truly bad.

Macro demolishing etc is a new one on me never heard that.
You are tho quite mistaken in your belief about "no gradualism".

Did you look at original research papers on your whale thing? I dont like my info to come
predigested or filtered by any ideology.

Ive a feeling you've been had in this particular.

Actually Audie yes I have looked at papers . It's apparent that you haven't looked at those papers .
Even pro evolutionary biologist stephen Gould knows that gradualism is wrong and the fossil record is in fact against it, which is why he proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Audie is have looked at many research papers on the whale transitionary chart , and as far as the college of mine being and I think that's not an assertion from knowledge . I went to community college and it was voted the 3rd best community college in America and as far as not being able to question evolution , this is standard protocol .

The transitionary chart is in fact from evolutionary biologists.

What u need to understand Audie is that Darwinian evolution is a historic science , not lab tested empirical fact.

Since audie you have apparently read these research papers please show me one peer reviewed evolutionary paper in which Macroevolution has been shown to happen in a lab . There have been in fact quite a few tries and these are peer reviewed .
You can show me the fruit fly experiment , heck you can even show me the bacteria experiment . Show me just one instance of Macroevolution happening .

If you can't then your not believing in it based on scientific fact but frim an opinion of popularity of the current paradigm .

Richard Von sternberg has done whale population genetics research and he's an evolutionary biologist who agrees that natural selection could have been responsible for the massive changes in a whale population that was too small to allow for these changes to take place within the time frame it was allowed to take place and this is without even considering the basilasaurus fossil found from 49 million years back .

Your claim that u don't like ur research filtered by any ideology , that's simply amazing to even say when Darwinian evolution itself is filtered through the ideology of naturalism/materialism . Why do us assume that these scientists don't interject their ideology into their claims. This is amazingly naive and biased Audie.

When stephen Meyers is paper passed peer review through the smithsonian what happened to the evolutionary biologist editor that passed his paper ? He was demoted and that was a government investigation .

As I said Macroevolution is a subjective opinion and not a scientific fact , and as you stated to me I'll also state to you . If it's such a solid scientific empirically observed fact please show me one peer reviewed paper that shows Macroevolution empirically observed . Just one

I have looked at them and not one shows it
You obviously have looked at the lenski research, the fruit fly research etc and all failed to show this happening . Not only that but Darwinists had to jump through hoops to make it look even remotely possible for macro to even have a chance to have happens in these studies .

Now Audie if you want to faithfully believe in macro that's ur right .
I choose not and my decision is not based on a whim . It took me years of research to get to this decision .

My college was a good one , but like any college u can't question the state religion of evolution without consequences .

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It seems to me that you're just plain avoiding now because you don't understand CSI.
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.

Seems to me you just answered a q with a q, and then made that my fault somehow.

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.

Based on your definition photons then are a communication channel.
Much like copper wires or fibre optics. They are not the information but convey to our eyes.
Just because photons allow me to read the words on this screen, doesn't mean that it is the information.
Therefore it isn't just not specified or complex, it is not information.

I'd encourage you to read those previous links, and if you know what CSI is, well then great.
It's not a concept to really argued against I'd think, if that be your intention... but I really can't tell with you sometimes Audie.
You're such a complicated person who I like to think I can predict, but really can't at times.

very simple. Do the photons bouncing from your surroundings get coded with information?

if not where zactly does the info about your room come from, how does it get to you?

The way you're presenting photons I'm seeing them as carriers of information akin "data packets" being transported as bits in binary.
Where do the binary digits come from? The original digital file being sent that contains the information.

So a single photon wouldn't contain information in the same manner that a bit doesn't really contain information.
Combined together though, once received and understood, now you have the information produced by the source that you can interpret.

Now I've responded, will you respectfully make your point?

Richard Von sternberg is an American evolutionary biologist who has completed a BS degree from University of South Carolina and has two PhDs; the first from 1995 in molecular evolution from Florida International University, and a second in systems science from Binghamton University. He did post-doctoral work between 1999 and 2001 at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) at the Smithsonian Institution,[9] on the phylogeny of brachyuran crabs.[10]

So this guy isn't a theologian . He's an evolutionary biologist with 2 phd's
He also is known for his whale population genetics study based on the 2008 paper of Durrett and Schmidt and these are his calculations.

https://santitafarella.wordpress.com/20 ... evolution/

In the case of the Durrett and Schmidt (2008) paper, evolutionary biologist Richard von Sternberg has applied the equations employed in that paper to whale evolution. The evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) may be compressed into a period of less than 15 million years. Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time.

This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.


Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tale has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

This doesn't even take into account the basilasaurus fossil,found from 49 million years old . This also doesn't account for the many many intermediate fossils of animals transitioning body parts from none to fully formed . We simply snt see this. What we see is a leap in information .

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

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?

""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.""

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-

I'm sorry you went to such an appallingly bad college as that. "Never ever question?" That is truly bad.

Macro demolishing etc is a new one on me never heard that.
You are tho quite mistaken in your belief about "no gradualism".

Did you look at original research papers on your whale thing? I dont like my info to come
predigested or filtered by any ideology.

Ive a feeling you've been had in this particular.

Actually Audie yes I have looked at papers . It's apparent that you haven't looked at those papers .
Even pro evolutionary biologist stephen Gould knows that gradualism is wrong and the fossil record is in fact against it, which is why he proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Audie is have looked at many research papers on the whale transitionary chart , and as far as the college of mine being and I think that's not an assertion from knowledge . I went to community college and it was voted the 3rd best community college in America and as far as not being able to question evolution , this is standard protocol .

The transitionary chart is in fact from evolutionary biologists.

What u need to understand Audie is that Darwinian evolution is a historic science , not lab tested empirical fact.

Since audie you have apparently read these research papers please show me one peer reviewed evolutionary paper in which Macroevolution has been shown to happen in a lab . There have been in fact quite a few tries and these are peer reviewed .
You can show me the fruit fly experiment , heck you can even show me the bacteria experiment . Show me just one instance of Macroevolution happening .

If you can't then your not believing in it based on scientific fact but frim an opinion of popularity of the current paradigm .

Richard Von sternberg has done whale population genetics research and he's an evolutionary biologist who agrees that natural selection could have been responsible for the massive changes in a whale population that was too small to allow for these changes to take place within the time frame it was allowed to take place and this is without even considering the basilasaurus fossil found from 49 million years back .

Your claim that u don't like ur research filtered by any ideology , that's simply amazing to even say when Darwinian evolution itself is filtered through the ideology of naturalism/materialism . Why do us assume that these scientists don't interject their ideology into their claims. This is amazingly naive and biased Audie.

When stephen Meyers is paper passed peer review through the smithsonian what happened to the evolutionary biologist editor that passed his paper ? He was demoted and that was a government investigation .

As I said Macroevolution is a subjective opinion and not a scientific fact , and as you stated to me I'll also state to you . If it's such a solid scientific empirically observed fact please show me one peer reviewed paper that shows Macroevolution empirically observed . Just one

I have looked at them and not one shows it
You obviously have looked at the lenski research, the fruit fly research etc and all failed to show this happening . Not only that but Darwinists had to jump through hoops to make it look even remotely possible for macro to even have a chance to have happens in these studies .

Now Audie if you want to faithfully believe in macro that's ur right .
I choose not and my decision is not based on a whim . It took me years of research to get to this decision .

My college was a good one , but like any college u can't question the state religion of evolution without consequences .

I suggest this be thought of as ships that passed in the night, unidentified, never seen again.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It seems to me that you're just plain avoiding now because you don't understand CSI.
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.

Seems to me you just answered a q with a q, and then made that my fault somehow.

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.

Based on your definition photons then are a communication channel.
Much like copper wires or fibre optics. They are not the information but convey to our eyes.
Just because photons allow me to read the words on this screen, doesn't mean that it is the information.
Therefore it isn't just not specified or complex, it is not information.

I'd encourage you to read those previous links, and if you know what CSI is, well then great.
It's not a concept to really argued against I'd think, if that be your intention... but I really can't tell with you sometimes Audie.
You're such a complicated person who I like to think I can predict, but really can't at times.

very simple. Do the photons bouncing from your surroundings get coded with information?

if not where zactly does the info about your room come from, how does it get to you?

The way you're presenting photons I'm seeing them as carriers of information akin "data packets" being transported as bits in binary.
Where do the binary digits come from? The original digital file being sent that contains the information.

So a single photon wouldn't contain information in the same manner that a bit doesn't really contain information.
Combined together though, once received and understood, now you have the information produced by the source that you can interpret.

Now I've responded, will you respectfully make your point?

If you dont see that photons become coded with information, perhaps a physicist explain it.
To me, it just seems so obvious is hardly worth noting.

Much is made of all this "information" that is "coded" into certain organic molecules, but a lil' ol' photon cant even be coded for
anything? My take is that would be seen as detracting from the need for supernatural intervention to get in there and attach
codes and info, if a photon could pick some up so readily.

I don't get your argument. Does that mean books don't contain information?

Kurieuo wrote:I don't get your argument. Does that mean books don't contain information?

Sheesh now its submarines passing in the dark.

Or maybe tuna.

That was a serious question.
If photons need to pickup information, then they pick it up from somewhere don't they?
So the source of information still exists i.e., the book and each photon can only carry a bit of information because that book does exist.

The question is whether the information is specified and complex.
Whether something else can easily pick up that information or carry it is irrelevant really.

For example, "jadhkjbnmfury7867hkjsbdhmhjkghsauljyuihjdnbmfbtgjdfth" is complex but not specific.
Whereas, "Min is a very intelligent and nice woman" would be considered both complex and specific.

Guess what though?
I purposefully chose each letter in "jadhkjbnmfury7867hkjsbdhmhjkghsauljyuihjdnbmfbtgjdfth" before
randomly banging on my keyword to produce "Min is a very intelligent and nice woman".

Kurieuo wrote:That was a serious question.
If photons need to pickup information, then they pick it up from somewhere don't they?
So the source of information still exists i.e., the book and each photon can only carry a bit of information because that book does exist.

The question is whether the information is specified and complex.
Whether something else can easily pick up that information or carry it is irrelevant really.

For example, "jadhkjbnmfury7867hkjsbdhmhjkghsauljyuihjdnbmfbtgjdfth" is complex but not specific.
Whereas, "Min is a very intelligent and nice woman" would be considered both complex and specific.

Guess what though?
I purposefully chose each letter in "jadhkjbnmfury7867hkjsbdhmhjkghsauljyuihjdnbmfbtgjdfth" before
randomly banging on my keyword to produce "Min is a very intelligent and nice woman".

Since I dont necessarily accept the jarg of the CSI people any more than I accept "honophobia" (making it sound like a disease, and seriously misusing language besides. "feat of self'? gimme a break, Its not even fear.)

how about if we say whether the information has meaning. Like, does it relate to anything but itself.

The string of random letters is very specific, lots of information, as does the shattered coke bottle.

It doesnt mean a whole lot tho. Is that what you'd jarg as being not specified info?

Can CSI be put in terms that are measurable? I believe that is a good question to pursue.
I believe Dembski does this, but since you appear quite closed it doesn't really matter I suppose.

Btw, what is "honophobia".
It was always a term ascribed to those who think being honosexually active is morally wrong isn't it?

Kurieuo wrote:Can CSI be put in terms that are measurable? I believe that is a good question to pursue.
I believe Dembski does this, but since you appear quite closed it doesn't really matter I suppose.

Btw, what is "honophobia".
It was always a term ascribed to those who think being honosexually active is morally wrong isn't it?

Im not "closed" to it. Id like to see a decent case made.

You guys on the other hand seem more than a little overeager to embrace it, for what can only be
transparently ideological reasons.

I asked reasonable questions, I get websites.

The "specified" stuff looks like mum-jum, jarg, obscurantism inventing meanings tp
imply more than they can deliver.

I mentioned "homophobia" because its a concocted term that implies the things I mentioned.
The word means (sick/ irrational) fear of self.
Awesome means, well amazing, awe inspiring. Not "thank you".

"Complex specified info" sounds like what it appears to be- disinformation.

I dont think you understand or can explain it.

Drop it if you like.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Can CSI be put in terms that are measurable? I believe that is a good question to pursue.
I believe Dembski does this, but since you appear quite closed it doesn't really matter I suppose.

Btw, what is "honophobia".
It was always a term ascribed to those who think being honosexually active is morally wrong isn't it?

Im not "closed" to it. Id like to see a decent case made.

What like I did here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=39830
But, I'd dare say that you're not much interested in true Biblical scholarship and more interested to just pin a YEC interpretation on it.
It is after all an easier issue to keep beating down upon right?

Omg, wrong thread. I'm getting confused now.
But, as mad as it sounds, I'd recommend going to the horse and letting them talk.
Or someone without an ax to grind like Atheists and Creationists.

Audie wrote:I mentioned "homophobia" because its a concocted term that implies the things I mentioned.
The word means (sick/ irrational) fear of self.
Awesome means, well amazing, awe inspiring. Not "thank you".

Yes, I agree... sorry to pick on your spelling.
But, I've never liked the word "homophobia" the moment someone first called me it because I disagreed.
It certainly wasn't a term that Christians came up with.

Audie wrote:"Complex specified info" sounds like what it appears to be- disinformation.

I dont think you understand or can explain it.

Drop it if you like.

Ok then. But, I do understand...
and I've gone to the actual horses mouths to understand,
rather than presuming or getting misinformation from some secular skeptic or even creosite.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Can CSI be put in terms that are measurable? I believe that is a good question to pursue.
I believe Dembski does this, but since you appear quite closed it doesn't really matter I suppose.

Btw, what is "honophobia".
It was always a term ascribed to those who think being honosexually active is morally wrong isn't it?

Im not "closed" to it. Id like to see a decent case made.

You guys on the other hand seem more than a little overeager to embrace it, for what can only be
transparently ideological reasons.

I asked reasonable questions, I get websites.

The "specified" stuff looks like mum-jum, jarg, obscurantism inventing meanings tp
imply more than they can deliver.

I mentioned "homophobia" because its a concocted term that implies the things I mentioned.
The word means (sick/ irrational) fear of self.
Awesome means, well amazing, awe inspiring. Not "thank you".

"Complex specified info" sounds like what it appears to be- disinformation.

I dont think you understand or can explain it.

Drop it if you like.

Actually Audie you got websites and you got explanations as well. I started with a very simple questions about the message on the sand. You obviously would believe that the message on the beach was made by the waves crashing a million times on the shore.

My belief as a. Christian have nothing to do with embracing ID.
Remember I was an evolutionist for 41years and if I returned to belief in evolution it wouldn't shake my faith at all, so yoir wromg in claiming that my belief in ID is driven by my ideological beliefs . It's driven by what we as human beings know and see all around us .

Your belief in evolution on the other hand is absolute and can't be shaken . Now tell me again whose beliefs are ideologically driven here ?

Language and computer codes are perfect examples of csi and this is exactly what we see in DNA .

Now I don't know what other kinds if definitions u want for csi but just saying we don't understand something doesn't mean we don't .

Your example of a coke bottle being smashed isn't csi at all, and in fact the bottle itself isnt a great example for csi .

I'll ask you a question Audie , please give me one example of a computer code originating naturally and you will have garnered a Nobel peace prize for yourself .

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Can CSI be put in terms that are measurable? I believe that is a good question to pursue.
I believe Dembski does this, but since you appear quite closed it doesn't really matter I suppose.

Btw, what is "honophobia".
It was always a term ascribed to those who think being honosexually active is morally wrong isn't it?

Im not "closed" to it. Id like to see a decent case made.

What like I did here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=39830
But, I'd dare say that you're not much interested in true Biblical scholarship and more interested to just pin a YEC interpretation on it.
It is after all an easier issue to keep beating down upon right?

Omg, wrong thread. I'm getting confused now.
But, as mad as it sounds, I'd recommend going to the horse and letting them talk.
Or someone without an ax to grind like Atheists and Creationists.

Audie wrote:I mentioned "homophobia" because its a concocted term that implies the things I mentioned.
The word means (sick/ irrational) fear of self.
Awesome means, well amazing, awe inspiring. Not "thank you".

Yes, I agree... sorry to pick on your spelling.
But, I've never liked the word "homophobia" the moment someone first called me it because I disagreed.
It certainly wasn't a term that Christians came up with.

Audie wrote:"Complex specified info" sounds like what it appears to be- disinformation.

I dont think you understand or can explain it.

Drop it if you like.

Ok then. But, I do understand...
and I've gone to the actual horses mouths to understand,
rather than presuming or getting misinformation from some secular skeptic or even creosite.

I've never had a problem with gay people in fact one of my best friends is gay and a practicing Christian , he just won't act out on his feelings . He calls it carrying his cross, but I've never had a problem with gay people anyways . God said all are his Children and we are not to ostracize anyone , we are supposed to be there for them just as God would want us to be there for our family and cherished friends .