|
|
| Author |
Message |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
That would have been a more appropriate arugment, and the discussion could have evolved from there.
Unfortunately, the argument made in the actual discussion did not prove the point it was intended to prove and then the detractors from the original assertion delved into stupidity.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would be very interested to see P's definition of 'new information'. In order for this information to be... um... information... does it not have to be functional? Without functionality, it isn’t any more information than “nekfhnshipoo#gre^af” is an English word.
I think that really is the crux of the argument. Through whatever letters or sequences in that you want, unless you are adding functionality to the sequence, it is all nothing more than a mutational error...
Observational science points towards devolution, not evolution. I've made this assertion several times and no one seems to have a cogent answer for it.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | The 2nd instance is a destruction of information. This would constitute a loss of genetic information...not a gain. |
Interesting. Earlier, in your own example, it was a loss of information because the new sentence didn't have meaning because you'd created a nonsense word. Now there's a loss of information because of a "destruction of meaning." Hm. Do you not realize what "scat" is?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | The 2nd instance is a destruction of information. This would constitute a loss of genetic information...not a gain. |
Interesting. Earlier, in your own example, it was a loss of information because the new sentence didn't have meaning because you'd created a nonsense word. Now there's a loss of information because of a "destruction of meaning." Hm. Do you not realize what "scat" is? |
Well lets see what the dictionary defines it to be:
scat is - animal poop.
Its actually a slang word however. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by defining it as this.
Animal poop doesn't sit on a fence. Thats a reiification fallacy....erego, still a destruction of information made here.
Last edited by Unverified on Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | Well lets see what the dictionary defines it to be:
scat is - animal poop.
Animal poop doesn't sit on a fence. Thats a reiification fallacy....erego, still a destruction of information made here. |
That is classic... going to have to remeber that one. 
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | Animal poop doesn't sit on a fence. Thats a reiification fallacy....erego, still a destruction of information made here. |
Do I need to take a picture of my fence? The last I checked it's got bird crap on it. It's also got plenty of flat surfaces — if one of our cats felt like it we'd have cat leavings on it.
Honestly, this is the best rebuttal I've ever seen.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | Animal poop doesn't sit on a fence. Thats a reiification fallacy....erego, still a destruction of information made here. |
Do I need to take a picture of my fence? The last I checked it's got bird crap on it. It's also got plenty of flat surfaces — if one of our cats felt like it we'd have cat leavings on it.
Honestly, this is the best rebuttal I've ever seen. |
Did the bird crap make a conscience decision to actually sit on your fence however as in the case of the cat?
Crap does not "sit" on a fence.
It is on the fence....but it would not sit on the fence.
Thats the point, its a destruction of information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Man, I hate to do this. I've got an ideological hatred of throwing out dictionary definitions, but you've forced me to it.
Sit
1. to rest with the body supported by the buttocks or thighs; be seated.
2. to be located or situated: The house sits well up on the slope.
3. to rest or lie (usually fol. by on or upon): An aura of greatness sits easily upon him.
4. to place oneself in position for an artist, photographer, etc.; pose: to sit for a portrait.
5. to remain quiet or inactive: They let the matter sit.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | Man, I hate to do this. I've got an ideological hatred of throwing out dictionary definitions, but you've forced me to it.
Sit
1. to rest with the body supported by the buttocks or thighs; be seated.
2. to be located or situated: The house sits well up on the slope.
3. to rest or lie (usually fol. by on or upon): An aura of greatness sits easily upon him.
4. to place oneself in position for an artist, photographer, etc.; pose: to sit for a portrait.
5. to remain quiet or inactive: They let the matter sit. |
I hate to be the one to inform you that in this sense, we mean definition 1.
1. to rest with the body supported by the buttocks or thighs; be seated.to rest or lie (usually fol. by on or upon): An aura of greatness sits easily upon him.
If it did mean situation no. 2, the house would actually be situated on the slope. But, it does not actually sit or rest on a slope, in the sense that a cat sits or rests on a fence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | I hate to be the one to inform you that in this sense, we mean definition 1. |
"We?"
It doesn't matter what the original sentence meant, the new sentence has a different meaning. This is especially relevant to genetics, in which changes in one part of DNA can change how other parts are applied.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | I hate to be the one to inform you that in this sense, we mean definition 1. |
"We?"
It doesn't matter what the original sentence meant, the new sentence has a different meaning. This is especially relevant to genetics, in which changes in one part of DNA can change how other parts are applied.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? |
As such you're committing an Equivocation fallacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
You mean "making an analogy," right? Because that's what you did originally. While I'm aware that analogies are inherently fallacious (they're inductive rather than deductive) it's interesting that you'd call me on doing something you've already done.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | You mean "making an analogy," right? Because that's what you did originally. While I'm aware that analogies are inherently fallacious (they're inductive rather than deductive) it's interesting that you'd call me on doing something you've already done. |
No Analogous arguments are perfectly legitimate. Equivocations are not. The difference is like most Evolutionists, you're changing the word's meaning midway through here to mean something it doesn't mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | You mean "making an analogy," right? Because that's what you did originally. While I'm aware that analogies are inherently fallacious (they're inductive rather than deductive) it's interesting that you'd call me on doing something you've already done. |
No Analogous arguments are perfectly legitimate. Equivocations are not. The difference is like most Evolutionists, you're changing the word's meaning midway through here to mean something it doesn't mean. |
However, since we're talking about changing meaning, what's your beef?
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | You mean "making an analogy," right? Because that's what you did originally. While I'm aware that analogies are inherently fallacious (they're inductive rather than deductive) it's interesting that you'd call me on doing something you've already done. |
No Analogous arguments are perfectly legitimate. Equivocations are not. The difference is like most Evolutionists, you're changing the word's meaning midway through here to mean something it doesn't mean. |
However, since we're talking about changing meaning, what's your beef? |
Its an equivocation fallacy, meaning that the DNA has once again been destroyed, and not added. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
