Logic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,753
For one moment, back to the question I posed which no one has commented on so far, here is a reference that I found last night on the subject that shows why (for me at least) it is so difficult to pin down a definitive and final definition of the term "Biological Information".

A word of warning, this is a very difficult read not to be approached with any preconceived simplistic views about logic, or any other of your/our pet pegs you/we like to hang out hats on.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
And now the next favourite creationist tactic is to invoke the spectre of Teleology. That too won't work, so I hope no one starts to try and dig into that exercise in misdirection.
Boo. Teolology does not imply creationism, so to use it to argue for creationism is a bit stupid.
It is a very fun tool to watch atheists try and demonstrate how evolution and reality is dysteleological or ateleological.
 
Last edited:

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,753
Boo. Teolology does not imply creationism, so to use it to argue for creationism is a bit stupid.
It is a very fun tool to watch atheists try and demonstrate how evolution and reality is dysteleological or ateleological.
Precisely! A favourite Creationist tactic! And this is a serious thread, we don't play games here. And as Ponderer has done often, it is my turn to say, leave religion out of it.
 

saor

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
20,348
It is a very fun tool to watch atheists try and demonstrate how evolution and reality is dysteleological or ateleological.
Precisely! A favourite Creationist tactic! And this is a serious thread, we don't play games here. And as Ponderer has done often, it is my turn to say, leave religion out of it.
+1.
We got past the religious thing at around page 3. Don't need to go back there.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,195
Boo. Teolology does not imply creationism, so to use it to argue for creationism is a bit stupid.
It is a very fun tool to watch atheists try and demonstrate how evolution and reality is dysteleological or ateleological.
Precisely! A favourite Creationist tactic! And this is a serious thread, we don't play games here. And as Ponderer has done often, it is my turn to say, leave religion out of it.
We got past the religious thing at around page 3. Don't need to go back there.
Hahahaaa.
Unbelievable, but very funny.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,195
A lot like you then?
In a moment of frustration, I earlier equated your logic with that of an LGBT activist at an EFF rally, for which I later apologised.
Maybe I should not have apologised.

Why do you keep defending the TOE (and the BBT)?
Are you not perhaps afraid that it is "science fiction" and not actual/true/real science?
You behavior is consistent with that of a religious fanatic in that you ignore things that messes with your belief system.
You have the ability to reason (exercise logic), but you choose not to use it.
Are you not perhaps an Atheist that cannot distinguish between fact and fiction?
It would seem that you have a lot in common with Geoff.D
 

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
8,727
In a moment of frustration, I earlier equated your logic with that of an LGBT activist at an EFF rally, for which I later apologised.
Maybe I should not have apologised.



It would seem that you have a lot in common with Geoff.D
Thanks, I appreciate the compliment.

To answer your questions:
- Why do you keep defending the TOE (and the BBT)?
Regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection, because the evidence for it is prolific and has stood the test of time. Not sure what bbt stands for in this context.

- Are you not perhaps afraid that it is "science fiction" and not actual/true/real science?
Not at all. The evidence is overwhelming and as more evidence is gathered it only confirms the theory.
We have biological evidence including comparative physiology and biochemistry. We have evidence from comparative anatomy. We have evidence from paleontology. We have biographical evidence. We have direct observation of natural selection in the field and the laboratory. We have evidence from animal coloration.
We have evidence from mathematical modeling.

-You behavior is consistent with that of a religious fanatic in that you ignore things that messes with your belief system.
Not at all. If you have evidence to counter ToE then present it.

- You have the ability to reason (exercise logic), but you choose not to use it.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's nonsense.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,753
Agree thanks for the compliment.
Just once Ponderer, quote just one reference to defend your views without any absurdum arguments or personal attacks.
I have no problem with the existing Scientific Theories, simply because of the overwhelming evidence in support of those Theories.

BBT, is Ponderers abbreviation for the Big Bang Theory, which he similarly writes off as a good story. He gave up on that one quite quickly despite claiming that he has in depth knowledge of that theory.
I think he found out that he would be in deep trouble on that front if he was to pursue that line of reasoning when he discovered there are many on this forum who are very familiar with mathematics and science behind it.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,195
Thanks, I appreciate the compliment.

To answer your questions:
- Why do you keep defending the TOE (and the BBT)?
Regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection, because the evidence for it is prolific and has stood the test of time. Not sure what bbt stands for in this context.

- Are you not perhaps afraid that it is "science fiction" and not actual/true/real science?
Not at all. The evidence is overwhelming and as more evidence is gathered it only confirms the theory.
We have biological evidence including comparative physiology and biochemistry. We have evidence from comparative anatomy. We have evidence from paleontology. We have biographical evidence. We have direct observation of natural selection in the field and the laboratory. We have evidence from animal coloration.
We have evidence from mathematical modeling.

-You behavior is consistent with that of a religious fanatic in that you ignore things that messes with your belief system.
Not at all. If you have evidence to counter ToE then present it.

- You have the ability to reason (exercise logic), but you choose not to use it.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's nonsense.
"the evidence for it is prolific and has stood the test of time"
Where be this prolific evidence you are referring to?
Just because fiction is old does not make it fact.

BBT = Big Bang Theory

"The evidence is overwhelming and as more evidence is gathered it only confirms the theory."
Again - where be this overwhelming evidence?

"We have biological evidence..."
Again - where be this biological evidence?

"We have evidence from comparative anatomy."
Seriously?
How can you possibly consider "comparative anatomy" (whatever the hell that means) as actual/true/real science?

"We have evidence from paleontology."
Again - where be it?

"We have biographical evidence".
Again - where is it?

"We have direct observation of natural selection in the field and the laboratory."
Natural selection is not disputed.

"We have evidence from animal coloration."
That is evidence for exactly what?

"We have evidence from mathematical modeling."
That is evidence for exactly what?
Exactly what does this mathematical model prove?

"If you have evidence to counter ToE then present it."
The TOE is by definition not a scientific theory.
Its a theory that be "science fiction".

"Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's nonsense."
True.
What are you are implying?
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,195
Agree thanks for the compliment.
Just once Ponderer, quote just one reference to defend your views without any absurdum arguments or personal attacks.
I have no problem with the existing Scientific Theories, simply because of the overwhelming evidence in support of those Theories.

BBT, is Ponderers abbreviation for the Big Bang Theory, which he similarly writes off as a good story. He gave up on that one quite quickly despite claiming that he has in depth knowledge of that theory.
I think he found out that he would be in deep trouble on that front if he was to pursue that line of reasoning when he discovered there are many on this forum who are very familiar with mathematics and science behind it.
Aaah yes - I remember my Question and Answer formatted post with regards to that.
You remember it? - post 730? - the one that you so comprehensively "refuted"?

Oooh.
Now I remember.
You didn't.
You and all the other simply ignored it.
You "ran away" from it, and now you turn around saying that I was the one to do so.

PS - nice one with the Teleology/Religion thingy.
Hahahaaa.
 
Last edited:

saor

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
20,348
This thread has turned into the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument.
 

SAguy

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
2,494
This thread has turned into the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument about the argument.
Yeah, I just remember something about big bang theory. Which is sad since the current season 12 is the last one, almost like this thread should have died on page 12.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,195
The following questions demand answers from the TOE.

Did Life arise spontaneously, and if so, how?
Does the "evolutionary tree of Life" represent order of appearance and complexity?
Can certain types/kinds of Life be considered as more complex than others?
Did/does complexity spontaneously arise from simplicity?
Why is the types/kinds of Life so greatly "quantised"? - why be there "big gaps" between the "evolved" and "base" types/kinds of Life?
Why is it that only certain types/kinds of Life have a penchant to improve themselves while it is absent in others?
Can regression (loss of ability/functionality) be considered as Evolution, and if so, is it then not possible that certain/types/kinds of Life devolved form higher-order (more complex) types/kinds of Life?

Anybody prepared to have a go at these logical questions?
C'mon, don't be shy - use the "well established TOE scientific theory".
Hahahaaaaa.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
The following questions demand answers from the TOE.

Did Life arise spontaneously, and if so, how?

The process of how non-life changed to living organisms over time, aka abiogenesis, (TOE only deals with living organisms) is unknown. There are a few interesting ideas e.g. RNA world, metabolism 1st etc.



Does the "evolutionary tree of Life" represent order of appearance and complexity?

It represents how life changed over time. It is pretty orderly and pretty complex. Sure, earlier life forms were less complex than later ones.


Can certain types/kinds of Life be considered as more complex than others?

Sure, equality is a BS idea.



Did/does complexity spontaneously arise from simplicity?

Differences in complexity arise due to differences in how things change of time.


Why is the types/kinds of Life so greatly "quantised"? - why be there "big gaps" between the "evolved" and "base" types/kinds of Life?

Everytime and new intermediate is discovered TWO gaps are generated:p.
Environmental changes can cause evolutionary bottlenecks and the appearance of rapid evolutionary changes.


Why is it that only certain types/kinds of Life have a penchant to improve themselves while it is absent in others?

Different life forms have different potentialities.


Can regression (loss of ability/functionality) be considered as Evolution, and if so, is it then not possible that certain/types/kinds of Life devolved form higher-order (more complex) types/kinds of Life?
Sure, it is not devolution. It is just evolution. Life changes over time. Some become complex, some become less complex. Some stay pretty much the same.


If you really want to have fun with the dysteleologists (99.99% of the time atheists too) ask them a few question about natural selection.

Like...
Is natural selection a cause or force of evolutionary change?

The responses to this one always leads to a lot of fun.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
82,390
The following questions demand answers from the TOE.

Did Life arise spontaneously, and if so, how?
Does the "evolutionary tree of Life" represent order of appearance and complexity?
Can certain types/kinds of Life be considered as more complex than others?
Did/does complexity spontaneously arise from simplicity?
Why is the types/kinds of Life so greatly "quantised"? - why be there "big gaps" between the "evolved" and "base" types/kinds of Life?
Why is it that only certain types/kinds of Life have a penchant to improve themselves while it is absent in others?
Can regression (loss of ability/functionality) be considered as Evolution, and if so, is it then not possible that certain/types/kinds of Life devolved form higher-order (more complex) types/kinds of Life?

Anybody prepared to have a go at these logical questions?
C'mon, don't be shy - use the "well established TOE scientific theory".
Hahahaaaaa.
Easy, go do a science course and actually understand the topic you think you are poking holes in... pretty much all the people on this planet who actually understand it would be pissing themselves laughing at the stupidity you put forth...
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
Easy, go do a science course and actually understand the topic you think you are poking holes in... pretty much all the people on this planet who actually understand (and are narcissistic arseholes that give scientists a bad name) it would be pissing themselves laughing at the stupidity you put forth...
Ftfy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top