(November 16, 2018 at 7:00 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 6:54 pm)CDF47 Wrote: DNA is a functional code.  It has specificity and complexity.  Shannon information is just dumb information.  It could be complex but not specific.

Shannon information is anything but dumb.  Anyway, that's hardly a technical distinction.  DNA is complex, I will grant you that, but as we have discussed before, the idea that it is 'specified' is a load of bollocks as specification as it applies to information has no coherent definition, and no one, including Dembski himself, can demonstrate that any one thing is or is not specified.  Nor additionally, is the concept in any practical application being used, nor has it ever been.  I don't think you understand the first thing about Shannon information or any other kind of information.  But feel free to prove me wrong.  Give me a workable definition of specified information.  Feel free to get as technical as you like.  We've been over this very subject once already, and you're repeating something you've already been refuted on and are simply being dishonest.

How am I being dishonest, LOL.  If you know something I don't know so be it, state it here.  I've already provided definitions in this thread, not going to repeat that.

Many things that you don't know have been stated here.

(November 16, 2018 at 7:23 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 7:00 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Shannon information is anything but dumb.  Anyway, that's hardly a technical distinction.  DNA is complex, I will grant you that, but as we have discussed before, the idea that it is 'specified' is a load of bollocks as specification as it applies to information has no coherent definition, and no one, including Dembski himself, can demonstrate that any one thing is or is not specified.  Nor additionally, is the concept in any practical application being used, nor has it ever been.  I don't think you understand the first thing about Shannon information or any other kind of information.  But feel free to prove me wrong.  Give me a workable definition of specified information.  Feel free to get as technical as you like.  We've been over this very subject once already, and you're repeating something you've already been refuted on and are simply being dishonest.

How am I being dishonest, LOL.  If you know something I don't know so be it, state it here.  I've already provided definitions in this thread, not going to repeat that.

Then link to the definitions. I don't believe you provided what you say you've provided, or, at minimum, that they withstood scrutiny. Last I recall, when I challenged you on the matter, you acknowledged the problems but nonetheless continued to make, what in the light of that, was unsupported assertions. But this "I already provided it" nonsense is a convenient trapdoor which you and other theists have used to attempt to dispose of objections they can't handle. You're just following in some very well worn footsteps. If you aren't willing to provide the definitions, then your claims can be dismissed with prejudice.

You are wrong, and your excuses don't change that.

Quote:How am I being dishonest, LOL.  If you know something I don't know so be it, state it here.  I've already provided definitions in this thread, not going to repeat that.

Your definitions are worthless BS. They are not specific, and they do not say what they include, why, and what they EXCLUDE and why. 
They are shit.

(November 16, 2018 at 7:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 7:23 pm)CDF47 Wrote: How am I being dishonest, LOL.  If you know something I don't know so be it, state it here.  I've already provided definitions in this thread, not going to repeat that.

Then link to the definitions.  I don't believe you provided what you say you've provided, or, at minimum, that they withstood scrutiny.  Last I recall, when I challenged you on the matter, you acknowledged the problems but nonetheless continued to make, what in the light of that, was unsupported assertions.  But this "I already provided it" nonsense is a convenient trapdoor which you and other theists have used to attempt to dispose of objections they can't handle.  You're just following in some very well worn footsteps.  If you aren't willing to provide the definitions, then your claims can be dismissed with prejudice.

You are wrong, and your excuses don't change that.

When something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously) one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed), rather than being the result of natural processes. The following are examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified. Details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.

Make believe terms 

(November 16, 2018 at 3:33 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Let me ask you something, Ev.  Is it absolutely necessary to your beliefs, that evolutionary biology be wrong?

Everena: Not at all and I don't even think they're necessarily wrong. The only thing I even doubt from them is one species turning into an entirely different species. But again, I'm not even saying they are wrong about that, I'm just not convinced. I think sometime in the not too far off future, with more advancements in genetics, we will know for sure one way or the other and then I will be.

---

(November 16, 2018 at 4:10 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 4:05 pm)Everena Wrote: Explain how one species turning into an entirely different species is helping find cures for diseases? Genetics is a relatively new field, and they are discovering new things all the time. They were using genetics long before 2013 and yet they discovered an entirely new code with a second language that controls our genes, written on top of the other code.  https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/...etic-code/

Why don’t you go back to a real college and take a serious program in biology?  Or has your education been a joke and you can’t get into one?   Or your education has been a joke and real education would threaten your comfortable idiot certitude too much?   Or you just know you are too stupid to ever benefit from real knowledge that contradict your certainties?

Actually I attended 3 real colleges because I moved and then I changed my major. I am not a Christian and never went to any christian schools so what part of biology is it that you think I don't understand? I am just not convinced that one species turns into an entirely different species. And you know what? Neither are a lot of people whether they choose to admit it to you or not.

(November 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm)CDF47 Wrote: When something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously) one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed), rather than being the result of natural processes. The following are examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified. Details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.

No. Totally wrong. Fallacy of the false analogy. 
Words are not base pairs. There are hundreds (thoudands) of different words in a sonnet. They are arranged phonetically and in other ways in which various meanings can be inferred, regardless of the actual arrangement, to some degree. Nucleotides are arranged due to chemical bonds, and attraction The analogy is complete bullshit. Nothing but Creationist desperation. Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

(November 16, 2018 at 9:14 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 3:33 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Let me ask you something, Ev.  Is it absolutely necessary to your beliefs, that evolutionary biology be wrong?

Everena: Not at all and I don't even think they're necessarily wrong. The only thing I even doubt from them is one species turning into an entirely different species. But again, I'm not even saying they are wrong about that, I'm just not convinced. I think sometime in the not too far off future, with more advancements in genetics, we will know for sure one way or the other and then I will be.

Your doubts are unfounded and in contradiction to known fact.  Speciation events happen.  If your meat fairy exists, it exists in a universe where this is -also- true.  Your beliefs can incorporate that, or be in contradiction to known fact.

Again, no argument can change this state of affairs. 

We already know, one way or the other, and regardless of whether there are meat fairies.....that speciation events occur.  End...of.

Any theology that depends on a denial of this fact is demonstrably false. Tighten your shit up.

(November 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 7:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Then link to the definitions.  I don't believe you provided what you say you've provided, or, at minimum, that they withstood scrutiny.  Last I recall, when I challenged you on the matter, you acknowledged the problems but nonetheless continued to make, what in the light of that, was unsupported assertions.  But this "I already provided it" nonsense is a convenient trapdoor which you and other theists have used to attempt to dispose of objections they can't handle.  You're just following in some very well worn footsteps.  If you aren't willing to provide the definitions, then your claims can be dismissed with prejudice.

You are wrong, and your excuses don't change that.

When something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously) one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed), rather than being the result of natural processes. The following are examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified. Details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.

That's not a definition so much as it is an assertion of a paradigm case. A variant of Ed Meese's comment about pornography that he "knows it" when he sees it. In general it tells us nothing about what specification is, and as it is in effect trying to illuminate the general by reference to the specific, it can never in itself provide a working definition of what it means for information to be specified. Citing paradigm cases offers us no clue as to how we should reason about non-paradigm cases on the basis of paradigm cases. In particular, DNA is so unlike a Shakespearean sonnet that such a statement is as close to useless as you can possibly be. And in particular, you don't actually have evidence that Shakespearean sonnets themselves are specified as it is possible that the sonnets were produced by an entirely random procedure. Which of course was Dembski's first line of attack wherein he attempted to equate improbability with design. Given the unfitness of probability as a criterion for design, he came up with the notion of specificity which he has never clearly defined, nor produced an actual application of its definition. That you sit here with the chutzpah to suggest that you can show the meaning of specification in sufficient detail and rigor that it could be applied blindly without foreknowledge of the conclusion is nothing more than the sheerest folly of an incompetent and ignorant man.

The heart of the question is "characterized" in what way? You haven't given us a specific definition of the specific way in which you are claiming sonnets and DNA are characterized. That would require giving the characteristics which imply design, and those which do not. You have not done so.