I seem to have semi or perhaps full blown atheist experts (someone who knows more than I do) lurking at this blog.
. One is an expert in information theory - Gorth
. The other is an expert in biology, chemistry, physics and so on - Ginx.
. Hugo also shows a fair potential in recognising mistakes in what I’ve said. In fact, this has become so easy for him that he’s taken to laughing at me. He’s LAUGHING at me I tell you! :-)
While most people won’t believe this, I don’t want to hold to beliefs that are wrong. So:
Gorth - Please indicate which of the following statements are correct or incorrect, AND if incorrect, please set me on the right path.
Ginx, if you would be so kind, I’m asking you to do the same below.
Hugo, you can pop in wherever you feel a giggle coming on.
I know, that if I’m wrong on EVERYTHING, then this becomes a lot of work for you guys. But I would like to know, if I’m wrong, where I’m wrong and why. So, having said that:
Gorth:
. The reduction of uncertainty takes place with the transmission of information.
. The more improbable the event the more information that is conveyed.
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
===================
. No information is generated by the occurrence of events for which there are no possible alternatives.
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
================
. Information Content is not just information-carrying capacity.
. Specified Information is not just Shannon information, and
. Specified complexity is not just complexity
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
============
. Biological information, such as we find in DNA and proteins, is made of two features:
- Complexity, and
- Functional specificity.
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
Ginx, with your expertise in biology, you could maybe give Gorth a hand on this one.
============
If forces of potential energy determined the arrangement of the bases, the code-like character of the molecule would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy.
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
==================
. A “causal difference” is an explanation that is measurably and quantifiably different than explanations that do not meet the criteria of answering the question being studied. A causal difference is an explanation that stands out because it explains what is being studied.
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
=============
. Laws of nature (or biochemistry), which denote regular patterns, produce the opposite of formulated information.
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
================
Again, I know it’s a lot to ask, but, If I’m wrong, I need to be corrected - yes? Thanks Gorth.
----------------------
Ginx: Now to your areas of expertise.
. There are no chemical bonds linking the nucleotide bases along the message bearing axis of the DNA molecule.
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
===========
. The same kind of chemical bonds are responsible for linking the different nucleotide bases to the backbone of the molecule.
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
==============
. Any nucleotide base can hook up to the backbone of the DNA molecule at any one site just as easily as it can hook up to any other site.
Correct? Incorrect? If incorrect, how, why, where etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Do your own homework.
I HAVE done my homework, numb nuts. I made these comments in previous posts and all I got from atheists like you were snarky remarks about them not being acceptable - not being correct.
I want to know why.
You're the one with the education. Remember? The one that knows more than I do about such things?
I bet you do homework like I used to do homework.
I'd read texts with my highlight pen out. If a scientist said something like 'some things are unknown at the moment', I'd be highlighting it. I didn't really read the texts. I searched for short phrases I thought would tear down atheists arguments.
I didn't have to read the texts. I KNEW they were wrong and I was right. And I beleived they knew they were wrong too.
Like Mak I also had a prepared collection of speeches to use. I'd post 'honest questions' on web-boards (and on BBS's) just so I could post my prepared speeches.
But my point is no matter how may times you bunch try to correct Mak, he is not going to listen. It's another set-up to repost the same stuff again and declare victory no matter what happens.
Why don't you just take what you think is your best off topic comment and add it to my post "Talking to Atheists"
Why don't you just take what you think is your best off topic comment and add it to my post "Talking to Atheists"
Which off topic comment do I think is my best?
Did you read "Talking to Atheists"?
I did.
Do you want me to take some of your quotes out of context for Groth's 'competition'?
Okay, I'll give it a go after dinner.
"I'll give it a go"
Here's a better idea. Why don't you just go - Period!
That’s exactly what I thought.
Atheists don’t disagree with WHAT’s being said. They disagree because it’s being said by a Christian.
All of these comments were discarded for various reasons, but the one important reason, they are factually wrong, was not one of the reasons.
That's what I used to think too.
Post a Comment