MD:
I made an offhand comment about you arguing over the definition because that is something you frequently do. Arguing with you over definitions with you is a total waste of time. You argued, on another thread, for 7 pages, over the word believe. Yet, on this thread you were able to define it in 4 words.
...yes, i had a discussion with another poster at some length about if the word "believe" carried the meaning of certainty in general. It was an interesting and stimulating discussion and i parted with that other poster on friendly terms, knowing more about how he thought on the subject. So where is your problem? Did this somehow hurt you? Or has it been the times where i have tried to demonstrate what i see as errors in justifying God in a "Uncaused first cause" type of argument? Is that somehow a bad thing to give counter points to, and to demand rigor?
When these topics has gone on for a length of time, its because others have opposing viewpoints they hold to as much as i hold on to mine. Do you single me out because i am particular dishonest, or because AFAIR you dont have a very good track record in a more evidence-oriented discussion than the mud-slinging and name-calling you are engaged in here, and i have pointed that out at some occations?
In your response, you stated that we can't discuss it because of an undefined term. Then you made a positive statement using the same undefined term that you complained that the author had used - without defining it. And you made this statement as if it proved something.
No i did not do that and you would know it if you read my posts. For the last time: I have stated again and again there are two measures of information/complexity that seem relevant to this discussion, shannon information and kolmogorov complexity, and the authors point is demonstrably false under those two measures. I even gave the argument in one case in details. Hence i concluded the author must be using an undefined measure and therefore his claims are impossible to proove or disprove; they are not scientific.
And you somehow want to say i did not debunk an article you did not read. Actually i didnt debunk it as much as showed it did not contain any evidence in favor of the authors claim; the article is empty, there is nothing to debunk. how about reading the article before you critisize my critisism of the article?
What about you? What are you doing?
I am showing why it is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you. It is like trying to discuss something with debator or scholar. I don't agree with much that Leaving WT or Sammielee have to say, but at least they are honest and consistent and they don't pay word games.
There you go again, more mud-slinging and name calling. I responded to an article hooberus posted. You even say yourself you are only here on a personal vendetta because you think im interlectually dishonest, and you did not read the article.
Why dont you start a topic about how bad i am when this is the only point you want to make, instead of derailing this one further?
On reflection, you say i am just like a jw, i am just like scholar and like debator. I find that very offensive. But if it is true it will serve me well to know it so i can change my ways. On the other hand, if this is just another piece of mud-slinging you are making up to justify you have not made any valid points so far, lets try to test it emperically. I will put my money where my mouth is, lets see if you can do so to:
I will give you an appology and leave this board for at least a year (and not start alternative ids) if you begin a thread where the majority of posters agree with you on what you wrote about me: "I am showing why it is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you [Bohm]. It is like trying to discuss something with debator or scholar."
Either you believe your own mud-slinging or you dont. I fully expect you to not start such a thread because i think you are only interested in calling names and do not really believe in the stuff you make up.
So far you are on the record of:
- calling names
- reducing complex scientific questions to slogans like "Evolution is rocks turning into men", which you admit are inaccurate.
how well do you think its going so far?
HELLO, McFLY!?! THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED!! (etc.)
all-caps for the big boy. Your question was this:
My question was whether you were using the same definition of information as the author of the article or not.
I summerized it as this:
So you find a question for me, namely if a word in the article has some specific meaning,
...add to this that i have allready given the definitions of information i know and i dont see how the summary is unfair. You ask me to compare the authors definition (which i stated i do not know) with my own, and i say to you i cannot do that because the author does not define what he mean. Again and again. And you keep asking me an unanswerable question.
That you keep doing this reveal you have a poor grasp of logic. Let me give you an example:
Bohm: "Does you an the author have the same favorite color?"
MD: "i cannot answer that since i do not know what favorite color the author has"
Bohm: "Do you and the author have the same favorite color?"
MD: "I cannot answer that because i dont know what favorite color the author has. Mine is green."
Bohm: "But do you and the author have the same favorite color?"
MD: "Why do you keep asking me this? I have said i do not know what his favorite color is back on page 2 of this thread!"
Bohm: "I am trying to show people you love to argue trivial points, but will not answer my questions! You argue like a jw! you are like sholar, debator, ..."
MD: "WTF dude, i dont know the authors favorite color!"
Bohm: "Thats all i wanted to hear!"
MD: "...."
The hack job you do at explaining yourself is even more ridiculous:
Yes, you did answer that you didn't know what the author meant [correct. i said that allready on page 2]. Here's the problem [oh no...], as I said early on, your use of the word "information" implies that it was the same type of information that you were claiming not to know what the author was talking about.
... OR ALTERNATIVELY i was one of the measures of information that is found in information theory, you know that think shannon hacked together to quantatively study information. So which do you think i was using? The scientific measure, or the measure i claim is undefined?
Ofcourse you go with the undefined measure!
That is the only way your "information" statement would make any sense.
no, it could make sence if i used a measure from information theory. Which is what scientists tend to do, you know, use words the way they are defined in science.
To say that it is not the same or you don't know is to render your statement meaningless.
...why...?
In the end, after endlessly dodging the question, you admit to writing a meaningless statement.
no, i admit no such thing because my claim is demonstrably true: evolution can create information, at least according to the definitions of information i am familiar with from information theory.
According to the undefined measure of information in the article you have not read -- who knows? the author does not define it, so we cant really test his claims.
then you just kind of repeat yourself with more self-serving rants. I suspect you might have been drunk or angry at something else. This particular personal remark is a bit funny:
It confirmed my suspicion that you really don't read other people's posts, or maybe you have a problem grasping simple grammar. Either is rather odd for someone who presents himself as some sort of expert on information.
well i do, i even read all of your rant. I dont think i have a problem with understanding simple grammar, and i will just remark that in my country it is considered arrogant and stupid to critisize a non-native speaker for poor spelling by many, i am one of them. Secondly i want to correct you on a matter of facts, spelling and information theory are two different things. you might want to try to memorize this at some point.
