What is a false prophet? (page 8)

thetrueone

Being that the WTS has being trying to create an outward image that they are the only truly guided godly organization.

What else would you expect from themselves in bringing forth disclosures about their past and present proclamations ?

The WTS like just about all other religions rule and govern themselves upon their own laws that they create and postulate on.

The difference from this false prophet and the ones spoken about in biblical times is the WTS. is a profiteering false prophet.

A self impose whore and exploiter of Christ's message and purpose.

Isn't that right Spade ?

When someone tell you: "Information cannot come from non-information, therefore evolution is false", you should expect them to be able to flesh out the argument in some detail. this never happends. Its simply amazing that people like Dembski, Gish and Ham will claim such a thing again and again knowing its a lie. I will give 3 reasons.

the statement is wrong for theoretical reasons.

This is the most easiest. anyone who read a rigerous definitions of information as they are presented in information theory (which has nothing to do with evolution, its a branch of mathematics) will realize the statement are trivially wrong.

It hardly even require an argument, just look up "information" on wikipedia and check out stuff like "shannon information" and "kolmogorov complexity". As soon as you understand what they are saying, you will realize that the statement is absolutely hopelessly false. Thats why it bug me: These people know they are wrong and are lying to the unsuspecting; or rather, they formulate themselves in a way people think they are saying one thing, when they are really choosing their words very carefully to avoid obvious lies. yah it do remind me of some other organization...

But i might be wrong. There might be a really cool definition of information we have not discovered (like Dembski might manage to turn "complex specified information" into an actual theory, which he has not done so far). But i dont think so because:

Evolution work as an optimization method

I use a mathematical enviroment called matlab every day. It has a build-in state-of-the-art genetic algorithm optimization package; its not because its build by crazy evolutionists, its because the methods behind evolution are extremely useful at solving certain problems.

its hard for me to understand how someone can say evolution cannot create information, when engineers use 'evolution' to solve problems that are to hard to solve otherwise.

If you read dembski he will give the following response: "No, evolution didnt create information, because by somehow asking the question, the scientist was allready giving the information contained in the solution". Thats a lot of fine words for the following: Because the question was asked, there is no new knowledge learned in answering it. I hope this dont sound convincing.

Evolution work in the laboratory.

You might dismiss the above by saying: "well, so there is no reason information could not be created, and no reason why it could not work in principle -- but it might still not work because nature is somehow to complicated"

The problem is that there is plenty of examples where evolution has created new strings of DNA which did stuff that was usefull for the organism. if thats not "information" in any sence of the word, i dont know what is.

brotherdan

I see what you are saying. But I am still left with the question. I don't care about who's burden of proof it is to provide the answer. Even if there was matter formed, there had to be information to give instruction on how to make it work.

Dr. Werner Gitt has been the only one to flesh out the argument in a way that makes sense to me. I assume you meant him when you referred to "Gish"?

Anyway, you say that there are plenty of examples where evolution has created new strings of DNA. I know that mutations can occur. But BRAND NEW "bits" of information...that is not true. If I can see even ONE example where information is generated, then maybe I can go along with it. But I just can't see it. I just see evolutionary scientists dismissing the argument and questioning "Well...what is information REALLY?" That is just a jump from science to philosophy and they are not attacking the problem.

Also, I never said, "Information can't come from non-information, therefore evolution is false." I'm just saying that that is a BIG piece that is missing from evolutionary science.

bohm

brotherdan

yes, Gitt. And his argument is totally bunk. He never provide a proof of it so there is really nothing to disprove. He is so arrogant that he call things "theorems" and then dont proove them.

Anyway, you say that there are plenty of examples where evolution has created new strings of DNA. I know that mutations can occur. But BRAND NEW "bits" of information...that is not true

Did you go to wikipedia and read up on eg. kolmogorov complexity?

If I can see even ONE example where information is generated, then maybe I can go along with it.

okay, here are some guys who use it to form a race-car.

http://papers.sae.org/2003-01-1327/

If you think no information was generated, i think its fair i ask what you mean by "information" so i can give you a counter-example.

bohm

BD: More examples: http://brainz.org/15-real-world-applications-genetic-algorithms/

I choose these examples because i want you to realize that evolution as a method work, and it can create "information" (i would say "something usefull" rather than information, i find that much better use of words).

pirata

I guess we're not taking about false prophets anymore?

brotherdan

Did you go to wikipedia and read up on eg. kolmogorov complexity?

No, I didn't. I'll take a look at it. And I'll also take a look at those links. Thanks for sticking with me on this.

Pirata...yeah...we kinda strayed from the False Prophecy thing, huh? I can't even remember how that happened...

jookbeard

I'd say a false prophet is very easy to spot , an organization or charismatic leader who claims to have been selected by God to be a mouthpiece to humans on earth in dispensing prophecy and truths that cannot be found in any other cult/church but the tale tale sign is that they lie/make failed and false statements that do not materialize, also another tale tale sign that identifies the false prophet is they try to censure/cut off/shun any one who attempts to expose their false teachings, looking around the globe today there is one particular group that fits description very well; The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Jehovah's Witnesses. The scans made earlier in this thread nicely sum up this group and strangely the scans are from their own writings that are hid and swept away from the millions that follow this dangerous cult

brotherdan

Well...bohm...I'm trying here. But this kolmogorov complexity stuff is killing me. I think I'm too dumb for it. I didn't do very well in my programming classes in college. That's why I do fun marketing and graphic arts stuff.

Theorem. If K 1 and K 2 are the complexity functions relative to description languages L 1 and L 2 , then there is a constant c (which depends only on the languages L 1 and L 2 ) such that

$\forall s\ |K_1(s) - K_2(s)| \leq c.$

Proof. By symmetry, it suffices to prove that there is some constant c such that for all bitstrings s,

$K_1(s) \leq K_2(s) + c.$

bohm

brotherdan: I can try to give you the big lines. Say you have some fictive computer p which can output characters on a display. the kolmogorov complexity of some string of characters is the size in bits of the smallest program which will output that string of characters.

so for example if i give you a random string: "lsakfj ;slakfjlskadjf weoiruwdfansdfhsdfhsakjdf"

the program will typically tend to be very large, but a very ordered string eg.: "ababababababababababababab"

will have low complexity because the program is very small, for example: "print 'ab' n times".

you might object that i didnt tell you what the computer was or how the complexity is actually calculated in practice - thats absolutely true. the problem with the computer is not that severe (the lines you copy-pasted deal with them), and its a measure that has mainly theoretical value (but very interesting properties!). There is a huge theory build around it that touch into computeability and other such stuff. Anyway. its one measure of information, and you can properly already see why evolution would increase the amount of information in this measure: just dublicate and mutate genes!.

I freely admit its not very usefull as a measure of information in the sense we think of it in genes - it completely neglect function. but thats an unsolved problem: If someone like Dembski could come up with a well-defined measure of information that somehow proved evolution wrong, people would go bananas in the mathematics departments with joy, the problem is that he only say he have, while he has not actually provided any math to back it up.

What is a false prophet?

Share this