The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

ISAW wrote: »

Where? Where do you say something about probabilities and wher doe she diorectly reply "that is a lie"?

I am not asking you whether it is mathematically valid or not . A lie is when you say something you know not to be true. Where does he say this? where does he say something you say is not true and you know it is not true and still maintain it?

...Equivarient et al and myself have been having an ongoing debate about how you add the probabilities of individual words in a sentence ... specifically the sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel".
It has been my contention that you cannot add the logs of the individual probabilities of each word as this would actually be multiplying them.

Equivarient has been arguing for several weeks, that I am wrong about this and it culminated in him calling me a liar here in the following post yesterday:-

equivariant wrote: »

Well I do have low standards. I have chosen to debate with wilfully ignorant (young earth) creationists, and you can't get much lower than that.

Anyway, Wicknights observation is a good one. Ultimately, there is little pointing out to a YEC, the errors and facllacies of their arguments, They just repeat the same old rubbish again and again.

In my particular case, I have pointed out huge embarassingly infantile errors in your attempt at mathematical reasoning. One of your responses was to tell me to 'consult a mathematician' or something to that effect.

Well, J C, I am a mathematician. I have a PhD (in mathematics) from a respected university and have published original mathematical research in peer reviewed journals and spoken at international mathematical conferences. So it seeme that there are 3 basic possibilities.

1. I could just be ignorant of basic properties of logarithms. Despite having studied mathematics for most of the last 20 years, I could be in error about this elementary aspect.

2. I am part of the vast conspiracy to supress creation 'science', As part of this conspiracy, I am attempting to mislead people about elementary mathematics.

3. You are completely mathematically incompetent and are trying to cover your ignorance with bluster and lies.

I'll let anyone who cares decide for themselves which of these possibilities is most likely true. There is (as Wicknight observed) little point in pointing out your mistakes yet again, as you will never acknowledge any error on your part.

It is obvious from the above that he is implying that item 3 applies to me and he is saying that I am lying.

I asked him to stand up his allegation that I was wrong about the mathematics of adding probabilities ... and he accepted that I was correct.
'The game was up for him' ... and he would be telling another lie if he said that my conclusion in relation to how you add probabilities was wrong.

The upshot of all of this is that we must unfortunately conclude that Equivarient (who has confirmed that he is an expert mathematician) was deliberately lying when he accused me of being 'mathematically incompetent' and 'blustering and lying' about the mathematics of adding probabilities ... because he should have know that I was correct all along ... just like I knew myself (and every other mathematician) would have known I was correct!!!

...and not only did he attempt to destroy my good name ... he also did so in the full knowledge that the allegation that he was making was without foundation ... because he KNEW that I was correct all along.

The unfounded accusations of 'lying' have been flying fast and furious against me of late on this thread.
I appealed to the people making these allegations to desist and I appealed to the mods to ask them to desist ... and nobody did anything about it ... so I took matters into my own hands ... and I 'drew a line in the sand' ... and the first two to cross the line (Equivarient and Wicknight) were robustly challenged to 'stack up' their unfounded allegations ... with rather unpleasant consequences for both of them!!!

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...another 'cascade defense' from one of the 'Evolutionist 300'

If you attempt to destroy somebody's good name by deliberately accusing them of lying ... and your accusation is without foundation ... that cannot be considered an error!!!

However, I have already said that I forgive Equivarient ... and all I ask is that in future we all stick to (robustly) debating the issues at hand ... including the mercilesss exposure of each other's errors ... and without calling our errors lies, when there is no foundation for such an allegation!!!

So you're saying you were wrong?

Also: LOL "good name".

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Equivarient and myself have been having an ongoing debate about how you add the probabilities of individual words in a sentence ... specifically the sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel".
It has been my contention that you cannot add the logs of the individual probabilities of each word as this would actually be multiplying them.

What is so hard to understand about this? You are not having a debate about how to add the probabilities, both me and equivariant are telling you that you're not supposed to add the probabilities, you're supposed to add the CSIs. The hint is in the term "sum of the CSI" that you keep using. To get the sum of the CSI you sum the CSIs (no sh!t). The probabilities are completely irrelevant to the addition.

J C

ISAW wrote: »

Where? Can you supply several examples?


Where? Examples?


The fact that you have or have not misquoted has nothing to do with showing the claim you make about THEM!


It is important that quotes are used and attributed fairly but this childish "you are a liar" stuff is distracting from the debate. Claims of "i always do x y or z" are not proof that you always do it.


I haven't claimed you were a liar and I suggest you move on with the debate and don't get bogged down in this tete a tete. Even if you believe you are not a liar and you believe you were accused in the wrong "he called me names" doesn't make for debate. Please move on. If you think someone is calling you a liar and you don't deserve to be called that then just ignore them or report them. don't waste time with "yes you did...no you didn't" type stuff


Or lack of them . i would prefer it too.


good for you! Consider your good name defended. now move on!


I have little respect for mods on boards. IMHO they have earned that lack of respect.
Mind you you are now suggesting the mods should act but mods wont act because they dont think for you .
If you have a problem you thing the mods shguld address you have to lodge a complaint and not expect them to read you mind or ever message in every thread.

But since you didn't complain you can not expect any mods to act.

...my remarks were directed at monosharp ...and not you.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64612525&postcount=21355

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So you're saying you were wrong?

Also: LOL "good name".

... two people have already been caught out lying about my good name!!!!

... I would suggest that you tread carefully ... if you don't wish to join them!!!

equivariant

J C wrote: »

..
I asked him to stand up his allegation that I was wrong about the mathematics of adding probabilities ... and he accepted that I was correct.

Let me be crystal clear. I did not (and I do not) "accept that you were correct". It beggars belief that you can post this. In none of my posts have I accepted that your attempt at a mathematical analysis was correct.

'The game was up for him' ... and he would be telling another lie if he said that my conclusion in relation to how you add probabilities was wrong.

The upshot of all of this is that we must unfortunately conclude that Equivarient (who has confirmed that he is an expert mathematician) was deliberately lying when he accused me of 'blustering and lying' about the mathematics of adding probabilities ... because he should have know that I was correct all along ... just like I knew myself (and every other mathematician) would have known I was correct!!!

...and not only did he attempt to destroy my good name ... he also did so in the full knowledge that the allegation that he was making was without foundation ... because he KNEW that I was correct all along.

The unfounded accusations of 'lying' have been flying fast and furious against me of late on this thread.
I appealed to the people making them to desist and I appealed to the mods to ask them to desist ... and nobody did anything about it ... so I took matters into my own hands ... and I 'drew a line in the sand' ... and the first two to cross the line (Equivarient and Wicknight) were robustly challenged to 'stack up' their unfounded allegations ... with rather unpleasant consequences for both of them!!!

You can conclude whatever you want. You have demonstrated many times on this thread that you will draw whatever conclusions you want, whether or not the facts support your conclusions.

I refer again to my recent post where I reiterated my accusations of lying against you. I stand by all of these accusations and I believe that the record of the thread supports them. I am aware that accusing someone of lying is a serious accusation - I do not make it lightly. If you feel that your good name is tarnished, well all I can say is that you should avoid misleading people about the truth, whether that truth is concerned with evolution, with your own level of expertise, or with statements that you attribute to others.

PS I am not sure what these "unpleasant consequences" that you speal of were. I feel rather vindicated by recent exchanges with you - not at all unpleasant.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... two people have already been caught out lying about my good name!!!!

... I would suggest that you tread carefully ... if you don't wish to join them!!!

I care, srsly.

Respont to ISAW's post, Monosharp can read it later.

J C

equivariant wrote: »

Let me be crystal clear. I did not (and I do not) "accept that you were correct". It beggars belief that you can post this. In none of my posts have I accepted that your attempt at a mathematical analysis was correct.

...you did it here:-

wrote:

equivariant
This is all muddled gobbledygook. The "sum of the CSI contained in each individual word" would be obtained by simply summing the 'CSI' - no need for logarithms or exponents or any of that stuff. That would be true if anyone had ever given a proper definition of 'CSI'. Unfortunately for you, no one has ever done so. Certainly the "sum of the CSI" is not obtained by "adding the probabilites". You are confusing "probability" and "CSI".

Galvasean

All these allegations of who is telling lies/being dishonest is boring me....

Let's talk about dinosaurs!!

or failing that the apocalypse (seems we have been neglecting the prophecy aspect of this thread).

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...you did it here:-

Due to the deliberate efforts from both Dembski and yourself to make CSI deliberately vague and confusing I think equivariant has become confused as to how it's supposed to be calculated. He correctly says that you should sum the individual CSI values, not the individual probabilities as you claim, but then incorrectly states that there is no need for logs.

equivariant, the method given in Dembski's book for calculating CSI is:

-log_2( (1/m) ^n)

where m is the number of allowed characters in the sentence (or word) and n is the number of letters in the sentence (or word) so to sum the CSI you have to do a calculation of the form:


-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......


but you're right in saying you definitely don't do J C's calculation which is of the form:

m0^n0 + m1^n1 + m2^n2....

equivariant

ISAW wrote: »

It is important that quotes are used and attributed fairly but this childish "you are a liar" stuff is distracting from the debate. Claims of "i always do x y or z" are not proof that you always do it.



I haven't claimed you were a liar and I suggest you move on with the debate and don't get bogged down in this tete a tete. Even if you believe you are not a liar and you believe you were accused in the wrong "he called me names" doesn't make for debate. Please move on. If you think someone is calling you a liar and you don't deserve to be called that then just ignore them or report them. don't waste time with "yes you did...no you didn't" type stuff

I can see where you are coming from ISAW. However, I take a slightly different view. I would prefer if there could be a reasonable debate about the philosophical, scientific and religious issues relating to the origins question on this thread, but in my view J C tries to hijack the discussion and change the terms of the debate to ones that suit his beliefs. That would be a less objectionable strategy if he didn't attempt to do it by (in my opinion) misleading people. That is why I have insisted on calling hinm out on this. It doesn't move the debate forward, but then can one ever really debate with someone like J C?

I have no problem, for example, with discussing young earth creationism on this thread. As I have said several times, people are entitled to believe whatever they want. If a young earth creationist on this thread was willing to argue on a reasonable basis about the philosophical issues associated with YEC versus other explanations of the origin of the universe, then fair enough. I am happy to engage in that discussion. My opinion is that are too many philosophical problems with a YEC worldview to make it a rational worldview. However, that is just my opinion. That is not a scientific statement. I am not an expert philosopher but I would like to have a proper discussion about that issue.

The problem that I have (and I guess that some others have) is the disingenuous attempt to present YEC as science. It is not and never will be a scientific position. The only way that YECs can try to pass it off as science is by misleading people about the truth. Thus, they must be engaged on that point. I see no point in accepting that YEC is a part of science and then trying to argue the merits of it as a scientific theory.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

All these allegations of who is telling lies/being dishonest is boring me....

Let's talk about dinosaurs!!

or failing that the apocalypse (seems we have been neglecting the prophecy aspect of this thread).

...I have already extended the 'olive branch'!!!

... let's respect each other ... and stick with the science ... and the facts ... and our often different interpretations thereof!!!:)

... and leave the 'personal remarks' outside of the debate!!!

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... let's respect each other ... and stick with the science ... and the facts ... and our often different interpretations thereof!!!:)

JC, on that note, could you answer my questions about those tree fossils you were talking about and how they invalidate radiological dating? I believe ISAW is also waiting for a response to this.

There are complete tree fossils that are found through several different geological strata? That would obviously point to a rapid sedimentation event where these fossils are found? If you date rock from close to the top of the fossil, do you get a different answer from the bottom? Or do the dates match, adding weight to the premise of rapid sedimentation? How does this invalidate radiological dating? In all circumstances or just in some types of stone? The lava flows you mention, where the rock atoms are dated at far older than than the rock formation, is this a problem? Could the atoms have been decaying before the rock was made? I don't understand the significance of the part you mention about all the calcium carbonate in all the rocks.

equivariant

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Due to the deliberate efforts from both Dembski and yourself to make CSI deliberately vague and confusing I think equivariant has become confused as to how it's supposed to be calculated. He correctly says that you should sum the individual CSI values, not the individual probabilities as you claim, but then incorrectly states that there is no need for logs.

equivariant, the method given in Dembski's book for calculating CSI is:

-log_2( (1/m) ^n)

where m is the number of allowed characters in the sentence (or word) and n is the number of letters in the sentence (or word) so to sum the CSI you have to do a calculation of the form:


-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......


but you're right in saying you definitely don't do J C's calculation which is of the form:

m0^n0 + m1^n1 + m2^n2....

I am aware that Dembski's 'definition' of CSI and J Cs 'definition' of CSI both involve logarithms. That is not the point I was making. My point (which you correctly summarised in several of your own posts), was that in order to calculate the "sum of the CSI" from the individual CSI, one doesn't require any calculation involving logarithms or exponents. One merely adds the terms together to calculate a sum. If one wants to calculate the sum of a collection of given numbers, it matters not where the numbers 'come from'. Anyway, I know that you, Sam, understood my original point. I guess that anyone, apart from J C, understood my original point.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Due to the deliberate efforts from both Dembski and yourself to make CSI deliberately vague and confusing I think equivariant has become confused as to how it's supposed to be calculated. He correctly says that you should sum the individual CSI values, not the individual probabilities as you claim, but then incorrectly states that there is no need for logs.

equivariant, the method given in Dembski's book for calculating CSI is:

-log_2( (1/m) ^n)

where m is the number of allowed characters in the sentence (or word) and n is the number of letters in the sentence (or word) so to sum the CSI you have to do a calculation of the form:


-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

but you're right in saying you definitely don't do J C's calculation which is of the form:

m0^n0 + m1^n1 + m2^n2....

The correct formulae are as follows :-

The CSI in a sentence is :-
-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

The sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in a sentence is:-
-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

In the case of 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' the amounts of CSI are as follows:-
The CSI in the sentence is 133.14 Bits.
... and the sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in the sentence is 38.04 Bits

doctoremma

equivariant wrote: »

I am aware that Dembski's 'definition' of CSI and J Cs 'definition' of CSI both involve logarithms. That is not the point I was making. My point (which you correctly summarised in several of your own posts), was that in order to calculate the "sum of the CSI" from the individual CSI, one doesn't require any calculation involving logarithms or exponents. One merely adds the terms together to calculate a sum. If one wants to calculate the sum of a collection of given numbers, it matters not where the numbers 'come from'. Anyway, I know that you, Sam, understood my original point. I guess that anyone, apart from J C, understood my original point.

Sorry JC, I'm firmly backing Equivariant here, what he says is right. Although my lack of mathematical qualifications would suggest that I'm not really in a position to judge this properly, any fool can see that he's correct. And although he says he's got a great PhD, to be honest, that doesn't matter - I'd believe him even if he bought his degree from a pseudo-university which formed part of a world-wide conspiracy to suppress mathematical teachings. I believe him so much that I'm gonna get my kids to believe what he's written too. And tell all their mates about it. And if they ever ask if he might be wrong, I'll warn them about the aforementioned worldwide conspiracy and tell them to defend unto death the right to propagate mathematical untruths (without ever admitting that they're untruths; in fact, we'll say that we're telling the truth, it's everyone else who's blind). And I will tell them to use the following quote from you:

Anyway, I know that you, J C, understood my original point.

..to arm themselves against the backlash of mathematical plebs who seek to teach our children falsehoods - after all, if their leader agrees with us, who can argue with that? - and murder our babies.

:P:):):D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Sorry JC, I'm firmly backing Equivariant here, what he says is right. Although my lack of mathematical qualifications would suggest that I'm not really in a position to judge this properly, any fool can see that he's correct. And although he says he's got a great PhD, to be honest, that doesn't matter - I'd believe him even if he bought his degree from a pseudo-university which formed part of a world-wide conspiracy to suppress anti-maths teachings. I believe him so much that I'm gonna get my kids to believe what he's written too. And tell all their mates about it. And if they ever ask if he might be wrong, I'll warn them about the afore-mentioned worldwide conspiracy and tell them to defend unto death the right to propogate mathematical untruths (without ever admitting that they're untruths). And I will tell them to use the following quote from you:



..to arm themselves against the backlash of mathematical plebs who seek to teach our children falsehoods and murder our babies.

:P:):):D

...said in jest ... meant in earnest????

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...said in jest ... meant in earnest????

Absolutely.

Edit: I actually bothered giving a full reply to you here, a grown up one. That was before you edited your post to include a cheap and entirely uneccessary dig at "evolutionists". And so I have retracted it all. Honestly, JC, why would I bother?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Absolutely.

Edit: I actually bothered giving a full reply to you here, a grown up one. That was before you edited your post to include a cheap and entirely uneccessary dig at "evolutionists". And so I have retracted it all. Honestly, JC, why would I bother?

Could I genuinely appeal to you to fully brief yourself on CSI.

'The 'kneek-jerk' rejection of ID by many evolutionists is a mistake, however you look at it. Even if you don't think that ID is valid ... you still need to understand what it is about - even if you just want to question it competently!!!:)

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... firstly, you have said that you have (deliberately) 'misinterpreted' my quotes/

Yes, the same as what you have done.

... secondly, you have done so by remoing key words from my sentences and therefore abridging my words.

I take it a creationist experiment to prove irreducible complexity of humans would involve removing a mans lungs and seeing if he could still breath.

"ironically, ALL of the cold hard indisputable evidence supports [] Evolution" - JC

Yes in the above quote I did remove a word.

"We don't want Creation Science to be classed as science" - JC

In this above quote I removed the context of the sentence, I have chosen one sentence out of context from your X number of writings. The same as you have done in your signature.

...NONE of this applies to anything that I have done in relation to the Evolutionist quotes that I have used.

Its exactly the same thing.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

Could I genuinely appeal to you to fully brief yourself on CSI.

It'd be like asking me to brief myself on the intelligent falling.

It seems to follow this thought process:
1. This DNA sequence is really long and encodes a functional protein - I detect design.
2. The probability of this sequence forming by chance is effectively zero.
3. This sequence is designed.

The flaws are too numerous but the glaring omission of selection is the most obvious. Please don't assume this is out-of-hand dismissive - I'd like to hear your response but I will tell you that I don't really do much maths beyond basic probability calculations.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Yes, the same as what you have done.

I take it a creationist experiment to prove irreducible complexity of humans would involve removing a mans lungs and seeing if he could still breath.

"ironically, ALL of the cold hard indisputable evidence supports [] Evolution" - JC
Yes in the above quote I did remove a word. ...
... you removed three words (Creation and denies) and you have abridged the sentence in a way that changed its entire meanaing. I NEVER abridge a sentence in a quote for precisely this reason.
The full sentence is here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62526667&postcount=18105
"...ironically, ALL of the cold hard indisputable evidence supports Creation and denies Evolution..."

"We don't want Creation Science to be classed as science" - JC
In this above quote I removed the context of the sentence, I have chosen one sentence out of context from your X number of writings. The same as you have done in your signature.
... the absence of context is irrelevant ...
What you have actually done, is to truncate the sentence ... and the truncation is the key factor in causing people to be 'misled' about what I actually said.
The FULL original sentence can be found here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62396968&postcount=17987
It reads as follows :- "..We don't want Creation Science to be classed as science ... because it already is science, complete with a range of eminently qualified conventional practitioners and a peer review system!!!!"
... so, you have truncated the sentence in a way that changed its entire meanaing. I NEVER truncate a sentence in a quote for precisely this reason


Its exactly the same thing. ...it certainly isn't but your examples of quote manipulation do illustrate why fairly extracted quotes CAN convey the meaning that the original author intended ... once they aren't abridged or truncated.

...we're ALL quoting each other on this thread ... and nobody would accuse any of us of 'quote mining' ... if somebody were to make a statement that contradicted key aspects of his/her position on Evolution - or indeed Creation.

.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

The correct formulae are as follows :-

The CSI in a sentence is :-
-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

The sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in a sentence is:-
-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

In the case of 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' the amounts of CSI are as follows:-
The CSI in the sentence is 133.14 Bits.
... and the sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in the sentence is 38.04 Bits

Firstly, I'd like you to point out where in Dembski's book that you got each of those equations. If your reply does not contain a reference to each of those equations you will be showing even more clearly (if that were possible) that you are talking out of your arse

Secondly, besides the fact that your third equation is totally wrong, it's not even the equation you did. Your equation was:

(m0 ^n0) + (m1 ^n1) + (m2 ^n2)....

ie you did not take the log of anything and the inversions (1/ from each part) mysteriously disappeared.


Thirdly, what do you mean by "the CSI in a sentence"? The equation you gave has several elements but you calculated the CSI of the sentence in one go so your equation was just:

m^n

and not:

(m0 ^n0) + (m1 ^n1) + (m2 ^n2)....

and it was definitely not:

-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

as I just explained.

Finally, we're talking here about logs and exponents and information theory and very complex mathematical concepts but you can't seem to grasp basic addition. CSI is calculated as:

-log_2((1/m) ^n)

Therefore a sum of CSI is calculated as:

-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

The equation you give for this is:
-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

but your equation is not a "sum of CSI", it's "the CSI of a sum of probabilities". Can you not grasp the concept that to get a sum of CSI you must sum CSI, and that summing probabilities is not the same as summing CSI?

SonOfPerdition

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just reading your link there:

"Around 520 BC - Anaximander

The Greek philosopher, Anaximander of Miletus, wrote a text called "On Nature" in which he introduced an idea of evolution, stating that life started as slime in the oceans and eventually moved to drier places. He also brought up the idea that species evolved over time."

So J C was right? We did come from slime if evolution is true? :pac:

Would you like another straw?

That one you're grasping looks pretty flimsy . . .

ISAW

J C wrote: »

It is obvious from the above that he is implying that item 3 applies to me and he is saying that I am lying.

Yes that you are lying to cover up for not accepting something as logically true. Where does he state that the "something" is about "adding probabilities"?

I asked him to stand up his allegation that I was wrong about the mathematics of adding probabilities ... and he accepted that I was correct.

Where?

The upshot of all of this is that we must unfortunately conclude that Equivarient (who has confirmed that he is an expert mathematician)

No he hasn't ! He has alleged or claimed it but I haven't seen any confirmation.

was deliberately lying when he accused me of being 'mathematically incompetent' and 'blustering and lying' about the mathematics of adding probabilities

How was he lying. By the way excuse the pedantry but you are being redundant - lying IS deliberate by the definition I provided. One can't not lie and not know one is lying!

... because he should have know that I was correct all along ... just like I knew myself (and every other mathematician) would have known I was correct!!!

Could you therefore make the statement which you claim is true and he knowingly claimed is false where it refers to CSI and adding probabilities?

This is basically your whole case. You are claiming some statement to be logically true and that he claimed that statement was certainly logically false and knew it was logically true.

What is the statement? You make references to CSI and a "long debate" but if you claim to be knowledgeable of mathematics you should be able to frame the formal statement and then we can look and see if he stated it was false and later accepted it was true and then even later stated it was false when he had already admitted it was true. I wuold think that would be sufficient proof of lying if at that point he does not admit it to be true.

This all rests however on you providing the statement and on you showing where he said it was false and later said it was true.

...and not only did he attempt to destroy my good name ...

If he actually believed you were lying whether or not you were lying then it can't be an attempt to destroy your good name. You would have to show
1. You were not lying or making a false statement ( which again requires you supply the statement)
2. He knew you were not making a false statement.

he also did so in the full knowledge that the allegation that he was making was without foundation ... because he KNEW that I was correct all along.

You would have to show this! Saying "we have been arguing for weeks" is not producing the actual statement you claimd to be true and he claimed to be false!

The unfounded accusations of 'lying' have been flying fast and furious against me of late on this thread.

Above you produced a single message with one accusation of lying in relation to one of three points. I am not aware of a plethora of different accusations of you lying on different issues.

Given you claim "fast and furious" of late could you take the last ten pages of the thread and produce one example of different accusations of lying in different points on each page for the last ten pages? That is only covering maybe back to last weekend and Ill bet you cant provide ten examples page 1405 will bring you back a week. Where are the "fast and furious" examples of you lying on different points since then?

I appealed to the people making these allegations to desist and I appealed to the mods to ask them to desist ...

You appealed to the mods??? You lodged a complaint then!
Well of the mods didn't deal with it then they probably viewed it as frivolous. But as I have stated i don't respect mods much on boards for their jobs . I feel many are biased.

and nobody did anything about it ... so I took matters into my own hands ... and I 'drew a line in the sand' ... and the first two to cross the line (Equivarient and Wicknight) were robustly challenged to 'stack up' their unfounded allegations ... with rather unpleasant consequences for both of them!!!

Well now that you have admitted you brought it to the attention to the mods I suppose yu will also admit that it is a true to say
"PS was wrong when he stated he does not complain to mods"

You might recall:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64486240#post64486240

Which I specifically challenged and said I do not accept as true in :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64490106&postcount=21063

and in your reply you re asserted it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64500291&postcount=21078

quote:
it is always the Atheists (and their 'fellow travellers') who go 'running back to their mammies' to 'lick their wounds' and complain about ME!!!

...happy now?
/quote


You it isn't ALWAYS others who complain to mods and that statement above is false
isn't it?

monosharp

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Prof Stephen J Gould, (Life-long Materialistic Evolutionist) "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86, page 14

You know perfectly well that is taken completely out of context. Prof Gould was making an argument for punctuated equilibrium, not an argument against evolution.

You know this and yet you continue to use this quote trying to suggest he was against evolution.

Stephen J Gould wrote:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

I find it very amusing that to try and get some sense of credibility, you must quote mine respected Scientists who didn't believe in your nonsense.

Why don't you quote all these great creation scientists ? Oh thats right because they have absolutely zero credibility.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, I'd like you to point out where in Dembski's book that you got each of those equations. If your reply does not contain a reference to each of those equations you will be showing even more clearly (if that were possible) that you are talking out of your arse

Secondly, besides the fact that your third equation is totally wrong, it's not even the equation you did. Your equation was:

(m0 ^n0) + (m1 ^n1) + (m2 ^n2)....

ie you did not take the log of anything and the inversions (1/ from each part) mysteriously disappeared.


Thirdly, what do you mean by "the CSI in a sentence"? The equation you gave has several elements but you calculated the CSI of the sentence in one go so your equation was just:

m^n

and not:

(m0 ^n0) + (m1 ^n1) + (m2 ^n2)....

and it was definitely not:

-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

as I just explained.

Finally, we're talking here about logs and exponents and information theory and very complex mathematical concepts but you can't seem to grasp basic addition. CSI is calculated as:

-log_2((1/m) ^n)

Therefore a sum of CSI is calculated as:

-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

The equation you give for this is:
-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

but your equation is not a "sum of CSI", it's "the CSI of a sum of probabilities". Can you not grasp the concept that to get a sum of CSI you must sum CSI, and that summing probabilities is not the same as summing CSI?

...and can you not grasp the fact that the CSI is the inverese of the probability ... and it is expresssed as Bits ... i.e its -LOG_2 (after all calculations are complete).
The correct formulae are as follows :-

The CSI in a sentence is :-
-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

The sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in a sentence is:-
-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

In the case of 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' the amounts of CSI are as follows:-
The CSI in the sentence is 133.14 Bits.
... and the sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in the sentence is 38.04 Bits.

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

Well now that you have admitted you brought it to the attention to the mods I suppose yu will also admit that it is a true to say
"PS was wrong when he stated he does not complain to mods"

My mistake for "PS" I should have written "JC was wrong when he stated he does not complain to mods"

You might recall:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64486240#post64486240

Which I specifically challenged and said I do not accept as true in :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64490106&postcount=21063

and in your reply you re asserted it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64500291&postcount=21078

quote
it is always the Atheists (and their 'fellow travellers') who go 'running back to their mammies' to 'lick their wounds' and complain about ME!!!

...happy now?
/quote

It isn't ALWAYS others who complain to mods and that statement above that it is always others who complain about you and not you who complain about them is false
is it? The single counter example demonstrates it is false.

ISAW

J C wrote: »

The correct formulae are as follows :-

The CSI in a sentence is :-
-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

The sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in a sentence is:-
-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

You just copied what the previous poster posted!

In the case of 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' the amounts of CSI are as follows:-
The CSI in the sentence is 133.14 Bits.
... and the sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in the sentence is 38.04 Bits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity#Calculation_of_specified_complexity

A frequent criticism http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf is that Dembski has used the terms "complexity", "information" and "improbability" interchangeably...

When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.08.Erik_Response.htm Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065. http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.txt

That being said
1. what specific claim did you make that anyone else said was a lie?
2. What list of other lies was flying around as you claimed and who else accused you of lying and on what specific claim?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...and can you not grasp the fact that the CSI is the inverese of the probability ... and it is expresssed as Bits ... i.e its -LOG_2 (after all calculations are complete).

The error you are making is the part in brackets, “after all calculations are complete”.

I am calculating a sum of CSI
CSI is expressed in bits so if the figures I am summing are not expressed in bits, I am not summing CSI
So why should I wait until the end to take the log?
You are calculating the CSI of a sum of probabilities, not a sum of CSI

J C wrote: »

The correct formulae are as follows :-

The CSI in a sentence is :-
-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

The sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in a sentence is:-
-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

You still haven’t explained why the first equation has several elements. Surely the CSI in a sentence is just:

-log_2( (1/m) ^n)

Under what circumstances would there be more than one element in the equation. Can you give me an example involving this equation?


Also, you told me quite a while ago that at the end of the equation I could take the log “if I wanted” and that the pre-log and post-log figures were “different ways of representing the same thing” so why are you now going to such great lengths to say that when you take the log is crucial? If they’re the same thing you should get the same answer either way, for example if I calculate a distance in miles or kilometers it’s the same distance.

And finally, you asked Wicknight to ‘stand up’ for his allegations of you quote mining and when he refused to on the basis that there was no point you branded him a liar. I asked you to reference where in Dembski’s book that you got each of the equations you use and you seem to have ignored the question. Can I now brand you a liar or are you going to provide the requested references?