Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[Andre]

CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.

you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.

OK man, you have it your way. But if you think entropy rules out evolution you are pathetically misinformed, no disrespect.

What this one?
Entropy (information theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Information entropy)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the Shannon entropy in information theory. For other uses, see Entropy (disambiguation).
This article incorporates material from Shannon's entropy on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.
In information theory, entropy (sometimes known as self-information) is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. The term by itself in this context usually refers to the Shannon entropy, which quantifies, in the sense of an expected value, the information contained in a message, usually in units such as bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".


Why cant things co exist ? Why cant thesis co exist?Which leads to the real question why we as people cannot yet fully co exist >


why couldnt the universe be created by divine love frequencies or a God if you need a name; then left to evolve as we surly have?

[Kev]

CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.

you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.

OK man, you have it your way. But if you think entropy rules out evolution you are pathetically misinformed, no disrespect.

What this one?
Entropy (information theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Information entropy)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the Shannon entropy in information theory. For other uses, see Entropy (disambiguation).
This article incorporates material from Shannon's entropy on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.
In information theory, entropy (sometimes known as self-information) is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. The term by itself in this context usually refers to the Shannon entropy, which quantifies, in the sense of an expected value, the information contained in a message, usually in units such as bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".


Why cant things co exist ? Why cant thesis co exist?Which leads to the real question why we as people cannot yet fully co exist >


why couldnt the universe be created by divine love frequencies or a God if you need a name; then left to evolve as we surly have?

Leave it to Andre to put up a thread stopping post where we all scratch our heads and wonder what the fuck he's talking about

[Kev]

CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.

you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.

OK man, you have it your way. But if you think entropy rules out evolution you are pathetically misinformed, no disrespect.

What this one?
Entropy (information theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Information entropy)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the Shannon entropy in information theory. For other uses, see Entropy (disambiguation).
This article incorporates material from Shannon's entropy on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.
In information theory, entropy (sometimes known as self-information) is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. The term by itself in this context usually refers to the Shannon entropy, which quantifies, in the sense of an expected value, the information contained in a message, usually in units such as bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".


Why cant things co exist ? Why cant thesis co exist?Which leads to the real question why we as people cannot yet fully co exist >


why couldnt the universe be created by divine love frequencies or a God if you need a name; then left to evolve as we surly have?

Leave it to Andre to put up a thread stopping post where we all scratch our heads and wonder what the fuck he's talking about

[Andre]

You panicked and posted twice .
My job here is done..

[Kev]

You panicked and posted twice .
My job here is done..

haha I was confused and disorientated

[Kev]

Actually if I think I'm understanding Andre correctly, he's asking why the seemingly contradictory theories of creation vs evolution can't coexist as the different sides of the same coin.

Well, the answer to that is if you just believe in an idea of God as a creator then it's no problem, God could be responsible for creation, and he could have started it all off through evolution.

However, if you believe in the Abrahamic God of the Christians, Muslims and Jews then the two viewpoints are diametrically opposed.

The Torah, Koran and New Testament all make it clear that death and suffering came into the world only as a consequence of Adam's sin and that prior to that no 'entropy' for want of a better word existed.

Evolution states that chaos, destruction and death were the very elements that combined to form the world as we see it today, a viewpoint completely incompatible with the Biblical and Islamic concepts of God.

The most prominent athiests like Richard Dawkins understand this better than most Christians and Muslims sadly.

The Christian or Muslim who attempts to graft Darwinism onto his religious beliefs and embrace evolution as merely God's method are sadly confused as and in a way deserving of the contempt that the likes of Dawkins and the athiestc heap upon them.

It's two diametrically opposed belief systems, take a stand for one or the other, attempting to sit on the fence and water down all the teachings of your faith in order to accomodate the current teachings of men in white coats is a wretched way to live imo.

[CGM]

CGM, no disrespect, but you're talking so far out of your ass it's pathetic. In fact, you have very eloquently said absolutely nothing.

you can't randomly or spontaneously form DNA, or any other life bearing molecule.

OK man, you have it your way. But if you think entropy rules out evolution you are pathetically misinformed, no disrespect.

What this one?
Entropy (information theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Information entropy)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the Shannon entropy in information theory. For other uses, see Entropy (disambiguation).
This article incorporates material from Shannon's entropy on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.
In information theory, entropy (sometimes known as self-information) is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. The term by itself in this context usually refers to the Shannon entropy, which quantifies, in the sense of an expected value, the information contained in a message, usually in units such as bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".


Why cant things co exist ? Why cant thesis co exist?Which leads to the real question why we as people cannot yet fully co exist >


why couldnt the universe be created by divine love frequencies or a God if you need a name; then left to evolve as we surly have?

OK, in your quote, entropy is defined as the measure of uncertainty in a random variable. It's kind of a statistical concept. Uncertainty can lead to disorder if you can accept that there are many more possible ways that things can be disordered than ordered in a certain way. An analogy, though not a particularly good one, is that of a herd of monkeys at typewriters accidentally typing out the words to Space Ritual by Hawkwind.

Entropy does not say "nothing ever becomes more odered, things must only become more random". Entropy does say that things tend towards disorder, in a probablistic sense.

Here is a quote from the same wiki article you have quoted from above. It seems to imply the opposite, that evolution is not inconsistent with laws of entropy.

Entropy and life
Main article: Entropy and life
For nearly a century and a half, beginning with Clausius' 1863 memoir "On the Concentration of Rays of Heat and Light, and on the Limits of its Action", much writing and research has been devoted to the relationship between thermodynamic entropy and the evolution of life. The argument that life feeds on negative entropy or negentropy as put forth in the 1944 book What is Life? by physicist Erwin Schrödinger served as a further stimulus to this research. Recent writings[citation needed] have utilized the concept of Gibbs free energy to elaborate on this issue. Tangentially, some creationists have erroneously argued that entropy rules out evolution.[28]
In the popular 1982 textbook Principles of Biochemistry by noted American biochemist Albert Lehninger, for example, it is argued that the order produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the disorder they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. In short, according to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."[29]
Evolution related definitions:

• Negentropy - a shorthand colloquial phrase for negative entropy.[30]
• Ectropy - a measure of the tendency of a dynamical system to do useful work and grow more organized.[19]
• Syntropy - a tendency towards order and symmetrical combinations and designs of ever more advantageous and orderly patterns.
• Extropy – a metaphorical term defining the extent of a living or organizational system's intelligence, functional order, vitality, energy, life, experience, and capacity and drive for improvement and growth.
• Ecological entropy - a measure of biodiversity in the study of biological ecology.

In a study titled “Natural selection for least action” published in the Proceedings of The Royal Society A., Ville Kaila and Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki describe how the second law of thermodynamics can be written as an equation of motion to describe evolution, showing how natural selection and the principle of least action can be connected by expressing natural selection in terms of chemical thermodynamics. In this view, evolution explores possible paths to level differences in energy densities and so increase entropy most rapidly. Thus, an organism serves as an energy transfer mechanism, and beneficial mutations allow successive organisms to transfer more energy within their environment.[31]

.......

Andre your question seems to ask, "couldn't it all be part of God's plan" I used to think so, in order to reconcile the existence of God with the implausibility of the Old Testament. But now, the whole idea that the evolution of earth's history over x billion years is all part of the grand plan of some supreme omnipotent being seems less plausible than the story that ends with, "and on the 7th day he rested".

[Andre]

Now is that one of Gods days ?, or one of our days?

You cant prove or disprove anything, working only out of physicality.
Not when you have spirit and feelings and intent involved in the physical out comes of all life.

That book was written for a time a place and a people who could only think one way, it was put into terms they could comprehend by their elders .

Seriously all this kind of stuff is going on light years away from us as well as right here. To only be able to comprehend something from our minute single point in this vast existance is a bit sad when you look at the magnificance of it all.

But we have come from the basic physical point of a chunk of matter and we have grown to this point which is a bit better than ape like but why stop here?

Move points of view /find new answers /evolve physically mentaly and spiritually .

[CGM]

True enough, whose day are we talking about.

True enough about proof. Evolution is a theory, it's not fully explainable. But it's the best we've got, for which there is evidence and not just faith. Perhaps we'll never have final "proof" of anything. But the search for answers and explanations will go on forever.

There are some things that are more than just theory, though. Carbon dating for example.

[LEGION]

Bilbo will be greasing up his noodle and rubbing one out to this news.

[Kev]

Bilbo will be greasing up his noodle and rubbing one out to this news.

Nope I've been greasing up my noodle and rubbing one out to this beauty

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rHwEB_4WNOE

[LEGION]

Bilbo will be greasing up his noodle and rubbing one out to this news.

Nope I've been greasing up my noodle and rubbing one out to this beauty

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rHwEB_4WNOE

What is a LadyBoy? Is it what I think it is? Please tell me she isn't really a he.

[Kev]

True enough, whose day are we talking about.

True enough about proof. Evolution is a theory, it's not fully explainable. But it's the best we've got, for which there is evidence and not just faith. Perhaps we'll never have final "proof" of anything. But the search for answers and explanations will go on forever.

There are some things that are more than just theory, though. Carbon dating for example.

Actually carbon dating, whilst not a 'theory' is notorious for being often widely innacurate, and this only dealing with a few thousands of years.

The other dating methods potassium/argon, rubidion/strontium etc produce results which are absolutely absurd, testing on Mount St Helen's for example produced ages of the new lava dome of between 500,000 to 3,000,000 years old, it's actually 11!

Dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old when tested with radio carbon dating yield ages in the thousands of years. Wood embedded in 100 million year old limstone has been dated at 890 years old!

Ultimately the dating methods all rely on the fossils in the rocks for confirmation, i.e it's a circular argument.

You can never actually test if a potassium/argon dating of 250 million years is accurate becuase we have no way of testing it, other than by doing this completely uncomfirmable test.

The whole concept of dating methods, especially ones for millions of years is just absurd. Basically the way it works is, they find a fossil in a rock. This dates the rock according to their evolutionary supposations at a certain age. They will then take sample for radiometric dating. Most of the samples will give dates millions of years out of range with what the evolutionists want. These are clearly bad samples. They will keep taking samples until they get a figure that matches, and hence that was a good sample.

It's a bizarre, circular argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Carbon dating is much more accurate as it only dates things back a few thousand years, most accurate to within 10,000 years, less accurate beyond that and unusable beyond 60,000 / 70,000 years.

But even carbon dating can give dates that completely contradict known historical facts, and contamination is a massive problem.

Carbon dating at least is relatively accurate though, providing you can account for contamination, which is difficult. Look at the Shroud of Turin for example and the controversies over the dating of that.

But the other dating methods are pure fantasy.

[CGM]

True enough, whose day are we talking about.

True enough about proof. Evolution is a theory, it's not fully explainable. But it's the best we've got, for which there is evidence and not just faith. Perhaps we'll never have final "proof" of anything. But the search for answers and explanations will go on forever.

There are some things that are more than just theory, though. Carbon dating for example.

Actually carbon dating, whilst not a 'theory' is notorious for being often widely innacurate, and this only dealing with a few thousands of years.

The other dating methods potassium/argon, rubidion/strontium etc produce results which are absolutely absurd, testing on Mount St Helen's for example produced ages of the new lava dome of between 500,000 to 3,000,000 years old, it's actually 11!

Dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old when tested with radio carbon dating yield ages in the thousands of years. Wood embedded in 100 million year old limstone has been dated at 890 years old!

Ultimately the dating methods all rely on the fossils in the rocks for confirmation, i.e it's a circular argument.

You can never actually test if a potassium/argon dating of 250 million years is accurate becuase we have no way of testing it, other than by doing this completely uncomfirmable test.

The whole concept of dating methods, especially ones for millions of years is just absurd. Basically the way it works is, they find a fossil in a rock. This dates the rock according to their evolutionary supposations at a certain age. They will then take sample for radiometric dating. Most of the samples will give dates millions of years out of range with what the evolutionists want. These are clearly bad samples. They will keep taking samples until they get a figure that matches, and hence that was a good sample.

It's a bizarre, circular argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Carbon dating is much more accurate as it only dates things back a few thousand years, most accurate to within 10,000 years, less accurate beyond that and unusable beyond 60,000 / 70,000 years.

But even carbon dating can give dates that completely contradict known historical facts, and contamination is a massive problem.

Carbon dating at least is relatively accurate though, providing you can account for contamination, which is difficult. Look at the Shroud of Turin for example and the controversies over the dating of that.

But the other dating methods are pure fantasy.

OK, so what you are saying is that any kind of dating that goes back more than 70,000 years, is pur fantasy, totally unreliable whatever. That would make scientific consensus on things such as the age of "Lucy", the age of things like reptilian dinosaurs etc, not to mention things like the age of the earth, pure fantasy, Is that what you are saying?

[Kev]

True enough, whose day are we talking about.

True enough about proof. Evolution is a theory, it's not fully explainable. But it's the best we've got, for which there is evidence and not just faith. Perhaps we'll never have final "proof" of anything. But the search for answers and explanations will go on forever.

There are some things that are more than just theory, though. Carbon dating for example.

Actually carbon dating, whilst not a 'theory' is notorious for being often widely innacurate, and this only dealing with a few thousands of years.

The other dating methods potassium/argon, rubidion/strontium etc produce results which are absolutely absurd, testing on Mount St Helen's for example produced ages of the new lava dome of between 500,000 to 3,000,000 years old, it's actually 11!

Dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old when tested with radio carbon dating yield ages in the thousands of years. Wood embedded in 100 million year old limstone has been dated at 890 years old!

Ultimately the dating methods all rely on the fossils in the rocks for confirmation, i.e it's a circular argument.

You can never actually test if a potassium/argon dating of 250 million years is accurate becuase we have no way of testing it, other than by doing this completely uncomfirmable test.

The whole concept of dating methods, especially ones for millions of years is just absurd. Basically the way it works is, they find a fossil in a rock. This dates the rock according to their evolutionary supposations at a certain age. They will then take sample for radiometric dating. Most of the samples will give dates millions of years out of range with what the evolutionists want. These are clearly bad samples. They will keep taking samples until they get a figure that matches, and hence that was a good sample.

It's a bizarre, circular argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Carbon dating is much more accurate as it only dates things back a few thousand years, most accurate to within 10,000 years, less accurate beyond that and unusable beyond 60,000 / 70,000 years.

But even carbon dating can give dates that completely contradict known historical facts, and contamination is a massive problem.

Carbon dating at least is relatively accurate though, providing you can account for contamination, which is difficult. Look at the Shroud of Turin for example and the controversies over the dating of that.

But the other dating methods are pure fantasy.

OK, so what you are saying is that any kind of dating that goes back more than 70,000 years, is pur fantasy, totally unreliable whatever. That would make scientific consensus on things such as the age of "Lucy", the age of things like reptilian dinosaurs etc, not to mention things like the age of the earth, pure fantasy, Is that what you are saying?

Yep absolutely, I don't believe in millions of years at all, it's just the necessary precondition to accepting the ideas of gradual evolution and uniformitarionism.

I belive in catastrophism.

I have no problem believing dinosaurs and man once coexisted, hence why dragons are a universal myth. It's interesting to say the least that most of the dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures that we have dug up have incredibly similar sounding legends of creatures fitting their descriptions, usually in the areas where the fossile are found.

A couple hundered years from now, mankind will believe something completely different. Look at dinosaurs and how they are supposed to have died out.

Since the 60's we've been told they died out due to temperature, deadly gases, infertility, constipation, a meteorite, or that they didn't die out at all and simply became birds.

Which theory of theirs is correct? It's the meteor that is the current de facto explantion but I'm sure that will change within another decade or so.