Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, March 11, 2011

Matter, Energy and Information

-
Recently I had an atheistic nut-job who goes by Negative Entropy come here and baldy declare that "energy flow can explain information content".

Yet after many posts NE never did support his claim. He did not link to any information scientists, nor information theorist, nor information technologist (like me) to support his claim. What did he do? Just kept repeating it. That's it.

No one has ever demonstrated that energy flow can explain information content. As far as I know Negative Entropy is the only person making such a claim. So that would be a negative point against him.

He also claims that E=MC^2 says that energy is matter, matter is energy. That is nonsense. The equation tells us the equivalence- this amount of mass is equivalent to this amount of energy. It does not say that energy and matter are the same thing. Matter can be destroyed, energy cannot be destroyed. But that is besides the point.

Norbert Weiner- who is an authority on information said:
Information is information, neither matter nor energy

How does Negative Entropy respond? Like all intellectual cowards respond- by a bald declaration that Norbert Weiner is wrong- a bald declaration.

For all of his bluster negative entropy has failed to support any of his claims and then runs away crying that I am unable to be educated.

The truth is that Negative Entropy was unable to make his point. And until he provides valid references to support his claim he never will.

Matter and enery are information carriers only - that is the relationship, well that and neither would exist without information...

Everything in the universe is made up of essentially 2 things: matter and energy.- add information to that short list.

37 Comments:

  • At 11:06 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    I am reminded of Dr. Tim Berra's attempt to refute the creationist claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. In his book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism he said this:

    These statements conveniently ignore the fact that you can get order out of disorder if you add energy. For example, an unassembled bicycle that arrives at your house in a shopping carton is in a state of disorder. You supply the energy of your muscles (which you get from food that came ultimately from sunlight) to assemble the bike. You have got order from disorder by supplying energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the Earth's living systems and allows them to evolve.

    So there. That settles it. Energy flow into a system can explain information content - only if you ignore the intelligent designer who assembled the bicycle.

     
  • At 6:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Brilliant- thanks....

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    Joe G,

    I know you have commented on Cornelius Hunter's blog. I posted essentially the same thing there some time ago, and then I asked if anyone knew if Dr. Berra ever retracted his argument.

    I believe it was Zachriel who wondered, "Why would he?"

     
  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, ya see, our muscles-us, are the result of energy flow into the system.

    IOW there aren't any artifacts because we and all living things are the products of chance and necessity and energy flow.

    Energy flow plus water.


    LoL....

     
  • At 7:46 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    When you type you increase order, in the way that words appear on the screen where there were not words before.

    Overall, however, in your opinion is the second law of thermodynamics violated by intelligence (you) creating "order" or "information" where none existed before?

    E.G your posts in this thread for example.

     
  • At 8:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    When you type you increase order, in the way that words appear on the screen where there were not words before.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    OM:
    Overall, however, in your opinion is the second law of thermodynamics violated by intelligence (you) creating "order" or "information" where none existed before?

    No, I don't think that I have created information where none existed before.

    Why are you fishing?

     
  • At 5:08 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "No, I don't think that I have created information where none existed before. "

    Regardless, in fact I asked if in your opinion is the second law of thermodynamics violated by intelligence (you) writing these blog posts, all chock full of CSI?

     
  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Regardless, in fact I asked if in your opinion is the second law of thermodynamics violated by intelligence (you) writing these blog posts, all chock full of CSI?

    Make your point- I am sick of your questions.

     
  • At 6:25 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Make your point- I am sick of your questions."

    The point is the answer to the question I asked just then:

    In your opinion is the second law of thermodynamics violated by intelligence (you) writing these blog posts, all chock full of CSI?

     
  • At 6:27 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Make your point- I am sick of your questions."

    I'd hate to think you were avoiding the issue because your knowledge of the relevant physics is lacking. After all, you so confidently claim many much more complex things in support of ID then what I'm asking here.

     
  • At 8:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Make your point- I am sick of your questions.

    OM:
    The point is the answer to the question I asked just then:

    If you can't make yor point then fuck off. You don't make a point by asking questions.

    OM:
    I'd hate to think you were avoiding the issue...

    What issue? You haven't made a point so there isn't any issue.

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    In your opinion is the second law of thermodynamics violated by intelligence (you) writing these blog posts, all chock full of CSI?

    No, in my opinion the slot is not violated by intellignet agencies channeling energy, matter and information.

    Happy now?

     
  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Thanks. But what do you mean by "channeling"? It's a word I've not seen used before with regard to this topic and I wonder in exactly what sense you are using it.

     
  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeling_(mediumistic)

    ?

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well we don't create energy, matter nor information.

    We just take them and do what we can.

    Also earlier you mentioned
    "order":

    When you type you increase order, in the way that words appear on the screen where there were not words before.

    I am of the opinion that "order" and "disorder" are not proper words for discussing the slot. Seeing that you appear intereested in my opininions and all...

     
  • At 4:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More than a medium or a conduit- we can manipulate, arrange, rearrange, etc....

     
  • At 1:19 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    So where does all the complexity on planet earth come from if the input is solar energy from the sun?

    If we can only manipulate, arrange or rearrange then as we start with plain old heat then how do we get to the complexity we see around us?

    Let me guess...

    "I am of the opinion that "order" and "disorder" are not proper words for discussing the slot."

    What are the proper words then?

     
  • At 1:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So where does all the complexity on planet earth come from if the input is solar energy from the sun?

    Why is that the only input?

    OM:
    If we can only manipulate, arrange or rearrange then as we start with plain old heat then how do we get to the complexity we see around us?

    We didn't make the earth, moron.

    OM:
    What are the proper words then?

    Get an education and find out...

     
  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Why is that the only input?"

    Name another significant one then.

    Within an order of magnitude or ten.

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "We didn't make the earth, moron."

    I never said we did, but according to you it was all designed.

    Designed by an abacus...

     
  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Why is that the only input?"

    OM:
    Name another significant one then.

    The earth itself and then there is the whole universe to tap.

    "We didn't make the earth, moron."

    OM:
    I never said we did, but according to you it was all designed.

    That is what the evidence says. And all your position sez is it was all an accident- or is hawking, another one of your countrymen, a liar also?

     
  • At 5:13 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "or is hawking, another one of your countrymen, a liar also?"

    If Hawking is a liar then what does that make you?

     
  • At 6:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It makes you a piece of shit. Not really, you have always been a piece of shit.

     
  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And all your position sez is it was all an accident- or is hawking, another one of your countrymen, a liar also?

    The surprising thing about what Hawking et al claim about this being an accident is that it is an untestable claim- ie not science.

    And that is how it goes for your entire position- untestable, unscientific bullshit.

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "The surprising thing about what Hawking et al claim about this being an accident is that it is an untestable claim- ie not science."

    As all ID's claims are untestable I'm glad to see you finally realise that is what makes it non-scientific.

    Or prove me wrong. When will the next experiment be performed that will test ID?

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    As all ID's claims are untestable

    Unlike your position ID's claims are testable as evidenced by the FACT that they can be refuted- ID makes specific claims, again unlike your position.

    It is strange that scientists are running around saying they have refuted ID- how can that be if it is untestable?

    You can't have it both ways moron- you can't say it is untestable and it has been tested and refuted.

     
  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    " ID's claims are testable "

    Go on then. Tell me how to test one? In the lab or in the field. As your prefer.

    Dig up some fossils or modify some DNA. As you prefer.

    Or are you talking about the ID claims like "DNA is more complex then expected" or "DNA is a code, a language". So called "soft" claims which, like you say, to refute such you need a parallel world and billions of years to observe evolution not happening.

    If that's what you call "testable" then the laugh is on you.

     
  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I just posted this in another thread. It's relevant here too.

    What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

    So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.


    That's a test. Digging for years.

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have addressed this already:

    Tiktaalik is still being used as a successful prediction of something. I know it was supposed to be a successful prediction of universal common descent because it is A) Allegedly a transitional form between fish and tetrapods and B) It was found in the "correct" strata because allegedly no evidence of tetrapods before 385 million yeqars ago- plenty of fish though and plenty of evidence for tetrapods around 365 million years ago- Tiktaalik was allegedly found in strata about 375 million years old- Shubin said that is the strata he looked in because of the 365-385 range already bracketed by existing data.

    The thinking was tetrapods existed 365 mya and fish existed 385 mya, so the transition happened sometime in that 20 million years.

    Sounds very reasonable. And when they looked they found Tiktaalik and all was good.

    Then along comes another find that put the earliest tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago.

    Now had this find preceded Tiktaalik then Shubin et al. would not have been looking for the transitional after the transition had occurred- that doesn't make any sense. And that is why it is a failed prediction- the transition occurred some 25 million years before, Shubin et al., were looking in the wrong strata.

    That said Tiktaalik is still an interesting find, something tha no on else had ever found and it adds to our knowledge base of organisms that once existed. But that is all it does.

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And Tiktaalik doesn't say anything about a mechanism.

     
  • At 5:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I told you how to test ID's claims. They are tested every day.

    And all you have to do is present an example from your position- show me how your position is tested and what it's positive evidence is- that way we can compare- coward.

     
  • At 7:20 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    " They are tested every day."

    That's why ID is about to overtake Darwinism!

    Any day now.

    Any day.

    Now. Any day now.

     
  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And any day now you might produce both a testable hypothesis and supporting evidence for your position-

    any day now, any day....

     
  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger Ned said…

    There is no point in debating about "intelligent design" done by an "intelligent designer" without considering the roots of this idea in Protestantism, one of the three major divisions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism) within Christianity.

    Protestantism is a movement that began in central Europe in the early 16th century as a reaction against medieval Roman Catholic doctrines and practices.

    It unfortunately remains fixed in medieval times. Its theology remains Luther, its politics Calvin, its science pre-Galileo Galilei.

    The Protestant idea of an "intelligent designer" is set up to support a political system based on "monarcho-monotheism," in which the creative/destructive force of the universe is made anthropomorphic -- a male sovereign and chief authority rules over the world and all people and holds power by eternal tenure.

    If this cosmic king were instead thought of as an elected ruler, like a president, or was considered female, or even non-human, then the Protestants behind the idea of "intelligent design" would abandon the concept immediately.

    So, arguing about energy flows and entropy is completely beside the point. "Intelligent design" is a religo-political issue about (mostly white) Protestants capturing (and maintaining) real political power in this country, in this world, today and in the future.

    Ned Madden
    nedmadden@gmail.com

     
  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Ned,

    I would think that the idea of "intelligent design" done by an "intelligent designer" could be traced back to the time of Aristotle.

     
  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Ned said…

    Maybe, Joe. But right now it's all Protestant politics.

     
  • At 2:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Definitely, Ned. And yes science has become political and that is unfortunate.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home