Trying this again ... Information ...

[Barry Desborough]

I'm getting closer to releasing at least some of my work on Information Theory.

A while back I solicited questions here at TWeb and unfortunately got mostly garbage.

Let me try again ...

Do you have any questions on the general subject of 'information'?
Specific questions? Mysteries? Confused?
Also see if friends, colleagues, etc. have any questions.

Here's your opportunity - use it or waste it, your choice.

Please be serious. Otherwise, kindly refrain from any posts.

I'll give this thread a week or so before closing.

Thanks.

Jorge

1) Did Werner Gitt ever provide proofs of his "theorems"?
2) Do you have anything that you have put on the internet to explain your work regarding information? If so, where is it?
3) Would you say that the natural selection of heritable variations can be thought of as a process by which information (about how to survive and reproduce in a given environment) is generated?

[HMS_Beagle]

Been two weeks with no clucking from the Cluckster. It must be harder for him to redefine "information" to fit his YEC views than he thought.

[Leonhard]

Been two weeks with no clucking from the Cluckster. It must be harder for him to redefine "information" to fit his YEC views than he thought.

By his own admission Jorge is just here to troll, not to argue.

[Jorge]

1) Did Werner Gitt ever provide proofs of his "theorems"?
2) Do you have anything that you have put on the internet to explain your work regarding information? If so, where is it?
3) Would you say that the natural selection of heritable variations can be thought of as a process by which information (about how to survive and reproduce in a given environment) is generated?

1) If you had read the book Without Excuse (2011) you would know the answer.

2) No, not yet.

3) My information work includes an original view of information in which every entity represents an information state. Your claim ("natural selection ...") has to be interpreted within that framework. The short answer is "yes" - but that answer demands qualification as it insinuates things that don't hold water.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, as you should know, lots of anti-establishment findings get published in Nature and Science. It's always an uphill battle, but with enough persistence, it can be done. It must be kept somewhat difficult to help weed out the bogus claims.

One example: the "cold fusion" claims of Pons and Fleischmann were submitted to one of these journals (Nature, I believe). The reviewers saw problems and asked for further information and clarification. The authors claimed that they were too busy to respond to the questions, and published in the newspapers instead. The claims turned out to be bogus.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about so if I were you I'd stay out of it.

Jorge

[Jorge]

That is simply not a reality Jorge. And the fact your work was rejected not even evidence for your complaint. And further, it would appear you have forgotten or are not aware of the fact that the idea the earth has been bombarded relatively recently and frequently was ITSELF an anti-establishment hypothesis which required a lot of hard work and clear evidence to establish.

Clear evidence shocked quartz and shatter cones can be produced by volcanic events would be conformant with that previous view, and we are not so far from it that such a discovery could face any real resistance, provided the evidence was sound.

Jim

My reply to Kbertsche applies double to you and to rogue06.
Just remain quiet so as to not embarrass yourselves.

Jorge

[Leonhard]

Looking forward to see your theories should you ever grace the internet with them.

[Barry Desborough]

1) If you had read the book Without Excuse (2011) you would know the answer.

2) No, not yet.

3) My information work includes an original view of information in which every entity represents an information state. Your claim ("natural selection ...") has to be interpreted within that framework. The short answer is "yes" - but that answer demands qualification as it insinuates things that don't hold water.

Jorge

Evasive and vague as ever, Jorge. You never disappoint.

1) Did Werner Gitt ever provide proofs of his "theorems"?

2) Isn't it about time you did put material on the internet to explain your work regarding information? I've been researching endogenous retroviruses. They prove that you, me and Charlie the chimp are cousins! I'll put a link in my signature as soon as I have enough posts to have a signature.

3) Glad that you have conceded that the natural selection of heritable variations is a source of information though. That's progress, if at a glacial pace.

[Jorge]

Evasive and vague as ever, Jorge. You never disappoint.

"Evasive and vague"? Do you even know the meaning of those words? I doubt so.

1) If you had read the book Without Excuse (2011) you would know the answer.
I'm not going to reproduce those results here. I pointed you to the proofs you seek. Now do some work yourself.


2) No, not yet.
Enlighten me on what is "evasive and vague" about that.


3) My information work includes an original view of information in which every entity represents an information state. Your claim ("natural selection ...") has to be interpreted within that framework. The short answer is "yes" - but that answer demands qualification as it insinuates things that don't hold water.
That is a concise, to-the-point response, not "evasive of vague". I cannot provide a full, detailed response in this forum for several reasons. Be an adult, okay?



1) Did Werner Gitt ever provide proofs of his "theorems"?
Answered.


2) Isn't it about time you did put material on the internet to explain your work regarding information? I've been researching endogenous retroviruses. They prove that you, me and Charlie the chimp are cousins! I'll put a link in my signature as soon as I have enough posts to have a signature.
Go tell that story to your cousin "Charlie the Chimp". In the meantime I'd really appreciate that you not include me in your family tree.

3) Glad that you have conceded that the natural selection of heritable variations is a source of information though. That's progress, if at a glacial pace.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget my caveat --- a qualification is essential lest the wrong impression is given.

Jorge

[Barry Desborough]

"Evasive and vague"? Do you even know the meaning of those words? I doubt so.

1) If you had read the book Without Excuse (2011) you would know the answer.
I'm not going to reproduce those results here. I pointed you to the proofs you seek. Now do some work yourself.


2) No, not yet.
Enlighten me on what is "evasive and vague" about that.


3) My information work includes an original view of information in which every entity represents an information state. Your claim ("natural selection ...") has to be interpreted within that framework. The short answer is "yes" - but that answer demands qualification as it insinuates things that don't hold water.
That is a concise, to-the-point response, not "evasive of vague". I cannot provide a full, detailed response in this forum for several reasons. Be an adult, okay?



1) Did Werner Gitt ever provide proofs of his "theorems"?
Answered.


2) Isn't it about time you did put material on the internet to explain your work regarding information? I've been researching endogenous retroviruses. They prove that you, me and Charlie the chimp are cousins! I'll put a link in my signature as soon as I have enough posts to have a signature.
Go tell that story to your cousin "Charlie the Chimp". In the meantime I'd really appreciate that you not include me in your family tree.

3) Glad that you have conceded that the natural selection of heritable variations is a source of information though. That's progress, if at a glacial pace.

Don't forget my caveat --- a qualification is essential lest the wrong impression is given.

Jorge[/QUOTE]

1) A simple "yes" or "no" is what I am looking for, not evasiveness, not vagueness, not a book plug.

2) Thank you for an illustration of the intellectually crippling effects of creationism. You have not seen my material on ERVs, yet your prejudice leads you to reject it out of hand. You can find it if you google "barryhisblog".

3) "... that answer demands qualification as it insinuates things that don't hold water." Evasive and vague.

[oxmixmudd]

My reply to Kbertsche applies double to you and to rogue06.
Just remain quiet so as to not embarrass yourselves.

Jorge

Sounds like you are even more stuck on yourself than ever. Pride goes before the fall Jorge.

Jim

[Jorge]

Don't forget my caveat --- a qualification is essential lest the wrong impression is given.

Jorge

1) A simple "yes" or "no" is what I am looking for, not evasiveness, not vagueness, not a book plug.
Yeah, right. If I answer with a simple "yes" then you come back with, "That's vague." I am well aware and experienced regarding the dishonesty of critters such as you. When appropriate I DID answer with a simple "yes or no" (see my answer to your #2 question). Oops - GOT YOU!!! What you call a "book plug" was a source providing the proofs you insinuated did not exist. In any event, you demonstrate your dishonesty below yet again ... watch ...

2) Thank you for an illustration of the intellectually crippling effects of creationism. You have not seen my material on ERVs, yet your prejudice leads you to reject it out of hand. You can find it if you google "barryhisblog".
Nice illustration of your intellectual dishonesty. First, this was never about you or your ideas. Second, your ERV material is NOT "rejected out of hand". I've been studying this field for decades and nothing - not one thing - is convincing in your position. Your ERV material is a rehash of the same arguments. You simply hate it when someone like me calls you out and rubs your smug face into reality - that torments you to no end. And so you lash out as you do here. Suck it up, buttercup.

3) "... that answer demands qualification as it insinuates things that don't hold water." Evasive and vague.[/QUOTE]
Ah, there it is again, the ol' catch-all "excuse". Stamp a giant F on your forehead, Barry - you FAILED!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Sounds like you are even more stuck on yourself than ever. Pride goes before the fall Jorge.

Jim

But of course! I see that after all this time you remain seated on the Judgment Seat that you appropriated from the ONLY true Judge. Oh well, no surprise there. Go on, keep embarrassing yourself, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

But of course! I see that after all this time you remain seated on the Judgment Seat that you appropriated from the ONLY true Judge. Oh well, no surprise there. Go on, keep embarrassing yourself, O-Mudd.

Jorge

It doesn't take a judgement seat to size you up Jorge. You claim to have figured out something new and groudbreaking. Something the rest of the world has missed. Yet you will not divulge one substantive paragraph detailing your incredible piece of work.


The world is and has been full of hundreds, even thousands of cons, scheisters and megalomaniacs with the same claims, and the same never ending but never fulfilled promises to 'tell us soon'.

Whether you realize it or not Jorge, you are either delusional or an out and out fraud.

Jim

[Barry Desborough]

1) A simple "yes" or "no" is what I am looking for, not evasiveness, not vagueness, not a book plug.
Yeah, right. If I answer with a simple "yes" then you come back with, "That's vague." I am well aware and experienced regarding the dishonesty of critters such as you. When appropriate I DID answer with a simple "yes or no" (see my answer to your #2 question). Oops - GOT YOU!!! What you call a "book plug" was a source providing the proofs you insinuated did not exist. In any event, you demonstrate your dishonesty below yet again ... watch ...

2) Thank you for an illustration of the intellectually crippling effects of creationism. You have not seen my material on ERVs, yet your prejudice leads you to reject it out of hand. You can find it if you google "barryhisblog".
Nice illustration of your intellectual dishonesty. First, this was never about you or your ideas. Second, your ERV material is NOT "rejected out of hand". I've been studying this field for decades and nothing - not one thing - is convincing in your position. Your ERV material is a rehash of the same arguments. You simply hate it when someone like me calls you out and rubs your smug face into reality - that torments you to no end. And so you lash out as you do here. Suck it up, buttercup.

3) "... that answer demands qualification as it insinuates things that don't hold water." Evasive and vague.

Ah, there it is again, the ol' catch-all "excuse". Stamp a giant F on your forehead, Barry - you FAILED!

Jorge[/QUOTE]

1) Still neither a "yes" or a "no". Evasive and vague.

2) These are not my ideas, but the results of work by countless virologists and geneticists. No answers to the evidence and reasoning, just evasiveness and vagueness.

3) No clarification of what you mean. Evasive and vague.

Jorge, I haven't interacted with you for a number of years. It is sad to see a stuck record waffling nonsense year after year, never making any progress. Why, your creationist apologetic hasn't even developed from vagueness and evasiveness. If anything, it appears to have regressed. You are a waste of time and effort. Always have been, always will be.