For Jorge to demonstrate a difference in background/context

[klaus54]

another teenage nitwit reveals himself by his language to be a kid. Ho hum. Whats new? Little Van Krauss is really little Van Krauss - we already knew.

P.U.

Stinky,

Why do continue to support Jor's dishonesty and cowardice?

Tell your buddy to come to this thread and DEFEND HIMSELF!

All he needs to do is cut 'n paste his "answer" from the other thread to this thread.

It would take all of 30 seconds.

K54

P.S. YOU NEED TO ISSUE AN APOLOGY TO JIM (OX)!!!

If anyone is a HERETIC it's YOU, Oh Bigmouthed scientifically, logically, and theologically ignorant PantLoad.

[Mikeenders]

P.U.

Stinky,

If anyone is a HERETIC it's YOU, Oh Bigmouthed scientifically, logically, and theologically ignorant PantLoad.

early teens - they just can't helps themselves sometimes from showing their age.

[klaus54]

early teens - they just can't helps themselves sometimes from showing their age.

Boy howdy, I'd LOVE to meet you face-to-face for a "debate".

Now, back to the thread.

Please cajole your misled fool of a friend, Jor Fartnandez, to man up for once and post is answer to the OP.

[klaus54]

Bumped for Jorge...

[Roy]

Just in case something happens to the original thread:

I remember the context quite well. In a pre-crash thread while discussing the book you co-authored with Sanford (and for which you ran out and bought a degree to pump up your credentials) someone asked for a definition of "functional complex information" and you responded with "Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."

I remember the context quite well. In a pre-crash thread while discussing the book you co-authored with Sanford (and for which you ran out and bought a degree to pump up your credentials) someone asked for a definition of "functional complex information" and you responded with "Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."

Once again you display your total lack of integrity by bringing up the subject of my "PhD" - a matter that I had discussed recently. But again, when has evidence ever stopped you from speaking lies? [rhetorical question]

Then, on the "Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.", what you did above was prove beyond any doubt that (1) you do NOT have the background/context or, (2) You DO have the background/context and are a critter that has zero integrity. You choose.

By the way: abiding by the rules of TWeb I am confident in calling you out (as a liar / a person without integrity) as I'm doing here because every syllable I am writing is the absolute truth. Go ahead, I challenge you: prove me wrong.

Jorge

Then, on the "Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.", what you did above was prove beyond any doubt that (1) you do NOT have the background/context or, (2) You DO have the background/context and are a critter that has zero integrity. You choose.

By the way: abiding by the rules of TWeb I am confident in calling you out (as a liar / a person without integrity) as I'm doing here because every syllable I am writing is the absolute truth. Go ahead, I challenge you: prove me wrong.

Unless I'm mistaken, the TWeb rules don't require rogue to prove you wrong . They require that you prove yourself right - which you have not done, since you have failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version.

I don't think you can.

You willing to bet $150.00 on that?
Come on, be a man, put your money where your fat mouth is.

If I lose, I'll send the money to wherever you say. Call me out if the money doesn't arrive.
When I win, you will send the money to Kent Hovind's ministry as a donation in my name.
Believe me, if Hovind doesn't receive the money I will call you out from the rooftops.


Just to be sure, the issue is that my words ...
"Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."
... are 100% sensible when placed in the full and proper context (as I explained back then).
I'll even be nice and give you a hint: it's in the uppercase word.

BTW, the original guilty party here is you (if my recollection is correct) as you were the one that had my words - without context - in your sig for a long time. I tried repeatedly to get you to remove what was patently dishonest but you never did. No surprise there.

Well, are you going to man-up?

Jorge

Unless I'm mistaken, the TWeb rules don't require rogue to prove you wrong . They require that you prove yourself right - which you have not done, since you have failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version.

I don't think you can.

You willing to bet $150.00 on that?

Yes. I accept.

If I lose, I'll send the money to wherever you say. Call me out if the money doesn't arrive.
When I win, you will send the money to Kent Hovind's ministry as a donation in my name.
Believe me, if Hovind doesn't receive the money I will call you out from the rooftops.

If you win.
If you lose, you will donate the money to an organisation or person of my choosing.

Just to be sure, the issue is that my words ...
"Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."
... are 100% sensible when placed in the full and proper context (as I explained back then).

No, that's not the issue.

The issue is the statement of mine in which I said I didn't think you could do something, to which you replied by asking if I was willing to bet. Specifically, this statement:

"[Y]ou have failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version. I don't think you can."

where rogue's version of the background/context is this:

In a pre-crash thread while discussing the book you co-authored with Sanford (and for which you ran out and bought a degree to pump up your credentials) someone asked for a definition of "functional complex information" and you responded with "Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."

That is the issue on which you offered a bet, which I am accepting.

There are three details in my statement that you need to match in order to show that you can in fact do what I don't think you can:

1) "background/context". That's anything from the thread up to your post, including the post you were replying to, as well as any immediate follow-up posts you made to clarify that post - but not any revisions or justifications made after you posted your definition (especially after you were criticised for it) nor any posts made in other threads.

2) "differs". A clear difference between the evidence you provide and rogue's recollection above.

If, for example, you can show that the question you were asked was more than just a request for a definition, or that your response contained considerably more than the 10 words he cited, I would concede that to be a difference. However, my recollection matches rogues's in that you were responding to a simple request for a definition, your post contained no further information, and there were no preceding posts that asked about the relative importance of the three terms that could possibly have justified your response. But memory is fallible.

3) "demonstrate (not claim)". To win this bet you need to demonstrate a difference, not just claim one. Nothing you say (and nothing anyone else says) can suffice - evidence is required.

This is where I expect you to fail. Demonstrating anything in this matter would seem to require somehow retrieving the contents of the pre-crash thread, which is why I said I didn't think you could do it. But since you are willing to back your ability to do so with cash, I'm happy to watch you try - and $150 is cheap if you can somehow retrieve all those lost posts.

Since this thread is getting crowded, I'll create a new thread in which you can demonstrate a difference in the background/context. If you do so within 4 weeks of that thread being opened, I'll concede the bet. If you don't manage it in that time, or if you concede before then, I will demand payment.

Roy

Yes. I accept.
If you win.
If you lose, you will donate the money to an organisation or person of my choosing.
No, that's not the issue.

The issue is the statement of mine in which I said I didn't think you could do something, to which you replied by asking if I was willing to bet. Specifically, this statement:

"[Y]ou have failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version. I don't think you can."

where rogue's version of the background/context is this:

That is the issue on which you offered a bet, which I am accepting.

There are three details in my statement that you need to match in order to show that you can in fact do what I don't think you can:

1) "background/context". That's anything from the thread up to your post, including the post you were replying to, as well as any immediate follow-up posts you made to clarify that post - but not any revisions or justifications made after you posted your definition (especially after you were criticised for it) nor any posts made in other threads.

2) "differs". A clear difference between the evidence you provide and rogue's recollection above.

If, for example, you can show that the question you were asked was more than just a request for a definition, or that your response contained considerably more than the 10 words he cited, I would concede that to be a difference. However, my recollection matches rogues's in that you were responding to a simple request for a definition, your post contained no further information, and there were no preceding posts that asked about the relative importance of the three terms that could possibly have justified your response. But memory is fallible.

3) "demonstrate (not claim)". To win this bet you need to demonstrate a difference, not just claim one. Nothing you say (and nothing anyone else says) can suffice - evidence is required.

This is where I expect you to fail. Demonstrating anything in this matter would seem to require somehow retrieving the contents of the pre-crash thread, which is why I said I didn't think you could do it. But since you are willing to back your ability to do so with cash, I'm happy to watch you try - and $150 is cheap if you can somehow retrieve all those lost posts.

Since this thread is getting crowded, I'll create a new thread in which you can demonstrate a difference in the background/context. If you do so within 4 weeks of that thread being opened, I'll concede the bet. If you don't manage it in that time, or if you concede before then, I will demand payment.

Roy

Hey, DODO, the wagering was over yesterday as I provided the answer to the issue.

I'll be a nice guy and allow that you may not have known - so you're off the hook.

Maybe you took the day off to go sniff some of Richard Dawkins socks, or something.

But let me assure you, you would have LOST the bet.

Too bad ... I really wanted Hovind to get some donations.

Just go back and read the posts.

Of course, I'm not expecting that you'll accept the facts but there it is.

EDITED TO ADD:

I hadn't read your entire post - just the part when you "accepted" my bet - when I wrote the above. Now after I've taken a look at your entire post - and picked myself off the floor - I realize that you are far, FAR more in the weeds than I dared imagine.

Now you wish to rewrite history and, in so doing, dictate your own terms.
How about, "Sure, as soon as Hell freezes over!", will that be soon enough for you?

You can't just rewrite history and dictate your terms, you pompous buffoon! The words of mine that you had in your sig for years (if I recall) were out of context and with no background - that's what made your sig dishonest and slanderous. With the context/background my words are PERFECTLY legitimate and that was all I had to show, not your concocted version. I have shown that and I am, therefore, done with this. Have a splendid day.

Jorge

Unless I'm mistaken, the TWeb rules don't require rogue to prove you wrong . They require that you prove yourself right - which you have not done, since you have failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version.

I don't think you can.

You willing to bet $150.00 on that?

Hey, DODO, the wagering was over yesterday as I provided the answer to the issue.

No it wasn't, and no you didn't. You challenged me to a bet. I accepted. You do NOT get to back out, particularly since your so-called 'answer' does nothing to address the issue I raised.

Now you wish to rewrite history and, in so doing, dictate your own terms.

I'm not rewriting history, I'm highlighting relevant details and preventing you from rewriting history.

I said I didn't think you could demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version - and you replied "You willing to bet $150.00 on that?"

I am. I accepted.

Either you demonstrate (not claim) there was some background/context that differs from rogue's posted version - I created a thread specifically in which you may do so - in which case I will donate $150 to Hovind, or you cough up $150 yourself.

I suggest you start reading this page: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...ologywebdonate

I think I'll be changing my signature line soon.

[Roy]

This thread is to allow Jorge to demonstrate a difference between rogue's recollection, and the reality, of the background/context to Jorge's statement that

"Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."

It's been long enough. Time too see what, if anything, has been wroot:

From post #6:

FYI: klaus54 -- whom I refer to as Santa Klaus or just plain Santa -- is cut from the same cloth as Beagle Boy. In fact, rumor has it that they were cloned from the same slime that washed up on some toxic beach.

And you're right: I will not dignify this stupid-dishonest thread with a reply. I clearly stated my case (Post # 124 in the thread) and that's the way it was. One thing you can count on here: never, NEVER expect for these people to concede a point. That goes especially for specimens like Santa, Beagle Boy, Roy and similar vermin.

From post #22:

Careful, you're balancing yourself on a knife's edge between stupidity and dishonesty.

I clearly - CLEARLY!!! - made my wager and offered an iron-clad verification procedure. The only people that clucked-away and/or welched on a bet were YOU guys. Had I lost -- which I didn't (see post # 124 in the issue thread) -- I would have paid up or I would have been called out -- simple enough.

All we've had since then is the dishonesty that I've become accustomed to seeing here on TWeb - from Atheists and TEs, of course. I mean, after my post # 124 the entire matter should have been a closed case - period! But not here.

Clearly neither of these posts "demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version."

I could legitimately claim a positive outcome now, but I might as well forestall the first possible objection and include the refferenced post #124:

TO ALL READERS:

The hard evidence is here for all to see. Many accusations/attacks were thrown at me. I knew that they were all ill-founded and I was willing to put my money on it. I challenged all comers at $150.00 a pop.

How many of my accusers/attackers accepted my challenge?

NOT A SINGLE ONE. Let these posts be preserved forevermore.
These critters practice slander but when the time comes to put
up or shut up they cry home to mommy. I wonder what spin
they'll put on this ... who can guess?

***********************************

So, "Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."

The point at that time -- said point constitutes the defining context -- was that before you can speak of Functional Complex Information you must first be assured that you are speaking of INFORMATION. I had written my sentence merely to emphasize that point. Expanding for clarity ...

Back then I gave an alternate example to clarify my meaning. That was long ago (6+ years ?) and I don't recall the specific example that I gave so let me provide one now:

If you ask someone to show you a car with three wheels - a "Three Wheeled Car" - and they show you a motorcycle with a side car you may very well write, "A Three Wheeled Car is a CAR with three wheels".

That's not a mental lapse or a circular definition or anything like that. The emphasis ("CAR") indicates that the object (noun) is 'CAR' and 'Three Wheeled' is a qualifier (adjective). Thus, I was emphasizing that 'INFORMATION' was the noun and 'Functional Complex' was the qualifier. IOW, you had to have INFORMATION before you could attach the adjective (functional complex). The discussion had to do with the question, "what is information?" - a subject that I've been working on for a very long time to the present.

I cannot make it any clearer than that.

Aren't you glad that you didn't put the $150.00 on the table?
Hovind would have been adding to his donations soon.

P.S. Yup, you were ALL wrong and you are ALL clucking cowards.

That doesn't demonstrate anything about the background/context of the original posted definition either. In fact it barely qualifies as a claim regarding the background/context of the original posted definition since it explicitly states that the background/context is forgotten: ("That was long ago (6+ years ?) and I don't recall the specific example that I gave...").

Thus the claim which I made against which I was challenged to "put your money where your fat mouth is":

"Unless I'm mistaken, the TWeb rules don't require rogue to prove you wrong . They require that you prove yourself right - which you have not done, since you have failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version. I don't think you can."

stands unrefuted, and I claim the $150.

Roy

[Roy]

See also here.