A 1997 book by Werner Gitt. Is it worth reading, or there are, in your opinion, better and more up-to-date books to be purchased within this type of book? What would you reccomend I buy on the topic of 'information' issues?
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
In the Beginning was Information.
Collapse
X
-
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
First, Gitt is an engineer not a scientist, and approaches the concept of information very mechanistically from a Creationist assertion of a Divine perspective and not a scientific perspective. It is a simple straight forward literal Biblical view without any reference to science.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-01-2019, 03:21 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFirst, Gitt is an engineer not a scientist, and approaches the concept of information very mechanistically from a Creationist assertion of a Divine perspective and not a scientific perspective. It is a simple straight forward literal Biblical view without any reference to science.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostBut the simple fact that he is an engineer does not invalidate his arguments. This is a type of authority fallacy. His arguments (or anyone else's) should stand or fall on their own. Don't you agree?
I believe he limits the validity in two ways: (1) He asserts only the literal Biblical Creation, without any argument nor other references to support the assertion. (2) He does not present anything in terms of science. (3) His qualifications as a scientist or not does decidedly impact the coherency of an argument. In his own reference he claims to be a scientist, he is not. The problem is very real where other creationists present a scientific argument with no qualifications in science, and even Creationist scientist present unethical and dishonest arguments in terms of science.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostBut the simple fact that he is an enginner does not invalidate his arguments. This is a type of authority fallacy. His arguments (or anyone else's) should stand or fall on their own. Don't you agree?
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostAmong other fatal flaws Gitt invented a lot of his own definitions for various forms of "information" not used by anyone else in any scientific field. Most were circular and all were scientifically worthless. Sadly he's just one more in a long list of Jesus loving crackpots out to scientifically "prove" his Biblical beliefs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostAnyway, would any of you reccomend reading a book from 1997, or should I look for something more 'updated'?
What has been advanced in the science of evolution since is the fossil finds that support evolution, and the increased details of the genetic evidence including the ability to extract usable DNA from fossils.Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-08-2019, 02:45 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostAmong other fatal flaws Gitt invented a lot of his own definitions for various forms of "information" not used by anyone else in any scientific field. Most were circular and all were scientifically worthless. Sadly he's just one more in a long list of Jesus loving crackpots out to scientifically "prove" his Biblical beliefs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostThe fact that it is not accepted by anyone else is again an argument from authority. The question is: does Gitt's arguments stand or fall on their own merits? Now I agree that maybe ''most were circular and all were scientifically worthless'', because he defined 5 levels of information: statistics, sintax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. However, I came lo learn that only the first one really applies to DNA (which is Shannon's definition).
Statistics as used by Creationists is an unethical misuse of statistics to justify their agenda. They are ALL circular and ALL scientifically worthless. The statistical arguments by Creationists require assumptions based on their Creationist beliefs {argument from authority).
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostAs far as Gitt's arguments, they all fail, because his argument have no scientific merits, nor does he propose any scientific hypothesis to support his argument.
Statistics as used by Creationists is an unethical misuse of statistics to justify their agenda. They are ALL circular and ALL scientifically worthless. The statistical arguments by Creationists require assumptions based on their Creationist beliefs {argument from authority).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostNo, the concept of statistics in information is valid since it was not invented by Gitt, but by the father of information theory, Claude Shannon. Shannon's theory DOES have applications in biology, AFAICT.
Actually no, statistics is not a scientific argument based on a hypothesis that may be falsified. The best statistics can predict is probability, and probability as used by Gitt cannot be the basis to falsify a hypothesis for Intelligent Design.
In another thread a while back I documented the terrible misuse of statistics by Creationists. In summary the Creationists tried to use statistics to demonstrated the whole chain of the probability of cause and effect events, and in reality it can only apply to the probability of each event.
Yes, Claude Shannon. is the father of information theory, but that is where the comparison with Gitt ends. If Shannon is the father Gitt is the corrupter of information theory.
Shannon's monumental contribution to information theory, design of computers and Quantum Mechanics is summarized here:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...annon-founder/
The thread that details the misuse of statistics by creationist is here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-same-again
My first post:
If one understands statistics the efforts of this paper is 'front loaded' statistically to get the desired result. More comments may follow. Also basically neglects that the laws of nature constrains the outcome of each cause and effect event, and cannot be statistically projected as simply the probability of 'the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang.'
I believe that Landman referred to this limitation as 'the number of possible states.' I comment with caution on Landman, because I lack his full reference. I may word this more completely as the limitations of the possible states of the outcome of each cause and effect outcome constrained by the laws of nature.
I believe they have tried this before.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-25-2019, 04:27 PM.
Comment
-
A creationist has written the following:
''Gitt has an argument by analogy, where he is basing his assertions about something we don't know on something we do know (origin of genetic information vs. other information), and skeptics try and refute it by arguing that we don't observe the origin of genetic information (which is why it's an argument by analogy), and asserting without cause that genetic information is different to other information''.
I honestly can't find any fault with this argument. Can anyone help?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
31 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
5 responses
52 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-14-2024, 11:35 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
14 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment