Jump to content


Photo

Free Scientists Lecture !


  • Please log in to reply
214 replies to this topic

#1 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 02 May 2008 - 06:30 AM

I would like us all to take the short time to watch this series as it comes out and we can comment on it here.

It's a lecture from a Genetic Scientists.


Genetic information specialist Dr. Werner Gitt shows that coded information can only come from an intelligent source.

The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology. Three prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, on the recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must be:

1: A scientist. I.e. it is most definitely an academic title.

2: One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.

3: Must head a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed.


Dr. Gitts Wiki Page

Guys AiG is always providing these lectures for FREE ! I don't know about you but I don't get to here from a scientists as often as I would like too. Here's a FREE LECTURE from a scientists on Genetics & Information. Nuff Said !

Part one is up now and I assume the rest will follow :)

Click Here for Part #1 - 10 to 15 minutes

ALSO !

If you like listening to Scientific Lectures you can tune into Ch. 378 on Direct Tv Every Tuesday from 8:00 to 9:00 Central.

Also on Ch. 378 Direct Tv Dr. (Can't remember Name) does a Q & A on Universities across the nation where Professors and Students can ask him ANYTHING ! You'd be amazed at some of the questions.

#2 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 07 May 2008 - 06:41 AM

Part 2 has been uploaded.

Suprised no one commented here :lol:

#3 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2008 - 08:41 AM

you need to put more information on here. not everyone knows who this man is. some background information and maybe a brief overview of what the lectures are all about

#4 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 07 May 2008 - 09:52 AM

you need to put more information on here.  not everyone knows who this man is.  some background information and maybe a brief overview of what the lectures are all about

View Post


I can't edit the first post but I'm pretty sure I put enough background information already.

Eitherway the Lecture is about Evolution obviously, but more specifically how evolution defies Science by trying to break Known Scientific Laws. As you say in the EU it's better known as Laws of Nature.

#5 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 13 May 2008 - 10:15 AM

Part 3 is up :)

I highly urge that all Atheists please watch this film.

Part 3 is absolutely amazing.

http://www.answersin...was-information

#6 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 May 2008 - 03:22 PM

Caught the first two over the weekend. Good, as expected. But it has me thinking: if there were only a way to quantify... Not sayin' it can be done, but it sure would be nice.

#7 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 14 May 2008 - 05:55 AM

Caught the first two over the weekend. Good, as expected. But it has me thinking: if there were only a way to quantify... Not sayin' it can be done, but it sure would be nice.

View Post


:)

#8 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 May 2008 - 08:24 AM

...using Gitt's definition of information, you can't count.

#9 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:22 PM

...using Gitt's definition of information, you can't count.

View Post


Still :)

Obviously I had different things in mind while watching :)

#10 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 May 2008 - 03:15 PM

In the part where Dr. Gitt compares definitions of information, the disadvantage to his own definition is that it can't be quantified.

He's probably correct. My first thought was to count words instead of symbols, but words can carry a lot or a little information, and much may be implied. There are subtleties and nuances, and if one could come up with a numeric formula I think one would be well on the way to teaching machines how to think.

The more I think on it, the harder the problem becomes. At a minimum a word must contain the meaning of its most concise dictionary definition(s).

But if there were a way to quantify all this, I think there might be a lot of things one could accomplish.

#11 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 16 May 2008 - 06:59 AM

The problem with Gitt's ideas is that they cannot be used in a dialogue with mainstream science. This is because science already has a definition of information introduced by Claude Shannon in his 1948 paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication. This seminal paper began the entire field of information theory.

The most significant difference between the definition of information from the field of information theory and the definition of Gitt information is meaning. About meaning Shannon says:

Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities.  These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.


But Gitt information includes meaning. That's what apobetics refers to.

So a problem occurs when Gitt information confronts traditional information theory. Someone might say that DNA cannot gain information because information can only be created by an intelligence because information has meaning, and that there can be no meaning without intelligence. The answer from traditional information theory would be that, independent of the correctness of the assertion within a Gitt information context, that is not the correct definition of information. Using the traditional definition of information, of course DNA can gain information.

Gitt and/or others that accept his views on information should publish their papers in mainstream mathematical/computing journals and present them at mainstream mathematical/computing conferences, in other words, engage in the scientific process. If their ideas become accepted by the scientific mainstream, then it will become axiomatic that DNA cannot gain information.

--Percy

#12 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 16 May 2008 - 08:39 AM

Gitt and/or others that accept his views on information should publish their papers in mainstream mathematical/computing journals and present them at mainstream mathematical/computing conferences, in other words, engage in the scientific process.  If their ideas become accepted by the scientific mainstream, then it will become axiomatic that DNA cannot gain information.


It's a fallacy named Appeal of Authority

#13 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 16 May 2008 - 11:06 AM

Wait a second here !

The problem with Gitt's ideas is that they cannot be used in a dialogue with mainstream science.


This is because science already has a definition of information introduced


So a problem occurs when Gitt information confronts traditional information theory.


Gitt and/or others that accept his views on information should publish their papers in mainstream mathematical/computing journals and present them at mainstream mathematical/computing conferences, in other words, engage in the scientific process.


If their ideas become accepted by the scientific mainstream



I notice you keep using the "mainstream" approach as Alan does. As if to say that Secular Science is to be considered mainstream and Creation Science is to be considered out of Science somehow.

From looking at your posts, It seems to me that you are doing what evolutionists do best. Take something and run with it. Your claiming that Shannon's Paper is to be considered Scientific Law as in, this is the way it is, and to say different you had better have it reviewed ? How can you deny that just like the ToE, it is indeed a theory. How can one theory not be correct b/c another Theory says different ?

Are you aware of Dr. Gitts record in the Scientific Community ?
He's quite the sharp fellow, to be so confident in refuting his Theory. Although of course TalkDeceptions.org has no problem with slashing away at theories. Anyone can say anythhing they want on a web page, but RARELY if EVER do they bring it to the table of debate. This way they're refutation can never be proven wrong. Which is also why Dawkins will not debate, b/c he uses the same pitiful excuse as Gould did. (B/c Creation doesn't deserve to be considerable science) Even though Creationists worldview conforms to the Laws of Nature, while the ToE is against them.

This is what I consider typical Evo Babble. You and your fellow evolution believers tend to do the same whit the ToE. Consider it a fact, and anything that suggest something different than Darwnism must be wrong OR bought to the table for debate by the very same people who ALREADY will not agree with it in the first place.

Now can you tell me just how that is possible please ?

Macro Evolution is not accepted by everyone you consider Mainstream. (Arguing from Authority) It goes against the Laws of Nature and other Scientific Laws. Since the ToE says that these Laws of Nature have been broken or bent, it is up to the theory believers to provide the burden of proof that says that; Evolution beyond the genetic boundary of a species has broken the Laws of Nature.

Since you already assume that evolution is a fact, than you treat it like one as well. Therefore anything contrary(Which would be Creation) to the Theory/Fact must be agreed upon by Evolutionary Scientists. Evolutionists agreeing with Creationists ? ;) Not this LifeTime !

#14 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 17 May 2008 - 08:36 AM

Are you aware of Dr. Gitts record in the Scientific Community ?

View Post


It sounds like you think Gitt has had some impact on the scientific community. Can you tell me where you heard this?

In general, if you want to see the impact of any particular paper or idea, you can go to Google Scholar and look at citations. For example, 'information theory' which is the standard measure of information in all of the sciences (computer science, biology, engineering, astronomy, chemistry etc) is based on the work of Shannon. As you can see, Shannon's paper has over 20,000 citations.

http://scholar.googl...non&btnG=Search

Furthermore, this work is so widely accepted that the majority of scientists don't even bother to cite Shannon when measuring information. If you do a search on "information theory" you will get some 699,000 papers. Of these, you will have to search very carefully to find those papers that do not fully accept the standard theory. Shannon's definition is now the accepted definition in science.
http://scholar.googl....."&btnG=Search

If you want a ballpark figure, one can say that a paper with more than 50 citations is having at least a little impact on their field. Papers with more than 500 citations are having a significant impact.

Here is a search on all the papers that cite Gitt. Looks like his top cited paper has 15 citations. Of these, I do not know if any or all say anything favorable about his ideas. You can check if you like.
http://scholar.googl...itt&btnG=Search

I would conclude from this that Gitt is having no impact on science and his definitions have produced no change in how the scientific community views information theory. However, if you have some other measure of impact, you are welcome to provide links. I would enjoy seeing your evidence.

If you use the word "information" in a scientific setting, the assumption will be that you are using Shannon's definition. However, I must note that most scientists that understand "information theory" accept that this classic definition does not account for all aspects of information. There are a number of papers (with hundreds of citations) that discuss information from the point of view of trying to include the "meaning" of a stimulus. This is an area of science sometimes called "semantic information". If you search on Google Scholar, you will find a number of papers on this issue. Again, Gitt is not a significant contributor to this field either (based on citations).


Macro Evolution is not accepted by everyone you consider Mainstream. (Arguing from Authority) It goes against the Laws of Nature and other Scientific Laws. Since the ToE says that these Laws of Nature have been broken or bent, it is up to the theory believers to provide the burden of proof that says that; Evolution beyond the genetic boundary of a species has broken the Laws of Nature.


View Post


Around 99% of trained earth and life scientists in the world accept evolution. There are various kinds of surveys. Some get 99.9%. If you go to scientists outside of those trained in evolutionary theory (engineers etc), you can get up to around 5% that accept some degree of creation science. However, this would include old earth creationists that might also accept macro-evolution but not abiogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia....t_for_evolution

I do not known anyone trained in evolutionary theory that believes it breaks any scientific laws. In fact, I can not name anyone that has taken a college level course in evolutionary theory that would say it breaks a scientific law. However, I am sure you will find me one.

Hope that helps with some of the statistics.
James

#15 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 17 May 2008 - 11:11 AM

Hi OriginMan,

Thanks for your response. You said quite a bit on subjects unrelated to the topic of this thread, but I'm going to restrict myself to those portions which touched in some way on information theory.

Your claiming that Shannon's Paper is to be considered Scientific Law...


Information theory more properly belongs in the realm of mathematics than science. In any case, it isn't a scientific law.


Are you aware of Dr. Gitts record in the Scientific Community?


If you're aware of any success Dr. Gitts' ideas on information theory have had within the scientific community, please let us know.


He's quite the sharp fellow, to be so confident in refuting his Theory.


I didn't address his theory at all, let alone refute it. All I did was point out that information already has a definition, provided by Claude Shannon in 1948.

That Gitt's definition of information is not the traditional one often causes confusion. Gitt offers a definition of information that renders evolution impossible, then people take this definition to discussion boards like this one and claim that information theory says evolution is impossible. Other people then point out that information theory by no means renders evolution impossible. It's then quickly discovered that people are using two different definitions of information, one provided by Claude Shannon and extremely widely accepted within the mathematical, scientific and computing communities, and another provided by Werner Gitt that has not yet found much acceptance.

What I suggested was that Dr. Gitt and others who accept his ideas need to build a consensus around his ideas by engaging in the scientific process. A new theory, including a mathematical one, becomes accepted through a process of consensus building driven by successful tests of the theory.

I should note that one signficant difference between Shannon and Gitt information is that Shannon information really is purely mathematical, while Gitt information definitely includes cognitive areas of psychology related to semantics and knowledge.

--Percy

#16 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2008 - 12:19 PM

It sounds like you think Gitt has had some impact on the scientific community. Can you tell me where you heard this?  

In general, if you want to see the impact of any particular paper or idea, you can go to Google Scholar and look at citations. For example, 'information theory' which is the standard measure of information in all of the sciences (computer science, biology, engineering, astronomy, chemistry etc) is based on the work of Shannon. As you can see, Shannon's paper has over 20,000 citations.

http://scholar.googl...non&btnG=Search

Furthermore, this work is so widely accepted that the majority of scientists don't even bother to cite Shannon when measuring information. If you do a search on "information theory" you will get some 699,000 papers. Of these, you will have to search very carefully  to find those papers that do not fully accept the standard theory. Shannon's definition is now the accepted definition in science.
http://scholar.googl....."&btnG=Search


How far do you think anyone is going to get in the intellectual facist universities today if they push Dr. Gitt's theories in the face of evolution?


I would conclude from this that Gitt is having no impact on science and his definitions have produced no change in how the scientific community views information theory. However, if you have some other measure of impact, you are welcome to provide links. I would enjoy seeing your evidence.


Well, he may not be having an impact on "science", but he is having an impact on the Origins Debate, and that's what we are here for.

Around 99% of trained earth and life scientists in the world accept evolution. There are various kinds of surveys. Some get 99.9%. If you go to scientists outside of those trained in evolutionary theory (engineers etc), you can get up to around 5% that accept some degree of creation science.  However, this would include old earth creationists that might also accept macro-evolution but not abiogenesis.


You are making our point with this statement. If evolution was really science, then no one would have to accept it anymore that we accept gravity. Evolution requires faith to accept it, so all your demonstrating is that 99% of so-called "earth and life scientits" have accepted evolution as the system of origins in the religion.

I do not known anyone trained in evolutionary theory that believes it breaks any scientific laws. In fact, I can not name anyone that has taken a college level course in evolutionary theory that would say it breaks a scientific law. However, I am sure you will find me one.


Well, most of them have not been taught about the Laws of Nature regarding Information. Why is that????? Because its not allowed to question evolution and materialistic philosophy in the universities...

Furthermore; if they did speak out against it they would most likely be punished for it, so your just quoting self-serving statistics.

All this ranting about the scientific community does nothing to disprove what he's saying. If that's the best you can do, then his argument stands. Why not take the time and effort to show where he is wrong?

Terry

#17 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 17 May 2008 - 01:11 PM

Well, he may not be having an impact on "science", but he is having an impact on the Origins Debate, and that's what we are here for.


The influence of the creation/evolution controversy extends far more broadly than just discussion board debates. In order for creation science to successfully carry the argument that it really is science, it needs to engage the scientific community. This is the lesson of all the various courtroom dramas over the years, where it is always easily shown that evolution is accepted by the scientific community and so is science, while creation science, or intelligent design at Dover, is largely rejected by the scientific community and so is not science.

Probably the most significant goal of creation science and ID is to the greatest extent possible displace or even replace evolution in public school science classrooms. But all scientific theories currently taught in public schools achieved that status by gaining acceptance within the scientific community through a process of rigorously testing the theory against the natural world through observation and experiment.

So if Gitt wants to have an influence beyond discussion boards then he has to bring his ideas to the scientific community and provide evidence and argument that they find persuasive. Once the scientific community accepts his ideas they will inevitably find their way into science classrooms.

--Percy

#18 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 18 May 2008 - 08:04 AM

The influence of the creation/evolution controversy extends far more broadly than just discussion board debates.  In order for creation science to successfully carry the argument that it really is science, it needs to engage the scientific community.  This is the lesson of all the various courtroom dramas over the years, where it is always easily shown that evolution is accepted by the scientific community and so is science, while creation science, or intelligent design at Dover, is largely rejected by the scientific community and so is not science.

Probably the most significant goal of creation science and ID is to the greatest extent possible displace or even replace evolution in public school science classrooms.  But all scientific theories currently taught in public schools achieved that status by gaining acceptance within the scientific community through a process of rigorously testing the theory against the natural world through observation and experiment.

So if Gitt wants to have an influence beyond discussion boards then he has to bring his ideas to the scientific community and provide evidence and argument that they find persuasive.  Once the scientific community accepts his ideas they will inevitably find their way into science classrooms.

--Percy

View Post


If the best argument evolutionists have is Appeal of Authority or Argumentum ad Populum then you are wasting your time here.

#19 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 18 May 2008 - 10:46 AM

This isn't really the thread's topic, but you're misapplying the fallacy of appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is when someone claims something is so simply because someone in a position of knowledge and/or authority says it is so.

In the case of evolutionary theory, we don't think it is likely true because scientists accept it. Rather, scientists accept it because it is likely true, and that is because the vast preponderance of scientists are convinced by the evidence. In other words, evolution isn't an appeal to authority but to evidence from the natural world.

But the topic of this thread is Gitt information, and the point I actually raised is that its only way into the classroom is by way of becoming part of mainstream science, because mainstream science is what taught in science class. Theories to which only a few percent or less of scientists adhere don't find their way into textbooks or curriculums.

--Percy

#20 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 18 May 2008 - 01:07 PM

This isn't really the thread's topic, but you're misapplying the fallacy of appeal to authority.  An appeal to authority is when someone claims something is so simply because someone in a position of knowledge and/or authority says it is so.

In the case of evolutionary theory, we don't think it is likely true because scientists accept it.  Rather, scientists accept it because it is likely true, and that is because the vast preponderance of scientists are convinced by the evidence.  In other words, evolution isn't an appeal to authority but to evidence from the natural world.

But the topic of this thread is Gitt information, and the point I actually raised is that its only way into the classroom is by way of becoming part of mainstream science, because mainstream science is what taught in science class.  Theories to which only a few percent or less of scientists adhere don't find their way into textbooks or curriculums.


It´s a rethoric answer not a reasoning. I can say that mainstream science is controled by atheists , so they ignore evidences against evolution because they would have to accept the existence of God.Scientists that dont accept evolution are pursued and dont have their papers published in mainstream media.

We can keep playing the rethoric game as long as you want.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users