|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Jaywil, you seem very aggitated
Now you can pull me down to some low level
The problem I have with folks like you
So when you finish your little test Which I find a little odd since Para wasn't attacking you, or even your beliefs. From what I've read, you seem very reasonable in comparison to some people on the threads. Your opinion that the whole shows inteligent design even if the smaller parts do not is one I've heard before. Yet you say your a computer programmer. I deal with computer programs all the time (and yes they are intelligently designed for the most part O.o). You could say to me, you know that Adobe Photoshop, it's made up entirely of 1s and 0s. I might reply - "Get outta here! I'm familiar with 1s and I'm familiar with 0s. Neither is anything like Photoshop." We'd then start down a long long path of explaination where you showed me how chips work, how early program language worked, how it's been built upon. In the end, I should agree with you about the 1's and 0's, but I could just as easily say - "Nah, Photoshop doesn't look like a 1". Proving the component parts is not some little victory, it's intregal in understanding the whole of the theory. And even when we succeed in proving the component, it still seems to make no difference to believers in the whole.
I'm a computer programmer analyst. Now I could write a program that if large sections of it were damaged or erased, could somehow repair itself. But it would take a lot of forethought, planning, and design. This sounds a lot like the "Monkey's typing Hamlet" argument. How hard would it be for a monkey banging away on a typewriter to come up with Hamlet? Very. But, set up a program that keeps any correct letters - takes surprisingly little time to succeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Nuggin,
I like your computer analogy. Maybe we can explore that latter.
This sounds a lot like the "Monkey's typing Hamlet" argument. How hard would it be for a monkey banging away on a typewriter to come up with Hamlet? Very. But, set up a program that keeps any correct letters - takes surprisingly little time to succeed. I heard a joke about that. The scientists had six monkeys typing away. They said that given enough time one would come up with a complete play of Shakespear. One day after years of typing away one scientist discovered to his amazment this line on one of the reams of paper on the floor. "To be or not to be, that is the 4xz)&f 4sdfo wr7tt asdsg7 sdgs asagf0" LOL! I love that one. Yes, it is the big picture that I come back to. I think there is something to some evolution and natural selection. I have doubts about how much it can be used to explain what I see in total. This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-31-2005 12:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This sounds a lot like the "Monkey's typing Hamlet" argument. How hard would it be for a monkey banging away on a typewriter to come up with Hamlet? Very. But, set up a program that keeps any correct letters - takes surprisingly little time to succeed. The difference between your Monkeys analogy and life is that in the case of life a large fraction of the random results are "correct". Even if we assume that 2/3 of all errors cause a very early failure to develope an embryo and that only 1/10 of individuls born (might be right for animals -- clearly not for insects (let's us 1/10,000) for insects) live to reproduce then from a few percent to a few 1,000'ths of a percent are "correct" in the case of life. This is a enormously large fraction when compared to the monkeys typing case. We've seen how this can also take very, very little time to "succeed".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
I dont get this thread, is there a point to it? the graphs dont relate to anything, and nothing is making sense. The title annoys me sort of, so I keep looking at this startrekkie's face with my tongue stuck out.
"The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The point is to determine if a neutral bit of evidence (the two charts) can be said to show signs of intelligent design or not, and if so, how is that determined.
It is another in a long string of threads asking the proponents of Intelligent design to articulate their theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: Jaywill must be the man in the cave who gained freedom, came back and recieved comments such as yours. You deny a God because of your studies in science and mathematics. God is beyond what information you have spent your days and nights, probably enjoying to read about. Nothing from your studies can give you an education about anything of God, because God is not of this world, and this world has seemingly trapped you into seeing only it, seeing only the physicalities of the earth. Well please burst the heart-shaped box. Step out of your comfortable evidence ridden science weekly journal reading community who think they know about life. Because these people are lost, and they do not know of God past reasoning used to study data gathered through observable experiments in nature and in labs.
quote: Why? Because he sees that in nature there is order, there is life, there is a world perfectly designed for humans? Incredulity, because he stands up against thousands of minds who study the laws of nature? Your scanty reply is embarrassing because you don't care about it. You simply state that there are many who disagree with you, therefore you are wrong, but I'm not going to take my time and reply because I already understand the argument, and I could care less about this lone wolf named jaywill. I applaud jaywill for venturing into a jungle blanketed think with opposition in the form of physical evidence and scientific minds. ID isn't about proof, it's about experience, life, and God. He is simply trying to show you something, but you oppress him with claims that he is the one who is ignorant, that he is the one who believes the world is flat.
quote: The only one here who is ignorant is you. Ignorant in the ways of God, because you can't see past the simple realm of observe and test. "The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Fact is, it's another lame trap of some sort. It's para's posting style. She sets people up like dogs. It's really stoopid and however gratifying to her, is not productive for the growth of her mind. Spring it already, geez.
"The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Prophex,
I've noticed something. In at least 5 posts, probably more like 20, you accuse people of "setting up traps".
Fact is, it's another lame trap of some sort. How is a direct question like this a trap? Is it a trap because you can spot where the conversation is going? It seems like every time you are on a thread relies on any sort of fact or reasoning, it's declared a trap. If you don't want to participate, that's fine. But don't come onto a thread just to announce you aren't going to participate. That's lame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
prophex, what kind of nonsense is this? ok you believe in god, that fine but people are claiming ID is science, asking for evidence of ID isn't wrong, how is preaching doing any good?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
What you call traps are called, among other things, logical arguments by many.
This is when you examine carefully what you think is true and try to see where that leads you. If you think this is leading you into a "trap" it is a strong hint that what you think is true is flawed in some way. Now it seems this is, to you, only an issue with "physical" things. However, most theologians also approach their ideas in the same way. They don't think it shows faith up in a good light if it is voiced in a way that starts to invite ridicule. Many posters here are anathema to the religious because they invite such ridicule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Having a bad day?
You deny a God ah, nope. the rest of your rant here is irrelevant. I always love it when someone tells me what I believe.
quote: Why? Um, because that's what it is? It's a logical fallacy where the only evidence is a person's personal incredulity. Surely you've seen examples of this! A logical fallacy doesn't mean that it is wrong, just that the argument presented does not have any validity and as such that it is irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong.
quote: The only one here who is ignorant is you. Again, this was another logical fallacy as used by Jaywill, where the argument is based on the ignorance of evidence that exists. Again, a logical fallacy doesn't mean that it is wrong, just that the argument presented does not have any validity and as such that it is irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong. In this case there is evidence to the contrary, so being ignorant of it while asserting a position that is contradicted by the evidence is rather foolish in a day and age when a little study will provide that information. Likewise, I could suggest a study of logic and the different fallacies that are most commonly used: it might help you form logical arguments instead of insulting little rants based on ignorance of the forms. Forbiddenhttp://usabig.com/autonomist/fallacies.html Formal fallacy - Wikipedia Now if you'll excuse me, I'll turn another cheek. Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
This thread is not about scoring cheap points (what would I need points for?), and it is not a trap. Anybody who thinks otherwise has no business here and is kindly requested to take their comments elsewhere.
What this thread is about is finding out how intelligent design can be objectively determined in the patterns of nature, without resorting to subjective judgements. I think this is impossible, but I would like some input from ID-ers, hence my question. The ability to detemine objectively the fact of intelligent design is in the interest of the ID movement, since that would compel scientists to take ID seriously. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Phrasing it that way (subjective vs objective) already precludes current ID as as far as I see it as there has not been a determinative judgment made from subjective reflections. It would be a rare evc event to see in your thread the determination to convert ALL subjective reflections into an object of objectivity. I have already indicated I see no reason to think that the first or the second figure is any less or more "subjective."
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-01-2006 03:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
We discussed it some in chat, and I hesitate to get into in much at this time, for fear of blotching up the topic.
I (re: the chat) had interpreted that figure to be one thing, which would fall under "real world data". Your statement of what it is falls under "statistical analysis of real world data". My interpretation or my interpretation - Maybe or maybe not intelligent design. My interpretation of your interpretation - A human construct, it includes intelligent design. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
minnemooseus writes: Your statement of what it is falls under "statistical analysis of real world data". [...] My interpretation of your interpretation - A human construct, it includes intelligent design. Moose, let's "spring it already", I don't mind. Figure 1, as you already know and Jaywill also suggested, is a bell curve, or a normal distribution. Its form is the result of randomness. The reason I keep speaking of patterns, not graphs, is that although most of the bell curves we see may be graphs, if you take a Galton Board, you can see the pattern appear, and it's made not of ink on paper, but of whatever falls down in the Galton board. So it's not entirely a human construct. (Although I must admit that the Galton board is itself a human construct, the form that appears is solely dependent on the randomness of the collisions of the marbles with the pegs.) I can imagine that people would easily mistake this form for an artefact because of its smoothness and symmetry. It has an aesthetic quality that might fool people into believing it was made by an artificer. Figure 2 is meant to depict randomness. Curiously, it took me several attempts to get it right, i.e. to get it to look like randomness, and I'm still not very satisfied. The bottomline is that the pattern in figure 1 is the result of randomness, whereas the pattern of figure 2 is intelligently designed, although people might think the exact reverse is the case. ID-ers unabatedly tell us that they spot intelligent design in nature. I was wondering if ID-ers could be inspired by my figures to finally tell us how they do it. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024