What exactly is ID?

50 shaded quotes embedded into one....Looks fine from my end, although a little squished together at the start.

In Firefox 3.5.7 it gives up halfway through your nesting, and everthing that follows including the following posts lose their formatting

Displays fine in Chrome, too, but in any event I've hidden the deeply nested quote.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Didn't work. Page is still broken in Mozilla. The deep nest is just a distraction from what is doing it, basically tables stop functioning thereafter. Cavediver's post has his avatar in the middle and checkboxes centered and so on.

quote:

---

For the trillionth time - ALL KNOWN FUNCTIONS -.

---

No, that is the position you retreated to, after it became clear that you did not have the evidence to rule out all function.

quote:

---

LOL, I can't believe this! D* is not a set of any kind. D* is the descriptive pattern. There is no ihnstance of the word "set" anywhere! Stop making things up! Do you, even know, do you have even faintest idea of what these "four-level concepts" are? No obviously you don't.

---

No, D is the descriptive pattern. Strictly speaking D* is the pattern considered as an event - or put another way the event of matching the pattern. But given that we have a physical object rather than the event, in this case regarding it as the set of objects which match the pattern is quite reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than equating it to a number as you did.Let me remind you:
TDI p165 The four-level concept is also easy to understand. It is a concept made up of four elements. In this case "bidirectional", "rotary", "motor-driven" and "propellor". Dembski allows for 10^5 possible elements, therefore estimating the number of four-level concepts as (10^5)^4 = 10^20.Look at your quote in Message 688"Specificational resources" is essentially the number of possible specifications. It in no way compensates for the fact that the specification describes many things that are not the E Coli flagellum.

quote:

---

quote2.) A descriptive language D.
4.) A pattern D whose correspondence * maps D to E.

​

TDI - Page 144.

---

There is no word "set", anywhere. D is the descriptive language. D* is the pattern that describes the event E. Remember that.
[/qute]If you actually READ the quote you will see that the pattern is D, and D* is the correspondence of the pattern.

quote:

---

quote... but rather for formulating simultaneously botha a description D and a map * that maps D to E (i.e. a pattern that delimits E) so that there is no question...

​

TDI - Page 155.

---

Again, it's a pttern. D* is a patternt. Not a SET of patterns, but a pattern. [/quote]In this quote the pattern is (D, *), whereas in the first it was D. Neither is D*. D* is not described as a pattern. It is, however, described as an event on p165 quoted above.

quote:

---

The bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" is the pattern D*. It consists of 4 concepts. As I quoted they are bidirectional", "rotary", "motor-driven" and "propeller". Each of those concepts has the complexity of 10^5. And since there are 4 of them. Their full complexity is 10^20.

​

Therefore, D* = bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller = 10^20.

---

As the quote I have produced above makes clear, 10^5 is the number of basic concepts. It is not the "complexity". And it certainly is not the probability of D*, which is what Dembski say must be calculated.

quote:

---

Exactly, it's different. So tell me, why in the world would you wan't to include the complexity of some other hypothetical flagellum into the calculation of the known flagellum that consists of the known 50 proteins? When it's obvious that their differenceis in complexity are going to yield different results. A flagellum that would have a omplexity of less than 400 bits, but would correspond to the pattern bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller, would not even make it in the calculation, becasue it's complexity is too low, and it would be automatically attributed to chance, not design.

---

Yes, the probability you want to calculate is different from the one that Dembski says that you should calculate. And I think that it should be obvious why you should calculate the probability required by Dembski's method - the probability of D* - rather than some other probability of an event which isn't even fully specified.

quote:

---

That means that it doesn't matter that soem flagellum has 50 proteins,a nd other has 1.000.000 proteins. Their complexity is teh same according to you.

---

As I have told you before the complexity figures are associated with the specifications rather than the raw events. This is because the relevant probability is the probability of meeting the specification - i.e. the event D*, as Dembski says.

quote:

---

Wrong example. Yes, 1/36 is the correct number. Anyway, by claiming that their complexity is not important you are clearly wrong. Becasue that's liek saying that it's the same probability of getting one 6, and geting two 6s. Or that a probability of a 50 protein flagellum is teh same as the probability of a 1.000.000 protein flagellum. But it's obviously not. The lower the probability, the higher the complexity. Which means the overall CSI is higher.

---

As I keep pointing out the probability we want is the probability of getting ANY "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propellers". See the quote from TDI above.

quote:

---

We discussed this before. I don't care anymore becasue you keep pretending you don't understand wha I'm talking about.

---

I understand what you are talking about. I'm just not going to do the work for you. You would need that information to do the calculation anyway. Of course as I have informed you more than once it is a complete waste of time because it's the wrong probability anyway.

quote:

---

Simle patterns are not specifications. A snowflake is a simple reoccuring pattern, which is not a speification. Becasue you have to first look at the snowflake to know the pattern. If the snowflake was int eh shape of a car, than it would be a specification.

---

Simple patterns ARE specifications. They are very good specifications. Consider the Caputo case. If the Democrats had been placed first on the ballot EVERY time, wouldn't that give more reason to suspect tampering, rather than less ?With a snowflake the problem is that we don't have a specification that provides a detailed description of a particular snowflake. Again, check the definition of specification.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if it is tipical or not. The point is, it got selected by natural selection, and by doing this, the genetic entropy increased. Showing that naturral selection is not perfect, and does not remove ALL mutations that degrade the genetic information.

---

However that was not the point being argued. You wanted to argue that beneficial mutations in general increased genetic entropy. Which you can't do by relying on an atypical example.

quote:

---

But in your case, the large enough population is infinity. Which you do not have. Therefore, there is no noise averageing.

---

If you've run the numbers - and you would have to to make such a claim, let's see the calculations.

quote:

---

I already cited articles that show how slightly deleterious mutation cause genetic meltdown. And no, there is no such thing as a dynamic equilibrium. Because that would mean that at soem point natural seelctionw ould have to work at 100% efficiency, ann at some point under 100%. And we know that it NEVER gets to 100%.

---

You've cited articles saying that mutational meltdown can happen in small populations. Which implies that it is unlikely to be a problem for larger populations. And you are quite wrong to say that the balance requires 100% efficiency. It doesn't. All it requires is that the efficiency is high enough to hit the balance point before mutational meltdown.

quote:

---

No, I need no correlation? What would correlation do for me?

---

A correlation would mean that we could not assume that the noise will tend to average out.

quote:

---

The balance point is where natural selection removes all mutations that come into the gene pool. Which means that it works at 100% efficiency at that specific point in time. Which we know is not possible.

---

Wrong. The balance point is where deleterious mutations leave the population at the same rate as they arrive. Removing a deleterious mutation that has hung around for 50,000 ears - or longer - is as good as removing one that appeared last week. We don't need 100% efficiency for that.

quote:

---

And you know the difference between the vague notions expressed in the past and the political movement of the present. So, let's stop with the pretending.

---

The statement: "it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." is by no means vague. It's clearly scientific, more specifically biological description of design in nature.

quote:

---

I can call myself an African American to get on black people's nerves. However, by any real standard, no outsider would call me African American because I'm not.

​

Fuller ADMITS that he calls himself a secular humanist in order to get on people's nerves.

​

Now YOU are being just as dishonest by repeating the claim.

---

Than what is he if not a secular humanist? A Christian, he is not. What than is he?

quote:

---

Because it makes testable predictions which non-atheists can confirm.

​

Also, the Pope isn't Atheist.

---

A conspiracy can be made in such a way that it's testable and acceptable and confirmable by those who are no in on the conspiracy. Which makes the conspiracy even better. I want you to PROVE to me that evolution is no an atheistic conspiracy. How do I know that evolution is not just one giant Piltdown man?

quote:

---

This sentence is non-sense. You can not detect design without determining mechanism. I've demonstrated why this is true. You've failed to offer a single example to refute my demonstration. All you have is a vague notion that you think you can refute it with an equation written by an admitted Creationist.

---

Because what you said is wrong. You do not know what mechanism was used to design the Rosetta stone, yet you claim it's designed.

quote:

---

Sure we do. It is markings carved in stone using tools, it was made by a human.

​

Contrast that with the claim - "A magical wizard used Jew Beams to poof things into existence via Magic Juice!"

​

Can you tell the difference?

---

Using what tools? How was it carved? How do you know a human did it? What is his identity?

quote:

---

You claim that it is "detected design" because you assume that it is designed. You assume that it is designed but you "detect it" as being designed.

​

That's circular and false.

---

No. I claim it's designed because it exhibits CSI.

quote:

---

Publishing work in support of Christian Creationism DOES make you a Christian Creationist.

---

No it does not. By that logic, I can NEVER show you somebody who is not a Christian and supports ID, because you defined people who are Christians as those who support Christianity and creationism. That's unfalsifiable. I can also claim that I support some notions of some particular religion, but that does not make be adhere to theat religion. If I support some Buddhist notions and philosophy, that does not make me a Buddhist.

quote:

---

His argument is NOT that ID is valid, but rather that the debate over it is valid. I disagree, but that's neither here nor there. You are citing him as an example of an atheist Creationism supporter. He is not.

​

That's 0 for 2. Wanna keep trying?

---

He supports ID. Obviously he is an atheist so he can not accept ID as true, but he accepts it as a valid scientific theory. Which was my point, and is true.

quote:

---

I'm going to pretend your math is right and STILL show you how you are wrong.

​

The unlikelihood of the flag is X (we'll use your number) ONLY in comparison to a singular predicted outcome.

​

What is the likelihood of getting a "6" on a die that I roll. 1 in 6.
What is the likelihood of getting a NUMBER on a die that I roll. 100%.

​

Same action, different results.

​

A die was rolled. (the universe is here)
A number came up (molecules arranged themselves in a particular way)
What was the likelihood of THAT happening?

​

100%

​

The fact that YOU are now reading the number and declaring it unlikely doesn't change the facts.

​

You are saying, "Wow! A three! How unlikely!"
But if it were a different number you would say: 'Wow! A one! How unlikely!"

​

In the case of the flagellum, you are saying "Wow! Look at this ONE POSSIBLE OUTCOME! How unlikely!"

​

However if the flagellum never existed and instead some other outcome occurred (let's say a donut shape) you would say "Wow! Look at this ONE POSSIBLE OUTCOME! How unlikely!"

​

You are drawing a bulls-eye around the bullet hole. That's the Texas Sharpshoot Fallacy.

​

By the way, I know ABSOLUTELY that you are going to completely take all of this out of context or simply ignore it. Why? Because this is like the 5th time someone here has pointed this out to you and you STILL keep making the same false claim.

---

We have been over this before. Just because you keep repeating, that won't make me fall for it.The complexity and the improbability of soem event are not enough to claim they were designed. Any random hill side has the complexity well over 400 bits. Yet we attribute it's shape to chance. Any other random pattern is as probable as the next one, and some pattern has to occure.But you would neevr claim that Mount Rushmore is one of those patterns. You would never claim that it was also possible for chance to produce it. Because if you would, that's like me sayign that Rosetta stone was also not designed, but came about by chance.The limiting factor here is the specification. Mount rushmore, Rosetta stone, and the flagellum, have a pattern that is independent of themselves. So the point is not in that they are just improbable, but they are improbable and specified in the same time.And specified events of small probability do not occure. Therefore, Mount Rushmore, Rosetta stone and the flagellum were designed. Their probability is not 1:1 becasue they do not jhave ust any pattern. They have a specified pattern.

I de-nested the quotes, try it now.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

"It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS."Still clearly scientific? There is an infinite number of things which can be supposed and not ruled out. None of them are scientific. A Creationist. Your accusation is that ALL humans are a member of this conspiracy except you. Ridiculous.Anyone from ANY culture can do the experiments and get the predicted results. YOU could do the experiments and get the predicted results.Is this a conspiracy of REALITY then? I absolutely do. I was chisseled in stone. If you have _EVIDENCE_ that it was created by some magical means, let's see it. Sharp precussion tools. One blow at a time. Because all such objects have been created solely by humans. I don't need to know his identity apart from "Egyptian, Human circa 196BC"Since I'm not claiming that the individual was extraordinary in any way, I don't need to prove more than the presence of others like him at that location at that time.On the other hand, your claim of a fantastical Jew Wizard who lives outside of the Universe IS extraordinary and DOES require evidence. Other things exhibit CSI which are not designed. That's been demonstrated. Only because it's true. ID is simply renamed Creationism. If you support ID, you are a Creationist.If we renamed the KKK to be the GGG, it wouldn't change the fact that the people are racist.I'm going to address the rest of your post in a new reply because it's that important.

Both those things (the hillside & Mt. Rushmore) are complex.You are claiming that the hillside was NOT designed and that Mt. Rushmore WAS designed based on WHAT? The complexity? They are BOTH complex.In fact, the hillside may very well be MORE complex than Mt. Rushmore.The ONLY way you are able to differentiate the two as being natural vs designed is because you.......wait for it.......know the MECHANISM!You know the MECHANISM of erosion and gravity which generated the hillside. You know the MECHANISM of dynamite and chissel which generated Mt. Rushmoore.Your equation CAN NOT differentiate between the two WITHOUT the mechanism. More "specified patterns" Go ahead and do some calculations on the unlikelihood of three different images showing up in stone within just two planets in our solar system.Astronomical! Impossible! They were all designed!

quote:

---

No, that is the position you retreated to, after it became clear that you did not have the evidence to rule out all function.

---

NO! Becasue I already said that we are not going to invent functions that we do not know about. We know of one function it had. It lost it, therefore it lost all functions.

quote:

---

No, D is the descriptive pattern. Strictly speaking D* is the pattern considered as an event - or put another way the event of matching the pattern. But given that we have a physical object rather than the event, in this case regarding it as the set of objects which match the pattern is quite reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than equating it to a number as you did.

---

No, D is teh descriptive language! I just quoted you the part where it said that! The flagellum is the event. Physical object equals teh event. Con tosses could be an event also. Anything is regarded as an event. And since the word "set" is not used anywhere, please do not use it . Do not invent notions that Dembski never did use.

quote:

---

The four-level concept is also easy to understand. It is a concept made up of four elements. In this case "bidirectional", "rotary", "motor-driven" and "propellor". Dembski allows for 10^5 possible elements, therefore estimating the number of four-level concepts as (10^5)^4 = 10^20.

---

Which means that D* = bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller = 10^20.

quote:

---

"Specificational resources" is essentially the number of possible specifications. It in no way compensates for the fact that the specification describes many things that are not the E Coli flagellum.

---

Which specification describes that?

quote:

---

If you actually READ the quote you will see that the pattern is D, and D* is the correspondence of the pattern.

---

Which means that D* is the pattern described by bold D. There is a bold and a regular D. One is a descriptive language, the other is a pattern.

quote:

---

In this quote the pattern is (D, *), whereas in the first it was D. Neither is D*. D* is not described as a pattern. It is, however, described as an event on p165 quoted above.

---

An event that under * corresponds to a pattern regular D.

quote:

---

As the quote I have produced above makes clear, 10^5 is the number of basic concepts. It is not the "complexity". And it certainly is not the probability of D*, which is what Dembski say must be calculated.

---

I never said it was. Obviously it's not. But 10^20 is the complexity of the specification.

quote:

---

Yes, the probability you want to calculate is different from the one that Dembski says that you should calculate. And I think that it should be obvious why you should calculate the probability required by Dembski's method - the probability of D* - rather than some other probability of an event which isn't even fully specified.

---

But do you not understand that a flagellum that describes the pattern bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller and consists of 50 proteins has an IDENTICAL complexity of the specification as a one that consists of 1.000.000 proteins? So by your logic their probability of occuring by chance is the same! Which is totally FALSE! Since they describe the same pattern, the complexityy of what they describe is IDENTICAL! It's obvious you need to also include their own complexity into the calculation.

quote:

---

As I have told you before the complexity figures are associated with the specifications rather than the raw events. This is because the relevant probability is the probability of meeting the specification - i.e. the event D*, as Dembski says.

---

But it's HARDER do meet the specification with MORE proteins! Therefore the probability is LOWER. And it's EASIER to meet the specification with LESS proteins, therefore teh probability is HIGHER! And that also means that every instance of an event is calculated separately!And those events that consists of a complexity that is under 400 bits are not claculated at all! What would be the point if they are automatically claimed to be non designed!?

quote:

---

As I keep pointing out the probability we want is the probability of getting ANY "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propellers". See the quote from TDI above.

---

NO WE DO NOT!!!! What would be the point!?What would be the point of calcualting the probability of a flagellum that has a complexity under 400 bits!!!! It's not designed regardelss of what you calculate it to!Some patterns might consist of 100000000000000000000000 proteins! obviously their probability of occuring is NOT IDENTICAL to that of a flagellum consisting of 50 proteins! Their probability of occuring by chance is totally different! The calculations are therefore done separately!

quote:

---

I understand what you are talking about. I'm just not going to do the work for you. You would need that information to do the calculation anyway. Of course as I have informed you more than once it is a complete waste of time because it's the wrong probability anyway.

---

Good. I don't care anymore.

quote:

---

Simple patterns ARE specifications. They are very good specifications. Consider the Caputo case. If the Democrats had been placed first on the ballot EVERY time, wouldn't that give more reason to suspect tampering, rather than less ?

​

With a snowflake the problem is that we don't have a specification that provides a detailed description of a particular snowflake. Again, check the definition of specification.

---

Simple patterns that also conform to an independently givent pattern are specification. It's not enough that it's just simple.

quote:

---

However that was not the point being argued. You wanted to argue that beneficial mutations in general increased genetic entropy. Which you can't do by relying on an atypical example.

---

Nope. I'm arguing that beneficial mutations are not going to reduce the effects of deleterious and slightly deleterious mutations, becasue they also CAN, not always, but sometimes CAN reduce genetic information. Which is true. They can reduce geentic information. Therefore, just by occuring, they will not save a population from extinction.

quote:

---

If you've run the numbers - and you would have to to make such a claim, let's see the calculations.

---

There is no calcualtion here, only simple logic.Take the number 100 to represent the amount of genetic information. How small would the number of reduction have to be, for this number never to reach zero? IS it one? Well obviously not, becasue in 100 steps, you will reach 0, and the population is dead. Is it 0.5? Nope, that just means that you will reach 0 in 200 steps. So tell me, how small does it have to be for you never to reach zero? Obviously infinitely small. Or, the starting number would have to be infinitely large.

quote:

---

You've cited articles saying that mutational meltdown can happen in small populations. Which implies that it is unlikely to be a problem for larger populations. And you are quite wrong to say that the balance requires 100% efficiency. It doesn't. All it requires is that the efficiency is high enough to hit the balance point before mutational meltdown.

---

The tests were performed on small populations becasue they experince the effects of geentic meltdown faster! What would be the point of producing an experiment that lasted for 10.000.000 years!?!?And as I said before, the balace is produced only if all mutations that get into the geen pool, get removed. And that can only happen in natural selection is 100% efficient. How else could ALL of them get removed?

quote:

---

A correlation would mean that we could not assume that the noise will tend to average out.

---

A correlation of what? Be more specific?

quote:

---

Wrong. The balance point is where deleterious mutations leave the population at the same rate as they arrive. Removing a deleterious mutation that has hung around for 50,000 ears - or longer - is as good as removing one that appeared last week. We don't need 100% efficiency for that.

---

YES YOU DO! How elese are ALL mutations that get in, going to get out if natural selection is nto working at 100% efficiency!?If 10 out of 10 mutations get removed that's 100% efficiency.
If 50 out of 50 mutations get removed that's 100% efficiency.
If 800 out of 800 mutations get removed that's 100% efficiency.9 out of 10, or 49 out of 50, or 799 out of 800 is less than 100% efficiency. And in that case genetic entropy increases. Only during 100% efficiency does it not increase, and you have a BALANCE! Only if you remove ALL mutations that get in, do you have a BALANCE, but that means that natural seelction is working at 100% efficiency! Which we know is not true.

quote:

---

"It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS."

​

Still clearly scientific? There is an infinite number of things which can be supposed and not ruled out. None of them are scientific.

---

The difference is that INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS have never been observed. Intellignece on the other hand has been observed to produce many different patterns.

quote:

---

A Creationist.

---

He is not a Christian, therefore, not a creationist.

quote:

---

Your accusation is that ALL humans are a member of this conspiracy except you. Ridiculous.

​

Anyone from ANY culture can do the experiments and get the predicted results. YOU could do the experiments and get the predicted results.

​

Is this a conspiracy of REALITY then?

---

Nope. I never said that. I said that it's an atheist conspiracy. And I want you to prove it's not. The conspiracy could still be a conspiracy, because it's been crafted in such a way that people who perform the experiments get the results they were supposed to get. Which just makes the conspiracy even better.

quote:

---

I absolutely do. I was chisseled in stone. If you have _EVIDENCE_ that it was created by some magical means, let's see it.

---

Where? Where is the evidence it was chisseled? With what? By whome? Where? Why? When? I want facts, not assumptions.

quote:

---

Sharp precussion tools. One blow at a time. Because all such objects have been created solely by humans. I don't need to know his identity apart from "Egyptian, Human circa 196BC"

---

How did those tools look like? How do you know they were sharp? How do you know it was one blow at the time? How do you know they were human, and Egyptian, and it was done in 196 BC? How do you know this was not produced by natural forces?

quote:

---

Since I'm not claiming that the individual was extraordinary in any way, I don't need to prove more than the presence of others like him at that location at that time.

​

On the other hand, your claim of a fantastical Jew Wizard who lives outside of the Universe IS extraordinary and DOES require evidence.

---

But you didn't even prove it was done by a human in the first place!

quote:

---

Other things exhibit CSI which are not designed. That's been demonstrated.

---

Show me one of them.

quote:

---

Only because it's true. ID is simply renamed Creationism. If you support ID, you are a Creationist.

​

If we renamed the KKK to be the GGG, it wouldn't change the fact that the people are racist.

​

I'm going to address the rest of your post in a new reply because it's that important.

---

How do you know it's true? Where is the evidence that a bunch of creationists got up and teamed up to create the modern ID movement?

quote:

---

Both those things (the hillside & Mt. Rushmore) are complex.

​

You are claiming that the hillside was NOT designed and that Mt. Rushmore WAS designed based on WHAT? The complexity? They are BOTH complex.
In fact, the hillside may very well be MORE complex than Mt. Rushmore.

​

The ONLY way you are able to differentiate the two as being natural vs designed is because you...

​

....wait for it....

​

...know the MECHANISM!

​

You know the MECHANISM of erosion and gravity which generated the hillside. You know the MECHANISM of dynamite and chissel which generated Mt. Rushmoore.

​

Your equation CAN NOT differentiate between the two WITHOUT the mechanism.

---

No. No. No. No. How mayn times do I have to say no? It's not the complexity. It's the specification.And no. I knew Mount Rushmre was Designed even before I knew how it was desgined. I don't even know today which people workd there, and neither do you.

quote:

---

More "specified patterns"

​

Go ahead and do some calculations on the unlikelihood of three different images showing up in stone within just two planets in our solar system.

​

Astronomical! Impossible! They were all designed!

---

Specified patterns by themselves are not evidence of design. They have to be both complex and specified. These are obviously not complex enough to exhibit CSI.

Invisible pink unicorns have been observed just as often as invisible supernatural wizards. If he supports ID, he is a Creationist. And this conspiracy includes all of science - every field. This "conspiracy" you are so worried about is called "reality". Egypt.
On the stone itself.
With something very much like this: By a stone worker in Egypt.
In Egypt.
To provide information for people who understand different languages. Here's what it says in three different languages:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~qkstart/rosetta.html196 BC.See. Unlike you, I have the answers. Because the markings on the stone are fine. In order to make those markings you need to use a device with a point equal to or smaller than the notch it makes. This is simple physics. Again, simple physics. You can not make multiple blows at the same time. Because of where it was found and how it was made. You see because I know the MECHANISM OF PRODUCTION I can determine if it is natural or unnatural.That's very different than your claim which is that YOU can MAGICALLY tell. How many times do we have to post this information for you to bother to read it? Show your math.You don't simply get to declare that the bad lands image is "not complex enough".Prove it.

Wrong. Again.TEA is a word. If it mutated to TEAX it would no longer be a word - ergo there has been a mutation which has not been removed.If it mutated AGAIN to STEAX it would still not be a word. Two "bad" mutations not removed.One more mutation and we could get:
STEAK or TEXAS or TAXESSuddenly there are NO LONGER any bad mutations.Just because something changes does not mean it ALWAYS CHANGES for the worse.

Yes, all good.. . .Sorry for the delay and Sorry For The OT Everyone, Carry On.

quote:

---

Invisible pink unicorns have been observed just as often as invisible supernatural wizards.

---

I completely agree.

quote:

---

If he supports ID, he is a Creationist.

---

No, becasue ID does not equal creationism.

quote:

---

And this conspiracy includes all of science - every field. This "conspiracy" you are so worried about is called "reality".

---

Nope, only those who are atheists. Prove me wrong.

quote:

---

Egypt.
On the stone itself.
With something very much like this:

​

By a stone worker in Egypt.
In Egypt.
To provide information for people who understand different languages. Here's what it says in three different languages:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~qkstart/rosetta.html

​

196 BC.

​

See. Unlike you, I have the answers.

---

How do you know it was not done in China and than transported to Egypt? Have you ever seen anyone use that stick or whatever it is to make a Rosetta Stone? Nope. Than why would you claim that Somebody did 2000 years ago in Egypt? What answers? Those are all assumption.

quote:

---

Because the markings on the stone are fine. In order to make those markings you need to use a device with a point equal to or smaller than the notch it makes. This is simple physics.

---

Maybe it was done by a laser? Did you ever take that into a consideration?

quote:

---

Again, simple physics. You can not make multiple blows at the same time.

---

Maybe there were more than one people there. And they all struck at the same time?

quote:

---

Because of where it was found and how it was made. You see because I know the MECHANISM OF PRODUCTION I can determine if it is natural or unnatural.

​

That's very different than your claim which is that YOU can MAGICALLY tell.

---

What mechanism tells you the Rosetta stone was done in Egypt? Just because something was found there, that doesn't mean it was made there. If an earthquake happened right now a leveled the museum where the Rosetta Stone is right now, ans somebody found it 2000 years later, would he be correct in claiming that it was made where he found it?And do tell me, how do you know the Rosetta stone was not produced by wind, water, erosin over long periods of time?

quote:

---

How many times do we have to post this information for you to bother to read it?

---

I haven't seen it once.

quote:

---

Show your math.

​

You don't simply get to declare that the bad lands image is "not complex enough".

​

Prove it.

---

It's not complex enough compared to the Mount Rushmore. And since we do not have all the information relevant for those events, we can't calculate anything. The point remains that there is a limit to what chance can specify given a finite amount of time. And for things we can calcualte, we can determine if they are outside the reach of chance.

quote:

---

Wrong. Again.

​

TEA is a word. If it mutated to TEAX it would no longer be a word - ergo there has been a mutation which has not been removed.

​

If it mutated AGAIN to STEAX it would still not be a word. Two "bad" mutations not removed.

​

One more mutation and we could get:
STEAK or TEXAS or TAXES

​

Suddenly there are NO LONGER any bad mutations.

​

Just because something changes does not mean it ALWAYS CHANGES for the worse.

---

When did I say that all changes are for the worse? How about never? Some are good, soem are bad. On aerage, tehy are bad. That's why geentic entropy increases. Try mutating any word randomly, and see what you will get on average. The only reason you got a meaningful word is becasue you directed your mutations by an intelligent input. If you did it randomly, on average, you would not get a meaningful word.