Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 11:54 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, herebedragons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
 Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 62/114 Hour: 1/3

EvC Forum Side Orders The Great Debate

# Design Counterarguments

Author Topic:   Design Counterarguments
nialscorva
Inactive Member

 Message 61 of 63 (418) 08-30-2001 5:46 PM Reply to: Message 59 by Jairo08-29-2001 11:16 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Jairo:
Anything that happens more frequently than expected. (I think this is the creationist definition.)

Do you comply with it?
If not, why?

And I remember there is a situation when the "designed by what" question matters. It's when the event seems random. When you know what you are looking for, apparently usual events can provide complex information.

But we are analyzing complex-looking events. (No desing argument uses random-looking ones.)

Define random, complex, and information. It's not as easy as it sounds. According to the mathematical definitions, designed things have a tendency torwards redundancy (less complex), and random is indistinguishable from complex without prior knowledge of how to decode the message in question.

 This message is a reply to: Message 59 by Jairo, posted 08-29-2001 11:16 PM Jairo has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 62 by Jairo, posted 09-03-2001 6:55 PM nialscorva has responded

Jairo
Inactive Member

 Message 62 of 63 (419) 09-03-2001 6:55 PM Reply to: Message 61 by nialscorva08-30-2001 5:46 PM

Hey! I didn't use any of these words in the past definition.

But now you asked, I'm confused. My definitions comes from dictionaries, (non-English dictionaries!)

It's ok some designed things won't be detected by us without prior knowledge. But some of them will just fall in that category.(Happening more than expected).

I think it's a good indicator of design in some cases. Creationists want it to be an indicator all the times. And you?

 This message is a reply to: Message 61 by nialscorva, posted 08-30-2001 5:46 PM nialscorva has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 63 by nialscorva, posted 09-06-2001 1:31 AM Jairo has not yet responded

nialscorva
Inactive Member

 Message 63 of 63 (420) 09-06-2001 1:31 AM Reply to: Message 62 by Jairo09-03-2001 6:55 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jairo:
[B]Hey! I didn't use any of these words in the past definition.
[/QUOTE]

No, but you needed to.

quote:

But now you asked, I'm confused. My definitions comes from dictionaries, (non-English dictionaries!)

That's because you'll only find every-day definitions in those dictionaries, and those definitions are insufficient for technical discussions. Words like information and existence have such vague definitions that they are practically meaningless when you get into the details.

quote:

It's ok some designed things won't be detected by us without prior knowledge. But some of them will just fall in that category.(Happening more than expected).

Such as?

quote:

I think it's a good indicator of design in some cases. Creationists want it to be an indicator all the times. And you?

I think it's a good indicator when we're talking about things that we commonly run across. I can use it while walking down the street, or in the woods. I don't think it applies in the hard sciences (biology, chemistry, physics), math, or philosophy. It's good enough for me to choose a place to buy lunch, but I wouldn't use it to determine the correct button on an alien doomsday device, or to solve a path integral for an electron interaction.

 This message is a reply to: Message 62 by Jairo, posted 09-03-2001 6:55 PM Jairo has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Prev 1 2 3 4 5