Conclusive evidence for Design!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doxus said:
Nonsense.

“In the order they do”, you could ask the same of any order of bases.

AAAA
AAAT
AAAC
AAAG
AATA
AACA
AAGA
AATT
AATC
AATG

Etc, they all fall in an order of some sort. Any assortment of objects in an ordered set must fall into an order, it’s tautological.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point completely. The order is functionally specific for the creation and replication of life. Not just any order would work. Yet there is no functional reason why the highly complex order (code) would by the same token of “chance” allow life to occur and allow for the means to carry out the replication of that life. Two very specific outcomes, but either one would be highly, highly improbable.
 
Trurl said:
Really? And how would you know that? Are the results of coin-tosses NOT random? Of course I did not actually say that the numbers represent a bunch of coin tosses. They may, or they may not. That is what you are supposed to figure out.

Where is your design-o-meter? Point at that sequence and see what does it say. You guys are not dumb, so stop acting it.
Click to expand...
My design-o-meter tells me the entire set up is designed to create random coin tosses. It’s contrived for sure.
 
Peter_Plato said:
My design-o-meter tells me the entire set up is designed to create random coin tosses. It’s contrived for sure.
Click to expand...
If that’s anything like a random number generator, then the results - the numbers generated - are not truly random, in the sense of being completely indeterminate. It takes effort on the part of a designer to emulate natural processes - why would a god bother?
 
buffalo said:
No, the UPB is quite high. *It exceeds all the events and atoms in the entire universe since the beginning. *So sand pattern formation is well under the UPB. *
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the UPB is high enough that the result of ANY complex random interaction is excluded? So no matter how many millions or billions of free moving components are in an interaction the total number of possible outcomes will not exceed the UPB?

If so then the UPB would seem to need to be almost inconceivably vast. Ax10^x where x is a number is a very large number indeed, millions? Trillions? Probably still too low. And of course it still doesn’t separate “random” from “designed”.
You need to call the dictionary folks on this one. *I am sure they will be open to being corrected.
Click to expand...
Not a problem, the “dictionary folks” have already got it sorted.*
SETI was a waste of money, don’t you think? *However, if we see a map or symbol we know it is designed. *In the sand pattern formed by the waves we see the three letters SOS.
Click to expand...
So again, how do you tell the difference between complex and designed and complex and undesigned?
No - let’s examine the so called eloquent sentence. *Care to quote it?
Click to expand...
Sure, I did several times already actually, you said

“No - patterns are complicated and not all of them are designed.”

You are of course correct, this is why we need to have some other criteria for detecting design.

In other words your criteria would need to be able to separate:
  • Random
  • Non-random and non-designed
  • Designed
Thus far we have made no progress towards this goal.*
 
It’s highly entertaining to observe how the devotees of the cult of Unreason are so ardently dedicated to undermining the very foundation of their power of reasoning by attempting to prove their existence is entirely due to the random movements of countless minute components which have never had the slightest awareness of they were doing or ever will… Who said there have never been any miracles? That must be the greatest in the entire history of the universe… 😉
 
Trurl said:
Really? And how would you know that? Are the results of coin-tosses NOT random? Of course I did not actually say that the numbers represent a bunch of coin tosses. They may, or they may not. That is what you are supposed to figure out.

Where is your design-o-meter? Point at that sequence and see what does it say. You guys are not dumb, so stop acting it.
Click to expand...
Look, if you want to use coin tossing appropriately to depict what happened, say at the origin of life “event,” let us do it with gusto and stake it out properly.

Imagine you had a large variety of different denominations of coins from different countries that simply flipped themselves as a matter of course. In order to even enable your coin tossing machine to begin your “experiment,” the following had to happen and all of it blindly. A specific number of these coins, but not just any coins - they had to be American copper pennies - had to end up in a line 150 pennies long and in a very precise configuration, not just any order would suffice. Perhaps with the specificity of your sequence but 150 instances long. If by chance, that happened to come about, the coins would form, because of some mysterious, but pre-determined fiat of nature, a coin tossing “machine” that would allow your experiment to take place.

Once the machine was formed, if that ever could happen by sheer dumb luck, then and only then would the machine begin to carry out your experiment.

But, hang onto your shorts, once the machine had formed itself, it could only stay assembled for a short period of time, perhaps a few days, before it fell apart and separated into its constituent penny components and no longer function to generate sequences. However, if during this short duration, the penny tossing “machine” did toss a very specific sequence of heads and tails such as yours, again determined by some mysterious fiat of nature, then and only then, it could replicate itself and keep the species “coin tosser” functionally existent and self-replicating.

Continuing the saga, once any self-replicating “coin tosser” was achieved, the specific sequence of outcomes would remain fairly intact and continue to replicate and make new coin tossing machines as a matter of course. Aye, but, as they say, there’s the rub, the sequence would not stay “perfectly” intact. Slight modifications to the output code would randomly occur to degenerate the sequence. As a result some of the newly generated coin tosser “machines” would lose function or gain new ones. Whether few or many machines continued to replicate or stay functional would be completely a matter of whether the modified order would stay within a certain fixed limit of change and whether that change happened to be suited to the environment that the coin tosser found itself in. Some changes would be advantageous, others not so much.

Now we can apply the design-o-meter. Do we detect the need for contrivance in this story or could all those elements to construct the entire scenario happen by sheer dumb and blind luck? My design-o-meter is showing purposeful intent. What about yours?
 
Sair said:
If that’s anything like a random number generator, then the results - the numbers generated - are not truly random, in the sense of being completely indeterminate. It takes effort on the part of a designer to emulate natural processes - why would a god bother?
Click to expand...
To keep you baffled.:hmmm:
 
Trurl said:
So what? Every computer program is just a sequence of 1’s and 0’s. If you look at something that may or may not be a computer program how do you find out if it is just a bunch of random 1’s and 0’s, or something that represents “actual information” in an encoded format? The question was: "is that sequence the result of a random event, or is it the result of a designed activity?

Really? And how would you know that? Are the results of coin-tosses NOT random? Of course I did not actually say that the numbers represent a bunch of coin tosses. They may, or they may not. That is what you are supposed to figure out.

Where is your design-o-meter? Point at that sequence and see what does it say. You guys are not dumb, so stop acting it.
Click to expand...
Without a key it is most difficult. However, a bunch of 0’s and 1’s are constrained, thus planned. They have meaning thus designed. Seeing this sequence would get me interested to examine whether they have meaning. The design meter would not point to random.
 
Doxus said:
Nonsense.

“In the order they do”, you could ask the same of any order of bases.

AAAA
AAAT
AAAC
AAAG
AATA
AACA
AAGA
AATT
AATC
AATG

Etc, they all fall in an order of some sort. Any assortment of objects in an ordered set must fall into an order, it’s tautological.
Click to expand...
We now know DNA has different meanings when read forward and backwards.
 
Candide_West said:
So you are saying that the UPB is high enough that the result of ANY complex random interaction is excluded? So no matter how many millions or billions of free moving components are in an interaction the total number of possible outcomes will not exceed the UPB?

If so then the UPB would seem to need to be almost inconceivably vast. Ax10^x where x is a number is a very large number indeed, millions? Trillions? Probably still too low. And of course it still doesn’t separate “random” from “designed”.

Not a problem, the “dictionary folks” have already got it sorted.*

So again, how do you tell the difference between complex and designed and complex and undesigned?

Sure, I did several times already actually, you said

“No - patterns are complicated and not all of them are designed.”

You are of course correct, this is why we need to have some other criteria for detecting design.

In other words your criteria would need to be able to separate:
  • Random
  • Non-random and non-designed
  • Designed
Thus far we have made no progress towards this goal.*
Click to expand...
Yes - the UPB is set at 10^ 150.
  • 1080, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
  • 1045, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
  • 1025, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
So if the odds of an event happening exceed 10^150 then the likely explanation is it has been designed.

As I have posted before - we live in a specific frame of reference. If our reference is designed and therefore everything inside the frame is designed it is most difficult to differentiate. However, not having the advantage of looking from outside our frame we can look at ripples on the beach and ripples with SOS written on the sand and know that the desing-o-meter 🙂 shows a difference.
 
buffalo said:
Yes - the UPB is set at 10^ 150.
  • 1080, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
  • 1045, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
  • 1025, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
So if the odds of an event happening exceed 10^150 then the likely explanation is it has been designed.

As I have posted before - we live in a specific frame of reference. If our reference is designed and therefore everything inside the frame is designed it is most difficult to differentiate. However, not having the advantage of looking from outside our frame we can look at ripples on the beach and ripples with SOS written on the sand and know that the desing-o-meter 🙂 shows a difference.
Click to expand...
Nothing will convince those who are determined to believe random events are the sole explanation. I wonder what they think explains random events. More random events? 😉
 
tonyrey said:
Nothing will convince those who are determined to believe random events are the sole explanation. I wonder what they think explains random events. More random events? 😉
Click to expand...
Indeed - the randometer only has one value and the meter pointer never can move off it.

Point it anywhere and it never moves even a wee bit.
 
Candide_West said:
Look them up for yourself. There’s loads of information on the internet about it if you’re interested. Of course none of it has anything to do with our discussion here, which has been sucessfully concluded by showing that your “evidence” was in fact just a tautology.
Click to expand...
LOL!! You mean Wikipedia? Google? I could look up Brad Pitt being an alien and get some info. I’m in a biology class, and what I’ve learned is that evolution is not a fact or even a theory. The scientific method goes; Someone makes a discovery, it gets observed and examined, examined by others then peer reviewed…However, if the person making the discovery or the peer reviewers have a certain bias…namely atheism, then there is no theory or fact it is merely a hypothesis. I also have several quotes from noble prize winning atheists who admit they don’t believe in it themselves, but they also admit they don’t want to believe in God. And also spontaneous generation was dis-proven by Louis Pasteur. And the theory of “If it’s on the internet it must be true”, falls apart. Richard Dawkins had stated at a “reason” rally to “Ridicule the religious with contempt”, So, to summarize your position atheists will try to belittle Christians through verbal abuse and bullying…where’s the reason and logic in that? Oh, and if you want those quotes I can supply them. God does exist and He wants to forgive you, at least think about that.
 
buffalo said:
Yes - the UPB is set at 10^ 150.

So if the odds of an event happening exceed 10^150 then the likely explanation is it has been designed. *
Click to expand...
But that’s a tiny number compared to the number of possible outcomes (and therefore probability of any single outcome) in any complex interaction. For comparison if we look at the number of combinations playing cards if we shuffle two decks together. The odds of any particular outcome is 1x10^166! So we’re already clear of your UPB by thousands of trillions.*

So using a tiny value like that for UPB you’d exceed it with ANY combination of a few playing cards. And that’s a comically simple interaction compared to what you’re talking about with sand ripples on a beach. *

So if your UPB separated designed from undesigned then sand ripples on a beach would inescapably have to be classified as “designed”. But as you’ve already noted, they are not. Again we have demonstrated why a UPB cannot exist.*
As I *have posted before - we live in a specific frame of reference. *If our reference is designed and therefore everything inside the frame is designed it is most difficult to differentiate. *However, not having the advantage of looking from outside our frame we can look at ripples on the beach and ripples with SOS written on the sand and know that the desing-o-meter 🙂 shows a difference.
Click to expand...
But for your design-o-meter to be any use it must differentiate between billions of components arranged into one organised pattern (say ripples on a beach) and the same number of components arranged into a different organised pattern (say the letters SOS). Obviously the criteria cannot be a probability they are both unimaginably unlikely through random interactions, and if anything the “non-designed” pattern shows a greater degree of organisation.

So I’ll ask yet again, how do you tell the difference between a complex undesigned pattern and a complex designed pattern. Your own statement made it clear that this is vital, but as yet you have still not attempted to show a method to achieve this.*
 
Candide_West said:
But that’s a tiny number compared to the number of possible outcomes (and therefore probability of any single outcome) in any complex interaction. For comparison if we look at the number of combinations playing cards if we shuffle two decks together. The odds of any particular outcome is 1x10^166! So we’re already clear of your UPB by thousands of trillions.*

So using a tiny value like that for UPB you’d exceed it with ANY combination of a few playing cards. And that’s a comically simple interaction compared to what you’re talking about with sand ripples on a beach. *

So if your UPB separated designed from undesigned then sand ripples on a beach would inescapably have to be classified as “designed”. But as you’ve already noted, they are not. Again we have demonstrated why a UPB cannot exist.*

But for your design-o-meter to be any use it must differentiate between billions of components arranged into one organised pattern (say ripples on a beach) and the same number of components arranged into a different organised pattern (say the letters SOS). Obviously the criteria cannot be a probability they are both unimaginably unlikely through random interactions, and if anything the “non-designed” pattern shows a greater degree of organisation.

So I’ll ask yet again, how do you tell the difference between a complex undesigned pattern and a complex designed pattern. Your own statement made it clear that this is vital, but as yet you have still not attempted to show a method to achieve this.*
Click to expand...
You are confusing outcomes with specified ones. What are the odds that if I shuffle the cards, throw them up and they land ace to 2 by suit 1,000 times out of 1,000 times?

Dembski himself claims 10^150 to be a most conservative number.

The answer lies in how we process recognition of design.

Which of these two are designed and why?

http://www.svalbard-adventure.com/comp.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...ScZ-p3kTNX-J1xQU6WwmujVTnlGfkNmotEvPcYjDlVmKw
 
Jesusaves777 said:
LOL!! You mean Wikipedia? Google? I could look up Brad Pitt being an alien and get some info. I’m in a biology class, and what I’ve learned is that evolution is not a fact or even a theory. The scientific method goes; Someone makes a discovery, it gets observed and examined, examined by others then peer reviewed…However, if the person making the discovery or the peer reviewers have a certain bias…namely atheism, then there is no theory or fact it is merely a hypothesis. I also have several quotes from noble prize winning atheists who admit they don’t believe in it themselves, but they also admit they don’t want to believe in God. And also spontaneous generation was dis-proven by Louis Pasteur. And the theory of “If it’s on the internet it must be true”, falls apart. Richard Dawkins had stated at a “reason” rally to “Ridicule the religious with contempt”, So, to summarize your position atheists will try to belittle Christians through verbal abuse and bullying…where’s the reason and logic in that? Oh, and if you want those quotes I can supply them. God does exist and He wants to forgive you, at least think about that.
Click to expand...
A warm welcome to the forum! 🙂 A realistic challenge to the “scientific” charlatans. 😉
 
buffalo said:
Indeed - the randometer only has one value and the meter pointer never can move off it.

Point it anywhere and it never moves even a wee bit.
Click to expand...
A department of Randomology will have to be established in every university to conduct extensive research into this sensational phenomenon which is undoubtedly the greatest contribution to the understanding of reality that has ever been presented to humanity! :clapping:
 
Peter_Plato said:
Look, if you want to use coin tossing appropriately to depict what happened, say at the origin of life “event,” let us do it with gusto and stake it out properly.

Imagine you had a large variety of different denominations of coins from different countries that simply flipped themselves as a matter of course. In order to even enable your coin tossing machine to begin your “experiment,” the following had to happen and all of it blindly. A specific number of these coins, but not just any coins - they had to be American copper pennies - had to end up in a line 150 pennies long and in a very precise configuration, not just any order would suffice. Perhaps with the specificity of your sequence but 150 instances long. If by chance, that happened to come about, the coins would form, because of some mysterious, but pre-determined fiat of nature, a coin tossing “machine” that would allow your experiment to take place.

Once the machine was formed, if that ever could happen by sheer dumb luck, then and only then would the machine begin to carry out your experiment.

But, hang onto your shorts, once the machine had formed itself, it could only stay assembled for a short period of time, perhaps a few days, before it fell apart and separated into its constituent penny components and no longer function to generate sequences. However, if during this short duration, the penny tossing “machine” did toss a very specific sequence of heads and tails such as yours, again determined by some mysterious fiat of nature, then and only then, it could replicate itself and keep the species “coin tosser” functionally existent and self-replicating.

Continuing the saga, once any self-replicating “coin tosser” was achieved, the specific sequence of outcomes would remain fairly intact and continue to replicate and make new coin tossing machines as a matter of course. Aye, but, as they say, there’s the rub, the sequence would not stay “perfectly” intact. Slight modifications to the output code would randomly occur to degenerate the sequence. As a result some of the newly generated coin tosser “machines” would lose function or gain new ones. Whether few or many machines continued to replicate or stay functional would be completely a matter of whether the modified order would stay within a certain fixed limit of change and whether that change happened to be suited to the environment that the coin tosser found itself in. Some changes would be advantageous, others not so much.

Now we can apply the design-o-meter. Do we detect the need for contrivance in this story or could all those elements to construct the entire scenario happen by sheer dumb and blind luck? My design-o-meter is showing purposeful intent. What about yours?
Click to expand...
👍 A witty reductio ad absurdum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top