Intelligent Design

[vz71]

SOS has a commonly understood meaning. But now consider if this arrangement of rocks were say, in Springfield, IL. Would this change your view of the meaning?

No, it would not.
I would still recognize it as a distress call.

But really, the message itself is unimportant to the debate. It is the fact that it is designed specificly by an intelligence.
In this case it was designed to convey distress.

 

[vz71]

A team full of 33% hitters would be considered a very successful hitting team. Given enough at bats, they will get a hit, won’t they?

No.
This is the gambler’s fallacy again.
The chance of hitting that ball is not changed by the previous events.

 

[rossum]

The study of linguistics is a science. In your case the combination of symbols, repeatability of symbols and structure would be studied. Additionally, code breaking techniques would be used.

But that is not a general technique. ID claims to have a general technique that is applicable to many different situations. CSI does not depend on linguistics. If it did then it could not be applied to the bacterial flagellum.

I am trying to elucidate the general ID methods here, not the specific methods linguists or cryptographers may use to analyse texts.

rossum

 

[rossum]

you may want to re-read the thread.
Rossum has conceded the random element to this.

You may want to re-read what I said. There is, obviously, a random element in ‘random mutation’. That is very different to natural selection, which is highly non-random. The combination of the two is not random.

If I start with a set of random integers and then select out all the even integers from my random (name removed by moderator)ut then the output is not random because it contains no even integers. Any claimed random number generator that only produced odd integers would fail the first test it was given.

Random mutation contains a random element. The combination of random mutation and natural selection is not random because of the non-random contribution of natural selection.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Of course both pieces are designed; I am not disputing that.

I imagine you couldn’t.
You generated both pieces.

However each piece follows a different specification and only one of the two pieces makes sense to a Tibetan speaker. My question is not about design, it is about CSI.

No your not.
You are switching your argument to CSI because your original point has been crushed.
Here was your original point:

Now you have the task of proving that design and intelligence using the scientific methods proposed by ID.

You do not mention CSI, you specify to prove it was designed and that there was an intelligence behind it.
The design was shown for both, in one through rules of language.
For the other, rules for appearing to be a language.
As to the intelligence behind it, that would be yours.
I would caution against arguing against your own intelligence.

 

[vz71]

There are more disadvantageous mutations than there are advantageous mutations. However, do not forget that in just humans there are about 900 billion mutations per generation.
rossum

Careful.
There is no proof that there are 900 billion mutations at all.

But I am glad you brought in the hypothetical 900 billion number.
How does that compare with a 6 sided die?

 

[vz71]

I am trying to elucidate the general ID methods here, not the specific methods linguists or cryptographers may use to analyse texts.

rossum

As stated earlier: “Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

So why should we drop linguistics, cryptography, and analysis?

All of those are useful in discerning patterns.

 

[kbachler]

As stated earlier: “Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

So why should we drop linguistics, cryptography, and analysis?

All of those are useful in discerning patterns.

Huh?

 

[kbachler]

No.
This is the gambler’s fallacy again.
The chance of hitting that ball is not changed by the previous events.

Sorry, you misunderstand what is being said. Look up the “Law of large numbers”. It’s not the same as the gamblers fallacy.

 

[vz71]

You may want to re-read what I said. There is, obviously, a random element in ‘random mutation’. That is very different to natural selection, which is highly non-random. The combination of the two is not random.

The mutation itself is a random event.
What the mutation is, when it is, or even if it is are random.

Is it really your contention that an event that may or may not occur in a way that we cannot predict in a time scale that we cannot predict is not random?

 

[kbachler]

you may want to re-read the thread.
Rossum has conceded the random element to this.

You may want to re-read the thread rather than mis-read the thread. Seriously, you need to get your head around the law of large numbers.

 

[vz71]

Sorry, you misunderstand what is being said. Look up the “Law of large numbers”. It’s not the same as the gamblers fallacy.

You may want to re-read the thread rather than mis-read the thread. Seriously, you need to get your head around the law of large numbers.

In the beginning, there were not large numbers of animals.
So why should I act as if there were?

 

[kbachler]

No, it would not.
I would still recognize it as a distress call.

But really, the message itself is unimportant to the debate. It is the fact that it is designed specificly by an intelligence.
In this case it was designed to convey distress.

Thus, you have provided proof of the fallacy that we were trying to show that you were committing.

For you see, Springfield is the capital of Illinois. And in Springfield, SOS signifies Secretary of State - not a distress call at all. Rocks arranged in an SOS form could signify nothing, or a distress call, or the office of the secretary of state.

So you see, making assumptions about the meaning of an arrangement of rocks DOES change the view. If you assume the arrangement has meaning (when we don’t know that it does) they you have a message.

Good luck with the Martian face.

 

[kbachler]

In the beginning, there were not large numbers of animals.
So why should I act as if there were?

Again, your comments illustrate ignorance of the topic. No one said anything about a large number of animals.

 

[vz71]

Thus, you have provided proof of the fallacy that we were trying to show that you were committing.

For you see, Springfield is the capital of Illinois. And in Springfield, SOS signifies Secretary of State - not a distress call at all. Rocks arranged in an SOS form could signify nothing, or a distress call, or the office of the secretary of state.

So you see, making assumptions about the meaning of an arrangement of rocks DOES change the view. If you assume the arrangement has meaning (when we don’t know that it does) they you have a message.

Good luck with the Martian face.

So I am wrong because the meaning of the words is really this and not that?

I can accept being wrong about the meaning of the design, the intelligent design still cannot be denied.
All you are doing is arguing over the meaning of the design at this point.

 

[tonyrey]

As stated earlier: “Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

Irrefutable! Patterns don’t always signify intelligence but there comes a point at which it is unreasonable to reject that explanation. Otherwise all purposeful activity is reduced to purposeless arrangements of matter!

 

[vz71]

Again, your comments illustrate ignorance of the topic. No one said anything about a large number of animals.

So you contend that it is really a large number of mutations in a small number of animals?

 

[kbachler]

So you contend that it is really a large number of mutations in a small number of animals?

Again, I think you need to understand the concept before you continue to try to discuss it.

 

[kbachler]

Irrefutable! Patterns don’t always signify intelligence but there comes a point at which it is unreasonable to reject that explanation. Otherwise all purposeful activity is reduced to purposeless arrangements of matter!

Patterns can be purposeful without signifying intelligence.

 

[kbachler]

So I am wrong because the meaning of the words is really this and not that?

I can accept being wrong about the meaning of the design, the intelligent design still cannot be denied.
All you are doing is arguing over the meaning of the design at this point.

No, you are wrong because you assumed meaning of words.