RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: More Math Silly Putty, From the Isaac Newton of Numerology< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,06:54   

From UD - “The Center of the Bible”

According to Dembski,
Quote
Christians may appreciate this; secularists will be sure to dismiss it
if I were a Christian I'd be insulted that Dembski would assume I am so naive to accept such obvious nonsense.

(You have to click your mouse for each step in the slide show. )

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,07:07   

Hmmm!

Am I mistaken or is there some sort of religious aspect to this UD thread? Who is marching out of step, I wonder, Isaac Dembski or Dave Springer?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,07:18   

You know....I think its funny that Dembski missed all of the incorrect statements made in the Powerpoint....

he is a mathematician and theologian right?
Isnt this more specifically in his area of expertise than anything else in the world?

Yet a bunch of random people on his blog have to point out the glaring inaccuracies?

The world truly does seem amazing when you:
1. Manipulate facts
2. Become incredibly selective with your facts
3. Avoid checking the truthfulness of your information
4. Avoid information that would contradict your "beatiful" world view

;) does anybody think this might be a hidden message from Bill?  Maybe he posted this as a way of answering one of our biggest questions.

IS Bill Dembski exploiting people, or does he honestly believe himself?????

I think I have my answer.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,09:50   

Quote
IS Bill Dembski exploiting people, or does he honestly believe himself??

I think I have my answer.
The two possibilities are by no means mutually exclusive. Probably the best used car salesmen are the ones who manage to convince themselves first.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,10:21   

Quote (Russell @ Feb. 20 2006,15:50)
Quote
IS Bill Dembski exploiting people, or does he honestly believe himself??

I think I have my answer.
The two possibilities are by no means mutually exclusive. Probably the best used car salesmen are the ones who manage to convince themselves first.

I've sold cars and know that culture well.  Car salesmen do NOT convince themselves of anything other than they need to make a sale right then while the customer is on the lot and to not let them get away.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,10:55   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 20 2006,12:54)
From UD - “The Center of the Bible”

According to Dembski,
Quote
Christians may appreciate this; secularists will be sure to dismiss it
if I were a Christian I'd be insulted that Dembski would assume I am so naive to accept such obvious nonsense.

(You have to click your mouse for each step in the slide show. )

My computer wouldn't run the slide show. What exactly was this?

Doesn't this kind of trample all over DaveSpringer's quest to convince people religion has nothing to do with ID?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,11:00   

PZ Meyers debunked this in October of last year.  And here is snopes: <a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/center.htmsnopes"

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,11:44   

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 20 2006,17:00)
PZ Meyers debunked this in October of last year.  And here is snopes: <a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/center.htmsnopes" target="_blank">http://www.snopes.com/religio....RL=http</a>

Broken link...

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,13:56   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 20 2006,17:44)
Broken link...

The link works if you just click on the underlined word "Snopes."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,14:28   

The best rebuttal is in the journal that Demski refers to in the review.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/

It links to a paper in Stat Sci that thoroughly debunks the Bible Code.

While I'm at it, I'll laugh at their blog comments.

DaveScot:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/847
Quote
" Very good! There’s an independently given pattern there. The result however isn’t very complex as on any given day the odds would be 1:1000 for that result. Dembski defines the universal probability bound where a design inference is warranted as one out of ten to the 150th power (1/10^150) which is almost infinitely smaller chance than 1/10^3. But you’re thinking along the right lines! -ds"



Did you catch that? Almost infinite!

WOW! I'm almost at infinity, I can see it!

This is in a post about how the lottery and the bacterial flagellum are analogous.  :D

That's right, they say that the formation of the flagellum is much like a family whose members all win the lottery consecutively. Ah! How could I be so blind?

Silly Putty indeed!

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,14:54   

Maybe Demsbki can get published here one day (I don't think they have a very rigorous peer review process):



--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Joseph Beres



Posts: 7
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,17:15   

Beervolcano:

I did catch his comment about 1/10^150 being "almost infinitely smaller" than 1/10^3. Funny stuff. I guess Engineers have a different definition of infinity than mathematicians.

There are a couple more laughs in the same article:
Davescot starts with "Suppose there is a state lottery and each month for 12 consecutive months 10 million tickets are sold and one winning ticket is drawn at random." Then later says "The odds of any particular set of 12 people winning the lottery are 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000." Actually, if each person buys only one ticket (this seems be be what he's implying) then the probability of any particular set of 12 people winning is (1/10,000,000)^12 = 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000.
His main point (assuming he has one) is that the chances of 12 family members, none of whom buy more than one ticket, winning all 12 monthly drawings is remote under the given requirements (duh). So if we assume that only 12 members of the family are playing the lottery, and each family member stops playing after they win (I'm being generous) then I get odds of 1 in 12!/10,000,000^12 which is approximately 4.79*10^-76 which is well below the "universal probability bound" of 1*10^-150 (if I've made any mistakes feel free to point them out).
The point that Davescot and other ID'ers miss is that examples like his have nothing to do with biological systems (as Beervolcano already pointed out). Artificiality is decided on a case-by-case basis, frequently by nothing more than common sense and/or experience with the understanding that in all but obvious cases we could be wrong (pulsars were thought to possibly be signals from extraterrestrials when they were first detected). There is no calculation that will show that Mt. Rushmore is artificial, or that the first 100 prime numbers, in sequence, detected from space are evidence of intelligence (not that SETI even looks for such things) and there never will be. Yet I have no difficulty in identifing Mt. Rushmore as artificial.

Just my two cents...

  
  11 replies since Feb. 20 2006,06:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]