RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: So You Think ID Has Substance?, Prove that ID is *not* worthless crap< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Cubist



Posts: 466
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2010,06:12   

In another forum, I proposed a few simple challenges for Creationists (in which category IDists fall). Very few Creationists ever even replied to any of these challenges, and no Creationist ever succeeded in meeting any of these challenges. Since that old forum has become a spammer-infested wasteland, I figured it might be appropriate to bring these challenges over to a rather more active forum...

Challenge the first: What is Creationism?
Creationists like to assert that Creationism really and truly is a realio, trulio scientific theory, honest to Murgatroyd it is. But if this assertion is correct, then it should be possible to define the scientific theory of Creationism. Right? Right! So...
What is the scientific theory of Creationism, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?

Challenge the second: What is ID?
As with Creationism, so, too, with Creationism's wholly-owned subsidiary, ID. If ID really is a genuine scientific theory, yada yada yada. So...
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?

Challenge the third: Which has more information?
Creationists like to assert that random mutations cannot create genetic information. Perhaps they're right... but how do they know? It seems to me that if you have no way of measuring this 'genetic information' stuff, you have no grounds for declaring that mutations cannot create it. With that in mind, here are the two nucleotide sequences this challenge centers around:
Code Sample
Sequence 1: cag tgt ctt ggg ttc tcg cct gac tac gag acg cgt ttg tct tta cag gtc ctc ggc cag cac ctt aga caa gca ccc ggg acg cac ctt tca gtg ggc act cat aat ggc gga gta cca agg agg cac ggt cca ttg ttt tcg ggc cgg cat tgc tca tct ctt gag att tcc ata ctt

Sequence 2: tgg agt tct aag aca gta caa ctc tgc gac cgt gct ggg gta gcc act tct ggc cta atc tac gtt aca gaa aat ttg agg ttg cgc ggt gtc ctc gtt agg cac aca cgg gtg gaa tgg ggg tct ctt acc aaa ggg ctg ccg tat cag gta cga cgt agg tat tgc cgt gat aga ctg
Which of these two nucleotide sequences contains more 'genetic information', and how did you determine your answer?

Challenge the fourth: Which one is Designed?
ID-pushers assert that ID provides a methodology by which one can determine whether or not some arbitrary whatever-it-is is the product of Design. Written sentences in English are Designed by whatever Intelligence wrote them; therefore, it follows that ID should be able to distinguish English sentences from random characters. If one translates an English sentence into a different language, that sentence is still Designed by the Intelligence who wrote it; therefore, the Designed nature of a written sentence is not destroyed by expressing that sentence with a different sequence of symbols. And if the Designed nature of a written sentence is not destroyed by expressing that sentence with a different sequence of symbols, it follows that the Designed nature of the sentence is not destroyed by using an encryption algorithm to convert that sentence into a sequence of seemingly random characters.
With all that in mind, here are two character strings, one of which is an encrypted message, and the other of which is an arbitrary string of random characters:
Code Sample
Character string one:
={ &={ +ZrKU hg"Ix gFZ" uaM?j ?Uhg
>H jCZrK ,MjR Lu"gF ZKZ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [lX ??U? ?waR, XmwM
Zv>Z ngo_ vUT XV Xv Zuyw y ,.! !&

Character string two:
jk?2J ^'VE ?hS-c Z(# ]'6"8 0cWd Yfv
BlGB a?" B2#_ 9gy B?J @Se&y 4Sp
'T4? #q- 6[Of 1#3?} - UTeT Fdg
Oi. H^- ?Jv= 1Q^o O];v :?QE( 5q3L
Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to use ID to determine which of these two strings is the encrypted message, and which is the random jumble. And show your work, please, so's we can tell that it was more than just dumb 50% luck.

1 May 2010 edit: Added the 'show your work' sentence to challenge #4 because, let's face it, OgreMkV was right to make note of that foolish omission

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2010,07:56   

and show your work and why it works...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2010,19:24   

(somewhere in the distance, a dog barked...)

How much you wanna bet JoeG will post one of his "I know you are but what am I, asshole?"s here.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2010,02:04   

Words, words, words:

Science, creationist science, ID science, Behe science, Dembski science, Joe G. science, Slimy Sal science, Ray Martinez science.

When that has been sorted out, maybe we could move on to real issues?

(Not to mention Cornelius Hunter, O'Leary and all the rest ad infinitum...)

To each his own definition of science.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2010,11:55   

Cubist - good luck with getting answers.  I'm thinking that you will get a legit response, right after Paul Nelson * responds... or the Cubs win the World Series, which ever comes last.

Paging Paul Nelson...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2010,15:10   

Cubist:

I'll post this on Premier Christian Radio's discussion forum:

http://premiercommunity.ning.com/forum

The place is awash with YECs, many of whome seem to know a lot about information theory despite having absolutely no science qualifications whatsoever

I do hope you'll provide me with an answers to the code challenges though (as I haven't a clue).Send me a private message if you like.

  
Cubist



Posts: 466
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2010,20:37   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ May 02 2010,15:10)
Cubist:

I'll post this on Premier Christian Radio's discussion forum:

http://premiercommunity.ning.com/forum

The place is awash with YECs, many of whome seem to know a lot about information theory despite having absolutely no science qualifications whatsoever
Go for it.
Quote
I do hope you'll provide me with an answers to the code challenges though (as I haven't a clue).Send me a private message if you like.
Thanks, but I think not. I don't trust Creationists or ID-pushers even a tenth as far as I can throw them, so I want to be absolutely, 1000% certain that Eating Their Own Dog Food -- I mean, "employing the methodologies they loudly claim to have" -- is the only physically possible means for them to discover the answer. Am I insinuating that Creationists/ID-pushers might actually cheat, acquiring the answers illicitly by hacking into your email or whatever? Well... yes, I am. And if Creationism/ID really is what Creationists/ID-pushers assert it to be, it doesn't matter whether or not I send you the answers, right?

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,02:40   

Quote (Cubist @ May 01 2010,06:12)
In another forum, I proposed a few simple challenges for Creationists (in which category IDists fall). Very few Creationists ever even replied to any of these challenges, and no Creationist ever succeeded in meeting any of these challenges. Since that old forum has become a spammer-infested wasteland, I figured it might be appropriate to bring these challenges over to a rather more active forum...

Challenge the first: What is Creationism?
Creationists like to assert that Creationism really and truly is a realio, trulio scientific theory, honest to Murgatroyd it is. But if this assertion is correct, then it should be possible to define the scientific theory of Creationism. Right? Right! So...
What is the scientific theory of Creationism, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?

Challenge the second: What is ID?
As with Creationism, so, too, with Creationism's wholly-owned subsidiary, ID. If ID really is a genuine scientific theory, yada yada yada. So...
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?

Challenge the third: Which has more information?
Creationists like to assert that random mutations cannot create genetic information. Perhaps they're right... but how do they know? It seems to me that if you have no way of measuring this 'genetic information' stuff, you have no grounds for declaring that mutations cannot create it. With that in mind, here are the two nucleotide sequences this challenge centers around:
Code Sample
Sequence 1: cag tgt ctt ggg ttc tcg cct gac tac gag acg cgt ttg tct tta cag gtc ctc ggc cag cac ctt aga caa gca ccc ggg acg cac ctt tca gtg ggc act cat aat ggc gga gta cca agg agg cac ggt cca ttg ttt tcg ggc cgg cat tgc tca tct ctt gag att tcc ata ctt

Sequence 2: tgg agt tct aag aca gta caa ctc tgc gac cgt gct ggg gta gcc act tct ggc cta atc tac gtt aca gaa aat ttg agg ttg cgc ggt gtc ctc gtt agg cac aca cgg gtg gaa tgg ggg tct ctt acc aaa ggg ctg ccg tat cag gta cga cgt agg tat tgc cgt gat aga ctg
Which of these two nucleotide sequences contains more 'genetic information', and how did you determine your answer?

Challenge the fourth: Which one is Designed?
ID-pushers assert that ID provides a methodology by which one can determine whether or not some arbitrary whatever-it-is is the product of Design. Written sentences in English are Designed by whatever Intelligence wrote them; therefore, it follows that ID should be able to distinguish English sentences from random characters. If one translates an English sentence into a different language, that sentence is still Designed by the Intelligence who wrote it; therefore, the Designed nature of a written sentence is not destroyed by expressing that sentence with a different sequence of symbols. And if the Designed nature of a written sentence is not destroyed by expressing that sentence with a different sequence of symbols, it follows that the Designed nature of the sentence is not destroyed by using an encryption algorithm to convert that sentence into a sequence of seemingly random characters.
With all that in mind, here are two character strings, one of which is an encrypted message, and the other of which is an arbitrary string of random characters:
Code Sample
Character string one:
={ &={ +ZrKU hg"Ix gFZ" uaM?j ?Uhg
>H jCZrK ,MjR Lu"gF ZKZ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [lX ??U? ?waR, XmwM
Zv>Z ngo_ vUT XV Xv Zuyw y ,.! !&

Character string two:
jk?2J ^'VE ?hS-c Z(# ]'6"8 0cWd Yfv
BlGB a?" B2#_ 9gy B?J @Se&y 4Sp
'T4? #q- 6[Of 1#3?} - UTeT Fdg
Oi. H^- ?Jv= 1Q^o O];v :?QE( 5q3L
Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to use ID to determine which of these two strings is the encrypted message, and which is the random jumble. And show your work, please, so's we can tell that it was more than just dumb 50% luck.

1 May 2010 edit: Added the 'show your work' sentence to challenge #4 because, let's face it, OgreMkV was right to make note of that foolish omission

Creationism is simply different species of thinkers about origins of the universe and things in it.

The modern world is the result of the intellectual conclusions of Protestant and Roman catholic Christian foundations.
One section of this is the acceptance of Genesis as a witness to origins of the important things.
In the Anglo-American civilization was the greatest persuasion of the bible as the word of God.
so today in North America is the greatest opposition to opposition to genesis.
Here we are.
The bible comes first. Then smaller numbers apply their intelligence to these issues and have successfully and quickly taught the whole world there is a legitimate challenge to evolution and company.

Then I.D came into existance from different people.
Simply intelligent thinkers found evolution was agrresive against the idea of a creator which to them was cracy. s they applied themselves to it and with degrees on the wall and successful books, movies, and so have become famous and he talk of the town.
I.D fits into the great majorities belief in God without belief in genesis.
Stupid overreaction by evolutionists has fanned the flames and not quenched them . The usual thing in dying ideas or empires.

  
Cubist



Posts: 466
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,02:58   

Quote (Robert Byers @ May 04 2010,02:40)
Creationism is simply different species of thinkers about origins of the universe and things in it.

The modern world is the result of the intellectual conclusions of Protestant and Roman catholic Christian foundations.
One section of this is the acceptance of Genesis as a witness to origins of the important things.
In the Anglo-American civilization was the greatest persuasion of the bible as the word of God.
so today in North America is the greatest opposition to opposition to genesis.
Here we are.
The bible comes first. Then smaller numbers apply their intelligence to these issues and have successfully and quickly taught the whole world there is a legitimate challenge to evolution and company.

Then I.D came into existance from different people.
Simply intelligent thinkers found evolution was agrresive against the idea of a creator which to them was cracy. s they applied themselves to it and with degrees on the wall and successful books, movies, and so have become famous and he talk of the town.
I.D fits into the great majorities belief in God without belief in genesis.
Stupid overreaction by evolutionists has fanned the flames and not quenched them . The usual thing in dying ideas or empires.
That's nice. Would you care to address any of the four challenges given in the post you're replying to?

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,10:06   

Challenge 4 is easy. Using a Dembski integral, one can derive a surjective submorphism from string one to string two. If we incorporate that into a Mullings Matrix M, where

M = cT,

c of course being the Cordova metric, we can then invert M and Behe-filter it about l (l being the Leary Curve, which you should have obtained from the integral). This should leave you with a vector V, in which

V(1) = the identifier of the designed string
V(2) = the CSI in string 1
V(3) = the CSI in string 2.

  
Mindrover



Posts: 65
Joined: April 2010

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,11:11   

Quote (Cubist @ May 01 2010,06:12)
Code Sample
Character string one:
={ &={ +ZrKU hg"Ix gFZ" uaM?j ?Uhg
>H jCZrK ,MjR Lu"gF ZKZ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [lX ??U? ?waR, XmwM
Zv>Z ngo_ vUT XV Xv Zuyw y ,.! !&

Character string two:
jk?2J ^'VE ?hS-c Z(# ]'6"8 0cWd Yfv
BlGB a?" B2#_ 9gy B?J @Se&y 4Sp
'T4? #q- 6[Of 1#3?} - UTeT Fdg
Oi. H^- ?Jv= 1Q^o O];v :?QE( 5q3L

Using the "information" I gleaned from JoeG, let me take a stab at #3:

First, I will need to know which one is the encrypted message (it will change the definition from "a string of random characters" to "an encrypted message"). Not being as familiar with the process as JoeG, I am not sure if I should request the unencrypted message as well (for a better definition, of course).

Second step, I count the number of charact... "amount of information" and multiply by 5.
Code Sample
a string of random characters = 29*5 = CSI of 145
an encrypted message = 20*5 = CSI of 100

Checking the CSI values against the design watermark of 500 I find that both\neither string is designed. I am sure that if the encrypted string is identified for me first (my request from earlier) that I could refine the accuracy a bit more.


???
I seem to be missing a step. Nowhere in the above message did I call into question Cubist's sexuality (or choice of car).
Back to the drawing board, it seems.

  
Cubist



Posts: 466
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,11:42   

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,10:06)
Challenge 4 is easy. Using a Dembski integral, one can derive a surjective submorphism from string one to string two. If we incorporate that into a Mullings Matrix M, where

M = cT,

c of course being the Cordova metric, we can then invert M and Behe-filter it about l (l being the Leary Curve, which you should have obtained from the integral). This should leave you with a vector V, in which

V(1) = the identifier of the designed string
V(2) = the CSI in string 1
V(3) = the CSI in string 2.

Well, then: With such a... rigorous... procedure to employ, it should be child's play to identify which of the two character strings is Designed. So would you care to do that thing?

  
Cubist



Posts: 466
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,11:45   

Quote (Mindrover @ May 04 2010,11:11)
Quote (Cubist @ May 01 2010,06:12)
Code Sample
Character string one:
={ &={ +ZrKU hg"Ix gFZ" uaM?j ?Uhg
>H jCZrK ,MjR Lu"gF ZKZ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [lX ??U? ?waR, XmwM
Zv>Z ngo_ vUT XV Xv Zuyw y ,.! !&

Character string two:
jk?2J ^'VE ?hS-c Z(# ]'6"8 0cWd Yfv
BlGB a?" B2#_ 9gy B?J @Se&y 4Sp
'T4? #q- 6[Of 1#3?} - UTeT Fdg
Oi. H^- ?Jv= 1Q^o O];v :?QE( 5q3L

Using the "information" I gleaned from JoeG, let me take a stab at #3:

First, I will need to know which one is the encrypted message (it will change the definition from "a string of random characters" to "an encrypted message").
So what you're saying is that ID can tell you which one is Designed, as long as you already knew in the first place..?

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,11:57   

Quote (Cubist @ May 04 2010,11:42)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,10:06)
Challenge 4 is easy. Using a Dembski integral, one can derive a surjective submorphism from string one to string two. If we incorporate that into a Mullings Matrix M, where

M = cT,

c of course being the Cordova metric, we can then invert M and Behe-filter it about l (l being the Leary Curve, which you should have obtained from the integral). This should leave you with a vector V, in which

V(1) = the identifier of the designed string
V(2) = the CSI in string 1
V(3) = the CSI in string 2.

Well, then: With such a... rigorous... procedure to employ, it should be child's play to identify which of the two character strings is Designed. So would you care to do that thing?

You mean this counts as showing my work? :)

  
Cubist



Posts: 466
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,18:29   

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,11:57)
Quote (Cubist @ May 04 2010,11:42)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,10:06)
Challenge 4 is easy. Using a Dembski integral, one can derive a surjective submorphism from string one to string two. If we incorporate that into a Mullings Matrix M, where

M = cT,

c of course being the Cordova metric, we can then invert M and Behe-filter it about l (l being the Leary Curve, which you should have obtained from the integral). This should leave you with a vector V, in which

V(1) = the identifier of the designed string
V(2) = the CSI in string 1
V(3) = the CSI in string 2.
Well, then: With such a... rigorous... procedure to employ, it should be child's play to identify which of the two character strings is Designed. So would you care to do that thing?
You mean this counts as showing my work? :)
Not until you actually meet the challenge, it doesn't...

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,21:24   

Quote (Cubist @ May 04 2010,09:42)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,10:06)
Challenge 4 is easy. Using a Dembski integral, one can derive a surjective submorphism from string one to string two. If we incorporate that into a Mullings Matrix M, where

M = cT,

c of course being the Cordova metric, we can then invert M and Behe-filter it about l (l being the Leary Curve, which you should have obtained from the integral). This should leave you with a vector V, in which

V(1) = the identifier of the designed string
V(2) = the CSI in string 1
V(3) = the CSI in string 2.

Well, then: With such a... rigorous... procedure to employ, it should be child's play to identify which of the two character strings is Designed. So would you care to do that thing?

Consider your chain yanked, Cubist. ;-p

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
skeptic reborn



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,22:53   

Sorry to jump in here but I find Challenge #4 very interesting in a non-ID way.  I'm fiddling with an evolutionary algorithim and I think this would be a good problem to apply it to.  I just wanted to confirm 1 assumption, that there is an actual solution and not just a jumble of characters to prove a point.  I don't begrudge the later in any sense as I believe the point is self-evident.  Also, can we get a commitment that the solution will be posted at some later date?  thanks.

  
Cubist



Posts: 466
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2010,05:15   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 04 2010,21:24)
Quote (Cubist @ May 04 2010,09:42)
 
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,10:06)
Challenge 4 is easy. Using a Dembski integral, one can derive a surjective submorphism from string one to string two. If we incorporate that into a Mullings Matrix M, where

M = cT,

c of course being the Cordova metric, we can then invert M and Behe-filter it about l (l being the Leary Curve, which you should have obtained from the integral). This should leave you with a vector V, in which

V(1) = the identifier of the designed string
V(2) = the CSI in string 1
V(3) = the CSI in string 2.

Well, then: With such a... rigorous... procedure to employ, it should be child's play to identify which of the two character strings is Designed. So would you care to do that thing?

Consider your chain yanked, Cubist. ;-p

Jes' playin' along wid da joke, fnxtr... for all I know, there might actually be such things as a "Mullings Matrix" and "Cordova metric" in ID. Mind you, I don't think it's likely that those sciencey-sounding terminologistical thingies are more than gentle fun-pokes at some of the... luminaries? ... who infest -- sorry, I mean "inhabit" -- the Uncommon Descent blog. But I cannot, in good conscience, assign the probability of that likelihood a value smaller than that of the Universal Probability Bound, hence I must needs treat this stuff as if it actually was genuine science. And if I end up with egg on my face, well, it wouldn't be the first time. Particularly not after a breakfast which involved a rather runny omelette.
Mmmm.... omelette...

  
Cubist



Posts: 466
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2010,05:20   

Quote (skeptic reborn @ May 04 2010,22:53)
Sorry to jump in here but I find Challenge #4 very interesting in a non-ID way. I'm fiddling with an evolutionary algorithim and I think this would be a good problem to apply it to. I just wanted to confirm 1 assumption, that there is an actual solution and not just a jumble of characters to prove a point. I don't begrudge the later in any sense as I believe the point is self-evident. Also, can we get a commitment that the solution will be posted at some later date? thanks.
Yes, there is a solution. One of those character strings is a coded message; the other is a random jumble. And the challenge for ID-pushers is to use ID to determine which one is which. If you manage to make that determination using a different, non-ID methodology, I will of course post a message which identifies the random jumble and provides the unencrypted message, because if a non-ID methodology can meet this challenge, it's clearly not adequate as a test of ID.
edited to add an afterthought: If you decrypt the message yourself, I won't complain if you post the cleartext. Okay?

  
skeptic reborn



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2010,09:59   

I view it as an excellent cryptology problem so this is off-topic so to speak.  Personally, I don't believe in acceptable "ID" methods but I think the post is a great challenge for different reasons.  Sorry for the diversion.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2010,11:58   

Quote (Cubist @ May 05 2010,03:15)
Jes' playin' along wid da joke, fnxtr... for all I know, there might actually be such things as a "Mullings Matrix" and "Cordova metric" in ID.

I believe the technical term is "Gordon E Mullings of The Kairos Institute but don't call me Gordon E Mullings of The Kairos Institute because that would be harrassment so let's just go with GEM of TKI which no-one will ever, ever figure out means Gordon E Mullings of The Kairos Institute and by the way you're just asking for it in that dress Matrix".  With footnotes.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Mindrover



Posts: 65
Joined: April 2010

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2010,07:30   

Quote (Cubist @ May 04 2010,11:45)
So what you're saying is that ID can tell you which one is Designed, as long as you already knew in the first place..?

Pretty much.
From Joe's own blog:
Quote (Joe G @ ,)
If it is something straight-forward such as a definition,we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains.

For example:
aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants


A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity..
along with...  
Quote (Joe G @ ,)
According to Wm. Dembski 500 bits of SI = CSI ("No Free Lunch")

And yes CSI = designed as it it beyond all probabilistic resources in the universe.

Does that mean that 499 is not designed? No.
So if I'm to use ID to figure this out, and JoeG seems to be the only IDer willing to describe their method, I need to know which one is the encrypted message.

Also, if I'm using the "JoeG method", I must now hurl insults and flounce out.

ahem

Y'all are a bunch of tubemonkeys.
(I seriously need to work on my insults if I'm to get anywhere in ID. :( )

[/flounce]

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2010,09:18   

Quote (Mindrover @ May 06 2010,08:30)
(I seriously need to work on my insults if I'm to get anywhere in ID. :( )

You need more of JoeG's anal fixation to get the right tone.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
  22 replies since May 01 2010,06:12 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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