The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Vivisectus

Absolam wrote: »

Hang on, how is it possible to devise a code that 'translates' a random string into a sentence? Surely there must be a meaning present for it to be translated, otherwise it's not a translation, it's a substitution? Which is to say, in that case it would be the code that contains the meaning, not the original string.

For the string to be both complex and specific it would have to have it's own inherent meaning without any translation/substitution, would it not? I don't see how there's a particular issue with a complex and specific string occurring spontaneously as a result of random chance (a la the infinite monkey theorum), so what am I missing?

That is more or less the point: it commits something like the modal fallacy. Just like you need a code and an end result in mind to think of the characters as having meaning, Dembskis specificity only works if you think there is intent, a goal, there to start with and then work backwards from what you can observe.

The chances of the characters coming up correctly if you already have a fixed code are very small. But since you only devise the code after the fact, that does not really matter.

The same applies to Dembski's thinking about specificity. It assumes that there is one possible solution (what we see today) and then works backwards as if it was the only thing that could have happened, that it was necessary that it happened this way.

The flagellum, for him, is impossibly complex because he thinks of it as having a reason for existence and then works backwards. And indeed, if you start with a specific flagellum and then work out how small the chances are of such a combination coming up if all elements are random, it seems an impossibly small chance. But we see similar dna coding for something that is just like a flagellum, but has a different function. Sometimes we even see the exact same code being expressed differently because of the influence of other coding elements.

In other words - the end result is not a fixed goal. The specificity (in the dembskian sense), like the code, is invented later.

Colonialboy

Vivisectus wrote: »

Just to demonstrate the problem of specificity:

I will now hit some random characters on my keyboard:

ahhgt sjhdt lkkskjs ejsgjle wyujsgt whsyh

According to Demsbki, this string is complex (it has a lot of parts), but not specific. It is a random string of characters, such as could be put together by chance.

However, if I devise a code that translates the above string into a sentence, all of a sudden the string has specificity... and can only have been put together by an intelligent designer!

And it is still just a random string of numbers that I got by hitting the keyboard randomly. So how come this string lacks this magical quality now, but will possess it when I devise the code?

Quite simple: a "thing with specificity" is just "something to which I attribute purpose". But this "specificity" is proposed as a way for detecting that same purpose! And round and round the circular logic goes from then on...

Where did your keyboard originate from ?

Brian Shanahan

Colonialboy wrote: »

Where did your keyboard originate from ?

I'm guessing Taiwan via an electrical goods store.

What relevance though does your question have to the matter at hand.

Colonialboy

Vivisectus wrote: »

And it is still just a random string of numbers that I got by hitting the keyboard randomly. So how come this string lacks this magical quality now, but will possess it when I devise the code?

Where, when, how, who ...... did the code originate ?

Delirium

Colonialboy wrote: »

Where, when, how, who ...... did the code originate ?

Computers and Technology

---

>

Colonialboy

Colonialboy wrote: »

Where, when, how, who ...... did the code originate ?

Could you give me an example of a few things that aren't "ID" so that we can reframe the question in a more suitable manner to you?

magicbastarder

Colonialboy wrote: »

Where, when, how, who ...... did the code originate ?

i don't think you're enlightened enough yet to learn about The Code.
i can sell you a DVD manual to assist you with this, for the modest sum of €49.99.

Colonialboy

MrPudding wrote: »

Did anyone see the 'Sky at Night' special last night? They had a really interesting chemistry experiment on it. They have a lump of ice which is similar to what they believe a comet is made of, very simple molecules, nothing complex. They put this lump of ice into a machine which allow them to fire a ball bearing into the ice at something like 28000 kph. When what is left of the ice in analysed after the impact they find amino acids have been formed. It appears that the energy of the impact forces simple molecules together to form more complex molecules. They are suggesting this might be how more complex molecule first appeared on earth, as a result of meteor impact. Of course, what probably happened is god squashed the simple molecule together with his fingers to make more complicated ones...

MrP

What was the atmosphere in the machine, oxidising,neutral or reducing ?
nine years on and the best on offer is Miller-urey, tapping keyboards and codes.... sheeple...

Doctor Jimbob

Colonialboy wrote: »

What was the atmosphere in the machine, oxidising,neutral or reducing ?
nine years on and the best on offer is Miller-urey, tapping keyboards and codes.... sheeple...

And we're back to talking about abiogenesis when the topic is supposed to be evolution. They aren't the same thing. As has been mentioned 13042 times in this thread.

Sheeple, really? I assume you have a viable alternative theory?

robindch

Colonialboy wrote: »

[...] nine years on and the best on offer is [...] sheeple...

Well, if you'd like to expand your explanation for life, the universe and everything beyond "sheeple", I'm sure you'll find the science-based side all ears.

Colonialboy

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And we're back to talking about abiogenesis when the topic is supposed to be evolution. They aren't the same thing. As has been mentioned 13042 times in this thread.

Sheeple, really? I assume you have a viable alternative theory?

you tell me doc..
after all your the one with the big thanks on the post referencing abiogenesis that I quoted and responded too. I didnt bring it up.

It seems people who like circular proofs evidently like to have it both ways.

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

Well, if you'd like to expand your explanation for life, the universe and everything beyond "sheeple", I'm sure you'll find the science-based side all ears.

If anything, I find the word "sheeple" adequately describes creationists. I suppose next he'll say the fossil record is a Marxist conspiracy or some bollocks like that. :rolleyes:

Doctor Jimbob

Colonialboy wrote: »

you tell me doc..
after all your the one with the big thanks on the post referencing abiogenesis that I quoted and responded too. I didnt bring it up.

It seems people who like circular proofs evidently like to have it both ways.

'Responded' is a strong word to use regarding your contributions to this thread. 'Inanely rambled about' might be more fitting.

Anyway, tell you what exactly? I'm not even sure what you're asking for here? I assume you think you've made some deep point by pointing out that there isn't massive support for theories of abiogenesis. It's not my field, but as far as I know you're right enough on that point. Thankfully science tends to keep going until it finds the answer rather than stopping at a half assed conclusion.

Now, your alternative hypothesis was...?

Brian Shanahan

Colonialboy wrote: »

It seems people who like circular proofs evidently like to have it both ways.

Correct, you do like your circular proofs.

Colonialboy

Its amazing the number of theories that are attributed in this thread to a poster who hasnt declared any position.

Is that what goes for scientific debate here ? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Doctor Jimbob

Colonialboy wrote: »

Its amazing the number of theories that are attributed in this thread to a poster who hasnt declared any position.

Is that what goes for scientific debate here ? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Because there has been an endless stream of posters throughout this and related threads disparaging evolution while holding 'no position' of their own. It generally becomes rapidly obvious what their position is. Tell me, if you hold no position, then why do you have a problem with the overwhelming scientific evidence?

No, what does for scientific debate here and indeed anywhere would be both sides putting forward evidence and discussing the flaws in each others argument. Posting the odd one liner that essentially amounts to 'you're all wrong coz i say so' doesn't pass for scientific debate anywhere.

Brian Shanahan

Colonialboy wrote: »

Its amazing the number of theories that are attributed in this thread to a poster who hasnt declared any position.

Is that what goes for scientific debate here ? :eek: :eek: :eek:

You're not Edwin Poots by any chance? You resemble him very much.

J C

Colonialboy wrote: »

Its amazing the number of theories that are attributed in this thread to a poster who hasnt declared any position.

Is that what goes for scientific debate here ? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Hi Colonialboy ... welcome aboard!!!:)
The merest hint that you might have any doubts about evolution is sufficient for many people on this thread to conclude that you are some kind of 'Creationist'.

... and this despite the fact that almost all of the leading evolutionists in the world, harbour serious doubts over the validity of 'molecules to man' evolution.

... strange, but true.:)

Turtwig

\\\MOD:\\\

Colonialboy wrote: »

Its amazing the number of theories that are attributed in this thread to a poster who hasnt declared any position.

Is that what goes for scientific debate here ? :eek: :eek: :eek:

What's more amazing is how awful to a constructive discussion your postings on this thread have been. Suffice to say if you don't start contributing positively to a discussion your involvement in this thread won't continue.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You're not Edwin Poots by any chance? You resemble him very much.

As per boards.ie T&Cs anonymity is sacred, speculating the identity of any poster is paramount to a permanent site ban. I assume you were being facetious in which case people play the post and not the poster.

Thanking yous.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Well, if you'd like to expand your explanation for life, the universe and everything beyond "sheeple", I'm sure you'll find the science-based side all ears.

Thanks Robin ... but I'd like to point out that Creation Scientists normally have only two ears.;)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Thanks Robin ... but I'd like to point out that Creation Scientists normally have only two ears.;)

whether anything exists between them is another matter entirely! :P


Sorry, JC, just couldn't resist

J C

SW wrote: »

whether anything exists between them is another matter entirely! :P

A miracle of Evolution ... or a fiat act of God ... AKA a Human Brain exists there ... and I'll let you decide whether you believe in materialistic miracles ... or God as the explanation!!!:P

SW wrote: »

Sorry, JC, just couldn't resist

... I see ... you can resist everything ... except temptation!!!:)

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

A miracle of Evolution ... or a fiat act of God ... AKA a Human Brain exists there ... and I'll let you decide whether you believe in materialistic miracles ... or God as the explanation!!!:P

God gave you a brain, but will send you to hell for wasting its talents!!!! :pac:

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

God gave you a brain, but will send you to hell for wasting its talents!!!! :pac:

We shouldn't waste our God-given talents ... and we should work and contribute to society.
However, we cannot gain Heaven by using our talents ... and we won't end up in Hell for not doing so.
... the key issue for our Salvation is whether we believe on Jesus Christ to Save us ... or not.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Hi Colonialboy ... welcome aboard!!!:)
The merest hint that you might have any doubts about evolution is sufficient for many people on this thread to conclude that you are some kind of 'Creationist'.

... and this despite the fact that almost all of the leading evolutionists in the world, harbour serious doubts over the validity of 'molecules to man' evolution.

... strange, but true.:)

It's more the having 'doubts' without putting any reasoning for these doubts forward.

I'd imagine most leading evolution biologists don't have a clue what molecules to man evolution is considering its an absolute nonsense term.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

We shouldn't waste our God-given talents ... and we should work and contribute to society.
However, we cannot gain Heaven by using our talents ... and we won't end up in Hell for not doing so.
... the key issue for our Salvation is whether we believe on Jesus Christ to Save us ... or not.

So what you're saying is using our talents will get us nowhere but mindlessly following Jazzy C. will get us eternal happiness?* Why does God give us such talents if he doesn't want us to use them.

*Your experience may vary

Colonialboy

Turtwig wrote: »

\\\MOD:\\\

What's more amazing is how awful to a constructive discussion your postings on this thread have been. Suffice to say if you don't start contributing positively to a discussion your involvement in this thread won't continue.

Obviously posts that SPECULATE and ASSIGN a position to another poster qualify as constructive on this thread and require no censuring.
anyways its been revealing.
So long and thanks for all the loaves and fishes... (i know some of you are going to read loads into that last statement, relax dont waste your time, its just a humourous quip combining 2 popular quotes)

Doctor Jimbob

Colonialboy wrote: »

Obviously posts that SPECULATE and ASSIGN a position to another poster qualify as constructive on this thread and require no censuring.
anyways its been revealing.
So long and thanks for all the loaves and fishes... (i know some of you are going to read loads into that last statement, relax dont waste your time, its just a humourous quip combining 2 popular quotes)

You're quite free to let us know your position at any time I'm sure. You're just choosing not to and it's making it seem like you disagree with evolution purely because you don't like it.

PopePalpatine

At least some of J C's posts seem to require an effort (both to write and to read without banging your head in frustration).

Delirium

J C wrote: »

A miracle of Evolution ... or a fiat act of God ... AKA a Human Brain exists there ... and I'll let you decide whether you believe in materialistic miracles ... or God as the explanation!!!:P


... I see ... you can resist everything ... except temptation!!!:)

:P