Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
What are you talking about....here is the page:-
http://books.google.com/books?id=qCDp8MjkkLQC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=%22the+complexity+of+methinks+is+bounded%22&source=bl&ots=3WQP8fd1rN&sig=RL25iPnxYNOD8cQvvffsqPh93qc&hl=en&ei=Kt0WS8TQI56ZjAfDvbyGBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20complexity%20of%20methinks%20is%20bounded%22&f=false
Prof Dembski was comparing the sum of the individual probabilities of the individual words and the 5 spaces in {A, IS, IT, LIKE, WEASEL, METHINKS, _, _, _, _, _} which is 1:2.828x10^11 (or roughly -Log2 1/27^8) ...
... with the entire sequence of 23 letters and the 5 spaces in "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" which is 1:1.197x10^40 or -Log2 1/27^28.
He is comparing the CSI in both the aggregate of each meaningful word and the 5 spaces (2.828x10^11) with the complete meaningful sentence(1.197x10^40) !!!!
The 5 spaces makes his point even more dramatic (by increasing the CSI from -Log2 1/27^23 to -Log2 1/27^28) ... so WHY would he leave the spaces out???
... so Prof Dembski didn't forget (or deliberately leave out) the 5 spaces in his comparison.!!!!:D
Why do Evolutionists have such a problem with (relatively straightforward) maths???
The figure of -Log2 1/27^8 is for the word "METHINKS", not the entire aggregate. The ^8 refers to the 8 letters in the word and the ^28 in -Log2 1/27^28 refers to the 28 letters in the whole sentence.
Exactly what he says is: This sentence not only includes all the items of information that appear in the aggregate, but also arranges them in a grammatical sentence with semantic content. Unlike the aggregate, for which only the individual words are specified, here the entire sentence is a sequence of 28 letters and spaces, its complexity is bounded by -log2 1/27^28 = 133 bits of information and far exceeds the complexity of any item in the set or for that matter the sum of the complexities of all items in the set
Firstly it seems pointless to say that the complexity of the sentence exceeds "any item in the set". It doesn't take a genius to know that a 28 letter sentence is more complex than a word but he also says that it also exceeds the sum of the complexities all of items in the set at 133 bits. But watch this:
A:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total: 4.75488
S:-Log2 1/27^2 = 9.509775
Total:14.264655
IT:-Log2 1/27^2 = 9.509775
Total:23.77443
LIKE:-Log2 1/27^4 = 19.0195
Total:42.79393
WEASEL:-Log2 1/27^6 = 28.529325
Total:71.323255
METHINKS:-Log2 1/27^8 = 38.0391
total:109.362355 <
He stops here
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:114.117235
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:118.872115
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:123.626995
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:128.381875
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:133.136755
Well would you look at that :eek:
The sum of the complexities of the individual parts exactly matches the complexity of the sentence when you remember to include the spaces.
J C, again, rejecting something out of hand is not giving it a chance. You've had ample opportunity to convince me but all you've done is dodge issues, declare evolution to be debunked, dump pseudoscience on us occasionally, declare that the whole world is biased against you and refused to provide a shred of evidence and generally make creationism look exactly as ridiculous as I thought it was in the first place. Creationism has had far more than a fair chance and it has failed at every turn. Because it's nonsense...I don't hypocritically claim to have an open mind ... about the truth (in the Bible).
... but I do have an open mind about scientific matters, including ID and Evolution!!!!
...You don't seem to have an open mind about anything !!!...neither the truth in the Bible nor ID (which you reject out of hand) ... nor Evolution (which you accept without question)!!!0 -
...the point Prof Dembski is making is that increasing the number of characters increases the CSI exponentially ... while SIT only increases linearly ... and that is WHY spontaneous increases in CSI are impossible!!!What are you talking about
The figure of -Log2 1/27^8 is for the word "METHINKS", not the entire aggregate. The ^8 refers to the 8 letters in the word and the ^28 in -Log2 1/27^28 refers to the 28 letters in the whole sentence.
Exactly what he says is: This sentence not only includes all the items of information that appear in the aggregate, but also arranges them in a grammatical sentence with semantic content. Unlike the aggregate, for which only the individual words are specified, here the entire sentence is a sequence of 28 letters and spaces, its complexity is bounded by -log2 1/27^28 = 133 bits of information and far exceeds the complexity of any item in the set or for that matter the sum of the complexities of all items in the set
Firstly it seems pointless to say that the complexity of the sentence exceeds "any item in the set". It doesn't take a genius to know that a 28 letter sentence is more complex than a word but he also says that it also exceeds the sum of the complexities all of items in the set at 133 bits.
...the above is the calculation (133.136) measures the CSI in the entire meaningful sentence (including the 5 spaces) ...But watch this:
A:1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total: 4.75488
S:-Log2 1/27^2 = 9.509775
Total:14.264655
IT:-Log2 1/27^2 = 9.509775
Total:23.77443
LIKE:-Log2 1/27^4 = 19.0195
Total:42.79393
WEASEL:-Log2 1/27^6 = 28.529325
Total:71.323255
METHINKS:-Log2 1/27^8 = 38.0391
total:109.362355 <
He stops here
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:114.117235
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:118.872115
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:123.626995
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:128.381875
_:-Log2 1/27^1 = 4.75488
Total:133.136755
Well would you look at that :eek:
The sum of the complexities of the individual parts exactly matches the complexity of the sentence when you remember to include the spaces.
...the aggregate of each meaningful word (and the 5 spaces) is only 1:2.828x10^11 and its -Log2 is 38.041 ... which isn't significantly different from the -Log2 for the CSI in the word METHINKS (which is 2.824x10^11 or 38.039)
The aggregate is worked out as follows:-
A:- 1/27^1 = 1:27
IS:- 1/27^2 = 1:729
IT:- 1/27^2 = 1:729
LIKE:- 1/27^4 = 1:531,441
WEASEL:- 1/27^6 = 1:3.87x10^8
METHINKS:- 1/27^8 = 1:2.824x10^11
5 individual spaces:- 1/27x5= 1:135
If you add up all of the above figures it comes to precisely 1:2.82817x10^11 or -Log2 of 38.04108039 ... which isn't significantly different from the word METHINKS on its own with -Log2 of 38.0391
...so the the CSI in the complete meaningful sentence is vastly greater (by 29 orders of magnitude) than the sum of the CSI in its individual parts (i.e. the sum of the CSI in its individual words and spaces)!!!:D
...ID is real ... and everyone knows intuitively that CSI cannot be produced spontaneously... and the maths have now been developed to PROVE that this is TRUE!!!J C, again, rejecting something out of hand is not giving it a chance. You've had ample opportunity to convince me but all you've done is dodge issues, declare evolution to be debunked, dump pseudoscience on us occasionally, declare that the whole world is biased against you and refused to provide a shred of evidence and generally make creationism look exactly as ridiculous as I thought it was in the first place. Creationism has had far more than a fair chance and it has failed at every turn. Because it's nonsense
...and while the Materialists keep 'jousting at windmills' on the issue of CSI & ID ... other people are getting on with the science ... and they have mathematically PROVEN that CSI & ID have an abiotic exogenous source!!!
... and could I point out that the abiotic infusion of exogenous information is the great unanswered question confronting modern evolutionary biology ... and it won't go away ... and it wont be 'fobbed off' with ruses like claiming that Evolution and Abiogenesis are different things (even though they may well be - the abiotic infusion of exogenous CSI demands an answer).
...so before you close your mind ... could I respectfully suggest that you open it!!!!:D0 -
The point Dembski was trying to make was that the sum of the complexities of each of the individual words did not match the 133 bits of information contained in the complexity of the sentence but he forgot to include the spaces...the point Prof Dembski is making is that increasing the number of characters increases the CSI exponentially ... while SIT only increases linearly ... and that is WHY spontaneous increases in CSI are impossible!!!
Of course it is because the sum of the complexities of each word and the 5 spaces exactly matches the complexity of the sentence, contrary to what Dembski said...the above is the calculation (133.136) measures the CSI in the entire meaningful sentence (including the 5 spaces) ...
J C, what the **** are you talking about?...the aggregate of each meaningful word (and the 5 spaces) is only 1:2.828x10^11 and its -Log2 is 38.041 ... which isn't significantly different from the -Log2 for the CSI in the word METHINKS (which is 2.824x10^11 or 38.039)
The aggregate is worked out as follows:-
A:- 1/27^1 = 1:27
IS:- 1/27^2 = 1:729
IT:- 1/27^2 = 1:729
LIKE:- 1/27^4 = 1:531,441
WEASEL:- 1/27^6 = 1:3.87x10^8
METHINKS:- 1/27^8 = 1:2.824x10^11
5 individual spaces:- 1/27x5= 1:135
If you add up all of the above figures it comes to precisely 1:2.82817x10^11 or -Log2 of 38.04108039 ... which isn't significantly different from the word METHINKS on its own with -Log2 of 38.0391
...so the the CSI in the complete meaningful sentence is vastly greater (by 29 orders of magnitude) than the sum of the CSI in its individual parts (i.e. the sum of the CSI in its individual words and spaces)!!!:D
What are those colons supposed to be, ratios, probabilities?
Why are you adding up the powers of 27 and then taking the -log2 of the sum? What is this supposed to accomplish? Are you adding probabilities or something? Why?
What does "aggregate of each meaningful word" mean? We're supposed to be calculating "aggregate of the complexities of each meaningful word" to show that "the complexity [of the sentence] far exceeds the sum of the complexities of all items in the set". According to Dembski the complexity of an item is calculated as -log2 1/27^(number of letters in the word) so I am calculating the complexity of each item in the set, summing them and getting exactly the complexity of the sentence, as expected. But that's not what you're doing. I have no idea what you're doing. My best guess is that instead of summing -log2 1/27^(number of letters in the word), you're converting 1/27 to a probability of 1 in 27 represented by 1:27, then summing the probabilities for some reason and then getting the log2 of the sum. We're not supposed to be summing probabilities here, we're summing "the complexities of all items in the set" and finding that, contrary to what Dembski said it is exactly the same as the complexity of the sentence because we remembered to include the spaces in both the set and the sentence, where he only put them in the sentence.
You keep calling me closed-minded but I'm only closed-minded if your definition of the term is: "Able to spot the errors in my reasoning and unwilling to uncritically accept my nonsense as fact". There's a difference between open-mindedness and gullibility... and could I point out that the abiotic infusion of exogenous information is the great unanswered question confronting modern evolutionary biology ... and it won't go away ... and it wont be 'fobbed off' with ruses like claiming that Evolution and Abiogenesis are different things (even though they may well be - the abiotic infusion of exogenous CSI demands an answer).
I think that if you say that 27 more times it might become true, although it might take up to 34. I suppose I'll again point out that the "abiotic infusion of exogenous information" is a question confronting science in general but is no more a question for evolutionary biology that it is for astrophysics. They're separate disciplines
But something that indeed won't go away is the fact that RNA, a molecule from which the most simple self-replicating structures are made, was created in a lab a few months ago:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
We're well on the way to answering that question
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
...if you add Logs you are multiplying the numbers ... so it is correct to sum the Logs of the individual items to get the total CSI in the complete sentence.According to Dembski the complexity of an item is calculated as -log2 1/27^(number of letters in the word) so I am calculating the complexity of each item in the set, summing them and getting exactly the complexity of the sentence, as expected. But that's not what you're doing. I have no idea what you're doing. My best guess is that instead of summing -log2 1/27^(number of letters in the word), you're converting 1/27 to a probability of 1 in 27 represented by 1:27, then summing the probabilities for some reason and then getting the log2 of the sum. We're not supposed to be summing probabilities here, we're summing "the complexities of all items in the set" and finding that, contrary to what Dembski said it is exactly the same as the complexity of the sentence because we remembered to include the spaces in both the set and the sentence, where he only put them in the sentence.
However, it is not correct to add the Logs in order to add up the individual CSI levels in each individual item in the sentence ... for that you must convert each CSI measure to Scientific Notation (or ordinary numbers) and add them up ... and then, if you wish, you can convert the answer to a Log figure.
That was the mistake made in the 'review' that you quoted from originally.
...I was being a little harsh with you, and for this I apologise. Some of my best friends are Evolutionists, and I have the height of respect for their scientific abilities and they are also 'great crack'!!!!You keep calling me closed-minded but I'm only closed-minded if your definition of the term is: "Able to spot the errors in my reasoning and unwilling to uncritically accept my nonsense as fact". There's a difference between open-mindedness and gullibility
....BUT they do seem to have a 'blind spot' when it come to ID and Creation Science ... and it reflects a closed mind ... rather than true skepticism on this issue.
I have been an Evolutionist myself ... and I still have an active interest in all things Evolutionist. This gives me a balanced perspective on the 'origins issue' .... and I have to say, after much reflection on the subject, that Materialistic Evolution is a load of baloney!!!:D
...the abiotic infusion problem ... exists all along the supposed continuum from Abiogenesis to Man.I suppose I'll again point out that the "abiotic infusion of exogenous information" is a question confronting science in general but is no more a question for evolutionary biology that it is for astrophysics. They're separate disciplines
....dream on!!!But something that indeed won't go away is the fact that RNA, a molecule from which the most simple self-replicating structures are made, was created in a lab a few months ago:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
We're well on the way to answering that question
...and could I point out that this development used inordinate levels of human intelligence and ingenuity!!!
...and could I also gently remind you, that RNA is merely the information carrier ... and it isn't the information itself!!!0 -
...if you add Logs you are multipying the numbers ... so it is correct to sum the Logs of the individual items to get the total CSI in the complete sentence.
However, it is not correct to add the Logs in order to add up the individual CSI levels in each individual item in the sentence ... for that you must convert each CSI measure to Scientific Notation (or ordinary numbers) and add them up ... and then, if you wish, you can convert the answer to a Log figure.
That was the misteke made in the 'review' that you quoted from originally.
My head does not follow... 0 -
-
I don't think you know what scientific notation is. It's just a way of writing a number to make it easier to work with, as in instead of writing 1,000,000,000,000,000 you write 1x10^15. YOu seem to think scientific notation means change 1/27 to 1:27 and then ignore the 1: part. That's not scientific notation, that's nonsense.They are the CSI probabilities expressed in scientific Notation and as Logs to the base 2 (which is used to measure virtual information)
....
However, it is not correct to add the Logs in order to add up the individual CSI levels in each individual item in the sentence ... for that you must convert each CSI measure to Scientific Notation (or ordinary numbers) and add them up ... and then, if you wish, you can convert the answer to a Log figure.
That was the mistake made in the 'review' that you quoted from originally.
The figure "1:27" is not in scientific notation. Nor is it a log to the base 2, which would simply be a number and not a probability and it certainly wouldn't contain a : symbol.
You did not sum the complexities of the individual items, you calculated "the sum of the individual probabilities of the individual words". The complexity according to Dembski is taken as -log2 1/27^(number of letters in the word), it is not the same as the sum of the probabilities of the occurrence of each letter. And not only are you summing the wrong thing by summing the probabilities instead of the complexities but you've done it wrong. Your maths goes:...the complexity (CSI) of the sentence [1:1.197x10^40 or a -Log2 of 133.1369] far exceeds (by 29 orders of magnitude) the sum of the complexities of all of the individual items in the set[1:2.82817x10^11 or a -Log2 of 38.04108039].
-log2(1/27 + 1/729 + 1/729 + 1/531,441 + 1/3.87x10^8 + 1/2.824x10^11 + (1/27)x5) =
-log2(1:27 + 1:729 + 1:729 + 1:531,441 + 1:3.87x10^8 + 1:2.824x10^11 + (1:27)x5) = <---Nonsense line
-log2(27 + 729 + 729 + 531,441 + 3.87x10^8 + 2.824x10^11 + 27x5) =
-log2(2.82817x10^11) = 38.041
But that is not mathematically correct. As far as I can see the only purpose of the ':' is so you can you can invert the figures before adding them and hope no one notices
The correct way to calculate it is:
-log2(1/27) -log2(1/729) - log2(1/729) - log2(1/531,441) - log2(1/3.87x10^8) - log2(1/2.824x10^11) - log2(1/27)x5 = 133.136
Exactly as you would expect, the complexity of the sentence exactly matches the complexity of the component parts and Dembski is talking nonsense and you're talking even more nonsense. You are calculating the complexity of the sum of the inverse of the probabilitiy of occurrence of each letter in each word. You are not, as Dembski said, calculating "the sum of the complexities of all items in the set". That's what I'm doing and I'm getting a different answer to him because I'm not forgetting the spaces
All is forgiven...I was being a little harsh with you, and for this I apologise.
I saw a few people make that point in the comments and I thought it was one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. What the experiment showed is that the production fo self-replicating molecules is possible, ie it doesn't require a miracle. The fact that intelligence was used to make the chemical reaction happen is completely irrelevant, it's like saying that because human beings intelligently designed freezers that it's impossible for the temperature to drop below zero without intelligent guidance. The scientists created the necessary conditions and the reaction happened. What that means is that all that is required is for those or similar conditions to have occurred some time in the past few billion years and hey presto, life.....dream on!!!
...and could I point out that this development used inordinate levels of human intelligence and ingenuity!!!...and could I also gently remind you, that RNA is merely the information carrier ... and it isn't the information itself!!!
Yes you can but since your understanding of the word information comes from the nonsense idea of CSI I don't really see it as relevant. The RNA isn't the banana hammock either. Look, I can make up nonsense terms too!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1. I was talking about the scientific notation used to express the larger numbers in the series.
2. Once again I was talking about the inverse fractions of the larger numbers in the series that were expressed in scientific notation.
....when it comes to 'sweating the small stuff' ... you guys 'take the biscuit'!!!!!!!
...and I even said that scientific notation and ordinary numbers were being used
What you said was that you must convert to scientific notation. You never "must" convert to scientific notation, it's for convenience only. You were just trying to sound smart while you inverted fractions without explaining what you were doing or why you were doing it.CSI is the inverse of the probability of its spontaneous occurrence!!!
... a probability of 1:27 has a CSI of 27
... and a probability of 1:10^130 has a CSI of 10^130
No, it's not. According to De4mbski on that page and according to the wikipedia page on specified complexity, it's calculated as :
which is how I've been calculating it. What you're taking as the specified complexity is what wikipedia refers to as the chance hypothesis. To get the CSI of a pattern you must find out its probability and then get -log2 of it. You cannot add up the probabilites and then get -log2 of the sum. That's not the same thing. That's not even what Dembski is doing. He's wrong in what he's doing because he left out the spaces from the set and you're even more wrong.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
...of course Scientific Notation, and indeed Logs, are used for convenience...What you said was that you must convert to scientific notation. You never "must" convert to scientific notation, it's for convenience only. You were just trying to sound smart while you inverted fractions without explaining what you were doing or why you were doing it.
...but what you appear to not recognise is that when a mathematical operation needs to be performed involving the addition of permutations/CSI, any Log expressions must be converted into ordinary numbers/scientific notation in order to perform the addition.
If you simply add the logs you are actually multiplying the permutations/CSI of each item, instead of adding them!!!
You may then leave the answer expressed in scientific notation ... or you may convert it to -Log2 in order to express it as bits of CSI information.
...wiki is correct that in order to get the CSI of a pattern, you must find out its probability and then get -log2 of it.No, it's not. According to De4mbski on that page and according to the wikipedia page on specified complexity, it's calculated as :
which is how I've been calculating it. What you're taking as the specified complexity is what wikipedia refers to as the chance hypothesis. To get the CSI of a pattern you must find out its probability and then get -log2 of it. .
...could I gently remind you that a probability of 1:27 = 1/27 = 1:2.70x10^1 = 3.70x10^-2 = Log2 of -4.75 and the CSI = -Log2 of 4.75
The CSI is 2.70x10^1 or 4.75 bits.
If you wish to add two probabilities of 1:27 + 1:27, for example, the answer is 1:13.5
The CSI is calculated by adding the Specified Complexities (i.e. the inverses of the individual probabilities) which is 27 + 27 which = 54
and the Log2 of 54 (or the -Log2 of 1/54) = 5.75 ... or 5.75 bits.
Please note that it is not 4.75 + 4.75 = 9.5 bits, which is the product of 1/27 x 1/27 = 1/729 converted to -Log20 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement