blipey the clueless clown hits a new low of stupidity
In the thread Calculating CSI for Babies, blipey posted the following:
blipey thinks that science is done psychically.
Totally unbelieveable. Science works by examining the data and evidence. The explanatory filter mandates a thorough investigation before a design inference can be reached (which is probably why evolutionitwits hate it).
Go back to being a clown and leave the science and investigations to people who know how to conduct them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way you know that pattern was "specified" in your example is because you examined it before hand.
Now, ID says you cannot examine the designer before hand. So, that's right out. That means the random drawing and the abstract text could both be the desired pattern. Without looking at them first, there is no way to tell.
So, without looking at the pattern first to see what it is, how do we know it is specified?
blipey thinks that science is done psychically.
Totally unbelieveable. Science works by examining the data and evidence. The explanatory filter mandates a thorough investigation before a design inference can be reached (which is probably why evolutionitwits hate it).
Go back to being a clown and leave the science and investigations to people who know how to conduct them.
posted by Joe G @ 8:46 AM
19 Comments:
At 11:35 AM,
Ghostrider said…
I am afraid you have misunderstood blipey's position.
In your example you determined that an object is specified by comparing it to other known designed objects, in this case English words. ID is suppose to be able to determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.
Can you provide an example of a CSI calculation where there is no pre-specified pattern, like my example of the 500 scratch marks?
At 12:43 PM,
Joe G said…
I am afraid you have misunderstood blipey's position.
blipey's position is to misrepresent, lie and avoid.
However I nailed him on this.
In your example you determined that an object is specified by comparing it to other known designed objects, in this case English words.
Umm my example was just to show blipey how to calculate CSI. To do so requires a known example of intentional design.
ID is suppose to be able to determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.
Reference please.
Can you provide an example of a CSI calculation where there is no pre-specified pattern, like my example of the 500 scratch marks?
Like Stephen C. Meyer has done with the minmal genome?
At 3:54 PM,
Anonymous said…
Let's just say life was designed. How? By means we can never know. It just seems so odd to me to try and prove that everything was designed. Did the designer use a drafting table and paper and pencil? Did the designer just imagine everything, in detail, then snap something, and there everything was? When I look at what you are trying to prove in light of my questions, your task just seems, well, futile, and not a little childish and, sorry, kind of stupid.
There is little or no evidence for your position, and tons on the other side. What are you all hot about with this ID stuff? Do you really believe there was a designer, or are you just scientifically curious? The curiosity you show is itself curious in light of all the evidence that evolution is the process that permits differentiation.
Your position is so strained. Maybe you just like to sweat.
At 4:51 PM,
Joe G said…
Let's just say life was designed. How?
As I have said over and over and over again- the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.
Ya see real life experience tells us it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature,operating freely.
There is little or no evidence for your position, and tons on the other side.
I have been waiting to see something, anything which supports the materialistic anti-ID position and all I get instead is ignorance filled posts like yours.
If your position isn't full of shit then why can't you, or anyone else, provide a testable hypothesis for it?
Your position isn't science it is nonsense.
At 7:33 PM,
Anonymous said…
Ya see real life experience tells us it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature,operating freely.
Real life experience (not to mention real life science), upon which you correctly rely, shows us, time and time again, that there is no designer. It is you searchers (religionists) who refuse to allow reality to sway your fantasy toward reality. Your position is so weak, that it is consistently and correctly ridiculed, and has never--never--been shown to have one iota of truth, much less investigative power. Yours is a supremely weak argument.
If your position isn't full of shit then why can't you, or anyone else, provide a testable hypothesis for it?
It is your position, joe, that is completely full of shit, which is why you have been unable to provide a testable hypothesis. In fact, you should just change the name of your blog to Unintelligent Shit.
At 10:14 PM,
blipey said…
If ID is not supposed to determine design in instances where it is uncertain if design is present, what the hell is it for?
If we already know something is designed, we hardly need ID to tell us that it is.
If we are uncertain whether a thing is designed, it would be great if there were some process that told us that. You really saying that ID is not that process?
Nice.
At 11:54 PM,
Ghostrider said…
T: ID is suppose to be able to determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.
JG: Reference please.
If that is incorrect, is it then true to say that ID can determine specificity and therefore design only when there is a pre-existing pattern to compare to?
Please clarify, I want to get your position correct.
At 12:17 AM,
Ghostrider said…
T: Can you provide an example of a CSI calculation where there is no pre-specified pattern, like my example of the 500 scratch marks?
JG: Like Stephen C. Meyer has done with the minmal genome?
Will you please provide an overview of those calculations here? I have read Meyer's paper "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" and the only mention of minimal genome is this reference "Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000)"
I'd appreciate it if you could show Meyer's actual CSI calculations you are talking about, thanks.
At 7:51 AM,
Joe G said…
If ID is not supposed to determine design in instances where it is uncertain if design is present, what the hell is it for?
What are you talking about you ignorant clown? Of course ID and every design-centric venue, is about detecting design in instances where it is uncertain design exists.
If we are uncertain whether a thing is designed, it would be great if there were some process that told us that.
The EF (explanatory filter) is that process.
Read the books I told you to.
Don't come back until you do.
Your ignorance filled posts will no longer be posted.
c-ya
At 7:56 AM,
Joe G said…
T: ID is suppose to be able to determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.
JG: Reference please.
If that is incorrect, is it then true to say that ID can determine specificity and therefore design only when there is a pre-existing pattern to compare to?
Are you going to provide a reference or not?
Or are you arguing from ignorance and grasping for straws?
You ask me for a reference for Meyer yet you won't provide one.
Go pound sand and read the books I listed in the other threads.
At 9:07 AM,
Ghostrider said…
T: ID is suppose to be able to determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.
JG: Reference please.
T: If that is incorrect, is it then true to say that ID can determine specificity and therefore design only when there is a pre-existing pattern to compare to?
Are you going to provide a reference or not?
Or are you arguing from ignorance and grasping for straws?
I am not arguing anything at this point. I'm asking you for clarification on what is the correct ID position so I don't end up arguing from ignorance. I freely admit I don't know which of the two ideas above is correct. Can you please enlighten me?
You ask me for a reference for Meyer yet you won't provide one.
If you can't provide those Meyer CSI calculations of a minimal genome that's OK by me. Just trying to establish some common understanding and baseline truth here.
Go pound sand and read the books I listed in the other threads.
I have read a few of of them already, but apparently not the right one. Which one has the Meyer CSI calculations in it? I'll be sure to read it next.
At 10:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Thorton,
Try to focus on supporting your position. That is the only way to make ID go away.
I am not arguing anything at this point.
All evidence to the contrary, of course.
IOW all you have been doing so far is to argue from ignorance.
YOU said:
ID is suppose to be able to determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.
That would be an argument from ignorance. And now that you have lied about it you can pound all the sand in the world for all I care.
Your ignoirance is not going to make ID go away.
But anyway- Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification and Explanation, pages 223-272 in "Darwinism, Design and Public Education".
At 10:59 AM,
Joe G said…
If your position isn't full of shit then why can't you, or anyone else, provide a testable hypothesis for it?
It is your position, joe, that is completely full of shit, which is why you have been unable to provide a testable hypothesis.
Been there, done that: Intelligent Design The Design Hypothesis
Real life experience (not to mention real life science), upon which you correctly rely, shows us, time and time again, that there is no designer.
Is that why Max Planck said the following during his Nobel Prize acceptance sppeech:
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
I don't have a religion you ignorant dog's ass. Intelligent Design is an non-religious approach to origins.
Your only argument is an argument from ignorance.
Thanks for the entertainment.
At 12:45 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Option 1: ID can determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.
Option 2: ID can determine specificity and therefore design only when there is a pre-existing pattern to compare to.
JG: Your ignoirance is not going to make ID go away.
Which is correct, 1 or 2 ?
If you can't answer the most basic question about what ID theory says, why do you pretend on your blog to be a spokesman for Intelligent Design?
It won't require anyone's "ignoirance" (sic). ID that can't even provide basic definitions will go away all by itself.
At 1:28 AM,
Ghostrider said…
But anyway- Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification and Explanation, pages 223-272 in "Darwinism, Design and Public Education".
Joe, that is an old 1998 essay by Meyer and is available online here
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles
/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf
I read there whole thing, and there are no CSI calculations done at all, let alone one for the minimum genome.
All Meyer does is give some basic formulas from Shannon information theory (I = -ln p), then rewrite the equation to come up with what he calls the "information carrying content" of a sequence of n nucleotide base (p= (1/4) exp n). That is just a rehash of the definition Crick used 30 years before, that information content is based solely on the size of the genome.
Meyer does no CSI calculations at all that I can find. Now it's certainly easy enough to plug the 318,000 base pairs number (minimal genome size) into that formula, but you don't get any inkling into how to determine if that is complex or specified information. In fact, the term "complex specified information" does not appear anywhere in the paper.
Once again, can you please show an actual CSI calculation?
At 8:20 AM,
Joe G said…
On page 243 Meyer places the probabilty at 4^300,000. That would be the result of a calculation.
And as for specification I started a new thread.
At 9:56 AM,
blipey said…
But which calculation would it be a result of, Joe?
And how was that calculation arrived at? And what formula did it use?
Seems Meyers forgot to tell us ny of that. I'm sure you could fill us in though, if ID wasn't all about having to know the secret handshake and all...
At 10:49 AM,
Ghostrider said…
On page 243 Meyer places the probabilty at 4^300,000. That would be the result of a calculation.
But that's not a calculation of CSI Joe. He said the nuceotide sequence space corresponding to such a system of proteins (the minimal genome) is 4^300,000.
Meyer makes the same beginner's mistake that Dembski does, calculating the probability by assuming all of the pieces had to spontaneously assemble all at once. Evolution is an iterative process, with small incremental changes being added at each generation. No one in evolutionary biology thinks or claims genomes spontaneously assembled in their present form.
It's trivially easy to exceed the 10^150 UBP by multiplying probabilities as Meyer and Dembski have done. Of course, such numbers have no meaning at all in the real world where the probabilities aren't independent.
Now where are Meyer's CSI calculations?
At 7:49 AM,
Joe G said…
On page 243 Meyer places the probabilty at 4^300,000. That would be the result of a calculation.
But that's not a calculation of CSI Joe.
yes it is. Ya see the whole purpose behind CSI is to see if the universal probability bound has been broken. And anything above 10^150 will do the job.
Meyer makes the same beginner's mistake that Dembski does, calculating the probability by assuming all of the pieces had to spontaneously assemble all at once.
He doesn't say that.
Evolution is an iterative process, with small incremental changes being added at each generation.
So evolution now works on non-living matter?
Dobzhansky told us that pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms.
Also we know that nucleic acids break down rather quickily.
No one in evolutionary biology thinks or claims genomes spontaneously assembled in their present form.
No one in evolutionary biology knows anything about the origin of life nor how the diversity arose. All anyone has is speculations based on a pre-conceived worldview.
It's trivially easy to exceed the 10^150 UBP by multiplying probabilities as Meyer and Dembski have done. Of course, such numbers have no meaning at all in the real world where the probabilities aren't independent.
Look all you have to do to falsify Meyer and Dembski is to demonsrate non-living matter can give rise to living organisms via non-telic processes.
IOW your bitching about ID is meaningless to the real world especially when all you have to do is to substantiate YOUR position to falsify it.
Post a Comment
<< Home