Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, February 04, 2008

The CSI of a baseball

blipey the clueless clown has challenged me to calculate the CSI of a baseball.

What can be done is to calculate the amount of information it takes to make one from scratch. And this calculation is nothing more than a counting of the bits that information contains.

Counting appears to be above blipey's capabilities.

So blipey I will count the bits for you if you provide the specifications and assembly instructions. I do not have the time to search for them.

And that goes for anything else- for living organisms provide the genome and all known protein sequences of the organism in question.

One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.

Added 4/5:

How to make a baseball

"Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."

The more specifications required the more information required-

First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)

1- a specified core
2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
3- specified leather cover
4- specified thread

That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-

How tightly to wrap the core
Direction of wrapping
How much material to use
The cover would be cut in a specified manner
It would then be sewn in a specified manner.

After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.

All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.


That is how one measures the amount of information - count the number of bits.

23 Comments:

  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So basically you aren't interested enough in your own pet theory to be bothered to defend it? Nice. If asked for proof of a concept, the bet way to defend it is often to refuse to do any work.

    In lieu of a number, how about telling whether a baseball or a mud puddle have more CSI?

    What does this evaluation do for the state of designedness?

     
  • At 3:27 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, I am shocked, shocked I tell you that you didn't calculate the CSI. Your empirical design detection requires no math. We're back to "looks designed (to me)"

    Pathetic.

     
  • At 7:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So basically you aren't interested enough in your own pet theory to be bothered to defend it?

    So basically you aren't interested enough to provide the data I asked for. Nice.

    If YOU want soemthjing done blipey YOU have to do the work.

    If asked for proof of a concept, the bet way to defend it is often to refuse to do any work.

    That is how you, Richie and all evolutionotwits respond- unable to defend your own position you are forced to attack ID with your ignorance.

    In lieu of a number, how about telling whether a baseball or a mud puddle have more CSI?

    Which one do you think requires a designer?

    Have you ever heard of nature, operating freely, producing a baseball?

    Have you ever heard of nature, operating freely, producing a mud puddle?

     
  • At 7:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, I am shocked, shocked I tell you that you didn't calculate the CSI.

    I can't until clowny provides the data.

    If clowny wants me to do somethinmg then clowny has to do the work.

    Your empirical design detection requires no math.

    Yes it does.

    We're back to "looks designed (to me)"

    And your position is "it evolved", without even knowing if it could.

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So blipey I will count the bits for you if you provide the specifications and assembly instructions. I do not have the time to search for them.

    And that goes for anything else- for living organisms provide the genome and all known protein sequences of the organism in question.


    Don't bother posting if your next pst doesn't contain the data I requested- after all it is YOU who is demanding soemthing and therefor it is you who should do the work of providing the data.

    I don't have time to do things for you.

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey & Richie,

    The best way to refute ID is to actually support your non-telic position.

    That both of you have steadfastly refused to do so is indication you cannot.

    I am more than willing to take my chances in Court because I know once in Court that anti-IDists are going to have to answer the questions pertaining to their position. And I am sure those who testify will have the same responses that you do- nothing but drivel.

    But anyways, if either of you have specific questions pertaining to the ID literature just ask.

    And if you are going to ask me to do stuff either you have to pay me or provide the data requested.

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I had already posted:

    how to make a baseball-

    "Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."

    The more specifications required the more information required-

    First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)

    1- a specified core
    2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
    3- specified leather cover
    4- specified thread

    That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-

    How tightly to wrap the core
    Direction of wrapping
    How much material to use
    The cover would be cut in a specified manner
    It would then be sewn in a specified manner.

    After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.

    All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.

    It is a mere counting of the bits required. And therefore to get a specific number I would need a specific BOM & process.

    Then we would have to decide the bit rate- 5 bits covers our 26 letter alphabet with 6 positions to be determined.

    for example a = 00000; b= 00001; c= 00010 etc.

    Now if neither one of you wants to provide a specific process, you should at least tell me the relevance of an exact number. Then the next time I go to the library I can see if I can find a reference and start counting for you.

    But before I do that you have to tell me why you cannot.

     
  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    BLipeys not a design detective like you. You have the same access to the Internet as him. Calculate some CSI, Joe!

    Joe, we've SEEN evolution happen:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

    Now let's have some CSI, or are you full of shit?

     
  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BLipeys not a design detective like you.

    That is why I told him to get me the data. He can at least do that

    You have the same access to the Internet as him.

    I doubt it. I have very limited time on a dial-up line.

    Calculate some CSI, Joe!

    Why? You can't count?

    Joe, we've SEEN evolution happen:

    Evolution is NOT being debated you ignorant twit and thanks for again providing a bald link.

    When I looked at it it discusses speciation. Umm speciation, even as vague as it is, is NOT being debated. Not even by YECs. They have accepted speciation since the time of Carolus Linneaus, a Creationist trying to "find" the originally created Kinds. He finally "settled that the "Kind" is approximately at the level of Genus.

    Richie once again you prove to be a dishonest moron.

    IOW Richie Retardo, you are full of shit.

     
  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ritchie Retardo,

    As I have told you many times now when you provide a link it is bald if YOU don't provide any reasoning behind it.

    And when you point to a link that has misinformation and undisputed information, ie information irrelevant to the discussion, it just further exposes your ignorance-driven agenda.

    Richie Retardo is guilty of equivocation

    I repeat:

    Evolution is NOT being debated you ignorant twit and thanks for again providing a bald link.

    When I looked at it it discusses speciation. Umm speciation, even as vague as it is, is NOT being debated. Not even by YECs. They have accepted speciation since the time of Carolus Linneaus, a Creationist trying to "find" the originally created Kinds. He finally "settled that the "Kind" is approximately at the level of Genus.

    Richie once again you prove to be a dishonest moron.

    IOW Richie Retardo, you are full of shit.

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Which one do you think requires a designer?

    Have you ever heard of nature, operating freely, producing a baseball?

    Have you ever heard of nature, operating freely, producing a mud puddle?


    Yeah. But the only criterion used in that scenario is "Does it looked designed?"

    If ID is science, shouldn't there be some sort of procedure that tells us if it is designed? Using some ID process, I should be able to plug in a baseball and get it "DESIGNED!" The same process should have the input of a mud puddle and spit out "NOT DESIGNED!"

    What numbers can I rely on to tell these things?

     
  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Which one do you think requires a designer?

    Have you ever heard of nature, operating freely, producing a baseball?

    Have you ever heard of nature, operating freely, producing a mud puddle?


    Yeah. But the only criterion used in that scenario is "Does it looked designed?"

    Your ignorance is exposed again.

    The criteria used are

    1) Nature, operating freely, could not account for a baseball

    2) Chance plus time can'rt account for the baseball

    3) Designing agencies can account for the baseball

    for the mud pudddle

    1) Nature, operating freely can account for a mud puddle.

    If ID is science, shouldn't there be some sort of procedure that tells us if it is designed?

    The explanatory filter is a process and identifying counterflow is another process.

    What numbers can I rely on to tell these things?

    What numbers do you rely on that tell you something has evolved via culled genetic accidents?

     
  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    I am still waiting for those baseball specifications and assembly instructions.

    What's the delay?

     
  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    "Nature operating freely" equals "it looks designed"

    Neither of those things have any numbers, quantities, nor data.

     
  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Nature operating freely" equals "it looks designed"

    Only to the willfully ignorant.

    Ya see clowny it takes a great deal of knowledge to know what nature, operating freely, is capable of. And it takes some knowledge to know what designing agencies are capable of.

    Neither of those things have any numbers, quantities, nor data.

    There's plenty of data. Do you think archaeologists flip a coin? How about forensic scientists and SETI researchers? Do they flip a coin?

    Criteria has to be met. Either it is or it isn't.

    There is a resason you are a clown. Just understand your limitations.

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Anything that those archaeologists look at that doesn't fall into the category of "wow, that looks like humans did that?"

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Anything that those archaeologists look at that doesn't fall into the category of "wow, that looks like humans did that?"

    Ignorance is bliss isn't clowny?

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'll take that as a "no", then.

     
  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'll take that as a "no", then.

    You'll take WHAT exactly, as a "no"?

    You have yet to post anything that makes sense.

     
  • At 12:30 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Anything that those archaeologists look at that doesn't fall into the category of "wow, that looks like humans did that?"

    JoeG: Ignorance is bliss isn't clowny?

    I'll take that as a "no".

    Good argumentation by name-calling, btw. I hope you break that one out in court. It's all the rage on the lawyer circuit.

     
  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm that wasn't "name calling". That was putting the label where it rightfully belongs.

    As for Court you would have been thrown in prison for contempt for your failure to answer questions and your dishonest approach.

    Ya see clowny archaeologists look for signs of work, which may require a thorough investigation.

     
  • At 1:42 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Work by who, Joe?

     
  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ya see clowny archaeologists look for signs of work, which may require a thorough investigation.

    Work by who, Joe?

    It doesn't matter to the archaeologist. They know the only way to make that determination, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home