Destructing oleg, cakeboy strikes back!!!

Context.

When trying to refute an argument or try to show the argument is nonsense, first you have to understand the argument and then you have to understand the context of the argument.

The almighty scientist oleg tried to show my argument is nonsense and it is obvious that he doesn’t understand neither the argument nor the context.

So let me explain-

The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact

It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)

A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.

What does this have to do with oleg? Oleg said:

First, I assume along with you that the amount of CSI X in a cake is determined by the number of letters in the recipe.

Seems like a real stupid assumption now doesn’t it. And it certainly ain’t what I assumed at all.

Joe the Information Technologist 1- oleg the information theorist 0

Rich Hughes says the ToE should be disconfirmed!

According to Rich Hughes the theory of evolution (ToE) should be disconfirmed:

If the ToE is true we should observe evidence of gradual changes in life through time. If we don't observe gradual changes through time the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.

We do not observe gradual changes through time.

That was one of the reasons for punctuated equilibrium.

So is the ToE disconfirmed or is Richie Hughes just full of shit?

Measuring Information/ specified complexity

When discussing information some people want to know how much information does something contain?

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..

Now what do we do when all we have is an object?

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains.

I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.

And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?

Again just count the bits in the instructions.

For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.

Have you ever had to assemble something?

The object you assembled would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the assembly instructions.

Let the Richie Retardo arm flailing begin... (I will see you tomorrow)

Christian academics who find the arguments posted on Uncommon Descent unpersuasive

Religious professor James F. McGrath has been banned from Uncommon Descent.

Not my doing. I get moderated every now and again. I have learned to stay out of religious- bent discussions.

That is because I don't like what people have done to religion and I am pretty sure that not one of this planet's religions has "got it right". And that is all I want to say about that right now.

But anyway, he has said that there are Christian academics who find the arguments posted on Uncommon Descent unpersuasive.

I will give him this thread so he can tell me about those arguments he and others find unpersuasive.

My only stipulation is that he also tell me about his position in relation to our existence, the existence of all other organisms we have observed, this planet, solar system, galaxy and the universe.

By providing his position I will have an idea about the type of argument(s) he finds persuasive.