Intelligent Reasoning

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Information- The "I" in CSI

Information. The information age. Information technology. Information theory.

When IDists speak of complex specified information they are using it in the following sense:

information- the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects".

It is producing those specific events which make the information specified!

And that is what separates mere complexity from specified complexity.

posted by Joe G @ 4:18 PM  

216 Comments:

  • At 10:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What do we know about something that has SI as opposed to something that merely has I?

     

  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That all depends on how one defines "I".

    And it also depends on whether or not it produces specific effects.

    If it produces a specific effect or effects it is SI.

     

  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    How would you define information, Joe? If we determine that a thing has SI, what do we know about it that we would not know if we determined that it had no SI?

     

  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Did you read the OP?

    I provided a definition of information in the OP.

    However that definition does not apply to Shannon's use of the word.

    Shannon didn't care about content.

    If something has SI said SI produces a specific effect or effects.

    If something just has Shannon information it doesn't have to produce any effects at all.

    That is what we would know- those specific effects produced.

     

  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I know you did. That makes it strange that your answer to my first question was "it depends on the definition...."

    Why don't you use the definition you provided and actually answer the question?

    So, what do we know about an object that has SI that we don't know about an object that is without SI?

    Stop avoiding the question. This has nothing to do with Shannon. This has to do with SI.

     

  • At 3:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I said clownie not everyone defines "information" as it is defined in dictionaries.

    Why don't you use the definition you provided and actually answer the question?-

    I did.

    What part of my answer don't you understand?

    This has nothing to do with Shannon.-

    It does as Shannon information doesn't have to be SI.

    That is the whole point or are you just too stupid to understand that?

    The problem is you don't undersatnd anything about Shannon and his work on information, so you choose to once again argue from ignorance.

     

  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    If you don't know what's important about SI just say so.

    Otherwise, what do we know about an object that has SI that we don't know about an object that has no SI?

    "It depends" is not an answer.

     

  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A quick lesson for ignorant clowns:

    information theory-

    Information theory, however, does not consider message importance or meaning, as these are matters of the quality of data rather than the quantity and readability of data, the latter of which is determined solely by probabilities.-

    Classical Information Theory (Shannon)-

    Shannon had a key insight regarding this: it doesn't matter whether the symbol means anything. It only matters whether the symbol at the information source and the destination are the same. It was this insight, meaning must be ignored, that enabled Shannon to create a workable mathematical model for information.-

    Shannon Information-


    Shannon information is the type of information developed by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver in the 1940s. Shannon information is concerned with quantifying information (usually in terms of number of bits) to keep track of alphanumeric chcaracters as they are communicated sequentially from a source to a receiver. The amount of Shannon information contained in a string of characters is inversely related to the probability of the occurrence of the string. Unlike specified complexity, Shannon information is solely concerned with the improbability or complexity of a string of characters rather than its patterning or significance.-

     

  • At 4:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great. There's no reason to determine if an object has SI or not. That's fine. Just say so.

     

  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    The question is not about information, you stooge. The question is about what we know after we determine whether or not the object has SI.

     

  • At 7:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you don't know what's important about SI just say so.-

    I said what is so important about it- it produces specific effects.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    Otherwise, what do we know about an object that has SI that we don't know about an object that has no SI?-

    The object that contains CSI is not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    IOW it would depend on how much SI was required to bring about the object in question.

    Then we could examine the alleged SI to see if it is SI as opposed to some law or regularity.

    We would also investigate to see if the SI was an artifact. IOW find out what is is reducible to.

    Ya see it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose by nature, operating freely or agency involvement.

     

  • At 2:30 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great, how much SI does an object need in order to be designed? 1? 2? How much?

     

  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As much as it takes to not be reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

     

  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Which is how much?

     

  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As much as it takes.

    How much SI has nature, operating freely, been shown to produce?

    Ya see it is all about knowledge- that is knowledge of what nature, operating freely can produce coupled with the knowledge of what designing agencies can produce.

    From that we make a scientific inference and go from there.

     

  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You're not what we'd call an 'empiricist', are you Joe?

     

  • At 9:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich, you are what I call a clueless blind follower.

    But anyway when you say "we" who are you referring to and how do you define "empiricist"?

     

  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    How much does it take? For example, we find object A on the ground. How much SI does it need for us to determine it is designed?

    3?

    18?

    1,721,043?

    Surely, there needs to be a measurement.

     

  • At 3:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How much SI has nature, operating freely, been shown to produce?

     

  • At 7:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why don't you tell us? Do you have a number?

     

  • At 7:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No I do not know how much SI nature, operating freely, can produce.

    You should know and be able to back it up with peer-reviewed literature.

    So why are you holding back?

    Oh, that's right- you don't have any supporting data, just a complete refusal to allow the design inference.

    IOW you are also a clueless blind follower.

    A number- chance and necessity- what do you have?

     

  • At 7:36 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you have no idea what baseline there should be for SI in an object???

    Yet you know that we should look for it.

    And you know that at some level of SI, design is apparent?

    But you don't know what level that should be?

    That's awesome.

     

  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you have no idea whether or not chance and necessity can produce SI.

    Yet you argue against ID- based on what, exactly?

    Yet you know that we should look for it.-

    Nope, I don't care what you do.

    It is obvious your position doesn't have any criteria besides the refusal to accept the design inference.

    And you know that at some level of SI, design is apparent?-

    ID is not about apparent design.

    The presence of counterflow tells us if design is also present.

    But anyway once CSI is determined then design is a given.

    And again that would just be a verifying process and not a design detection process.

    BTW this thread is not about how much SI = design.

    IOW once again you have taken a thread off-topic.

    I take it that is all morons can do as they ceratinly cannot follow along.

     

  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- clownie has no idea how much SI chance and necessity can produce

    2- therefor clownie's arguments against ID are reduced to arguments from ignorance

     

  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And just so that I am clear-

    I say investigate everything and come to an inference based on our knowledge of cause and effect.

    And that is what the explanatory filter mandates.

     

  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, Joe. You introduce SI as an important component to something or other (but never really get around to telling us why it's important). You re the one who says it's important but won't define it.

    Most of the rest of the world just thinks that SI is funny.

    So really, if you would like us to use it, it's u to you to tell us how.

    So, AGAIN:

    How much SI does an object need to contain in order for us to determine it's designed?

     

  • At 2:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You introduce SI as an important component to something or other (but never really get around to telling us why it's important).-

    Where did I say that SI was an important component?

    All I did was to clarify what IDists mean by information.

    And that is because there are people who hear the word and then relate it to Shannon or some other irrelevant to the discussion "meaning".

    Most of the rest of the world just thinks that SI is funny.-

    The vast majority of the world thinks your position is a joke.

    And you prove them correct with every post.

    So really, if you would like us to use it, it's u to you to tell us how.-

    I told you how.

    You are too stupid to understand the "how".

    How much SI does an object need to contain in order for us to determine it's designed?-

    Designing agencies are capable of producing anywhere from 0 to millions of bits of SI.

    Therefor I say investigate everything and come to an inference based on our knowledge of cause and effect.

    And that is what the explanatory filter mandates.

     

  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To sum this up:

    1- I introduce the concept of information as it pertains to ID

    2- Erik Pratt, being an ignorant clown, jumps in and hijacks the thread

    3- The hijacking turns out to be due to a total misconception by EP

    4- Now Erik is upset that I don't follow his strawman.

     

  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- clownie has no idea how much SI chance and necessity can produce

    2- therefor clownie's arguments against ID are reduced to arguments from ignorance

     

  • At 4:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great. Investigate things. Your position is that scientists don't investigate things, but IDiots do. Wow.

     

  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your position is that scientists don't investigate things-

    Nope, I never, ever held that position.

    And you are an idiot who doesn't know anything about investigating.

     

  • At 4:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW I have been asking about the scientific investigation that supports your position and you have never produced anything.

    Why is that?

     

  • At 5:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What is your methodology again?

    To investigate?

    Might you be able to walk us through an example of determining the design or non-design of a found object?

     

  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Or, given that you'll ignore the last request, you could answer the very first question on this thread (which remains pretty much ignored):

    What do we know about something that has SI that sets it apart from something that merely has I?

     

  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is Pratt's methodology?

    Misrepresent, erect strawman after strawman, act obtuse even though no acting is required, and never, under any circumstances, even attempt to substantiate any claims made by his position.

    A forget about investigation when declarations are less expensive and more effective.

    But anyway-

    How would I determine the presence or absence or design?

    Counterflow- if it is present I infer design and if absent I do not.

     

  • At 7:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maybe I understand the issue:

    If "I" = the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

    Then it would also be SI- specified information.

     

  • At 9:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, again, what is it that we know about an object that has SI that we don't know about an object that merely has I?

    Somehow, this it of information seems to be missing from your posts.

     

  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- You don't know if SI is present until you do an investigation

    2- As I said if "I" = the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

    Then it would also be SI- specified information.

    IOW in this context "I" is "SI"

    and that means

    3- Erik's question-"what is it that we know about an object that has SI that we don't know about an object that merely has I?"
    does not make any sense.

     

  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay. So we don't necessarily know anything about an object that has SI that we wouldn't know about it anyway.

    Why should we look for SI?

     

  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is there archaeology?

    Why is there a forensic science?

    Why is there a SETI?

    Why does it matter to an investigation whether or not thta which is being investigated arose by nature, operating freely or agency involvement?

     

  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "We" - people who understand empiricism.

    can we get a comprehensive mathematical example for this concept you introduce, please?

     

  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What concept did I introduce?

    The definition of "information" has been around for decades, if not centuries.

     

  • At 6:38 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    CSI, has not been around for decades, Joe. Do some math. I double dares ya.

     

  • At 8:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich stop moving the goalposts.

    But anyway- yes complex specified information has existed for many, many years.

    As for math, do you have a point?

    Does your position offer up any mathematics?

    Does your position offer anything beyond the refusal to accept the design inference?

    Anything at all?

     

  • At 8:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- This thread is about the concept of "information" pertaining to ID

    2- The concept is not new and has been part of the accepted definition of "information" for decades, if not centuries.

     

  • At 9:35 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

    What exactly do we know about a thing with SI that we don't know about something with merely ordinary information content?

    I went over the whole thread again and I can't find any reason to think that SI is important.

     

  • At 8:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What exactly do we know about a thing with SI that we don't know about something with merely ordinary information content?-

    What do you mean by "ordinary information content"?

    I went over the whole thread again and I can't find any reason to think that SI is important.-

    If you don't know why information content- ie meaning- is important then there isn't anything I can do for you.

    Again clownie-

    Why is there archaeology?

    Why is there a forensic science?

    Why is there a SETI?

    Why does it matter to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose by nature, operating freely or agency involvement?    -

    Your refusal to address those questions pretty much proves that you wallow in your ignorance.

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, no, no, Joe. Why is SI content important. If just any old information content is the thing we should be looking for, why even bring up SI?

    However, since you brought up SI as an important factor in uh...something:

    What do we know about n object with SI that we don't know about an object with no SI?

    Surely there must be some reason to determine if an object has SI??? What might that be?

     

  • At 2:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is SI content important.-

    1- That doesn't even make any sense.

    2- What does that have to do with the OP which was just a clarification on what IDists mean by "information"?

    However, since you brought up SI as an important factor in uh...-

    Yes it is important that people understand what it is that IDists are referring to when talking about "information".

    That is it.

    What do we know about n object with SI that we don't know about an object with no SI?-

    What's the difference between geology and archaeology?

    BTW the only way we know anything is by investigating.

    Surely there must be some reason to determine if an object has SI???-

    You constantly think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.

    I find that very amusing.

    Why do we have archaeology Erik?

    Why do we have forensic science Erik?

    Why do we have a SETI Erik?

    Science Asks Three Basic Questions:

    1- What's there?

    2- How does it work?

    3- How did it come to be this way?

    Determining the presense and quantity of SI would help in determing Q3 and may shed some deeper insights into Q2 and Q1.

     

  • At 2:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW Erik, it all goes back to reducibility and the complete failure of your position to substantiate its claims.

     

  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why was the concept of SI introduced if it is not really distinguishable from general information?

    Why not just say "information"? Why use phrases like "complex specified information"? Surely there must be a reason?

    Or does CSI mean the same thing as I?

     

  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why was the concept of SI introduced if it is not really distinguishable from general information?-

    I explained that in the OP.

    I also posted a response that went even further than that.

    You should learn how to read.

    IOW once again you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.

    Now I understand why you are a clown...

     

  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    See a quick lesson for ignorant clowns.

     

  • At 5:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "As for math, do you have a point?"

    Yes. That ID has no empirical side. But I like it when you do your 'recipe information math' and we all have a good giggle, so more of that, please.

     

  • At 5:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. So, what exactly do we KNOW about something with SI that we don't know about something that that doesn't have SI?

     

  • At 6:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "As for math, do you have a point?"-

    Yes. That ID has no empirical side.-

    1- Your position doesn't have any math.

    2- Your position doesn't have anything beyond the refusal to accept the design inference.

    3- Math isn't the only condition/ qualification for being empirical

    4- ID is based on observation and experience

    5- It can be tested experimentally

    Where is the math in archaeology?

    How about forensic science?

    IOW once again Richie proves his ignorance and appears to be proud of it.

     

  • At 6:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, what exactly do we KNOW about something with SI that we don't know about something that that doesn't have SI?-

    I don't have any idea what that means, but I know it doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

     

  • At 11:30 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Uh, the topic is Specified Information. The question is about what we know if we determine that n object has specified information.

    Again, Joe, if you don't know that's okay. It's just a bit weird that you would talk about SI without knowing what good it is.

    Oh well, that'll make the midterms easier I guess.

     

  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The topic is what IDists mean by "information.

    IOW once again you prove you can't follow along.

    The question is about what we know if we determine that n object has specified information.-

    We might learn that it was designed by an agency.

    Or we might learn that nature, operating freely can produce that amount of SI.

    It's just a bit weird that you would talk about SI without knowing what good it is.-

    As I said it is good to know what people mean by what they say.

    IOW communication is very important.

     

  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also once it is determined SI is poresent you are closer to answering the reducibility question.

     

  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, what you're saying is that if we determine that an object has specified information it could be one of two things:

    1. Designed
    2. Not designed

    Wow. I think you're onto something here....

     

  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes Erik, we would be on to something in an objective society.

    But in a society which doesn't allow the design inference- regardless of the data- that doesn't mean anything.

     

  • At 9:50 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Just to be clear - design inference = 'looks designed to me'

     

  • At 10:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, we can say that Joe G believes there is no actual reason to determine if an object contains specified information.

    Why did it take 62 comments to reach that conclusion?

     

  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just to be even clearer:

    The design inference means that specific criteria has been met.

    Also if something "looks designed" then we should be allowed to follow that inference to determine if it was designed.

     

  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, we can say that Joe G believes there is no actual reason to determine if an object contains specified information.-

    Seeing that Erik Pratt is a known liar, loser and puts words into people's mouths, I have no doubt thta is whay Erik would say that I said.

    However it is obvious that I say the reason is reducibility.

    That is we find out what the object is reducible to.

    We do that because it matters to an investigation whether or not the thing in question arose by ntaure,operating freely or agency involvement.

     

  • At 8:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And just so that I am clear:

    Richie and Erik's position boils down to the refusal to allow the design inference.

    They cannot provide any positive evidence for their position and they have proven that they cannot even provide a testable hypothesis.

     

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh, I think things look designed all the time. I also know that some aren't but are created by natural forces. Unless you have a robust, empirical design detection methodology, you're simply in the business of giving unsupported opinions, which you are.

     

  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh, I think things look designed all the time.-

    Nobody cares what you think.

    Do you have any investigative experience?

    I also know that some aren't but are created by natural forces.-

    You must have had some way of making thta determination.

    Unless you have a robust, empirical design detection methodology,-

    We do.

    You just refuse to understand it.

    And as I said our design inferences can be falsified if ignorant fucks such as yourself just stepped up and actually supported their position.

    However seeing that you cannot support your position your only recourse is to attack ID with more of your ignorance.

    And just so that I am clear:-

    Richie and Erik's position boils down to the refusal to allow the design inference.-

    They cannot provide any positive evidence for their position and they have proven that they cannot even provide a testable hypothesis.

     

  • At 10:07 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay, Joe. I know this is useless, but could you give us an example of how you might figure out something is designed by using SI for something?

    I mean, really, just use SI for anything.

    Walk us through it.

    I understand that you have no idea how to do this, but perhapsyou could pretend?

     

  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    I know this is useless but if one figures out what something is reducible to you also figure out how to further investigate it.

    Stonehenge is just a grouping of stones.

    Yet it is not reducible to geology.

     

  • At 1:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, an object! Okay, Joe. Give us the rundown on how you would use specified information to determine whether Stonehenge is designed or not.

     

  • At 2:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ah, an object!-

    What is that supposed to mean?

    YOU chimed into this thread with:

    What do we know about something ...-

    An object is something.

    What else were you referring to to?

    Give us the rundown on how you would use specified information to determine whether Stonehenge is designed or not.-

    As I have told you many times- I use counterflow to make such determinations.

    The point about Stonehenge- which is lost on a pinhead like you- is that even though it is made up of stones, which are reducible to geologic processes, the structure itself is not reducible to any geologic processes.

    It took agency involvement using specified information to design and build it.

     

  • At 3:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, the point is that you have no idea what methodology to use to figure out whether Stonehenge was designed or not. Not a clue. Even less of a clue, perhaps, if it is required that you bring specified information to the table when discussing your methodology.

    So, please, take us through the process you would use to determine the design or non-design of Stonehenge.

     

  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Your still not getting further than 'looks designed to me', Joe. You need a methodology where we all reach the same conclusion, but does not proffer 'design' instead of 'we don't know.

     

  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    I told you what methodology to use.

    Again your ignorance is not a refutation.

    In order to answer the 3 basic questions that science asks- finding out what things- whatever is being investigated- is reducible to is key.

    Either it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and/ or necessity or something else is required.

    But anyway to figure out if Stonehenge was designed or not I would look for signs of counterflow.

     

  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    The problem with what you say is that there isn't any data, besides a meeting with the designer(s), that you assholes will accept.

    Now your position of "we don't know" is obviously "we don't know but we know it wasn't via any designer".

    If not the whole theroy of evolution would be taught as "we don't know".

    Do chimps and humans share a common ancestor?

    Honest answer "No one knows".

    But anyway scientific inferences are based on our current knowledge.

    The science of today does not and cannot wait for what tomorrow may or may not uncover.

    So the only conclusion I can draw is that you guys are very upset that you can't support your claims and you don't like the fact that ID makes testable claims- ie lays down the criteria that must be met or else we do say "we don't know".

    IOW if the EF kicks something out between "necessity" and "design", it could be a "we don't know".

    But if something makes it through and meets that criteria then we have a design inference.

    And again those who don't like it can then set out to refute that inference.

    After all doing so would support their claim.

    That they would rather blather on like Erik and Richie says quite a bit about their position.

     

  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW Rich, if something "looks designed", that alone is a good reason to check to see if it was.

     

  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another prediction fulfilled:

    The point about Stonehenge- which is lost on a pinhead like you- is that even though it is made up of stones, which are reducible to geologic processes, the structure itself is not reducible to any geologic processes.-

    Even though explained Erik still didn't understand it.

     

  • At 6:13 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, no idea? That's okay, Joe. Just admit you have no idea. Or--and this will be WAY more fun--tell us exactly what you would do in step one.

    Here, I'll start it out for you:

    I, JoeG, in order to determine whether or not Stonehenge is designed, would first ___________.

     

  • At 7:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    Are you proud of your ignorance?

    I, JoeG, in order to determine whether or not Stonehenge is designed, would first look for signs of counterflow.

    And just because Erik Pratt the freakin clown doesn't understand that just demonstrates why he is a freakin clown.

    I have pointed yopu to the literture Erik.

    Just because you choose to be ignorant does not mean anything to me.

     

  • At 1:12 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great, Joe. Take us through it. If you can.

     

  • At 1:14 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Or, as demonstrated over and over again, you will forget that this thread exists.

    You should try to vary your MO. Starting new threads means you are tired of avoiding people and think that you can distract them with new bullshit.

    Why don't you buck up and try to walk us through the methodology for determining wther or not Stonehenge is designed.

     

  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    If you really wanted to know you would read the relevant literature.

    I am not on this planet to teach the willfully ignorant.

    Science, technology and investigation is not for everyone.

    If they were then everyone would be doing it.

    You are a clown for a reason.

    Reason for starting new threads:

    Things come up in my life which I want to blog about

    Ya know Erik you should really try to vary your MO.

    Your continued arguing from ignorance is not a good way to go through life.

    However you are not the only person who thinks his ignorance is some sort of refutation.

    Richie Hughes is also such a person. And I am sure there are many more who hang out at AtBC.

     

  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, as I've tried to tell you, "Don't just repeat the phrases of others in attempts to be funny. You must riff on the phrases of others, making them your own." Try to start with puns; they're easy and show a certain level of associative thinking that might be good for you.

    Now, to the real interesting point here. Is there a reason you can't walk us through even the first step of using specified information to determine whether or not Stonehenge is designed?

    One might get the impression you have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, certainly not those such as I--who know you're a genius--but some people. Just saying.

     

  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Surely someone with your superior knowledge and experience in the educational realm knows that the best way to show competence in a field is to teach it?

    So, come on, walk us through the Stonehenge Problem.

     

  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Surely someone with your superior knowledge and experience in the educational realm knows that the best way to show competence in a field is to teach it?-

    That's not true.

    If it were then there wouldn't be any incompetent teachers, yet they exist.

    And most, if not all teachers realize it is fruitless trying to teach the willfully ignorant.

    Read the relevant literature Erik.

    And stop projecting your weaknesses onto others.

    Is there a reason you can't walk us through even the first step of using specified information to determine whether or not Stonehenge is designed?-

    Yes Erik- exactly what I told you- I don't use SI to make such a determination.

    One might get the impression you have no idea what you're talking about.-

    No one cares what impression you get Erik.

    You are a clown for a reason and trying to reason with a clown is useless.

    That said everyone who reads your comments knows you don't know what you are talking about.

     

  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, come on, walk us through the Stonehenge Problem.-

    What "Stonehenge Problem" is that, exactly?

     

  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Come on, Joe. Stonehenge: designed or not! How do you know?

    Teaching is the best way to show competence in a subject, Joe. If you can teach someone else to do a thing well, that means you have a good grasp on the subject yourself.

    Try to follow along:

    incompetent teachers can't teach, but merely hold the position of teacher.

    those who can teach are masters of their subject.

    Anyway, the Stonehenge Problem? Walk us through it?

     

  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So that everyone can follow along, maybe we can go over the importance of specified information again?

     

  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Teaching is the best way to show competence in a subject, Joe. -

    Doing is the best way to show competence in a subject, Erik.

    Teaching can be merely reading from a book and learning as you go.

    If you can teach someone else to do a thing well, that means you have a good grasp on the subject yourself.-

    Hearsay. Nothing but speculation.

    incompetent teachers can't teach, but merely hold the position of teacher.-

    Incompetenet teachers can teach but do it poorly.

    those who can teach are masters of their subject.-

    Could be but doesn't have to be.

    Anyway, the Stonehenge Problem?-

    You are the only problem as far as I can tell.

     

  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So that everyone can follow along, maybe we can go over the importance of specified information again?-

    That is exactly why I close threads.

    Obviously Erik doesn't have anything to add- willfull ignorance doesn't add anything to discussions, regardless of what Pratt thinks.

     

  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Erik, not even the best teacher can teach the willfully ignorant.

    And for my class there would be prerequisites, not one of which you possess.

    Again you are a clown for a reason and one cannot reason with a clown.

     

  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you ave no idea how to determine if Stonehenge is designed or not. Fine.

    If you read a book, Joe, that's called learning, not teaching. Teaching is something you do for other people. But whatever.

    If Hell froze over and you got to teach a high school class for a month, how would you go about teaching the students how to determine if Stonehenge was designed or not? Surely, a great curriculum writer such as yourself can bust this thing right out?

     

  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Close it! Close it! Close it!

    Or, walk us through what high school students should be taught regarding the above Stonehenge Problem.

     

  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So it is true that Erik Pratt wishes to remain ignorant and twisted.

    Again Erik you should stop projecting your issues onto others.

    Do you really think that proving you are a piece of shit helps your position?

    BTW people can learn and teach at the same time- well the teaching lags a little behind the reading.

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

    You are a sad piece of shit Pratt.

    The funny thing is you probably take that as a compliment.

    And you should be nicer to me- last time I was in Kansas City I saved your life by stepping on a shit-eating cockroach...

     

  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Or, walk us through what high school students should be taught regarding the above Stonehenge Problem.-

    Class your attention please:

    This is a picture of Erik Pratt.

    Erik Pratt is a clown.

    He is a clown for a reason and trying to reason with a clown is useless.

    If you choose to make an exchange of words with said clown just remember what you say is not what Erik will hear.

    But if you like to watch a person struggle for something to say it is cheap entertainment.

     

  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And for my class there would be prerequisites, not one of which you possess."


    he might have read the bible...

     

  • At 4:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "And for my class there would be prerequisites, not one of which you possess."-


    he might have read the bible...-

    That wouldn't help him.

    But that is part of the problem.

     

  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hmmmm. I missed the part where you gave an example of how to proceed with the Stonehenge Problem.

    I'm sure there are numerous high school students dying to know how to tackle the problem. Give us your lecture to them.

     

  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I missed the part where you gave an example of how to proceed with the Stonehenge Problem.-

    The only "Stonehenge Problem" is Erik Pratt, clown and general low-life.

    With that in mind my lecture would go something like:

    Class your attention please:

    This is a picture of Erik Pratt.

    Erik Pratt is a clown.

    He is a clown for a reason and trying to reason with a clown is useless.

    If you choose to make an exchange of words with said clown just remember what you say is not what Erik will hear.

    But if you like to watch a person struggle for something to say it is cheap entertainment.

     

  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I don't think they'll very well on the midterm.

     

  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

     

  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hmmm. Still missing the, uh, what do you call it...the, uh, oh yeah!

    The EXAMPLE.

     

  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    YOU are an EXAMPLE of a dishonest and ignorant low-life.

     

  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rewind and replay:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

     

  • At 5:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hmmm. Nope, no actual EXAMPLE there either. maybe someone in New Hampshire can go over a tell Joe what an EXAMPLE is.

     

  • At 5:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rewind and replay:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

     

  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW people in NH know you are dishonest and ignorant low-life.

    IOW the EXAMPLE is spot-on...

     

  • At 5:36 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Nope. Try something like:

    I would calculate the information content of a single verticle stone of Stonehenge using Gallien's Rule of Inverse Intelligence. After finding a value of 63G, I would compare that to my calculated value of Design-y-ness.

    Notice that 63G falls well above the Design-y-ness value of 28 something-or-others.

    Therefore, we can conclude that Stonehenge was designed.

    Or, you know, something similar.

     

  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rewind and replay:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

    Yup that is exactly how this thread has played out.

     

  • At 5:39 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    How will you explain little Jimmy's failure to graduate to his parents?

     

  • At 5:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How will you explain little Jimmy's failure to graduate to his parents?-

    Nothing to explain. I would just tell them that he could become a clown.

     

  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What if they ask why little Jimmy never learned how to determine design in your class?

     

  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You might whip out an example like: ________________________.

     

  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What if they ask why little Jimmy never learned how to determine design in your class?-

    I would tell them that little Jimmy wasn't in any of my classes.

     

  • At 5:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rewind and replay:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

    Yup that is exactly how this thread has played out.

     

  • At 7:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You might whip out an example like: ________________________.-

    OK:

    Class here is my example of an underline:

    _________________________




    Yes I see that clears it all up.

     

  • At 1:46 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, Joe. Why edit out my comment? You aren't afraid are you?

    Here, I'll post it again.

    You would lie to little Jimmy's parents about him being in your class merely because you can't come up with a methodology to determine whether or not Stonehenge was designed?

    That's disgraceful.

     

  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Geez Erik, I didn't edit your comment.

    But thank you for once again proving that you are a low-life loser.

    And as I said I would tell little Jimmy's parents the truth- little Jimmy wasn't in my class.

    That is because little Jimmy is too stupid and should dedicate himself to being a clown.

    Ya see clowns don't need an education.

    Also I have a way to determine design. I have used it succesfully on thousands of occasions.

    I have even taught others how to do so.

    It is the same methodology used in design detection venues today.

    And again your ignorance is not a refutation of that methododlogy.

     

  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Excellent. I suppose you'll also tell little Jimmy's parents that they're giant douchebags for even deigning to talk to their child's teacher (that's you, in case you're not following along).

    Then, you'll somehow explain that a student in your class isn't actually in your class.

    Disgraceful.

    Now, how about rectifying that and walking through an example of how to determine whether Stonehenge was designed or not.

    You can use one of the templates above or come up with your own. I don't care, but high school students all over America are waiting for your example.

    When you give it, it will open up American High School education to the one thing that all American high school students are dying for:

    INTELLIGENT DESIGN CLASSES!!!

    But, it can't happen until you, JoeG, make it so!

     

  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Erik thinks that he can tell me what I don't teach and also who is in my classes.

    You must be really proud to be a total asshole.

    Now, how about rectifying that and walking through an example of how to determine whether Stonehenge was designed or not.-

    I did and it is not my problem that you are too ignorant to understand it.

    You are a clown for a reason and trying to reason with a clown is useless.

    To sum this up:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

     

  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Erik little Jimmy's parents are looking for a clown named "blipey" who molested their son.

     

  • At 2:33 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you're not a teacher.

    I know you have absolutely no idea what an example is, but do try to learn as we go along.

    In the example, you're teaching a class in a high school. Little Jimmy takes your class, but fails it because he fails the standardized test section on the Stonehenge Problem--which he should have learned in your class, but didn't.

    So, maybe you can help Little Jimmy on his second time through, and walk him through an example of how to determine whether or not Stonehenge is designed.

    Probably not, though; tenure is a wonderful thing, huh?

     

  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, you're not a teacher.-

    And yet I have taught people, thousands of people.

    To sum this up:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

    If little Jimmy acted like that in my class I would have booted him.

     

  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why don't you give us an example of when you taught somebody something. Remember to also walk us through HOW you taught them.

    Then, for shits and grins, you might apply that to the Stonehenge Problem. But if you only want to tell us about a time when you taught someone something without moving on to Stonehenge, that'll be fine too.

     

  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To sum this up:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

     

  • At 5:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Is there a particular reason you can't walk us through the Stonehenge Problem?

    Besides stupidity, I mean?

     

  • At 6:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik, your stupidity is more than enough reason why I won't walk you through anything.

    And as I said YOU are the only "Stonehenge Problem" I am aware of.

     

  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, besides not having a clue about how to decide if Stonehenge was designed or not, you also can't recall a single time you taught anyone anything?

    Sad, really.

     

  • At 5:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I told you how I would make such a determination- designed or not.

    Your ignorance is not a refutation.

    Are you retarded also?

    BTW I recall many times that I have taught people.

    To sum this up:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

     

  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, not one example that you can recall of ever having educated someone?

    Even your daughter?

     

  • At 6:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have many such examples.

    Just not one I want to share with you...

    To sum this up:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

     

  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Someone seems to be posting the exact same drivel with no attempt at communication.

    Someone else appears to be asking for clarification of an on-going question, providing examples, and generally varying the manner of discourse.

    Wonder who is who?

     

  • At 7:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    I have communicated properly.

    A jr high school student could take the concepts I discussed- investigation, reducibility and counterflow- and have an idea of what to do.

    I know this because I have talked to such students.

    So the problem must be you.

    You appear unable to communicate.

    You also seem to think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.

    Why is that?

     

  • At 7:20 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    When have I claimed refutation, Joe?

    All I've asked is that you show an example of your work.

    You may try talking to those junior high students again; they understand the concept of showing their work.

     

  • At 7:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    When have I claimed refutation, Joe?-

    When I do something and then you say that I didn't, that is the same thing.

     

  • At 2:41 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Still waiting for an example. Have you talked with those middle schoolers yet? They'll tell you all about showing your work.

     

  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Show your work- that is exactly what I have been telling evolutionists for decades and still nada.

     

  • At 6:40 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, no examples that you can think of? For either teaching someone else or for determining whether or not Stonehenge was designed?

    Please let there be court case in which you have to give an example of determining the outcome of the Stonehenge Problem.

     

  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The only "Stonehenge Problem" I am aware of is Erik Pratt the ignorant clown.

    To sum this up:

    1- Erik asks how I would go about determinng design (of Stonehenge)

    2- I tell Erik what I would do

    3- Erik the Ignorant throws a hissy fit because his ignorance doesn't allow him to grasp the concept

    4- Erik thinks his hissy fit is meaningful discourse

     

  • At 8:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A jr high school student could take the concepts I discussed- investigation, reducibility and counterflow- and have an idea of what to do.

    I know this because I have talked to such students.

    So the problem must be you.

     

  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you're just repeating yourself. This isn't helping your cause. You are willfully ignoring things that a 10 year old can grasp. Stonehenge. We were talking about it. Is it designed or not? That's the problem. Instead of typing out two sentences every time, we'll call it the Stonehenge Problem.

    It's like when I call you JoeG instead of "Guy who lives in New Hampshire and was born of parents, both of whom have names I do not know."

    JoeG is easier, so we go with it.

    I'm sorry I have to explain these things to you, it must be embarrassing. Fortunately, you live near Canada and can get the cheap meds.

     

  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I repeat myself because there isn't anything else to say to you.

    The problem is you cannot grasp what ten year olds can.

    Stonehenge. We were talking about it. Is it designed or not? That's the problem.-

    It appears that is only your problem.

    A jr high school student could take the concepts I discussed- investigation, reducibility and counterflow- and have an idea of what to do.

    I know this because I have talked to such students.

    So the problem must be you.    -

    The point about Stonehenge- which is lost on a pinhead like you- is that even though it is made up of stones, which are reducible to geologic processes, the structure itself is not reducible to any geologic processes.

    I, JoeG, in order to determine whether or not Stonehenge is designed, would first look for signs of counterflow.


    So Erik, be specific- what part of that don't you understand?

     

  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Do this experiment for me, Joe. Ask a random 13 year on the street what "counterflow" is.

    What happens?

     

  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Then ask a random college student what "couterflow" is.

    What happens?

     

  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Now ask a random 35 year old what "counterflow" is.

    Has anyone given you a reasonable answer?

     

  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm I have told you what counterflow is.

    So if I randomly stop someone, tell them what counterflow is and then ask them "what is counterflow?", I bet they could tell me.

     

  • At 3:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Maybe. Now use it in an example, Joe. Apply your knowledge to the Stonehenge Problem. A teacher would work an example. Now, a good teacher would probably not work the example from the test, so you can work an example other than Stonehenge if you prefer.

     

  • At 3:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maybe what?

    If told someone an answer to a question and then asked them that question and they couldn't answer I would say that person was a clown.

    IOW I told you what counterflow is and you remain ignorant of the concept.

    That is not my problem.

    BTW I think it's very ignorant of you to think I am answerable to you.

    IOW with you it is ignorance all the way down.

    And you seem to think your ignorance means something.

    Strange...

     

  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The point about Stonehenge- which is lost on a pinhead like you- is that even though it is made up of stones, which are reducible to geologic processes, the structure itself is not reducible to any geologic processes.

    I, JoeG, in order to determine whether or not Stonehenge is designed, would first look for signs of counterflow.


    So Erik, be specific- what part of that don't you understand?

    Ya see Erik I am trying to move forward but you are not willing to do so.

     

  • At 4:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Step through the use of counterflow, Joe.

    In order to design the best highway, I would use calculus II concepts. Not, much of an answer, though it is a true one.

    EXAMPLE, Joe. This is what you have been repeatedly asked for and what you repeatedly refuse to move forward on.

     

  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Alright, Joe, the facts.

    You first mention "counterflow" in comment 23 of this thread. You do not define it or use it in context.

    You next mention "counterflow" a dozen or so comments later. You do not define it or use it in context.

    You then go more than 50 comments without bringing up "counterflow". And at this point, you merely quote one of the two previous mentions. Therefore, no definition and no contextual reference.

    You finish the thread with a smattering of references to you previous mentions of "counterflow".

    To this point yu have never explained "counterflow" or how it might apply to the Stonehenge Problem.

    You then claim to have completely explained the concept.

    Interesting.

    Of course, you could clear all this up by providing an EXAMPLE of how you would solve the Stonehenge Problem.

     

  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Step through the use of counterflow, Joe.-

    Why should I do anything for you?

    It is obvious that you are unable to be reasoned with, so why should I bother?

    As I said before not even the best teacher can teach the willfully ignorant.

    BTW I have already gone over and over counterflow and obviously nothing was able to get through your thick head.

    So again I ask, why should I bother?

     

  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Erik, how do you think scientists determined Stonehenge was designed?

    Do you think they flipped a coin?

     

  • At 4:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You first mention "counterflow" in comment 23 of this thread. You do not define it or use it in context.-

    I first mentioned "counterflow" in my second post on this blog Jan 9, 2006.

    And since that time I have mentioned it and talked about it many other times.

    There is even a thread in which I linked to the definition of counterflow.

    Yours was the first response in that thread.

    All this does is prove you don't follow along.

    So again why should I bother explaining anything to you?

     

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Perhaps you could use the concept of counterflow to work an example?

     

  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So again why should I bother explaining anything to you?

     

  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Counterflow:

    Del Ratzsch presents this term in his writing on design in Nature, Design and Science. Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. When agents redirect, restrain or constrain nature, they leave counterflow marks. Ratzsch goes on to say that counterflow can be injected into initial states, processes, or results (p.7). Counterflow is important in identifying agent activity in a given structure.

    Del Ratzsch distinguishes between primary and secondary counterflow marks. Primary counterflow characteristics can be found in the following ways (pp.10-11):

    Parts vs. Systems: Individual components of the system may exhibit counterflow, or it may be only as a whole system that counterflow can be identified in a particular structure.

    Surface vs. Deep: There may be obvious counterflow properties, or more subtle and complicated properties, such as medium-run sequence probabilities.

    Direct vs. Indirect: Recognition can be immediate or more inferential

    Synchronic vs. Diachronic: Counterflow can be evident over time (diachronically) or all at once (synchronically)

    Hard vs. Soft: Soft counterflow recognition required knowledge of relevant valuations. Hard required only familiarity with nature’s normal flow.

    Secondary marks of counterflow include: Complicated development, complex structures, coordination of components, adjustment of means to end, interlocking functions, extreme improbability, purposelike behaviors, and others (p.12).

    Counterflow is basically the same thing as archaeologists call "work". See Artifact:

    An object which is an artifact in a narrow sense is usually made from some pre-existing object or objects by successive intentional modifications. This activity is called work.

     

  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Yes, Joe. I am familiar. Thanks. Now, use counterflow in an EXAMPLE.

    What units is "counterflow" measured in? How many of these units add up to something being designed?

    Use "counterflow" in an EXAMPLE.

    Because, really, if there are no units or subjective measure of "counterflow", you are just saying that something is designed because "it looks designed".

    That's not really much of anything, Joe.

    So, save your pet theory and work an EXAMPLE with "counterflow".

     

  • At 5:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So again I ask:

    BTW Erik, how do you think scientists determined Stonehenge was designed?

    Do you think they flipped a coin?

    Hint- they used counterflow to make the determination.

     

  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Counterflow is measured by seeing what is being investigated is reducible to.

    IOW what is required to bring that into existence.

    Either counterflow id present- design- or it isn't- design is not inferred.

    And in the end if someone doesn't like the design inference all they have to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it- meaning counterflow is not present.

    Also if something "looks designed" then we should be able to go ahead and investigate it further- ya know to see if it was in fact designed.

     

  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, Joe. I am familiar.-

    All evidence to the contray of course...

     

  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If we listen to Erik then archaeology, forensic science and SETI are a fields dominated by "looks designed".

     

  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, Joe. An archaeologist would give a line of reasoning, using EXAMPLES.

    A JoeG would merely say "it looks designed" and leave it at that.

    So, an EXAMPLE would seem to be in order.

    Please use the concept of counterflow to show us that Stonehenge was designed or not.

     

  • At 6:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, Joe. An archaeologist would give a line of reasoning, using EXAMPLES.-

    Do you have an EXAMPLE of an archaeologist doing that?

    BTW counterflow is a line of reasoning.

    You do understand the definition don't you?

    A JoeG would merely say "it looks designed" and leave it at that.-

    Absolutely not.

    But thanks for once again proving tat you are a dickhead.

    Please use the concept of counterflow to show us that Stonehenge was designed or not.-

    As I said the presence of counterflow says it was designed.

     

  • At 4:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Alright, what "counterflow" do you see in Stonehenge?

     

  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The same counterflow that led archaeologists to the design inference-

    Mainly there aren't any known non-telic processes that could deposit those large stones in that formation.

    The lintels have tongue-n-groove joints, as well as being curved to make the circle.

    The sarsen stones- mortise and tenon joints.

    All of that is an indication of counterflow, ie work.

     

  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Excellent, who did that work?

    A. Men
    B. Venusian Lizard Men
    C. God

     

  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No one knows who did the work.

    We think it was humans, but did they design it? No one knows.

    It could have been aliens- the point remains we don't have to know "who" before determining design is present.

    The "who" comes after.

    If we knew "who" beforehand then we wouldn't have to set out trying to determine design.

    IOW Erik as I have been saying for many years in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design in question.

    You and your moron minions appear to have great difficulty understanding that reality.

    Why is that?

     

  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, Joe, how backward you are. We think it was designed because we know that it looks like stuff we know humans do.

    The knowledge of what humans can do comes first. Then we apply that knowledge to Stonehenge, therefore we believe it to be designed.

    For example, mortice and tenon joints. You use these as an example of counterflow. However, we know that man makes these joints.

    we don't know that Man makes planets.

    See the difference?

     

  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong again asshole.

    Stonehenge doesn't resemble anything that mankind of that era built.

    Those connecting joints- trace back to what nature, operating freely can and cannot do.

    And yes we know that man makes those types of joints but that does not mean that nature, operating freely could not.

    IOW once again you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.

    Too bad you can't substantiate your claims.

     

  • At 8:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, Joe. Do we really have to go back to the potato shit?

    If we don't, could you show us an example (with your new found ability to use example--discovered on he H2O2 thread) of how grooved a stone would have to be in order to be designed? What's the limit?

     

  • At 9:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    Do you even realize that your position amounts to nothing more than "it looks designed"?

    Read what you said:

    We think it was designed because we know that it looks like stuff we know humans do.-

    Now tell me that is different from "it looks designed".

    And if you think that is how scientists do things you are just an ignorant fuck not worth my time.

    BTW "reducibility" dickhead.

    THAT is how you figure out what it takes to account for what you are investigating.

    However you are just a clown and don't understand a thing about investigations.

     

  • At 9:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, we know that things are designed by humans. when we see something done in the style of human action, we infer it is designed.

    we have no experience with beings who design planets. therefore, when we see a planet, we do not infer design.

     

  • At 10:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, we know that things are designed by humans. when we see something done in the style of human action, we infer it is designed.-

    IOW "it looks designed".

    we have no experience with beings who design planets.-

    No but once we look at what it takes to get our planet we can safely infer design.

    Or you can chalk it up to the non-scientific notion of sheer dumb luck.

    Which given the is very nonsensical.

     

  • At 1:16 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    JoeG: No but once we look at what it takes to get our planet we can safely infer design.


    Infer from what? What about the natural world do you see that points to design?

    We infer design in things that we know man did. What supernatural knowledge do you possess that allows you to infer design of planets in the same way?

     

  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I infer design from all the scientific data presented in "The Privileged Planet".

    Your option to what we observe is "sheer dumb luck".

    What about the natural world do you see that points to design?-

    Again all the data presented in "The Privileged Planet".

    What about the natural world do you see that points to "sheer dumb luck"?

    We infer design in things that we know man did.-

    Erik says so just because "it looks designed"- got it.

    Too bad that is not how scientists do it.

    Again your ignorance is meaningless here.

    I know better.

    What supernatural knowledge do you possess that allows you to infer design of planets in the same way?-

    Why do I need "supernatural knowledge"?

    The supernatural doesn't have anything to do with it.

    And in the end even your position requires something beyond nature as natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins.

     

  • At 1:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then we have the factors required for a planet to host complex life-
    Summary:

    Within the Galactic Habitable Zone

    Within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone

    Liquid water

    Orbit a Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star

    Protected by gas giants

    Nearly circular orbit-

    Oxygen rich

    Correct mass

    Large moon to stabilize the angle of rotation

    Moderate rate of rotation

    Terrestrial planet

    Ratio of water to continents

    Plate tectonic re-cycling

    Magnetic field

    Both plate tectonics and the magnetic field require the core have enough heat to keep it liquid. The convection currents mix the minerals before recycling and also produce the required magnetic field as it flows around the iron inner core.

    The Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical. When the Earth is closest to the Sun (perigee) the southern hemisphere is enjoying summer, i.e. the Earth’s axis of rotation has the southern hemisphere at a better angle (than the northern hemisphere) towards the Sun for absorbing its vital rays. The Earth has the bulk of its continents in the northern hemisphere. Water stores the heat and then transfers it around the globe.

     

  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From "The Privileged Planet"

    “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”-

    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”-

    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”

    “The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

    This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.”     Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.

     

  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. The Privileged Planet. It's more likely that God placed the Earth in the Galactic Habitation Zone than that the Earth happens to be one of millions of planets in like zones?

    Boy, am I on board! All aboard the Anthropic Express!

     

  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong. The Privileged Planet has nothing to do with "God".

    Gonzalez is on record saying that ID does not require the belief in "God".

    Also there isn't any evidence that there are "millions of planets in like zones".

    IOW all you can do is make shit up as opposed to looking at the data.

     

  • At 2:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Stars:

    Total number estimated in the Milky Way- 100 billion

    Over 80% are low-mass red dwarfs (most likely lack a habitable zone)

    1-2% are massive short-lived blue giants

    Only about 4% of the stars are early G-type, main-sequence stars like our Sun

    50% of those are in binary systems

    Then we have to consider what % of those are in the Galactic Habitable Zone

    Earth-like planets:

    We now know that our solar system is not typical

    We do know other planets exist

    At least 4% of Sun-like stars have giant planets at least as massive as Jupiter.

     

  • At 2:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Or you can chalk it up to the non-scientific notion of sheer dumb luck.

    Which given the data is very nonsensical.

     

  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    100 billion stars, 4% are sun like. That's 4 billion stars. Cut half of those out for binary or tertiary systems. That leaves 2 billion stars. Even if the GHZ idea is a good one (which is certainly in doubt), the sun-like stars in our own galaxy that meet the requirements would number in the 100s of millions.

     

  • At 3:06 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    More interestingly though, and perhaps more on topic. Can you point to one instance of "counterflow" that traces its roots to something that was not manmade?

    Stonehenge, for example. We know that man moves stones and builds things.

    Can you cite one instance of anything being "designed" that doesn't rely on our knowledge of what man, and more generally animals, can do?

     

  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The presence of sun-like stars does not mean the presence of planets.

    The GHZ is a very good one and is even in peer-review.

    Then there are all those other factors which are required- including our Moon.

     

  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And Erik, all you have to do is start supporting your position of "sheer dumb luck" and the design inference is refuted.

    Also I have already told you- many times- the design inference depends on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can do COUPLED WITH our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.

    And if you think we need to know the designer(s) before making a design inference then you are most ignorant of science and investigative methodology.

    Now try supporting your position or fuck of.

     

  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    The GHZ is a fairly new idea that has been challenged multiple times. It's an idea that is far from generally accepted or used.

     

  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, no ideas of anything that has been designed by anything accept humans? Or perhaps, apes in some limited circumstances?

    Neat. Come back when you have evidence of Slartabartfast.

     

  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Two non-ID related scientists, Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, wrote a book titled "Rare Earth", which came to the same conclusion as TPP pertaining to guess what? The rarity of Earth-like planets.

    As I said it is all in a number of factors that have to be present at the same time.

    And when one is depending on sheer dumb luck one doesn't need the science behind the GHZ.

    Science does not apply to sheer dumb luck scenarios.

     

  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you don't have any evidence for your position of sheer dumb luck.

    All you have is the refusal to accept the design inference.

    Thank you for admitting that- finally.

     

  • At 4:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Galactic Habitable Zones in AbSciCon '08: The Astrobiology Universe:

    Another limiting factor for life in a galaxy would be the location of the star relative to the galactic center. You want to be far enough away to avoid intense radiation and so that you’re not crowded by other stars (thereby also avoiding the supernova explosions of dying stars). How a star orbits the galactic center may be important as well. Our sun has a relatively circular orbit, while other stars do not. Lineweaver thinks perhaps a circular galactic orbit is a requirement for life to appear in a solar system, or at least survive over large time scales. Ultimately, Lineweaver said that life may be possible for less than 10 percent of all the stars ever formed in the Milky Way Galaxy

     

  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lineweaver, C.H., Fenner, Y., and Gibson, B.K. "The galactic habitable zone and the age distribution of complex life in the Milky Way". Science 303, pp. 59-62, 2004.

     

  • At 5:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, Evolving the Alien.

    Immigrant Sun: Our Star Could be Far from Where it Started, lookie here

    GHZ is far from established science.

    Still trying to come up with something that was designed which we don't infer from human activity?

    We're waiting for one tiny example, Joe. Just one thing that was designed that humans didn't design. It can't be that hard, can it?

     

  • At 5:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, Evolving the Alien.-

    No science there.

    Immigrant Sun: Our Star Could be Far from Where it Started, lookie here-

    No science there.

    GHZ is far from established science.-

    More established than your position of sheer dumb luck.

    Just one thing that was designed that humans didn't design.-

    A beaver dam.

    However I noticed that you have failed to produce anything that would support your position.

     

  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW a star could migrate and the GHZ could still be stantionary.

    All that has to happen is the star starts at the very edge and then migrates inwards.

     

  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And Erik, I am still waiting for that reference that we infer design only due to human activity.

    IOW support your claim that scientists infer design just because something looks designed.

     

  • At 8:19 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    A beaver dam. That's awesome. Well done, Joe. See how easy it is to provide examples. Now, why do you only do it when a softball is tossed your way? Why not do it all the time?

    On what do we base our knowledge of a beaver dam being designed? Might it be that we know beavers build dams?

    I think we're getting somewhere. Now provide an example (you've taken the baby step, now burst out into the world, Joe) of something we know is designed but we have no knowledge of the designer.

    You're doing so well, I think it's a shame that you're not going to provide an example to the real question....

     

  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    As much science in my GHZ links as there is in your H2O2 essays, Joe. Come on, be consistent.

     

<< Home