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

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

SETI and Intelligent Design

-

In SETI and Intelligent Design, SETI researcher Seth Shostak wants to assure everyone that the two don’t have anything in common.

However it is obvious that Seth doesn’t completely understand ID’s argument, and he misrepresents the anonymous quote he provided.

Seth on ID:
The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA--which is a complicated, molecular blueprint--is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.


Yes specified complexity is used as evidence for design. Not mere complexity and not organized complexity. A hurricane is an example of organized complexity. DNA is an example of specified complexity.

Seth on IDists on SETI:
"upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn't their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning--a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?" anonymous IDist(s)
(No IDist claims complexity implies intelligence so methinks Seth made it all up)

What does Seth say about his made-up quote?:
In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume.- S Shostak

1- All that quote said was about RECEIVING, not searching.
2- And if you did RECEIVE a signal of that nature you would claim it as such
3- By ID’s standards of complexity is related to probability your narrow band meets the complexity criteria



An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial.- Shostak


Not if we use the word complexity in terms of (im)probability then that sine wave would meet the criteria.
However Seth does add some insight:
Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add -


Exactly! And if natural astrophysical processes can be found that generate such a tone then you would have to search for something else. Something that natural astrophysical processes cannot account for.

57 Comments:

  • At 10:33 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    perhaps you could give us the information content of the following string of numbers:

    59192874710214792374.

    Does it have CSI?

    Was it designed?

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The string was designed by you.

    Or do you think it just magically appeared in the comment you posted?

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Really, it was designed by me? How do you know? Maybe I let my cat jump on my number pad? Maybe I closed my eyes and rolled the back of my hand on the numberpad.

    Neither of those scenarios would be design.

    Now, what process can you go through to tell me if it was designed or not? If the problem's too hard for you, Joe, just say so. But stop avoiding the question.

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Besides, how much information content does the string have? You forgot to tell us.

     
  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I know because it is in your comment.

    A cat is an intelligent agency.

    Even your action of rolling the back of your hand on the numberpad is the action of an intelliget agency even though you are so stupid it hurts.

    Now if you can demonstrate that those numbers appeared without any agency involvement that would help your case.

     
  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I see. Avalanches are designed. Good enough. The wind gusting through my open window is designed. Wow. This gets tough.

    Could you give me an example of something that IS NOT designed?

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Pulsars are designed! Man, is there anything in the universe that isn't designed?

     
  • At 11:21 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Actually, that's a good test of your methodology. How would you go about determining whether or not an avalanche was designed or not?

    Could you determine between snow falling off a mountain and some dude saying, "Man, sure is pretty out here!" and causing the snow to fall off the mountain?

    That would be useful. How would you go about it?

     
  • At 11:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Pulsars would be eliminated at the first node of the EF.

     
  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How would you go about determining whether or not an avalanche was designed or not?

    Investigate.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. WHAT WOULD YOU DO??? Your methodology can distinguish an avalanche caused by gravity and one caused by a dude talking, right?

    Right?

    Walk us through it.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    And what happened to the other comment? You know, the one that presented some examples of designed things that you want to ignore....

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Avalanches are designed.

    I know that some are. I have fired the round that set one off.

    I have witnessed many other avalanches being purposely set off.

    I have witnessed some being set off accidently.

    But that doesn't mean they all are designed.

    We would have to investigate- that is if we even cared.

    As I told you there has to be a reason to conduct an investigation.

    The wind gusting through my open window is designed.

    Again that would all depend on the circumstances.

     
  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    WHAT WOULD YOU DO???

    There needs to be a REASON for me to do something.

    Just you saying something is not a reason.

    The reason has to be valid and knowing you that means you will never present one.

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Besides, how much information content does the string have?

    It doesn't have to have any.

    It does have the information carrying capacity of roughly 80 bits (a little less).

     
  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And what happened to the other comment? You know, the one that presented some examples of designed things that you want to ignore

    It is sad that you continue to think that your ignorance and strawmen are meaningful discourse.

     
  • At 8:13 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    80 bits!!!!

    That's way less than 10^120.

    Are you sure it's designed?

     
  • At 9:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, I am positive that it took agency involvement to put that string of numbers on my blog.

    And yes I can name that tune in less than 10^120.

    Are you jealous?

     
  • At 9:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, what significance does 10^120 bits of info have?

    Any?

     
  • At 9:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Also taking intelligence to post something on a blog is not the same thing as designing a string of numbers?

    What if lightning struck a tree, knocking leaves to the ground? And I wrote a "1" down for each leaf that was horizontally positioned in relation to myself and a "0" for each leaf that was perpendicular to said plain?

    Would I have designed that string?

    I know you'll say yes, but you'll need to explain the difference between the information that was presented by nature and the information that was provided by me.

     
  • At 9:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    How about this string of numbers:

    17713075217608427.

    Designed? Or accidentally typed by me knocking over a cup of change on the number pad?

    Is the information content different for each of those cases?

     
  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, what significance does 10^120 bits of info have?

    Just what I have told you.

    That is the UPB.

    Also taking intelligence to post something on a blog is not the same thing as designing a string of numbers?

    It could be but it doesn't have to be.

    What if lightning struck a tree, knocking leaves to the ground? And I wrote a "1" down for each leaf that was horizontally positioned in relation to myself and a "0" for each leaf that was perpendicular to said plain?

    Would I have designed that string?


    Yes you designed it based on some condition you put forth.

    Now if nature, operating freely started putting down numbers via wind, rain, errosion, etc., then that string would not have been designed.

    I know you'll say yes, but you'll need to explain the difference between the information that was presented by nature and the information that was provided by me.

    What information do you think was presented by nature?

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How about this string of numbers:

    17713075217608427.

    Designed? Or accidentally typed by me knocking over a cup of change on the number pad?


    All I know is that it took agency involvement to put those numbers in your comment.

    That said it is amusing that you think that science is a parlor game.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID is just interested in agency involvement vs nature, operating freely.

    A person whittling a stick may not have a purpose in mind but would still leave behind counterflow.

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    The pattern of leaves was created by nature, Joe. I did not lay down the leaves. Nature did.

    Are you saying that nature never provides any information? That information only exists because man looks at something?

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    What is the significance of the UPB, Joe?

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I decided on the binary code, yes. I did not create the pattern I used the binary code to represent. Nature did.

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Yes, Joe. We often use models to understand thing. I understand that you couldn't tell us what the purpose of a model is if you had a gun to your head, but keep posting.

    So, we study the world by creating models--it's a lot easier than creating a whole new universe.

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The pattern of leaves was created by nature, Joe. I did not lay down the leaves. Nature did.

    I never said nor implied that you created the pattern.

    However you decided to put down a code depending on the leaves placement in relation to you.

    Are you saying that nature never provides any information? That information only exists because man looks at something?

    If nature does something and no one is around to investigate, does it matter?

    What "information" would exist if we weren't around to provide it?

    But anyway if it is ever observed that nature, operating freely can give rise to CSI then you would be well on the way to falsifying ID.

    What is the significance of the UPB, Joe?

    The same as I have told you many times already.

    I decided on the binary code, yes. I did not create the pattern I used the binary code to represent. Nature did.

    We are only talking about the string of 1s and 0s.

    And nature didn't do that.

    We often use models to understand thing.

    How is that relevant to anything in this thread or anything at all?

    So, we study the world by creating models--it's a lot easier than creating a whole new universe.

    Your position doesn't have any models. It also doesn't have any EXAMPLES. And it cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms.

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What if lightning struck a tree, knocking leaves to the ground? And I wrote a "1" down for each leaf that was horizontally positioned in relation to myself and a "0" for each leaf that was perpendicular to said plain?

    What kind of tree?

    Any other damage to the tree besides the loss of leaves?

    How close were you to the tree when the lightning struck it?

    In what direction was the tree from your position?

    What position were you facing?

    What was the direction and strength of the wind?

    Was it raining?

    What was the time of day?

    What was the date?

    Can you provide GPS coordinates for the location?

    A State, country, something?

    The point being is that models are not just made-up generalizations.

    Models contain details.

    "Descent with modification" is totally void of details.

    Your entire position is totally void of details.

     
  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    JoeG: If nature does something and no one is around to investigate, does it matter?

    Oh, I see. We've gone from:

    A. Trying to determine what nature can and can't do

    TO

    B. Trying to determine what man did and didn't do

    That's quite switch, Joe.

     
  • At 1:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    JoeG: I never said nor implied that you created the pattern.

    Well, isn't that the sort of thing we're meant to investigate, Joe?

    How can you tell if nature laid the pattern down or if I did?

    How can you tell if a dude talking caused an avalanche or if gravity did?

    Does a voice leave more or less information than gravity?

    How would you go about quantifying that?

    Would CSI be a good way to confirm your findings. If they were confirmed what would the information content of each scenario look like?

    These should all be easy answers for a methodology as complete and fantastic as yours is.

     
  • At 1:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Nature operates in binary code all the time, Joe. Also in many other bases. Nature is very mathematical. If you are implying that humans copying the code that nature already wrote means that humans designed nature, you're a moron.

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JoeG: If nature does something and no one is around to investigate, does it matter?

    Oh, I see. We've gone from:

    A. Trying to determine what nature can and can't do

    TO

    B. Trying to determine what man did and didn't do


    No, obviously you don't see.

    If no one is around to see what nature can and can't do, does it matter?

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JoeG: I never said nor implied that you created the pattern.

    Well, isn't that the sort of thing we're meant to investigate, Joe?

    According to you I was just to see if that string of 1s and 0s was designed:

    blipey:

    What if lightning struck a tree, knocking leaves to the ground? And I wrote a "1" down for each leaf that was horizontally positioned in relation to myself and a "0" for each leaf that was perpendicular to said plain?

    Would I have designed that string?


    Then you say:

    How can you tell if nature laid the pattern down or if I did?

    Why would I care?

    IOW what is the reasoning behind such an investigation?

    These should all be easy answers for a methodology as complete and fantastic as yours is.

    Do you think forensic science could answer your questions?

     
  • At 4:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nature operates in binary code all the time, Joe.

    Just because you think so doesn't make it so.

    Nature is very mathematical.

    Because it was designed that way.

    If you are implying that humans copying the code that nature already wrote means that humans designed nature

    That was never the case.

    YOU made the code in your model, not nature.

    IOW you are the moron.

    And that you think your strawman "arguments" mean something proves you are a moron,

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, Joe. the information was presented by nature. If your methodology has any merit at all, it should be able to tell us about the design or non-design of the information represented by the string.

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Really, I think we can head this off at the pass. You're saying we can only investigate things that humans do or see. And since when humans see something they apparently impart enough information to it that they can be said to have designed it, we're really only saying:

    Humans designed the stuff we can see.

    This is exciting!

     
  • At 6:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    the information was presented by nature.

    By any chance was it via a talking donkey?

    I have heard something about a talking donkey and it wasn't in reference to any of the Shrek movies.

    A donkey is an ass, and you are an ass- any connection?

    BTW exactly what information do you think was presented by nature?

    And why do you ignore the list of questions you have to answer before I would even start caring?

    If your methodology has any merit at all, it should be able to tell us about the design or non-design of the information represented by the string.

    That from a person whose position doesn't have any methodology beyond the refusal to allow a design inference.

     
  • At 6:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Really, I think we can head this off at the pass.

    The only way to do that would be to eliminate you- really.

    You're saying we can only investigate things that humans do or see.

    Nope.

    We can investigate things we do not see.

    Ghost Hunters, SETI, atoms etc., etc.

    And since when humans see something they apparently impart enough information to it that they can be said to have designed it, we're really only saying:

    Humans designed the stuff we can see.


    Yes it is "exciting" watching an asshole master his assholery.

    So why is it that you think that you, being an asshole, adds something to the discussion?

     
  • At 9:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, Joe. You want us to believe that you have a methodology that can tell us if the universe was designed...

    However, your methodology apparently can't even tell us if a distribution of leaves on the ground was designed or not.

    That's not a very convincing argument to approach the textbook companies with--not to mention the science standards people.

     
  • At 10:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You want us to believe that you have a methodology that can tell us if the universe was designed...

    It's called looking at the evidence abd consideration of the facts and options.

    However, your methodology apparently can't even tell us if a distribution of leaves on the ground was designed or not.

    It has never been applied to something as idiotic as a distribution of leaves on the ground.

    Why would anyone be investigating a distribution of leaves on the ground?

    That's not a very convincing argument to approach the textbook companies with--not to mention the science standards people.

    Yeah those same people whose own methodology is nothing more than the refusal to allow the design inference- at all costs. Either that or they are afraid to stand up to the fuckheads like the NCSE .

     
  • At 11:16 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. Your methodology doesn't work in general--only when applied to the Universe as a whole.

    I see.

     
  • At 11:17 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Algebra works for quadratic functions, but is also really useful for linear equations....

    Think about it.

     
  • At 9:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No you don't see.

    YOUR methodology needs to be able to tell whether or not the distributation of leaves was designed or not.

    Otherwise it can't make any claims about the "apparent" design.

    So walk us through it or admit that you are an asshole.

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Algebra works for quadratic functions, but is also really useful for linear equations....

    Think about it.


    What is there to think about?

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    When your proctologist is examining you he shouldn't have his hands on your shoulders.

    If his hands are on your shoulders that isn't his finger up your ass.

    Think about it...

     
  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Algebra: good for some complicated problems

    ID: supposedly good for complicated problems

    Algebra: handy at solving not so complicated problems, at the same time showing a methodology that applies to the more difficult problems

    ID: can't be bothered to work for simpler problems, at the same time showing it has no methodology that can be applied to the more complicated problems

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID nor forensic science nor SETI nor anyone can be bothered to work on your strawman.

    Ya see if forensic science can't tell us about your leaves then there isn't any hope it can tell us about anything- that is by your "logic".

    Also YOUR position requires a methodology to make such a determination.

    BTW the EF is a methodogy that can be used by scientists to reach an inference as to the cause of what they are observing/ investigating.

    As a matter of fact it is the methodology that needs to be used by anyone trying to refute the design inference.

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    YOUR methodology needs to be able to tell whether or not the distributation of leaves was designed or not.

    Otherwise it can't make any claims about the "apparent" design.

    So walk us through it or admit that you are an asshole.


    blipey's silence proves that he is an asshole.

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Algebra: good for some complicated problems

    Evolutionism: supposedly good for complicated problems

    Algebra: handy at solving not so complicated problems, at the same time showing a methodology that applies to the more difficult problems

    Evolutionism: can't be bothered to solve anything unless of course imginary tales are considered solutions. Methododology? Nothing beyond the refusal to allow the design inference no matter how tight the analogy. (according to blipey and one brow analogy is the only way- which says quite a bit about those two)

     
  • At 5:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, isn't the purpose of ID to be able to determine when design is present? That's the whole idea, right?

     
  • At 10:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, isn't the purpose of ID to be able to determine when design is present? That's the whole idea, right?

    That is the purpose of EVERYONE/ ANYONE trying to determine the reality behind the existence of that they are investigating.

    THAT is what I have been trying to tell you nitwits for years.

    Science only cares about that reality- regardless of the implications.

    IOW asshole the whole purpose of your position is that it claims to be able to determine design from non-design.

    I can't help it that you are too stupid to realize that.

     
  • At 11:22 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So why can't ID determine when design is present?

    leaves on the ground?
    strings of numbers?
    smooth rocks?
    grooves in the land?
    etc...

    Why does ID only work when the subject being investigated is the entire universe?

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So why can't ID determine when design is present?

    It can. And it does so as well as forensic science, SETI, anthropologists and every other design-centric venue.

    Why does ID only work when the subject being investigated is the entire universe?

    Is that the only scenario that fornsic science, SETI, anthropology and all other design-centric venues work?

    Can any of those non-ID design-centric venues work on your strawman arguments?

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I see now! ID only works in cases where we know man was involved! That makes more sense.

    ID: a science that investigates the design or non-design of things...

    as long as those things are identified a priori as something that was probably designed

    AND

    as long as those people who designed them didn't do a really good job at making it look like they didn't design them

    AND

    if JoeG thinks the subjects are interesting

    This ID stuff is awesome. A really robust field. I'm not surprised at all that everyone in every institution worth a damn is teaching it!

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I see now! ID only works in cases where we know man was involved!

    Nope, you still don't see.

    But that is because you have gone through life with your head up your ass.

    But anyway you shopuld feel real proud that you have single-handedly shown that forensic science, arhaeology, SETI and all design-centric venues are nonsense.

    You should publish your findings.

    I am sure their is someone in publishing that is just as stupid as you are.

    ID: a science that investigates the design or non-design of things...

    Forensic Science: a science that investigates the design or non-design of things...

    Archaeology: a science that investigates the design or non-design of things...

    SETI: a science that investigates the design or non-design of things...

    Insurance claims: a science that investigates the design or non-design of things...

    Fire investigation: a science that investigates the design or non-design of things...

    You just wiped all of science- including YOUR position:

    Evolutionism: a science that investigates the design or non-design of things...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home