Of Baseballs, Softballs, Cakes and Specified Information- Revisited
-Reduction is basically the act of reducing complexity.
This debate- that of ID vs. the blind watchmaker- is that of reduction- as in can living organisms, or whatever we are investigating, be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
And if it cannot what was required?
This is where baseballs, softballs and cakes come in.
In order to get a regulation MLB baseball the missing ingredients to the above are agency and specified information.
The same with a regulation fast-pitch softball and cakes.
These things cannot be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
Without agency involvement and specified information they wouldn't exist.
The point ID makes is that living organisms are chock full of specified information and the only way to understand living organisms is to understand that specified information.
This specified information is not sequence specificity. Sequence specification is only to carry out the information specified.
The products of transcription are little functioning information packets.
However only through the lense of ID would scientists even be looking for such a thing.
So the next time you ask "what good is ID?"-
The easy answer is only as good as people let it be.
But if you live your life saying "anything but design!!!", then you are just a pimple on the ass of progress waiting to be lanced.
This debate- that of ID vs. the blind watchmaker- is that of reduction- as in can living organisms, or whatever we are investigating, be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
And if it cannot what was required?
This is where baseballs, softballs and cakes come in.
In order to get a regulation MLB baseball the missing ingredients to the above are agency and specified information.
The same with a regulation fast-pitch softball and cakes.
These things cannot be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
Without agency involvement and specified information they wouldn't exist.
The point ID makes is that living organisms are chock full of specified information and the only way to understand living organisms is to understand that specified information.
This specified information is not sequence specificity. Sequence specification is only to carry out the information specified.
The products of transcription are little functioning information packets.
However only through the lense of ID would scientists even be looking for such a thing.
So the next time you ask "what good is ID?"-
The easy answer is only as good as people let it be.
But if you live your life saying "anything but design!!!", then you are just a pimple on the ass of progress waiting to be lanced.
posted by Joe G @ 7:49 AM
64 Comments:
At 9:32 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Joe the blowhard goes blah blah blah and he still can't provide an actual CSI value for any of those things.
Too funny!
At 10:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Thorton your ignorance is not a refutation.
But your continued flailing is too funny...
At 10:32 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Still no math? *shocked!*
EF = "It looks designed (to me)".
The end.
At 10:41 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Thorton your ignorance is not a refutation.
And your continued spineless evasions are not actual calculated values of CSI.
At 10:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Richtard,
Are you admitting that you cannot count?
And yes if something looks designed then we have to check into seeing if it was.
However your approach of "It looks designed but it ain't 'cause I said so" just exposes your ignorance.
At 11:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Thorton,
Are you also admitting that you cannot count and you need me to count for you?
Or are you saying that neither basebals, softbals nor cakes require specified information?
At 11:49 AM,
Jim Wynne said…
Joe G: Or are you saying that neither basebals, softbals nor cakes require specified information?
Joe, you omitted an "l" from "baseballs" and "softballs." Does this alter the amount of CSI present in those objects?
At 11:59 AM,
Hawks said…
Are you also admitting that you cannot count and you need me to count for you?
I'm fairly certain that we have wanted you to do some counting for a VERY long time now. You refuse. To us, it's obvious that you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about. You don't know how to do any of these things. You're just a simple liar (you'd be good at lying if it weren't for the simple fact that you are so bad at it).
At 12:10 PM,
Joe G said…
JW:
Joe, you omitted an "l" from "baseballs" and "softballs."
It was a typo.
Does this alter the amount of CSI present in those objects?
No.
At 12:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Are you also admitting that you cannot count and you need me to count for you?
I'm fairly certain that we have wanted you to do some counting for a VERY long time now.
Hawks if you are too stupid to count then you are too stupid to be doing anything but finger-painting.
To us, it's obvious that you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about.
To me it is obvious that you are an ignorant moron- willfully ignorant at that.
And obviously if I can tell people how to do it- which I have- then I know what I am talking about.
You don't know how to do any of these things.
And yet I have taught people how to do it.
At 1:41 PM,
Hawks said…
And yet I have taught people how to do it.
So why don't you have one of these people show us the SI of a cake then. Liar.
At 2:05 PM,
blipey said…
Why does the omitted "l" not alter the CSI of those objects?
At 2:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Hawks,
I told you how to do it.
You just choked on what I posted.
Go figure.
And why is it that not one evolutionitwit can address the topic of the thread?
At 2:13 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
However your approach of "It looks designed but it ain't 'cause I said so" just exposes your ignorance.
1) I may not think it 'looks' designed
2) without an empirical hurdle, its meaningless.
At 2:14 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
If it can be done, do it. Or shut up. Either would be great.
At 2:18 PM,
Joe G said…
However your approach of "It looks designed but it ain't 'cause I said so" just exposes your ignorance.
1) I may not think it 'looks' designed
That is OK. You don't appear to be able to think for yourself.
2) without an empirical hurdle, its meaningless.
And without empirical support your position is meaningless.
At 2:19 PM,
Joe G said…
If it can be done, do it. Or shut up. Either would be great.
If you want me to do your work for you then you have to pay me.
And your ignorance and stupidity will be very costly.
So put up or shut up.
Either would be great.
At 2:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Why does the omitted "l" not alter the CSI of those objects?
Why would it?
Please be specific.
At 3:25 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Joe, is this correct?
Here is a simple cake recipe in English
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F. Butter and flour a 12 by 18 by 1 1/2-inch sheet pan. To make the cake, cream the butter and sugar on medium-high speed in the bowl of an electric mixer fitted with a paddle attachment until light and fluffy, about 5 minutes. On medium speed, add the eggs, 2 at a time, then the sour cream, vanilla, and lemon zest, scraping down the bowl as needed. Mix well. Sift together the flour, cornstarch, salt, and baking soda. With the mixer on low speed, slowly add the flour mixture to the butter mixture and stir just until smooth. Finish mixing by hand to be sure the batter is well mixed. Pour evenly into the pan, smooth the top with a spatula, and bake in the center of the oven for 25 to 30 minutes, or until a toothpick comes out clean. Cool in the pan to room temperature.
655 characters, 655x5 = 3275 bits of CSI. Right?
Here is the same recipe in French to make the identical cake
Préchauffez le four à 350 degrés de beurre de F. et flour des 12 par 18 par 1 casserole de la feuille 1/2-inch. Pour faire le gâteau, écrémez le beurre et le sucre sur la milieu-haute vitesse dans la cuvette d'un mélangeur électrique équipé d'un attachement de palette jusqu'à léger et à pelucheux, environ 5 minutes. Sur la vitesse moyenne, ajoutez les oeufs, 2 à la fois, puis la crème aigre, la vanille, et le zeste de citron, éraflant en bas de la cuvette comme nécessaire. Mélangez bien. Tamisez ensemble la farine, la fécule de maïs, le sel, et le bicarbonate de soude. Avec le mélangeur sur à vitesse réduite, ajoutez lentement le mélange de farine au mélange de beurre et remuez juste jusqu'à ce que lisse. Finition se mélangeant à la main pour être sûr que la pâte lisse est bien mélangée. Versez même dans la casserole, lissez le dessus avec une spatule, et faites cuire au four au centre du four pendant 25 à 30 minutes, ou jusqu'à un toothpick sort propre. Refroidissez dans la casserole à la température ambiante
But now we have 844 characters, 844x5 = 4220 bits of CSI.
Where did the extra CSI come from?
Which value for the CSI is the correct one?
At 3:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Thorton,
If you are too stupid to understand what I post then you should just shut up.
Or are you proudly flaunting your ignorance?
At 3:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Thorton,
Both recipes contain CSI and therefor were designed.
The cakes made from the recipes would contain all the information it took to make it and therefor were also designed.
That is it.
That is the whole point of CSI- it's presence means intentional design.
At 3:54 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
These threads are the best.
At 4:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes every thread with your stupidity in it are the best for laughs.
They are also vey good on Intelligent Design Awareness Day.
You chumps prove that you ain't smarter than a fifth grader.
The kids get a kick out of that.
At 4:05 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Joke: Both recipes contain CSI and therefor were designed.
The cakes made from the recipes would contain all the information it took to make it and therefor were also designed.
That is it.
That is the whole point of CSI- it's presence means intentional design.
So you can't actually measure the CSI of the cake itself, just the recipe. And the recipe has a huge variation in its CSI depending on the language used.
So much for your IDiot claims of being able to measure the CSI of an object itself.
Simple fact is, you have no way at all to come up with any CSI value for an object when you don't know its history.
It is hilarious though watching you shoot yourself in the foot with almost every post.
At 4:09 PM,
Joe G said…
So you can't actually measure the CSI of the cake itself, just the recipe.
I have been over that already.
IOW all you are doing is continuing to prove you are an ignorant punk.
Are you proud of yourself?
And the recipe has a huge variation in its CSI depending on the language used.
I have been over that already too.
IOW you are really proud of your ignorance.
So much for your IDist claims of being able to measure the CSI of an object itself.
That was never an ID claim.
And I have thoroughly explained everything.
Apparently you are unable to understand simple concepts and you continue to think your stupidity and ignorance are refutations.
Simple fact is, you have no way at all to come up with any CSI value for an object when you don't know its history.
And yet I have told people how to do it.
Again your ignorance is amusing but doesn't refute anything.
At 5:54 PM,
Ghostrider said…
T: So much for your IDist claims of being able to measure the CSI of an object itself.
Joke: That was never an ID claim.
LOL! That's the ENTIRE claim of the whole IDiot movement - to be able to detect design by just determining the CSI an object without knowledge of the designer, or the design process.
You're so stupid you can't even get the IDiot party line right.
At 6:13 PM,
Joe G said…
That's the ENTIRE claim of the whole IDist movement - to be able to detect design by just determining the CSI an object without knowledge of the designer, or the design process.
Again your ignorance means nothing to me.
But perhaps you can provide a valid reference for that claim or admit you made it up because you are an ignorant asshole.
At 7:00 PM,
Joe G said…
As far as I know I am the only person who has said anything about measuring the specified information of an object in which the bits were not directly observable.
Living organisms? The nucleotides and amino acids- the bits- are directly observable.
Definitions? The characters- bits- are directly observable.
Recipes? More characters and more bits all directly observable.
Computer programs? The bits are directly observable.
At 7:23 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Recipes? More characters and more bits all directly observable.
But you told us you could measure the CSI of a cake, not the written recipe for a cake. The two are not the same.
Guess you were lying again.
Living organisms? The nucleotides and amino acids- the bits- are directly observable.
Since the nucleotides and amino acids themselves can be further decomposed into constituent molecules and atoms, please justify using them as 'bits'.
At 7:29 PM,
Joe G said…
But you told us you could measure the CSI of a cake, not the written recipe for a cake. The two are not the same.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Do you not understand English?
In destructing oleg there is the explanation you are obviously too stupid to understand.
Since the nucleotides and amino acids themselves can be further decomposed into constituent molecules and atoms, please justify using them as 'bits'.
They are not bits until they are nucleotides and amino acids.
But anyway I see you can't support your claims.
No surprise there...
At 7:51 PM,
blipey said…
If we were to introduce the concept of CSI into classrooms, at what grade level would the following question be appropriate:
What is the CSI of a cake?
At 7:51 PM,
blipey said…
Ii may have missed it. What's the CSI of a cake?
At 8:03 PM,
Joe G said…
If we were to introduce the concept of CSI into classrooms, at what grade level would the following question be appropriate:
What is the CSI of a cake?
As I have already told you that is not an appropriate question.
High school students understand that it takes agency involvement plus specified information in order to produce a cake- that is unless they are as ignorant as your basic clown.
At 8:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Ii may have missed it. What's the CSI of a cake?
You did.
Just let me know when you are in New Hampshire and where you will be staying and I will make sure you get it.
At 8:17 PM,
Ghostrider said…
T: Since the nucleotides and amino acids themselves can be further decomposed into constituent molecules and atoms, please justify using them as 'bits'.
Joke: They are not bits until they are nucleotides and amino acids
Why not? An individual nucleotide is composed of a nitrogenous base, a five-carbon sugar, and up to three phosphate groups.
Why don't each one of those pieces count as a bit?
Since you're just making up shit as you go along, you better be able to justify it.
At 8:19 PM,
blipey said…
Do cakes have CSI?
If they do, why is it not appropriate to ask what the CSI is? Is the CSI naked?
At 8:29 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Just let me know when you are in New Hampshire and where you will be staying and I will make sure you get it.
LOL! Joe Gallien, Internet Tough Guy.
At 8:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe Gallien, Internet Tough Guy.
Nope.
Joe Gallien- sick of badgering cowards who can only attack like little faggots and try to bully everyone into accepting their position.
You don't get it do you?
It is you punks who are bullying people.
I am just a guy who is ready and willing to stand up to fucking intellectual cowards and Nazi thought police like you.
Deal with it.
At 8:57 PM,
blipey said…
Um...stand up by not doing anything? That can't be right. Surely you meant "ready and willing to not show any of my work or link to anything that might show some of my work"?
At what grade level is it appropriate to ask:
Calculate the value of X?
At 9:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Do cakes have CSI?
What cake?
Not all cakes are created equal.
CSI stands for complex specified information.
So your question would read:
What is the complex specified information of a cake?
It doesn't make any sense- I don't even know what you are looking for.
And again CSI would be applied as stated above.
At 9:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Why not? An individual nucleotide is composed of a nitrogenous base, a five-carbon sugar, and up to three phosphate groups.
Why don't each one of those pieces count as a bit?
For the same reason each segment of a character doesn't.
Do you really think that if you continue act like an asshole you will refute what I post?
At 9:49 PM,
blipey said…
blipey: Do cakes have CSI?
JoeTard: What cake? Not all cakes are created equal. CSI stands for complex specified information. So your question would read: "What is the complex specified information of a cake?"
Um...I'm no reader on the level of ID researchers, but wouldn't my sentence read:
"Do cakes have complex specified information?"
In which case, you should answer.
At 7:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Um...stand up by not doing anything?
I have done plenty.
You OTOH have done nothing except try to badger me with your ignorance.
Anything else you have to say to me has to be done face to face.
At 7:32 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW clownie your question was:
What is the CSI of a cake?
You have been asking that ignorant question for at least a year.
At 11:02 AM,
blipey said…
Strange that that isn't the question you used in your comment. Well, you could answer either:
1. Does a cake have CSI?
or
2. Calculate the I of a cake and show that it has CSI.
Either would be great. After which, you could discuss at which grade level such a problem would be appropriate....
At 2:07 PM,
Hawks said…
That's the ENTIRE claim of the whole IDist movement - to be able to detect design by just determining the CSI an object without knowledge of the designer, or the design process.
Again your ignorance means nothing to me.
But perhaps you can provide a valid reference for that claim or admit you made it up because you are an ignorant asshole.
You might want to read the following by Dembski (http://www.designinference.com/documents/02.02.POISK_article.htm):
How a designer gets from thought to thing is, at least in broad strokes, straightforward: (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials.
What emerges is a designed object, and the designer is successful to the degree that the object fulfills the designer's purpose. In the case of human designers, this four-part design process is uncontroversial. Baking a cake, driving a car, embezzling funds, and building a supercomputer each presuppose it. Not only do we repeatedly engage in this four-part design process, but we have witnessed other people engage in it countless times. Given a sufficiently detailed causal history, we are able to trace this process from start to finish.
But suppose a detailed causal history is lacking and we are not able to trace the design process. Suppose instead that all we have is an object, and we must decide whether it emerged from such a design process.
---
Go ahead and read the rest...
At 2:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Hawks,
That you think what you posted in any refutes what I said then you are more ignorant than I thought.
But please go ahead with an explanation.
The article Hawks was too stupid to provide a prper link to:
Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences
Notice there isn't anything about CSI in reference to just an object in the entire article.
At 4:10 PM,
Hawks said…
The article Hawks was too stupid to provide a prper link to:
You are too stupid to spell proper.
At 4:25 PM,
Hawks said…
Notice there isn't anything about CSI in reference to just an object in the entire article.
Why do you even think that this objection is important?
Here is another quote that says that one needs no knowledge about how something was designed:
From iscid(http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Specified_Complexity):
Specified complexity is William Dembski's dual-pronged criterion for objectively detecting the effects of certain types of intelligent activity without first hand evidence of the cause of the event in question.
At 5:51 PM,
Joe G said…
Notice there isn't anything about CSI in reference to just an object in the entire article.
Why do you even think that this objection is important?
Because that is what Thorton and I were talking about.
You jumped into that citing Dembski and Dembski wasn't even talking about what we were discussing.
Here is another quote that says that one needs no knowledge about how something was designed:
That was never in question.
IOW thanks for continuing to prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
At 5:52 PM,
Joe G said…
The article Hawks was too stupid to provide a prper link to:
You are too stupid to spell proper.
You are too stupid to recognize typos.
But thanks for being my secretary...
At 10:40 PM,
Hawks said…
Notice there isn't anything about CSI in reference to just an object in the entire article.
...
Because that is what Thorton and I were talking about.
You jumped into that citing Dembski and Dembski wasn't even talking about what we were discussing.
From the article:
But suppose a detailed causal history is lacking and we are not able to trace the design process. Suppose instead that all we have is an object, and we must decide whether it emerged from such a design process.
This is what Dembski is talking about. This is what the article is about.
Next, are you going to complain that Dembski never uses the acronym CSI?
At 7:05 AM,
Joe G said…
Hawks,
You are so fucking stupid you are a pathetic excuse for a human.
There isn't anythiung in that article pertaining to getting CSI from just an object Hawks.
Nothing at all.
IOW thanks for proving that you are an obtuse asshole.
At 2:56 PM,
Hawks said…
You are so fucking stupid you are a pathetic excuse for a human.
There isn't anythiung in that article pertaining to getting CSI from just an object Hawks.
Nothing at all.
Apart from that that is the point of the article? Poor Joe. Thicker than lead-lined pig-shit.
At 4:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Apart from that that is the point of the article?
It wasn't the point of the article.
That is the whole problem- you don't know what you are talking about.
At 4:13 PM,
Hawks said…
That is the whole problem- you don't know what you are talking about.
When you have mastered reading the words below, I recommend that you start by reading some "Dora the Explorer" and stuff. After that, try Demsbki again.
The words: dog. cat. box. fox.
At 5:50 PM,
Joe G said…
Dembski's paper is about "Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences".
There isn't anything in the article about measuring CSI just given an object.
IOW Hawks you are an ignorant wanker.
At 5:54 PM,
Joe G said…
And if you think I am wrong and you are right then please post the relevant quotes that show us how to measure the CSI just given the object.
At 4:53 PM,
Hawks said…
And if you think I am wrong and you are right then please post the relevant quotes that show us how to measure the CSI just given the object.
Well... we'd all like to see an ID supporter do just that. Dembski could do it for anything he wants. You could do it for a cake.
At 6:18 PM,
Joe G said…
And if you think I am wrong and you are right then please post the relevant quotes that show us how to measure the CSI just given the object.
Well... we'd all like to see an ID supporter do just that.
Why?
I explained how to do it.
I have also explained and supported that it is irrelevant to ID.
You tried to use Dembski's paper to prove me wrong yet Dembski's paper wasn't intended to support such a claim.
Dembski could do it for anything he wants. You could do it for a cake.
I will do it for a cake when you produce some evidence that cakes can spontaneously arise.
Otherwise the instructions I have provided are good enough for anyone except for the willfully ignorant.
At 3:00 PM,
Hawks said…
Wow, Joe thinks that he has a point just because the paper doesn't give any examples of how to calcualte specified complexity but, instead, merely asserting that such a measurement is a way to detect design.
I will do it for a cake when you produce some evidence that cakes can spontaneously arise.
You will never do it. No ID supporter ever will.
At 5:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Wow, Joe thinks that he has a point just because the paper doesn't give any examples of how to calcualte specified complexity but, instead, merely asserting that such a measurement is a way to detect design.
Wrong again assface, as usual.
The paper doesn't even discuss what I was talking about.
Try to follow along:
Thorton had said:
That's the ENTIRE claim of the whole IDiot movement - to be able to detect design by just determining the CSI an object without knowledge of the designer, or the design process.
I said that is false and you jumped in with that article from Dembski which doesn't even attempt to get the CSI of an object.
I will do it for a cake when you produce some evidence that cakes can spontaneously arise.
You will never do it.
Yet I have told you how to do it.
Also you can't produce any evidence that cakes can spontaneously arise.
No ID supporter ever will.
It doesn't have anything to do with ID.
You could do it if you were smart enough to follow directions...
At 6:43 PM,
Hawks said…
I said that is false and you jumped in with that article from Dembski which doesn't even attempt to get the CSI of an object.
Right. It just talks about how to detect design in objects using specified complexity. Tomato, tomaato.
Did you also see this little tidbit about how ID does NOT try to infer anything about the designer:
As a result, the theory of intelligent design presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. The theory of intelligent design is theologically minimalist. It detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence.
At 7:13 PM,
Joe G said…
I said that is false and you jumped in with that article from Dembski which doesn't even attempt to get the CSI of an object.
Right. It just talks about how to detect design in objects using specified complexity.
Nothing about MEASURING CSI GIVEN JUST THE OBJECT.
Nothing about calculations.
IOW there isn't anything in the article that deals with what we were talking about.
Did you also see this little tidbit about how ID does NOT try to infer anything about the designer
I know ID is not about the designer.
OTOH IDists can and do make assumptions about the designer(s).
Post a Comment
<< Home