Acartia_Bogart
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 06 2014,12:23) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2014,10:36) | That's sort of the point WT.
The entire field of encryption just blows IDs claims out of the water. Encryption and scrambling are designed to make a designed piece of information look totally random.
Since the information was designed (the thing being said) and the encryption algorithm was designed, and the results of the encryption are purely deterministic (they have to be or it can't be decrypted), then ID should easily be able to determine whether a string is random noise or intelligently designed encryption.
That they can't (and have refused to even attempt it on no fewer than 20 attempts over the last few years), is very telling. |
Kevin, you don't even know what ID claims. The entire field of encryption doesn't have anything to do with what ID claims. Why is it that you just say shit about ID without ever referencing what you say?
OTOH, evolutionary biologists not only make the claim to be able to do what you ask, they say they have done so. SETI is also claiming to be able to determine an intelligently designed signal from noise. Then there are various agencies, companies and countries that are involved with encryption. Meaning the field is well covered and ID wouldn't do anything any differently.
Fucking idiot... |
Hi Joe. It's nice to be able to talk to you again. Please correct me if I am wrong.
1) ID is about the ability to objectively detect design.
2) ID claims to have a mathematical process for doing this.
3) This objective and mathematical process to detect design, can't detect design in encrypted text, something that is doubly designed.
If these three basic points are correct, then the ID tools developed to detect design, cannot detect design in something that is obviously designed. Do you not think that this is a problem?
|
