PuckSR
Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
Avo
You used a term that suddenly striked me as very, very, very odd.
You referred to the deck "being stacked". Interesting.
I pose a question to you....
Could you tell the difference between a deck I had stacked and a random deck?
Since a deck of cards could randomly exist in any order at all, then there is no way to determine that the deck is "stacked". It could have been shuffled properly, and still wound up in that order. You might assume that I am cheating, because I got 4 Aces on the first draw....but you couldnt actually know that I was cheating.
This is basically the problem with ID(philosophy) and ID(science). ID(philosophy) thinks that the deck is stacked; ID(science) claims to be able to prove that the deck is stacked.
| Quote | | Well what do you mean by designed. If you simply made up a number and called it designed but it didn't do anything, then of course he couldn't. If your number, however, was a specific set of information that accomplished something complex, and if Dembski were able to discern the relation of the number to some sort of task or other form of meaningful information (there being the possibility that he could not decode it and therefore it would continue to appear random to him) then yes, he could. |
Hmmm, thats not what Dembski says, he simply says that if the pattern of numbers is complex enough, that it proves design. I do not believe that Dembski has any new relationship with respect to biological organisms. He simply calculated that their chance of existence was too rare to be random.
You might want to write to Dembski and get a better explanation of his math. Your answer for detecting design seems very rational, however, it is not the one that Dembski used.
| Quote | | As to why Miller is a confused IDist, that is simply because while he definitely accepts a system similar to the one Renier described for us, nonetheless we are in a very different ballgame if there is a God than if there isn't one. Dawkins' reality is not Miller's. It is bizarre to be confused on that. |
The reason you think that Miller is a confused IDist is because you confuse ID(philosophy) with ID(science). Miller actually believes in ID(philosophy).
You also seem to want us to either acknowledge God, or acknowledge that there might be a God. The only help I can offer you in this particular regard is to read the works of Siddhartha Gautama. The nature of God is unimportant, so is the question of his existence. It is an unanswerable question that you will waste your life exploring. You should divert that energy towards making yourself a better person.
In other words....it doesnt matter....if we acknowledge God, or His possibility of existence. It doesnt change anything. Your right, if God exists, then all of science is probably wrong; but God seems to either allow things to continue to hold up to natural laws....or he doesnt exist. Either way, natural laws seem to exist, and they seem to be observable....so lets stick with the natural laws and ignore God when dealing with natural laws.
| Quote | | I meant to say that ego gets in the way in human relations in many ways, including clinging to ideas with more than just facts for motivation. The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, but whatever it takes to alter us from chimps to human is what it takes, nothing less and nothing more. Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. I think the estimate in the end will be more like 95 or 96%. The whole chimp thing has little meaning to me. It's a code made up of the same stuff, arranged differently. You mght as well get upset that the same alphabet was used to produce Lolita as the Nancy Drew mysteries. We are made of the same stuff and the same code as squid. The whole planet is made of star stuff. We aren't chimps, we are the gods of this planet and it's time we started acting like it. |
Oh my God......
That is wrong...so very wrong.
The similarities between humans and chimps is not exaggerated, nor is it based on the fact that we are all "made up of the same stuff". I like your book analogy....but you completely misused it. The similarities between chimps and humans are not bit by bit comparisons. It consists of large chunks of identical code.
Why do you people think that it is so obscene that chimps and humans are related? You admit that a Rottweiler and a Pomeranian both evolved from the same original species.....despite drastic differences between the two, yet you cannot imagine that a human and a chimp are close relatives?
My God, are you telling me that Rottweilers and Pomeranians have more in common that Chimps and humans?
|
