blipey
Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote | cjyman,
Joe did ZERO investigation. He made that story up out of whole cloth because he can't answer the question. There was no investigation happening at all.
And, pardon me if I got this wrong, but are you agreeing that the writing of the string itself can alter the information of the string? If so, I'm going to have to lump you into the same pie as Joe--the crazy pie.
The question that Joe (and perhaps yourself) is talking around is very simple:
1A. I could have been walking down the road recording the color of leaves that I passed on the road (green=1, red=0).
1B. I could have been recording the length of scratch marks on the side of the road (long=1, short=0).
1C. I could have found and/or produced the digits in innumerable other ways.
2. The writing of the string in most of those ways has NOTHING to do with the content of said string--the leaves would still be laying the way they did if I had written it down or not. The scratch marks would still be there had I written it down or not. Etc.
3. Can you tell if the string itself was designed?
THAT'S IT.
Context is stupid WRT ID. The ID claim is to be able to detect design without knowing anything about the designer. If context is provided, you will necessarily know something about the designer. So which is true:
1. ID needs to know something about the designer to figure out if a thing is designed.
(In this case, ID is useless, because you are pre-supposing a designer and then...TA-DA, finding one.)
2. You can tell me if my string was designed by looking at it.
(In this case, ID would be spectacularly useful.) |
--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin
|
