Soapy Sam
Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 13 2012,15:13) | | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05) | StephenB:
| Quote | | This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not. |
Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935 |
So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time?
Oh yeah, Theocracy. |
Well, obviously you quantify the number of microstates in a sandcastle and compare it to the microstates available to an 'unordered' pile of sand. If the first is much, much fewer, then you can reliably infer that the sandcastle was designed, since this is the only way you can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Well, one of the only ways. OK, not that second law of thermodynamics ... but you'd be dead surprised, and entropy is a measure of surprise, units eyebrow-micrometers per gram.
Edited by Soapy Sam on Aug. 14 2012,03:13
--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G
BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington
|
