RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >   
  Topic: Prescribed Evo. Hypothesis Boosting, Cheerleading for PEH goes here.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,12:48   

I'm having to bounce back and forth between the two threads to delete stuff out of the "Paul Nelson" thread that doesn't belong there, since the "split" script did not do that for me. (I should apply to get my $0.00 back?) Well, I managed to delete a post out of the wrong thread, and it happens to be one from "DAEvans". So here's the text of it exactly as copied from the PN thread.

DAEvans:

Quote

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,05:24)
jon, I like the cut of your jib but you are just here to whine. Can you at least take a time out at being mad at other people because they don't want to hear your ideas any more?

Try to be decent for a day or 2 and see haw it is. Y'now, baby steps, right?

That is wonderful. I guess anyone who denies your failed hypothesis will be accused of being Professor Davison. The problem is staring you right in your eyes. The inability to accept the evidence. Hate it as much as you like but creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and, like ontogeny, was always emergent and autoregulated with little reference to the environment.


Please remember, the above text is written by DAEvans, not me.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,12:49   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:34)
We can argue the effects of Darwinian ideology as the foundational support for secular reasoning in the abortion controversies and geriatric concerns. The emphasis on youth oriented dictates from WHO and the UN Human Rights Commission and Global Initiatives have its principles in Darwinian sciences such as, linguistics, behavioral ism and social sciences.

We've gone full bore into conspiracy theories here.  I think this should be added to the list... at the very end.


Anywho... daevans, please tell me where you plan to practice medicine.  I need to make sure I and my family members are as far away as possible.

Do you have a single shred of evidence for anything that you have said*?


* Please note, blog posts don't count as scientific evidence, except in the sense of 'so-and-so did indeed say what I claim he said'.  It does not support the facts or evidence of the claim itself.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
JohnW



Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:14   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 23 2010,09:25)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,06:43)
Jad or Vmartin? I love it so. Our new friend is likely an old friend. Awwwwwwwww how sweet.

Like herpes, they come back.

Louis

VMartin came to my mind, too, though having dropped the here-today-gone-tomorrow fake accent.

A gentle shuffle of Daevans => Davasen.

Just sayin'.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:31   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

We saw what you wrote but what you really meant.


Who the fuck are you to decide what someone 'really meant'. †Normally, I'm a very nice person, but this pisses me off.

You do not have telepathy.
You do not have precognition.
You do not know me or anyone here.
You have no right to declare what SOMEONE ELSE said.

But that's OK, because you are under the same delusion that other creationists (excuse me 'IDists') are. †That is "You (somehow) know better than everyone else on the planet.

It is obvious from your posts that you barely understand the scientific method, but you still know more than thousands of real live scientists that bust ass day-in and day-out to provide YOU (Mr. med student) the tools that you must have to do your job (ever hear of anti-biotics, superbugs, or do you know where the most anti-bitoic resistant bacteria exist (hint, you'll be working there)).

Oh, and who the fuck is 'We'? †Are you in a computer lab with your buddies? †Are you using the 'royal we', your highness? †Are the rest of your little club too scared to jump in here?

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

(I never asked that I made a statement that I knew what it was)

( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)


Bullshit. †First rule of Darwinism is there is no darwinism. †

The goal of evolutionary SCIENCE is to show how the great diversity of life came about... AND provide tools that can be used to help us (Mr. med student).

You claim that scientists are lying about evolutionary theory. †There are many people in this 'debate' that are liars, but they are not on the science side.

Ask Meyer about the lies in his book.
Ask Dembski about the Harvard video (hint: It's called theft)
Ask Behe about lying to a court of law in Dover.


Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here †from the adolescent attacks, †the rest you wrote is just crap. What is even more remarkable is that man being the result of undirected causes believes himself capable of defining a reality that is unpredictable if undirected. Why you want to remain ignorant is of coarse your own business not mine).


What would you know about working scientists? †What does belief have to do with science? †If you ask these questions, then you do not understand science.


Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate. I would say you miss understand my attention... again. I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer, †your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for. The Darwinist attempts to deny that intelligent causes do not exist when all one needs do is imagine the progress and advancements of civilization without intelligence. The view of the metaphysical naturalist that wholly undirected natural causes govern the universe is patently false. Believing so is based on superstition and misguided faith. Darwinist depend on a "dumb public" for support and of coarse forums like this were numerous people can ambush anyone who question Darwin)


There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start.

Let me ask you: Let's say there's a scientist. †He's a horrible rapist. †He beats his wife and children. †He's a true asshole. †

Does that automatically make any results, data, conclusions from his work wrong?

Of course it doesn't. †Therefore everything in your paragraph above is invalid.

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( First let's be honest †you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory. But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new". The same thing happened in the 60's with another religious movement which taught the same rebellious doctrine.)


We speak from evidence. †You speak from a holy book.
We speak from 150 years of data. †You speak from 2000 years of myth.
We speak from decades of dealing with creationists/IDists. †You speak from regurgitating the same crap that we dealt with 20 years ago.

You claim that you don't discuss God.  Then why do the leaders of the ID movement specifically claim that God is the designer?  Dembski, Meyers, Wells, they all say this.  YOU may not speak of God, but all other ID proponents do.  But, hey, you know more than thousands of scientists... I guess you know more about ID than the people that invented the modern concept too.

Again, if had a clue about the scientific process, you would know what it's like to stand in a crowd of expert scientists who are intent on trashing your hard work. †You will never understand the pride that comes when, at the end of those proceedings, a truly notable scientist in your field comes to you and says, "Damn, you convinced me son. †Good work."

All you have is a bunch scyophants preaching to the choir (literally in most cases). †You've never had to defend yourself against people who know what they are talking about. †Good luck...

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( I would further state †Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena. Let's not forget that when Darwin first theorized evolution, he had no method for inheritance and no rigorous predictive capacity.)


Please provide a single experiment that unambiguously (i.e. everyone agrees with that interpretation) that shows ID is true.

Please provide whatever evidence you have that ID is a fact.

Please provide the 'hypothesis' of ID.

Please explain why the leaders of ID (Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Behe, etc) have said "there is no ID theory"

I've been asking you people these questions for 15 years and no one can answer.


Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism. You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are. On another level Scientist do disagree on this. Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?.What we see is †that mankind is anywhere near as close to explaining and defining origins let alone the workings of the universe , but what we do need is better and more in depth methods of observation.Darwin is definitely being exposed and will suffer more blows to it's shaky foundation. If that angers the atheist in these forums so what. Science is about being popular it's about searching for real answers all which have taken a back seat to a ideology which is now beginning to suffer major set backs.


The only debate is how people like you and your 'institutes' can infect the education of my kids. †Personally speaking, you guys can write a million books a year, but the second you try to pass of your shit as science, then you have to face up to real science.

I've been listening to the 'Darwin's on his last legs' arguement for at least a decade. †You know what... no one cares what you think.

You either provide evidence or go running home to Dembski about how people were mean to you.

You want to argue about science... fine, bring it. †You want to argue about ideologies... well that's what WE are doing. †You can't because you're trying to make a duck into a crocodile. †

Evolution is not ideology. †Why not, because it †
1) is falsifiable
2) is testable
3) provides tools that can predict the results of observations and experiments

Tell you what, if you think you have a chance, I've got two strings of numbers on my home computer. †(I'm at work now.) †If you are up to the challenge, I'll post them here and you can take Dembski's design filters or whatever the heck they are and tell me which one is designed (by me using very specific numbers) and which one is random (produced by atmospheric noise) and show the calculations that you used to arrive at that decision.

I triple dog dare you. †Hell, I dare Dembski, to. †Should be easy for a fact and a theory.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:32   

I doubt JAD is savvy enough to change his IP around..

Got that? Track it Down!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:34   

OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,13:34)
OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

No problem, I'll post them when I get home.  I'm about to head out for the day.  We've got about an inch of snow here.  That's somewhat unusual for central Texas.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:56   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2010,10:40)
DAEvans:

† †
Quote

You act like it's a conspiracy against the Darwin faction and that isn't the case.


Two words: cdesign proponentsists.

ETA: corrected spelling.

Two more words: crickets chirping.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:08   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10)
How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with.

I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell?
it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity.

Ah, I seem to have mixed up your recent arrival with that of someone else who explicitly claimed to be a "seeker after truth".

About the closest you got to that in your opening was, "Do you think that is a truthful statement?" BTW, the "report a post" mechanism is not a substitute for the Personal Message or PM capability.

I'm selling T-shirts, mugs, and other consumer items, but I don't think that really has much to do with this thread.

As for my understanding of evolutionary science, I think I've been forthcoming with my opinions for long enough that you really shouldn't simply assume something about that; look it up.

So strike the final sentence from the quote you responded to and pay more attention to the preceding interrogatives.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1773
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:16   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:11)
One of the best Ant-Darwinian's today is Professor John A. Davison. His work is by far the best to date.From what we know we can eliminate †both the Lamarckian and Darwinian models,I am sorry boys they both failed. But there is hope. †Professor Davison's has postulate the only conceivable explanation summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). The only real issue has always been the MECHANISM for phylogeny. The PEH along with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) provide that mechanism which is now for all time next to the works of the great biologists whose common and largely independent findings permit of no other satisfactory explanation for the great mystery of organic evolution.

I read John Davison's PEH some years ago. I don't recal seing any evidence in it though. Now maybe I have forgoten it so could you please tell me if JAD provided evidence for his PEH and if so, what? What experiments did he perform to test his ideas?

As you are a med student, can you explain why it is important for a patient to complete their antibiotic course, even if the symptoms have been relieved before it is finished?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:19   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,13:34)
OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

A) 19372082339311710152086213620575697824755571720

B) 97565835082747442479890364189494781845201746854


one string is designed (by me)
one string is random (random.org)

which is which and why?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:26   

I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:30   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Cool! and strangely, with ID 'not by chance' implications.

LOUISE R A DESINE FEARIST.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:52   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2010,19:30)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Cool! and strangely, with ID 'not by chance' implications.

LOUISE R A DESINE FEARIST.

Shhhhh I has been maintaining mah cover all this time. I r really a mole. One day, I will expose the DarwinistatheistliberalUNlovingevolutionist hegemony for all its evils. One day. When all that tedious evidence has been safely burned of course.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:59   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Just to warn you...

one of my jobs (sort of) is assisting with statistical analysis of standardized tests for some of the state exit level tests.

In other words, this is high risk information (because a student may not graduate).  So I get beat in the head with statistical data and crap... a lot.

Anyone else?

You have a 50/50 shot, but why is the important bit.

;)

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1773
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:05   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,14:59)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Just to warn you...

one of my jobs (sort of) is assisting with statistical analysis of standardized tests for some of the state exit level tests.

In other words, this is high risk information (because a student may not graduate). †So I get beat in the head with statistical data and crap... a lot.

Anyone else?

You have a 50/50 shot, but why is the important bit.

;)

I think A is random because of the amount of repeat numbers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,19:59)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Just to warn you...

one of my jobs (sort of) is assisting with statistical analysis of standardized tests for some of the state exit level tests.

In other words, this is high risk information (because a student may not graduate). †So I get beat in the head with statistical data and crap... a lot.

Anyone else?

You have a 50/50 shot, but why is the important bit.

;)

In that case I predict that the right answer is the right answer. Why? Because it's the right answer.

Impeccable logic. Unshakable reasoning. Do I win a prize?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:13   

Ok, I'll take a shot.

I would have agreed with Stephen about the "555" indicating it is random.  But the even distribution is too...  even.

So with OgreMkV's hint and Louis' "Benford's Law", I will go with A being designed.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:15   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,15:06)
In that case I predict that the right answer is the right answer. Why? Because it's the right answer.

Impeccable logic. Unshakable reasoning. Do I win a prize?



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:20   



Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 23 2010,15:28

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:27   

String A as non-random, and String B as random.

Reason: The universal distribution. If one string is more compressible, it has a shorter program-input pair that explains it, and the more likely it is that it is due to a short computational process. In the case of the two strings given, there are only a few digits worth of compression difference between them, so the effect is not strong here. If I had more spare time, I could work out the relative probabilities, but I think I will leave that.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:29   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 23 2010,15:13)
Ok, I'll take a shot.

I would have agreed with Stephen about the "555" indicating it is random. †But the even distribution is too... †even.

So with OgreMkV's hint and Louis' "Benford's Law", I will go with A being designed.

Bad math coming up!

the middle number is arbitrary, the odds of the preceding one matching it is 1/10 and the odds of the following one matching it is also 1/10, so cumulatively 1/100 for a triple digit sequence to be the same? We have 45 digits which gives us 43 opportunities.

So the odds of it happening at least once in 43 goes are..

(about a third?)

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:29   

When you google any nine digits, you get approximately the same number of results with either number.

Just sayin'

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:30   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,12:19)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,13:34)
OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

A) 19372082339311710152086213620575697824755571720

B) 97565835082747442479890364189494781845201746854


one string is designed (by me)
one string is random (random.org)

which is which and why?

String B has a 747. What are the odds of that happening by chance?

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:36   

Should we take a poll?  When shall I reveal the answer?  I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

BTW: You guys are waaaaaay smarter than any of the ID crowd.  They won't even try.  It's very funny.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:41   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,15:36)
Should we take a poll? †When shall I reveal the answer? †I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

[...]

Given that there are several people opting for B as random, and one for A as random, that's a safe statement. Given the phrasing, should we all congratulate Stephen Elliott?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:43   

Here is another 47 random digits...

9080277001561472452 311999086807361424001558253

Richardthughes, I wasn't sure whether or not you were agreeing the three digits in a row was evidence of it being random.

The fact it easily happens in random numbers is the point. †People have a tendancy to avoid repeating digits when creating their version of "random". †People also tend towards even distribution.

The above isn't very evenly distributed.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:47   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 23 2010,15:43)
Here is another 47 random digits...

9080277001561472452 311999086807361424001558253

Richardthughes, I wasn't sure whether or not you were agreeing the three digits in a row was evidence of it being random.

The fact it easily happens in random numbers is the point. †People have a tendancy to avoid repeating digits when creating their version of "random". †People also tend towards even distribution.

The above isn't very evenly distributed.

Not suffiently strange to suggest non-random.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:48   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,15:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,15:36)
Should we take a poll? †When shall I reveal the answer? †I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

[...]

Given that there are several people opting for B as random, and one for A as random, that's a safe statement. Given the phrasing, should we all congratulate Stephen Elliott?

heh, you've fallen for my trap!

No, 'A' is the non-random string.  It is a series of useful numbers to me (library ID, old school IDs, birthdays, etc) with '1' alternately added or subtracted from the number.  That is why the preponderance of '0'.

'B' is a random number generated from random.org using atmospheric noise.



Now, why won't IDists, who supposedly have the tool for this, ignore the challenge, when science does perfectly well in determining the correct answer.

I hope you lurkers are realizing something important from this.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,16:00   

Like I said to Salvador Cordova back in 2003,

Quote

As we note in section 5 and in the appendix, we believe that what CSI actually identifies, when it can be said to work at all, is the outcome of simple computational processes. That's why our "specified anti-information" (SAI) is a superior approach to "specification" than Dembski's methods. Given your obvious interest in algorithmic information theory, you should be able to confirm this for yourself briefly.


:-)

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  193 replies since Feb. 21 2010,03:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]