Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion BoardThe Critic's Resource on Antievolution

 Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Creating CSI with NS

 Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >
 Topic: Creating CSI with NS, H T T H H H T H T T H H H H T T T < Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Kattarina98

Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

I have it on good authority* that there is no reliable instrument to detect design:
 Quote The filter was never designed to detect any and all cases of design (it is not a universal decoder algorithm, and we have good reason to believe such are not feasible), just those that are unequivocal per tested and reliable signs.

*Spoiler: It's KF

Edit: Typo

Edited by Kattarina98 on Nov. 21 2012,09:15

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Cubist

Posts: 492
Joined: Oct. 2007

 Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:12) So, and I'm not sure why, but there are those on here repeatedly requesting that I calculate the CSI of an organism as if that is some big deal.

It's like this, Jerry: If you want to assert that organisms have CSI, you're gonna have to do more than just say that organisms have CSI.

 Quote Here is an excerpt from some of my writings in that area doing exactly that:

Okay, this should be good…

 Quote If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

True. Assuming it's an ungimmicked coin (which I'm going to do all throughout this comment, unless I explicitly state otherwise), there's a 50% chance of that coin coming up heads when it's flipped, and that probability is completely independent of how many other coins may or may not have come up heads when they (those other coins) were flipped.

 Quote Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100).

True. Given 100 unflipped coins, each individual coin of that unflipped 100 has a 50% chance of coming up heads, so the chances of all 100 of those unflipped coins coming up heads, when they're flipped, is, indeed, (1/2)100. And presuming my copy of Maple 7 can be trusted, that works out to a touch under 1:1030.

 Quote But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads.

In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.

 Quote Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads?

Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.

 Quote They’re still the same 1:(.5^100).

False, as explained above. But if you believe you're right, I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you \$5, and if it comes up heads, you give me \$100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free \$5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?

 Quote So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100).

Right, because you've shifted back from 25 flipped coins that came up heads, plus 25 flipped coins that came up tails, plus 50 unflipped coins to 100 unflipped coins.

 Quote So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

False. If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.
Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…

 Quote For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

True, and what of it? Seeing as how atoms do, in fact, "bond"—they're famous for it—I'm not sure what the problem is.

 Quote The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

Yep. But again, atoms do "bond", so what's your point?

 Quote But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And yet, atoms somehow do manage to "bond" anyway. So?

 Quote And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

Yes. So what?

 Quote For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Hold it. How did Brewster and Morris come up with this "1067" figure? Citation needed…

 Quote Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.

 Quote The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.
Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…

Soapy Sam

Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

? page

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

OgreMkV

Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

Dear Jerry is saying the same thing I jumped on him for many pages ago.

The odds that two particular atoms in the universe interacting are infinitesimal.

The odds that ANY two atoms in the universe interacting are 100%.

He (and other IDiots) are the ones thinking that humans must appear, fully formed, wearing the latest Paris fashion and since evolution can't explain Paris fashion, therefore God.

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

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

The whole truth

Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 21 2012,07:13)
I have it on good authority* that there is no reliable instrument to detect design:
 Quote The filter was never designed to detect any and all cases of design (it is not a universal decoder algorithm, and we have good reason to believe such are not feasible), just those that are unequivocal per tested and reliable signs.

*Spoiler: It's KF

Edit: Typo

Hmm, let's see, there's no feasible, universal decoder algorithm (test) "to detect any and all cases of design" yet somehow design has been tested via "reliable signs"? How was/is design tested if there's no feasible, universal test? (my bold)

The only intentional design that is unequivocal per tested and reliable signs is design that has been done by known, real, living things such as spiders, bees, beavers, birds, and people. No one has ever tested or shown that any designer-god-sky-daddy has designed anything.

gordo -the messiah wannabe- mullings is just pushing the same old, lame old 'it looks designed to me so it must be designed by my sky-daddy' crap, because he is desperately trying to convince himself and others that his imaginary sky daddy isn't imaginary, and by admitting that there's no feasible, universal decoder algorithm (test) to detect sky-daddy-design he's also admitting that the so-called 'ID inference' doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on and never will. sky-daddy-design 'detection' by IDiots is strictly an assertion of their thoroughly biased opinion based on their fairy tale religious beliefs.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Henry J

Posts: 4691
Joined: Mar. 2005

 Quote The odds that ANY two atoms in the universe interacting are 100%.

Especially hydrogen - that stuff is all over the place! H2O, NH3, CH4, C2H5OH, etc.

(Well, perhaps aside from inside the remains of a yellow dwarf after it's used up all its fuel. I'm sure there's a name for a star at that stage, but not sure what it is. Black dwarf, maybe? )

---------

 Quote I have it on good authority* that there is no reliable instrument to detect design:

Why would that need authority, good or otherwise, anyway? It's common sense that identification of designs is done by comparing an object to other objects known to have been constructed by somebody.

(Or is "common sense" an oxymoron?)

---------

 Quote If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 16*1068).

Ah, but if God doesn't play dice, then maybe She doesn't play cards, either!!!111!!!eleven!!!!

---------

 Quote And yet, atoms somehow do manage to "bond" anyway. So?

Especially when shaken and not stirred.

Henry

Cubist

Posts: 492
Joined: Oct. 2007

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 22 2012,12:09)

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 21 2012,07:13)
I have it on good authority* that there is no reliable instrument to detect design:
 Quote The filter was never designed to detect any and all cases of design (it is not a universal decoder algorithm, and we have good reason to believe such are not feasible), just those that are unequivocal per tested and reliable signs.

*Spoiler: It's KF

Edit: Typo

Hmm, let's see, there's no feasible, universal decoder algorithm (test) "to detect any and all cases of design" yet somehow design has been tested via "reliable signs"? How was/is design tested if there's no feasible, universal test? (my bold)

I don't have a problem with that, myself. 'Reliable' isn't an absolute; something can be 'reliable' for most practical purposes, and yet still not be 100% applicable to everything. So the dude's saying he's got a decently useful design-detection thingie (which just doesn't happen to be universally applicable), fine. Not a problem. However what is a problem…
 Quote gordo -the messiah wannabe- mullings is just pushing the same old, lame old 'it looks designed to me so it must be designed by my sky-daddy' crap, because he is desperately trying to convince himself and others that his imaginary sky daddy isn't imaginary,

…is right here. He does not, in fact, have the decently useful design-detection thingie he claims to have. Dude's lying.

Kattarina98

Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

That's why I quoted him - as we say where I live: "The cat bites its own tail."  :-))

Edit: Typo

Edited by Kattarina98 on Nov. 22 2012,20:09

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Kattarina98

Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

... and I realised that I need to work on my sarcasm as it obviously didn't come through.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

 128 replies since Oct. 06 2012,18:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

 Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >

 Forum Jump -----------   >All About Antievolution   -----------------------    +- Antievolution, Politics, and the Law    +- Intelligent Design    +- Young-Earth Antievolution    +- Old-Earth Antievolution    +- Collaborations   >Specifically About Intelligent Design   -------------------------------------    +- Intelligent Design News    +- Not a Book to Be Tossed Aside Lightly...    +- Cabbages and Kings    +- The ID-files   >Evolutionary Biology   --------------------    +- News & Events   >From the Panda's Thumb   --------------------------    +- After the Bar Closes...   >The TalkOrigins Archive   -----------------------    +- Feedback

 Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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