Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2014,13:09) | | Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 06 2014,12:47) | | Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 06 2014,12:23) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2014,10:36) | That's sort of the point WT.
The entire field of encryption just blows IDs claims out of the water. Encryption and scrambling are designed to make a designed piece of information look totally random.
Since the information was designed (the thing being said) and the encryption algorithm was designed, and the results of the encryption are purely deterministic (they have to be or it can't be decrypted), then ID should easily be able to determine whether a string is random noise or intelligently designed encryption.
That they can't (and have refused to even attempt it on no fewer than 20 attempts over the last few years), is very telling. |
Kevin, you don't even know what ID claims. The entire field of encryption doesn't have anything to do with what ID claims. Why is it that you just say shit about ID without ever referencing what you say?
OTOH, evolutionary biologists not only make the claim to be able to do what you ask, they say they have done so. SETI is also claiming to be able to determine an intelligently designed signal from noise. Then there are various agencies, companies and countries that are involved with encryption. Meaning the field is well covered and ID wouldn't do anything any differently.
Fucking idiot... |
Hi Joe. It's nice to be able to talk to you again. Please correct me if I am wrong.
1) ID is about the ability to objectively detect design.
2) ID claims to have a mathematical process for doing this.
3) This objective and mathematical process to detect design, can't detect design in encrypted text, something that is doubly designed.
If these three basic points are correct, then the ID tools developed to detect design, cannot detect design in something that is obviously designed. Do you not think that this is a problem? |
And, Joey conveniently forgets after thousands of attempts to explain to him that SETI is looking for a signal that cannot have come from natural sources.
Actually, what Joey is doing is lying here. He is lying because he knows that SETI is specifically looking for signals that cannot come from a natural source and yet he keeps repeating this claim.
Anyway, Joey (nor any ID person) has ever been able to show that something was designed or not when they didn't already "know" the answer. Of course, some ID proponents claim that everything is designed... which renders it an utterly useless concept anyway.
But back to encryption. Given a string of random nucleotides and a string of nucleotides that are known to be designed (because a human designed it), can you determine which is which?
Now, we encrypt both of them with the same algorithm. Can you determine which is which?
Show your work. I'll be happy to provide the strings. I've been making this offer for several years now. It's a perfect chance for you to show that you have something valuable. Why do you always chicken out though? |
Kevin, you are an ignorant asshole. I know what SETI is looking for. I also know they say they can tell noise from an artifact.
And Kevin, there are many venues that claim to be able to tell designed or not. Are you really that fucking ignorant?
And your stupid challenge wrt nucleotides just proves how clueless you are. It is very telling that you cannot reference the ID claim that purports to do such a thing.
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
