|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2004 : 00:45:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
The rest of your post doesn't actually bring a logical argument, just more denial, I'm afraid.
You are projecting.
You have been given good explanations and your errors have been pointed out to you, but instead of showing any interest of learning you start using the most pathetic straw mans shot down a thousand times before.
You show no sign of any scientific or logical thinking so the claim that you are a scientist can't be anything other than a flat out lie.
(Your use of really bad straw men shows that lies are not beneath you.)
You are probably a loki troll or a severely ignorant person.
Either way you are a liar and a waste of time.
Feel free to show me to be wrong. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 01:10:50 [Permalink]
|
*******Edited to say: Ah, I see where my error is. Nevermind.********
Now let's see if you can find your error with the rest of that math. I was calculating the possible microstates of those coins in the vein of Richard Feynman which will come out in bits. You wanted to calculate the odds of a head coming up which is 1/2 chance or .5 as expressed as a decimal.
Using that as our base, the calculation for bits would be H = log(.5^500) / log2 = -500 bits. Nonsensical math, as information cannot consist of negative information. Are we a little lost with these mathematics, Dave?
It can be calculated using 1/2 as our chance but not in the manner I did.
quote:
So please, demonstrate to all of us how a 1-in-X probability means - to all mathematicians and statisticians - that X events must transpire before there is "a chance" of the occurence in question happening. And also, what, precisely and mathematically did you mean by "a chance," anyway? What are the odds of something occuring which has "a chance" of happening?
Quite obviously you have a long way to go in math and science to even understand what I'm doing.
We can define probability as a measurement of a number of actual events divided by a number of possible results. More precisely:
P(A) = f/n
Where the probability (P) of an event (A) equals the number of actual events, (f) divided by all possible outcomes, (n).
That might seem a bit intimidating for those first exposed to this but like most math, it's really not if we break it down by example. If the event A, is my flipping a fair coin where I hope to get heads in one flip then the actual event will be one. I know this because I'm only going to flip the coin once. And the total number of all possible outcomes are 2, heads or tails. Thus:
P(A) = f/n,
P(A) = 1/2
We can see that the probability of event A happening--actually getting heads, is 50/50. But microstates are defined as the total possible outcomes, or 2.
What are the odds if I flip four fair coins they will all come up heads? Not very good, I'm afraid, because this must be calculated differently. If we were to try and calculate this as we did a single event we would consider this as 4 actual events with 8 possible outcomes and we would still be at 4/8 or 1/2. Obviously, this is not correct.
In probability, when we are considering multiple events interacting together, we must multiply the chance of each event occurring separately, together as a whole.
Hence, if one coin has a 1/2 chance of heads coming up and we flip four coins, the probability that all four will come up heads is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/16. We can see that although this could happen in one flip, we might be surprised if it did because it falls very low on the probability line. But theoretically, if I do this 16 times I might just get four heads on one of those tosses because the odds that this will happen is 1:16 or one chance in 16 tries. Flip it 32 times and you have statistical odds of that pattern coming up twice.
Thus when your odds are f/n = 1/10^150 you have statistical odds of that pattern coming up 1 time every 10^150 flips.
This as scientifically impossible as one could not flip them that many times.
|
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 01:55:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Here are the conclusions that can be derived from the premises:
P1: Nothing but intelligence can generate CSI.
P2: Living cells are CSI.
Conc: CSI was generated by intelligence.
Aristotle says there is a winner to this debate and who I am I to argue with Aristotle. 
I'm still a bit unclear on what this "Complex Specified Information" exactly is and how you can justify the claim that only intelligence can generate it.
Could you provide a definition of CSI and show us how to obtain the first premise? |
Miss Tick sniffed. 'You could say this piece of advice is pricesless', she said. 'Are you listening?'
'Yes' said Tiffany.
'Good now...If you trust in yourself.."
'Yes..?'
'..and believe in your dreams...'
'yes?'
'...and follow your star..' Miss Tick went on.
'Yes?'
'You'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy. Goodbye.' |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 01:58:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
I haven't posited that astronauts seeded earth with life. LOL, where on earth did you get that?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I hate you.
Ok, let's try this one more time. You posited an equation which, in your estimation, says that life cannot arise by chance. That would include life on earth, which you never specified, or life somewhere else in the universe, which are the implications of your allegations. Since life, any life at all, earthly or not, could not arise by chance (only by design), everything in this universe must have been intelligently designed. That is your premise.
Now, since any intelligence not living in this universe is not a part of nature, it would be termed by definition supernatural. Aliens (or "astronauts") are not a plausible intelligence, since they would necessarily be of this Universe. You are arguing for a supernatural intelligent designer. You really should call yourself a SIDist, since you are implying that the only solution that would make your math work is a metaphysical being.
That is the implication, specified or no, of your proposition. Now please address this, and not some unaccounted for technicality. Oh, and if you say LOL one more time, mother fucker, I'm going to kick you in the throat.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/30/2004 02:10:24 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 03:03:33 [Permalink]
|
Plyss
quote:
I'm still a bit unclear on what this "Complex Specified Information" exactly is and how you can justify the claim that only intelligence can generate it.
Could you provide a definition of CSI and show us how to obtain the first premise?
CSI is defined as the upper probability bound in information theory in which that information could have been created by natural processes.
This is derived by multiplying the number of elementary particles in the known universe, 10^80, by the smallest physically meaningful amount of time, Planck time, 10^45, roughly the number of Planck-time intervals in one second, and 10^25 being more than ten million times the age of our Milky Way galaxy in seconds.
It works out to be 10^150 or 500 bits of information. This has been shown mathematically on this thread.
It has also been shown mathematically in this thread that the most information that is physically possible for all of nature to produce if it has worked together doing nothing but this since the inception of the big bang to be 319 bits.
I have further shown that intelligence can easily produce several times that much information by doing nothing more than sitting down and writing the simplest of computer programs.
We are now to the first premise:
P1: Nothing but intelligence can generate CSI.
H. Humbert
LOL...Getting frustrated with the ID argument, my friend? You need to calm down and learn to work with logic rather than threats. This is always the best way in science, I would think. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 03:25:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
H. Humbert
LOL...Getting frustrated with the ID argument, my friend? You need to calm down and learn to work with logic rather than threats. This is always the best way in science, I would think.
No, not the ID argument, just your attitude and demeanor. And of course any threat I make is impotent by nature of this medium. Think of it merely as an indication of displeasure.
You can go ahead and respond to the rest of my post now.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 04:00:32 [Permalink]
|
Fine. I'll try this one more time, but if you come back with threats and immature name-calling again, you can troll me, but don't expect for me to take your posts seriously or even read them. You are simply out of argument and running extremely low on the old IQ juice when this happens.
quote:
You posited an equation which, in your estimation, says that life cannot arise by chance. That would include life on earth, which you never specified, or life somewhere else in the universe, which are the implications of your allegations. Since life, any life at all, earthly or not, could not arise by chance (only by design), everything in this universe must have been intelligently designed. That is your premise.
No, it would not necessarily include life outside of life on earth. We have no evidence to support that life on other planets would be constructed exactly as we are. Perhaps other life-forms are anaerobic and constructed on some sort of methane breathing system with no proteins at all. We just don't know and therefore you have no logical basis to draw this conclusion.
quote:
Now, since any intelligence not living in this universe is not a part of nature, it would be termed by definition supernatural. Aliens (or "astronauts") are not a plausible intelligence, since they would necessarily be of this Universe. You are arguing for a supernatural intelligent designer. You really should call yourself a SIDist, since you are implying that the only solution that would make your math work is a metaphysical being.
Nor do we know that astronauts cannot come from other universes or even different dimensions in this universe. You do understand that whatever designed this universe had to have come from outside it, don't you? Any other option is scientifically implausible.
Sorry, this argument just doesn't stand as logical. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 04:03:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB wrote:
But I have never said that SLOT denies evolution. Or if I did I misstated. Please cut and paste the post and I will clarify.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, clarify this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics supports ID in that thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism and fully supports ID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, entropy will tend to increase. If S is entropy and 1 and 2 are events, then the second law states as a tendency matter/energy will disorder:
S2 > S1
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:
S2 < S1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then please clarify this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I never said that SLOT prohibits evolution. I am an evolutionist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
without contradicting yourself again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or better yet, some evidence of any kind that thermodynamics supports ID?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Gee. It seems to supporting it just fine in this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must have missed the part where you actually produced some evidence that the 2nd law supports ID. What was it again?
Still waiting... |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 04:14:50 [Permalink]
|
I myself, am still curious about them Cambrian mammals. In fact, I'd be most interested in even a Cambrian reptile. Forget the Devonian bunny, a Cambrian crocodile would be much more interesting and go even farther toward debunking the ToE.
Or was the mammal thingy merely a slip of the keyboard in the heat of the moment?
A little on one of the most fascinating times in our history:
quote:
When Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, he and most paleontologists believed that the oldest animal fossils were the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian Period, now known to be about 540 million years old. Many paleontologists believed that simpler forms of life must have existed before this but that they left no fossils. A few believed that the Cambrian fossils represented the moment of God's creation of animals, or the first deposits laid down by the biblical Flood. Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."
Since Darwin's time, the fossil history of life on Earth has been pushed back to 3.5 billion years before the present. Most of these fossils are microscopic bacteria and algae. However, in the latest Proterozoic - a time period now called the Vendian, or the Ediacaran, and lasting from about 650 to 540 million years ago - macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms can be found in a few localities around the world, confirming Darwin's expectations.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
I don't have the math to pick apart Jerry's arguments -- I'll leave that to those who do -- but if you want big numbers and long odds of little, practical value, here's some:
quote:
The Cube has 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 different possible configurations. One, and only one, of these possibilities presents the 'solved' Cube, having a single color on each of its 6 sides. If you allow one second for each turn, it would take you 1400 million million years to go through ALL the possible configurations. In comparison, the whole universe is only 14 thousand million years old.
The least number of moves required in unscrambling the Cube from the worst disorder, the shortest route, is often called God's Algorithm. Morwen Thistlethwaite, using computers at South Bank University in London, calculated that the magical minimum was 52 moves. A number subsequently reduced to 50. It is thought that the number of moves may turn out to be somewhere in the low twenties
http://dev.rubiks.com/lvl3/index_lvl3.cfm?lan=eng&lvl1=inform&lvl2=medrel&lvl3=cubfct
I've had that in the stash for the longest time and I'd thought I'd never get a chance to post it! Thanks, Jerry!
What it demonstrates, I think, is that the numbers don't really mean much. There is a solution to Rubik's Cube and there's nothing magical about it. Once that solution is known, a ramdom example of the puzzle can be solved in minutes in spite of the great odds against it. And, as noted in the quote, it is still not certain if 'God's Algorithm' has been discovered.
I have never solved Rubik's Cube. But the odds of my doing so are a lot better than those of anyone finding that Cambrian croc (or is it, 'crock?).
So, let's get down to where the bear shit in the buckwheat -- no flowery words or complicated equasions to confuse dummies like me; no Omega blather:
Who or what exactly is the intelligence behind all of this design?
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/30/2004 04:18:31 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 04:23:02 [Permalink]
|
I will try one more time with you and I will not answer further question that I've already covered in the thread. Please read it, people.
quote:
JerryB wrote:
But I have never said that SLOT denies evolution. Or if I did I misstated. Please cut and paste the post and I will clarify.
I see you failed to cut and paste where I stated this as requested, so I'm beginning to suspect you are doing little more than trolling.
I stated that SLOT forbids the complexity in complex macroevolution. This is not the same thing as the broader category: evolution.
quote:
Physics supports ID in that thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism and fully supports ID.
I covered this one as well:
"The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, entropy will tend to increase. If S is entropy and 1 and 2 are events, then the second law states as a tendency matter/energy will disorder:
S2 > S1
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:
S2 < S1"
quote:
But I never said that SLOT prohibits evolution. I am an evolutionist.
See above. One need not accept macroevolution when one accepts evolution. The two terms are not the same.
quote:
I must have missed the part where you actually produced some evidence that the 2nd law supports ID. What was it again?
*sigh* ID predicts that matter/energy will tend to disorder. So does SLOT.
Now that's the last time I'm repeating what has already been covered. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 04:33:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
CSI is defined as the upper probability bound in information theory in which that information could have been created by natural processes.
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Here are the conclusions that can be derived from the premises:
P1: Nothing but intelligence can generate CSI.
P2: Living cells are CSI.
Conc: CSI was generated by intelligence.
Is it possible to phrase this in a more formal way? The way it is written down now looks somewhat confusing. Filling in the given definition of CSI in premise 2 yields a complete non-sequitur.
On a more serious note, premise 1 seems to ignore the idea that CSI can be generated by non-random natural means such as selection acting on random input. This seems to me a rather fatal flaw in the argumentation as it invalidates this first premise.
Can you justify the claim that intelligence is required to generate this "CSI"? |
Miss Tick sniffed. 'You could say this piece of advice is pricesless', she said. 'Are you listening?'
'Yes' said Tiffany.
'Good now...If you trust in yourself.."
'Yes..?'
'..and believe in your dreams...'
'yes?'
'...and follow your star..' Miss Tick went on.
'Yes?'
'You'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy. Goodbye.' |
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 04:46:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
I covered this one as well:
"The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, entropy will tend to increase. If S is entropy and 1 and 2 are events, then the second law states as a tendency matter/energy will disorder:
S2 > S1
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:
S2 < S1"
If i recall my thermodynamics classes correctly a spontaneous reaction is characterised by a decrease in Gibb's Free Energy as given by the equation
dG = dH - TdS (for T = constant)
in which dG is the change in Gibbs Free Energy, dH the change in enthalpy, T the temperature in Kelvin and dS the change in entropy. So for as long as there is a sufficient change in enthalpy to counteract the increasing entropy change spontaneous reactions can show decreasing entropy. |
Miss Tick sniffed. 'You could say this piece of advice is pricesless', she said. 'Are you listening?'
'Yes' said Tiffany.
'Good now...If you trust in yourself.."
'Yes..?'
'..and believe in your dreams...'
'yes?'
'...and follow your star..' Miss Tick went on.
'Yes?'
'You'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy. Goodbye.' |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 05:02:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I will try one more time with you and I will not answer further question that I've already covered in the thread. Please read it, people.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB wrote:
But I have never said that SLOT denies evolution. Or if I did I misstated. Please cut and paste the post and I will clarify.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see you failed to cut and paste where I stated this as requested, so I'm beginning to suspect you are doing little more than trolling.
I stated that SLOT forbids the complexity in complex macroevolution. This is not the same thing as the broader category: evolution.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics supports ID in that thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism and fully supports ID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I covered this one as well:
"The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, entropy will tend to increase. If S is entropy and 1 and 2 are events, then the second law states as a tendency matter/energy will disorder:
S2 > S1
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:
S2 < S1"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I never said that SLOT prohibits evolution. I am an evolutionist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See above. One need not accept macroevolution when one accepts evolution. The two terms are not the same.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must have missed the part where you actually produced some evidence that the 2nd law supports ID. What was it again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*sigh* ID predicts that matter/energy will tend to disorder. So does SLOT.
Now that's the last time I'm repeating what has already been covered. Thank you.
You misapply the 2nd law to open systems. To show that any evolutionary process ("complex macroevolution" or whatever kind of evolution you disagree with) violates the 2nd law, you need to show that it decreases the entropy of the universe. You haven't done that.
You haven't shown any evidence that the 2nd law supports ID, you've merely made an assertion that they both predict "disorder".
JerryB's assertions remind me of an old saying:
"If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with bullshit."
JerryB, you've failed at the latter, and with every post the likelihood of the former becomes even more remote.
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 05:19:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is it possible to phrase this in a more formal way? The way it is written down now looks somewhat confusing. Filling in the given definition of CSI in premise 2 yields a complete non-sequitur.
No it doesn't. Please show this syllogistically.
quote:
On a more serious note, premise 1 seems to ignore the idea that CSI can be generated by non-random natural means such as selection acting on random input. This seems to me a rather fatal flaw in the argumentation as it invalidates this first premise.
You haven't shown that CSI can be generated by non-random natural means. In fact, I have shown mathematically, this is impossible. You have some math to do if you are to show this wrong. It's just meaningless words until you do.
quote:
Can you justify the claim that intelligence is required to generate this "CSI"?
LOL..yes. See my last post to you.
quote:
If i recall my thermodynamics classes correctly a spontaneous reaction is characterised by a decrease in Gibb's Free Energy as given by the equation
dG = dH - TdS (for T = constant)
This is true. If a reaction is spontaneous, deltaG < 0, T is sometimes constant but there are systems in which it is not. You were using derivative G but I can simplify it for you to deltaG.
quote:
in which dG is the change in Gibbs Free Energy, dH the change in enthalpy, T the temperature in Kelvin and dS the change in entropy. So for as long as there is a sufficient change in enthalpy to counteract the increasing entropy change spontaneous reactions can show decreasing entropy.
Only in reaction entropy considering chemical reactions and not in a thermodynamic system as defined with system boundaries. This is an elementary mistake that I find quite common in those who have not studied thermodynamics at the graduate level. Enthalpy and entropy come to play in the reaction when we consider delta entropy interacting with delta enthalpy. However, a thermodynamic system is defined as matter or space that can be boiled down to a system with distinct system boundaries that energy can flow across into and out of the system.
Very good. That may be the first scientifically literate post I've gotten since I've been in here. I'm glad to teach you more on this if you are interested. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 05:24:30 [Permalink]
|
*******JerryB, you've failed at the latter, and with every post the likelihood of the former becomes even more remote.********
LOL...Have a great life, my friend. You are posting way above your IQ level. If you'll go over to talk-origin, your secular humanist religion will experience revival! Thanks for your posts. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
