How useful are words?

I've pretty much stayed out of it until now, because I wouldn't want to encourage innumeracy, but the one thing I'd give to the anti-math types is that most of what we basically know or infer comes prior to mathematics. Not advanced physics, etc., to be sure, indeed, even classical mechanics had to be mostly elucidated using mathematics, yet the qualitative generally comes before the quantitative in understanding, and may continue to be prior to it even after mathematics is involved.

Pattern recognition gives us a lot non-quantitatively, like evolutionary theory (since enhanced by math, of course) and early chemistry (save measuring and the like). IOW, what I won't give in to is the idea that if you can't calculate it, it doesn't count, as some seem to suppose. Much can be done (or at least was done in the past) in biology without mathematics, which is why innumeracy is no excuse.

Math is not like words to communication, either, because many courses in biology are taught without significant math (at least the lectures, although labs tend to need at least simply math). Anatomy isn't especially numerate (can use a lot, but needn't for many purposes), evolution can certainly be inferred without any statistics, and gunpowder can be invented by trial and error, with no more math than a recipe requires. Numbers and math moves us to a lot of discovery that pattern recognition does not, yet I could also say that much of understanding of biology is qualitative, not quantitative. Math is a tool that enhances biology, not wholly necessary to a good lay understanding of it.

Glen Davidson

Pattern recognition also gives us religion, conspiracy theories, and, in a(n even) more pathological form, schizophrenia.

eta not to throw out the baby, etc. just saying pattern recognition can go horribly wrong.

The point is that we can communicate without words, just as we can understand biology without mathematics. Many communications are nonverbal. And yes, many of our observations in biology do not require mathematics. But just as communication can be advanced using words, so too can biology be advanced using mathematics. Similarly, there are concepts we cannot communicate without words, and biology we cannot understand without math.

Words are just part of a continuum of humans using sounds to convey thoughts
Words are segregated combinations of sounds agreed upon for meaning.

On another thread I questioned, what many would think creationist or not, that math never contributed very much to the modern world in discovery/figuring things out/invention relative to how much has been done.
Its never been the essence of things but is only a shadow of reality. A language or different language.
I understand Einstein figured his ideas out by concepts and other math people put his ideas into equations. Don't quote me.

Anyways physics etc is a recent case. Yet how many cool things would not of been discovered/invention is math was in a rudimentary stage??
I think few.
I don't see how math helped Darwin or a greater ignorance of it would of hurt him?
I know one muse measure to make bridges yet the invention of the types of bridges, the important thing, was independent of math ideas.

I have even read scholars question if math is a science but instead something else.
math to me is simple memory of concepts and i don't see how it adds insight to anything.
Computers do math but don't think.
Its a tool for science but not a stimulate.

Robert Byers said: Words are just part of a continuum of humans using sounds to convey thoughts Words are segregated combinations of sounds agreed upon for meaning. On another thread I questioned, what many would think creationist or not, that math never contributed very much to the modern world in discovery/figuring things out/invention relative to how much has been done. Its never been the essence of things but is only a shadow of reality. A language or different language. I understand Einstein figured his ideas out by concepts and other math people put his ideas into equations. Don't quote me. Anyways physics etc is a recent case. Yet how many cool things would not of been discovered/invention is math was in a rudimentary stage?? I think few. I don't see how math helped Darwin or a greater ignorance of it would of hurt him? I know one muse measure to make bridges yet the invention of the types of bridges, the important thing, was independent of math ideas. I have even read scholars question if math is a science but instead something else. math to me is simple memory of concepts and i don't see how it adds insight to anything. Computers do math but don't think. Its a tool for science but not a stimulate.

Robert Byers said: Words are just part of a continuum of humans using sounds to convey thoughts Words are segregated combinations of sounds agreed upon for meaning. On another thread I questioned, what many would think creationist or not, that math never contributed very much to the modern world in discovery/figuring things out/invention relative to how much has been done. Its never been the essence of things but is only a shadow of reality. A language or different language. I understand Einstein figured his ideas out by concepts and other math people put his ideas into equations. Don't quote me. Anyways physics etc is a recent case. Yet how many cool things would not of been discovered/invention is math was in a rudimentary stage?? I think few. I don't see how math helped Darwin or a greater ignorance of it would of hurt him? I know one muse measure to make bridges yet the invention of the types of bridges, the important thing, was independent of math ideas. I have even read scholars question if math is a science but instead something else. math to me is simple memory of concepts and i don't see how it adds insight to anything. Computers do math but don't think. Its a tool for science but not a stimulate.

M. Wilson Sayres said: The point is that we can communicate without words, just as we can understand biology without mathematics. Many communications are nonverbal. And yes, many of our observations in biology do not require mathematics. But just as communication can be advanced using words, so too can biology be advanced using mathematics. Similarly, there are concepts we cannot communicate without words, and biology we cannot understand without math.

Having conversed with many creationists, I would say that words are needed, but not sufficient for communication.

M. Wilson Sayres said: The point is that we can communicate without words, just as we can understand biology without mathematics. Many communications are nonverbal. And yes, many of our observations in biology do not require mathematics. But just as communication can be advanced using words, so too can biology be advanced using mathematics. Similarly, there are concepts we cannot communicate without words, and biology we cannot understand without math.

Robert Byers said: Words are just part of a continuum of humans using sounds to convey thoughts Words are segregated combinations of sounds agreed upon for meaning. On another thread I questioned, what many would think creationist or not, that math never contributed very much to the modern world in discovery/figuring things out/invention relative to how much has been done. Its never been the essence of things but is only a shadow of reality. A language or different language. I understand Einstein figured his ideas out by concepts and other math people put his ideas into equations. Don't quote me. Anyways physics etc is a recent case. Yet how many cool things would not of been discovered/invention is math was in a rudimentary stage?? I think few. I don't see how math helped Darwin or a greater ignorance of it would of hurt him? I know one muse measure to make bridges yet the invention of the types of bridges, the important thing, was independent of math ideas. I have even read scholars question if math is a science but instead something else. math to me is simple memory of concepts and i don't see how it adds insight to anything. Computers do math but don't think. Its a tool for science but not a stimulate.

I think math helps in more than just communication. It helps us understand our assumptions (like how the Price equation shows the underlying assumptions behind Fisher's fundamental theorem), and it allows us to see and rectify contradictions (this can be best seen in physics, with Einstein using mathematics to harmonize Galileo's principle of relativity with Maxwell's constant speed of light, Einstein's theories were only tested after the math)and similar to this, it allows us to come up with new hypotheses (it's nice to look around and come up with experiments but sometimes it requires you to derive something mathematically, something no one would have thought of otherwise).

You don't need maths to know how the polar bear turned white.

Driver said: You don't need maths to know how the polar bear turned white.

Actually Driver, you need math to help fully explain "how" the polar bear turned white, just maybe not so much "why".

Robert,

Why don't you try communicating without words here for a few weeks. You seem to think you do OK without math or logic or grammar, try it without words for a while. Please.

harold said:

Driver said: You don't need maths to know how the polar bear turned white.

So frequency of alleles in the population has nothing to do with why polar bears are white?

SLC said: I have a flash for booby. Failure to apply the mathematics of structures, including the effects of cross winds, led to the collapse of the bridge over the Tacoma Narrows, known as Galloping Gertie (click link here).

Driver said: You don't need maths to know how the polar bear turned white.

Besides, maths doesn't count! Just ask what's his name.

Maybe this is being picky, but neither the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse nor the Comet crashes were failures of mathematics. They were both engineering failures caused by a lack of knowledge. In the case of Tacoma Narrows, one of the key flaws was introduced as a design modification to keep up with what was thought to be an advance in engineering. In the Comet case, not only did the engineers not know of the problem, but engineers from rival firms had said that they wouldn't have thought of the problem either. And in both cases, the disasters led to renewed research programs in engineering that solved those particular engineering flaws.

If you want to see failures in mathematics, I would consider:

-- the fiery death of the Mars Climate Orbiter (a joint effort between NASA and the ESA in which ESA used metric, NASA used imperial units, and in one critical instance someone forgot to convert units),

-- the prosecution of Sally Clark for infanticide based on a fundamentally stupid statistical argument by Dr Roy Meadow (his evidence also landed several other people in jail, but the Clark case is the famous one),

-- the New Orleans levee failures in Hurricane Katrina (the designers built the levees to withstand a hundred-year storm, but then excluded the most severe storms from the last century as being outliers),

-- at a stretch, the collapse of the Quebec Bridge (not a maths failure per se, as the flaw was caused by changing the dimensions of the bridge but failing to recalculate the loads, so it's more a failure to use maths than a failure of maths...but in the context of this thread, it still counts),

-- and the entirety of Alan Greenspan's economic methodology.

– and the entirety of Alan Greenspan’s economic methodology.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

– and the entirety of Alan Greenspan’s economic methodology.

Nah, he was a follower of Ayn Rand. Seems to do irreparable damage to judgment, not to mathematics. Glen Davidson

Glen,

That was just me being snarky at Greenspan. But it's still, at root, a mathematical error (the belief that Treasury models had to be right because they were mathematically sound.)

harold, I found it hilarious the way Paul Ryan talked up his enthusiasm for Objectivism...until mid-election campaign someone pointed out that Rand was an atheist and then he had to backpedal like an Olympic cyclist who mounted their bike the wrong way. Because it's good to be a plutocratic sociopath, but not an atheist plutocratic sociopath.

Chris Lawson said: Maybe this is being picky, but neither the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse nor the Comet crashes were failures of mathematics. They were both engineering failures caused by a lack of knowledge. In the case of Tacoma Narrows, one of the key flaws was introduced as a design modification to keep up with what was thought to be an advance in engineering. In the Comet case, not only did the engineers not know of the problem, but engineers from rival firms had said that they wouldn't have thought of the problem either. And in both cases, the disasters led to renewed research programs in engineering that solved those particular engineering flaws. If you want to see failures in mathematics, I would consider: -- the fiery death of the Mars Climate Orbiter (a joint effort between NASA and the ESA in which ESA used metric, NASA used imperial units, and in one critical instance someone forgot to convert units), -- the prosecution of Sally Clark for infanticide based on a fundamentally stupid statistical argument by Dr Roy Meadow (his evidence also landed several other people in jail, but the Clark case is the famous one), -- the New Orleans levee failures in Hurricane Katrina (the designers built the levees to withstand a hundred-year storm, but then excluded the most severe storms from the last century as being outliers), -- at a stretch, the collapse of the Quebec Bridge (not a maths failure per se, as the flaw was caused by changing the dimensions of the bridge but failing to recalculate the loads, so it's more a failure to use maths than a failure of maths...but in the context of this thread, it still counts), -- and the entirety of Alan Greenspan's economic methodology.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

– and the entirety of Alan Greenspan’s economic methodology.

Nah, he was a follower of Ayn Rand. Seems to do irreparable damage to judgment, not to mathematics. Glen Davidson

harold said: The repellent Ayn Rand was a staunch atheist (proof that you can be a jerk without being a religious authoritarian). Yet I suspect that a lot of evolution deniers are Ayn Rand fans, even though the imaginary "atheist agenda" of scientists enrages them. Of course, if I'm wrong, all they have to do is tell me so.

Chris Lawson said: harold, I found it hilarious the way Paul Ryan talked up his enthusiasm for Objectivism...until mid-election campaign someone pointed out that Rand was an atheist and then he had to backpedal like an Olympic cyclist who mounted their bike the wrong way. Because it's good to be a plutocratic sociopath, but not an atheist plutocratic sociopath.

Robert Byers said: I'm aware of the Tacoma bridge failure as it was a interesting case of winds twisting things by uncommon concentrations. due to some problem of construction. It wasn't math but was engineering that was the problem. In any case bridges are not math projects but ideas about structures. Math is just measuring distance and other aspects of nature. Yet without the engineering skill (ideas and practice) all the math in the world wouldn't of invented the bridge. Crunching numbers is a very poor relative to the glory of human achievement in "science" or rather discovery and invention. In fact I think a thinking young person wanting to do cool stuff in "science" should avoid advanced classes in math or anything above grade 10. Get someone else to crunch numbers. i think math is a strange case of poor analysis on human intellectual advancement. Its just a language or shadow of things. It has contributed but not very much. Newton was hit on the head by a apple and not a slide-rule.

harold said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

– and the entirety of Alan Greenspan’s economic methodology.

Nah, he was a follower of Ayn Rand. Seems to do irreparable damage to judgment, not to mathematics. Glen Davidson

The repellent Ayn Rand was a staunch atheist (proof that you can be a jerk without being a religious authoritarian). Yet I suspect that a lot of evolution deniers are Ayn Rand fans, even though the imaginary "atheist agenda" of scientists enrages them. Of course, if I'm wrong, all they have to do is tell me so.

I know, Robert's ben told to pi$$ off,
but I think he needs to learn that Einstein was no number cruncher, but he discovered the mathematical relationship of E=MC2. And that was just the beginning, maybe you ought take a course in nuclear physics?

To me, both words and math are logical tools which attempt to more precisely and consistently define concepts and parameters. General concepts (including selected initial and boundary conditions for mathematical models in engineering) usually come first, and, to a large extent, determine the conclusions. However, specific objectives, such as minima or maxima (e.g. for size, weight, stress, or dollars) may not be recognizable without the math. The real truth, both in words or mathematical modelling, can only be found through experimental verification in the physical world.

There are quite a few results in population genetics that are very hard to intuit without doing the math. Not impossible to intuit, but very hard. For example:

1. How fast will genetic drift remove neutral genetic variability from a population?

2. What is the chance that a single advantageous mutant will end up taking over the population?

3. If an overdominant allele is perturbed from its equilibrium frequency, how quickly will it return?

4. Will a small patch of environment in which one recessive allele is favored retain that allele, when everywhere else the other allele is favored and there is migration at a known rate?

(and many others). One excellent example is the conclusion our creationist friends draw from the fact that many more mutants are deleterious than are advantageous. They are sure that this means that the deleterious mutants will typically depress fitness in the population by more than the advantageous mutants increase it. Once you do the math (using the fixation probability formulas of Kimura, 1962) the extremely small probability that a deleterious mutant will fix in a large population becomes apparent and their conclusion not-so-obvious.

Rolf said:

harold said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

– and the entirety of Alan Greenspan’s economic methodology.

Nah, he was a follower of Ayn Rand. Seems to do irreparable damage to judgment, not to mathematics. Glen Davidson

The repellent Ayn Rand was a staunch atheist (proof that you can be a jerk without being a religious authoritarian). Yet I suspect that a lot of evolution deniers are Ayn Rand fans, even though the imaginary "atheist agenda" of scientists enrages them. Of course, if I'm wrong, all they have to do is tell me so.

In case you didn't know, Ray Martinez is a fanatic fan of Ayn Rand.

Joe Felsenstein said: There are quite a few results in population genetics that are very hard to intuit without doing the math. Not impossible to intuit, but very hard. For example: 1. How fast will genetic drift remove neutral genetic variability from a population? 2. What is the chance that a single advantageous mutant will end up taking over the population? 3. If an overdominant allele is perturbed from its equilibrium frequency, how quickly will it return? 4. Will a small patch of environment in which one recessive allele is favored retain that allele, when everywhere else the other allele is favored and there is migration at a known rate? (and many others). One excellent example is the conclusion our creationist friends draw from the fact that many more mutants are deleterious than are advantageous. They are sure that this means that the deleterious mutants will typically depress fitness in the population by more than the advantageous mutants increase it. Once you do the math (using the fixation probability formulas of Kimura, 1962) the extremely small probability that a deleterious mutant will fix in a large population becomes apparent and their conclusion not-so-obvious.

Pattern recognition also gives us religion...

Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1.Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2.Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3.Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). There will always be a statement in any system that can’t be shown to be true or false. From a Christian perspective, Gödel proved that complete knowledge is unattainable. There will always be a question to confound the greatest minds; there will always be an unsolvable problem. Gödel’s proof shows that neither math nor logic can be the foundation for math.

FL said:

Pattern recognition also gives us religion...

...pattern recognition enables us to differentiate that which is intelligently designed (such as yourself) from that which is not.

FL said: Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous).

FL, did you READ what was written? Completeness, in context (not that you're worried about it) means that a statement is either true or false. 4=4 is true 5=4 is false.

That's all. God is not needed for completeness. Of neither is atheism or any other -ism.

Math is math. Sometimes it can be used to describe phenomenon in the real world. Sometimes it can be corrupted to do things incorrectly. How's that old saying go? Figures can't lie, but liars can figure.

I can show you a proof that 1=2. And, if you are like Byers, you'll believe me because you don't know anything about math. Of course, I would be using a mathematical trick to confuse you and you probably wouldn't know it.

Hey Bobby, since you don't like math or anything, why don't you let me handle you accounting needs? No since in you wasting your time with all those numbers, I'll be happy to take you out... I mean... take care of it for you.

From a Christian perspective, Gödel proved that complete knowledge is unattainable. There will always be a question to confound the greatest minds; there will always be an unsolvable problem. Gödel’s proof shows that neither math nor logic can be the foundation for math.

From a Christian perspective, Gödel proved that complete knowledge is unattainable. There will always be a question to confound the greatest minds; there will always be an unsolvable problem. Gödel’s proof shows that neither math nor logic can be the foundation for math.

Chris Lawson said: Maybe this is being picky, but neither the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse nor the Comet crashes were failures of mathematics. They were both engineering failures caused by a lack of knowledge. In the case of Tacoma Narrows, one of the key flaws was introduced as a design modification to keep up with what was thought to be an advance in engineering. In the Comet case, not only did the engineers not know of the problem, but engineers from rival firms had said that they wouldn't have thought of the problem either. And in both cases, the disasters led to renewed research programs in engineering that solved those particular engineering flaws. If you want to see failures in mathematics, I would consider: -- the fiery death of the Mars Climate Orbiter (a joint effort between NASA and the ESA in which ESA used metric, NASA used imperial units, and in one critical instance someone forgot to convert units), -- the prosecution of Sally Clark for infanticide based on a fundamentally stupid statistical argument by Dr Roy Meadow (his evidence also landed several other people in jail, but the Clark case is the famous one), -- the New Orleans levee failures in Hurricane Katrina (the designers built the levees to withstand a hundred-year storm, but then excluded the most severe storms from the last century as being outliers), -- at a stretch, the collapse of the Quebec Bridge (not a maths failure per se, as the flaw was caused by changing the dimensions of the bridge but failing to recalculate the loads, so it's more a failure to use maths than a failure of maths...but in the context of this thread, it still counts), -- and the entirety of Alan Greenspan's economic methodology.

FL said:

Pattern recognition also gives us religion...

An interesting concept. Why is that? Because pattern recognition enables us to differentiate that which is intelligently designed (such as yourself) from that which is not. Hence pattern recognition lends inferential support to theism, and contributes significantly to the demise of atheistic/agnostic beliefs.

FL said: ...pattern recognition enables us to differentiate that which is intelligently designed (such as yourself) from that which is not.

Pattern recognition doesn’t mean anything in an objective sense.

"To understand is to perceive patterns." - Sir Isaiah Berlin

"Pattern recognition techniques are used in a wide variety of commercial applications. "Common examples include character recognition, such as the scanning of a printed page of text into a word processor; natural language recognition, such as using voice commands to relay a set of possible responses to a computer system over the phone; analysis of fingerprint, face, or eye images in order to verify a person's identity; analysis of images taken from airplanes or satellites, perhaps in order to detect and track oil spills in the ocean; or analysis of medical images in order to scan for abnormalities, such as cancer vs. normal tissue." Source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Pattern_Recognition.aspx

FL said:

"To understand is to perceive patterns." - Sir Isaiah Berlin

FL,

List two things that are not designed and how you know. Feel free to use math...

FL said:

Pattern recognition techniques are used in a wide variety of commercial applications. Common examples include character recognition, such as the scanning of a printed page of text into a word processor; natural language recognition, such as using voice commands to relay a set of possible responses to a computer system over the phone; analysis of fingerprint, face, or eye images in order to verify a person's identity; analysis of images taken from airplanes or satellites, perhaps in order to detect and track oil spills in the ocean; or analysis of medical images in order to scan for abnormalities, such as cancer vs. normal tissue. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Pattern_Recognition.aspx

phhht said: Yup, we can do all that. Isn't it strange that nobody can build a god recognizer?

phhht said: And isn't strange that nobody can build a design recognizer?

phhht said: Yup, we can do all that. Isn't it strange that nobody can build a god recognizer?

Also, the alien–being advanced enough for space travel–must surely know much more about Intelligent Design science than we do. Therefore they’d probably be able to calculate the CSI/fSCOI/DFSC/IC of the faces on Mount Rushmore instantaneously.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

phhht said: And isn't strange that nobody can build a design recognizer?

phhht said: Yup, we can do all that. Isn't it strange that nobody can build a god recognizer?

No, no, aliens can:

Also, the alien–being advanced enough for space travel–must surely know much more about Intelligent Design science than we do. Therefore they’d probably be able to calculate the CSI/fSCOI/DFSC/IC of the faces on Mount Rushmore instantaneously.

See, all you have to do is invent fictional beings that are defined as understanding useless garbage as science, and it becomes possible. Glen Davidson

Rolf said: I know, Robert's ben told to pi$$ off, but I think he needs to learn that Einstein was no number cruncher, but he discovered the mathematical relationship of E=MC2. And that was just the beginning, maybe you ought take a course in nuclear physics?

Robert Byers said:

Rolf said: I know, Robert's ben told to pi$$ off, but I think he needs to learn that Einstein was no number cruncher, but he discovered the mathematical relationship of E=MC2. And that was just the beginning, maybe you ought take a course in nuclear physics?

Case in point. I don't know a lot about Einsteins discovery but I have a book here by him discussing his idea. Hard read. Its all about concepts of forces and to me math was of no relevance to his discovery of his idea. It just was later put into the math thing thats famous. Before Einstein it was not a failure of math that stood in the way of the better idea. I don't math was relevant to Einstein in jis investigation and insight on physics. The math just explains in ANOTHER language the concept. Likewise in every other field of investigation. I see math as a trivial or hic relative to true accomplishment by man in discovering and using the world for progress.

Robert Byers said:

Rolf said: I know, Robert's ben told to pi$$ off, but I think he needs to learn that Einstein was no number cruncher, but he discovered the mathematical relationship of E=MC2. And that was just the beginning, maybe you ought take a course in nuclear physics?

Case in point. I don't know a lot about Einsteins discovery but I have a book here by him discussing his idea. Hard read. Its all about concepts of forces and to me math was of no relevance to his discovery of his idea. It just was later put into the math thing thats famous. Before Einstein it was not a failure of math that stood in the way of the better idea. I don't math was relevant to Einstein in jis investigation and insight on physics. The math just explains in ANOTHER language the concept. Likewise in every other field of investigation. I see math as a trivial or hic relative to true accomplishment by man in discovering and using the world for progress.

Just because you read a book that describes concepts in laymans terms that doesn't use math... it doesn't mean that the actual work doesn't use math.

jeez

Joe Felsenstein said: There are quite a few results in population genetics that are very hard to intuit without doing the math. Not impossible to intuit, but very hard. For example: 1. How fast will genetic drift remove neutral genetic variability from a population? 2. What is the chance that a single advantageous mutant will end up taking over the population? 3. If an overdominant allele is perturbed from its equilibrium frequency, how quickly will it return? 4. Will a small patch of environment in which one recessive allele is favored retain that allele, when everywhere else the other allele is favored and there is migration at a known rate?

(and many others). One excellent example is the conclusion our creationist friends draw from the fact that many more mutants are deleterious than are advantageous. They are sure that this means that the deleterious mutants will typically depress fitness in the population by more than the advantageous mutants increase it. Once you do the math (using the fixation probability formulas of Kimura, 1962) the extremely small probability that a deleterious mutant will fix in a large population becomes apparent and their conclusion not-so-obvious.

M. Wilson Sayres said: The point is that we can communicate without words, just as we can understand biology without mathematics. Many communications are nonverbal. And yes, many of our observations in biology do not require mathematics. But just as communication can be advanced using words, so too can biology be advanced using mathematics. Similarly, there are concepts we cannot communicate without words, and biology we cannot understand without math.

FL said: Dale H says,

Pattern recognition doesn’t mean anything in an objective sense.

So, Dale, would you agree or disagree with the following?

"To understand is to perceive patterns." - Sir Isaiah Berlin

FL

- Assume the planet Earth is a smooth ball - Attach a tight rope around the planet - Extend the length of the rope by one meter - Adjust the rope evenly above the surface. Question : What is the distance between the rope and the surface ?

We don’t even need Shannon to draw this conclusion (message is interpreted by the recipient).

For crying out loud, Byers, you're even more delusional than usual. Whatever you may think of maths, for you to refer to a book by Einstein as some sort of evidence that maths was unimportant to Einstein's understanding shows that you know *nothing* about Einstein and are clearly incapable of understanding him even when he's writing for the lay reader. Maths was always a crucial component of Einstein's work, from the early visualisations right through to the proofs and derivations he created to support his theories.

Steve P. said: You don't need words when you have the math.

M. Wilson Sayres said: The point is that we can communicate without words, just as we can understand biology without mathematics. Many communications are nonverbal. And yes, many of our observations in biology do not require mathematics. But just as communication can be advanced using words, so too can biology be advanced using mathematics. Similarly, there are concepts we cannot communicate without words, and biology we cannot understand without math.

Chris Lawson said: For crying out loud, Byers, you're even more delusional than usual. Whatever you may think of maths, for you to refer to a book by Einstein as some sort of evidence that maths was unimportant to Einstein's understanding shows that you know *nothing* about Einstein and are clearly incapable of understanding him even when he's writing for the lay reader. Maths was always a crucial component of Einstein's work, from the early visualisations right through to the proofs and derivations he created to support his theories.

Please list two or three things which are not intelligently designed, and explain how you can tell the difference.

Words are wonderful for describing a concept, especially if it is new. But at some point you need mathematics, the language of science. Equations are the coin of the realm and until you provide equations, and substitute numbers into those equations, your words are insufficient.

As I recall, correct me if I'm mistaken, Mike Elzinga has computed the CSI of a rock using Dembski's equation, and found it passes Dembski's test for the 'design inference.'

So any argument of words that a rock is not intelligently designed is wrong, unless Elzinga's math or Dembski's equation can be shown to be wrong.

FL said:

Please list two or three things which are not intelligently designed, and explain how you can tell the difference.

Let's just do one; that will demonstrate the point. Here's a small, natural, undesigned piece of gabbro rock. You just found this on the ground: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GabbroRockCreek1.jpg How do we know this item was not intelligently designed? (1) Because that rock doesn't display any of the Specified Complexity that you see (for example) in all of your posts (sentences) or all of mine. It's like finding another pointy rock on the ground, by chance, somewhat flat and somewhat shaped like an arrowhead. Maybe this other rock just got there by natural causes, maybe chipped off some larger rock when some kids were throwing rocks for fun. What you have in your hand is NOT intelligently designed, as far as you can tell. But suppose you picked up the rock for closer inspection and saw: K C ...with the letters large and spaced very very close together. At that point, you have way too much specified complexity to attribute your find to chance and/or natural causes anymore. Those two letters, (which denote the KC Chiefs football team and always appear with an arrowhead), constitute Specified Complexity evidence that what you have in your hand has been intelligently designed. But since the rock in the picture doesn't have any of that, it's not ID. **** And there is a second way to tell that the gabbro rock in the Wiki picture is not intelligently designed: (2) Because it doesn't display any Irreducible Complexity at all. There's no system there in which all the parts must all be present and function together correctly all at the same time, like a mousetrap, in order for the system to fulfill its intended purpose. After all, it's just a natural piece of rock. So, that's how you can tell that the rock in the picture is not intelligently designed. FL

Would you be willing to acknowledge that the other poster's question to me was answered, Phhht?

Mike Elzinga has computed the CSI of a rock using Dembski’s equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble

FL :)

They are sure that this means that the deleterious mutants will typically depress fitness in the population by more than the advantageous mutants increase it.

Suppose for example we find a rock weighing approximately 60 grams, that is a mixture of polycrystals of mostly SiO2 and some polycrystals of other compounds as well (about 3 atoms per molecule on average). This allows and estimate of approximately 1027 molecules in the rock with approximately 1018 molecules per crystal on average. Let N = 1027, the number of molecules. Let P = 109, the number of crystals. There are P! permutations of all the crystals in the sample. Each crystal has an orientation in a 3-dimensional space; so we choose three perpendicular axes about which rotations can be made. There are 360 degrees, 60 minutes, 60 seconds per complete rotation about each axis, therefore each crystal can have 12960003 orientations in 3-dimensional space. Since there are P crystals, there are 12960003P ways to orient all the crystals. The number of permutations of the individual atoms is conservatively (3N)!. There is also the number of possible orientations of the original rock when it was noted in the heath; and this is again 12960003. Therefore, the number of possible arrangements and orientations of crystals and atoms and rock is Ω = (3N)! x P! x 12960003(P + 1). The amount of information in this particular rock is thus log2Ω, a number that far, far exceeds 500. Therefore we can conclude without hesitation that this particular rock was designed; and since this is an arbitrary rock picked up in an arbitrary location, we can say that any rock is designed after we examine at it and carefully specify its structure. But we haven’t even dealt with function yet. Suppose this rock was found with bird droppings on it. The rock therefore had the function of preventing the droppings from directly hitting the ground. It could also serve as shelter for insects and worms. It also can divert water; divert the path of a growing plant root. In fact there is literally no limit to the functions that a rock can perform. So we can take that extremely large number of functions and raise it to a power equal to the number of rocks in the universe and conclude that there is specified functional complexity in rocks as well as specified complexity in each and every rock. But rocks can also be organized into unified larger rocks and planets and moons; so there is specified organizational complexity in rocks as well. They don’t even have to be melded together, they can be disjoint clusters of rocks that prevent erosion or divert a river, or provide shelter. The organizational complexity of rocks is enormous. Therefore ALL rocks are intelligently designed.

I don't read the turd, but based on responses, it looks like he's onto the "a rock isn't designed" shtick.

That would mean that he knows--for certain--that his designer didn't (or couldn't) design the rock in question to look EXACTLY as it does.

How can the turd, or anyone else, be certain that their designer didn't precisely arrange every single atom, molecule, and crystal in that rock to be exactly where it is? Maybe the designer WANTED the rock to look 'natural' and undesigned. After all, some human artists and hobbyists do EXACTLY that: arrange materials--even synthetic materials--to LOOK natural and undesigned. How much better at that would an omnipotent designer be? I would submit that the designer could have designed, say, every third rock to look exactly as random and undesigned as its naturally-formed neighbors.

Why would a designer try to fool us that way? Maybe he isn't; maybe he just ENJOYS making natural-looking objects that appear to lack "CSI". Many humans engage in activities or hobbies that have no real purpose or useful end product. We just enjoy doing them. And intelligent human designers are, of course, the analogy that leads to the "Intelligent Design" inference.

It doesn't appear to have "CSI"? Maybe the designer didn't want it to. How can you tell?

Is the turd, or Ray, or IBIG confident that he can tell, 100% every time, using "CSI", whether an object that APPEARS to be undesigned was not in fact designed to appear that way by a human designer (to say nothing of an omnipotent supernatural designer)?

Is the rock created?

According to standard Christian creeds, God created all things.

Is it maybe that there is a difference between creating and designing?

I find it ironic that the creationist is trying to prove with words that a certain part of creation (the rock and stone kind) is not 'intelligently designed' and it is the unbiased skeptical Pandas that are claiming "based upon what has been provide by an ID proponent, it appears the rock and stone kind are 'intelligently designed'."

Is it just me?

harold said: "The information in DNA" is different depending on who is observing DNA and how they are observing it.

Most of us have seen a novelty device consisting of a frame holding two panes of glass with a narrow space between them. The space is filled with a clear fluid, maybe water, and sand-like particles of two different colors and different specific gravities. When the device is agitated, say inverted, then the sand falls through the liquid to come to rest on the new bottom. But the different densities of the sand make one color always precipitate to the bottom first and the less-dense sand settle on top. The result is a landscape, with a 'foreground' of the denser bottom sand, and a range of 'hills' or 'mountains', apparently behind the 'foreground'. And every time you turn it over, you get a new 'landscape'!

Now the device as a whole is clearly designed by humans--but the 'landscapes' are NOT. They're purely the result of unpredictable and uncontrollable forces in the liquid and sand. And that's the attraction of the device: each 'landscape' is produced by random natural forces, but each one APPEARS like a landscape painted by a human. The apparent 'landscapes' are an emergent property of a dissipative system. (I hope I'm using physics terms correctly.)

Now, does each 'landscape' have "CSI" or not?

A human designer--even I--could make one of those frames and very carefully fill it with sand of different colors and liquid to form EXACTLY the landscape I want. Now surely my artwork would be loaded with "CSI". I designed and made it exactly as I wanted it. But I could place it beside one produced by the random process of inverting it and letting the sand cascade to the bottom. And you couldn't tell the difference.

I don’t read the turd, but based on responses, it looks like he’s onto the “a rock isn’t designed” shtick.

FL said: Would you be willing to acknowledge that the other poster's question to me was answered, Phhht?

A Moron for Jesus said:

I don’t read the turd, but based on responses, it looks like he’s onto the “a rock isn’t designed” shtick.

The best way to figure out what a person has actually said or written (or not), is to take time to directly read or listen to what they wrote or said. Rationality 101, amigos (y amigas). FL

A Moron For Jesus babbled:

Please list two or three things which are not intelligently designed, and explain how you can tell the difference.

Let's just do one; that will demonstrate the point. Here's a small, natural, undesigned piece of gabbro rock. You just found this on the ground: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GabbroRockCreek1.jpg How do we know this item was not intelligently designed? (1) Because that rock doesn't display any of the Specified Complexity that you see (for example) in all of your posts (sentences) or all of mine. It's like finding another pointy rock on the ground, by chance, somewhat flat and somewhat shaped like an arrowhead. Maybe this other rock just got there by natural causes, maybe chipped off some larger rock when some kids were throwing rocks for fun. What you have in your hand is NOT intelligently designed, as far as you can tell. But suppose you picked up the rock for closer inspection and saw: K C ...with the letters large and spaced very very close together. At that point, you have way too much specified complexity to attribute your find to chance and/or natural causes anymore. Those two letters, (which denote the KC Chiefs football team and always appear with an arrowhead), constitute Specified Complexity evidence that what you have in your hand has been intelligently designed. But since the rock in the picture doesn't have any of that, it's not ID. **** And there is a second way to tell that the gabbro rock in the Wiki picture is not intelligently designed: (2) Because it doesn't display any Irreducible Complexity at all. There's no system there in which all the parts must all be present and function together correctly all at the same time, like a mousetrap, in order for the system to fulfill its intended purpose. After all, it's just a natural piece of rock. So, that's how you can tell that the rock in the picture is not intelligently designed. FL

Speaking of apparent skylines, I was in a natural cavern in China a few years ago where there was a still pool of water, which formed a 'waterfront', with many small stalagmites behind it, most with strangely flat tops. Behind it was a smooth wall which made a 'sky'. The effect, with a little lighting to enhance it, was a perfect city nighttime skyline, with the 'buildings' reflected in the 'harbor'. The illusion is so good that when friends see my pictures of it, they always assume it's an actual city skyline.

Same situation as phhht's rock. Designed or not? CSI or not? And how can you tell?

Now how about that skyline, Flawd? Designed, or not?

prongs said: I find it ironic that the creationist is trying to prove with words that a certain part of creation (the rock and stone kind) is not 'intelligently designed' and it is the unbiased skeptical Pandas that are claiming "based upon what has been provide by an ID proponent, it appears the rock and stone kind are 'intelligently designed'." Is it just me?

FL said:

Please list two or three things which are not intelligently designed, and explain how you can tell the difference.

Let's just do one; that will demonstrate the point. Here's a small, natural, undesigned piece of gabbro rock. You just found this on the ground: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GabbroRockCreek1.jpg How do we know this item was not intelligently designed? (1) Because that rock doesn't display any of the Specified Complexity that you see (for example) in all of your posts (sentences) or all of mine. It's like finding another pointy rock on the ground, by chance, somewhat flat and somewhat shaped like an arrowhead. Maybe this other rock just got there by natural causes, maybe chipped off some larger rock when some kids were throwing rocks for fun. What you have in your hand is NOT intelligently designed, as far as you can tell. But suppose you picked up the rock for closer inspection and saw: K C ...with the letters large and spaced very very close together. At that point, you have way too much specified complexity to attribute your find to chance and/or natural causes anymore. Those two letters, (which denote the KC Chiefs football team and always appear with an arrowhead), constitute Specified Complexity evidence that what you have in your hand has been intelligently designed. But since the rock in the picture doesn't have any of that, it's not ID. **** And there is a second way to tell that the gabbro rock in the Wiki picture is not intelligently designed: (2) Because it doesn't display any Irreducible Complexity at all. There's no system there in which all the parts must all be present and function together correctly all at the same time, like a mousetrap, in order for the system to fulfill its intended purpose. After all, it's just a natural piece of rock. So, that's how you can tell that the rock in the picture is not intelligently designed. FL

I find it ironic that the creationist is trying to prove with words that a certain part of creation (the rock and stone kind) is not ‘intelligently designed’...

FL said:

I find it ironic that the creationist is trying to prove with words that a certain part of creation (the rock and stone kind) is not ‘intelligently designed’...

Your Panda pal sincerely brought up the question (and I did quote said question), and thus I sincerely answered his question as worded. In fact, you now know what to look for (either of two very specific items, actually) if anybody asks you the same question. Perhaps you should tell your Panda pal not to ask sincere questions next time? FL

FL said:

Now how about that skyline, Flawd? Designed, or not?

What? You did not see the link I provided? You're not already familiar with that link?

You did not see the link I provided?

You’re not already familiar with that link?

FL said: The link I provided (which you don't wish to discuss!), makes clear that there's NO specified complexity involved with the marble per se. The "city landscape" appearance is not a city landscape at all. The appearance can be reminiscent of a landscape, sure, but the zoomed-in link that YOU graciously supplied, makes clear that it's not any such thing in reality. Which puts your rock-picture on par with my rock-picture: no Specified Complexity and no Irreducible Comblexity. Hence it's not Intelligent Design. This answers your question. FL

The link Flawd refers to is about marble in general. It says nothing about the presence or absence of design. Just like vegesaurs and non-living plants, Flawd is just making that up.

"Which puts your rock-picture on par with my rock-picture: no Specified Complexity and no Irreducible Comblexity." "Hence it's not Intelligent Design. This answers your question."

That marble landscape sure looks designed to me. Am I just experiencing an hallucination?

FL -

So if rocks are not designed, does that mean God didn't create them?

FL said:

That marble landscape sure looks designed to me. Am I just experiencing an hallucination?

Yes. You are. Unless you can provide a rational, supportable basis. Can you? FL

FL - So if rocks are not designed, does that mean God didn’t create them?

Without empirical evidence, no one can say whether a thing is designed or not.

FL said:

Without empirical evidence, no one can say whether a thing is designed or not.

Then I'm glad I pointed out a couple of empirically available markers that you can use to rationally distinguish that-which-is-designed from that-which-is-not-designed. If both markers are absent, then the object in question is not designed (and you'll notice this worked for your "landscape marble" question too.) FL

This is really complicated.

If the word description of the 'ideas' involved indicate rocks have no 'intelligent design', but Dembski's equation, as demonstrated by Elzinga, indicate 'passes the design inference', are we to take this as a false positive?

That would explain the apparent contradiction, but it also says the word definitions trump the mathematical expression. In other words, the mathematical expression, or the numerical limits used to decide 'passed' or 'failed', must of necessity be wrong.

But words can be inexact, if not downright deceiving. Which is wrong? The words or the math?

Which do you think it is? (I think I know.)

phhht said: You did no such thing, loony. All you did was parrot designoid propaganda. There ARE no empirical ways to detect design. You are lying when you say otherwise. The appearance of design is illusory. No one, certainly not you, Infallible Flawd, can state a way to empirically detect it. You can't even define it.

FL said:

Without empirical evidence, no one can say whether a thing is designed or not.

Then I'm glad I pointed out a couple of empirically available markers that you can use to rationally distinguish that-which-is-designed from that-which-is-not-designed. If both markers are absent, then the object in question is not designed (and you'll notice this worked for your "landscape marble" question too.) FL

FL said:

Mike Elzinga has computed the CSI of a rock using Dembski’s equation.

Interesting. But where is the evidence that the rock in the picture has any CSI at all? I myself don't see any.

Moron for Jesus said:

FL - So if rocks are not designed, does that mean God didn’t create them?

Nope. Not at all. It only means that human design detection methods have their limits, as does all of science for that matter.

FL said:

That marble landscape sure looks designed to me. Am I just experiencing an hallucination?

Yes. You are. Unless you can provide a rational, supportable basis. Can you? FL

The turd is a god damned lying, hypocritical, uh, turd. And here's further proof (if any were needed) that he serves Satan and the Antichrist.

He claims that phhht's cityscape-in-marble is NOT designed. But any honest Christian (that leaves the turd out) can see that it's a miracle in stone! It's clearly millions of years (or if you're a YEC at least 6.000 years) old. And it shows a modern cityscape, complete with church steeples!

Who but God could have 'painted' a modern cityscape--inside a block of marble!--that long ago? Who but God could have known what a modern city skyline would look like?

God leaves his miraculous fingerprints right there in the stone... and the turd spits on it because he needs to think he's scoring points in his little "I know design" game!

And as FL, one of our Idiots For Jesus, easily demonstrates, words are only as useful and informative as the person who is using them.

And in FL's case, his words are of no use for any sort of information at all, beyond communicating the fact that he is a malicious imbecile.

So you can’t see the CSI in that rock, but Elzinga demonstrated it ‘passes the design inference’.

"Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified." -- pg 189, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection (1973), hat tip to Casey Luskin and Discovery Institute

(FL) ... serves Satan and the Antichrist

(FL) ... one of our Idiots For Jesus

FL said:

So you can’t see the CSI in that rock, but Elzinga demonstrated it ‘passes the design inference’.

Ummm, I'm afraid he didn't. It sounds like you are either doing a baseless pre-assumption, or worse yet, you are pretending that there is CSI in that rock, in an attempt to sidestep my actual question.

I'm not asking you about "hunches". I already gave a real-world example of how a rock you find on the ground could contain enough CSI to eliminate any chance of natural causes regarding that rock. I'm only talking about what you can observe empirically, nothing more.

Just Bob said: The turd is a god damned lying, hypocritical, uh, turd. And here's further proof (if any were needed) that he serves Satan and the Antichrist. He claims that phhht's cityscape-in-marble is NOT designed. But any honest Christian (that leaves the turd out) can see that it's a miracle in stone! It's clearly millions of years (or if you're a YEC at least 6.000 years) old. And it shows a modern cityscape, complete with church steeples! Who but God could have 'painted' a modern cityscape--inside a block of marble!--that long ago? Who but God could have known what a modern city skyline would look like? God leaves his miraculous fingerprints right there in the stone... and the turd spits on it because he needs to think he's scoring points in his little "I know design" game!

FL hasn’t figured out that I know he has no understanding of mathematics whatsoever. He doesn’t even know high school algebra. He doesn’t know what to do with a mathematical expression, he doesn’t know how to calculate with it, and he doesn’t even know what to plug into a formula.

He has been faking knowledge of math ever since he got slammed trying to fake understanding of an entropy calculation over on the Bathroom Wall. He revealed his ignorance of math right then and there; right out in broad daylight.

FL has a fake patter he uses when he attempts to make it appear that he knows something; but he can’t fool people who really know.

He didn't even read that calculation about the rock; he can't. He has no clue about what it meant or what it demonstrated. He's just babbling.

If the "function" of a rock doesn't depend on the particular arrangement of its atoms, or even the composition or arrangement of embedded crystals or other impurities, then does it even matter if it was "designed" or not?

As for the usefulness of words - of course they're useful; how could an anti-science zealot manage to mislead people who don't know the actual subject matter, if the zealot didn't have words to use in that endeavor? (Wait, maybe I should rephrase that... )

Henry

Here’s a small, natural, undesigned piece of gabbro rock. You just found this on the ground: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G[…]ckCreek1.jpg How do we know this item was not intelligently designed? (1) Because that rock doesn’t display any of the Specified Complexity that you see (for example) in all of your posts (sentences) or all of mine.

harold said:

Driver said: You don't need maths to know how the polar bear turned white.

So frequency of alleles in the population has nothing to do with why polar bears are white?

Robert Byers said: i think math is a strange case of poor analysis on human intellectual advancement. Its just a language or shadow of things. It has contributed but not very much. Newton was hit on the head by a apple and not a slide-rule.

... Once you understand that simplicity in nature is the exception. rather than the rule, it becomes easy to imagine that lifelike patterns might emerge if the microscopic circumstances were suitable. It is not possible to prove that they emerge, but it is possible to prove that their emergence is reasonable and does not violate common sense. ...

Robert Byers said: I think math is a strange case of poor analysis on human intellectual advancement. Its just a language or shadow of things. It has contributed but not very much. Newton was hit on the head by a apple and not a slide-rule.

ISTM that the simplest solution is that creation is something different from design. And design is different from manufacture.

TomS said: ISTM that the simplest solution is that creation is something different from design. And design is different from manufacture.

Henry J said: ... then does it even matter if it was "designed" or not?

If this rock does not have CSI, then the concept is meaningless.

Yet, how would the mathematical computations for CSI that Mike performed be any different for that arch than for a lump of coal? FL, since CSI is claimed to be a mathematically "provable" concept, maybe you could show us the mathematical difference in CSI between the two. Or, better yet, just use words to describe the difference in CSI between the two.

And remember, the phrase, "It looks designed to me" isn't adequate, because that is simply a matter of opinion, and math is not a matter of opinion.

(Well, except of course for non-Euclidian geometries. :-)

You see, as I understand it, CSI is a measure of the "purpose" of an object. If an object has a "purpose", it has CSI. That's what the "S" in "CSI" is all about. If it isn't "Specified", it isn't "CSI". But "purpose" or "specificity" is an entirely human concept, based solely on personal opinion. One man's garbage is another man's treasure. If some object is useful to me (personally), then it's existence is "specified". Otherwise, it is not "specified".

How do we know, mathematically, that the lump of rock does not have a purpose? Maybe God does have a purpose for the lump of rock. Remember, God's plan for us is so complex that, by definition, we simply cannot comprehend it. If we cannot comprehend what is or is not part of "God's Plan"(tm), then we cannot decide whether any particular object is part of that plan or not. We cannot determine the CSI of an object relative to God's notion of "Specified".

If CSI is an "objective" measure of anything, it appears to be a measure solely of the viewer's credulity.

The facts: "So you can’t see the CSI in that rock, but Elzinga demonstrated it ‘passes the design inference’."

The lie: "Ummm, I’m afraid he didn’t. It sounds like you are either doing a baseless pre-assumption, or worse yet, you are pretending that there is CSI in that rock, in an attempt to sidestep my actual question."

The analysis: "FL is again utterly refuted. The hilarious thing is, he's refuted himself."

Scott F said: If this rock does not have CSI, then the concept is meaningless.

And using all his CSIs and ICs and PDQs he can't detect the difference between a 'natural' object and one created by a human intelligent designer to purposely LOOK 'natural'.

FL said:

(FL) ... serves Satan and the Antichrist

(FL) ... one of our Idiots For Jesus

Cmon folks, you're starting to sound all dis-combobulated again. Gotta assign me to one team o' the other, not both at the same time! So please reach a scientific consensus already, and then stick to it. (Sheesh!) FL

FL said:

FL - So if rocks are not designed, does that mean God didn’t create them?

Nope. Not at all. It only means that human design detection methods have their limits, as does all of science for that matter. FL

dalehusband said:

FL said:

FL - So if rocks are not designed, does that mean God didn’t create them?

Nope. Not at all. It only means that human design detection methods have their limits, as does all of science for that matter. FL

Except real science produces actual results that can be tested. By contrast, human design detection, with its references to "Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity", produces no results at all.

Does Current Biology have the Misfortune of Owning an Unreliable Clock? http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin/2013/04/20/does-current-biology-have-the-misfortune-of-owning-an-unreliable-clock

Spammer said: Does Current Biology have the Misfortune of Owning an Unreliable Clock? *spamlink redacted*