Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #31

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 29 by Guy Threepwood]
A C G T
The fact that you say this in response to Jagella's question is...I want to use a scathing word, but I don't want to run afoul of the mods.
ACGT do not exist as letters in DNA, in any way shape or form like the letters/characters that exist on the Rosetta Stone.
ACGT are the first letters of names given to chemicals called nucleobases that exist within DNA. One does not extract DNA and simply see the letters ACGT like one would see the letters on the Rosetta Stone.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Guy Threepwood
Sage
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #32

Post by Guy Threepwood »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 28 by Jagella]
Mentioning Rushmore was a bad move for Guy. We have photos and records of its construction. We have photos of what it looked like before construction, during and after.
really? so I was right, it was intelligently designed! :) how did I know? lucky guess?

So what if we did not? what if it was newly discovered buried under sand- are you saying that without the construction pics for evidence, you'd conclude natural erosion?

point being: the fingerprints of creative design speak clearly for themselves, regardless of direct observation.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #33

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 32 by Guy Threepwood]
really? so I was right, it was intelligently designed! Smile how did I know? lucky guess?
You mentioned Rushmore because it is something you already knew (and we all here already knew) to be something intelligently designed. The reason why I pointed out the photos is to show that even in a hypothetical world where we don't know that for sure, in that world, we could investigate and find out that yes indeed, here's direct evidence showing intelligent agents intelligently designing the faces.
It's the same thing with the mention of arrows, or the watches in the watchmaker's argument. All these examples are drawn, perhaps subconsciously, from the pool of objects that the person arguing knows for a fact are designed by intelligent agents. We know for a fact arrows are designed, we can see people design arrows. We know for a fact watches are designed, we can see people design them.
Planets? Rocks? Life itself? Uhh...how sure are you about that? Have you seen a planet-designer designing planets? A rock designer designing rocks? A life designer designing life?
Notice how anytime anyone like yourself brings up the watch-maker's argument, (or a similar one) they do not start off by talking about an object whose origin we collectively are unsure of. No, he starts off by talking about objects that are well known to be intelligently designed, before moving on to talk about the universe or life.
point being: the fingerprints of creative design speak clearly for themselves
Creativity? Clearly? In a different thread, I posted a picture of a piece of art, in an argument as to what constitutes art, what constitutes creativity. My opponent there was arguing that machines, computers, lack the ability to do creative art, and yet was unable to tell right away that the picture I posted was from a computer.
Which was my point all along, both there and here. Creativity is then a subjective point of view, and so your usage of the word 'clearly' there is a non sequitur.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Guy Threepwood
Sage
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #34

Post by Guy Threepwood »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 29 by Guy Threepwood]

The fact that you say this in response to Jagella's question is...I want to use a scathing word, but I don't want to run afoul of the mods.
well it's the thought that counts..
ACGT do not exist as letters in DNA, in any way shape or form like the letters/characters that exist on the Rosetta Stone.
ACGT are the first letters of names given to chemicals called nucleobases that exist within DNA. One does not extract DNA and simply see the letters ACGT like one would see the letters on the Rosetta Stone.
Of course not- we agree entirely. see? no ad hominem needed anyway

Those letters are merely how we label nucleotides for our convenience, obviously, but labels do not change something's substance. And the substance here is specified (versus Shannon), coded information: information which specifies something, be it a call for rescue on the beach with rocks, a winning card combination in poker, an informative text carved in stone, or brown eye color in a gene sequence- the medium can be many things, but coded information systems are distinct constructs- furthermore a hierarchical digital information system in the case of DNA

We only have one known phenomena which can develop such systems, not to say chance is technically impossible...but I am a bit of a stickler for empirical evidence on these matters. And the math is not looking very promising the more we learn about information systems in the information age. These problems were unknown in the classical/ Victorian age understanding of reality that Darwinian evolution was born into.

Guy Threepwood
Sage
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #35

Post by Guy Threepwood »

[Replying to post 33 by rikuoamero]
You mentioned Rushmore because it is something you already knew (and we all here already knew) to be something intelligently designed
no, because it's something that is unambiguously designed whether or not somebody knew of it beforehand.

Are you saying that a person who knew nothing of Mount Rushmore would look at it for the first time, and assume natural processes formed it?

Creative work has an entirely objective measure, of course it appears merely 'intuitive' in the case of sculptures, and you might relate that to mere familiarity with creative work, but it boils down to the only truly objective measure we have: mathematics.

If SETI detected a sophisticated enough sequence of information, the medium does not matter, the complete lack of precedent, knowledge about it's creator, it's meaning, it's age or anything else- the information itself is evidence of ID for SETI- and they are generally a pretty secular bunch- i.e. objectively recognizing the work of an unobserved creative intelligence is not a 'religious' argument

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #36

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 35 by Guy Threepwood]
no, because it's something that is unambiguously designed whether or not somebody knew of it beforehand.
The first time I saw Rushmore (albeit in a photo, I've never been to the States), I recognised it as an object of design, because I am fully aware that rocks do not naturally fashion into faces, and not just any faces, but faces of arguably the four most famous US presidents.
Are you saying that a person who knew nothing of Mount Rushmore would look at it for the first time, and assume natural processes formed it?
They'd have no reason to. I take it you didn't want to comment on the rest of my response to this "Rushmore/Watchmaker's argument"? About why it is that you and people like yourself who argue the argument start off by talking about an object whose design is non-controversial?
Creative work has an entirely objective measure,
Then please explain to me why, in that other thread, the person arguing that computers lack a creative skill (that we humans have) was not able to tell that the image I posted was from a computer?
of course it appears merely 'intuitive' in the case of sculptures, and you might relate that to mere familiarity with creative work, but there is an objective measure, and it boils down to the only truly objective measure we have: mathematics.
Please relate where in the Watchmaker's Argument or similar arguments mathematics are talked about.
If SETI detected a sophisticated enough sequence of information, the medium does not matter, the complete lack of precedent, knowledge about it's creator, it's meaning, it's age or anything else- the information itself is evidence of ID for SETI- and they are generally a pretty secular bunch- i.e. objectively recognizing creative intelligence is not a 'religious' argument
"Sophistication", whatever that means, is not the sole requirement SETI uses.
i.e. objectively recognizing creative intelligence is not a 'religious' argument
and yet the Watchmaker's Argument is only ever proposed by what group of people? Care to tell the class?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Guy Threepwood
Sage
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #37

Post by Guy Threepwood »

[Replying to post 36 by rikuoamero]
The first time I saw Rushmore (albeit in a photo, I've never been to the States), I recognised it as an object of design, because I am fully aware that rocks do not naturally fashion into faces, and not just any faces, but faces of arguably the four most famous US presidents.
would it make a difference if you didn't recognize them? I do live in the States but have never been to Mt Rushmore, I have a small bust of Abe on my desk which doesn't have as good a likeness - so I think they did an incredible job, anyway..
They'd have no reason to. I take it you didn't want to comment on the rest of my response to this "Rushmore/Watchmaker's argument"? About why it is that you and people like yourself who argue the argument start off by talking about an object whose design is non-controversial?
proof of principle I suppose, I do believe that biology and physics are even more emphatic, objective evidence of ID than a mere watch or sculpture, but that the objectivity is the problematic part... we are born into a world of incredible works of engineering and art, far beyond our own capabilities, and take it all for granted as 'natural' - we know nothing else..

But I take your point- there are many ceremonial/ burial mounds in my general region which were assumed to be natural, but with aerial photography and ground sonar etc revealed themselves to be artifacts.

So to use that analogy, similarly cells were vague blobs of protoplasm in Darwin's day, he did not know they contained sharply defined designs, digital information systems with nano-machines and parity bit error checking- our picture is much sharper now.
Then please explain to me why, in that other thread, the person arguing that computers lack a creative skill (that we humans have) was not able to tell that the image I posted was from a computer?
Not looking at it, but there may not be much to measure, a monkey might type a three letter word given an hour, but not the first page of War & Peace given a million years.

& one page of text is selling the universe and life in it, a little short, wouldn't you say?
Please relate where in the Watchmaker's Argument or similar arguments mathematics are talked about.
It's implicit: if forced to explain the existence of a watch without creative intelligence.. you'd end up having to invoke an infinite probability mechanism to create it accidentally- the odds of chance creation are so low... sound familiar? multiverse?

and yet the Watchmaker's Argument is only ever proposed by what group of people? Care to tell the class?
skeptics of atheism, like Lemaitre, Planck, most of humanity.. crazy weirdos like that?

but a secular forensic scientist or archaeologist employs the same scientific principle, ID provides a superior explanation where the shoe fits, regardless of the implications

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #38

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 37 by Guy Threepwood]
we are born into a world of incredible works of engineering and art, far beyond our own capabilities,
Please then explain why this "incredible work of engineering", such as DNA which you talked about, fails so often. In the real world, people are born with all sorts of genetic diseases. I have a cousin with cerebral palsy. Another with Down's Syndrome.
Explain why this world that you insist was engineered, was then engineered to be a violent world of bloodthirsty competitiveness, where lifeforms devour each other to survive.
Either this world was malevolently designed...or your so-called incredible engineer(s) screwed up incredibly badly.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #39

Post by postroad »

[Replying to post 37 by Guy Threepwood]

But is this Designer bound by our desires?

If the Bible bears witness to his character then entering into any agreement with him is to be avoided.

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 60 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #40

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 32 by Guy Threepwood]
point being: the fingerprints of creative design speak clearly for themselves, regardless of direct observation.
If you landed on another planet and found an object unlike anything you had ever seen before, what criteria would you apply to determine if it was designed or not? How would you apply those criteria to reach your conclusion?
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Post Reply