Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8670
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #41

Post by Bust Nak »

Jagella wrote: Why? To facilitate trolling?
If anything, to shut down trolls, by supporting your claims.
As we all know my real crime is making Christian apologists look bad.
That doesn't make your other crime less severe.

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

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #42

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 37 by Guy Threepwood]
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?
In that conversation, I'd be forced to explain how I know Watch A was created by a creative intelligence but not Watch B, despite both watches apparently looking the exact same, having the same physical components etc.
skeptics of atheism, like Lemaitre, Planck, most of humanity.. crazy weirdos like that?
Theists, you mean. Lemaitre was a Roman Catholic priest, Planck was a Christian.
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 #43

Post by Guy Threepwood »

rikuoamero wrote: [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.
DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created

The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal.


we are all subject to entropy, 'random mutation' which we observe to degrade designs, not enhance them. And Im old enough feel that in my body as I sit here.
This degradation from entropy is hardly an argument for Darwinian evolution- life needs designs to follow to turn this direction of change from down to up

I agree that a personal tragedy is probably always the greatest challenge to anyone's faith, few of us are immune to that, none of us are getting out of here alive, and it's probably not going to be very pleasant.

On the other hand, God created a world that still exists - without pain, hunger, fear, or challenges of any kind- for Jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, comfort, triumph in their lives either- would you trade?

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

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #44

Post by Guy Threepwood »

brunumb wrote: [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?
Same criteria as SETI, the existence of specified information- information which specifies something

this can be in a radio wave or in a physical design

like the Rosetta stone, you don't need to be able to recognize what the information is saying or who crated it, to recognize that it is saying something.

And like the 'wow' signal- the volume of it matters, a very little amount of information can be ambiguous, but the odds against chance become exponentially smaller as the amount of information increases

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

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #45

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 43 by Guy Threepwood]

You responded to this question exactly as I knew you would. Instead of bringing in evidence to weigh in this question of design, you ask a philosophical question as to whether I would prefer this world or that world.
My desires do not play a part in this question. I am asking you to continue the chain of logic you have started by saying that our world is designed, that DNA is designed, it's akin to a computer program.
Well...computer programs have bugs. Microsoft had a team of hundreds working on Windows 7 (from what I can look up). IBM reportedly had a thousand people working on OS/2. You want to compare the world, nature itself, to computer programs like operating systems, and yet, say that the designers of the world/nature are so much more advanced.
Well...so advanced that they cannot make obvious mistakes? Or that they are malevolent.
Look up a nature documentary. Look up a tiger eating an animal.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPkoTQwBOtI[/YOUTUBE]
If you're telling me that THAT is designed...then the designers are incredibly cruel. The deer is dead, and all because the only way for the tiger to survive was to kill it and eat it.

I cannot accept as an argument that nature itself was designed by designers so much more advanced than us...and yet the world turned out the way it did, if their intent was a peaceful, happy, loving world.
I agree that a personal tragedy is probably always the greatest challenge to anyone's faith,
Here's something that might shock you. Personal tragedies have played no part, none at all, in my theistic or non-theistic outlook. I didn't come to believe in a god because of a tragedy, nor did I stop believing in a god because of a tragedy.
This was a bias on your part, good sir.
The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike.
No they are not. I have worked on both DNA and computer code. For the former, I have to work with a series of chemicals. For the latter, I type some instructions that then perform their work via a series of logic gates and electrical impulses.
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

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #46

Post by Jagella »

Guy Threepwood wrote:Then we are having trouble finding things to disagree on!
You are speaking too soon.
If we are trying to deduce the origin of the Rosetta stone, we have observation and testing that tells us how such things are usually created
Similarly, if we are trying to deduce the origin of a digital parity bit error checking system as used in DNA. Our routine observation gives us an objective precedent for this also.
Sorry, but unlike written language like that inscribed on the Rosetta Stone, we have no observational evidence for any agent creating DNA. So your analogy here fails.

Why can't DNA be a product of natural processes? I see no reason why DNA cannot be the end result of an evolutionary process.
a sophisticated signal picked up by SETI, in whatever medium, would be compelling evidence of intelligent design, which I believe you said you hoped for one day?
I'm not very familiar with SETI, so I cannot comment sensibly on the criteria that SETI uses to tell if a signal is from an intelligent source.
Likewise, we have direct observation of people creating hierarchical digital information systems, as we see in DNA. We have no direct observation of natural processes achieving the same.
I'm not so sure. Here is an article, Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries, It discusses natural processes involved in the origin and evolution of DNA without any recourse or mention of any gods or miracles.
...the observation of information creation through creative intelligence is just one line of evidence, the information itself is another.
I'm still wondering how you can distinguish "creative design" from the work of undirected, natural processes. Can you explain?
Are there any letters in the stars, for example?
A C G T
I believe these are the letters that scientists call Parts of a DNA molecule. (Are they in the stars too?) So there is no part of a DNA molecule that spells these letters; these letters are merely names given to parts of DNA. I think you may be confusing symbolic language with what that language describes. For example, "cat" isn't a small, furry pet but rather three symbols that describe a small furry pet.

If you're wondering why ID cannot survive the scrutiny of peer review, then please think of your reasoning here.
It is far more useful, if a theory survives the scientific method, than the vagaries of academic consensus, would you disagree?
But that's the whole point of peer review--to determine if a hypothesis can pass scrutiny as a valid scientific hypothesis. If ID cannot survive that scrutiny, then it is probably not a genuine scientific theory.
Hoyle who coined the term Big Bang as a pejorative, never admitted his error till his dying day- after you have mocked and rejected your opponents beliefs as 'religious pseudoscience', it's very difficult to change your mind, no matter the evidence.
But why can't such bias be fueling ID? It's no secret that Christianity, the religion behind ID, has made an institution of mocking and rejecting opposing views. If you wish to criticize scientists for having mocked and rejected opposing views, then to be fair you should criticize Christianity.
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out. "Max Planck
Isn't that what happened when Darwin published The Origin of Species?

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

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #47

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 46 by Jagella]
I believe these are the letters that scientists call Parts of a DNA molecule. (Are they in the stars too?) So there is no part of a DNA molecule that spells these letters; these letters are merely names given to parts of DNA.
They are indeed. Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine. However, these themselves are just names, words, sounds, that we humans use to describe the nucleotides (the underlying chemicals) found within a strand of DNA. The chemicals could have been called anything, but that wouldn't change the chemicals themselves.
The CPU in my computer is an Intel Core i7 8700K. Any name could have been used for that. The company Intel could have gone by any other name. The chip itself would still be the same.
Guy looks at the Rosetta Stone and sees letters, writing. I agree with him on that. I too see letters, writing.
However, what he claims about DNA is a non sequitur. One does NOT see letters in DNA, the letters ATGC, like one sees 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 #48

Post by Guy Threepwood »

[Replying to post 45 by rikuoamero]

Same again though, good and bad define each other, one cannot exist without the other. That's what gives life meaning, provides the challenges, motivations, meaning- that Jellyfish lack.

The reason we took to building shelters and tools in the first place was largely to avoid finding ourselves in the same situation as that deer-right? the fact that we can look at that and feel pity- is also what allows us to enact kindness- rather than simply say 'glad that's not me' like the other deer!

And this is what gives us 'dominion' over the animals, our sentience and morals- what makes us the primary beneficiaries of creation, the reason we are here able and interested in discussing all this right now..

One poster I forget summed it up : it's not that s**t happens, it's that s**t matters.. that's what makes us unique, human

No they are not. I have worked on both DNA and computer code. For the former, I have to work with a series of chemicals. For the latter, I type some instructions that then perform their work via a series of logic gates and electrical impulses.
Those quotes were from Bill Gates and Richard Dawkins, I agree with them- you are pointing out differences in the medium which we all agree on, not the architecture of the information systems- which is what is so uncannily similar

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

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #49

Post by Guy Threepwood »

[Replying to post 46 by Jagella]
Sorry, but unlike written language like that inscribed on the Rosetta Stone, we have no observational evidence for any agent creating DNA. So your analogy here fails.
nor evidence for DNA being spontaneously created by naturalistic forces.

So we have to use deduction to deduce the most likely explanation.

Darwin himself employed the strategy that we should look to 'forces currently in action' to explain past events.

We only know of one force that can routinely produce such information systems- particularly hierarchical digital ones, we know of no instance of natural forces ever doing the same. Not a slam dunk in itself, just one line of evidence.

Why can't DNA be a product of natural processes? I see no reason why DNA cannot be the end result of an evolutionary process.
same reason the Rosetta Stone can't, there is far too much specified information required to appear spontaneously.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 46: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:15 am Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics Reply with quoteReplyReport this post to Moderator/Admin.
Guy Threepwood wrote:
Then we are having trouble finding things to disagree on!


You are speaking too soon.

Quote:
If we are trying to deduce the origin of the Rosetta stone, we have observation and testing that tells us how such things are usually created
Similarly, if we are trying to deduce the origin of a digital parity bit error checking system as used in DNA. Our routine observation gives us an objective precedent for this also.


Sorry, but unlike written language like that inscribed on the Rosetta Stone, we have no observational evidence for any agent creating DNA. So your analogy here fails.

Why can't DNA be a product of natural processes? I see no reason why DNA cannot be the end result of an evolutionary process.

Quote:
a sophisticated signal picked up by SETI, in whatever medium, would be compelling evidence of intelligent design, which I believe you said you hoped for one day?


I'm not very familiar with SETI, so I cannot comment sensibly on the criteria that SETI uses to tell if a signal is from an intelligent source.

Quote:
Likewise, we have direct observation of people creating hierarchical digital information systems, as we see in DNA. We have no direct observation of natural processes achieving the same.


I'm not so sure. Here is an article, Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries, It discusses natural processes involved in the origin and evolution of DNA without any recourse or mention of any gods or miracles.
obviously people give it their best shot, but in general even people like Dawkins concede that we just don't know how it happened naturally. You have to appeal to some combination of vast amounts of luck, or vast amounts of pre-existing information which begs the question.

meanwhile again, we DO know of a phenomena that CAN achieve the same without appealing to any luck or cheat sheets.
I'm still wondering how you can distinguish "creative design" from the work of undirected, natural processes. Can you explain?
how can you tell that 'HELP' written on a deserted island beach with rocks was probably creative design, while other scattered patterns were not?

specified information. It's not about complexity- a random pile of bricks is far more complex a pattern than a neat brick wall. But the simple wall pattern specifies something beyond the bricks themselves.

ultimately it's about anticipation- a phenomena unique to creative consciousness- certain patterns, like those in the Rosetta stone, in this forum software, the rocks on the beach .. exist in anticipation of a future event, right? being read and decoded and producing an action of some sort. And they could not, in practice, exist without it-

Similarly with DNA and the mechanisms within a cell, their design displays anticipation of a future result, that could not exist without that anticipation- I know that's a sweeping statement, and not self evident here, it takes a lot of delving into, which was impossible in Darwin's day
But why can't such bias be fueling ID? It's no secret that Christianity, the religion behind ID, has made an institution of mocking and rejecting opposing views. If you wish to criticize scientists for having mocked and rejected opposing views, then to be fair you should criticize Christianity.
Sure it can work both ways- but in this case (Hoyle v Lemaitre) lemaitre went out of his way to disassociate his beliefs with his work, even telling the Pope to quit gloating. That's how scientists should work

He separated his personal beliefs because he could, he recognized that he had them, and that's crucial to science, critical thinking. The problem with atheism is that it inherently refuses to recognize itself as a belief, framing itself as a 'disbelief' of the alternative- very difficult to separate a belief someone does not recognize as having

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

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post #50

Post by Guy Threepwood »

[Replying to post 45 by rikuoamero]
Here's something that might shock you. Personal tragedies have played no part, none at all, in my theistic or non-theistic outlook. I didn't come to believe in a god because of a tragedy, nor did I stop believing in a god because of a tragedy.
This was a bias on your part, good sir.
to clarify - it was not meant as any personal evaluation of you- just that I do take your point-

**** happens that tests people's faith all the time, some things can seem very difficult to reconcile with a grand plan, but this has always been the case for humanity- I will hazard the guess that we have both had it easier than most people, just by the fact we have the time and means to debate this?

Post Reply