tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8173872411845546415..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Another Example of IDiot ReasoningLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62359779968123744422014-03-21T20:28:15.552-04:002014-03-21T20:28:15.552-04:00Sorry, but in the end it just isn't gonna matt...Sorry, but in the end it just isn't gonna matter.<br /><br />There is a reason why half the people in the US alone wont accept evolution--and most of those numbers are not because they are creationists who think the universe is not old.<br /><br />Its because they clearly see design in every aspect of the universe. Its because they know they have freewill and its not a self refuting illusion. They know love is real and not just an equation on paper. They know there are objective morals even though the atheists--who are a minuscule percent of all the humans that have ever lived, hence are technically abnormal--who are socially awkward--many even sociopaths, serial killers, skinheads, heroin addicts, pron moguls, and homicidal dictators ...oh and yes..and those who entered the fields of Origins to prove their worldview and found the world doesn't just "appear" designed, the math now shows our universe is probabilistically impossible and even with that--these atheist reject their own data and make up a Magical Everything Maker Machine to explain away what they found.<br /><br />And they know God exists because they have Not blocked his goodness out their minds and become blind to him--seeing no purpose in life.<br /><br />Soooo, NO.....the atheist scientists who entered these fields have revealed themselves through their books and articles spewing out their bad philosophy and now no one trusts what they say. Heck, polls show people wouldn't even trust an atheist to watch their cat for goodness sake, much less answers regarding creation. These guys got what they deserved. They aimed too high and they missed...huge... and even though there is certainly many truths in the development of Darwin's theory--its is grossly deficient and assumes too much, If we want students to accept the raw data--the atheists have to go or shut up about their lame sophomoric philosophyJohn Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62090175446549781272013-11-23T00:37:48.728-05:002013-11-23T00:37:48.728-05:00John wrote: "Besides, the atheist would be su...John wrote: "Besides, the atheist would be surprised, as the number of firing squads in the sample would be small enough that the probability of being missed in at least one of that sample would also be small. Yep, Andy doesn't understand the anthropic principle."<br /><br />John, see my explanation to Rumraket above.<br /><br />John wrote: "By the way, the probability that something surprising will happen to you today is much greater than the probability that any particular surprising thing will happen"<br />At least you got that part right, I spent several days trying to explain that to Rumraket in a previous post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54385699421599066022013-11-23T00:15:33.248-05:002013-11-23T00:15:33.248-05:00Rumraket writes: " In your example we know be...Rumraket writes: " In your example we know beforehand that the firing squad are all, presumably, aiming for a specific target. We don't know that this is the case with universes and life."<br />The analogy does not lie there. The AP simply means that conditions observed in the universe must be such that they allow the observer to exist. In my example the conditions of the firing squad were such that the unsurprised atheist could exist and observe it. If those conditions were that all in the squad were blind or firing blanks is not explained nor does whoever applies the logic care. The AP is usually invoked when a good theory is missing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46891326367408962932013-11-22T23:04:03.200-05:002013-11-22T23:04:03.200-05:00As an example of the logic in the anthropic princi...As an example of the logic in the anthropic principle I wrote: "An atheist faced with a firing squad that after the gun smoke settles find that he is still alive and unharmed would not be the least surprised, after all that is the only result that he would be able to observe." <br />My point being the same as what I wrote to John earlier that the anthropic principle is a truism, i.e. the conclusion is identical to the premise, and therefore a meaningless statement.<br /><br />To which Rumraket responded: "This analogy commits the fallacy of begging the question."<br /><br />Well, Rumraket for once we agree...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50947247888617036102013-11-22T08:11:15.585-05:002013-11-22T08:11:15.585-05:00@MRR
It's interesting that many of us saw the...@MRR<br /><br />It's interesting that many of us saw the typo and just ignored it. Andy saw it and immediately assumed that you don't know how to spell "anthropic."<br /><br />Is he really that stupid? I'm beginning to think so.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35161681192351077622013-11-22T04:39:20.416-05:002013-11-22T04:39:20.416-05:00P.S. I noticed that you misspelled the anthropic p...<b>P.S. I noticed that you misspelled the anthropic principle, which you assert that you understand.</b><br />That's great Andy, actually I just mistyped because apparently I didn't hit "n". Clearly we now have grounds to believe I don't understand the anthropic principle. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9496031589594216502013-11-22T04:17:26.292-05:002013-11-22T04:17:26.292-05:00An atheist faced with a firing squad that after th...<b>An atheist faced with a firing squad that after the gun smoke settles find that he is still alive and unharmed would not be the least surprised, after all that is the only result that he would be able to observe.</b><br />This analogy commits the fallacy of begging the question. In your example we know beforehand that the firing squad are all, presumably, aiming for a specific target. <br /><br />We don't know that this is the case with universes and life. <br /><br />Back to the drawing board Andy. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16868999191321321802013-11-21T21:08:37.636-05:002013-11-21T21:08:37.636-05:00Besides, the atheist would be surprised, as the nu...Besides, the atheist would be surprised, as the number of firing squads in the sample would be small enough that the probability of being missed in at least one of that sample would also be small. Yep, Andy doesn't understand the anthropic principle. Or probability. By the way, the probability that something surprising will happen to you today is much greater than the probability that any particular surprising thing will happen. You really need to think about what the distribution from which results are drawn may be when you're computing those probabilities.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18266060437274834852013-11-21T19:37:19.210-05:002013-11-21T19:37:19.210-05:00It was a tit-for-tat response to Larry. He was the...It was a tit-for-tat response to Larry. He was the first one to bring theism into the discussion by saying: "I think it's almost impossible for theists to understand the anthropic principle."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8649119581001841492013-11-21T17:51:09.462-05:002013-11-21T17:51:09.462-05:00"Atheists" this, "atheists" th..."Atheists" this, "atheists" that... and then they claim the argument is all about "design", not about a deity magically creating things.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38349420980188572722013-11-21T16:39:05.002-05:002013-11-21T16:39:05.002-05:00An atheist faced with a firing squad that after th...An atheist faced with a firing squad that after the gun smoke settles find that he is still alive and unharmed would not be the least surprised, after all that is the only result that he would be able to observe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67890907157647057152013-11-21T16:25:26.126-05:002013-11-21T16:25:26.126-05:00Larry wrote: "the idea that we might be the r...Larry wrote: "the idea that we might be the result of a lucky but highly improbable naturalistic event."<br />I'm starting to think that it is impossible for atheists to understand probabilities...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22460919172690940072013-11-21T16:20:46.749-05:002013-11-21T16:20:46.749-05:00I think it's almost impossible for theists to ...I think it's almost impossible for theists to understand the anthropic principle. The concept is so completely foreign to their way of thinking that they just can't conceive of the idea that we might be the result of a lucky but highly improbable naturalistic event. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17964604828001315532013-11-21T15:56:17.758-05:002013-11-21T15:56:17.758-05:00Diogenes: The fly theologian, call him William Lan...Diogenes: <i>The fly theologian, call him William Lane Fly</i>.<br /><br />Wasn't it William Crane Fly?<br /><br />A perfect fable, by the way!Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90826731311291448602013-11-21T15:26:08.393-05:002013-11-21T15:26:08.393-05:00DNA of course is an example of information.
I co...DNA of course is an example of information. <br /><br />I could grant that random mutations and natural selection and even neutral genetic drift could increase the information content in the DNA within the limits for the probibalistic reasources. The randomly generated mutations that worked are kept and past on to future generations. In the case of generating the first self replicating unit you don't have the luxury of a prexicting mechanism for information storage, translation and replication. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19493257686464474382013-11-21T15:12:08.032-05:002013-11-21T15:12:08.032-05:00Andy: "Without the input of information"...Andy: "Without the input of information" sounds like equivocation to me. You need to define "information" before I can give examples that don't have any in the initial state.<br /><br />e.g. If I talk about Australopithecus evolving to Homo erecutus you can say, "but Australopithecus had information"; if I talk about gene duplication, you can say "The original gene had information"; if I talk about Rodhocetus evolving to Dorudon (cetacean) you can say "but Rodhocetus had information", etc.<br /><br />So I would ask what's your equation for "information" in the initial state, but I know ID proponents never answer that question. People like Meyer & Dembski are infinitely vague so they can leave themselves escape routes to evade falsification. <br /><br />The refusal to cough up a closed-form equation means that ID claims such as "natural processes cannot create information" are just equivocation.<br /><br /><a href="http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/paper/ev/" rel="nofollow">Schneider's ev program certainly produced functional information from scratch</a>, defined as information that's functional and computed via Shannon's equation for mutual information. Dembski hates it.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85436874755601909962013-11-21T14:42:40.547-05:002013-11-21T14:42:40.547-05:00Diogenes writes: "It's not computable jus...Diogenes writes: "It's not computable just from a structure alone-- probabilities are properties of processes, not structures. No one can compute the probability of any structure existing. We can only compute the probability of processes which could make the structure, and those processes must be well-defined."<br />Well that sounds like a constructive starting point. Could you give an example of a process generating structures with specific complexity without the input of information? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6186279199121164022013-11-21T14:21:35.974-05:002013-11-21T14:21:35.974-05:00Andy says: "I should have said that the order...Andy says: <i>"I should have said that the order of magnitude for the probability was verified by Axe, not the calculation."</i><br /><br />Understood.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88519982092101765432013-11-21T14:20:43.893-05:002013-11-21T14:20:43.893-05:00It's not computable just from a structure alon...It's not computable just from a structure alone-- probabilities are properties of <i>processes, not structures.</i> No one can compute the probability of any structure existing. We can only compute the probability of <i>processes</i> which could make the structure, and those processes must be well-defined.<br /><br />So define the process that is your model for making the first life form. A tornado? Random scramble of all parts? We all agree that's unlikely, but that's your model, not ours. <br /><br />But if you find that unsatisfactory-- perhaps you believe we should compute the probability for each object by assuming its parts were arranged that way by a tornado.<br /><br />OK, now consider Yahweh. Under this assumption, the probability of Yahweh existing = the probability of a tornado randomly assembling a genocidal, sex-terrified Middle Eastern war deity who creates an intelligent species with an irresistible urge to engage in sex acts that he, the deity, finds horribly disgusting and wishes to punish them for, eternally; a species whose male is designed with a built-in foreskin, which for some reason offends the deity, whose first command to them is, "Now snip off the end of your penis"; a species whose female is designed with an anus two inches from her tiny, tiny birth canal, through which she must force an an infant with a skull the size of a cantaloupe, or else the species perishes.<br /><br />I could go on: but the odds of that are pretty small, it seems to me. Perhaps you will now reject using the tornado probability by default.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14073899255710174682013-11-21T14:08:02.175-05:002013-11-21T14:08:02.175-05:00I should have said that the order of magnitude for...I should have said that the order of magnitude for the probability was verified by Axe, not the calculation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13937588494417774112013-11-21T14:05:16.474-05:002013-11-21T14:05:16.474-05:00So Diogenes, what would you say that the chance is...So Diogenes, what would you say that the chance is for a rudimentary self replicating unit coming into existence?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57990467938989404422013-11-21T14:00:06.350-05:002013-11-21T14:00:06.350-05:00Byers says: "Creationists in fact face small ...Byers says: <i>"Creationists in fact face small numbers of "scientists" and our scientists easily hold up well as any revolution in science ever did."</i><br /><br />Byers, creationists make up less than 0.1% of all real scientists, not counting the many fake Ph.Ds on your side.<br /><br />Creationist scientists must be many or they are few. <b>Are creationist scientists many or few?</b> If they are few, there is no controversy. <b>If they are many, where are their achievements, where are their discoveries?</b> <br /><br />They have none for 120 years. I asked Byers to list their discoveries; he listed nothing. He conceded.<br /><br /><b>If there are many creation scientists</b>-- tens of thousands?-- <b>then it is even WORSE for your side</b>, because they are clearly <b>intellectually inferior</b>, ten of thousands who work in science full-time (?) yet have discovered nothing in 120 years.<br /><br /><b>Are creationist scientists many or few? If they are few, there is no controversy. If they are many, where are their achievements? List their discoveries.</b> Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74037348684167543022013-11-21T13:50:57.509-05:002013-11-21T13:50:57.509-05:00Fallacy # 3. Even if we were to ignore the probabi...<b>Fallacy # 3.</b> Even if we were to ignore the probabilities given above, and focus on just the "one true sequence", Hoyle and Wickramasinghe even computed <i>that</i> wrong. They assumed that all 20 types of amino acids have equal probability = 1/20. Every molecular biologist knows that different amino acid types have very different probabilities, e.g. glycine has probability more than 1/20 and tryptophan has probability less than 1/20. The correction for this error is a huge factor. There is a name for this: it is called <b>the Shannon–McMillan–Breiman Theorem.</b> <br /><br />According to Shannon–McMillan–Breiman, the Hoyle-Wickramasinghe <b>bullprob</b> of 1 in 20^L (where L is length of sequence) should be replaced by <b>1 in 2^NH</b>, where N = 20 for 20 amino acid types, and H is the Shannon entropy of protein sequences, which depends on L and on the differing probabilities of each type of amino acid.<br /><br />Hubert Yockey points this out, and <a href="http://darwinsdoubtreviews.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-measure-of-information-in-genetic.html" rel="nofollow">here he does a calculation showing about how big the correction is</a>: for the protein 1-isocytochrome c, which has <b>113 amino acids</b>, the correction is 6.2×10^−36 = 1 over 1.613 x 10^35, that is, <b>1 followed by 35 zeroes.</b> That's one correction for just one protein. <br /><br /><b>Fallacy #3 introduces an error of astronomical size.</b><br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3293560835321711282013-11-21T13:49:15.448-05:002013-11-21T13:49:15.448-05:00Andy says: Fred Hoyle has calculated the probabili...Andy says: <i>Fred Hoyle has calculated the probability for the proteins in a minimally complex cell being generated by chance to 1E40,000, see Hoyle and Wickramasinghe "Evolution from Space". This has later been verified by eg Douglas Axe.</i><br /><br />Yes Andy, all of us here are familiar with Hoyle's and Wickramasinghe's bogus calculation. It's been around for 40 years. This probability calculation is a classic example of several fallacies in statistics. If Doug Axe has "verified" this bullprob, then Doug Axe deserves no respect.<br /><br />Hoyle & Wickramasinghe basically took a typical protein, in which there are ~250 amino acids, and each amino acid could be one of 20 types of amino acids, and they computed the probability of a tornado randomly scrambling amino acids and arriving at that precise sequence. Since they assumed the probability of each amino acid type is 1/20 (for 20 possible types), the probability for one protein is like 1 over 20^250. Then they repeated that for many proteins.<br /><br />Ugh, so many fallacies and errors.<br /><br />Fallacy 1. <b>Lottery winner fallacy.</b> e.g. If the lottery sells 10 million tickets and one person wins, the odds of that person winning are 10 million to one, therefore it could not happen naturally, therefore it was supernatural, so God had to make the winner win. No. To put it in everyday speech: there is more than one way to skin a cat; and to use classical statistics properly, <i>you must sum up the probabilities of all the different ways to skin the cat.</i> <br /><br />In the particular case of proteins, for each biochemical function there are trillions of protein sequences that can perform that function. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe computed the probability only of the lottery winner, that is, "the one true sequence"-- but there isn't one true sequence, there are trillions (and by the way, even if there were, their probability calculation has other, major errors on top of that.) Moreover, for a given biological function (e.g. communication within a cell) there are many biochemical processes that can perform that function (e.g. communication within a cell can be by protease enzymes, or kinase enzymes, etc.) You have to add up the probabilities for all possible biochemical reactions <i>AND</i>, for each of function, add up the probabilities of all possible genetics sequences that code for all possible protein sequences that facilitate or catalyze each biochemical reaction.<br /><br />Needless to say, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe did not get within a trillion miles of that.<br /><br />In technical terms: the odds of Juan Garcia winning the lottery is technically called a "probability density"; the problem is, it is not "probability mass." To correctly use Fisherian inference in classical statistics, you must sum up the probability densities for <i>all conceivable observations that could reasonably support your hypothesis</i>. That summation is a <b>probability mass, not a probability density</b>. In classical statistics, only a probability mass calculation, not probability density, can refute a hypothesis. <br /><br /><b>Fallacy #1 introduces an error of astronomical size.</b><br /><br />Fallacy 2. They assume the probability of evolution = <b>the tornado probability</b>, that is, the probability of forming a biological structure by randomly scrambling all parts. Non-random natural processes, like evolution, <b>are not tornadoes</b>, and the probabilities are astronomically different.<br /><br /><b>Fallacy #2 introduces an error of astronomical size.</b><br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25157142778587861502013-11-21T12:39:33.048-05:002013-11-21T12:39:33.048-05:00Let me put this in a way Andy can understand.
Fly...Let me put this in a way Andy can understand.<br /><br />Fly theologians have long believed that the piece of shit they live on must have been "fine-tuned" by an infinite, fly-like mind to precisely fit the needs of the flies on the shit.<br /><br />The shit itself has just the right nutrients to nourish a fly. What are the odds that a pile of shit should happen to have just the nutrients that a fly could digest? The odds against that are astronomical! Let's not consider the possibility that <i>the flies adapted to the shit</i> via evolution. Oh nooo, that would be ridiculous! Clearly <i>the shit was fine-tuned to match the flies</i>; a "design" that could only have come from an infinite, invisible, yet fly-like mind, all of whose "plans" totally center around flies.<br /><br />The fly theologian, call him William Lane Fly, observes that there are 17 flies on the shit-- the number of flies on the shit is "just right." See, if there were 30 flies on our shit, that would be too many, but if there were 2 flies on our shit that would be too few, and the actual number is 17, which is just right. What are the odds of that happening by blind chance? Clearly, a fly-like mind arranged it so.<br /><br />Another fly theologian, call him Alvin Flytinga, points out that flies can <i>understand</i> shit: they know shit is good to eat. What are the odds of that? There can't be any <i>rational</i> explanation, no <i>scientific</i> explanation is possible, which could ever explain how flies just know shit tastes good.<br /><br />The only explanation must be that be flies were created in the image of an infinite, yet strangely invisible being, which must be fly-like, thus explaining why flies... have the properties of flies. Yeah. Clearly, flies had to be magically given the properties of a thing that itself must have the properties of a fly... except it's invisible, and infinite, and created the shit they live on. What other explanation could there be for flies having the properties of flies? <br /><br />But Richard Flykins objects: is it possible maybe flies <i>evolved</i> to like eating shit, because liking to eat shit is advantageous in producing more flies? <i>Noooo!</i> That's forbidden by uh, "probability."<br /><br />Now another fly theologian, call him Andy Wilberfly, in computing what he calls the "probability resources" of life on shit, insists that we must tot up <i>only</i> the "probability resources" of the <i>particular</i> turd on which he lives. We must not ever, no never, tot up the "probability resources" of the many other turds around (and in the time of the dinosaurs, turds were big indeed.) After all, he was born on <i>this</i> turd, see? It wouldn't be possible for him to be born on another, because he wasn't, so he couln't. Checkmate, Richard Flykins!Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.com