That's my cue:
Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Yes it is 2/pi, but you can take that and divide it into one and multiply by two and bingo you have pi. Which you said is not complex. You have a contradiction.
Probability of deterministic mechanisms yielding complexity = 0.00.
Probablity of random mechanisms yielding complexity = 1.00.
That's my cue:
Alert:
But I do have a few comments for the record on what is the “cut” between creationism and intelligent design. They are most certainly not the same thing at all – and attempts to paint the ID supporters with the creationist brush reflects poorly on those who do so, much like attempts to paint evolutionists with the Nazi brush reflects poorly on those who do so. Both arguments seem to crop up when the correspondent has run out of “ammunition” and has to throw “spit wads” to stay in the game.
But back to the point of my reply…
Creationism generally refers to a Christian interpretation of Scriptures which says that Adam was the first man (mortal or ensouled) based on a strict reading of Romans 5:12-14 and I Corinthians 15:42-48. By genealogy, Adam had to be created 6000 years ago. A group of Jewish mystics also agree that Adam had to be created 6000 years ago.
Naturally, there are differences in specific doctrine – but the narrowing in on Genesis 1 is a misdirection when speaking to Christians. It is a doctrinal issue which can only be addressed by theological argument.
The creationist group breaks down into several sub-groups:
Another side believes that God created an “old” looking universe, 6000 years ago. There is no scientific argument against this group at all – because there can be no scientific argument that God did not create ‘all that there is’ last Thursday. It is theological and everyone knows it.
Another side believes that Adam was specially created and zapped into an old universe, 6000 years ago. Again, there is no scientific argument against this group.
Another group – a mid ground between creationism and evolution – is the interpretation that Adam was the first ensouled man. This is the Catholic doctrine and again, there is no scientific argument against this group.
Still another group (my group) – says that God was the only observer of creation week and thus those 6 days must be viewed from inception space/time coordinates (inflationary theory and relativity). Using that formula, 6 days at the inception coordinates equals approximately 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates, Genesis 1-3 apply to heaven and earth and Adams’ time begins when he is banished to mortality in Genesis 4 (6000 years ago).
Collective consciousness is Eastern metaphysics and very popular among a number of scientists outside the United States. Again, this is not far afield of research in swarm intelligence, the behavior of ants, bees and the ilk.
God, of course, is the most logical candidate for designer among most Western civilizations whether Judeo/Christian, Islamic or myriad other religions.
The chief objection to the theory is that “randomness” cannot be the prime factor in the formulation: random mutations – natural selection > species.
In the naturalistic, determinist view (and theological, predestination view) – every effect has a prior cause – and therefore - even under strict scientific materialism - there is no such thing as randomness per se - only pseudo-randomness. Chaitin's Omega, for instance, is the effect of a cause. Brownian motion is caused, etc.
This is fairly basic stuff these days – that is why the mathematicians have turned to “self organizing complexity” to explain master control genes and the ilk which allow such functions as eyeness to evolve concurrently across phyla, i.e. it is not “random”.
For all the objections to Intelligent Design and the tossing of spit wads – the mathematicians and physicists are already engaged and working on the very things which are necessary to give a complete picture of origin of species: information (successful communications), autonomy, semiosis, complexity, intelligence.
IMHO, it doesn't matter whether the work is done because of Intelligent Design objections or despite them - in the end, the randomness pillar will be pitched and we will be looking for non-corporeal causation for the "will to live", "fecundity principle", "evolution of one" - or whatever one wishes to call it.
Do not ping me again.
Wrong, there's no contradiction. You are exhibiting a typical misunderstanding of complexity. Complexity applies to strings, not to constants.
2/Pi is the probability of getting a crossing. It need not be complex anymore than the probability of getting heads or tails is complex. It's just a number.
The sequence of crossings (or non-crossings) in a large number of throws may be complex. Any deterministic description of such a sequence (such as alternating crosses and misses) is non-complex. Only a randomly generated sequence can yield complexity.
No. I used your definitions. You stated random mechanisms always yield complexity. A random mechanism yielded pi which you said was not complex.
The sequence of crossings (or non-crossings) in a large number of throws may be complex.
That "probability" does not equal one then.
Only a randomly generated sequence can yield complexity.
How many times do I have to flip a coin..... Oh never mind the "probability" is still not one.
Where did the (3rd)third human on earth come from.?.
it-came-from-above placemarker
That sentence looks so utterly silly to any normal human being. One might wonder why it should look any less so if you eliminate the latter two options... Better yet, let's expand them:
The designer could be God, collective consciousness, aliens, a host of avatars, flying turtle droppings from beyond, a dragon cleaved in two, the tooth fairy, little green leprechauns from Uranus, the Dao of Qi, a giant's decaying corpse, the tears of the ether, divinely curdled salt, the demiurge, interdimensional summoning, or a celestial sneeze.
I thought they were flying monkeys...
And you will drown for eternity in a festering boil on the buttocks of the Prince of Hell for that one!
Flying monkeys would be aliens, and we already covered "aliens".. Little green leprechauns are not aliens; they are supernatural faeries from the enchanted wood of Uranus.
That sentence looks so utterly silly to any normal human being.
I'm always amazed when the ID-as-trojan-horse-for-creationism folks (which is almost all of them) expect anyone to actually fall for that line.
It's so patently transparent that I can't imagine why they think it helps their cause. It just drives me up the wall, really, when I see it, because it's such a phony pretense. If someone wants to seriously discuss creationism with me then I often will, as I've done a number of times before. But, when they bring up this BS "oh, um, it coulda been aliens, ya know?" my only reaction is "yeah, whatthef***ever!"
And, if we really want to discuss alien intelligent design, then by all means let's discuss that. I'll start things off:
Where are the aliens, if they are designing the course of terrestrial biology?
If the aliens have been here, why do we see no evidence of alien visitation?
If aliens are directing biological phenomena from interstellar distances, by what process are they doing so?
Where did the aliens originate? Did they evolve, or were they designed by yet more advanced aliens? Where did the initial designer aliens originate?
If the aliens did evolve, then why could we not have evolved just the same as the aliens did?
If the aliens did not evolve, and the initial designer aliens did not evolve, then did God create them?
Oopps! Never mind! We weren't talking about God! Aliens designed us..
Strangely, they always balk when I suggest time travelling humans.
And is it turtles all the way down, then?
I wouldn't know why. Whenever I see those artists' depictions which purport to be of the "alien visitors" that people have spotted running around abducting people and molesting cows and so forth, my reaction is always, "you know, that looks too damned *human*-like to be an actual alien."
There's absolutely no reason to expect aliens from [wherever] to be anywhere near that humanoid (hell, they're more humanlike than chimps or gorillas, and we're *really* close to them genetically), as opposed to more closely resembling any of the other several million species on Earth (e.g. lobsters, moose, begonias), or even something totally unlike any Earth-like life form.
So if these "visitors" actually exist, their shape strongly suggests that they're actually modified humans instead of "aliens", and their advanced technology would indicate they're from the future. QED.
...either that, or the folks making up (or hallucinating) these "visits" have poor imaginations and can't come up with anything better than a tweaked human form.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.