Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Coragyps · 05-15-2002, 10:05 AM

Aren't the numbers 3, 5, 7, 11 ....101, prime only if you're using base 10 anyway? What if the LGM's have fourteen fingers, and don't use either binary or base 10?

NialScorva · 05-15-2002, 10:36 AM

The difference between SETI and ID is quite simple, really. SETI assumes that there's a species of aliens that are enough like humans to attempt to send a signal in a medium that we can recieve with a message we can find. ID assumes there's a message, and tries to discern whether there is a sender communicating the message of "design".

That, quite simply, is why it fails for the same reason bible codes do. Without at least an assumption of a sender and how that sender would attempt to send the message, the reciever is doing nothing more than encoding his own message onto random data. In addition, the way Dembski & Co set themselves up, they cannot make any assumptions about the sender, or they beg the very question that they try to ask.

SETI makes it's assumptions about a sender clear, ID concludes what it has to assume.

[edit for atrocious spelling]

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]</p>

Dr.GH · 05-15-2002, 11:05 AM

Very well stated, NialScorva.

Skydancer · 05-15-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:
<strong>Aren't the numbers 3, 5, 7, 11 ....101, prime only if you're using base 10 anyway? What if the LGM's have fourteen fingers, and don't use either binary or base 10?</strong>

No. Prime numbers are prime independently of the base numbering system in use. Doesn't matter if you call it 5 (base 10), 10 (base 5) or 101 (base 2), you still can't divide it evenly.

Lizard · 05-15-2002, 12:08 PM

Bilboe,

Thanks for posting the URL to Mike Gene's "Utility of ID" piece.

It sounded as if Mike was saying that the gene annotated as having a frame shift mutation really did *not*. His writing style is rather confusing, so I'm not sure.

I saw his explanation of why an ID assumption would be helpful in analyzing IC things, but the questions he would ask seemed to have no answers, or no useful answers. For instance, the question, "Was this thing designed?" If it were possible to say "yes" conclusively, how would that be useful scientifically?

Mike also asks (paraphrasing), "If this thing was designed, then how were its precursors designed?" The question assumes, as I mentioned before, that each preceding form was individually designed, rather than representing evolutionary precursors. I thought Mike Gene didn't deny evolution, so I don't understand the question.

In fact, I don't understand the utility of the whole line of questions he proposes. But then, I also didn't understand Dembski's "14 uses for ID," either.

Maybe someone else has a different take on Mike Gene's "utility" discussion. A biologist might want to look at his discussion about the genetic frame shift and explain what Mike's getting at. I would appreciate it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2002, 10:05 AM	#41
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Aren't the numbers 3, 5, 7, 11 ....101, prime only if you're using base 10 anyway? What if the LGM's have fourteen fingers, and don't use either binary or base 10?

05-15-2002, 10:36 AM	#42
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	The difference between SETI and ID is quite simple, really. SETI assumes that there's a species of aliens that are enough like humans to attempt to send a signal in a medium that we can recieve with a message we can find. ID assumes there's a message, and tries to discern whether there is a sender communicating the message of "design". That, quite simply, is why it fails for the same reason bible codes do. Without at least an assumption of a sender and how that sender would attempt to send the message, the reciever is doing nothing more than encoding his own message onto random data. In addition, the way Dembski & Co set themselves up, they cannot make any assumptions about the sender, or they beg the very question that they try to ask. SETI makes it's assumptions about a sender clear, ID concludes what it has to assume. [edit for atrocious spelling] [ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]</p>

05-15-2002, 11:05 AM	#43
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Very well stated, NialScorva.

05-15-2002, 12:08 PM	#45
Lizard Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 169	Bilboe, Thanks for posting the URL to Mike Gene's "Utility of ID" piece. It sounded as if Mike was saying that the gene annotated as having a frame shift mutation really did not. His writing style is rather confusing, so I'm not sure. I saw his explanation of why an ID assumption would be helpful in analyzing IC things, but the questions he would ask seemed to have no answers, or no useful answers. For instance, the question, "Was this thing designed?" If it were possible to say "yes" conclusively, how would that be useful scientifically? Mike also asks (paraphrasing), "If this thing was designed, then how were its precursors designed?" The question assumes, as I mentioned before, that each preceding form was individually designed, rather than representing evolutionary precursors. I thought Mike Gene didn't deny evolution, so I don't understand the question. In fact, I don't understand the utility of the whole line of questions he proposes. But then, I also didn't understand Dembski's "14 uses for ID," either. Maybe someone else has a different take on Mike Gene's "utility" discussion. A biologist might want to look at his discussion about the genetic frame shift and explain what Mike's getting at. I would appreciate it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.