Re: Running epicycles around Sean Pitman and ID-ONLY


"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1146859931.989027.123860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

john.19071969@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

http://phototravels.net/japan/pcd2633/garden-rock-79.html
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/01-20/patterns.html

We know in advance that the first is man-made while the second is
naturally occurring.

Actually, you simply can't tell by the picture that the first was
definitely man-made. Lots of non-deliberate processes can produce
similar-looking patterns in all kinds of materials. The same thing is
true of the second case. Lots of non-deliberate processes can produce
very symmetrical patterns in many different materials. That is why you
have to know quite a bit about the material you are working with before
you can adequately detect that deliberate design had to have been
involved.

Indeed, it is by knowing how the manufactured object was manufactured
can you identify it as such.

Not true. You can know how to manufacture an amorphous granite rock or
a natural-looking garden, neither of which can be readily distinguished
from the products of truly non-deliberate processes. Yet, this
knowledge of how to manufacture such things does not help you determine
that they were deliberately designed over the possibility of
non-deliberate creation.

Your head *must* be about to explode. When we look at something
manufactured and suspect design, we go to the manufacturer and ask
to be shown how it was designed. We're not talking about things that
don't appear to be designed.

You see, if non-deliberate processes could produce what you know can be
produced by deliberate manufacture, you couldn't tell the difference
even if you knew about the potential of deliberate manufacture.
Therefore, the knowledge that something can be deliberately
manufactured is not enough to detect that design was in fact involved.

Perhaps. But the knowledge of how something was deliberately designed
is a definite clue.

But without knowledge that humans exist and
create the patterns in the first link I would have no way to
differentiate the two.

Even with a knowledge that humans exist, you wouldn't have a way to
differentiate the two until you knew something about the limits of what
non-deliberate processes can produce. What if humans couldn't really do
much more than any randomly acting non-deliberate process? How would
you tell the difference? It is the fact that human creativity and
creative powers can and do go far beyond the very predictable limits of
what non-deliberate processes can do.

What a load of nonsense! Most objects in nature are not reproduceable
by humans.

That doesn't mean that everything that you see in nature couldn't be
reproduced by humans given more knowledge and creative power. This is
not true of non-deliberate processes. Such processes show very clear
and predictable limits,

So you keep saying. Might we have some evidence for this? Or a
definition? Or a procedure for measuring?

regardless of how long you observe them, when
it comes to their ability to create certain features in certain
materials. They simply don't improve their creative abilities over
time. They don't gain knowledge or creativity with added time or
experience.

More undefined terms.


In other words, the actions of an intelligent
designer are "obvious" to you only because you insist on viewing them
in the context of a known designer and other objects that designer has
produced.

Not true. I only insist on viewing them in the context that ID can do
anything, while non-ID has very predictable limits.

First of all, the statement is just plain false. ID which is to say
"design," as in conceiving a plan or idea, simply does not do
anything at all. You can have all the ideas in your head that
you want, but that does not mean you can execute them
into physical objects.

Yes, but without the ability to plan intelligently, the resulting
"activity" of a non-planned action has very clear limits in creative
ability.

So you keep saying, but you obviously haven't studied genetic
algorithms.

I'm not saying designing is the only thing that goes on. I'm
saying that without the ability to deliberately design, there's going
to be significant limitations to action.

So you keep saying. How about some rigorous demonstration?


Now, Sean Pitman's ID which is to say "Design" as in "Providence" is
simply a euph for God. So, of course, God is supposed to be able to do
anything.

I think your understanding of the limits of even human creative
potential are far far too naïve.

Sean of course, won't admit that is what is doing,
so he has invented a magic ID that he thinks can
do anything. Say something is not doable by ID, and
Sean will simply say "I can conceive it, therefore it is".
(Very old world, not very bright).

What a load of BS. It is a common saying of you guys that "ID explains
everything." I agree. ID can indeed explain everything.

Ooops! Game over. If IDiocy can explain everything, then it explains
nothing.

Your notion that ID is actually limited is quite naïve.

Who says this? IDiocy is as powerful as God. That's why it's theology.


< snip >

Suppose we start with a polished granite
block, and leave it out in the weather
for thousands of years. As the rock
weathers, it will increasingly resemble a
naturally formed block.

Hmmmm . . . I wonder why it never goes the other way?

Where do we draw the line? If we find blocks on
Mars, we will, without having knowledge
that there are Martians, and Martian
tools, not make the leap to "Mars artifact".

If the Mars landrover came across a 50 x 50 x 50 meter highly
symmetrical polished granite cube with identical geometric etchings
scratched in opposing faces of the cube, are you seriously telling me
that this would not hit the front page of science journals and news
papers all over the world? Come on now, it would be instantly hailed
as clear evidence of ET.

Why don't we just wait for this to happen before you rely on it as evidence
for IDiocy?


You've got a serious problem with denial if you hope to argue
otherwise.


If the granite is fresh, then we
might look to human fraud being at work,
because we know that humans will fake artifacts
for financial and other gain.

How is human fraud going to get a 50 x 50 x 50 meter granite cube to
Mars? - and convince all the scientists working with the landrover that
it is in fact a real granite cube? What do you think SETI scientists
are looking for? Certainly nothing more striking than this?!

FYI. Nobody knows how to actually
make the granite that the rock is
made of.

Again, are you arguing that the formation of granite is indeed beyond
the possibilities of deliberate creation? Really? Do you actually
believe that if humans really bent their collective minds and creative
powers to the challenge that granite production would always remain
beyond human capabilities?

This used to be said about producing gold from lead. However, we've
now figured out how to do it. Sure, it isn't very cost effective, but
humans can actually great gold from another material.

You think too small my friend. You are way too limited in your
comprehension of the potential of even human creative abilities.

As I mentioned in my previous post (in a portion you seem to have
snipped away for some reason without addressing) you seem to be of the
impression that natural phenomena are a subset of artificial
phenomena.

They are . . .

No. You have it backwards. As far as
we know, there is a countable set
of human manufactured artifacts. The
nonmanufactured is a vastly larger set.

The numerical size of the set doesn't matter. It is the degree of
variability within the set that matters here.

Ah, the degree of variability. Do you have a mathematical definition
for this?

As far as granite forms
go, the forms that can be produced by non-deliberate processes are
indeed a subset of the types of forms that can be produced by
deliberate processes.

Another assertion without rigor.


As to rings of mushrooms, those were
supposed to have been created by
Faeries, a deadly serious thing to the
superstitious people of ancient times. I
think you would have been quite at
home in their world of thought.

You cannot adequately determine if deliberate design was actually
required to produce a given phenomenon without extensive investigation
of that phenomenon and how it relates with non-deliberate processes.
Investigation and extensive study are key aspects of the ID Only
Theory.

Then how come you won't show us any?


Don't think that anyone can just look at a picture of something and
determine that design had to have been involved. That's simply not
true. Even you can't tell if something required design without first
knowing the limits of non-deliberate processes with regard to that
material. Of course, this is a subconscious activity in your case, but
this is in fact what you are doing when you determine that something
was designed.

Look, I know it all seems so obvious to you. But it's also obvious that
the sun moves around in the sky as the earth stands still. It's just wrong.
You need to do that boring stuff of defining things clearly. A little math
would go a long way.

Deadrat


-John Stockwell

Sean Pitman



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Running epicycles around Sean Pitman and ID-ONLY
    ... Lots of non-deliberate processes can produce ... non-deliberate creation. ... manufactured is not enough to detect that design was in fact involved. ... Even with a knowledge that humans exist, you wouldn't have a way to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: TomS didnt read the article very closely and Dr Rana argues from ignorance of ID theory
    ... >>"Creation Scientist Challenges Intelligent Design ... > of the origin of life which they call a "Creation Model." ... have noted that Dr. Rana is the "director for science apologetics" (how many ... Some theories, however, sometimes make predictions ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creationist Theory
    ... > So CT predicts that the evidence will turn out to confirm its ... > attributes/intelligent design. ... Prediction confirmed. ... > complexity (evolution: proof of creation!). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Ken Shackleton
    ... other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design. ... bias and possibly deliberate design. ... The very same thing is true of a polished granite cube. ... arisen via purely non-deliberate processes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray misunderstands the difference between "direct" evidence of an event and its "empirical conse
    ... Design signatures are an "empirical consequence" of supernatural ... "ORIGINS RESEARCH LACKS DIRECT EVIDENCE ... Special Creation NOT a direct measurement of the event." ... If we observe the empirical consequences of some unobserved event does ...
    (talk.origins)