Re: All Creationists are Evil Liars

On 4 Sep, 02:00, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sep 3, 1:28 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



As nobody including you has ever carried out such an analysis (i.e. a
**STATISTICAL** analysis of shape to determine artificiality), how on
earth can you claim this?

That's not true Richard. Even you have carried out an analysis of the
various forms of naturally produced granite forms that allows you to
understand, with a very high degree of STATISTICAL certainty that a
highly symmetrical polished granite cube is very unlikely to be the
result of any non-deliberate non-artifactual process of nature.

So now you are claiming that you can calculate statistical
probabilities without numbers.

I did you numbers Richard. As I've explained to you many times now, I
can eyeball a rock to at least a useful degree of measure -
centimeters or inches (depending on the size of the rock).

So you can tell roughly how big a lump of rock is by looking at it.
What the hell has that to do with determining if it's an artifact?

And, so
can you.

Quite. What I don't do, however, is to claim that these eyeball
measurements tell me anything about the artificiality of the object
I'm looking at.

You do.

You don't have to right down all of these observations
either before you can recognize a developing trend with regard to
symmetry in the material of granite.

As one would need many accurate measurements to define the shape of an
object, I fail to see how one could do any meaningful statistical
analysis *without* both measuring the objects and recording the
results.

The trend is actually based on
roughly estimated measurements that you have averaged in your head.

So now you are trying to tell us that a few rough estimates of size
alone are enough to tell us if an object is an artifact.

That is how you know that a very high degree of symmetry, like that
shown by a polished granite cube with a variance of less than 0.01%,
is not remotely approached by any non-deliberate force of nature.

It is in crystals. Or had you forgotten that?

More to the point, this explanatory filter of yours rules out
virtually every manufactured object man has ever made, even reference
cubes of granite made as accurately as possible.

You
know this because no naturally produced granite form has even come
close to your ability to recognize it as non-symmetrical to the rough
degree that you are able to eyeball symmetry.

There are many pebbles which do. But then you exclude any object which
proves you wrong, don't you?


Again, you argue that this is not what anyone would call "statistical
analysis".

No statistician, or anyone with even a passing familiarity with
statistic would call it that.

But, it actually is. If you had absolutely no idea how to
eyeball anything to any degree of certainty or measurement, you
wouldn't be able to instantly recognize a highly symmetrical polished
granite cube as artifactual.

You mean in the way people have recognised large pyrite crystals as
artifacts?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with statistics. It's about shape
recognition, something humans are rather good at.

You'd have to go around actually
measuring everything before you could detect artifact.

You have to examine objects closely and test hypotheses of manufacture
before you can identify an unfamilar object as an artifact.
Measurement has little to do with it.

For close call
cases you might have to do this. You don't have to do this when the
degree of certainty is so extreme that you can instantly tell just by
looking at the object or phenomenon.



Oh, please!
So you memorize all the numbers (which numbers, by the way?) from all
those objects (1000 objects, as I recall) which define it's shape in
great detail (for otherwise how would you be able to measure the high
degrees of accuracy you witter on about), and then perform statistical
calculations on them, and all in your head.

In a word, bullshit.
If you would like me to expand on that, complete and utter bullshit
which wouldn't fool a five-year old of moderate intelligence.


RF

< snip rest >

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages