Measuring Design

[Temujin]

For the most part one could simply use commonsense.
You mentioned a computer in your OP....that's pretty obvious it was designed. Or one can look at Mt. Rushmore and understand wind, sand and time didn't create the depictions that are seen in the side of the mountain. Common sense...right?

But at times it could be a bit more complicated than common sense....depends upon the angle from which it is viewed. For example I was once hiking and saw a large stand of pine trees....all which appeared to have been growing where nature dropped the pinecone. As I continued to walk I saw the trees from a different view and noticed they were all in rows....obviously planted. The forest was intelligently planted.

Was there a way to measure the intelligence in the creation of the pine forest? Well, you could count the rows, the spacing of the trees, the order and using common sense determine the forest wasn't natural.

But, humans were mentioned....once gain it depends on the angle....or in this case the magnification. When you peer deep into a human cell the intelligent design pops to life and processes emerge that the evos can only scratch their heads about. Assembly lines of organelle emerge which like the pine trees when viewed from the correct angel clearly show intelligent design. Now, can I measure it? I don't know. Perhaps I could count the steps required for the organelle to accomplish to create a finished item and assign a value to it. Is that what you are looking for Pixie?

The following is a video which depicts one of the activities that occurs in a cell. Pixie, how would evolutionism using random chance and some unidentified form of natural selection produce such sophistication and complexity?

Oh look, another cartoon masquerading as reality. How surprising, from a loony tunes version of biology.

 

[CrowCross]

Oh look, another cartoon masquerading as reality. How surprising, from a loony tunes version of biology.

WOW, you're digging pretty deep to hind behind that....are you saying the process presented doesn't happen?

I'l consider your reply as a swing and a miss.

 

[The Pixie]

For the most part one could simply use commonsense.
You mentioned a computer in your OP....that's pretty obvious it was designed.

But how do you measure that?

Do you understand the difference between saying man is tall, and measuring how tall he is?

Or one can look at Mt. Rushmore and understand wind, sand and time didn't create the depictions that are seen in the side of the mountain. Common sense...right?

But not measuring. Did you see the thread title?

But at times it could be a bit more complicated than common sense....depends upon the angle from which it is viewed. For example I was once hiking and saw a large stand of pine trees....all which appeared to have been growing where nature dropped the pinecone. As I continued to walk I saw the trees from a different view and noticed they were all in rows....obviously planted. The forest was intelligently planted.

Great story. But nothing about measuring design.

Was there a way to measure the intelligence in the creation of the pine forest? Well, you could count the rows, the spacing of the trees, the order and using common sense determine the forest wasn't natural.

At last. So how do we apply that to bridges and humans?

But, humans were mentioned....once gain it depends on the angle....or in this case the magnification. When you peer deep into a human cell the intelligent design pops to life and processes emerge that the evos can only scratch their heads about. Assembly lines of organelle emerge which like the pine trees when viewed from the correct angel clearly show intelligent design. Now, can I measure it? I don't know. Perhaps I could count the steps required for the organelle to accomplish to create a finished item and assign a value to it. Is that what you are looking for Pixie?

And so how are you measuring that? Are you still counting the rows, the spacing, the ordering? Or is this just an arbitrary declaration with no measuring at all?

Spoiler alert: Its an arbitrary declaration with no measuring at all.

The following is a video which depicts one of the activities that occurs in a cell. Pixie, how would evolutionism using random chance and some unidentified form of natural selection produce such sophistication and complexity?

I get it. You want to derail the thread - this does look pretty embarrassing for IDists - so you trot out the usual suspects. I am not falling for it. This thread is about how to measure design in a bridge and a human. Again, look at the thread title. Every time you post and fail to address that you are tacitly admitting defeat for ID.

 

[CrowCross]

But how do you measure that?

Do you understand the difference between saying man is tall, and measuring how tall he is?


But not measuring. Did you see the thread title?


Great story. But nothing about measuring design.


At last. So how do we apply that to bridges and humans?


And so how are you measuring that? Are you still counting the rows, the spacing, the ordering? Or is this just an arbitrary declaration with no measuring at all?

Spoiler alert: Its an arbitrary declaration with no measuring at all.


I get it. You want to derail the thread - this does look pretty embarrassing for IDists - so you trot out the usual suspects. I am not falling for it. This thread is about how to measure design in a bridge and a human. Again, look at the thread title. Every time you post and fail to address that you are tacitly admitting defeat for ID.

never mind...you've demonstrated you lack the common sense to understand.

 

[The Pixie]

never mind...you've demonstrated you lack the common sense to understand.

No, CrowCross, I have demonstrated that IDists lacks the ability to measure design, despite claiming they can.

But thanks for playing. I could not have done it without you and MrID.

 

[CrowCross]

No, CrowCross, I have demonstrated that IDists lacks the ability to measure design, despite claiming they can.

But thanks for playing. I could not have done it without you and MrID.

heh, now here I thought I gave you a few suggestions. Didn't you like them?

 

[The Pixie]

heh, now here I thought I gave you a few suggestions. Didn't you like them?

None of them allow someone to measure design in a bridge and in a human. They were all arbitrary; they depended on what you were measuring it in.

One method for Mount Rushmore - and that was not actually specified, and you admitted it depended on the direction you were looking from. Another method for humans - again not actually specified, and depending on magnification.

It was pretty clear you have no way to actually measure design, merely the opinion that it is designed.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Another poster made the claim that design can be measured.


I would be interested to hear how that works in practice.

I mean what is being measured here? The probability or our confidence something was designed? So I would measure my computer at 100%? Or something else maybe?

Complexity alone is not enough to infer design. Something else is required and that something is specification. Anytime you find either one of these two standing alone there is no clear inference to design by an ID. But since our specified information that has both complexity and specificity, then this has to be inferred to a mind and why the information in DNA is called complex specified information (CSI).

 

[Cisco Qid]

Complexity alone is not enough to infer design. Something else is required and that something is specification. Anytime you find either one of these two standing alone there is no clear inference to design by an ID. But since our specified information that has both complexity and specificity, then this has to be inferred to a mind and why the information in DNA is called complex specified information (CSI).

As measured by bits.

 

[rossum]

Complexity alone is not enough to infer design. Something else is required and that something is specification. Anytime you find either one of these two standing alone there is no clear inference to design by an ID. But since our specified information that has both complexity and specificity, then this has to be inferred to a mind and why the information in DNA is called complex specified information (CSI).

As measured by bits.

Measuring by bits is not a problem. The issue I see is the specification. Dr. Dembski was clear that the specification has to come before the design, otherwise you are into a Texas sharpshooter who paints the target (specification) round where the bullet hit. Dembski required a valid specification, not an invalid one; those he called 'fabrications'.

To be a valid specification, it has to be a prior specification. The target has to be in place before you pull the trigger.

I have not yet seen a valid prior specification from the ID side.

 

[The Pixie]

Complexity alone is not enough to infer design. Something else is required and that something is specification. Anytime you find either one of these two standing alone there is no clear inference to design by an ID. But since our specified information that has both complexity and specificity, then this has to be inferred to a mind and why the information in DNA is called complex specified information (CSI).

As measured by bits.

Does that actually mean anything, or is it just a bunch of words that have the appearance of science, but lacks any real substance?

Can you give us an example (in a link?) of someone actually measuring the bits?

My pen is designed, how would I would out the number of bits in its specification? How is that different to - independent of - how the complexity is measured?

 

[Cisco Qid]

Dumb luck advocates are not familiar with blueprints.

Today I saw a cornfield. In it's eloquent design, all of the stalks grew tassels when they were at a certain height. The corn was just so tall and stopped growing taller. As the ears formed, they went to a premeasured size and stopped growing. As they filled, after a measure of time, the plants died when the corn was ripe. The corn actually also has measurement systems designed into the corn genetics.
It is actually called 90 day Hybrid Seed Corn. It measures time.

(kinda like a mother gets pregnant and the baby has a due date)

From germination till harvest, the stages measure time.
I suggest you try to invent a plant that creates a seed with measured instructions.

Amazing how God inserted measurement systems into the genetics.

When the corn was ripe, the plant was instructed to die. Built in instructions. Plants were following instructions before Darwinism was invented. As a bonus, the smart designed corn performs photosynthesis.

Poems are made by fools like me but only....

Does that actually mean anything, or is it just a bunch of words that have the appearance of science, but lacks any real substance?

Can you give us an example (in a link?) of someone actually measuring the bits?

My pen is designed, how would I would out the number of bits in its specification? How is that different to - independent of - how the complexity is measured?

Please repeat with more clarity.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Does that actually mean anything, or is it just a bunch of words that have the appearance of science, but lacks any real substance?

Can you give us an example (in a link?) of someone actually measuring the bits?

My pen is designed, how would I would out the number of bits in its specification? How is that different to - independent of - how the complexity is measured?

By the amount of bits.

 

[The Pixie]

Poems are made by fools like me but only....

Please repeat with more clarity.

Show us how it is "measured by bits" with an actual example.

An example other than DNA, that is. We need to see whether it works for a simple example, such as a pen, before we turn our attention to the contentious issue of living organisms. Otherwise, I will assume it is the usual ID mumbo-jumbo - something that sounds sciency without any actual content.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Show us how it is "measured by bits" with an actual example.

An example other than DNA, that is. We need to see whether it works for a simple example, such as a pen, before we turn our attention to the contentious issue of living organisms. Otherwise, I will assume it is the usual ID mumbo-jumbo - something that sounds sciency without any actual content.

Will math work?

 

[The Pixie]

Will math work?

I am guessing no. You have replied to me three times, and we are no closing to seeing an example of determining specification by measuring the bits than we were when I first asked for it.

But go for it, if you can. Show me what you have.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

How much would you pay to listen in on a conversation among computer scientist David Gelernter, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, and mathematician David Berlinski, hosted by Peter Robinson from…

www.discovery.org

 

[The Pixie]

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

How much would you pay to listen in on a conversation among computer scientist David Gelernter, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, and mathematician David Berlinski, hosted by Peter Robinson from…

www.discovery.org

So still no worked example.

As I guessed, the maths just does not work.

 

[Cisco Qid]

So still no worked example.

As I guessed, the maths just does not work.

Be my quest.

 

[Cisco Qid]

I am guessing no. You have replied to me three times, and we are no closing to seeing an example of determining specification by measuring the bits than we were when I first asked for it.

But go for it, if you can. Show me what you have.

The cell is an unbelievable mechanism