Brick two in the foundation of ToC
zoe_althrop
arbitrary stop/start commands as well as juxtaposition of parts not
normally found together. By itself, brick one permits a number of
natural items to get past it, therefore it cannot stand by itself.
But in conjunction with a second brick, the standard begins to
solidify.
Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
natural items.
----
zoe
Ronald Stepp
> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
Okay.. do you mean a blueprint on file with the government? What exactly do
you mean when you say blueprint or plan? Is this something people other
than yourself ever have a hope of seeing so they can refite or support your
criterion?
> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
> as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
> stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
> or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
Not until you define blueprint or plan.
> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
> natural items.
Not until you define blueprint or plan.
R. Baldwin
news:3d38dcb9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
Zoe, you should think about abandoning your first brick altogether,
since it qualifies natural objects as created yet disqualifies known
created objects that lack stop/start sequences or unusual
juxtapositions of parts (such as my native plant garden).
Your new criteria shouldn't have the problem of qualifying natural
objects, IF you are intellectually honest about what "indicative of
deliberate, purposeful goal setting" means. This will proove a very
difficult standard to define, however. How would you define the
difference between an actual blueprint that is indicative of
deliberate, purposeful goal setting and a natural blueprint that is
not?
BTW, Criteria 2 does have the problem of disqualifying known created
objects. Not everything created by humans has a blueprint or plan. You
might also find that it disqualifies objects Creationists would rather
see as created, such as star systems and galaxies.
Mike Dunford
news:3d38dcb9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> okay, brick one for measuring creation of human artifacts was
> that of arbitrary stop/start commands as well as juxtaposition
> of parts not normally found together.
Both traits appear to be arbitrary, not common to all objects of
human creation, and nowhere near exclusive to objects known to be
created. Hardly a promising start.
> By itself, brick one
> permits a
massive
> number of natural items to get past it, therefore it
> cannot stand by itself. But in conjunction with a second brick,
> the standard begins to solidify.
>
> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan,
> located somewhere in connection with the created item,
> indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
This has even more problems than the first "brick":
(1) You would be hard pressed to explain how this criteria would
identify, for example, a Jackson Pollock canvas like this one:
(http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/lavender-mist/) as
created. (I do not necessarily dispute the fact that there is a plan
of some sort, but I don't know how you would be able to _detect_
without knowing that it was designed.
(2) It is very easy to construct plans for things retroactively. For
example, geologists can map an area, and determine the order of
events needed to create what we see. That does not necessarily mean
that the _plan_ was required to create that landscape, or that there
was any goal setting involved. I don't see how you expect to be able
to distinguish real necessary blueprints from plans drawn up after
the fact.
(3) Not only does this "brick" potentially identify objects known to
be the result of instinct as created, it makes this error on all of
the examples I pointed out where the first "brick" had that problem.
The reason for this is simple, of course: this criterion does not
actually differ in any substantial respect from the last one.
Anything that has arbitrary starts/stops and/or a juxtaposition of
parts not normally found together will probably also demonstrate some
type of plan.
> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as
> well as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even
> though stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for
> a blueprint or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of
> Old Faithful.
Unfortunately, it still completely fails to distinguish real natural
items from human-constructed natural items, beaver dams from logjams
from primitive human constructions, cave systems from tunnel
complexes, etc.
> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more
> distinct from natural items.
Not really. At most, you have proposed two criteria, each of which
correctly identifies some (but not all) human-created items as
created, while also identifying a number of items produced through
instinctive and other natural processes as created. Your foundation
so far has the approximate solidity of quicksand.
--Mike Dunford
--
You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer
with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God's
mind?
--Freeman Dyson
Mark VandeWettering
It is not surprising that we can think of things that distinguish human
artifacts from natural items. I thought your thesis was to show that
natural things were _similar_ to human artifacts, not that they were
distinct.
I have a feeling that in your next post you are going to claim the
exact opposite of what you claim here: that natural items are in
fact indistinguishable from human made artifacts.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Boikat
kicked apart.
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d38dcb9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> okay, brick one for measuring creation of human artifacts was that of
> arbitrary stop/start commands as well as juxtaposition of parts not
> normally found together. By itself, brick one permits a number of
> natural items to get past it, therefore it cannot stand by itself.
> But in conjunction with a second brick, the standard begins to
> solidify.
>
> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>
Oh, don't tell me: DNA.
> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
> as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
> stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
> or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
>
> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
> natural items.
Cue false analogy...
Boikat
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Bill Felton
> arbitrary stop/start commands as well as juxtaposition of parts not
> normally found together. By itself, brick one permits a number of
> natural items to get past it, therefore it cannot stand by itself.
> But in conjunction with a second brick, the standard begins to
> solidify.
Whoa, hold it right there!
You haven't given us any way to determine whether something is
'arbitrary' or not.
Nor have you defended your absurd claim that naturally occuring
things (like charge differences between clouds and the ground,
between the substrate of the seabed and the ocean above it, etc)
cannot/do not occur naturally, but require "intelligent intervention".
Brick one is still entirely unbaked.
> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
Sigh.
Is the rather delightful set of shapes in the Mandelbrot set a
blueprint or plan? Evidence of the existence of a blueprint
or plan?
How so?
> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
> as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
> stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
> or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
>
> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
> natural items.
Nope, the sole distinguishing factor between 'natural items' and 'human
artifacts' [sic -- these are all natural items!] is the presence of human
agency in the creation of the artifacts and its absence in the 'natural
items'.
BTW, is the English landscape a natural item or a human creation? (2nd
time I've asked...)
Bill
H,R.Gruemm
You've just excluded all paleoanthropological artefacts. Where did we
ever find the blueprint for an Acheulean hand-axe, a Clovis spearpoint
or a Bandkeramik potshard ?
BTW, I have the sneaking suspicion that you will later introduce DNA
sequence as a "plan" for organisms. But in any case it is not
indicative of deliberate,
purposeful goal setting - unless we confuse result with function, and
function with purpose.
Regards,
HRG.
cats...@yahoo.com
(H,R.Gruemm) wrote:
>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in message news:<3d38dcb9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>...
>> okay, brick one for measuring creation of human artifacts was that of
>> arbitrary stop/start commands as well as juxtaposition of parts not
>> normally found together. By itself, brick one permits a number of
>> natural items to get past it, therefore it cannot stand by itself.
>> But in conjunction with a second brick, the standard begins to
>> solidify.
>>
>> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
>> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
>> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>>
>> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
>> as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
>> stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
>> or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
>>
>> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
>> natural items.
>
>You've just excluded all paleoanthropological artefacts. Where did we
>ever find the blueprint for an Acheulean hand-axe, a Clovis spearpoint
>or a Bandkeramik potshard ?
>
>BTW, I have the sneaking suspicion that you will later introduce DNA
>sequence as a "plan" for organisms.
Excuse me if I don't dub you the next Conan Doyle for that one. ;-)
>But in any case it is not
>indicative of deliberate,
>purposeful goal setting - unless we confuse result with function, and
>function with purpose.
Uhh, isn't that the *intent* of creation science and ID? To assume
purpose and work backwards?
>Regards,
>HRG.
>
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Occasionally stating the obvious.
Alan Wright
Once again, a lot of words but no definitions or references to same.
Therefore, no discernible argument, and no theory.
Alan
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d38dcb9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
Ian H Spedding
muz...@aol.com says...
> okay, brick one for measuring creation of human artifacts was that of
> arbitrary stop/start commands as well as juxtaposition of parts not
> normally found together. By itself, brick one permits a number of
> natural items to get past it, therefore it cannot stand by itself.
> But in conjunction with a second brick, the standard begins to
> solidify.
>
> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
Surely, if there "must be detected a blueprint or plan" then many
designed objects will fail the test as the plans or blueprints
have been lost or only ever existed in the mind of the designer.
[...]
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
zoe_althrop
<rst...@sw.rr.com> wrote:
>> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
>> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
>> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>
>Okay.. do you mean a blueprint on file with the government? What exactly do
>you mean when you say blueprint or plan? Is this something people other
>than yourself ever have a hope of seeing so they can refite or support your
>criterion?
a blueprint, in this general context, is a plan, detailed or simple,
for constructing an archetype, from which all other things of the same
kind are made. This plan may be explicit or implicit.
>> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
>> as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
>> stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
>> or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
>
>Not until you define blueprint or plan.
>
>> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
>> natural items.
>
>Not until you define blueprint or plan.
do you accept the above definition?
----
zoe
Greg
>
> > Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> > somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> > deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>
> Sigh.
> Is the rather delightful set of shapes in the Mandelbrot set a
> blueprint or plan?
How about the set of shapes in the Rorshach test? The blueprints
"found" in nature might be the equivalent of an ink blot test.
<SNIP>
>
> Bill
--
Greg
Dear Mom,
I told you if you made me go to camp something terrible would happen.
Well, it did.
Love, Bonnie
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>Zoe, you should think about abandoning your first brick altogether,
I guess I would have to abandon it if it stood by itself. But I
intend to keep it as one of the "must haves" in combination with a
cluster of other criteria. If, for instance, the item under
investigation gives evidence of four of five hallmarks, with one brick
missing, then I am prepared to reject that item as meeting the
standards of creation.
>since it qualifies natural objects as created yet disqualifies known
>created objects that lack stop/start sequences or unusual
>juxtapositions of parts (such as my native plant garden).
okay, I'll consider your native plant garden. If you allowed it to
spring up without direction and cultivation from you, it would not fit
the criteria of a humanly created item. Any evidence of cultivation
on your part should give evidence of stop/start activity (hoeing and
weeding that stops precisely where the plant begins) as well as
juxtaposition of parts such as introduction of fertilizer or compost
around the plants. Admittedly, some items will take a little more
detective work than others, but if sleuthing produces evidence of
arbitrary stop/start activity or sequences, and/or juxtaposition of
material that normally is not found where they are, then the item will
at least fit the demands of brick one.
However, if there is no plan or blueprint detected, whereby others can
also cultivate a similar native plant garden, then your native plant
garden fails the test of human creation, and remains as a natural
item, even though it passes the test of "brick one."
Keep in mind, though, that any fencing of the garden, any contouring
around it, whether it be mowing, cobblestones, etc., will give an
indication of a plan in the owner's mind to preserve this patch of
ground as a native plant garden. The plan might be simple, but it is
one that can be copied by someone else who might also want a simple
but flourishing native plant garden. If you can give specific
instructions to someone else on how to create a native plant garden,
then those instructions qualify as a plan or blueprint.
>Your new criteria shouldn't have the problem of qualifying natural
>objects, IF you are intellectually honest about what "indicative of
>deliberate, purposeful goal setting" means. This will proove a very
>difficult standard to define, however. How would you define the
>difference between an actual blueprint that is indicative of
>deliberate, purposeful goal setting and a natural blueprint that is
>not?
by the accepted and authentic hallmarks of known created items.
>BTW, Criteria 2 does have the problem of disqualifying known created
>objects. Not everything created by humans has a blueprint or plan.
I would agree with you if I were defining blueprint to mean only
something on paper, drawn up in ink in great detail and stored in a
file somewhere. But what I mean by "blueprint" is that, in a general
sense, a plan is detectable, whether detailed or simple, for
constructing an archetype, from which all other things of the same
kind are made.
>You
>might also find that it disqualifies objects Creationists would rather
>see as created, such as star systems and galaxies.
For now, I have disqualified everything outside of the planet Earth.
I am presently interested only in identifying and establishing a
standard for humanly created items on this Earth. Once such a
standard is accepted as fact, I intend to use it as a yardstick to
identify all created items on this planet.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in
>news:3d38dcb9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
>
>> okay, brick one for measuring creation of human artifacts was
>> that of arbitrary stop/start commands as well as juxtaposition
>> of parts not normally found together.
>
>Both traits appear to be arbitrary, not common to all objects of
>human creation, and nowhere near exclusive to objects known to be
>created. Hardly a promising start.
okay. Do you wish to give me an example of a humanly created object
that does not give evidence of stop/start commands or activity, as
well as juxtaposition of parts not normally found together?
And please don't give me something like a piece of bark being used in
the function of a spoon. That does not qualify as a created item.
The bark remains a bark, and it has been pressed into a different
function than that of protecting a tree trunk. The creativity may be
in the mind of the user, but it does not reflect in the piece of bark,
once that bark has been used and then thrown away. But if the piece
of bark has been shaped and sculpted into a spoon shape, then it
becomes a humanly created item with a purpose.
>> By itself, brick one
>> permits a
>
>massive
well, I was given a ledge and Old Faithful so far. Do you have some
others? And remember that your example will now have to meet the
criteria of two bricks, not just one.
>> number of natural items to get past it, therefore it
>> cannot stand by itself. But in conjunction with a second brick,
>> the standard begins to solidify.
>>
>> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan,
>> located somewhere in connection with the created item,
>> indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>
>This has even more problems than the first "brick":
>
>(1) You would be hard pressed to explain how this criteria would
>identify, for example, a Jackson Pollock canvas like this one:
>(http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/lavender-mist/) as
>created.
the location of that painting within the framework of a canvas and its
wooden frame qualifies it to meet the standards of brick one --
stop/start activity and juxtaposition of parts not normally found
together.
the composition itself might mislead, except that because it is found
IN the frame and ON canvas, we know immediately that a plan had to be
behind its creation, even if it is a very loosely constructed plan in
the mind of the painter.
>(I do not necessarily dispute the fact that there is a plan
>of some sort, but I don't know how you would be able to _detect_
>without knowing that it was designed.
you know it was designed by the juxtapostion of parts -- canvas,
frame, location of painting.
>(2) It is very easy to construct plans for things retroactively. For
>example, geologists can map an area, and determine the order of
>events needed to create what we see. That does not necessarily mean
>that the _plan_ was required to create that landscape, or that there
>was any goal setting involved. I don't see how you expect to be able
>to distinguish real necessary blueprints from plans drawn up after
>the fact.
if the entire cluster of five or so criteria is present, then you
should be certain that you are dealing with a created item.
>(3) Not only does this "brick" potentially identify objects known to
>be the result of instinct as created, it makes this error on all of
>the examples I pointed out where the first "brick" had that problem.
>The reason for this is simple, of course: this criterion does not
>actually differ in any substantial respect from the last one.
>Anything that has arbitrary starts/stops and/or a juxtaposition of
>parts not normally found together will probably also demonstrate some
>type of plan.
right. But you're getting ahead of me. All I am interested in doing
at the moment is to define and establish an acceptable standard that
is consistent for all humanly created items. If the standard is
valid, then it should apply to all items that are created.
>> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as
>> well as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even
>> though stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for
>> a blueprint or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of
>> Old Faithful.
>
>Unfortunately, it still completely fails to distinguish real natural
>items from human-constructed natural items, beaver dams from logjams
>from primitive human constructions, cave systems from tunnel
>complexes, etc.
please allow me to first establish the standard with regard to humanly
created items. From there, I would like to move on to distinguish
between any similarly created items in nature and those items that act
according to the basic laws of physics and chemistry.
>> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more
>> distinct from natural items.
>
>Not really. At most, you have proposed two criteria, each of which
>correctly identifies some (but not all) human-created items as
>created,
then please give me another example besides an oil painting (that does
not qualify, as you can see) that you think does not meet the criteria
of bricks one and two.
>while also identifying a number of items produced through
>instinctive and other natural processes as created.
those instinctive and natural processes that happen to fall into the
category of brick one, do not qualify for brick two. And if they do
qualify, they will need to qualify for the entire standard, not just
two bricks. So far, a ledge and Old Faithful do not met the entire
standard of humanly created items -- certainly not brick two. Brick
one is about all they can claim so far.
>Your foundation
>so far has the approximate solidity of quicksand.
sez you. :-P
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
snip>
>It is not surprising that we can think of things that distinguish human
>artifacts from natural items. I thought your thesis was to show that
>natural things were _similar_ to human artifacts, not that they were
>distinct.
I am first proposing to establish an acceptable and valid standard by
which to recognize humanly created items. These human artifacts will
be in distinction to natural items. However, if the established
standard for creativity begins to identify some systems in nature as
created, then it would be reasonable to shift the paradigm and to
accept certain natural items as created, also. These natural items
that show signs of creation will be distinguished in contrast to the
natural laws of nature that dictate the physics and chemistry of the
parts of those systems.
>I have a feeling that in your next post you are going to claim the
>exact opposite of what you claim here: that natural items are in
>fact indistinguishable from human made artifacts.
I expect to find evidence of creation in nature, meeting the standard
of creation by humans, and I also expect to find evidence of natural
laws that point up the distinction between created systems in the
natural world and natural raw materials in the natural world. That
would be the next step in a series of about three or four steps down
the road.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
(H,R.Gruemm) wrote:
snip>
>You've just excluded all paleoanthropological artefacts. Where did we
>ever find the blueprint for an Acheulean hand-axe, a Clovis spearpoint
>or a Bandkeramik potshard ?
if the artifact gives evidence of plan, then there was a plan
somewhere, even if just in someone's head.
>BTW, I have the sneaking suspicion that you will later introduce DNA
>sequence as a "plan" for organisms. But in any case it is not
>indicative of deliberate,
>purposeful goal setting - unless we confuse result with function, and
>function with purpose.
for now, can we stay with the standard for human creation, HRG? Do
you agree that, so far, bricks one and two are consistent for all
humanly created items? If not, do you have examples that undermine
this part of my foundation?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
snip>
HRG wrote:
>>But in any case it is not
>>indicative of deliberate,
>>purposeful goal setting - unless we confuse result with function, and
>>function with purpose.
>
>Uhh, isn't that the *intent* of creation science and ID? To assume
>purpose and work backwards?
we don't have to assume purpose. Purpose is understood to be goal
orientation, and I am accepting only clear-cut cases of goal
orientation. Purpose, once identified and accepted as such, allows
extrapolation back from the observed fact of purpose, to a creator of
that purpose.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
snip>
>Whoa, hold it right there!
>You haven't given us any way to determine whether something is
>'arbitrary' or not.
>Nor have you defended your absurd claim that naturally occuring
>things (like charge differences between clouds and the ground,
>between the substrate of the seabed and the ocean above it, etc)
>cannot/do not occur naturally, but require "intelligent intervention".
I am still at the first two bricks of my foundation for identifying
creation in human artifacts. Can you wait?
>Brick one is still entirely unbaked.
>
>> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
>> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
>> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>
>Sigh.
>Is the rather delightful set of shapes in the Mandelbrot set a
>blueprint or plan? Evidence of the existence of a blueprint
>or plan?
>How so?
there's no sense in commenting on Mandelbrot (as much as I am tempted
to) because I am still working on establishing a valid standard for
identifying created objects in the human realm. I keep being pulled
into discussing items beyond this early start, when I'm not yet ready
to do so.
>> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
>> as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
>> stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
>> or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
>>
>> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
>> natural items.
>
>Nope, the sole distinguishing factor between 'natural items' and 'human
>artifacts' [sic -- these are all natural items!]
why do you consider human artifacts to be natural items?
>is the presence of human
>agency in the creation of the artifacts and its absence in the 'natural
>items'.
absence is not necessarily a refutation. The creators of many
artifacts are long dead or never known, but by the hallmarks of what
we accept to be creation, we acknowledge that a human creator once
existed or exists. The same principle applies to nature, should we
find anything there that meets the standard of "created."
>BTW, is the English landscape a natural item or a human creation? (2nd
>time I've asked...)
I must have missed the first time. What do you mean by the English
landscape? A painting? Or just the wild heaths and moors and
heathers and glens found in the English landscape? If the latter, I
am considering those formations to be natural, in response to the laws
of nature, not created, according to the standard of human creation.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<ha...@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
>> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
>> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>
>Surely, if there "must be detected a blueprint or plan" then many
>designed objects will fail the test as the plans or blueprints
>have been lost or only ever existed in the mind of the designer.
the operative word here is "detected." You don't necessarily have to
see it in hard copy, but it needs to be discernible based on goal
orientation, observed and repeated use and function. If not
discernible, such items will have to be set aside as ambiguous.
----
zoe
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
one wonders about the superstitions involved here.
first, the fact that intelligence is, according to evolution, a
product of evolution. if she sees evidence of 'creativity' in the
natural world, the logical step would be to ask what process of
evolution created the creator. but you know she aint gonna ask that
the second problem is her use of 'natural world'. everything we do
build conforms to the natural world. we can't build anything without
natural laws or forces. yet creationists say we can. how?
they dont say.
and neither will she.
--------------------
To find out who 'wf3h' is, go to 'qrz.com'
and enter 'wf3h' in the field.
lat. 40 41.288N
long. 75 32.177W
I've always wanted to procrastinate...but
I never got around to it...
Ronald Stepp
> for constructing an archetype, from which all other things of the same
> kind are made. This plan may be explicit or implicit.
>
Thats the "word" definition.. Like "What is the speed of light?" A: Why
the speed light moves at. Q: No what IS the speed of light? A: The speed
at which nothing other than light moves. Q: No how FAST is the speed of
light? A: As fast as it moves..
Your definition above doesn't actually have a real worl application.
Sorry I wasn't more explicit.
Is the blueprint you speak of a:
1) Paper on file somewhere which shows a graphic detail of the object which
was created?
2) Model in the patent office.
3) A carving on a cave wall somewhere that details created items.
4) A plaque from outerspace which shows all created items and the plans to
make them from scratch.
5) A TV Signal from Alpha Centauri with blueprints in an encrypted series of
frames.
This is what I mean when I ask what you mean bu plan or blueprint.
R. Baldwin
There are patterns created by natural processes- rows of pebbles on a
beach sorted by wave action, circles scribed in sand dunes as wind
blows a plant around, etc. How will you tell the difference between a
natural pattern and a created pattern?
You use terms like "arbitrary" and "deliberate, purposeful goal
setting" in your definitions, but you don't describe how to recognize
these attributes.
How would you finish this sentence? "A pattern is arbitrary if..."
Mike Dunford
news:3d3b5fd9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 06:00:54 +0000 (UTC), Mike Dunford
> <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in
>>news:3d38dcb9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
>>
>>> okay, brick one for measuring creation of human artifacts was
>>> that of arbitrary stop/start commands as well as juxtaposition
>>> of parts not normally found together.
>>
>>Both traits appear to be arbitrary, not common to all objects of
>>human creation, and nowhere near exclusive to objects known to
>>be created. Hardly a promising start.
>
> okay. Do you wish to give me an example of a humanly created
> object that does not give evidence of stop/start commands or
> activity, as well as juxtaposition of parts not normally found
> together?
I believe someone else has given you a similar example, but I have a
garden patch in my back yard where I have removed all the grass that
had been planted there, and have replaced it with a small garden of
all endemic Hawaiian plants. I chose the plants I wanted, prepped the
soil, and planted them, but all of them are species native to this
island. I have been making efforts to keep my lawn from reclaiming
the patch, but I have not placed any fixed border on the patch -- in
fact, I'm hoping that the native ground cover I used will spread
beyond the original patch. I certainly put effort, research, and
thought into creating this patch, so it should qualify as a human-
created object. I can't think of anything that I'm doing which might
leave evidence of a start/stop command of any type, and all of the
plants I used are normally found together.
If you don't like this example, let me know, and I'll come up with
another one.
> And please don't give me something like a piece of bark being
> used in the function of a spoon. That does not qualify as a
> created item. The bark remains a bark, and it has been pressed
> into a different function than that of protecting a tree trunk.
> The creativity may be in the mind of the user, but it does not
> reflect in the piece of bark, once that bark has been used and
> then thrown away.
Essentially then, you are already conceding that there is no way for
you to detect some types of conscious creative effort. Is there some
reason that you expect God's creative effort to be the type you can
detect?
> But if the piece of bark has been shaped and
> sculpted into a spoon shape, then it becomes a humanly created
> item with a purpose.
You appear to be trying to define "humanly created item with a
purpose" in such a way that the term is restricted to things which
you know you can detect. That is an arbitrary distinction, obviously
intended to keep your struggling hypothesis from suffering additional
damage. There is no real reason for this distinction. It requires
conscious, creative thought to figure out how to use naturally
occuring things for a new purpose. Plus, how do you draw the line
that lets you call it a "created item with a purpose"? When the worst
of the dirt is rinsed off in the stream? When a small piece or two is
cracked off to make it easier to hold? When a small chunk is gouged
out to slightly deepen the bowl of the spoon?
>>> By itself, brick one
>>> permits a
>>
>>massive
>
> well, I was given a ledge and Old Faithful so far. Do you have
> some others?
I gave you others in my response to brick one. Human dam/beaver
dam/logjam and bird's nest/human reproduction of bird's nest, to name
a couple.
>And remember that your example will now have to
> meet the criteria of two bricks, not just one.
They still fail.
>>> number of natural items to get past it, therefore it
>>> cannot stand by itself. But in conjunction with a second
>>> brick, the standard begins to solidify.
>>>
>>> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan,
>>> located somewhere in connection with the created item,
>>> indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>>
>>This has even more problems than the first "brick":
>>
>>(1) You would be hard pressed to explain how this criteria would
>>identify, for example, a Jackson Pollock canvas like this one:
>>(http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/lavender-mist/) as
>>created.
>
> the location of that painting within the framework of a canvas
> and its wooden frame qualifies it to meet the standards of brick
> one -- stop/start activity and juxtaposition of parts not
> normally found together.
Irrelevant. According to you, to qualify as a "created" object, it
must fit _each_ brick.
> the composition itself might mislead, except that because it is
> found IN the frame and ON canvas, we know immediately that a
> plan had to be behind its creation, even if it is a very loosely
> constructed plan in the mind of the painter.
>
>>(I do not necessarily dispute the fact that there is a plan
>>of some sort, but I don't know how you would be able to _detect_
>>without knowing that it was designed.
>
> you know it was designed by the juxtapostion of parts -- canvas,
> frame, location of painting.
Yes, but how do you distinguish the following two hypotheses for the
creation of this design?
(a) The painting is the work of a master artist.
(b) The paint on the canvas resulted from a messy fight in the
artist's studio.
>>(2) It is very easy to construct plans for things retroactively.
>>For example, geologists can map an area, and determine the order
>>of events needed to create what we see. That does not
>>necessarily mean that the _plan_ was required to create that
>>landscape, or that there was any goal setting involved. I don't
>>see how you expect to be able to distinguish real necessary
>>blueprints from plans drawn up after the fact.
>
> if the entire cluster of five or so criteria is present, then
> you should be certain that you are dealing with a created item.
Let me try again. If you cannot find some criteria which will let you
distinguish a plan of construction conceived before an object was
created and which is necessary for the creation of an object from a
plan constructed by humans after the fact, and which was not
necessary for the original construction, how will you be able to tell
whether this criterion is in fact really present?
>>(3) Not only does this "brick" potentially identify objects
>>known to be the result of instinct as created, it makes this
>>error on all of the examples I pointed out where the first
>>"brick" had that problem. The reason for this is simple, of
>>course: this criterion does not actually differ in any
>>substantial respect from the last one. Anything that has
>>arbitrary starts/stops and/or a juxtaposition of parts not
>>normally found together will probably also demonstrate some type
>>of plan.
>
> right. But you're getting ahead of me. All I am interested in
> doing at the moment is to define and establish an acceptable
> standard that is consistent for all humanly created items. If
> the standard is valid, then it should apply to all items that
> are created.
Even if you manage to find a criteria which apply to all created
items -- something you have been unsuccessful at so far -- it will
still be worthless if it misidentifies as created items which are the
product of instinctive behaviors. Right now, a lot of items which are
the known product of instinctive behaviors rather than conscious
effort pass both the first two criteria. This start does not inspire
confidence.
>>> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge
>>> as well as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples,
>>> even though stop/start activity is present, there is no
>>> evidence for a blueprint or plan for the falling rock or for
>>> the cycling of Old Faithful.
>>
>>Unfortunately, it still completely fails to distinguish real
>>natural items from human-constructed natural items, beaver dams
>>from logjams from primitive human constructions, cave systems
>>from tunnel complexes, etc.
>
> please allow me to first establish the standard with regard to
> humanly created items. From there, I would like to move on to
> distinguish between any similarly created items in nature and
> those items that act according to the basic laws of physics and
> chemistry.
I was under the impression from your earlier posts that you were
willing to concede that objects known to be the direct result of
instinctive behavior were not the result of conscious creative
effort. Am I wrong to think this?
>>> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more
>>> distinct from natural items.
>>
>>Not really. At most, you have proposed two criteria, each of
>>which correctly identifies some (but not all) human-created
>>items as created,
>
> then please give me another example besides an oil painting
> (that does not qualify, as you can see) that you think does not
> meet the criteria of bricks one and two.
My native plant garden. I also don't think that the painting itself,
as opposed to the canvas (typically, a painting and the canvas it is
on are the result of not one but two separate "creations") passes the
second criterion. The topography of the housing area I live in is
another -- some of the topography results from cuts and fills, but I
can't tell how much, or exactly where. There are hiking trails which
also fit the bill -- did the log fall where you see it, or was it
dragged into a better position to serve as a bridge? (And don't give
me that BS about that not counting because we didn't "shape" the
tree. I've been on trail crews, and I can tell you that there's a lot
of physical effort that goes into making a bridge out of a tree that
fell near the stream, even if you don't trim twig one.)
Those are a few just off the top of my head. If you can find some way
to shoehorn all of these into both the first two criteria, let me
know and I'll give you another batch. I didn't stop because I had run
out of examples.
>>while also identifying a number of items produced through
>>instinctive and other natural processes as created.
>
> those instinctive and natural processes that happen to fall into
> the category of brick one, do not qualify for brick two.
I gave you the example of a beaver dam before. How do you determine
that there is no "plan"? I gave you the example of a bird nest
before. How do you determine that there is no "plan". More
importantly, how do you distinguish a dam created by a beaver or a
nest created by a bird from a human-built imitation?
> And if
> they do qualify, they will need to qualify for the entire
> standard, not just two bricks. So far, a ledge and Old Faithful
> do not met the entire standard of humanly created items --
> certainly not brick two. Brick one is about all they can claim
> so far.
The others are harder.
>>Your foundation
>>so far has the approximate solidity of quicksand.
>
> sez you. :-P
--Mike Dunford
--
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.
--Niels Bohr
Mike Dunford
news:3d3b5bfc....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 05:45:28 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Zoe, you should think about abandoning your first brick
>>altogether,
>
> I guess I would have to abandon it if it stood by itself. But I
> intend to keep it as one of the "must haves" in combination with
> a cluster of other criteria. If, for instance, the item under
> investigation gives evidence of four of five hallmarks, with one
> brick missing, then I am prepared to reject that item as meeting
> the standards of creation.
What happens to your hypothesis if some of the objects you reject are
known to be in fact created?
>>since it qualifies natural objects as created yet disqualifies
>>known created objects that lack stop/start sequences or unusual
>>juxtapositions of parts (such as my native plant garden).
I knew I'd seen native plant garden somewhere else. I'm surprised
that I didn't think of it earlier myself, especially since I also
have one. Out of curiosity, where are you/what is "native" for you?
> okay, I'll consider your native plant garden. If you allowed it
> to spring up without direction and cultivation from you, it
> would not fit the criteria of a humanly created item. Any
> evidence of cultivation on your part should give evidence of
> stop/start activity (hoeing and weeding that stops precisely
> where the plant begins) as well as juxtaposition of parts such
> as introduction of fertilizer or compost around the plants.
> Admittedly, some items will take a little more detective work
> than others, but if sleuthing produces evidence of arbitrary
> stop/start activity or sequences, and/or juxtaposition of
> material that normally is not found where they are, then the
> item will at least fit the demands of brick one.
I can't quite figure out what your criteria would do with my own
garden. I did cultivate to prepare the ground, but the vast majority
of the cultivation has involved clearing the non-native plant species
from the area of the garden. I weed semi-regularly, to keep the lawn
grasses and weeds from re-invading, but I do not attempt to control
the native ground cover that I included in my garden. As a result,
there are no artificially cleared areas around the plants. I did
fertilize to get the plants started, but I have not since, so I don't
know if there are any detectable levels left in the soil -- and I've
fertilized the lawn just upslope more recently.
> However, if there is no plan or blueprint detected, whereby
> others can also cultivate a similar native plant garden, then
> your native plant garden fails the test of human creation, and
> remains as a natural item, even though it passes the test of
> "brick one."
Please remember that the key word here is "detected".
> Keep in mind, though, that any fencing of the garden, any
> contouring around it, whether it be mowing, cobblestones, etc.,
> will give an indication of a plan in the owner's mind to
> preserve this patch of ground as a native plant garden.
I do mow the lawn in the area, but I would dispute any use of this as
evidence that the native patch is created. All the mowed lawn is
evidence of is where I want the lawn -- it provides no clue as to
whether the native patch is an area where the slope was too steep, or
the soil too poor for a lawn, so the native plants were left, or if
it is a deliberate planting.
> The plan might be simple, but it is one that can be copied by
> someone else who might also want a simple but flourishing native
> plant garden. If you can give specific instructions to someone
> else on how to create a native plant garden, then those
> instructions qualify as a plan or blueprint.
I constructed the "plan" for my native garden by doing research to
find out what plants naturally grow together. I chose some of those
based on availability, price, and appearance, and planted them in as
similar a fashion to the way they grow in the wild as possible. If I
showed you a picture of a wild patch of native growth and a picture
of my garden, I doubt you'd see a difference.
>>Your new criteria shouldn't have the problem of qualifying
>>natural objects, IF you are intellectually honest about what
>>"indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting" means. This
>>will proove a very difficult standard to define, however. How
>>would you define the difference between an actual blueprint that
>>is indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting and a
>>natural blueprint that is not?
>
> by the accepted and authentic hallmarks of known created items.
But, Zoe, you are trying to claim that a blueprint _IS_ an authentic
hallmark of all known created items.
[snip]
--Mike Dunford
--
All things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat, all things
rude and nasty, the lord god made the lot.
--Monty Python
Bobby D. Bryant
> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
Looks like your theory requires plans all the way down. I.e., how
are we to conclude that the plan _is_ indicative of deliberate,
purposeful goal setting?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
cats...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 14:33:34 +0000 (UTC), cats...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>HRG wrote:
>
>>>But in any case it is not
>>>indicative of deliberate,
>>>purposeful goal setting - unless we confuse result with function, and
>>>function with purpose.
>>
>>Uhh, isn't that the *intent* of creation science and ID? To assume
>>purpose and work backwards?
>
>we don't have to assume purpose. Purpose is understood to be goal
>orientation, and I am accepting only clear-cut cases of goal
>orientation. Purpose, once identified and accepted as such, allows
>extrapolation back from the observed fact of purpose, to a creator of
>that purpose.
>
>----
>zoe
>
Oh, I see. You are assuming *goal orientation* and working backwards!
Yes, that makes it *much* clearer!
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
It is as respectable to be a modified monkey as modified dirt.
-- Thomas Huxley --
Eric Rowley
<snip>
> >Surely, if there "must be detected a blueprint or plan" then
> >many designed objects will fail the test as the plans or
> >blueprints have been lost or only ever existed in the mind of
> >the designer.
> the operative word here is "detected." You don't necessarily have
> to see it in hard copy, but it needs to be discernible based on
> goal orientation,
How is this different from saying "It looks designed"?
> observed and repeated use and function.
I'm lost, use and function of what? The plan? The object?
> If not discernible, such items will have to be set aside as
> ambiguous.
Does that mean that anything which only exists in one copy has
to be set aside?
If so how similar do things have to be to count as repeats?
Eric
--
<my domain is rixtele>
H,R.Gruemm
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:21:41 +0000 (UTC), psych...@xpoint.at
> (H,R.Gruemm) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >You've just excluded all paleoanthropological artefacts. Where did we
> >ever find the blueprint for an Acheulean hand-axe, a Clovis spearpoint
> >or a Bandkeramik potshard ?
>
> if the artifact gives evidence of plan, then there was a plan
> somewhere, even if just in someone's head.
But you have proposed the plan as evidence that something is an artifact.
> >BTW, I have the sneaking suspicion that you will later introduce DNA
> >sequence as a "plan" for organisms. But in any case it is not
> >indicative of deliberate,
> >purposeful goal setting - unless we confuse result with function, and
> >function with purpose.
>
> for now, can we stay with the standard for human creation, HRG? Do
> you agree that, so far, bricks one and two are consistent for all
> humanly created items?
No. Where is the plan for a Jackson Pollock painting ?
The counterexamples to Brick 1 have already been presented in the previous thread.
Regards,
HRG.
H,R.Gruemm
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 14:33:34 +0000 (UTC), cats...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> HRG wrote:
>
> >>But in any case it is not
> >>indicative of deliberate,
> >>purposeful goal setting - unless we confuse result with function, and
> >>function with purpose.
> >
> >Uhh, isn't that the *intent* of creation science and ID? To assume
> >purpose and work backwards?
>
> we don't have to assume purpose. Purpose is understood to be goal
> orientation, and I am accepting only clear-cut cases of goal
> orientation.
In all clear-cut cases of goal orientations we can identify the maker
as human.
Purpose, once identified and accepted as such, allows
> extrapolation back from the observed fact of purpose, to a creator of
> that purpose.
But the only way to identifying purpose is to identify an intelligent
maker *first*; and even then you cannot be sure that the purpose you
assumed was his actual purpose.
Regards,
HRG.
freehand
So what characteristics do all things created by humans have except
"created by humans"? And therefore how can things not made by humans
show those characteristics?
freehand
Perhaps you would instead care to comment on Rorshach ink blots, the
pictures we see in them, and the "blueprints" that you claim to find
in nature. If you see a blueprint, and I see a bunny rabbit, does that
tell us about intelligent design or does it instead say more about
your psychology and mine?
> >> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
> >> as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
> >> stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
> >> or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
> >>
> >> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
> >> natural items.
> >
> >Nope, the sole distinguishing factor between 'natural items' and 'human
> >artifacts' [sic -- these are all natural items!]
>
> why do you consider human artifacts to be natural items?
>
> >is the presence of human
> >agency in the creation of the artifacts and its absence in the 'natural
> >items'.
>
> absence is not necessarily a refutation. The creators of many
> artifacts are long dead or never known, but by the hallmarks of what
> we accept to be creation, we acknowledge that a human creator once
> existed or exists. The same principle applies to nature, should we
> find anything there that meets the standard of "created."
>
In a sense, as many have suggested, anything people do is "natural".
Termites build mounds, we build skyscrapers, etc. But I understand
that one general use of the word "natural" means "anything not done by
people". Usually we can look at a tool, toy, or work of art and say
"Yep. Humans made this." If you are going to say that some natural
things are human made, then I'm not sure what you mean by "natural".
If you claim that some (non-human) natural things are designed, then
we need to know what designed or created objects have in common, other
than humans made them.
> >BTW, is the English landscape a natural item or a human creation? (2nd
> >time I've asked...)
>
> I must have missed the first time. What do you mean by the English
> landscape? A painting? Or just the wild heaths and moors and
> heathers and glens found in the English landscape? If the latter, I
> am considering those formations to be natural, in response to the laws
> of nature, not created, according to the standard of human creation.
>
> ----
> zoe
Believe it or not, there are many people living in England, and
they've changed the landscape considerably. "The landscape" includes
everything in sight. The point was that wild heaths, pastures, English
cottage gardens, suburbs, strip malls, and London are all part of the
Landscape.
R. Baldwin
news:Xns9252EE02B3...@66.75.162.198...
> muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in
> news:3d3b5bfc....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 05:45:28 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> > <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> >>since it qualifies natural objects as created yet disqualifies
> >>known created objects that lack stop/start sequences or unusual
> >>juxtapositions of parts (such as my native plant garden).
>
> I knew I'd seen native plant garden somewhere else. I'm surprised
> that I didn't think of it earlier myself, especially since I also
> have one. Out of curiosity, where are you/what is "native" for you?
Western Washington State. Many of the Northwest native plants are
found from Northern California to British Columbia, and some have a
much broader range. There are also some very local populations. I try
to avoid species unique to localities outside the Washington Cascades.
Native plants are actually quite difficult to purchase at nurseries
here, which tend to favor exotics. There are two local nurseries with
a limited stock of natives, and I have had success with vegetative
reproduction of cuttings for two woodland species (Linnea borealis and
Rubus pedatus).
It would probably be difficult for Zoe to discern the plan, since I
decide where to plant each new plant after I get it.
zoe_althrop
<rst...@sw.rr.com> wrote:
snip>
>Is the blueprint you speak of a:
>
>1) Paper on file somewhere which shows a graphic detail of the object which
>was created?
it covers that.
>
>2) Model in the patent office.
that, too.
>
>3) A carving on a cave wall somewhere that details created items.
carvings, without exception, are a result of thought. No one will
contend that an animal created the carvings on a cave wall. Thought
behind a creation is sufficient to indicate a plan or blueprint for
the created item, and that plan resided in the mind of the carver.
I'm talking extrapolation here for blueprints or plans that are not
accessible in hard copy format.
>4) A plaque from outerspace which shows all created items and the plans to
>make them from scratch.
if there is such a thing, it would meet the criterion, yes.
>
>5) A TV Signal from Alpha Centauri with blueprints in an encrypted series of
>frames.
that, too, if you can find one.
>This is what I mean when I ask what you mean bu plan or blueprint.
the above examples would fit the definition, but in addition, a
blueprint can be extrapolated backwards by examining the humanly
created item for purpose, goal-orientation, use, thought. Goal and
purpose would be the end product of construction and organization. If
the stop/start, juxtaposition of parts, orient the raw materials
towards an end goal that is detected in every other object of the same
kind, then the pattern of construction would be considered evidence of
a plan or blueprint for an archetype.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>There are patterns created by natural processes- rows of pebbles on a
>beach sorted by wave action, circles scribed in sand dunes as wind
>blows a plant around, etc. How will you tell the difference between a
>natural pattern and a created pattern?
these patterns result from the natural laws of nature. If the entire
stretch of beach shows sorting of shells and pebbles that line the
shore in a wavy pattern, there is no reason to ascribe this pattern to
mental thought. But if at one portion of the beach, the shells do not
follow the line of the waves, but are clumped together in a tall pile,
this would be a stop/start point -- the wavy line of shells and
pebbles has stopped and a collection of shells starts. There is a
juxtaposition of grouped shells distinct from than the rest of the
beach, and by measurement against brick one, there is evidence that
this could be a created item.
If, in addition, the shells are not just gathered together in a single
pile, but are used to decorate, say, a sand castle at that very
vicinity, or if they are used to form the shape of a heart or smiley
face, then goal orientation is evident. Thought has been used to
create an object that is not normally found due to the motion of waves
on sand. The end result of the shell organization -- smiley face or
heart shape -- gives evidence of a plan or blueprint in the mind of
some human creator.
>You use terms like "arbitrary" and "deliberate, purposeful goal
>setting" in your definitions, but you don't describe how to recognize
>these attributes.
observe the natural behavior of inanimate raw materials, and then if
this behavior is absent or overcome so that the raw materials now
perform a function alien to their normal behavior, then arbitrary,
deliberate, purposeful goal setting is evident. Pigments and oils do
not naturally shape themselves into landscapes on canvas, nor do they
frame themselves with wood. To find pigments and oils in this
unnatural setting is evidence that a creator has been at work.
>How would you finish this sentence? "A pattern is arbitrary if..."
A pattern is arbitrary if the behavior of the materials that create
the pattern differs from how they would normally behave under the
natural laws of nature.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
snip>
>What happens to your hypothesis if some of the objects you reject are
>known to be in fact created?
if they are, in fact, created, they will not be rejected. If I have
to reject a humanly created object because it does not fit my
criteria, this does not necessarily mean that such ambiguous item
invalidates my hypothesis. It simply demands deeper investigation.
snip>
>> okay, I'll consider your native plant garden. If you allowed it
>> to spring up without direction and cultivation from you, it
>> would not fit the criteria of a humanly created item. Any
>> evidence of cultivation on your part should give evidence of
>> stop/start activity (hoeing and weeding that stops precisely
>> where the plant begins) as well as juxtaposition of parts such
>> as introduction of fertilizer or compost around the plants.
>> Admittedly, some items will take a little more detective work
>> than others, but if sleuthing produces evidence of arbitrary
>> stop/start activity or sequences, and/or juxtaposition of
>> material that normally is not found where they are, then the
>> item will at least fit the demands of brick one.
>
>I can't quite figure out what your criteria would do with my own
>garden. I did cultivate to prepare the ground, but the vast majority
>of the cultivation has involved clearing the non-native plant species
>from the area of the garden. I weed semi-regularly, to keep the lawn
>grasses and weeds from re-invading, but I do not attempt to control
>the native ground cover that I included in my garden. As a result,
>there are no artificially cleared areas around the plants. I did
>fertilize to get the plants started, but I have not since, so I don't
>know if there are any detectable levels left in the soil -- and I've
>fertilized the lawn just upslope more recently.
I would need to know what are the surroundings of the native plant
garden. Is this a suburban neighborhood? Are there lawned grounds in
proximity to the native plant garden? Is there a house attached to
this garden? If none of these juxtapositions are present, then the
native plant garden gives no sign of creation. It will have to remain
as natural. If there is the juxtaposition of lawns, suburbia,
territorial boundaries, then the native plant garden is in a
stop/start sequence, and has juxtaposition to parts that are not
normally juxtaposed.
ambiguity, however, is not sufficient to invalidate clear-cut
examples. I hope you recognize that.
>> However, if there is no plan or blueprint detected, whereby
>> others can also cultivate a similar native plant garden, then
>> your native plant garden fails the test of human creation, and
>> remains as a natural item, even though it passes the test of
>> "brick one."
>
>Please remember that the key word here is "detected".
right. Science deals with observation and detection. If not
detected, the example will have to be set aside for the time being as
unsuitable for testing. This rejection does not invalidate the
standard, however, just as unsuitable samples for the isochron does
not invalidate the isochron.
>> Keep in mind, though, that any fencing of the garden, any
>> contouring around it, whether it be mowing, cobblestones, etc.,
>> will give an indication of a plan in the owner's mind to
>> preserve this patch of ground as a native plant garden.
>
>I do mow the lawn in the area, but I would dispute any use of this as
>evidence that the native patch is created. All the mowed lawn is
>evidence of is where I want the lawn -- it provides no clue as to
>whether the native patch is an area where the slope was too steep, or
>the soil too poor for a lawn, so the native plants were left, or if
>it is a deliberate planting.
well? Investigation would include asking questions like: Was the
slope too steep? Was the soil too poor for a lawn, even after you
fertilized it? Were the native plants neglectfully left there because
you were too lazy to clean up? Do you have an abandoned area of your
yard, rife with weeds and an eyesore to the neighborhood? If no, then
your native garden looks planned. If yes, then the homeowners
association is probably going to get behind you.
>> The plan might be simple, but it is one that can be copied by
>> someone else who might also want a simple but flourishing native
>> plant garden. If you can give specific instructions to someone
>> else on how to create a native plant garden, then those
>> instructions qualify as a plan or blueprint.
>
>I constructed the "plan" for my native garden by doing research to
>find out what plants naturally grow together. I chose some of those
>based on availability, price, and appearance, and planted them in as
>similar a fashion to the way they grow in the wild as possible. If I
>showed you a picture of a wild patch of native growth and a picture
>of my garden, I doubt you'd see a difference.
a wild patch is going to have weeds interspersed among the plants, as
well as dead leaves dropped from surrounding trees, brambles. Do you
have weeds in your garden? Do you allow dead leaves to remain? If
your native garden shows any signs of cultivation, care, or unusual
proximity to civilization, then it has to be created.
>>>Your new criteria shouldn't have the problem of qualifying
>>>natural objects, IF you are intellectually honest about what
>>>"indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting" means. This
>>>will proove a very difficult standard to define, however. How
>>>would you define the difference between an actual blueprint that
>>>is indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting and a
>>>natural blueprint that is not?
>>
>> by the accepted and authentic hallmarks of known created items.
>
>But, Zoe, you are trying to claim that a blueprint _IS_ an authentic
>hallmark of all known created items.
I reread what you said and have to retract my answer. You said, "How
would you define the difference between an actual blueprint that is
indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting and a natural
blueprint that is not." The fallacy in this question is that you are
assuming that there is such a thing as a blueprint -- natural or
otherwise, that has no goal. A blueprint, by virtue of its own
nature, means goal setting, plan, purpose. So if you acknowledge that
there is such a thing as a natural blueprint, you acknowledge that it
has purposeful goal setting, and is on its way to being identified as
having a Creator.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
<snip repeated example of a native plant garden>
see my previous response on this same subject. But let me add that
there is no reason to invalidate a tool just because it does not cover
all instances. Do you throw out all fossils as suspect because you
find a fossil that is so defaced that it is indecipherable as to what
life form it was, or what it supposedly evolved from or into? No.
The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies to
clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by applying
this standard. The more ambiguous cases will have to be set aside for
further study, but that does not mean the standard is useless until
all objects are investigated and validated.
>If you don't like this example, let me know, and I'll come up with
>another one.
another one, please.
snip>
>You appear to be trying to define "humanly created item with a
>purpose" in such a way that the term is restricted to things which
>you know you can detect.
that's the best any scientist can do, I am betting. All observation
depends on what can be detected. The rest remains to be discovered.
>That is an arbitrary distinction, obviously
>intended to keep your struggling hypothesis from suffering additional
>damage. There is no real reason for this distinction. It requires
>conscious, creative thought to figure out how to use naturally
>occuring things for a new purpose. Plus, how do you draw the line
>that lets you call it a "created item with a purpose"? When the worst
>of the dirt is rinsed off in the stream? When a small piece or two is
>cracked off to make it easier to hold? When a small chunk is gouged
>out to slightly deepen the bowl of the spoon?
right now I am culling out the clear-cut examples. Are you saying
that because there are ambiguous items, that this invalidates the
clear-cut examples? For your sake, I hope not, because that would
have to apply to your evolutionary theory, also.
>>>> By itself, brick one
>>>> permits a
>>>
>>>massive
>>
>> well, I was given a ledge and Old Faithful so far. Do you have
>> some others?
>
>I gave you others in my response to brick one. Human dam/beaver
>dam/logjam and bird's nest/human reproduction of bird's nest, to name
>a couple.
earlier on, I had ruled out those products that are the result of
instinctual behavior. If the human reproduces an object so that it
looks exactly like that produced via instinct, then the standard does
not work for these items. They have to be rejected as unsuitable for
determination via the standard for creation. This does not invalidate
the standard for those items that are clear-cut, however. If you
think they do, then I need to know why.
>
>>And remember that your example will now have to
>> meet the criteria of two bricks, not just one.
>
>They still fail.
of course. That is what I would expect them to do -- fail. The
standard weeds out such examples.
>
>>>> number of natural items to get past it, therefore it
>>>> cannot stand by itself. But in conjunction with a second
>>>> brick, the standard begins to solidify.
>>>>
>>>> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan,
>>>> located somewhere in connection with the created item,
>>>> indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>>>
>>>This has even more problems than the first "brick":
>>>
>>>(1) You would be hard pressed to explain how this criteria would
>>>identify, for example, a Jackson Pollock canvas like this one:
>>>(http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/lavender-mist/) as
>>>created.
>>
>> the location of that painting within the framework of a canvas
>> and its wooden frame qualifies it to meet the standards of brick
>> one -- stop/start activity and juxtaposition of parts not
>> normally found together.
>
>Irrelevant. According to you, to qualify as a "created" object, it
>must fit _each_ brick.
it must fit ALL bricks TOGETHER. So far the painting fits both brick
one and two.
snip>
>>>(I do not necessarily dispute the fact that there is a plan
>>>of some sort, but I don't know how you would be able to _detect_
>>>without knowing that it was designed.
>>
>> you know it was designed by the juxtapostion of parts -- canvas,
>> frame, location of painting.
>
>Yes, but how do you distinguish the following two hypotheses for the
>creation of this design?
>
>(a) The painting is the work of a master artist.
>
>(b) The paint on the canvas resulted from a messy fight in the
>artist's studio.
the painting may or may not be that of a master artist or a result of
a messy fight, but by the deliberate placement of the oils on a
canvas, and the deliberate framing of the canvas, it is clear that
this is meant to be either a painting by artists or fighters, and it
is acceptable as a created item.
snip>
>Let me try again. If you cannot find some criteria which will let you
>distinguish a plan of construction conceived before an object was
>created and which is necessary for the creation of an object from a
>plan constructed by humans after the fact, and which was not
>necessary for the original construction, how will you be able to tell
>whether this criterion is in fact really present?
as I said, some items may be more ambiguous than others, but for the
clear-cut ones, there will be no dispute as to the fact that they are
created items, right? I am interested in the clear-cut examples right
now.
In other words, no one is going to contest the fact that the Linux
operating system for computers is a created item. That operating
system meets the whole cluster of five criteria. A logjam may not be
as easily identifiable, and if so, it has to be set aside for further
investigation. But that does not invalidate the fact that the
standard has identified a clear-cut case of creation in the Linux
software.
snip>
>Even if you manage to find a criteria which apply to all created
>items -- something you have been unsuccessful at so far -- it will
>still be worthless if it misidentifies as created items which are the
>product of instinctive behaviors. Right now, a lot of items which are
>the known product of instinctive behaviors rather than conscious
>effort pass both the first two criteria. This start does not inspire
>confidence.
I think you're making standards so inflexible that it refutes your own
evolutionary theory, also. Do you throw out your interpretation of
certain fossils evolving, based on the fact that there are other
fossils that are so indistinct that therefore all fossils are invalid
for study? No, you work with the clear-cut cases that seem to meet
your standard for evolution, such as the Archeopteryx. (note I said
"seem") Fossil pieces of a single partial piece of bone is ambiguous
as to anything evolutionary, so you set that piece aside.
well, I can do the same with my hunt for clear-cut created items.
snip>
>I was under the impression from your earlier posts that you were
>willing to concede that objects known to be the direct result of
>instinctive behavior were not the result of conscious creative
>effort.
right. I have left instinctively created objects outside the realm of
conscious humanly created objects.
>Am I wrong to think this?
no.
snip>
>> then please give me another example besides an oil painting
>> (that does not qualify, as you can see) that you think does not
>> meet the criteria of bricks one and two.
>
>My native plant garden. I also don't think that the painting itself,
>as opposed to the canvas (typically, a painting and the canvas it is
>on are the result of not one but two separate "creations")
right, more juxtapositions.
> passes the
>second criterion. The topography of the housing area I live in is
>another -- some of the topography results from cuts and fills, but I
>can't tell how much, or exactly where. There are hiking trails which
>also fit the bill -- did the log fall where you see it, or was it
>dragged into a better position to serve as a bridge? (And don't give
>me that BS about that not counting because we didn't "shape" the
>tree. I've been on trail crews, and I can tell you that there's a lot
>of physical effort that goes into making a bridge out of a tree that
>fell near the stream, even if you don't trim twig one.)
well, tell me something. Do scientists spend all their time on
ambiguous, unsuitable data, or do they work with clear-cut cases? Do
they reject clear-cut cases based on the fact that there are ambiguous
cases in the same area of study?
>Those are a few just off the top of my head. If you can find some way
>to shoehorn all of these into both the first two criteria, let me
>know and I'll give you another batch. I didn't stop because I had run
>out of examples.
give me more, then, because so far your examples fit my first two
criteria WITHOUT any shoehorning.
snip repetitions>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
snip>
>Oh, I see. You are assuming *goal orientation* and working backwards!
yes, I am learning from how you scientists operate. I see you
assuming macroevolution and then working backwards, sorting through
your fossils and speculating as to how birds became what they
presently are (supposedly macroevolved) from an ancestor of some
dinosaur.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>So what characteristics do all things created by humans have except
>"created by humans"? And therefore how can things not made by humans
>show those characteristics?
I've given you two already -- stop/start sequences or commands, and
juxtaposition of parts that are not normally found together if left to
themselves.
----
zoe
Mike Dunford
news:MI3%8.18616$Fb6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
I'm a bit more fortunate. There seems to be a real emphasis on
preserving rare endemic species, and a number of nurseries here
specialize in that. In fact, I can even buy some nursery-raised
endangered species at Home Depot for fairly reasonable prices.
> It would probably be difficult for Zoe to discern the plan,
> since I decide where to plant each new plant after I get it.
Likewise. I also haven't done anything to control the growth of any
of the plants, so a number of them are no longer entirely in the
locations I picked.
--Mike Dunford
--
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds
new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
--Isaac Asimov
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:23:24 +0000 (UTC), cats...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>Oh, I see. You are assuming *goal orientation* and working backwards!
>
>yes, I am learning from how you scientists operate. I see you
>assuming macroevolution and then working backwards
of course, since creationism WAS the reigning paradigm at one time,
this was not true; the evidence forced the conclusion that evolution
happened.
creationists dont like history, and HATE science...so they just ignore
whatever they dont like.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 04:27:35 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
><res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>There are patterns created by natural processes- rows of pebbles on a
>>beach sorted by wave action, circles scribed in sand dunes as wind
>>blows a plant around, etc. How will you tell the difference between a
>>natural pattern and a created pattern?
>
>these patterns result from the natural laws of nature.
and you know this how? if an intelligent being were to come along, why
couldnt s/he make it APPEAR natural?
Ronald Stepp
> contend that an animal created the carvings on a cave wall. Thought
> behind a creation is sufficient to indicate a plan or blueprint for
"Indicate" is kind of a weak basis for doing something that requires
defining whether thought is behind a creation.
> the above examples would fit the definition, but in addition, a
> blueprint can be extrapolated backwards by examining the humanly
> created item for purpose, goal-orientation, use, thought. Goal and
What about a round pebble? How do you determine if it started round or was
made that way by a human who wanted a pretty round rock?
> purpose would be the end product of construction and organization. If
> the stop/start, juxtaposition of parts, orient the raw materials
> towards an end goal that is detected in every other object of the same
> kind, then the pattern of construction would be considered evidence of
> a plan or blueprint for an archetype.
It kind of looks like you're making up a "hindsight is 20/20 theory".. You
can take anything and work "backwards" to get the result you want.. but I
don't think that will work as the basis for some scientific theory you're
trying to invent. I can measure the speed of light, then say "Oh, I knew it
was X miles per second all along, this just proves it."
Bonz
wrote:
>>BTW, is the English landscape a natural item or a human creation? (2nd
>>time I've asked...)
>
>I must have missed the first time. What do you mean by the English
>landscape? A painting? Or just the wild heaths and moors and
>heathers and glens found in the English landscape? If the latter, I
>am considering those formations to be natural, in response to the laws
>of nature, not created, according to the standard of human creation.
Why? People have been living there for thousands of years. There
aren't many square feet that humans haven't logged, farmed, built on,
re-built on, built over, plowed under, and started again
いBonzい a.a #1497
BAAWA knight
Marty Fouts
muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) writes:
[snip]
> And please don't give me something like a piece of bark being used
> in the function of a spoon. That does not qualify as a created
> item. The bark remains a bark, and it has been pressed into a
> different function than that of protecting a tree trunk. The
> creativity may be in the mind of the user, but it does not reflect
> in the piece of bark, once that bark has been used and then thrown
> away. But if the piece of bark has been shaped and sculpted into a
> spoon shape, then it becomes a humanly created item with a purpose.
>
The problem with trying to draw this sort of distinction can be seen
by examining arrowheads. It is remarkably difficult to tell early
constructed arrowheads from naturally occuring arrowheads. This is
precisely because it was the natural process of erosion that fashioned
the first arrowheads and improvements only came after experience with
the natural product. Not only that, but early tool use leaves marks
remarkably similar to those left by the process of natural arrowhead
formation.
cats...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:23:24 +0000 (UTC), cats...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>Oh, I see. You are assuming *goal orientation* and working backwards!
>
>yes, I am learning from how you scientists operate. I see you
>assuming macroevolution and then working backwards, sorting through
>your fossils and speculating as to how birds became what they
>presently are (supposedly macroevolved) from an ancestor of some
>dinosaur.
>
>snip>
>
>----
>zoe
>
Sorry, Zoe. You've got your history wrong. Scientists looked at the
fossils *first* and then came up with evolution (often kicking and
screaming). All you have been doing here is trying, by looking at
selective bits of the universe, to come up with some way to fit it
into your prefered mode of it having a purpose (and not doing a very
good job of it). But I have to admire your perseverance. It's been
at least a year now you've been trying to come up with a ToC, isn't
it? No closer, I'm afraid.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.
-- Kathy Mar --
Bill Pate
assumptions because they have evidence that supports
their assumptions. Creations have a much harder
time working backwards because they have no evidence
whatsoever.
Another thing that helps scientists is that they
actually care about reaching the right conclusions,
creationists only want to reach conclusions that
justify their religious beliefs. I feel justified
in painting creationists with the same brush because
I believe they wouldn't be creationists if they
were interested in reaching the right conclusions.
Bill P
In article <3d3cd86b....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, muz...@aol.com says...
R. Baldwin
invasive exotics.
[snip rest]
R. Baldwin
news:3d3cd174....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...[snip]
> >
> >But, Zoe, you are trying to claim that a blueprint _IS_ an
authentic
> >hallmark of all known created items.
>
> I reread what you said and have to retract my answer. You said,
"How
> would you define the difference between an actual blueprint that is
> indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting and a natural
> blueprint that is not." The fallacy in this question is that you
are
> assuming that there is such a thing as a blueprint -- natural or
> otherwise, that has no goal. A blueprint, by virtue of its own
> nature, means goal setting, plan, purpose. So if you acknowledge
that
> there is such a thing as a natural blueprint, you acknowledge that
it
> has purposeful goal setting, and is on its way to being identified
as
> having a Creator.
Actually, those were my words, not Mike Dunford's, and I do not
acknowledge that natural "blueprints" or patterns necessarily have
purposeful goal setting. The word "blueprint" was used only for
convenience, in responding to your original post in this thread.
By the way, I don't argue against God as creator, just against your
criteria for discerning hallmarks of creation. They don't seem too
workable. In general, I am very doubtful about the possibility of
coming up with good scientific criteria for discerning hallmarks of
supernatural creation, which is clearly where you intend to go with
all this.
R. Baldwin
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 04:27:35 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >There are patterns created by natural processes- rows of pebbles on
a
> >beach sorted by wave action, circles scribed in sand dunes as wind
> >blows a plant around, etc. How will you tell the difference between
a
> >natural pattern and a created pattern?
>
> these patterns result from the natural laws of nature. If the
entire
> stretch of beach shows sorting of shells and pebbles that line the
> shore in a wavy pattern, there is no reason to ascribe this pattern
to
> mental thought. But if at one portion of the beach, the shells do
not
> follow the line of the waves, but are clumped together in a tall
pile,
> this would be a stop/start point -- the wavy line of shells and
> pebbles has stopped and a collection of shells starts. There is a
> juxtaposition of grouped shells distinct from than the rest of the
> beach, and by measurement against brick one, there is evidence that
> this could be a created item.
>
OK, what _is_ a reason to ascribe a pattern to mental thought?
Ignorance of a natural process that results in the pattern? How do you
know there isn't a natural process you simply haven't discovered yet?
> If, in addition, the shells are not just gathered together in a
single
> pile, but are used to decorate, say, a sand castle at that very
> vicinity, or if they are used to form the shape of a heart or smiley
> face, then goal orientation is evident. Thought has been used to
> create an object that is not normally found due to the motion of
waves
> on sand. The end result of the shell organization -- smiley face or
> heart shape -- gives evidence of a plan or blueprint in the mind of
> some human creator.
>
We _do_ see natural objects that appear as faces or symbols - the
famous face on Mars, for example. Humans have a great capacity to
anthropomorphize things they experience. Given that, goal orientation
is not always so clear.
> >You use terms like "arbitrary" and "deliberate, purposeful goal
> >setting" in your definitions, but you don't describe how to
recognize
> >these attributes.
>
> observe the natural behavior of inanimate raw materials, and then if
> this behavior is absent or overcome so that the raw materials now
> perform a function alien to their normal behavior, then arbitrary,
> deliberate, purposeful goal setting is evident. Pigments and oils
do
> not naturally shape themselves into landscapes on canvas, nor do
they
> frame themselves with wood. To find pigments and oils in this
> unnatural setting is evidence that a creator has been at work.
>
What is the standard for deciding that a function of raw materials is
alien to its normal behavior?
> >How would you finish this sentence? "A pattern is arbitrary if..."
>
> A pattern is arbitrary if the behavior of the materials that create
> the pattern differs from how they would normally behave under the
> natural laws of nature.
Again, suppose you are simply unaware of or do not understand the
natural process involved?
[snip sig]
Ronald Stepp
> to reject a humanly created object because it does not fit my
> criteria, this does not necessarily mean that such ambiguous item
> invalidates my hypothesis. It simply demands deeper investigation.
Christopher Columbus: What? We haven't sailed off the edge yet? Keep
going. I'm sure its there somewhere.
So if your theory is proven wrong, then its not wrong, we just have to keep
looking deeper.
For ETERNITY! No matter how many times we find out it doesn't correctly
show something. We'll just say it works and keep looking.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
1) I see that you snipped HRGs remark that your second brick rules out
paleoanthropological artefacts - according to your criteria, these were
not created by man. You simply ignore this. Liar.
2) You have it completely backwards - as usual. Scientists in the 19th
century saw a clear progression of life forms in the fossil record, they
saw that life forms changed with time. The theory of evolution is simply
an attempt to explain *how* this change happened! *That* it happened is
a fact - to everyone how understands geology (but you don't).
It boild down, again, to the fact that you don't understand isochron
dating and therefore don't accept that the times we get from it are the
times when the layers were laid down.
Zoe, again I ask you: why should the slope of the line in a diagram with
only newD/Di be shallower than the slope of the line in a diagram with
totalD/Di? And, hint: the answer "because oldD/Di is included in the
second diagram" isn't enough - you have to explain *why* oldD/Di should
have an effect on the slope!
Greetings,
Bjoern
Mike Dunford
news:3d3cd174....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:40:59 +0000 (UTC), Mike Dunford
> <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>What happens to your hypothesis if some of the objects you
>>reject are known to be in fact created?
>
> if they are, in fact, created, they will not be rejected. If I
> have to reject a humanly created object because it does not fit
> my criteria, this does not necessarily mean that such ambiguous
> item invalidates my hypothesis. It simply demands deeper
> investigation.
What _would_ invalidate your hypothesis?
Also, as I understand it, your hypothesis, for this part of your
model, is that _all_ created items share several key criteria. The
"all" is important because you are hoping to develop a set of
criteria which is comprehensive enough to use to identify unknowns.
If your criteria cannot actually do what you initially claimed they
could -- that is, identify all known created items -- it is doubtful
that they can be used to identify unknowns with any degree of
certainty.
Finally, I disagree with your use of the word "ambiguous". If a
humanly created object does not fit all of your criteria, it is
"ambiguous" only in the sense that it your criteria do not clearly
indicate that it is created. It is an _un_ambiguous fact, on the
other hand, that such an item demonstrates that your criteria do not
in fact describe all known created items.
[snip]
>>I can't quite figure out what your criteria would do with my own
>>garden. I did cultivate to prepare the ground, but the vast
>>majority of the cultivation has involved clearing the non-native
>>plant species from the area of the garden. I weed
>>semi-regularly, to keep the lawn grasses and weeds from
>>re-invading, but I do not attempt to control the native ground
>>cover that I included in my garden. As a result, there are no
>>artificially cleared areas around the plants. I did fertilize to
>>get the plants started, but I have not since, so I don't know if
>>there are any detectable levels left in the soil -- and I've
>>fertilized the lawn just upslope more recently.
>
> I would need to know what are the surroundings of the native
> plant garden. Is this a suburban neighborhood? Are there
> lawned grounds in proximity to the native plant garden? Is
> there a house attached to this garden? If none of these
> juxtapositions are present, then the native plant garden gives
> no sign of creation. It will have to remain as natural. If
> there is the juxtaposition of lawns, suburbia, territorial
> boundaries, then the native plant garden is in a stop/start
> sequence, and has juxtaposition to parts that are not normally
> juxtaposed.
(1) You are not evaluating the garden here.
(2) "Found in proximity to known created items" is not one of your
"bricks". Nor should it be, of course, since it is hardly an
exclusive property of created objects. And "found in proximity" is
the _only_ criteria you are using here -- in essense, you are
claiming that because the garden is found in proximity to what you
consider to be another start/stop sequence -- the artificial
landscape of the housing area. Proximity is unsuitable for your
purposes because you cannot determine why the patch is wild, and you
can't determine whether it was left untouched in the construction
process for some reason, or if it was deliberately planted some time
later.
(3) The unit I live in is one of the topmost units on a hill. There
is a lawn with a couple of trees separating the buildings from the
road, and then a small strip of grass separating the road from the
beginning of the wilderness -- and wilderness is no exaggeration,
since everything upslope from me is completely undeveloped and
undevelopable. What you are saying is essentially that right now,
since my native garden is in my back yard, it fits your criteria for
"created", but if I get permission from the housing office to garden
the strip across the street -- which is possible -- and transplant my
garden to the edge of the wild area, it would no longer fit the
criteria, unless being at the edge of a lawn is enough to qualify.
> ambiguity, however, is not sufficient to invalidate clear-cut
> examples. I hope you recognize that.
In this case, there is no ambiguity -- if there is an object known to
be created that is not identified by your criteria, then your
criteria do not in fact do what you claim they can and must: describe
all created objects.
>>> However, if there is no plan or blueprint detected, whereby
>>> others can also cultivate a similar native plant garden, then
>>> your native plant garden fails the test of human creation, and
>>> remains as a natural item, even though it passes the test of
>>> "brick one."
>>
>>Please remember that the key word here is "detected".
>
> right. Science deals with observation and detection. If not
> detected, the example will have to be set aside for the time
> being as unsuitable for testing. This rejection does not
> invalidate the standard, however, just as unsuitable samples for
> the isochron does not invalidate the isochron.
The difference here is that we are talking about the standard itself,
not a sample set. If you set up your criteria, and there was general
agreement that _all_ created objects, and only created objects, were
known to posess these criteria, I would not denigrate your technique
if you called an object which fit 4/5 "ambiguous".
This case is different, however, in that we are dealing with objects
which are clearly absolutely known to be designed and created by
humans. If some of these objects fail to fit all of your criteria,
then your claim that your criteria describe _all_ created objects is
clearly incorrect. Similarly, if we were to have a rock which was
absolutely known to fit all of the criteria necessary for the
isochron technique to be accurate, and that rock consistently came up
as unsuitable, the technique would be called to question.
>>> Keep in mind, though, that any fencing of the garden, any
>>> contouring around it, whether it be mowing, cobblestones,
>>> etc., will give an indication of a plan in the owner's mind to
>>> preserve this patch of ground as a native plant garden.
>>
>>I do mow the lawn in the area, but I would dispute any use of
>>this as evidence that the native patch is created. All the mowed
>>lawn is evidence of is where I want the lawn -- it provides no
>>clue as to whether the native patch is an area where the slope
>>was too steep, or the soil too poor for a lawn, so the native
>>plants were left, or if it is a deliberate planting.
>
> well? Investigation would include asking questions like: Was
> the slope too steep?
It's borderline. I have a hard time getting grass to grow in other
areas with similar slope, as do my neighbors. It's possible, but
difficult, and a glance around the neighborhood shows that opinions
seem to be mixed as to whether it's worth the effort.
> Was the soil too poor for a lawn, even after you fertilized it?
Again, borderline. There are people with decent lawns, but it takes a
hell of a lot of effort to get the clay broken down enough to get a
good one. Almost nobody is going to live here for more than three
years at a time, so few people take the effort.
> Were the native plants neglectfully
> left there because you were too lazy to clean up?
If they were, does that make a difference as to how your criteria
would identify them? What if you just can't tell?
> Do you have
> an abandoned area of your yard, rife with weeds and an eyesore
> to the neighborhood? If no, then your native garden looks
> planned.
Usually I do, but even then the native garden occupies most of the
slope where it is difficult to grow grass.
> If yes, then the homeowners association is probably
> going to get behind you.
Actually, I've been kind of gimped up lately, so my yard is rapidly
heading toward the "amber waves of grain" stages (there are some
grasses here that can shoot up to 6" heights and seed in a month).
Fortunately, there's no homeowners association, and the MPs have
other things to do than enforce the post lawn code.
>>> The plan might be simple, but it is one that can be copied by
>>> someone else who might also want a simple but flourishing
>>> native plant garden. If you can give specific instructions to
>>> someone else on how to create a native plant garden, then
>>> those instructions qualify as a plan or blueprint.
>>
>>I constructed the "plan" for my native garden by doing research
>>to find out what plants naturally grow together. I chose some of
>>those based on availability, price, and appearance, and planted
>>them in as similar a fashion to the way they grow in the wild as
>>possible. If I showed you a picture of a wild patch of native
>>growth and a picture of my garden, I doubt you'd see a
>>difference.
>
> a wild patch is going to have weeds interspersed among the
> plants, as well as dead leaves dropped from surrounding trees,
> brambles.
I do my best to keep the _invasive_ (human imported) weed species
from getting a foothold, but I also deliberately planted native
groundcover plants, and have allowed those to vine around the ground
as they see fit. I do not interfere, for the most part, with anything
that drops into the patch.
> Do you have weeds in your garden? Do you allow dead
> leaves to remain? If your native garden shows any signs of
> cultivation, care, or unusual proximity to civilization, then it
> has to be created.
I try my best not to cultivate the patch. I have largely been
successful in this regard. It does show proximity to civilization,
but it also occupies a patch of ground which is difficult to grow
many of the non-native plants on (like grass) and which is also
relatively close to a large wilderness area.
>>>>Your new criteria shouldn't have the problem of qualifying
>>>>natural objects, IF you are intellectually honest about what
>>>>"indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting" means.
>>>>This will proove a very difficult standard to define, however.
>>>>How would you define the difference between an actual
>>>>blueprint that is indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal
>>>>setting and a natural blueprint that is not?
>>>
>>> by the accepted and authentic hallmarks of known created
>>> items.
>>
>>But, Zoe, you are trying to claim that a blueprint _IS_ an
>>authentic hallmark of all known created items.
>
> I reread what you said and have to retract my answer. You said,
> "How would you define the difference between an actual blueprint
> that is indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting and a
> natural blueprint that is not."
I didn't say that. Don't be so quick to trim the attributions.
> The fallacy in this question is
> that you are assuming that there is such a thing as a blueprint
> -- natural or otherwise, that has no goal. A blueprint, by
> virtue of its own nature, means goal setting, plan, purpose. So
> if you acknowledge that there is such a thing as a natural
> blueprint, you acknowledge that it has purposeful goal setting,
> and is on its way to being identified as having a Creator.
What I had argued, and argue, is that humans have a habit of trying
to figure out how things are made. One way of doing this is to
reverse-engineer, so to speak, an object, making a plan as we go. I
don't see how you can distinguish a plan drawn up like that from a
plan needed in advance to construct the item in the first place. I
can draw a plan of a meandering stream, showing how it probably
looked at an earlier time, and outlining where and when erosion
needed to take place to leave the channel we see today. That does not
mean that the stream referred to that plan in the process of eroding
to it's current channel, or that it had any goal in mind while it was
eroding.
--Mike Dunford
--
It might not be much of a life in our terms, but it keeps several
species of anglerfish going... And who can judge anyway? In some
ultimate Freudian sense, what male could resist the fantasy of life
as a penis with a heart...
--Stephen Jay Gould
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> zoe_althrop wrote:
[snip]
> 1) I see that you snipped HRGs remark that your second brick rules out
> paleoanthropological artefacts - according to your criteria, these were
> not created by man. You simply ignore this. Liar.
I see that you have addressed this in another post. Hence I withdraw my
accusation of lying. Sorry!
[snip rest]
Mike Dunford
news:3d3cd372....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:54:18 +0000 (UTC), Mike Dunford
> <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
>
> <snip repeated example of a native plant garden>
>
> see my previous response on this same subject.
Likewise.
> But let me add
> that there is no reason to invalidate a tool just because it
> does not cover all instances. Do you throw out all fossils as
> suspect because you find a fossil that is so defaced that it is
> indecipherable as to what life form it was, or what it
> supposedly evolved from or into? No.
There's a difference. You claim that your "tool" in this case
accurately describes _all_ human created objects. If there is a human
created object which is not described by this "tool", then the "tool"
does not function as advertised. I would not be raising a fuss if
your criteria were only having a problem identifying unknowns -- but
if your criteria cannot identify all _knowns_, how can we know that
it is in any way suitable for the unknowns.
> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies
> to clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by
> applying this standard.
What could possibly be more clear-cut than an item which is
absolutely known to be created?
> The more ambiguous cases will have to
> be set aside for further study, but that does not mean the
> standard is useless until all objects are investigated and
> validated.
If you claim that your standard fits all objects known to be created,
and objects known to be created do not fit your standard, then your
standard is clearly substandard.
>>If you don't like this example, let me know, and I'll come up
>>with another one.
>
> another one, please.
Marty's obsidian tools look like a good example. But instead of
poaching on his example, I'll restate one which you snipped out
without really addressing below: A piece of bark, rinsed of dirt, and
which has been further broken to provide an easier grip, used as a
spoon.
> snip>
>
>>You appear to be trying to define "humanly created item with a
>>purpose" in such a way that the term is restricted to things
>>which you know you can detect.
>
> that's the best any scientist can do, I am betting.
I should hope not! In essense, as the snipped material would have
shown, you are claiming that it is acceptable to try to define your
term to exclude objects (like the bark spoon) where "creation" is not
going to be empirically detectable. That approach is intellectually
dishonest.
Of course, honesty would require you to admit that your hypothesis is
incorrect, and there are no empirical criteria which are capable of
identifying all human creations.
> All
> observation depends on what can be detected. The rest remains
> to be discovered.
>
>>That is an arbitrary distinction, obviously
>>intended to keep your struggling hypothesis from suffering
>>additional damage. There is no real reason for this distinction.
>>It requires conscious, creative thought to figure out how to use
>>naturally occuring things for a new purpose. Plus, how do you
>>draw the line that lets you call it a "created item with a
>>purpose"? When the worst of the dirt is rinsed off in the
>>stream? When a small piece or two is cracked off to make it
>>easier to hold? When a small chunk is gouged out to slightly
>>deepen the bowl of the spoon?
>
> right now I am culling out the clear-cut examples. Are you
> saying that because there are ambiguous items, that this
> invalidates the clear-cut examples? For your sake, I hope not,
> because that would have to apply to your evolutionary theory,
> also.
No. I am saying that there is nothing "ambiguous" about the failure
of your criteria to clearly identify all known created objects as
created. There is nothing "ambiguous" about my garden. I know I
created it. There is nothing "ambiguous" about the piece of bark --
it is also _known_ to be created. The fact that your criteria fail to
identify these items as created does not somehow make their status as
created items "ambiguous". The only ambiguity here is in the
capabilities of your criteria.
>>>>> By itself, brick one
>>>>> permits a
>>>>
>>>>massive
>>>
>>> well, I was given a ledge and Old Faithful so far. Do you
>>> have some others?
>>
>>I gave you others in my response to brick one. Human dam/beaver
>>dam/logjam and bird's nest/human reproduction of bird's nest, to
>>name a couple.
>
> earlier on, I had ruled out those products that are the result
> of instinctual behavior.
Right. Therefore, these objects are, for the purposes of your
criteria, natural (i.e. non-created). However, both pass every test
for creation you have listed so far -- start/stop, juxtaposition,
plan.
> If the human reproduces an object so
> that it looks exactly like that produced via instinct, then the
> standard does not work for these items.
Actually, so far it does, because the nest and the dam both pass both
of the criteria so far. However, your admission does put you in a
bind. Either the nest and dam will be listed as created through the
remaining criteria, in which case your standard is useless for
unknowns (no way to know if a positive result indicates conscious
creation or something like an instinctive product) or your standard
is unable to correctly identify all items known to be created, in
which case the standard is useless (see below.)
> They have to be
> rejected as unsuitable for determination via the standard for
> creation. This does not invalidate the standard for those items
> that are clear-cut, however. If you think they do, then I need
> to know why.
(1) Those examples are clear-cut. They are known to be created
objects. Therefore, your standard clearly does not identify all
objects known to be created.
(2) If you disregard these examples, and proceed to evaluate
unknowns, all you will be able to say about a positive result is that
that unknown and some created items share a set of characteristics.
You will not be able to say whether this is because the unknown is
also created, or if it is just because some created objects resemble
that unknown.
>>>And remember that your example will now have to
>>> meet the criteria of two bricks, not just one.
>>
>>They still fail.
>
> of course. That is what I would expect them to do -- fail. The
> standard weeds out such examples.
I was unclear. They fail to be weeded out.
>>>>> number of natural items to get past it, therefore it
>>>>> cannot stand by itself. But in conjunction with a second
>>>>> brick, the standard begins to solidify.
>>>>>
>>>>> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan,
>>>>> located somewhere in connection with the created item,
>>>>> indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>>>>
>>>>This has even more problems than the first "brick":
>>>>
>>>>(1) You would be hard pressed to explain how this criteria
>>>>would identify, for example, a Jackson Pollock canvas like
>>>>this one:
>>>>(http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/lavender-mist/)
>>>>as created.
>>>
>>> the location of that painting within the framework of a canvas
>>> and its wooden frame qualifies it to meet the standards of
>>> brick one -- stop/start activity and juxtaposition of parts
>>> not normally found together.
>>
>>Irrelevant. According to you, to qualify as a "created" object,
>>it must fit _each_ brick.
>
> it must fit ALL bricks TOGETHER. So far the painting fits both
> brick one and two.
No. You are claiming that it fits brick two BECAUSE it fits brick
one. That is invalid unless they are actually the same criteria.
> snip>
>
>>>>(I do not necessarily dispute the fact that there is a plan
>>>>of some sort, but I don't know how you would be able to
>>>>_detect_ without knowing that it was designed.
>>>
>>> you know it was designed by the juxtapostion of parts --
>>> canvas, frame, location of painting.
>>
>>Yes, but how do you distinguish the following two hypotheses for
>>the creation of this design?
>>
>>(a) The painting is the work of a master artist.
>>
>>(b) The paint on the canvas resulted from a messy fight in the
>>artist's studio.
>
> the painting may or may not be that of a master artist or a
> result of a messy fight, but by the deliberate placement of the
> oils on a canvas, and the deliberate framing of the canvas, it
> is clear that this is meant to be either a painting by artists
> or fighters, and it is acceptable as a created item.
(1) If it is the product of a fight, where is the plan for the
painting, as distinguished from the plan of an artist.
(2) What if the paint is fallout from an explosion in a paint locker?
> snip>
>
>>Let me try again. If you cannot find some criteria which will
>>let you distinguish a plan of construction conceived before an
>>object was created and which is necessary for the creation of an
>>object from a plan constructed by humans after the fact, and
>>which was not necessary for the original construction, how will
>>you be able to tell whether this criterion is in fact really
>>present?
>
> as I said, some items may be more ambiguous than others, but for
> the clear-cut ones, there will be no dispute as to the fact that
> they are created items, right? I am interested in the clear-cut
> examples right now.
The examples I gave are ambiguous as well.
> In other words, no one is going to contest the fact that the
> Linux operating system for computers is a created item. That
> operating system meets the whole cluster of five criteria. A
> logjam may not be as easily identifiable, and if so, it has to
> be set aside for further investigation. But that does not
> invalidate the fact that the standard has identified a clear-cut
> case of creation in the Linux software.
The fact that your criteria might not identify it as created does not
make my garden, or the bark spoon, or any of those other examples
"ambiguous". They are as clearly created as Linux. The only
difference is that your criteria don't identify them as such. That
would seem to indicate that the ambiguity rests with your criteria.
If your criteria can't correctly handle all the knowns, why would you
expect anyone to trust it on an unknown?
> snip>
>
>>Even if you manage to find a criteria which apply to all created
>>items -- something you have been unsuccessful at so far -- it
>>will still be worthless if it misidentifies as created items
>>which are the product of instinctive behaviors. Right now, a lot
>>of items which are the known product of instinctive behaviors
>>rather than conscious effort pass both the first two criteria.
>>This start does not inspire confidence.
>
> I think you're making standards so inflexible that it refutes
> your own evolutionary theory, also. Do you throw out your
> interpretation of certain fossils evolving, based on the fact
> that there are other fossils that are so indistinct that
> therefore all fossils are invalid for study? No, you work with
> the clear-cut cases that seem to meet your standard for
> evolution, such as the Archeopteryx. (note I said "seem") Fossil
> pieces of a single partial piece of bone is ambiguous as to
> anything evolutionary, so you set that piece aside.
>
> well, I can do the same with my hunt for clear-cut created
> items.
See above. The items are not "ambiguous" in any way -- your standard
is.
>>I was under the impression from your earlier posts that you were
>>willing to concede that objects known to be the direct result of
>>instinctive behavior were not the result of conscious creative
>>effort.
>
> right. I have left instinctively created objects outside the
> realm of conscious humanly created objects.
>
>>Am I wrong to think this?
>
> no.
Then it is a problem if instinctive creations pass all your criteria,
correct?
> snip>
>
>>> then please give me another example besides an oil painting
>>> (that does not qualify, as you can see) that you think does
>>> not meet the criteria of bricks one and two.
>>
>>My native plant garden. I also don't think that the painting
>>itself, as opposed to the canvas (typically, a painting and the
>>canvas it is on are the result of not one but two separate
>>"creations")
>
> right, more juxtapositions.
(1) So, essentially, what you are saying is that as far as your
ability to detect creation goes, the Pollock painting is
indistinguishable from a blank canvas, correct?
(2) If your criteria for created objects cannot distinguish the
creative efforts of a famous artist as expressed in one of his best-
known works from the random debris of a fight in a studio, how good
could they possibly be?
(3) What if the drawing follows the basic pattern of the Pollock
painting, but is done in sand on a sand surface of a slightly
different shade? (On a beach.)
>> passes the
>>second criterion. The topography of the housing area I live in
>>is another -- some of the topography results from cuts and
>>fills, but I can't tell how much, or exactly where. There are
>>hiking trails which also fit the bill -- did the log fall where
>>you see it, or was it dragged into a better position to serve as
>>a bridge? (And don't give me that BS about that not counting
>>because we didn't "shape" the tree. I've been on trail crews,
>>and I can tell you that there's a lot of physical effort that
>>goes into making a bridge out of a tree that fell near the
>>stream, even if you don't trim twig one.)
>
> well, tell me something. Do scientists spend all their time on
> ambiguous, unsuitable data, or do they work with clear-cut
> cases? Do they reject clear-cut cases based on the fact that
> there are ambiguous cases in the same area of study?
Could I have some cheese with that, please?
How in the world could you claim that something which is known to be
created is unsuitable data for your criteria, which are supposed to
be able to detect _all_ objects which are known to be created? I am
not giving you examples where the question of "is it created" is
ambiguous, although I could. For example, the current fauna and flora
of Oahu include a number of species brought by humans, some
deliberately, some accidently. I would say that the question of
whether the current ecosystem of the island is a human creation has
an ambiguous answer as a result.
Oh, and by the way, it is extremely common for scientists involved in
peer review to be extremely agressive at trying to identify flaws in
a paper. In fact, that's the point of review.
>>Those are a few just off the top of my head. If you can find
>>some way to shoehorn all of these into both the first two
>>criteria, let me know and I'll give you another batch. I didn't
>>stop because I had run out of examples.
>
> give me more, then, because so far your examples fit my first
> two criteria WITHOUT any shoehorning.
No, they don't, but I gave you more anyway.
--Mike Dunford
--
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn
from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their
apparent disinclination to do so.
--Douglas Adams
Boikat
No, the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs was a result of observing the
similarities between certain dinosaurs and birds.
Boikat
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Derek Stevenson
Your ignorance of science remains undiminished, I see.
One of the standard gags used many episodes of _The Simpsons_ is when Homer
does something foolish, experiences an embarassing or painful result, and
then repeats the same behaviour several times -- with, naturally, the same
result each time.
I always thought the amusing part of this was that no real human being
could be so stupid that he or she would be unable to demonstrate the
learning ability of the average laboratory rat.
Maybe I should rethink that.
Bill Felton
And you've been repeatedly countered on both of these -- the first is
highly questionable, ie, does not distinguish universally and accurately
the 'created' from the 'uncreated'.
The second is worse, it is incoherent -- how are we to determine whether
any given occurence in nature is 'normal' or not?
Bill
Dana Tweedy
"Marty Fouts" <usenet_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uvg77h...@yahoo.com...
Here's another example:
http://www.flavinscorner.com/phaeton.jpg
Is this a man made monument or a natural rock formation? Most experts agree
it's a "Glacial Erratic" caused by a larger boulder melting out of the ice
of a glacier from the last ice age. Some claim that it's a Dolmen, like
several found in Europe. How can Zoe's idea tell the difference.
DJT
Bill Felton
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:16:50 +0000 (UTC), "Bill Felton"
> <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Whoa, hold it right there!
> >You haven't given us any way to determine whether something is
> >'arbitrary' or not.
> >Nor have you defended your absurd claim that naturally occuring
> >things (like charge differences between clouds and the ground,
> >between the substrate of the seabed and the ocean above it, etc)
> >cannot/do not occur naturally, but require "intelligent intervention".
>
> I am still at the first two bricks of my foundation for identifying
> creation in human artifacts. Can you wait?
I'd like to see the first two bricks fully-baked before you go haring off
after new ones.
So far, there's no there there...
> >Brick one is still entirely unbaked.
> >
> >> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> >> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> >> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
> >
> >Sigh.
> >Is the rather delightful set of shapes in the Mandelbrot set a
> >blueprint or plan? Evidence of the existence of a blueprint
> >or plan?
> >How so?
>
> there's no sense in commenting on Mandelbrot (as much as I am tempted
> to) because I am still working on establishing a valid standard for
> identifying created objects in the human realm. I keep being pulled
> into discussing items beyond this early start, when I'm not yet ready
> to do so.
So answer the rest of the question -- how does one determine whether
any given item is the result of a plan or blueprint? Other than the
existence of a plan or blueprint, of course. You have to be able
to show that we can get from an item via inference to the existence
of a plan or blueprint -- and we must do so such that we correctly
sort out the created from the non-created items.
Can't be done is the default claim -- you need to prove it can be done.
> >> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
> >> as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
> >> stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
> >> or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
> >>
> >> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
> >> natural items.
> >
> >Nope, the sole distinguishing factor between 'natural items' and 'human
> >artifacts' [sic -- these are all natural items!]
>
> why do you consider human artifacts to be natural items?
Because I consider humans natural, and their action to be natural
acts.
Why do you consider human artifacts unnatural?
> >is the presence of human
> >agency in the creation of the artifacts and its absence in the 'natural
> >items'.
>
> absence is not necessarily a refutation. The creators of many
> artifacts are long dead or never known, but by the hallmarks of what
> we accept to be creation, we acknowledge that a human creator once
> existed or exists. The same principle applies to nature, should we
> find anything there that meets the standard of "created."
>
> >BTW, is the English landscape a natural item or a human creation? (2nd
> >time I've asked...)
>
> I must have missed the first time. What do you mean by the English
> landscape? A painting? Or just the wild heaths and moors and
> heathers and glens found in the English landscape? If the latter, I
> am considering those formations to be natural, in response to the laws
> of nature, not created, according to the standard of human creation.
What I mean is the English countryside.
And you are quite incorrect -- it is plausible to claim that with
very few, and incredibly minor, exceptions there are no parts of
the English countryside which has not been manipulated by mankind
over the centuries.
There *is no* 'natural' English countryside, and hasn't been for quite
some while.
[ref. Alexander, The Nature of Order, vol. one]
So of what value are your "bricks" when they cannot allow us to distinguish
those things which have been manipulated by mankind and those things
which have been "left to themselves"?
Bill
Martin Crisp
(in message <3d3ccec8....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>):
>> 3) A carving on a cave wall somewhere that details created items.
>
> carvings, without exception, are a result of thought. No one will
> contend that an animal created the carvings on a cave wall. Thought
I will: humans _are_ animals, after all. :-)
> behind a creation is sufficient to indicate a plan or blueprint for
> the created item, and that plan resided in the mind of the carver.
So, you contend that I must have had this object in mind when I
'carved' the code that produced it on the 'wall' (my hard disk)?
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~martincrisp/lumporock.jpg
[Carving of relevant section of 'blueprint', available; after you
answer]
> I'm talking extrapolation here for blueprints or plans that are not
> accessible in hard copy format.
? What format are they in?
[...]
> the above examples would fit the definition, but in addition, a
> blueprint can be extrapolated backwards by examining the humanly
> created item for purpose, goal-orientation, use, thought. Goal and
Please, provide a 'extrapolated backwards' blueprint for the
picture linked above.
> purpose would be the end product of construction and organization. If
> the stop/start, juxtaposition of parts, orient the raw materials
> towards an end goal that is detected in every other object of the same
> kind, then the pattern of construction would be considered evidence of
> a plan or blueprint for an archetype.
I assure you there is such a blueprint for the above object, what
were my goals etc? And it can be used as an archetype (would you
like to see the same object done in 'glass', or 'oak', or 'jade'
rather than the 'stone' currently used? Perhaps you'd like to see
the other 20 images made with the same blueprint?)
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
Almost always SMASHed
PGP Key (ID 0xED55A6D0) Fingerprint:
A7C7 F865 B317 ABBB B10E D8AC F4AD 347D ED55 A6D0
Wayne Bagguley
<sarcasm>
Simple! If it has 'instructions' and 'purpose' then it is artificial.
</sarcasm>
-
Wayne
Wayne Bagguley
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:54:18 +0000 (UTC), Mike Dunford
> <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
>
> <snip repeated example of a native plant garden>
>
> there is no reason to invalidate a tool just because it does not cover
> all instances. Do you throw out all fossils as suspect because you
> find a fossil that is so defaced that it is indecipherable as to what
> life form it was, or what it supposedly evolved from or into? No.
Yet again you compare apples with oranges. A single fossil is not the
same as overarching test as to whether or not something was artificially
created. If that test fails on key examples then it is useless. If a
fossil is in poor condition then that single fossil is useless. They
are two completely different things and the fact that you are trying
to draw comparisons between then just shows your lack of logical
reasoning.
> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies to
> clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by applying
> this standard.
Define 'clear-cut'. Are they clear-cut because your 'standard' correctly
identifies them or is there some other (non-circular) reason?
So, in addition to providing your standard and a definition of life itself,
together with countless other definitions that you quietly skim over, you
now have to provide a way of identifying clear cut examples. Indeed, if you
have a method of identifying clear-cut examples then there is no point in
creating your standard. We have a chicken and egg situation and your
argument is self-defeating.
> The more ambiguous cases will have to be set aside for
> further study, but that does not mean the standard is useless until
> all objects are investigated and validated.
Again, how do you identify ambiguous cases?
> >You appear to be trying to define "humanly created item with a
> >purpose" in such a way that the term is restricted to things which
> >you know you can detect.
>
> that's the best any scientist can do, I am betting. All observation
> depends on what can be detected. The rest remains to be discovered.
[sigh] Your comprehension skills really are poor aren'y they.
He doesn't mean 'detect' in a methphysical sense, he means 'detect' as in
'identify'.
I don't know why we bother. It's painfully obvious that you are
deliberately being obtuse.
> >That is an arbitrary distinction, obviously
> >intended to keep your struggling hypothesis from suffering additional
> >damage. There is no real reason for this distinction. It requires
> >conscious, creative thought to figure out how to use naturally
> >occuring things for a new purpose. Plus, how do you draw the line
> >that lets you call it a "created item with a purpose"? When the worst
> >of the dirt is rinsed off in the stream? When a small piece or two is
> >cracked off to make it easier to hold? When a small chunk is gouged
> >out to slightly deepen the bowl of the spoon?
>
> right now I am culling out the clear-cut examples.
How are you identifying clear-cut examples?
> Are you saying
> that because there are ambiguous items, that this invalidates the
> clear-cut examples? For your sake, I hope not, because that would
> have to apply to your evolutionary theory, also.
No, it wouldn't. There are no ambiguous cases that indicate that evolution
didn't happen.
> >I gave you others in my response to brick one. Human dam/beaver
> >dam/logjam and bird's nest/human reproduction of bird's nest, to name
> >a couple.
>
> earlier on, I had ruled out those products that are the result of
> instinctual behavior. If the human reproduces an object so that it
> looks exactly like that produced via instinct, then the standard does
> not work for these items.
Now you have to create yet another standard for identifying items created
by instinct.
> They have to be rejected as unsuitable for
> determination via the standard for creation.
But what instinct-standard are you using to eliminate them from the
creation-standard?
So far you have introduced the need for a definition of life,
animate and non-animate, arbitrary, normal, raw materials and now
you need to introduce a standard for identifying clear-cut cases,
ambiguous cases AND instinct-created items. You are creating one
hell of a lot of work for yourself and you haven't even started
yet!
> This does not invalidate
> the standard for those items that are clear-cut, however. If you
> think they do, then I need to know why.
Define clear-cut.
> as I said, some items may be more ambiguous than others,
Define ambiguous.
> but for the
> clear-cut ones,
Define clear-cut.
> there will be no dispute as to the fact that they are
> created items, right? I am interested in the clear-cut examples right
> now.
Define clear-cut.
> In other words, no one is going to contest the fact that the Linux
> operating system for computers is a created item.
Because we know, a-priori, that is is created, not because your
criteria identify it as such.
> That operating
> system meets the whole cluster of five criteria. A logjam may not be
> as easily identifiable, and if so, it has to be set aside for further
> investigation. But that does not invalidate the fact that the
> standard has identified a clear-cut case of creation in the Linux
> software.
Even if you were right, it's hardly an achievement.
> snip>
>
> >Even if you manage to find a criteria which apply to all created
> >items -- something you have been unsuccessful at so far -- it will
> >still be worthless if it misidentifies as created items which are the
> >product of instinctive behaviors. Right now, a lot of items which are
> >the known product of instinctive behaviors rather than conscious
> >effort pass both the first two criteria. This start does not inspire
> >confidence.
>
> I think you're making standards so inflexible that it refutes your own
> evolutionary theory, also.
Then you are wrong. Again.
> Do you throw out your interpretation of
> certain fossils evolving, based on the fact that there are other
> fossils that are so indistinct that therefore all fossils are invalid
> for study?
As I have pointed out elsewhere, this is totally different from
defining heuristics for classification purposes.
> No, you work with the clear-cut cases that seem to meet
> your standard for evolution,
Yet another straw-man argument.
> such as the Archeopteryx. (note I said
> "seem") Fossil pieces of a single partial piece of bone is ambiguous
> as to anything evolutionary, so you set that piece aside.
But lone fossils are not considered as evidence of evolution. Evidence
of evolution comes from many different fossils, DNA sequences,
morphological homologies etc.
> well, I can do the same with my hunt for clear-cut created items.
No, you can't because THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
> snip>
>
> >I was under the impression from your earlier posts that you were
> >willing to concede that objects known to be the direct result of
> >instinctive behavior were not the result of conscious creative
> >effort.
>
> right. I have left instinctively created objects outside the realm of
> conscious humanly created objects.
Define instinctively created object and what your standard for identifying
them is.
> well, tell me something. Do scientists spend all their time on
> ambiguous, unsuitable data, or do they work with clear-cut cases? Do
> they reject clear-cut cases based on the fact that there are ambiguous
> cases in the same area of study?
No, the incorporate all cases into their thinking. You cannot ignore
data just because you think it's ambiguous.
-
Wayne
Wayne Bagguley
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for an explanation why the line in a plot with
newD/Di only should be shallower than the line in a plot with
totalD/Di...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 04:32:31 +0000 (UTC), "Ronald Stepp"
> <rst...@sw.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> >> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> >> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
> >
> >Okay.. do you mean a blueprint on file with the government? What exactly do
> >you mean when you say blueprint or plan? Is this something people other
> >than yourself ever have a hope of seeing so they can refite or support your
> >criterion?
>
> a blueprint, in this general context, is a plan, detailed or simple,
> for constructing an archetype, from which all other things of the same
> kind are made.
Can you give clear criteria for identifying a plan? For example, where
is the plan when someone breaks a piece of bark of a tree in order to
use it as a spoon?
> This plan may be explicit or implicit.
What does that mean?
[snip]
> >Not until you define blueprint or plan.
>
> do you accept the above definition?
No, it's still not clear.
Greetings,
Bjoern
H,R.Gruemm
Zoe first claims that a blueprint or plan is a "hallmark" for
purposeful creation, and then wants to argue in reverse from goal and
purpose ("I know it when I see it") to the existence of a plan or
blueprint.
I wonder how she doesn't get dizzy with that much circularity ;)
Regards,
HRG.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for your explanation why a line in a plot with
newD/Di only should be shallower than a line in a plot with totalD/Di...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:16:50 +0000 (UTC), "Bill Felton"
> <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Whoa, hold it right there!
> >You haven't given us any way to determine whether something is
> >'arbitrary' or not.
> >Nor have you defended your absurd claim that naturally occuring
> >things (like charge differences between clouds and the ground,
> >between the substrate of the seabed and the ocean above it, etc)
> >cannot/do not occur naturally, but require "intelligent intervention".
>
> I am still at the first two bricks of my foundation for identifying
> creation in human artifacts. Can you wait?
Err, Zoe, even your first two bricks have failed already.
> >Brick one is still entirely unbaked.
> >
> >> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> >> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> >> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
> >
> >Sigh.
> >Is the rather delightful set of shapes in the Mandelbrot set a
> >blueprint or plan? Evidence of the existence of a blueprint
> >or plan?
> >How so?
>
> there's no sense in commenting on Mandelbrot (as much as I am tempted
> to) because I am still working on establishing a valid standard for
> identifying created objects in the human realm.
So what? Do you want to claim that shapes, based on the Mandelbrot set,
are not created by humans?
> I keep being pulled
> into discussing items beyond this early start, when I'm not yet ready
> to do so.
Huh? Why not? He only referred to your brick two!
> >> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as well
> >> as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even though
> >> stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for a blueprint
> >> or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of Old Faithful.
> >>
> >> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more distinct from
> >> natural items.
> >
> >Nope, the sole distinguishing factor between 'natural items' and 'human
> >artifacts' [sic -- these are all natural items!]
>
> why do you consider human artifacts to be natural items?
Err, because humans are a part of nature? Because humans use only the
laws of nature when they create something?
> >is the presence of human
> >agency in the creation of the artifacts and its absence in the 'natural
> >items'.
>
> absence is not necessarily a refutation. The creators of many
> artifacts are long dead or never known, but by the hallmarks of what
> we accept to be creation, we acknowledge that a human creator once
> existed or exists.
I want to mention again the native garden...
[snip a bit]
> >BTW, is the English landscape a natural item or a human creation? (2nd
> >time I've asked...)
>
> I must have missed the first time. What do you mean by the English
> landscape? A painting? Or just the wild heaths and moors and
> heathers and glens found in the English landscape? If the latter, I
> am considering those formations to be natural, in response to the laws
> of nature, not created, according to the standard of human creation.
Sorry, Zoe, but nearly all parts of the English landscape were formed by
humans in the last centuries/millenia...
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for your explanation why a line in a plot with
newD/Di only should be shallower than a line in a plot with totalD/Di...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:21:41 +0000 (UTC), psych...@xpoint.at
> (H,R.Gruemm) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >You've just excluded all paleoanthropological artefacts. Where did we
> >ever find the blueprint for an Acheulean hand-axe, a Clovis spearpoint
> >or a Bandkeramik potshard ?
>
> if the artifact gives evidence of plan, then there was a plan
> somewhere, even if just in someone's head.
What is this "evidence of plan"?
Didn't you say in earlier times that the plan itself has to be found?
Now you have switched to merely "evidence of a plan" has to be found...
(without explaining what that is).
> >BTW, I have the sneaking suspicion that you will later introduce DNA
> >sequence as a "plan" for organisms. But in any case it is not
> >indicative of deliberate,
> >purposeful goal setting - unless we confuse result with function, and
> >function with purpose.
>
> for now, can we stay with the standard for human creation, HRG? Do
> you agree that, so far, bricks one and two are consistent for all
> humanly created items?
No. See numerous examples.
> If not, do you have examples that undermine
> this part of my foundation?
Try addressing the numerous examples you have dismissed with phony
arguments.
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for your explanation why a line in a plot with
newD/Di only should be shallower than a line in a plot with totalD/Di...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 14:33:34 +0000 (UTC), cats...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> HRG wrote:
>
> >>But in any case it is not
> >>indicative of deliberate,
> >>purposeful goal setting - unless we confuse result with function, and
> >>function with purpose.
> >
> >Uhh, isn't that the *intent* of creation science and ID? To assume
> >purpose and work backwards?
>
> we don't have to assume purpose. Purpose is understood to be goal
> orientation, and I am accepting only clear-cut cases of goal
> orientation.
Define "clear-cut" and explain how one determines if a case is
"clear-cut".
Zoe, did you ever notice that you and we have different opinions on the
question if DNA is such a clear-cut case, for example?
> Purpose, once identified and accepted as such,
By whom? By which standards?
> allows
> extrapolation back from the observed fact of purpose, to a creator of
> that purpose.
*sigh*
Zoe, look up the words "conclusion" and "extrapolation" and try to
understand the difference.
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for your explanation why a line in a plot with
newD/Di only should be shallower than a line in a plot with totalD/Di...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 06:00:54 +0000 (UTC), Mike Dunford
> <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in
> >news:3d38dcb9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> >
> >> okay, brick one for measuring creation of human artifacts was
> >> that of arbitrary stop/start commands as well as juxtaposition
> >> of parts not normally found together.
> >
> >Both traits appear to be arbitrary, not common to all objects of
> >human creation, and nowhere near exclusive to objects known to be
> >created. Hardly a promising start.
>
> okay. Do you wish to give me an example of a humanly created object
> that does not give evidence of stop/start commands or activity, as
> well as juxtaposition of parts not normally found together?
Before we can do this, you have to define your terms...
What does "stop/starts commands or activity" mean context?
What does "normally" mean in this context?
> And please don't give me something like a piece of bark being used in
> the function of a spoon. That does not qualify as a created item.
Why not>
> The bark remains a bark, and it has been pressed into a different
> function than that of protecting a tree trunk.
So what? When I'm paiting a picture, the paint remains paint, too! It is
simply "pressed into a different function", too!
> The creativity may be in the mind of the user,
And why is this not enough? Zoe, if you admit that there was creativity
involved, the object is created!
> but it does not reflect in the piece of bark,
> once that bark has been used and then thrown away.
Zoe, that's the point! That creativity isn't always seen ("reflected")
in objects created by humans!!!
> But if the piece
> of bark has been shaped and sculpted into a spoon shape, then it
> becomes a humanly created item with a purpose.
But what if it is shaped in order to better hold water, but is still in
a form which looks like a natural peace of bark?
> >> By itself, brick one permits a
> >
> >massive
>
> well, I was given a ledge and Old Faithful so far. Do you have some
> others? And remember that your example will now have to meet the
> criteria of two bricks, not just one.
Err, see above?
In essence, think simply of examples were things were created by humans
in order to look like things in nature (the native garden was an example
thereof).
> >> number of natural items to get past it, therefore it
> >> cannot stand by itself. But in conjunction with a second brick,
> >> the standard begins to solidify.
> >>
> >> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan,
> >> located somewhere in connection with the created item,
> >> indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
> >
> >This has even more problems than the first "brick":
> >
> >(1) You would be hard pressed to explain how this criteria would
> >identify, for example, a Jackson Pollock canvas like this one:
> >(http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/lavender-mist/) as
> >created.
>
> the location of that painting within the framework of a canvas and its
> wooden frame qualifies it to meet the standards of brick one --
> stop/start activity and juxtaposition of parts not normally found
> together.
Zoe, if a *frame* is a "stop/start activity", then this term becomes
pretty meaningless - it could be applied to everything with boundaries!
For example, a tree has bark around it - that's a clear "stop activity"!
Trees are created!
> the composition itself might mislead, except that because it is found
> IN the frame and ON canvas, we know immediately that a plan had to be
> behind its creation, even if it is a very loosely constructed plan in
> the mind of the painter.
Zoe, do we need to find the plan itself, or do we only need to be able
to *conclude* that there was a plan involved? If the second, please
explain which signs lead us to conclude this.
> >(I do not necessarily dispute the fact that there is a plan
> >of some sort, but I don't know how you would be able to _detect_
> >without knowing that it was designed.
>
> you know it was designed by the juxtapostion of parts -- canvas,
> frame, location of painting.
That's brick 1. What about brick 2?
> >(2) It is very easy to construct plans for things retroactively. For
> >example, geologists can map an area, and determine the order of
> >events needed to create what we see. That does not necessarily mean
> >that the _plan_ was required to create that landscape, or that there
> >was any goal setting involved. I don't see how you expect to be able
> >to distinguish real necessary blueprints from plans drawn up after
> >the fact.
>
> if the entire cluster of five or so criteria is present, then you
> should be certain that you are dealing with a created item.
And what if there are things created by humans which don't satisfy all
bricks? For examples see above...
> >(3) Not only does this "brick" potentially identify objects known to
> >be the result of instinct as created, it makes this error on all of
> >the examples I pointed out where the first "brick" had that problem.
> >The reason for this is simple, of course: this criterion does not
> >actually differ in any substantial respect from the last one.
> >Anything that has arbitrary starts/stops and/or a juxtaposition of
> >parts not normally found together will probably also demonstrate some
> >type of plan.
>
> right. But you're getting ahead of me. All I am interested in doing
> at the moment is to define and establish an acceptable standard that
> is consistent for all humanly created items. If the standard is
> valid, then it should apply to all items that are created.
Err, Zoe, you missed his point: that brick 2 isn't really different from
brick 1. That they are the same, essentially.
> >> right away, brick two rules out the falling rock onto a ledge as
> >> well as Old Faithful, because for both of these examples, even
> >> though stop/start activity is present, there is no evidence for
> >> a blueprint or plan for the falling rock or for the cycling of
> >> Old Faithful.
> >
> >Unfortunately, it still completely fails to distinguish real natural
> >items from human-constructed natural items, beaver dams from logjams
> >from primitive human constructions, cave systems from tunnel
> >complexes, etc.
>
> please allow me to first establish the standard with regard to humanly
> created items.
But, Zoe, examples were given of things created by humans which don't
fulfill even the first two bricks of your standard. This implies your
standard is useless.
> From there, I would like to move on to distinguish
> between any similarly created items in nature and those items that act
> according to the basic laws of physics and chemistry.
Hence you claim that there are:
1) things created by humans
2) things created directly by God
3) things which act according to the laws of nature (which were created
by God, too),
and you want to establish your standards for human creativity by
comparing the things in (1) with the things in (3), and then using this
standard for showing that the things in (2) were created, too?
Or am I misunderstanding you somewhere?
You mentioned "levels of creativity" somewhere, but you didn't explain
what this means, IIRC. Could you please explain this now?
> >> With brick two, human artifacts are beginning to be more
> >> distinct from natural items.
> >
> >Not really. At most, you have proposed two criteria, each of which
> >correctly identifies some (but not all) human-created items as
> >created,
>
> then please give me another example besides an oil painting (that does
> not qualify, as you can see) that you think does not meet the criteria
> of bricks one and two.
See above.
> >while also identifying a number of items produced through
> >instinctive and other natural processes as created.
>
> those instinctive and natural processes that happen to fall into the
> category of brick one, do not qualify for brick two. And if they do
> qualify, they will need to qualify for the entire standard, not just
> two bricks.
We'll see.
> So far, a ledge and Old Faithful do not met the entire
> standard of humanly created items -- certainly not brick two.
> Brick one is about all they can claim so far.
I could claim that Old Faithful couldn't work on its own, that its
regular activity is a clear sign that there it was planned. Hence it
fits the second brick.
> >Your foundation
> >so far has the approximate solidity of quicksand.
>
> sez you. :-P
Say all people beside you so far. No one has jumped in to stand beside
you so far - not even your fellow creationists...
Greetings,
Bjoerm
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for your explanation why a line in a plot with
newD/Di only should be shallower than a line in a plot with totalD/Di...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 07:39:21 +0000 (UTC), Mark VandeWettering
> <wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >It is not surprising that we can think of things that distinguish human
> >artifacts from natural items. I thought your thesis was to show that
> >natural things were _similar_ to human artifacts, not that they were
> >distinct.
>
> I am first proposing to establish an acceptable and valid standard by
> which to recognize humanly created items.
How are you doing this? By comparing things which were created by humans
with things in nature and establishing the differences, right?
If yes, then you claim here, obviously, that nature doesn't look like
things created by humans.
Hence, obviously, you cannot turn around later and claim that nature
*does* look like things created by humans.
> These human artifacts will be in distinction to natural items.
Zoe, here you admit yourself that human artifacts and natural items are
distinct.
Hence you cannot claim later that natural items look like they were
created by a human-like mind!
> However, if the established
> standard for creativity begins to identify some systems in nature as
> created,
How could it do this? You admitted yourself that the premise for
establishing the standard is that natural items do *not* look like human
artifacts!
> then it would be reasonable to shift the paradigm and to
> accept certain natural items as created, also.
"certain"? Hence you claim that not all natural items look created? Or
what?
> These natural items
> that show signs of creation will be distinguished in contrast to the
> natural laws of nature that dictate the physics and chemistry of the
> parts of those systems.
"natural laws of nature that dictate the physics and chemistry"? Ouch!
Word salad.
And I don't understand what you want to say here - that parts of created
things could have arisen on their own or what???
> >I have a feeling that in your next post you are going to claim the
> >exact opposite of what you claim here: that natural items are in
> >fact indistinguishable from human made artifacts.
>
> I expect to find evidence of creation in nature, meeting the standard
> of creation by humans,
But how can you do that? In order to establish your standard, you start
from the premise that natural items *don't* look like human artifacts!
If they *would* look like human artifacts, you couldn't establish the
standard!
> and I also expect to find evidence of natural
> laws that point up the distinction between created systems in the
> natural world and natural raw materials in the natural world.
Huh? What does this mean?
> That
> would be the next step in a series of about three or four steps down
> the road.
Zoe, could you give the outline of all your steps before starting to
present them in detail, please?
I would be especially interested in an explanation what "levels of
creativity" is supposed to mean!
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for your explanation why a line in a plot with
newD/Di only should be shallower than a line in a plot with totalD/Di...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:12:31 +0000 (UTC), Ian H Spedding
> <ha...@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> >> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> >> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
> >
> >Surely, if there "must be detected a blueprint or plan" then many
> >designed objects will fail the test as the plans or blueprints
> >have been lost or only ever existed in the mind of the designer.
>
> the operative word here is "detected." You don't necessarily have to
> see it in hard copy, but it needs to be discernible based on goal
> orientation, observed and repeated use and function.
This makes your brick 2 identical to your brick 1.
> If not discernible, such items will have to be set aside as ambiguous.
How do we decide if this is discernible? How do we identify "goal
orientation"?
And what has happened to your requirement that the plan has to be
"located somewhere in connection with the created item"?
Greetings,
Bjoern
Martin Crisp
(in message <5662bb3.02072...@posting.google.com>):
> Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<01HW.B96439650...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:32:13 +1000, zoe_althrop wrote
>> (in message <3d3ccec8....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>):
>>
[...]
>>> purpose would be the end product of construction and organization. If
>>> the stop/start, juxtaposition of parts, orient the raw materials
>>> towards an end goal that is detected in every other object of the same
>>> kind, then the pattern of construction would be considered evidence of
>>> a plan or blueprint for an archetype.
>>
>> I assure you there is such a blueprint for the above object, what
>> were my goals etc? And it can be used as an archetype (would you
>> like to see the same object done in 'glass', or 'oak', or 'jade'
In glass it gives some detail of the other side:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~martincrisp/lumpoglass.jpg
Had to change the background, Zoe might want to tell us why.
>> rather than the 'stone' currently used? Perhaps you'd like to see
>> the other 20 images made with the same blueprint?)
>
> Zoe first claims that a blueprint or plan is a "hallmark" for
> purposeful creation, and then wants to argue in reverse from goal and
> purpose ("I know it when I see it") to the existence of a plan or
> blueprint.
And I don't think she can achieve even part of that. Even with the
extra information: an acknowledged designer & blueprint. I wonder
what she thinks the motivations of the designer were? If she can
accurately deduce those motivations and relate them to the
blueprint, using whatever her method is, then she might be on to
something. [I'm not anticipating that she is, of course - but I
have even more information, knowledge of the motivations & methods
of the designer...].
> I wonder how she doesn't get dizzy with that much circularity ;)
Maybe she is dizzy, but just doesn't fall over? Zoe: the human
gyroscope? If we can slow her down she'll fall.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
It isn't our fault; we must, like it or not, obey gravity, our
tyrant.
- MC Escher
Andrew Arensburger
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:40:59 +0000 (UTC), Mike Dunford
> <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>I can't quite figure out what your criteria would do with my own
>>garden.
> I would need to know what are the surroundings of the native plant
> garden. Is this a suburban neighborhood? Are there lawned grounds in
> proximity to the native plant garden? Is there a house attached to
> this garden? If none of these juxtapositions are present, then the
> native plant garden gives no sign of creation. It will have to remain
> as natural. If there is the juxtaposition of lawns, suburbia,
> territorial boundaries, then the native plant garden is in a
> stop/start sequence, and has juxtaposition to parts that are not
> normally juxtaposed.
You know what this really reminds me of? A psychic doing a
cold reading.
"If it's created, it should have start/stop sequences.
[Observing mark's body language] Does it change color...
temperature... sound...? I'm sensing a barrier of some kind, a wall, a
fence, a manmade object of some kind. A juxtaposition of different
kinds of substances... or maybe environments. A lawn? Well, there it
is, then.
"Elements that you normally don't find together? Sure, all of
the plants are native, but a lot of them are endangered, so you don't
normally find them anywhere. So obviously they were planted by a
creator.
"I'm sensing a blueprint. I'm getting a feeling of planning,
of forethought, of methodology. Well, in this case the garden is its
own blueprint, since anyone can take a photo of it and reproduce it.
In any case, we can infer a blueprint or plan from the mere existence
of the garden."
Honestly, Zoe, don't you see that this is what you're doing?
You keep withholding parts of your "theory," then complain that
people's criticisms aren't valid because they can't see the big
picture. At the same time, the criteria you've posted for recognizing
created objects are so vague that you can always find some
rationalization for putting anything in the correct category.
In short, you're not looking for truth. You're looking for
validation of your creationist opinions.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Don't make me use uppercase...
Martin Crisp
(in message <3d3cd372....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>):
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:54:18 +0000 (UTC), Mike Dunford
> <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
>
> <snip repeated example of a native plant garden>
>
> see my previous response on this same subject. But let me add that
> there is no reason to invalidate a tool just because it does not cover
> all instances. Do you throw out all fossils as suspect because you
But you have not shown that it actually covers any instances.
> find a fossil that is so defaced that it is indecipherable as to what
> life form it was, or what it supposedly evolved from or into? No.
>
> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies to
> clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by applying
> this standard. The more ambiguous cases will have to be set aside for
> further study, but that does not mean the standard is useless until
> all objects are investigated and validated.
But you have asserted that in the case of human created objects
(objects which have a blueprint from which they are produced) that
that blueprint and the intent of the creator can be inferred from
examination of the product of creation.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~martincrisp/lumporock.jpg
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~martincrisp/lumpoglass.jpg
I made these, I used a 'blueprint' to do so.
What were my intents/purposes in creating them? Since the glass one
was produced more recently than the stone one, were my intents the
same in the creation of each?
If your 'tool' doesn't work in cases where you have extra
information, the identity and nature of the creator (me, a human),
what hope does your 'tool' have in instances where this information
is not available?
I've said 'create', 'creator' etc throughout the above, rather than
'designer' - I'm interested to know, do you think that because I
created this, that I also designed it? What do you mean by
'design'? If I have/had 'designed' this object, would that imply
that the small 'floating' rock is intentionally sized and placed?
Does it imply that the small ridge in the upper lobe is
intentioned?
>> If you don't like this example, let me know, and I'll come up with
>> another one.
>
> another one, please.
>
> snip>
>
>> You appear to be trying to define "humanly created item with a
>> purpose" in such a way that the term is restricted to things which
>> you know you can detect.
>
> that's the best any scientist can do, I am betting. All observation
> depends on what can be detected. The rest remains to be discovered.
If you found a lump of rock identical in shape to the first picture
above, how would you determine that it was designed? What features,
if changed, would confuse that issue? What features, if changed,
would make it a 'clear-cut' case of 'natural formation'?
e.g. if it were cracked in places, discoloured in places, less
smooth, would these features make it 'clearly' undesigned? Or could
such features be part of the 'design'?
>> That is an arbitrary distinction, obviously
>> intended to keep your struggling hypothesis from suffering additional
>> damage. There is no real reason for this distinction. It requires
>> conscious, creative thought to figure out how to use naturally
>> occuring things for a new purpose. Plus, how do you draw the line
>> that lets you call it a "created item with a purpose"? When the worst
>> of the dirt is rinsed off in the stream? When a small piece or two is
>> cracked off to make it easier to hold? When a small chunk is gouged
>> out to slightly deepen the bowl of the spoon?
>
> right now I am culling out the clear-cut examples. Are you saying
Cull mine out, then. Is it designed? What do you mean by
'designed'? Can you reproduce the necessary elements of the
'blueprint' I used? [Not an accurate recreation of the blueprint,
but a 'sketch' of it.]
Also, is the blueprint a designed thing? If so, doesn't it also
require a blueprint? And wouldn't that then require a blueprint,
and so on? Is it blueprints all the way down?
> that because there are ambiguous items, that this invalidates the
> clear-cut examples? For your sake, I hope not, because that would
> have to apply to your evolutionary theory, also.
Isn't the designation 'clear-cut' only able to be assigned after
the examination? How can you cull out the 'clear-cut' cases prior
to the examination of the objects by your 'design inferometer'?
There are fossils on sale in Marrakesh, without looking at one, how
do you know if it is a fake or a genuine fossil?
[With a nod to the memory of SJG]
>>>>> By itself, brick one
>>>>> permits a
>>>>
>>>> massive
>>>
>>> well, I was given a ledge and Old Faithful so far. Do you have
>>> some others?
>>
>> I gave you others in my response to brick one. Human dam/beaver
>> dam/logjam and bird's nest/human reproduction of bird's nest, to name
>> a couple.
>
> earlier on, I had ruled out those products that are the result of
> instinctual behavior. If the human reproduces an object so that it
How do you determine the result of instinct prior to examination?
> looks exactly like that produced via instinct, then the standard does
> not work for these items. They have to be rejected as unsuitable for
> determination via the standard for creation. This does not invalidate
> the standard for those items that are clear-cut, however. If you
> think they do, then I need to know why.
Because the designation 'clear-cut' can only be determined after
the method has been used to reliably detect that 'clear-cut' cases
are indeed 'clear-cut'. [And 'clear-cut' goes both ways; clearly
'natural' and clearly 'designed'. The usefulness of your 'tool'
depends on how small the number of 'unknown' cases it leaves.]
[It seems the efforts of scientists can determine the 'clear-cut'
cases, and, over time, resolves ambiguous ones, and corrects
earlier inaccurate assessments. Recommend Stephen Jay Gould's
_Wonderful Life_ as giving good examples of this.]
>>> And remember that your example will now have to
>>> meet the criteria of two bricks, not just one.
>>
>> They still fail.
>
> of course. That is what I would expect them to do -- fail. The
> standard weeds out such examples.
I am unclear whether the items I've 'created' are 'designed'
according to your criteria, please, use your criteria to tell me
why they are or are not 'designed'.
>>>>> number of natural items to get past it, therefore it
>>>>> cannot stand by itself. But in conjunction with a second
>>>>> brick, the standard begins to solidify.
>>>>>
>>>>> Criterion 2: There must be detected a blueprint or plan,
>>>>> located somewhere in connection with the created item,
>>>>> indicative of deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>>>>
>>>> This has even more problems than the first "brick":
>>>>
>>>> (1) You would be hard pressed to explain how this criteria would
>>>> identify, for example, a Jackson Pollock canvas like this one:
>>>> (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/lavender-mist/) as
>>>> created.
>>>
>>> the location of that painting within the framework of a canvas
>>> and its wooden frame qualifies it to meet the standards of brick
>>> one -- stop/start activity and juxtaposition of parts not
>>> normally found together.
>>
>> Irrelevant. According to you, to qualify as a "created" object, it
>> must fit _each_ brick.
>
> it must fit ALL bricks TOGETHER. So far the painting fits both brick
> one and two.
Again, I'm not sure if the objects I created fit the criteria for
being 'designed'.
> snip>
>
>>>> (I do not necessarily dispute the fact that there is a plan
>>>> of some sort, but I don't know how you would be able to _detect_
>>>> without knowing that it was designed.
>>>
>>> you know it was designed by the juxtapostion of parts -- canvas,
>>> frame, location of painting.
>>
>> Yes, but how do you distinguish the following two hypotheses for the
>> creation of this design?
>>
>> (a) The painting is the work of a master artist.
>>
>> (b) The paint on the canvas resulted from a messy fight in the
>> artist's studio.
>
> the painting may or may not be that of a master artist or a result of
> a messy fight, but by the deliberate placement of the oils on a
> canvas, and the deliberate framing of the canvas, it is clear that
> this is meant to be either a painting by artists or fighters, and it
> is acceptable as a created item.
But does created=designed?
> snip>
>
>> Let me try again. If you cannot find some criteria which will let you
>> distinguish a plan of construction conceived before an object was
>> created and which is necessary for the creation of an object from a
>> plan constructed by humans after the fact, and which was not
>> necessary for the original construction, how will you be able to tell
>> whether this criterion is in fact really present?
>
> as I said, some items may be more ambiguous than others, but for the
> clear-cut ones, there will be no dispute as to the fact that they are
> created items, right? I am interested in the clear-cut examples right
> now.
As above, how can you know what is clear-cut before you use your
method? How do you know your method works if you won't apply it to
'known in advance' items?
> In other words, no one is going to contest the fact that the Linux
> operating system for computers is a created item. That operating
> system meets the whole cluster of five criteria. A logjam may not be
I really don't think linux serves as a good example for your case.
Linux isn't an 'item' its a set of items, made after many
revisions, by many people. Your criteria seem to speak specifically
about single items, single creators, single creative efforts,
single blueprints. How does your 'theory' cope with multiple
creators using multiple blueprints and multiple revisions?
> as easily identifiable, and if so, it has to be set aside for further
> investigation. But that does not invalidate the fact that the
> standard has identified a clear-cut case of creation in the Linux
> software.
How about this snippet of code?
if r2r(2,"=",0) and s2s(5,"=",12) and s2s(9,"=",4) and
r2r(3,"",13) then toff() else mv(13,7)
It was produced from stuff like this (the above is but one of 34
instructions in 'organism #44309', which has a 'fitness' of
27.710544022877, if it gets to 80 it will 'breed', when (!) it
falls to 0 it 'dies'):
CAAGCAATTTTGC[a few hundred more chars]
CAAGCAATTTTGC[a few hundred more chars]
CCCCGTACCCGTA[...]
CCCCGTACCCGTA[...]
GCGCACACGGATA[...]
GCGCACACGGATA[...]
GAATTTCAAGGCG[...]
GAATTTCAAGGCG[...]
ATGGCTGGACCTC[...]
ATGGCTGGACCTC[...]
AGTCCTCTTAAAT[...]
AGTCCTCTTAAAT[...]
> snip>
>
>> Even if you manage to find a criteria which apply to all created
>> items -- something you have been unsuccessful at so far -- it will
>> still be worthless if it misidentifies as created items which are the
>> product of instinctive behaviors. Right now, a lot of items which are
>> the known product of instinctive behaviors rather than conscious
>> effort pass both the first two criteria. This start does not inspire
>> confidence.
>
> I think you're making standards so inflexible that it refutes your own
> evolutionary theory, also. Do you throw out your interpretation of
> certain fossils evolving, based on the fact that there are other
> fossils that are so indistinct that therefore all fossils are invalid
> for study? No, you work with the clear-cut cases that seem to meet
On the contrary, examples that are damaged, deformed or whatever
are the norm for fossils - extremely badly damaged fossils lead to
advances in methods of examination. Your 'theory' is badly damaged,
by looking at it cloesly we might better understand 'theories' in
general.
> your standard for evolution, such as the Archeopteryx. (note I said
> "seem") Fossil pieces of a single partial piece of bone is ambiguous
> as to anything evolutionary, so you set that piece aside.
>
> well, I can do the same with my hunt for clear-cut created items.
So you do for clear-cut cases as others do for indistinguishable
cases? Gee, what does 'same' mean in your universe? Did you miss
Sesame Street as a child? Didn't watch it with Vince?
> snip>
>
>> I was under the impression from your earlier posts that you were
>> willing to concede that objects known to be the direct result of
>> instinctive behavior were not the result of conscious creative
>> effort.
>
> right. I have left instinctively created objects outside the realm of
> conscious humanly created objects.
Only because you 'know' in advance that they are 'instinctively'
created. If your method is useful then it needs to be able to work
on objects where this is unknown. But if they are unknown then we
have no way of knowing whether the method works (are the positives
'false positives'? are the negatives 'false negatives'?). To
'calibrate' your method it needs to reliably work on known objects
as if they were unknown objects. If it returns a small number of
'false positives' and a small number of 'false negatives' then it
is useful, otherwise it is not reliable.
You don't know my creation goals, if any, I do. You don't know my
creation methods, I do. If your method works as claimed you should
be able to tell me the 'design content' of the 'blueprint' I used
to create, and perhaps design, the images above.
>> Am I wrong to think this?
>
> no.
>
> snip>
>
>>> then please give me another example besides an oil painting
>>> (that does not qualify, as you can see) that you think does not
>>> meet the criteria of bricks one and two.
>>
>> My native plant garden. I also don't think that the painting itself,
>> as opposed to the canvas (typically, a painting and the canvas it is
>> on are the result of not one but two separate "creations")
>
> right, more juxtapositions.
>
>> passes the
>> second criterion. The topography of the housing area I live in is
>> another -- some of the topography results from cuts and fills, but I
>> can't tell how much, or exactly where. There are hiking trails which
>> also fit the bill -- did the log fall where you see it, or was it
>> dragged into a better position to serve as a bridge? (And don't give
>> me that BS about that not counting because we didn't "shape" the
>> tree. I've been on trail crews, and I can tell you that there's a lot
>> of physical effort that goes into making a bridge out of a tree that
>> fell near the stream, even if you don't trim twig one.)
>
> well, tell me something. Do scientists spend all their time on
> ambiguous, unsuitable data, or do they work with clear-cut cases? Do
When? When working with a reliable tool, or when working with a
new, untested, tool?
> they reject clear-cut cases based on the fact that there are ambiguous
> cases in the same area of study?
They use both for different purposes. The ambiguous cases tend to
be the most interesting, as they lead to new knowledge or new tools
of investigation. The clear-cut cases to test and develop those
tools/knowledge.
>> Those are a few just off the top of my head. If you can find some way
>> to shoehorn all of these into both the first two criteria, let me
>> know and I'll give you another batch. I didn't stop because I had run
>> out of examples.
>
> give me more, then, because so far your examples fit my first two
> criteria WITHOUT any shoehorning.
>
> snip repetitions>
Because you already know they do, you're arguing from your
conclusion. You need to show your tools work without that
knowledge. Do they?
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
Almost always SMASHed
Martin Crisp
(in message <3D4020E7...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>):
>> there's no sense in commenting on Mandelbrot (as much as I am tempted
>> to) because I am still working on establishing a valid standard for
>> identifying created objects in the human realm.
>
> So what? Do you want to claim that shapes, based on the Mandelbrot set,
> are not created by humans?
Will you accept shapes based on the julia set?
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~martincrisp/fractal1.jpg