Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
< snip >
> > > > > > By the way, the marble statue of David does show a great deal of
> > > > > > symmetry as well as copying of irregularities from one side to the
> > > > > > other. David's face is highly symmetrical.
> > > > >
> > > > > No it isn't. His head is tilted to one side.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't mater if David's head is tilted, his face is still highly
> > > > symmetrical. The tilt of the head has nothing to do with facial
> > > > symmetry.
> > >
> > > You can only detect facial symetry if
> > > you know that you are looking at
> > > a face. Are you now claiming that your
> > > methodology can recognise human faces?
> >
> > If you can't understand that a human face has symmetry regardless of
> > one's prior experience with humans, you're hopeless.
>
> I understand that perfectly well. It's not my methodology which is in
> question here. How would *your* methodology detect that symetry?
My methodology is based on finding the same irregularities on both
sides of a line of reflective symmetry. Clearly, you can do this with
David's face. You can measure this symmetry. Symmetry is not some
vague concept Richard. It is measurable in degree. David's face has an
extremely high degree of measurable reflective symmetry. The angle of
the head with respect to the rest of the body has absolutely nothing to
do with this fact. As long as at least one line of symmetry can be
drawn through and object of any kind, that object displays "symmetry"
which can indeed be measured - in a quantifiable way. It doesn't
matter what the object is - human or statue or granite rock.
< snip >
> > > > > The model on which the statue was based was no doubt highly symetrical
> > > > > - such symetry was highly regarded by Renaisance artists - but the
> > > > > statue as an object is not.
> > > >
> > > > You're wrong. Various parts of the statue do indeed show a very high
> > > > degree of symmetry. And, various parts also show a very high degree of
> > > > mirror image fidelity.
> > >
> > > The statue is an object carved out of marble.
> > > It is not a human being.
> > > There is no plane in any part of that marble object about which it is
> > > symetrical.
> >
> > You're nuts! A real human being could take the same pose as that of
> > David's statue and the symmetry of that human would not be lost. There
> > are all kinds of planes that could be drawn on this statue where near
> > perfect reflective symmetry would be seen on each side of the line. The
> > face is just one of the most striking examples. The torso is another.
> > High fidelity mirror image copying is also near perfection when it
> > comes to the hands, feet, arms, and legs. They match on both sides
> > extremely well. It doesn't matter that they are in different positions
> > in space. They still match. Haven't you taken any art classes at all?
> >
> > > If think there is, please tell us where such a plane can be found.
> >
> > I already have. If you can't see it, you're either being a deliberate
> > idiot or you are beyond help.
>
> No, you haven't.
> The statue is an object made of marble.
> It has no plane of reflective symetry.
Imagine a plane going right through the middle of David's head front to
back. You will notice, if you can actually admit it, that the features
on one side of the face are reflectively identical to those on the
other. This symmetry can be measured in a quantifiable way. The same
thing can be done with the torso and many other parts of this statue.
So, you see, there are lots of planes of reflective symmetry that can
be placed through the statue of David.
> It is not a human being. You seem not to have grasped that.
It doesn't matter what it is as far as reflective symmetry is concerned
- you don't seem to grasp that. Being a "human being" isn't what makes
you reflectively symmetrical. It is being reflectively symmetrical that
makes you reflectively symmetrical. There have been lots of human
beings that have very little reflective symmetry to their physical body
- yet they are still human. Think about it. You're killing me here.
> Your proposed methodology cannot tell if it is the statue of a human
> being or an irregular block of marble with a relatively smooth surface
> in most places.
I'm not trying to tell if the statue is "human" or not. I'm only saying
that this object has a great deal of reflective symmetry. It doesn't
matter what it is, symmetry can be measured even if it isn't "human".
This is so obvious. Come on now. Turn on your brain just a little
bit!
< snip >
> > > > > > Why didn't you say, "Well, larger drops do take on the shape of
> > > > > > hamburger buns, but I'm talking about very tiny drops"? Instead, you
> > > > > > just called me crazy even though you knew that given the statement as
> > > > > > you made it, I was actually correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you were wrong.
> > > >
> > > > LOL - geez! I'm wrong about the shape of larger raindrops as they fall
> > > > through the atmosphere? You still think I'm wrong? Man, you're
> > > > hopeless!
> > >
> > > Most raindrop are below 2mm in diameter.
> > > Raindrops below 2mm in diameter form almost perfect spheres.
> > >
> > > You were wrong.
> >
> > I wasn't wrong at all based on what you said - and you know it.
>
> I wrote: "Water droplets falling in a still atmosphere fall perfect
> spheres."
>
> I mistyped:
>
> It should have read "Water droplets falling in a still atmosphere form
> perfect spheres."
>
> Is this statement false?
Yes, this statement is false if the water droplets are larger than the
size of small mist droplets. The atmosphere can be as "still" as can be
relative to the Earth. Yet, if a water droplet is "falling" through it,
the atmosphere is actually moving relative to the droplet. This
relative movement of the atmosphere against the droplet, even a small
droplet, will deform the droplet into a flattened hamburger bun shape.
Only in a weightless environment where the droplets isn't "falling"
relative to the atmosphere would it take on a spherical shape.
If you had known this, why did you say that I was "Watching to many
cartoons" and that I was "WRONG" when I mentioned this little bit of
trivia to you? Your own Wikipedia reference lists this fact. Didn't you
read this first? At the very least you should have said, "Well yes,
raindrops larger than 1-2 mm do form the hamburger bun look when
falling through the atmosphere. But, I'm talking about very small
droplets or droplets that aren't falling or moving at all relative an
atmosphere in a weightless environment."
< snip >
If you can't concede such simple points, how on Earth can you catch on
to more difficult concepts?
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Noone Inparticular
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > > > > > By the way, the marble statue of David does show a great deal of
> > > > > > > symmetry as well as copying of irregularities from one side to the
> > > > > > > other. David's face is highly symmetrical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No it isn't. His head is tilted to one side.
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't mater if David's head is tilted, his face is still highly
> > > > > symmetrical. The tilt of the head has nothing to do with facial
> > > > > symmetry.
> > > >
> > > > You can only detect facial symetry if
> > > > you know that you are looking at
> > > > a face. Are you now claiming that your
> > > > methodology can recognise human faces?
> > >
> > > If you can't understand that a human face has symmetry regardless of
> > > one's prior experience with humans, you're hopeless.
> >
> > I understand that perfectly well. It's not my methodology which is in
> > question here. How would *your* methodology detect that symetry?
>
> My methodology is based on finding the same irregularities on both
> sides of a line of reflective symmetry.
You have no methodology, Dr. Pitman. All you do is blow hot air.
Attend, dear boy, attend
> Clearly, you can do this with
> David's face. You can measure this symmetry. Symmetry is not some
> vague concept Richard. It is measurable in degree. David's face has an
> extremely high degree of measurable reflective symmetry. The angle of
> the head with respect to the rest of the body has absolutely nothing to
> do with this fact. As long as at least one line of symmetry can be
> drawn through and object of any kind, that object displays "symmetry"
> which can indeed be measured - in a quantifiable way. It doesn't
> matter what the object is - human or statue or granite rock.
>
><snips>
>
> Imagine a plane going right through the middle of David's head front to
> back. You will notice, if you can actually admit it, that the features
> on one side of the face are reflectively identical to those on the
> other. This symmetry can be measured in a quantifiable way. The same
> thing can be done with the torso and many other parts of this statue.
>
> So, you see, there are lots of planes of reflective symmetry that can
> be placed through the statue of David.
This is child's play.
You didn't actually try this did you, Dr. Pitman? See that's the thing
about claims about a "methodology", unless you actually show how one
goes about doing something, you run the risk of looking like a fool
should someone actually attempt it, especially if you were wrong in the
first place.
I took a full frontal photo of David (widely available on the net)
sliced the photo in half and reversed each half such that I had four
photos; David's right half face and a mirror image and David's left
half face and its mirror image. I then pasted each half face photo to
its mirror image. The symmetry that is there (two eyes, two nostrils,
two ears, more or less bi-lateral symmetry) is apparent. Unfortunately
it look like I have photos of two different statues.
The features on either side of David's face are NOT "are reflectively
identical to those on the other". This is common photo trick that
impresses first graders. Try it yourself. Its easy.
Frankly, I think this exchange is classic Pitman TO legerdemain; you
make silly arguments that you think apply to whatever model it is that
you refuse to disclose and which are trivially easy to dismiss, either
because you haven't thought it through (I think Richard is correct when
he says elsethread that he thinks you're just making this stuff up as
you go. I really think he is right about that) or because you haven't
actually tried it, then pretend that you have explained all along how
we go about detecting design.
<snip rest>
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > > > > > By the way, the marble statue of David does show a great deal of
> > > > > > > symmetry as well as copying of irregularities from one side to the
> > > > > > > other. David's face is highly symmetrical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No it isn't. His head is tilted to one side.
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't mater if David's head is tilted, his face is still highly
> > > > > symmetrical. The tilt of the head has nothing to do with facial
> > > > > symmetry.
> > > >
> > > > You can only detect facial symetry if
> > > > you know that you are looking at
> > > > a face. Are you now claiming that your
> > > > methodology can recognise human faces?
> > >
> > > If you can't understand that a human face has symmetry regardless of
> > > one's prior experience with humans, you're hopeless.
> >
> > I understand that perfectly well. It's not my methodology which is in
> > question here. How would *your* methodology detect that symetry?
>
> My methodology is based on finding the same irregularities on both
> sides of a line of reflective symmetry.
Well there's a new assertion!
You *are* making it up as you go along.
> Clearly, you can do this with
> David's face.
How does your methodology recognise that the marble shape it is
investigating is the statue of a naked man?
The block of marble which makes up the statue is not, and unless your
methodology incorporates an algorythm for recognising human forms, this
is a pointless argument.
As far as I can judge from your endlessly evasive and rambling
postings, your methodology consists of the following:
1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
If I am incorrect in this, please give us a clear exposition of your
methodology.
> This symmetry can be measured in a quantifiable way. The same
> thing can be done with the torso and many other parts of this statue.
>
> So, you see, there are lots of planes of reflective symmetry that can
> be placed through the statue of David.
There are none about which the marble form which makes up the statue is
symetrical, and unless you methodology incorporates a method of
detecting human forms, your methodology can't detect even a local
symetry.
If I am wrong in my description of your methodology, please describe it
in a clear form.
>
> > It is not a human being. You seem not to have grasped that.
>
> It doesn't matter what it is as far as reflective symmetry is concerned
> - you don't seem to grasp that. Being a "human being" isn't what makes
> you reflectively symmetrical. It is being reflectively symmetrical that
> makes you reflectively symmetrical.
It's a shape carved out of marble.
There are no planes of reflective symetry in that marble shape.
If you take a small part of the shape in isolation from the rest of the
shape and claim that this small part has reflective symetry, you need
to show how your methodology can detect that small, symetrical part,
and furthermore show that objects made by "non-deliberate" processes do
not show equivalently sized small symetrical parts.
It's your claim.
Support it.
> There have been lots of human
> beings that have very little reflective symmetry to their physical body
> - yet they are still human. Think about it. You're killing me here.
>
Just in case you hadn't noticed, humans are not carved out of large
blocks of Carrera marble.
> > Your proposed methodology cannot tell if it is the statue of a human
> > being or an irregular block of marble with a relatively smooth surface
> > in most places.
>
> I'm not trying to tell if the statue is "human" or not. I'm only saying
> that this object has a great deal of reflective symmetry. It doesn't
> matter what it is, symmetry can be measured even if it isn't "human".
>
> This is so obvious. Come on now. Turn on your brain just a little
> bit!
An object has reflective symetry, or it doesn't have reflective
symetry.
You can't isolate a part of an object and claim that because that part
shows reflective symetry, the object has reflective symetry. Indeed,an
irregular an object has more small areas of reflective symetry than a
very regular object, and therefore, by your standards, has more
reflective symetry!
>
> < snip >
>
> > > > > > > Why didn't you say, "Well, larger drops do take on the shape of
> > > > > > > hamburger buns, but I'm talking about very tiny drops"? Instead, you
> > > > > > > just called me crazy even though you knew that given the statement as
> > > > > > > you made it, I was actually correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, you were wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL - geez! I'm wrong about the shape of larger raindrops as they fall
> > > > > through the atmosphere? You still think I'm wrong? Man, you're
> > > > > hopeless!
> > > >
> > > > Most raindrop are below 2mm in diameter.
> > > > Raindrops below 2mm in diameter form almost perfect spheres.
> > > >
> > > > You were wrong.
> > >
> > > I wasn't wrong at all based on what you said - and you know it.
> >
> > I wrote: "Water droplets falling in a still atmosphere fall perfect
> > spheres."
> >
> > I mistyped:
> >
> > It should have read "Water droplets falling in a still atmosphere form
> > perfect spheres."
> >
> > Is this statement false?
>
> Yes, this statement is false if the water droplets are larger than the
> size of small mist droplets.
So it's true except when it's false.
Incidentally, the size of particles is the average size of raindrops.
> The atmosphere can be as "still" as can be
> relative to the Earth. Yet, if a water droplet is "falling" through it,
> the atmosphere is actually moving relative to the droplet. This
> relative movement of the atmosphere against the droplet, even a small
> droplet, will deform the droplet into a flattened hamburger bun shape.
> Only in a weightless environment where the droplets isn't "falling"
> relative to the atmosphere would it take on a spherical shape.
It's just as well that this is not true, Sean, or we wouldn't have
rainbows.
>
> If you had known this, why did you say that I was "Watching to many
> cartoons" and that I was "WRONG" when I mentioned this little bit of
> trivia to you? Your own Wikipedia reference lists this fact. Didn't you
> read this first? At the very least you should have said, "Well yes,
> raindrops larger than 1-2 mm do form the hamburger bun look when
> falling through the atmosphere. But, I'm talking about very small
> droplets or droplets that aren't falling or moving at all relative an
> atmosphere in a weightless environment."
>
> < snip >
>
> If you can't concede such simple points, how on Earth can you catch on
> to more difficult concepts?
Rainbows, Sean, Rainbows
Now how about a clear exposition of your methodology?
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Noone Inparticular wrote:
> > So, you see, there are lots of planes of reflective symmetry that can
> > be placed through the statue of David.
>
> This is child's play.
>
> You didn't actually try this did you, Dr. Pitman? See that's the thing
> about claims about a "methodology", unless you actually show how one
> goes about doing something, you run the risk of looking like a fool
> should someone actually attempt it, especially if you were wrong in the
> first place.
>
> I took a full frontal photo of David (widely available on the net)
> sliced the photo in half and reversed each half such that I had four
> photos; David's right half face and a mirror image and David's left
> half face and its mirror image. I then pasted each half face photo to
> its mirror image. The symmetry that is there (two eyes, two nostrils,
> two ears, more or less bi-lateral symmetry) is apparent. Unfortunately
> it look like I have photos of two different statues.
Certainly there will be variations between two sides of any human face.
This is a classic demonstration if you've ever taken an art or
photography class. However, the face of Michelangelo's David is
extraordinarily symmetrical. This is clearly evident to anyone
considering this statue with a candid mind. Perhaps you got a picture
that wasn't exactly lined up with the camera or one who's lighting
wasn't lined up with the camera (see link).
http://www.abcgallery.com/M/michelangelo/michelangelo13.html
The fact of the matter is, no non-deliberate force can produce this
degree of reflective symmetry in marble with regard to any type of
irregularities.
> The features on either side of David's face are NOT "are reflectively
> identical to those on the other". This is common photo trick that
> impresses first graders. Try it yourself. Its easy.
They don't have to be exactly identical to maintain a very high degree
of symmetry. Come on man - you're making yourself look silly trying to
defend such an obviously mistaken position.
> Frankly, I think this exchange is classic Pitman TO legerdemain; you
> make silly arguments that you think apply to whatever model it is that
> you refuse to disclose and which are trivially easy to dismiss, either
> because you haven't thought it through (I think Richard is correct when
> he says elsethread that he thinks you're just making this stuff up as
> you go. I really think he is right about that) or because you haven't
> actually tried it, then pretend that you have explained all along how
> we go about detecting design.
Give me a break . . . You yourself can see the very high degree of
symmetry in David's face and body if you would actually let yourself
admit it. In fact, I dare say that you wouldn't have batted an eye if
anyone else except for a creationist made this observation.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
neverbetter
What's your point? Humans must be intelligently designed since their
faces have some degree of symmetry and most have a hand on each side?
Seanpit
http://www.openmindinstitute.com/article.php?Noarticle=46
http://www.adrianbruce.com/Symmetry/split/split.htm
http://www.ltech.com.tw/ltech/english/E_product/E_product_beauty3D.php
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Noone Inparticular
Seanpit wrote:
> Noone Inparticular wrote:
>
> > > So, you see, there are lots of planes of reflective symmetry that can
> > > be placed through the statue of David.
> >
> > This is child's play.
> >
> > You didn't actually try this did you, Dr. Pitman? See that's the thing
> > about claims about a "methodology", unless you actually show how one
> > goes about doing something, you run the risk of looking like a fool
> > should someone actually attempt it, especially if you were wrong in the
> > first place.
> >
> > I took a full frontal photo of David (widely available on the net)
> > sliced the photo in half and reversed each half such that I had four
> > photos; David's right half face and a mirror image and David's left
> > half face and its mirror image. I then pasted each half face photo to
> > its mirror image. The symmetry that is there (two eyes, two nostrils,
> > two ears, more or less bi-lateral symmetry) is apparent. Unfortunately
> > it look like I have photos of two different statues.
>
> Certainly there will be variations between two sides of any human face.
> This is a classic demonstration if you've ever taken an art or
> photography class. However, the face of Michelangelo's David is
> extraordinarily symmetrical.
Actually, no it is not. One of the things that made Michelangelo one of
the greatest artists in history is the extraordinary natural beauty he
imparted in his work, and one of the best examples is David. And David
has a face like real live humans; with the very kind of asymmetry
everyone has.
> This is clearly evident to anyone
> considering this statue with a candid mind. Perhaps you got a picture
> that wasn't exactly lined up with the camera or one who's lighting
> wasn't lined up with the camera (see link).
Yeah, that's possible. Still, I didn't make this up. People have noted
this about David for, I dunno, hundreds of years.
>
> http://www.abcgallery.com/M/michelangelo/michelangelo13.html
>
> The fact of the matter is, no non-deliberate force can produce this
> degree of reflective symmetry in marble with regard to any type of
> irregularities.
Heh. Sez you.
I got an idea! Prove it. You know, with math and stuff.
>
> > The features on either side of David's face are NOT "are reflectively
> > identical to those on the other". This is common photo trick that
> > impresses first graders. Try it yourself. Its easy.
>
> They don't have to be exactly identical to maintain a very high degree
> of symmetry. Come on man - you're making yourself look silly trying to
> defend such an obviously mistaken position.
SIlly? Me? Heaven forfend. But may I *REQUOTE*, since you snipped it?;
*Ahem*
"Imagine a plane going right through the middle of David's head front
to back. You will notice, if you can actually admit it, that the
features on one side of the face are ***reflectively identical*** to
those on the other."
<emphasis added>
Now who looks silly?
You know, it occurs to me that a common thread running through TO posts
is about universal constants, you know, like the speed of light. It
seems we may have stumbled upon another universal constant; the Pitman
Goalpost Scooter. Essentially it is a factor that you can use to
determine how fast a subject is changed when contravailing or opposing
evidence is presented. It clearly exceeds the speed of light, and it is
a constant.
>
> > Frankly, I think this exchange is classic Pitman TO legerdemain; you
> > make silly arguments that you think apply to whatever model it is that
> > you refuse to disclose and which are trivially easy to dismiss, either
> > because you haven't thought it through (I think Richard is correct when
> > he says elsethread that he thinks you're just making this stuff up as
> > you go. I really think he is right about that) or because you haven't
> > actually tried it, then pretend that you have explained all along how
> > we go about detecting design.
>
> Give me a break . . . You yourself can see the very high degree of
> symmetry in David's face and body if you would actually let yourself
> admit it. In fact, I dare say that you wouldn't have batted an eye if
> anyone else except for a creationist made this observation.
True. Very true.
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
We are addressing how your methodology would detect design in a marble
statue, not a human face (are you, by the way, asserting that the human
face is designed because it is symetrical?)
The block of marble which makes up the statue is not a human being, and
unless your
methodology incorporates an algorythm for recognising human shapes,
this is a pointless argument.
As far as I can judge from your endlessly evasive and rambling
postings, your methodology consists of the following:
1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
If I am incorrect in this, please give us a clear exposition of your
methodology.
RF
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> The block of marble which makes up
> the statue is not a human being, and
> unless your methodology incorporates an
> algorythm for recognising human shapes,
> this is a pointless argument.
Let's go through this one more time. Look at the face of Michelangelo's
David - just the face. Are you seriously trying to tell me that just
because this is a marble statue that you cannot see the near perfect
symmetry of that face? You're kidding right? That face is even more
measurably symmetrical than are the faces of most living human models.
Don't you see that? It has nothing to do with if something is living
or not or made of marble or flesh and bones. Symmetry is symmetry -
regardless of the materials used.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ken Shackleton
How about the paintings of Picasso? Not much symmetry in any faces
there....reflective or otherwise. However...most people would agree
that they are the result of an intelligent and deliberate process. I
wonder.....if the ID theory needs to be modified ad-hoc to explain
every different example of design.....what good is it?
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Inez
What about some of the works of Henry Moore? Can they be the result of
non-deliberate processes? How about this one:
http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/N/N05/N05387_9.jpg
Or this one:
http://www.po-net.prato.it/artestoria/contemp/img/mooregr.jpg
I don't think the giveaway for deliberate is "reflective symmetry," I
think it is recognizing the object as having a purpose or being the
type of thing that people make.
The chances of David being formed naturally are very low, but there
isn't a law of physics that precludes it that I know of.
I
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > The block of marble which makes up
> > the statue is not a human being, and
> > unless your methodology incorporates an
> > algorythm for recognising human shapes,
> > this is a pointless argument.
>
> Let's go through this one more time. Look at the face of Michelangelo's
> David - just the face. Are you seriously trying to tell me that just
> because this is a marble statue that you cannot see the near perfect
> symmetry of that face?
Let's be absolutely clear on this, just one more time, Sean.
I am not, and have never claimed that there is no symetry in the face
on the stature.
What I am saying is that the method you propose in incabable of
detecting that "David" is an artefact. As far as I can judge from your
endlessly evasive and rambling
postings, your methodology consists of the following:
1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
If I am incorrect in this, please give us a clear exposition of your
methodology.
RF
<irrelvant ramblings snipped>
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > > The block of marble which makes up
> > > the statue is not a human being, and
> > > unless your methodology incorporates an
> > > algorythm for recognising human shapes,
> > > this is a pointless argument.
> >
> > Let's go through this one more time. Look at the face of Michelangelo's
> > David - just the face. Are you seriously trying to tell me that just
> > because this is a marble statue that you cannot see the near perfect
> > symmetry of that face?
>
> Let's be absolutely clear on this, just one more time, Sean.
>
> I am not, and have never claimed that there is no symetry in the face
> on the stature.
Oh please! You most certainly did make this claim.
When I wrote, "So, you see, there are lots of planes of reflective
symmetry that can be placed through the statue of David."
You responded, "There are none about which the marble form which makes
up the statue is symmetrical . . ."
You said that there are no planes about which the marble form of this
statue is symmetrical, yet now you claim to have always recognized that
the face of David is indeed highly symmetrical? What are you trying to
do here?
> What I am saying is that the method you propose in incabable of
> detecting that "David" is an artefact.
If that is all you are saying, then why not just say that instead of
trying to argue that there is nothing symmetrical in any aspect of the
statue?
Don't you see, once you accept that even the face of David is highly
symmetrical, involving a large number of symmetrically produced
irregularities, that is exactly what is detected by my "methodology".
This degree of symmetry of a large number of very different
irregularities, in marble, cannot be achieved by a non-deliberate
process. It doesn't matter if the irregularities are very abstract or
if they produce a human form such as Michelangelo's David. Such a
degree of symmetry cannot be achieved in marble for any type of
irregularities of this number and degree.
< snip stuff I've answered repeatedly before >
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
john.1...@gmail.com
Actually, no. First you used the context of David and your knowledge of
manufacturing
processes to identify David as and artifact. Then you created a post
hoc
argument based on symmetry. Suppose there was another statue by a mad
artist Bill who decided to make a sculpture having none of those
symmetries.
The determination of "artifact" would apply in the case of Bill's
sculpture, because
Bill applied the exact same techniques to the manufacture of his
assymmetric sculpture.
Pitman loses again.
>
> < snip stuff I've answered repeatedly before >
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
-John
Stockwell
Richard Forrest
What I am explaining to you is that there is a difference between
taking parts of the statue and detecting reflective symetry, and taking
the statue *as a whole* and detecting reflective symetry.
The statue, taken as an object formed out of marble, has no plane of
reflective symetry.
I am not, and have never claimed that there is no symetry in the face
on the stature.
What I am saying is that the method you propose in incabable of
detecting that "David" is an artefact. As far as I can judge from your
endlessly evasive and rambling
postings, your methodology consists of the following:
1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
If I am incorrect in this, please give us a clear exposition of your
methodology.
RF
>
> > What I am saying is that the method you propose in incabable of
> > detecting that "David" is an artefact.
>
> If that is all you are saying, then why not just say that instead of
> trying to argue that there is nothing symmetrical in any aspect of the
> statue?
Once again, you misrepresent what I say.
I have never stated that there is nothing symetrical in any aspect of
the statue.
I have stated repeatedly that the statue, treated as an object made out
of marble, has no reflective symetry.
>
> Don't you see, once you accept that even the face of David is highly
> symmetrical, involving a large number of symmetrically produced
> irregularities, that is exactly what is detected by my "methodology".
Let's be absolutely clear on this, just one more time, Sean.
As far as I can judge from your endlessly evasive and rambling
postings, your methodology consists of the following:
1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
If I am incorrect in this, please give us a clear exposition of your
methodology.
As it stands, I see no way in which it could detect the reflective
symetry in "David's" face.
> This degree of symmetry of a large number of very different
> irregularities, in marble, cannot be achieved by a non-deliberate
> process. It doesn't matter if the irregularities are very abstract or
> if they produce a human form such as Michelangelo's David. Such a
> degree of symmetry cannot be achieved in marble for any type of
> irregularities of this number and degree.
>
> < snip stuff I've answered repeatedly before >
So how about either confirming that I have described your methodology
acurately, or else describing it acurately yourself?
Inez
> > You said that there are no planes about which the marble form of this
> > statue is symmetrical, yet now you claim to have always recognized that
> > the face of David is indeed highly symmetrical? What are you trying to
> > do here?
>
> What I am explaining to you is that there is a difference between
> taking parts of the statue and detecting reflective symetry, and taking
> the statue *as a whole* and detecting reflective symetry.
I Imagine that plenty of naturally occuring chunks of rock have parts
that have "reflective symetry." What if you got out a microscope and
examined all the minute bumps and grooves? If any part of a rock being
symmetrical makes it designed, I should think all rocks would qualify
as designed.
Seanpit
LOL - - Don't you see? Even though the same materials and methods are
used by an intelligent designer to mold a granite stone into an
amorphous shape, this doesn't mean it is clearly recognizable as having
a deliberate origin. Just because something is truly a deliberately
designed artifact does not mean that this fact is easily recognizable.
Why? Because non-deliberate processes can produce very similar
amorphous forms too! - that have very low degrees of reflective
symmetry with regard to surface irregularities! That means you can't
tell the difference between ID and non-ID origins nearly as easily when
it comes to amorphous granite rocks - even though one of them might
actually be a real artifact.
This is not true of other forms, like highly symmetrical polished
granite cubes with nearly identical etchings carved into opposing
faces. Such a granite form, or any other granite form with a similar
degree of symmetry with regard to surface irregularities, can be
quickly and easily identified as a deliberate artifact - far beyond the
reach of non-deliberate forces of nature.
> -John Stockwell
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
This is something I've already pointed out to Sean.
If an object is very irregular, there will be many places in which
small parts have reflective symetry. By Sean's logic, this means that
an irregular object has "greater reflective symetry" than a simple,
regular object.
It's a strange, parallel universe he inhabits.
RF
john.1...@gmail.com
Actually, we know that both David and Bill's Amorphous Sculpture are
manufactured
items because we have the context of the objects, i.e. marble chips,
chisel marks, the place
where we find them, that sort of thing. If Bill's sculpture is taken
from its context, and
carefully "aged" with acids and placed in the context of a place where
rock naturally
spalls off, with one side carefully made to look like the formation
cliff face, and any other
ad hoc requirement that Sean Pitman requires, then we Bill's sculpture
might fool us.
However, if we knew all of those manufacturing processes, and had
physical evidence to
support the idea that the object was manufactured by this exotic means,
then we could
still conclude that Bill's Amorphous Sculpture is, in fact,
manufactured.
Pitman loses again.
>
> This is not true of other forms, like highly symmetrical polished
> granite cubes with nearly identical etchings carved into opposing
> faces. Such a granite form, or any other granite form with a similar
> degree of symmetry with regard to surface irregularities, can be
> quickly and easily identified as a deliberate artifact - far beyond the
> reach of non-deliberate forces of nature.
Possibly, if it looked like something we are already doing. Since we
have only studied
a tiny fraction of nature we cannot say that there do not exist natural
processes
that would produce shiny perfectly cubical granite blocks.
Indeed, there are such things as pseudomorphs, where a crystal is
replaced by some
other mineral. A pseudomorph would have the symmetry of the crystal,
but be composed
of other material.
>
> > -John Stockwell
>
> Sean Pitman
-John Stockwell
Seanpit
Oh please - - And you think the face and torso of Michelangelo's David
is just a "small part" of the whole thing? I suppose you also think
that the high fidelity mirror image identifies of the forarms, upper
arms, thighs, legs, feet, toes, finger segments, etc are also just a
minor part of the statue?
Talk about a strange world. You are forced to attempt to make the
obvious obscure and ask for definitions of words and phrases with very
clear meanings. You're worse that X-Pres. Clinton when he asked for
the definition of "is".
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
Inez
So what amount of symetry is required to prove ID?
john.1...@gmail.com
The charlatranry of Pitman and other IDers becomes apparent when they
claim
"statistical method" but never actually do the calculation, instead
they employ
examples which are "obvious" but which _a prior_ are known to be
manufactured.
>
> RF
-John
john.1...@gmail.com
The whole David example is irrelevant and misleading because we already
know
_a priori_ that Michelangelo's David is manufactured. The question of
manufacture
is the relevant question. Nit picking about the "symmetry" of the David
is just a diversion.
All of the examples of ID are like this. Take an object known _a
priori_ to be manufactured,
and then make up some math-free statistical claim as a test, and then
pretend to do
a calculation that you don't actually do, and then yell "designed".
Richard Forrest
Indeed.
He has bet me $1000 that he can tell if an object we both know
perfectly well was manufactured is manufactured.
Mind you, he is very coy about telling us *how* he will make that
determination. I guess we just have to trust his honesty.
RF
>
> >
> > RF
> -John
Seanpit
> The statue, taken as an object formed out of marble, has no plane of
> reflective symetry.
Have you not taken any art classes? There's more than one way to
measure symmetry. You already admit that the face of Michelangelo's
David does show very high reflective symmetry, but you think you still
have something when it comes to the statue taken as a whole?
What you do is take a line, drawn down the center of the stone, with
more lines splitting off to go down both arms and legs and more lines
splitting off to go down each finger and toe to the very tip (or
whatever appendages there may be on the stone). The surface points
perpendicular to these lines will match the surface point distances of
the line of equivalent distance on the other side of the figure of
David - to a very high degree.
So, you see, it doesn't matter what position the arms and legs and
fingers and toes are in. Their reflective symmetry can still be
measured in a quantifiable way. It's the same thing with any type of
figure. For example, say you want to figure out if all the snakes
coming out of the head of a sculpture of Medusa are cloned copies of
the same snake pattern. You can do measurements on each snake, using
the same method I've just described to you, to see if each snake
significantly matches the same pattern. It doesn't matter what
positions the snakes are in or if they are bent and turned in different
directions. The fidelity of a match to a common form can be measured.
> I am not, and have never claimed that there is no symetry in the face
> on the stature.
Then you should have at least said that right off. You should have
said that you do in fact recognize that many large parts of the statue
of David do in fact show significant symmetry - even if you had not yet
figured out how to measure the overall symmetry of the statue as a
whole (which is quite easy to do).
> What I am saying is that the method you propose in incabable of
> detecting that "David" is an artefact. As far as I can judge from your
> endlessly evasive and rambling postings,
Perhaps you don't understand because you haven't taken any art classes
or had to deal with measuring symmetry in various objects? I'm telling
you, not only is the face of David's statue highly symmetrical, the
entire statue, taken as a whole, is also highly symmetrical. You just
don't understand that there are different ways to measure symmetry.
> . . . your methodology consists of the following:
> 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
How many times are you going to ask this same question? I've told you
over a dozen times now, personally, that all natural processes with the
potential to affect a granite form do NOT need to be identified. My
"methodology" is based on determining nearly identical limits to a
subset of non-deliberate processes as one observes them interacting
with granite over time. Since many different non-deliberate processes
share pretty much the same limitations with respect to creating certain
features, like symmetry, with granite and other homogenously mixed
materials like marble, or flint, this consistency can be used to
extrapolate to the entire set of potential non-deliberate processes -
hypothesizing, through inductive reasoning, that the entire set will
also share the same limitations as the subset shares.
> 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
characteristic, like symmetry.
> 3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
> processes.
Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
> 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
> such forms.
Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
> 5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
> statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> outcome of such processes.
Yes, - by extrapolation to the whole set of non-deliberate random-type
forces.
> If I am incorrect in this, please give us a clear exposition of your
> methodology.
I really don't know how many times you are going to list these exact
same questions over and over again. Come on now. What's wrong with your
memory?
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Indeed.
>
> He has bet me $1000 that he can tell if an object we both know
> perfectly well was manufactured is manufactured.
>
> Mind you, he is very coy about telling us *how* he will make that
> determination. I guess we just have to trust his honesty.
The thing is, I can tell that something can only be the result of
deliberate design by simply using prior knowledge concerning the limits
of how non-deliberate processes interact with the material in question.
Using this information alone, I can tell you the answer. I don't need
to know anything about who or why or how the current form in question
was actually made to make such a determination.
I'll bet you on it. Just tell me what material the object is made out
of and a detailed description of its form and that's it. If the
material in question is a material that I know something about and how
it relates with many different non-deliberate forces, we are good to
go. But, strangely, you don't seem to want to take me up on this bet?
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Noone Inparticular
Give it up, Dr. Pitman. No one (including me!) is fooled by your
evasion. You've lost the battle. Pitch your tent and go home.
I know, why don't start a new round of evasive threads on the questions
John Harshman and Richard Forrest (or was it r norman?) have posed to
you over the past months about the shoddy scholarship of various
articles on your website? That oughta be fun.
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Ken Shackleton
No bet....but try this....shouldn't be much of a challenge.
I spy with my little eye.....something that is.....
1. Made of basalt
2. cylindrical in shape...about 18" wide, over 100 feet long
3. hexagonal sides, rough hewn in appearance
Natural...Design?
Ken
>
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> > The statue, taken as an object formed out of marble, has no plane of
> > reflective symetry.
>
> Have you not taken any art classes? There's more than one way to
> measure symmetry. You already admit that the face of Michelangelo's
> David does show very high reflective symmetry, but you think you still
> have something when it comes to the statue taken as a whole?
>
> What you do is take a line, drawn down the center of the stone, with
> more lines splitting off to go down both arms and legs and more lines
> splitting off to go down each finger and toe to the very tip (or
> whatever appendages there may be on the stone). The surface points
> perpendicular to these lines will match the surface point distances of
> the line of equivalent distance on the other side of the figure of
> David - to a very high degree.
And where did you get this strange notion of how to measure symetry
from?
Surely you are not making it up as you go along?
<snipped>
> > I am not, and have never claimed that there is no symetry in the face
> > on the stature.
>
> Then you should have at least said that right off.
It is only by your private defintion of symetry that the statue shows
"reflective symetry".
<snipped>
> > What I am saying is that the method you propose in incabable of
> > detecting that "David" is an artefact. As far as I can judge from your
> > endlessly evasive and rambling postings,
>
> Perhaps you don't understand because you haven't taken any art classes
> or had to deal with measuring symmetry in various objects? I'm telling
> you, not only is the face of David's statue highly symmetrical, the
> entire statue, taken as a whole, is also highly symmetrical. You just
> don't understand that there are different ways to measure symmetry.
>
So where does somone other than you apply this method of measuring
"reflective symetry"? Making up terms as you go along does not add to
the strenght of your argument.
By the way, I'm a qualified architect.
I know rather more about the nature of symetry than you do.
> > . . . your methodology consists of the following:
>
> > 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
>
> How many times are you going to ask this same question? I've told you
> over a dozen times now, personally, that all natural processes with the
> potential to affect a granite form do NOT need to be identified
You have stated that all *known* processes should be identified.
I'll modify the methodology accordingly.
Or is there some other filter you use to determine which processes you
include and which you exclude?
>. My
> "methodology" is based on determining nearly identical limits to a
> subset of non-deliberate processes as one observes them interacting
> with granite over time. Since many different non-deliberate processes
> share pretty much the same limitations with respect to creating certain
> features, like symmetry, with granite and other homogenously mixed
> materials like marble, or flint, this consistency can be used to
> extrapolate to the entire set of potential non-deliberate processes -
> hypothesizing, through inductive reasoning, that the entire set will
> also share the same limitations as the subset shares.
>
And can you show us the records of your doing this for granite and
marble?
You have been making assertions about what the method will show, so
presumably you have carried it through.
> > 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
>
> You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
> non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
> forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
> characteristic, like symmetry.
And can you show us the records of your doing this for granite and
marble?
You have been making assertions about what the method will show, so
presumably you have carried it through.
>
> > 3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
> > processes.
>
> Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
And can you show us the records of your doing this for granite and
marble?
You have been making assertions about what the method will show, so
presumably you have carried it through.
>
> > 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
> > such forms.
>
> Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
And can you show us the records of your doing this for granite and
marble?
You have been making assertions about what the method will show, so
presumably you have carried it through.
>
> > 5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
> > statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> > outcome of such processes.
>
> Yes, - by extrapolation to the whole set of non-deliberate random-type
> forces.
And can you show us the records of your doing this for granite and
marble?
You have been making assertions about what the method will show, so
presumably you have carried it through.
>
> > If I am incorrect in this, please give us a clear exposition of your
> > methodology.
>
> I really don't know how many times you are going to list these exact
> same questions over and over again. Come on now. What's wrong with your
> memory?
Perhaps the fault lies in your inability to answer, rather than my lack
of memory.
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
So we have a slightly revised methodology:
1) Identifying all known natural processes affecting the form of
granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
You have made assertions which you claim are based on applying this
methodology which allow you to claim that you can
1) Show that a granite cube is made by "deliberate processes" and
2) That Michaelangelo's statue of David is made by "deliberate
processes"
I don't believe you when you say that you've applied your methodology.
I think you are pulling assertions out of the air and making things up
as you go along.
You can prove me wrong by presenting
1) A full list of all known natural processes affecting the forms of
granite and marble
2) A detailed record of objects formed by such processes, recording the
shape, surface texture, and any other factors, such as "reflective
symmetry" which you consider relevant. You will need to show that the
size of the data set you use in each instance of natural process and
material is sufficiently large that sound statistical inferences can be
drawn.
3) A statistical analysis of your data set demonstrating how the
parameters vary.
4) The demonstration from this data that there are common limits to the
range of variation shared by all natural forces acting on each
material.
5) A comparable set of measurements applied to your granite cube, and
to "David", to demonstrate that they lie outside the range of possible
values for the material used.
I see no way in which your method can detect the symetries in parts of
"David", so perhaps you can explain to me how you can measure such
symetries without any knowledge of this particular marble shape being
the statue of a naked man. If your method includes an algorythm which
allows it to recognise human forms, perhaps you can describe it: there
are many AI researchers who would be very interested in such an
algorythm.
RF
Richard Forrest
Sean, you have proposed a method of doing.
I have little doubt that, faced with an object of obvious human
manufacture, you can tell that it is of human manufacture. Mind you,
I'm probably better at this game than you are, having had more
experience of geology and archaeology.
The issue is not whether or not you can tell, it's about the
methodology you claim to have used, but have plainly not. Just to
remind you, your methodology consists of:
1) Identifying all known natural processes affecting the form of
granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
You need to demonstrate that your *methodology* is both valid and
useful.
Making assertions based on what you imagine the outcome of such an
investigation to be is downright dishonest.
Seanpit
Can't tell for sure - because the degree of symmetry of irregularities
is not high enough. Both natural and deliberate forces could produce
such basalt columns (most likely natural though).
> Ken
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > He has bet me $1000 that he can tell if an object we both know
> > > perfectly well was manufactured is manufactured.
> > >
> > > Mind you, he is very coy about telling us *how* he will make that
> > > determination. I guess we just have to trust his honesty.
> >
> > The thing is, I can tell that something can only be the result of
> > deliberate design by simply using prior knowledge concerning the limits
> > of how non-deliberate processes interact with the material in question.
> > Using this information alone, I can tell you the answer. I don't need
> > to know anything about who or why or how the current form in question
> > was actually made to make such a determination.
> >
> > I'll bet you on it. Just tell me what material the object is made out
> > of and a detailed description of its form and that's it. If the
> > material in question is a material that I know something about and how
> > it relates with many different non-deliberate forces, we are good to
> > go. But, strangely, you don't seem to want to take me up on this bet?
> >
> >
>
>
> Sean, you have proposed a method of doing.
> I have little doubt that, faced with an object of obvious human
> manufacture, you can tell that it is of human manufacture.
Without knowing who or why or how? How do I know?
< snip stuff I've already answered a dozen times >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
Because you can test hypotheses of process.
I've told you that a dozen times.
I have little doubt that, faced with an object of obvious human
manufacture, you can tell that it is of human manufacture. Mind you,
I'm probably better at this game than you are, having had more
experience of geology and archaeology.
The issue is not whether or not you can tell, it's about the
methodology you claim to have used, but have plainly not. Just to
remind you, your methodology consists of:
1) Identifying all known natural processes affecting the form of
granite
You have not done this.
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
You have not done this.
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
You have not done this.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
You have not done this.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
You have not done this.
You need to demonstrate that your *methodology* is both valid and
useful.
Making assertions based on what you imagine the outcome of such an
investigation to be is downright dishonest.
> < snip stuff I've already answered a dozen times >
Snip it as much as you like, Sean.
It won't change the fact that you claim conclusions from a methodology
you have not used.
I call this dishonest.
What do you call it?
RF
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > Sean, you have proposed a method of doing.
> > > I have little doubt that, faced with an object of obvious human
> > > manufacture, you can tell that it is of human manufacture.
> >
> > Without knowing who or why or how? How do I know?
>
> Because you can test hypotheses of process.
> I've told you that a dozen times.
That's the "How" part. I don't need to know that. I don't need to know
anything about design "process" or "mechanism". I don't need to know
"how" humans did make something or even might have made something. I
don't need to know that at all. I can tell you if something was almost
certainly designed by just knowing the limits of non-deliberate
processes as they interact with the material in question - with respect
to a feature like symmetry. That's all I need to know.
If you think otherwise, make the bet. The $1,000 is still on the
table. Why not take me up on it if you don't think I've done enough
research to adequately support my position? If you think there is good
evidence that goes against my "method", then take the bet.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
john.1...@gmail.com wrote:
< snip >
> > This is not true of other forms, like highly symmetrical polished
> > granite cubes with nearly identical etchings carved into opposing
> > faces. Such a granite form, or any other granite form with a similar
> > degree of symmetry with regard to surface irregularities, can be
> > quickly and easily identified as a deliberate artifact - far beyond the
> > reach of non-deliberate forces of nature.
>
> Possibly, if it looked like something
> we are already doing. Since we
> have only studied a tiny fraction of nature we
> cannot say that there do not exist natural
> processes that would produce shiny perfectly
> cubical granite blocks.
Ah, but you can determine that this "possibility" is extremely unlikely
because of the very strong agreement between those non-deliberate
processes that we do know about when it comes the limits in the degree
of certain characteristics, like symmetry, that can be produced in
certain materials like granite.
> Indeed, there are such things as
> pseudomorphs, where a crystal is
> replaced by some other mineral. A pseudomorph
> would have the symmetry of the crystal,
> but be composed of other material.
Yes, but this is very unlikely when it comes to a very large granite
cube (say 1 x 1 x 1 meters) or when the granite cube has nearly
identical etchings on opposing faces - as I originally described to
you. The symmetry of such extra irregularities just jump up the odds
all the more - beyond even the remote hope of such a highly unlikely
scenario as you are proposing here.
Ken Shackleton
Seanpit
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > > No bet....but try this....shouldn't be much of a challenge.
> > >
> > > I spy with my little eye.....something that is.....
> > >
> > > 1. Made of basalt
> > > 2. cylindrical in shape...about 18" wide, over 100 feet long
> > > 3. hexagonal sides, rough hewn in appearance
> > >
> > > Natural...Design?
> >
> > Can't tell for sure - because the degree of symmetry of irregularities
> > is not high enough. Both natural and deliberate forces could produce
> > such basalt columns (most likely natural though).
>
> Not exactly a definitive answer...
There is no way to be definitive if a particular form is within the
reach of non-deliberate processes. Such a form could be the result of
either non-deliberate or deliberate processes. There's no way to be
able to tell the difference for sure because this form is within the
range of what both processes can do to basalt.
Compare this to a highly symmetrical granite cube with nearly identical
etchings in opposing faces. This type of form is well beyond the reach
of the very consistent limits of known non-deliberate forces.
Therefore, such a cube is clearly the result of deliberate intent.
See the difference? Do you understand why there is no definitive answer
for your scenario, but there most certainly is for the case of the
granite cube or any other equivalently symmetrical granite or basalt
form (with regard to surface irregularities)?
> Ken
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
>
>
> > > The statue, taken as an object formed out of marble, has no plane of
> > > reflective symetry.
> >
> > Have you not taken any art classes? There's more than one way to
> > measure symmetry. You already admit that the face of Michelangelo's
> > David does show very high reflective symmetry, but you think you still
> > have something when it comes to the statue taken as a whole?
> >
> > What you do is take a line, drawn down the center of the stone, with
> > more lines splitting off to go down both arms and legs and more lines
> > splitting off to go down each finger and toe to the very tip (or
> > whatever appendages there may be on the stone). The surface points
> > perpendicular to these lines will match the surface point distances of
> > the line of equivalent distance on the other side of the figure of
> > David - to a very high degree.
>
> And where did you get this strange
> notion of how to measure symetry
> from? Surely you are not making it up
> as you go along?
Every hear of mirror image rotational symmetry? How about glide
reflection symmetry? Most of the sections of each limb on the statue of
David show some form of rotational symmetry and/or glide reflection
symmetry. Thigh matches thigh, upper arm matches upper arm, finger
joint matches finger joint, right thorax matches left thorax, right
face matches left face . . . etc.
In short, you have many major sections of the statue that show some
form of high-level symmetry with the opposing side. Such parts may be
rotated, relative to the other matching part in space, but that doesn't
remove their symmetrical match. Most of the "parts" or segments on one
side of the statue share a high-level match with a part or segment of
the other side. All you have to do is turn it a bit in space and it
will line up and "fit" with the opposing part as a mirror image.
< snip >
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean A
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
> > > > No bet....but try this....shouldn't be much of a challenge.
> > > >
> > > > I spy with my little eye.....something that is.....
> > > >
> > > > 1. Made of basalt
> > > > 2. cylindrical in shape...about 18" wide, over 100 feet long
> > > > 3. hexagonal sides, rough hewn in appearance
> > > >
> > > > Natural...Design?
> > >
> > > Can't tell for sure - because the degree of symmetry of irregularities
> > > is not high enough. Both natural and deliberate forces could produce
> > > such basalt columns (most likely natural though).
> >
> > Not exactly a definitive answer...
>
> There is no way to be definitive if a particular form is within the
> reach of non-deliberate processes. Such a form could be the result of
> either non-deliberate or deliberate processes. There's no way to be
> able to tell the difference for sure because this form is within the
> range of what both processes can do to basalt.
>
> Compare this to a highly symmetrical granite cube with nearly identical
> etchings in opposing faces. This type of form is well beyond the reach
> of the very consistent limits of known non-deliberate forces.
> Therefore, such a cube is clearly the result of deliberate intent.
How should we compare this?
I shudder to think that their is absolutuely no math involved, and all
of this measuring of deliberate vs non deliberate, random, symmetrical
objects is followed up by a wild-assed guess. this could not possibly
be true, so there must a final value (shall we call it a pittman?) that
will tell us if the object is designed or not.
>
> See the difference? Do you understand why there is no definitive answer
> for your scenario, but there most certainly is for the case of the
> granite cube or any other equivalently symmetrical granite or basalt
> form (with regard to surface irregularities)?
Apparently some objects are definitively designed, some are not. It
would seem to me that there must be some area in-between. For example,
our famous cube, thrown into a river and then picked up after receiving
a fair amount of corner rounding and scoring as it rolled down the
river.
Maybe to help us understand your methodolgy, you can simply provide us
with the results of your algorithim. For instance maybe a graph of
pittmans -vs- surface irregularity as our cube becomes more or less
irregular. I am certain that I have seen graphs like this on 5th grade
science projects, so with all your vast research, this should not be a
problem.
To follow it up, maybe you can provide us with a chart correlating the
pittman number and the degree of confidence of design.
You seem to have this fairly complex method, which would seem to take
us years to ascertain if a simple cube of polished granite is designed
or not. At the very least, since the methodolgy seems to be hard for us
to determine, you could provide us with and help us to interpret the
results.
Thanks in advance.
Deadrat
"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1147360372.9...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> He has bet me $1000 that he can tell if an object we both know
>> perfectly well was manufactured is manufactured.
>>
>> Mind you, he is very coy about telling us *how* he will make that
>> determination. I guess we just have to trust his honesty.
>
> The thing is, I can tell that something can only be the result of
> deliberate design by simply using prior knowledge concerning the limits
> of how non-deliberate processes interact with the material in question.
How about The Old Man in the Mountain
http://www.mutha.com/oldmanmt.html
> Using this information alone, I can tell you the answer. I don't need
> to know anything about who or why or how the current form in question
> was actually made to make such a determination.
Not true. You know who or why or how manufactured things are made.
That's how you determine that things identical to manufactured things are
manufactured.
>
> I'll bet you on it. Just tell me what material the object is made out
> of and a detailed description of its form and that's it. If the
> material in question is a material that I know something about and how
> it relates with many different non-deliberate forces, we are good to
> go. But, strangely, you don't seem to want to take me up on this bet?
Oh, you can drop the question mark. It's definitely a sucker bet. Until
you've given us a description of your algorithm so that it may be employed
independently, then we have no reason to believe that you won't identify
an item as manufactured because you know it's been manufactured.
Deadrat
>
>
>> RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
Deadrat
>
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
>> > > Sean, you have proposed a method of doing.
>> > > I have little doubt that, faced with an object of obvious human
>> > > manufacture, you can tell that it is of human manufacture.
>> >
>> > Without knowing who or why or how? How do I know?
>>
>> Because you can test hypotheses of process.
>> I've told you that a dozen times.
>
> That's the "How" part. I don't need to know that. I don't need to know
> anything about design "process" or "mechanism". I don't need to know
> "how" humans did make something or even might have made something. I
> don't need to know that at all. I can tell you if something was almost
> certainly designed by just knowing the limits of non-deliberate
> processes as they interact with the material in question - with respect
> to a feature like symmetry. That's all I need to know.
So you claim. But you actually know that cars you've never seen
before have been manufactured because you know about car
manufacturing. You can dress this up with "limits of non-deliberate
processes," but I notice you never seem to make this notion rigorous.
>
> If you think otherwise, make the bet. The $1,000 is still on the
> table. Why not take me up on it if you don't think I've done enough
> research to adequately support my position? If you think there is good
> evidence that goes against my "method", then take the bet.
You haven't done *any* research. It's a sucker bet as long as you're
the one doing the differentiation. We can't tell how you're doing it.
Show us your algorithm, and we'll have a third party or a computer
crank the algorithm and make the determination.
Deadrat
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
Richard Forrest
Your "bet" is meaningless. You are challenging me that you can identify
as made by "deliberate" processes something which it is perfectly clear
is made by "deliberate" processes using a methodology you have
proposed.
There are other, far better and more powerful ways of doing this which
archaeologists use every day.
If you have any confidence in your methodology, apply your methodology.
We have established that it consists of:
1) Identifying all known natural processes affecting the form of
granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
You have not carried through any of the stages, yet you claim
conclusions based on your methodology.
I find this dishonest.
RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > The statue, taken as an object formed out of marble, has no plane of
> > > > reflective symetry.
> > >
> > > Have you not taken any art classes? There's more than one way to
> > > measure symmetry. You already admit that the face of Michelangelo's
> > > David does show very high reflective symmetry, but you think you still
> > > have something when it comes to the statue taken as a whole?
> > >
> > > What you do is take a line, drawn down the center of the stone, with
> > > more lines splitting off to go down both arms and legs and more lines
> > > splitting off to go down each finger and toe to the very tip (or
> > > whatever appendages there may be on the stone). The surface points
> > > perpendicular to these lines will match the surface point distances of
> > > the line of equivalent distance on the other side of the figure of
> > > David - to a very high degree.
> >
> > And where did you get this strange
> > notion of how to measure symetry
> > from? Surely you are not making it up
> > as you go along?
>
> Every hear of mirror image rotational symmetry? How about glide
> reflection symmetry?
Been looking up scientific sounding words on the internet again, Sean?
I asked you if you could give any sources which use your peculiar
definition of "reflective symmetry". Obviously you haven't.
> Most of the sections of each limb on the statue of
> David show some form of rotational symmetry and/or glide reflection
> symmetry. Thigh matches thigh, upper arm matches upper arm, finger
> joint matches finger joint, right thorax matches left thorax, right
> face matches left face . . . etc.
>
> In short, you have many major sections of the statue that show some
> form of high-level symmetry with the opposing side. Such parts may be
> rotated, relative to the other matching part in space, but that doesn't
> remove their symmetrical match. Most of the "parts" or segments on one
> side of the statue share a high-level match with a part or segment of
> the other side. All you have to do is turn it a bit in space and it
> will line up and "fit" with the opposing part as a mirror image.
>
! see no way in which your method can detect the symetries in parts of
"David", so perhaps you can explain to me how you can measure such
symmetries without any knowledge of this particular marble shape being
the statue of a naked man. If your method includes an algorythm which
allows it to recognise human forms, perhaps you can describe it: there
are many AI researchers who would be very interested in such an
algorythm.
RF
Tony Raymonds
Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> writes
>The thing is, I can tell that something can only be the result of
>deliberate design by simply using prior knowledge concerning the limits
>of how non-deliberate processes interact with the material in question.
So what you are saying is that if you don't know of any natural process
that could create the object that you are looking at then it must be
designed?
What happens if the process was one that you don't know about, or that
you don't understand? It strikes me that you end up with false
positives.
--
to...@wacky.zzn.com
john.1...@gmail.com
Seanpit wrote:
> john.1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > This is not true of other forms, like highly symmetrical polished
> > > granite cubes with nearly identical etchings carved into opposing
> > > faces. Such a granite form, or any other granite form with a similar
> > > degree of symmetry with regard to surface irregularities, can be
> > > quickly and easily identified as a deliberate artifact - far beyond the
> > > reach of non-deliberate forces of nature.
> >
> > Possibly, if it looked like something
> > we are already doing. Since we
> > have only studied a tiny fraction of nature we
> > cannot say that there do not exist natural
> > processes that would produce shiny perfectly
> > cubical granite blocks.
>
> Ah, but you can determine that this "possibility" is extremely unlikely
> because of the very strong agreement between those non-deliberate
> processes that we do know about when it comes the limits in the degree
> of certain characteristics, like symmetry, that can be produced in
> certain materials like granite.
I assume by "possibility" you mean "probability that you don't
calculate". The reality
is that you use your knowlege of human-manufactured items to compare
the cube
against, and assume _a priori_ manufactured, again, because polished
granite cubes
are like things humans have done for thousands of years.
>
> > Indeed, there are such things as
> > pseudomorphs, where a crystal is
> > replaced by some other mineral. A pseudomorph
> > would have the symmetry of the crystal,
> > but be composed of other material.
>
> Yes, but this is very unlikely when it comes to a very large granite
> cube (say 1 x 1 x 1 meters) or when the granite cube has nearly
> identical etchings on opposing faces - as I originally described to
> you. The symmetry of such extra irregularities just jump up the odds
> all the more - beyond even the remote hope of such a highly unlikely
> scenario as you are proposing here.
Actually, you change the dimensions of the cube every time we discuss
this.
This is further evidence of the _ad hoc_ aspects of your claimed
method. Now
you have added "etchings". The cube isn't perfectly smooth anymore if
it has
"etchings" (another thing that is like what humans do).
Again, the reality is that you already suspect strongly that the cube
is manufactured
because of the thousands of years of experience that human culture has
had in
manufacturing polished stone items.
A person not knowledgeable in mineralogy might
confuse the perfect cubical crystals of galena, pyrite, or halite by
noting their symmetry.
At most, such clues as symmetry are superficial. A technology does not
consist only
of finished products, but of the manufacturing methods employed to
manufacture those
products.
>
> > > > -John Stockwell
>
> Sean Pitman
>
-John Stockwell
Ken Shackleton
This last point is very interesting....it makes me think of the statues
on Easter Island...not only the finished ones, but the ones that have
been found abandoned in transit....or partially carved and still in the
stone quarry.....with tools lying beisde them.
These are the real hallmarks of human design and construction....not
just the finished product.
Ken
Tracy P. Hamilton
john.1...@gmail.com wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
[snip]
> > Yes, but this is very unlikely when it comes to a very large granite
> > cube (say 1 x 1 x 1 meters) or when the granite cube has nearly
> > identical etchings on opposing faces - as I originally described to
> > you. The symmetry of such extra irregularities just jump up the odds
> > all the more - beyond even the remote hope of such a highly unlikely
> > scenario as you are proposing here.
>
> Actually, you change the dimensions of the cube every time we discuss
> this.
> This is further evidence of the _ad hoc_ aspects of your claimed
> method. Now
> you have added "etchings". The cube isn't perfectly smooth anymore if
> it has
> "etchings" (another thing that is like what humans do).
The etchings say
"Infant ID Theory - 1987"
"Irreducible Complexity - 1995"
"Explanatory Filter - 1996"
"Complex Specified Information"
"Wedge Strategy - 1998"
"Teach the Controversy - 2002"
They may appear alive, but in actuality are brain-eating zombies.
Tracy P. Hamilton
[snip]
Seanpit
john.1...@gmail.com wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > john.1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > This is not true of other forms, like highly symmetrical polished
> > > > granite cubes with nearly identical etchings carved into opposing
> > > > faces. Such a granite form, or any other granite form with a similar
> > > > degree of symmetry with regard to surface irregularities, can be
> > > > quickly and easily identified as a deliberate artifact - far beyond the
> > > > reach of non-deliberate forces of nature.
> > >
> > > Possibly, if it looked like something
> > > we are already doing. Since we
> > > have only studied a tiny fraction of nature we
> > > cannot say that there do not exist natural
> > > processes that would produce shiny perfectly
> > > cubical granite blocks.
> >
> > Ah, but you can determine that this "possibility" is extremely unlikely
> > because of the very strong agreement between those non-deliberate
> > processes that we do know about when it comes the limits in the degree
> > of certain characteristics, like symmetry, that can be produced in
> > certain materials like granite.
>
> I assume by "possibility" you mean "probability that you don't
> calculate".
Possibilities are always based on probabilities. When it comes to
naturally non-deliberately produced symmetry in materials like granite,
marble, flint, and clay, then yes, the limits of the degree of symmetry
can indeed be measured to a very high degree of predictive value.
Naturally produced symmetry in such materials never gets close to an
overall symmetry that has less than 0.001% variation between all
surface irregularities (say, greater than 1 million) that have a range
of more than 50% differences with respect to their distances from the
center of the stone.
This hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show such
a granite stone, with this degree of symmetry, being produced over time
by non-deliberate forces.
> The reality
> is that you use your knowlege of
> human-manufactured items to compare
> the cube against, and assume _a priori_
> manufactured, again, because polished
> granite cubes are like things humans have
> done for thousands of years.
Any highly symmetrical granite form, not just a cube, can be detected
in this manner (as described above). If you are arguing that my
knowledge that humans can design and create highly symmetrical granite
forms of various types comes into play, sure it does. I assume that
humans can design and create just about any type of granite form
imaginable.
Of course, this knowledge, by itself, just isn't enough. What if
non-deliberate forces were just as capable? What would that mean? It
would mean that I could not adequately tell the difference between the
potential of human vs. non-deliberate processes. What I have to know
at least something about is the limits of what non-deliberate processes
can do to the material of granite with respect to a certain
characteristic, like symmetry. As it turns out, non-deliberate
processes all have pretty much the same limited ability when it comes
to producing high-level symmetry (as defined above), of any kind, in
granite stones of any highly symmetrical shape (not just cubes).
> > > Indeed, there are such things as
> > > pseudomorphs, where a crystal is
> > > replaced by some other mineral. A pseudomorph
> > > would have the symmetry of the crystal,
> > > but be composed of other material.
> >
> > Yes, but this is very unlikely when it comes to a very large granite
> > cube (say 1 x 1 x 1 meters) or when the granite cube has nearly
> > identical etchings on opposing faces - as I originally described to
> > you. The symmetry of such extra irregularities just jump up the odds
> > all the more - beyond even the remote hope of such a highly unlikely
> > scenario as you are proposing here.
>
> Actually, you change the dimensions
> of the cube every time we discuss
> this.
I've talked about the nearly identical etchings on the opposing faces
of the granite cube, of any size, for years now in this forum. If you
want to do away with the etchings requirement, then I'll just add a
size requirement instead. You see, the more irregular irregularities
there are in the stone, that actually show a very high degree of
mirror-image identity to the opposing side, the more sure the ID
hypothesis becomes.
> This is further evidence of the _ad
> hoc_ aspects of your claimed
> method. Now you have added "etchings".
I haven't "added" the etchings requirement at all. Look it up - in
this forum. This requirement has been part of my hypothesis for years
now.
> The cube isn't perfectly smooth anymore if
> it has "etchings" (another thing that is like what humans do).
Non-deliberate processes can also make etchings on polished surfaces.
It is just that the etchings that non-deliberate processes produce on
one face of the cube will not be reproduced, in mirror image fashion,
on the opposing side of the cube to a high degree of fidelity.
> Again, the reality is that you already
> suspect strongly that the cube
> is manufactured because of the thousands of
> years of experience that human culture has
> had in manufacturing polished stone items.
The stone doesn't have to be "polished" to show clear evidence of ID.
It just has to have a very high degree of symmetry (as defined above).
> A person not knowledgeable
> in mineralogy might
> confuse the perfect cubical crystals
> of galena, pyrite, or halite by
> noting their symmetry.
Right - That's why it is important to know what the material is and how
it has reacted with non-deliberate processes in the past. Without this
knowledge, you really can't predict the future limitations of how this
material will react with non-deliberate processes.
As I've said over and over again, detailed investigation is needed into
the materials in question and how they relate to non-deliberate
processes over time. You have to actually know something first. What
you know though, need have nothing to do with who or why or how an
intelligent agent might have been involved. Only the limits of
non-deliberate processes need to be known as they have interacted with
a particular material in question over time.
> At most, such clues as symmetry are superficial.
Not true when it comes to certain materials - like granite. High-level
symmetry in granite is always the result of deliberate activity. It is
never produced by non-deliberate processes.
> A technology does not
> consist only of finished products, but of the
> manufacturing methods employed to
> manufacture those products.
An investigator does not always have access to evidence of such
"technology". And, even if he/she does have access to such "tools" or
other evidences of deliberate "technology", how do you know that these
tools were not also the result of non-deliberate forces?
You see, you can't know the answer to this question unless you have at
least some idea as to the limits of what non-deliberate forces can do
with the materials in question.
Seanpit
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> This last point is very interesting....it makes me think of the statues
> on Easter Island...not only the finished ones, but the ones that have
> been found abandoned in transit....or partially carved and still in the
> stone quarry.....with tools lying beisde them.
How do you know that the "tools" are actually designed and not the
result of some non-deliberate process? Yes, humans can make such
tools. Humans can make just about anything with respect to these
materials. But what about non-deliberate forces? If such forces could
make things that look nearly identical to such tools, how could you
tell that they were the result of deliberate intent?
> These are the real hallmarks of human design and construction....not
> just the finished product.
They are not "Hallmarks" of human design if non-deliberate processes
could do the same thing . . .
> Ken
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Sean A wrote:
> > Compare this to a highly symmetrical granite cube with nearly identical
> > etchings in opposing faces. This type of form is well beyond the reach
> > of the very consistent limits of known non-deliberate forces.
> > Therefore, such a cube is clearly the result of deliberate intent.
>
> How should we compare this?
>
> I shudder to think that their is absolutuely no math involved, and all
> of this measuring of deliberate vs non deliberate, random, symmetrical
> objects is followed up by a wild-assed guess. this could not possibly
> be true, so there must a final value (shall we call it a pittman?) that
> will tell us if the object is designed or not.
I've gone over this many times already in this forum. I keep having to
rewrite this over and over again - even for those I've already
presented this information to before. But, anyway, here it goes again:
Naturally produced symmetry in such materials (i.e., granite, marble,
flint, clay) never gets close to an overall symmetry that has less than
0.001% variation between all surface irregularities (say, greater than
1 million) that have a range of more than 50% differences with respect
to their distances from the center of the stone.
This hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show such
a granite stone, with this degree of symmetry, being produced over time
by non-deliberate forces.
> > See the difference? Do you understand why there is no definitive answer
> > for your scenario, but there most certainly is for the case of the
> > granite cube or any other equivalently symmetrical granite or basalt
> > form (with regard to surface irregularities)?
>
> Apparently some objects are definitively designed, some are not.
Some granite stones have high-level symmetry and some do not.
> It
> would seem to me that there must be some area in-between. For example,
> our famous cube, thrown into a river and then picked up after receiving
> a fair amount of corner rounding and scoring as it rolled down the
> river.
That's right - - It wouldn't be so easily detectable as "designed"
anymore.
> Maybe to help us understand your methodolgy, you can simply provide us
> with the results of your algorithim. For instance maybe a graph of
> pittmans -vs- surface irregularity as our cube becomes more or less
> irregular. I am certain that I have seen graphs like this on 5th grade
> science projects, so with all your vast research, this should not be a
> problem.
You can make the graph if you like. I'm pretty much interested in the
definitive limits beyond which the design-only hypothesis becomes
clear.
> To follow it up, maybe you can provide us with a chart correlating the
> pittman number and the degree of confidence of design.
See above . . .
> You seem to have this fairly complex method, which would seem to take
> us years to ascertain if a simple cube of polished granite is designed
> or not. At the very least, since the methodolgy seems to be hard for us
> to determine, you could provide us with and help us to interpret the
> results.
It does take a bit of investigation and experience with the material in
question, as it interacts with non-deliberate processes over time, to
be able to detect the limits of what non-deliberate processes can
achieve with respect to a certain characteristic, like symmetry. You
can't just "know" without any prior experience. The ID hypothesis does
not remove the need for investigation and study.
> Thanks in advance.
You're welcome . . .
Nice name by the way ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Deadrat
So you say. But you never do any calculations. Could you show
your work, please? And remember to include all processes that we
don't know about.
> Naturally produced symmetry in such materials never gets close to an
> overall symmetry that has less than 0.001% variation between all
> surface irregularities (say, greater than 1 million) that have a range
> of more than 50% differences with respect to their distances from the
> center of the stone.
And the point is, what? You're stuck with a theory of intelligently
designed granite.
>
> This hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show such
> a granite stone, with this degree of symmetry, being produced over time
> by non-deliberate forces.
>
>> The reality
>> is that you use your knowlege of
>> human-manufactured items to compare
>> the cube against, and assume _a priori_
>> manufactured, again, because polished
>> granite cubes are like things humans have
>> done for thousands of years.
>
> Any highly symmetrical granite form, not just a cube, can be detected
> in this manner (as described above). If you are arguing that my
> knowledge that humans can design and create highly symmetrical granite
> forms of various types comes into play, sure it does. I assume that
> humans can design and create just about any type of granite form
> imaginable.
Game over.
>
> Of course, this knowledge, by itself, just isn't enough. What if
> non-deliberate forces were just as capable? What would that mean? It
> would mean that I could not adequately tell the difference between the
> potential of human vs. non-deliberate processes. What I have to know
> at least something about is the limits of what non-deliberate processes
> can do to the material of granite with respect to a certain
> characteristic, like symmetry.
Which limits you never define. That's why IDiocy isn't science.
? As it turns out, non-deliberate
> processes all have pretty much the same limited ability when it comes
> to producing high-level symmetry (as defined above), of any kind, in
> granite stones of any highly symmetrical shape (not just cubes).
So you're pretty much stuck with a theory of intelligently designed
granite cubes.
>
>> > > Indeed, there are such things as
>> > > pseudomorphs, where a crystal is
>> > > replaced by some other mineral. A pseudomorph
>> > > would have the symmetry of the crystal,
>> > > but be composed of other material.
>> >
>> > Yes, but this is very unlikely when it comes to a very large granite
>> > cube (say 1 x 1 x 1 meters) or when the granite cube has nearly
>> > identical etchings on opposing faces - as I originally described to
>> > you. The symmetry of such extra irregularities just jump up the odds
>> > all the more - beyond even the remote hope of such a highly unlikely
>> > scenario as you are proposing here.
>>
>> Actually, you change the dimensions
>> of the cube every time we discuss
>> this.
>
> I've talked about the nearly identical etchings on the opposing faces
> of the granite cube, of any size, for years now in this forum. If you
> want to do away with the etchings requirement, then I'll just add a
> size requirement instead. You see, the more irregular irregularities
> there are in the stone, that actually show a very high degree of
> mirror-image identity to the opposing side, the more sure the ID
> hypothesis becomes.
Sure. Because you know about human calligraphy.
>
>> This is further evidence of the _ad
>> hoc_ aspects of your claimed
>> method. Now you have added "etchings".
>
> I haven't "added" the etchings requirement at all. Look it up - in
> this forum. This requirement has been part of my hypothesis for years
> now.
And it tells us nothing except that you can recognize manufactured
objects when you see them.
>> The cube isn't perfectly smooth anymore if
>> it has "etchings" (another thing that is like what humans do).
>
> Non-deliberate processes can also make etchings on polished surfaces.
> It is just that the etchings that non-deliberate processes produce on
> one face of the cube will not be reproduced, in mirror image fashion,
> on the opposing side of the cube to a high degree of fidelity.
>
>> Again, the reality is that you already
>> suspect strongly that the cube
>> is manufactured because of the thousands of
>> years of experience that human culture has
>> had in manufacturing polished stone items.
>
> The stone doesn't have to be "polished" to show clear evidence of ID.
> It just has to have a very high degree of symmetry (as defined above).
>
>
>> A person not knowledgeable
>> in mineralogy might
>> confuse the perfect cubical crystals
>> of galena, pyrite, or halite by
>> noting their symmetry.
>
> Right - That's why it is important to know what the material is and how
> it has reacted with non-deliberate processes in the past.
Translation: That's why it is important to know what materials humans
have worked to form objects and how those manufacturing processes work.
> Without this
> knowledge, you really can't predict the future limitations of how this
> material will react with non-deliberate processes.
Well, you evidently can't, with or without this knowledge.
> As I've said over and over again, detailed investigation is needed into
> the materials in question and how they relate to non-deliberate
> processes over time.
Translation: Detailed investigation is needed into what manufactured
objects have been made in the past.
> You have to actually know something first.
Like what kinds of things human beings make.
> What
> you know though, need have nothing to do with who or why or how an
> intelligent agent might have been involved. Only the limits of
> non-deliberate processes need to be known as they have interacted with
> a particular material in question over time.
But you actually do know or can find out who the "intelligent agent[s]" are
(although perhaps not by name) and why or how they were "involved."
You don't use "limits of non-deliberate processes." If you did, you could
define them independently of granite.
>> At most, such clues as symmetry are superficial.
>
> Not true when it comes to certain materials - like granite. High-level
> symmetry in granite is always the result of deliberate activity. It is
> never produced by non-deliberate processes.
As far as you know. And that's because you know the designers.
>
>> A technology does not
>> consist only of finished products, but of the
>> manufacturing methods employed to
>> manufacture those products.
>
> An investigator does not always have access to evidence of such
> "technology". And, even if he/she does have access to such "tools" or
> other evidences of deliberate "technology", how do you know that these
> tools were not also the result of non-deliberate forces?
Because they are identical to tools that we do know about.
>
> You see, you can't know the answer to this question unless you have at
> least some idea as to the limits of what non-deliberate forces can do
> with the materials in question.
I don't consider "non-deliberate forces" at all when confronted with things
that I know to be manufactured. I dare say that you don't either.
Deadrat
Seanpit
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > > > > Sean, you have proposed a method of doing.
> > > > > I have little doubt that, faced with an object of obvious human
> > > > > manufacture, you can tell that it is of human manufacture.
> > > >
> > > > Without knowing who or why or how? How do I know?
> > >
> > > Because you can test hypotheses of process.
> > > I've told you that a dozen times.
> >
> > That's the "How" part. I don't need to know that. I don't need to know
> > anything about design "process" or "mechanism". I don't need to know
> > "how" humans did make something or even might have made something. I
> > don't need to know that at all. I can tell you if something was almost
> > certainly designed by just knowing the limits of non-deliberate
> > processes as they interact with the material in question - with respect
> > to a feature like symmetry. That's all I need to know.
> >
> > If you think otherwise, make the bet. The $1,000 is still on the
> > table. Why not take me up on it if you don't think I've done enough
> > research to adequately support my position? If you think there is good
> > evidence that goes against my "method", then take the bet.
>
> Your "bet" is meaningless. You are challenging me that you can identify
> as made by "deliberate" processes something which it is perfectly clear
> is made by "deliberate" processes using a methodology you have
> proposed.
My challenge is that no highly symmetrical granite rock of any kind
will ever be found being produced, over time, by any non-deliberate
process. If you know where high-level symmetry, with regard to surface
irregularities, is being produced, I'll give you $1,000 for this
information - No risk to you.
> There are other, far better and more powerful ways of doing this which
> archaeologists use every day.
Not true. As you've basically admitted yourself, archeologists must
know at least something about the limits of what non-deliberate
processes are capable of achieving with a given material before they
can detect an artifact as being a true artifact.
> If you have any confidence in your methodology, apply your methodology.
> We have established that it consists of:
>
> 1) Identifying all known natural processes affecting the form of
> granite
> 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
> 3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
> processes.
> 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
> such forms.
> 5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
> statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> outcome of such processes.
You made this post on May 12. Yet, you read and responded to my
answers to these very same questions on May 11. Why then do you repost
identical questions like they've never been answered - over and over
and over again?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/73ae828f71ad7644?dmode=source
> 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
How many times are you going to ask this same question? I've told you
over a dozen times now, personally, that all natural processes with the
potential to affect a granite form do NOT need to be identified. My
"methodology" is based on determining nearly identical limits to a
subset of non-deliberate processes as one observes them interacting
with granite over time. Since many different non-deliberate processes
share pretty much the same limitations with respect to creating certain
features, like symmetry, with granite and other homogenously mixed
materials like marble, or flint, this consistency can be used to
extrapolate to the entire set of potential non-deliberate processes -
hypothesizing, through inductive reasoning, that the entire set will
also share the same limitations as the subset shares.
> 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
characteristic, like symmetry.
> 3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
> processes.
Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
> 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
> such forms.
Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
> 5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
> statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> outcome of such processes.
Yes, - by extrapolation to the whole set of non-deliberate random-type
forces.
> You have not carried through any of the stages, yet you claim
> conclusions based on your methodology.
I have carried them out. I haven't published anything yet, but that
doesn't mean I don't have enough information to present a very
reasonable hypothesis. If you think my hypothesis is clearly in error,
you must believe that my hypothesis can be easily falsified - making it
a valid scientific statement. If you have such falsifying information,
I'd be very glad to know about it. Please do present it to me and I'll
send you $1,000 for your trouble - no risk to you.
> I find this dishonest.
LOL - what a crock. I've been more than honest with you. I've
presented an idea of mine, an idea that can be easily disproved,
qualifying it as a valid scientific hypothesis. I don't care if you
think my idea is based on nothing more than a hunch. If it is, it
should be quite weak and likely to be falsified by some sort of
positive findings that counters my predictions. This evidence, if you
find it, will make you a quick $1,000 - risk free! Where are you going
to get a better deal than that? What are you waiting for?
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Deadrat wrote:
> > Possibilities are always based on probabilities. When it comes to
> > naturally non-deliberately produced symmetry in materials like granite,
> > marble, flint, and clay, then yes, the limits of the degree of symmetry
> > can indeed be measured to a very high degree of predictive value.
>
> So you say. But you never do any calculations. Could you show
> your work, please? And remember to include all processes that we
> don't know about.
Didn't you read the very next paragraph before you made this comment?
> > Naturally produced symmetry in such materials never gets close to an
> > overall symmetry that has less than 0.001% variation between all
> > surface irregularities (say, greater than 1 million) that have a range
> > of more than 50% differences with respect to their distances from the
> > center of the stone.
>
> And the point is, what? You're stuck with a theory of intelligently
> designed granite.
I'm stuck with the theory that any granite rock with such a degree of
symmetry is in fact designed. I'd say that's pretty good.
> > This hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show such
> > a granite stone, with this degree of symmetry, being produced over time
> > by non-deliberate forces.
What, no takers?
> >> The reality
> >> is that you use your knowlege of
> >> human-manufactured items to compare
> >> the cube against, and assume _a priori_
> >> manufactured, again, because polished
> >> granite cubes are like things humans have
> >> done for thousands of years.
> >
> > Any highly symmetrical granite form, not just a cube, can be detected
> > in this manner (as described above). If you are arguing that my
> > knowledge that humans can design and create highly symmetrical granite
> > forms of various types comes into play, sure it does. I assume that
> > humans can design and create just about any type of granite form
> > imaginable.
>
> Game over.
Not quite . . .
> > Of course, this knowledge, by itself, just isn't enough. What if
> > non-deliberate forces were just as capable? What would that mean? It
> > would mean that I could not adequately tell the difference between the
> > potential of human vs. non-deliberate processes. What I have to know
> > at least something about is the limits of what non-deliberate processes
> > can do to the material of granite with respect to a certain
> > characteristic, like symmetry.
>
> Which limits you never define. That's why IDiocy isn't science.
Didn't you just read the paragraph above where I did in fact define
this limit when it comes to granite? - as well as other materials like
marble, flint, and clay?
> > As it turns out, non-deliberate
> > processes all have pretty much the same limited ability when it comes
> > to producing high-level symmetry (as defined above), of any kind, in
> > granite stones of any highly symmetrical shape (not just cubes).
>
> So you're pretty much stuck with a theory of intelligently designed
> granite cubes.
Are you blind? Do you not understand that this degree of symmetry in
ANY granite shape (with regard to surface irregularities), not just
cubes, is beyond any non-deliberate process? So, how am I stuck with
cubes here?
> >> > > Indeed, there are such things as
> >> > > pseudomorphs, where a crystal is
> >> > > replaced by some other mineral. A pseudomorph
> >> > > would have the symmetry of the crystal,
> >> > > but be composed of other material.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, but this is very unlikely when it comes to a very large granite
> >> > cube (say 1 x 1 x 1 meters) or when the granite cube has nearly
> >> > identical etchings on opposing faces - as I originally described to
> >> > you. The symmetry of such extra irregularities just jump up the odds
> >> > all the more - beyond even the remote hope of such a highly unlikely
> >> > scenario as you are proposing here.
> >>
> >> Actually, you change the dimensions
> >> of the cube every time we discuss
> >> this.
> >
> > I've talked about the nearly identical etchings on the opposing faces
> > of the granite cube, of any size, for years now in this forum. If you
> > want to do away with the etchings requirement, then I'll just add a
> > size requirement instead. You see, the more irregular irregularities
> > there are in the stone, that actually show a very high degree of
> > mirror-image identity to the opposing side, the more sure the ID
> > hypothesis becomes.
>
> Sure. Because you know about human calligraphy.
Non-deliberate processes can also make etchings on polished granite
surfaces. They just can't make nearly identical etchings on opposing
faces of a granite cube. This degree of symmetry, with regard to any
type of irregular etchings on granite surfaces, is just beyond the
powers of non-deliberate forces.
> >> This is further evidence of the _ad
> >> hoc_ aspects of your claimed
> >> method. Now you have added "etchings".
> >
> > I haven't "added" the etchings requirement at all. Look it up - in
> > this forum. This requirement has been part of my hypothesis for years
> > now.
>
> And it tells us nothing except that you can recognize manufactured
> objects when you see them.
I can recognize that high-level symmetry in granite is beyond the
powers of non-deliberate forces while being well within the practically
infinite range of deliberate capabilities of even human-level
intelligence - when it comes to granite or marble or flint or clay . .
. etc.
> >> The cube isn't perfectly smooth anymore if
> >> it has "etchings" (another thing that is like what humans do).
> >
> > Non-deliberate processes can also make etchings on polished surfaces.
> > It is just that the etchings that non-deliberate processes produce on
> > one face of the cube will not be reproduced, in mirror image fashion,
> > on the opposing side of the cube to a high degree of fidelity.
> >
> >> Again, the reality is that you already
> >> suspect strongly that the cube
> >> is manufactured because of the thousands of
> >> years of experience that human culture has
> >> had in manufacturing polished stone items.
> >
> > The stone doesn't have to be "polished" to show clear evidence of ID.
> > It just has to have a very high degree of symmetry (as defined above).
> >
> >
> >> A person not knowledgeable
> >> in mineralogy might
> >> confuse the perfect cubical crystals
> >> of galena, pyrite, or halite by
> >> noting their symmetry.
> >
> > Right - That's why it is important to know what the material is and how
> > it has reacted with non-deliberate processes in the past.
>
> Translation: That's why it is important to know what materials humans
> have worked to form objects and how those manufacturing processes work.
Nope - you just don't need to know that because humans can also make
very "natural" looking forms that you cannot readily distinguish from
the products of non-deliberate action.
> > Without this
> > knowledge, you really can't predict the future limitations of how this
> > material will react with non-deliberate processes.
>
> Well, you evidently can't, with or without this knowledge.
LOL - right . . . yet another bald ad hominem?
> > As I've said over and over again, detailed investigation is needed into
> > the materials in question and how they relate to non-deliberate
> > processes over time.
>
> Translation: Detailed investigation is needed into what manufactured
> objects have been made in the past.
Which will tell you want? That manufactured objects made in the past
have no significant limitations when it comes to symmetry or lack of
symmetry in granite forms. That tells you that the potential of
manufacturing, with regard to the characteristic of symmetry, has a
practically infinite range. The question now is, do non-deliberate
processes also have this same range of capability when it comes to
symmetry? The clear answer to this question is a resounding NO! There
are very clear predictable limits to the degree of symmetry that
non-deliberate processes can produce on granite rocks. It is this
difference that allows symmetry to be used as evidence that something
other than a non-deliberate force was involved with a given granite
form of high symmetry of many irregularities.
< snip repetitions >
> > An investigator does not always have access to evidence of such
> > "technology". And, even if he/she does have access to such "tools" or
> > other evidences of deliberate "technology", how do you know that these
> > tools were not also the result of non-deliberate forces?
>
> Because they are identical to tools that we do know about.
So, only humans can produce such high fidelity of copying with respect
to iron or rock forms that have the appearance of "tools"? How do you
know that? How do you know that such a copying characteristic is only
within the realm of human ID? Why can't some non-deliberate force
produce nearly identical copies of such things? What is so special
about a hammer?
The fact is, humans also make and use things that non-deliberate forces
can also make. Like highly spherical stones. Humans can and do make
such things. Yet, finding something that is nearly identical to a
highly spherical stone that a human deliberately made is not enough to
detect design in that stone. Why? Because, non-deliberate forces can
also make such a look. Therefore, you cannot easily tell the difference
just because something is nearly identical to something else a human is
known to have made. This simply isn't enough information.
> > You see, you can't know the answer to this question unless you have at
> > least some idea as to the limits of what non-deliberate forces can do
> > with the materials in question.
>
> I don't consider "non-deliberate forces" at all when confronted with things
> that I know to be manufactured.
Yes, you do! - even if it is on a very subconscious level in your case.
> I dare say that you don't either.
You'd be wrong. All scientists who go about trying to detect the
artifactual nature of objects have to have at least some idea of the
limits of what non-deliberate forces can do to the material in
question.
> Deadrat
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
How on earth can that challenge be met?
Care to wait for 15 billion years while we look?
It's what scientists call an unfounded assertion. It cannot be
falsified.
> If you know where high-level symmetry, with regard to surface
> irregularities, is being produced, I'll give you $1,000 for this
> information - No risk to you.
What on earth has this to do with the matter?
I don't suppose that natural processes can produce highly symetrical
granite blocks. That does not mean that given enough time, and
processes we have not yet discovered, that somewhere in the Universe
there are billions of such blocks. Perhaps there are colonies of alien,
ant-like creatures who etch such blocks out of lumps of granite using
highy corrosive stomach acids.
You claim to have a methodology which can eliminate "non-deliberate"
processes as forming your block.
Your methodology is based on an unfounded assertion.
It is incredibly cumbersome.
You have not applied it, contrary to your claims that you have.
>
> > There are other, far better and more powerful ways of doing this which
> > archaeologists use every day.
>
> Not true. As you've basically admitted yourself, archeologists must
> know at least something about the limits of what non-deliberate
> processes are capable of achieving with a given material before they
> can detect an artifact as being a true artifact.
You have severe reading comprehension problems, Sean. I have "admitted"
nothing of the sort. Archaeologists determine whether or not an object
is an artefact by testing hypotheses of the processe by which it was
made, and whether or not that process is part of the technology
available at the time.
>
> > If you have any confidence in your methodology, apply your methodology.
> > We have established that it consists of:
> >
> > 1) Identifying all known natural processes affecting the form of
> > granite
> > 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
> > 3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
> > processes.
> > 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
> > such forms.
> > 5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
> > statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> > outcome of such processes.
>
> You made this post on May 12. Yet, you read and responded to my
> answers to these very same questions on May 11. Why then do you repost
> identical questions like they've never been answered - over and over
> and over again?
Because you have clearly not carried through the methodology you have
proposed, yet claim to know the outcome of your methodology.
I'll carry on pushing this point until you either show us that you have
applied your methodology, or stop claiming that it is of any value.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/73ae828f71ad7644?dmode=source
>
> > 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
>
> How many times are you going to ask this same question? I've told you
> over a dozen times now, personally, that all natural processes with the
> potential to affect a granite form do NOT need to be identified. My
> "methodology" is based on determining nearly identical limits to a
> subset of non-deliberate processes as one observes them interacting
> with granite over time. Since many different non-deliberate processes
> share pretty much the same limitations with respect to creating certain
> features, like symmetry, with granite and other homogenously mixed
> materials like marble, or flint, this consistency can be used to
> extrapolate to the entire set of potential non-deliberate processes -
> hypothesizing, through inductive reasoning, that the entire set will
> also share the same limitations as the subset shares.
Which is all empty assertion, as you haven't done this.
By the way, what are the "near-identical" limits of the forms produced
by
1) Granite boulders crashing together in a landslide
2) Granite blocks caught under a glacier being scrapped across a hard
surface
3) Granite exposed to ten thousand cycles of freezing and thawing.
4) Granite exposed to a hypersaline solution for a 100,000 years
5) Granite on a sea shore colonised by barnacles and limpets.
6) Granite in a desert exposed to 50,000 years of sandstorms.
7) Granite exposed to the highly acidic environments near a volcano
8) Granite being encapsulated in molten lava and weathering out again.
9) Granite blocks spanning two tectonic plates split and ground against
each other by the shearing movement of adjacent plates.
10) Granite blocks being tumbled about by tidal movements for 10,000
years
11) Granite pebbles used as gastroliths by a large sauropod dinosaur.
I presume that you have studied all these known processes, so you no
doubt have a data set of measurements which you can post on the web.
By the way "inductive reasoning" does not mean "making it up as I go
along". It's another of those scientific terms you seem to have a
problem with.
>
> > 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
>
> You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
> non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
> forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
> characteristic, like symmetry.
No, *I* don't record the range of forms.
*You* record the range of forms.
You haven't done so.
>
> > 3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
> > processes.
>
> Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
>
Which you haven't done.
> > 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
> > such forms.
>
> Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
>
Which you haven't done.
> > 5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
> > statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> > outcome of such processes.
>
> Yes, - by extrapolation to the whole set of non-deliberate random-type
> forces.
Which you haven't done.
>
> > You have not carried through any of the stages, yet you claim
> > conclusions based on your methodology.
>
> I have carried them out. I haven't published anything yet, but that
> doesn't mean I don't have enough information to present a very
> reasonable hypothesis.
You haven't presented an hypothesis.
> If you think my hypothesis is clearly in error,
> you must believe that my hypothesis can be easily falsified - making it
> a valid scientific statement.
You haven't presented an hypothesis.
> If you have such falsifying information,
> I'd be very glad to know about it. Please do present it to me and I'll
> send you $1,000 for your trouble - no risk to you.
>
> > I find this dishonest.
>
> LOL - what a crock. I've been more than honest with you.
No Sean, you've haven't.
You have asserted that you have applied your methodology when it is
patently clear that you haven't, systematically misrepresented most of
what I've written, pulled unfounded assertions out of the air when
challenged, demonstrated an almost complete ignorance of the scientific
method, and of the science of archaeology, made up your own definition
of mathematical terms, and made stupid "bets" on a basis which cannot
possibly be met.
RF
hersheyhv
Seanpit wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
> > This last point is very interesting....it makes me think of the statues
> > on Easter Island...not only the finished ones, but the ones that have
> > been found abandoned in transit....or partially carved and still in the
> > stone quarry.....with tools lying beisde them.
>
> How do you know that the "tools" are actually designed and not the
> result of some non-deliberate process?
Because we can both empirically observe humans making such tools and
also empirically examine what happens to the materials in the absence
of humans but with other conditions being reasonably similar. You, of
course, can do neither wrt the type of designer you want to infer as
the cause of descent with modification in living genomes. What is
more, you cannot even present good evidence that some feature of
descent with modification cannot happen except under ridiculous
hypothetical conditions requiring long random walks across total
sequence space. Again, there is NO evolutionary mechanism that
requires such long random walks nor anything close to total sequence
space. The only sequence space that organisms typically explore is the
sequence space that produces modification of pre-existing genomes in a
very similar ancestral organism (horizontal transfer of genetic
information is the exception). It is the the plasticity in amount of
phenotypic change in response to small genetic changes and the enormity
of geologic time that allows larger change. The journey of a thousand
miles starts with a single step.
> Yes, humans can make such
> tools. Humans can make just about anything with respect to these
> materials. But what about non-deliberate forces?
How do you determine that the forces are non-deliberate if the proposed
agency of deliberation is undetectable. I can certainly exclude humans
a source of deliberate force and observe what happens under various
conditions. That is simple experimentation. The way to determine if
some variable (say, humans) play a role is to observe what happens when
the variable is present and when the variable is absent. I can do that
with humans. How do I do that with your putative designer of living
organisms?
> If such forces could
> make things that look nearly identical to such tools, how could you
> tell that they were the result of deliberate intent?
Look for ways in which the things used as tools are NOT identical, no
matter how minor such a feature would be. That involves knowing how
humans use such tools (knowledge of intent or function), how humans
modify things into such tools, or how humans manufacture such tools.
> > These are the real hallmarks of human design and construction....not
> > just the finished product.
>
> They are not "Hallmarks" of human design if non-deliberate processes
> could do the same thing . . .
If you cannot distinguish that something is or is not due to human
design, it remains in the realm of "unknown". Would you claim that a
rock, which you cannot determine was or was not used by humans as a
hammer, is therefore designed by an undetectable fairy?
BTW, I can certainly exclude humans and human-like organisms as the
designer of life (there is simply too much time in which such organisms
did not exist on the earth). I certainly do not see any reason to
accept your claim that living organisms cannot undergo descent with
modification of its genome or speciation in order to adapt to a
necessarily changing environment. Since I reject your strawman model
of how evolution produces new functions by long random walks across
total sequence space (which involves massive amounts of variation
before there is any selection) in favor of a model that involves
repeated incremental variation and selection, this is not suprising.
BTW, Sean, since it is clear that your argument about granite cubes (of
an undefined size) is clearly dependent upon specific knowledge of the
materials involved and the ways that known types of intelligent agents
(detectable ones with human-like capabilities) can interact with these
materials and not some general ability you have for identifying design,
of what possible relevance is this analogy to what happens with living
things over geological time? Living things are not, AFAICT, made of
granite and it is clear that you are not proposing the same types of
intelligent designers (ones that are independently detectable and of
known capabilities).
>
> > Ken
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Ken Shackleton
Seanpit wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
> > This last point is very interesting....it makes me think of the statues
> > on Easter Island...not only the finished ones, but the ones that have
> > been found abandoned in transit....or partially carved and still in the
> > stone quarry.....with tools lying beisde them.
>
> How do you know that the "tools" are actually designed and not the
> result of some non-deliberate process?
You look for other evidence to help you see which is more likely.
If the "tools" fit a human hand, and have wear marks on the cutting
edges, and the "tool" marks on the unfinished statue near where the
"tools" were found match the "tools" themselves....then one might
reasonably conclude that these "tools" are in fact, artefacts of human
construction, designed and used for carving statues.
Even better.....if you can find the quarry where the tools themselves
were made...the hypothesis would have even more support.
> Yes, humans can make such
> tools. Humans can make just about anything with respect to these
> materials. But what about non-deliberate forces? If such forces could
> make things that look nearly identical to such tools, how could you
> tell that they were the result of deliberate intent?
You look at *all* the evidence and draw conclusions based on what is
most likely in the light of that evidence. The problem with your
approach [and ID] is that you have an a priori requirement to ignore
any aspect of the designer.....so you have to create these elaborate
[and flawed] machinations to reach your desired conclusion.
>
> > These are the real hallmarks of human design and construction....not
> > just the finished product.
>
> They are not "Hallmarks" of human design if non-deliberate processes
> could do the same thing . . .
Wrong.....they are hallmarks of human design since that is the most
likely explanation when considering *all* the evidence.
>
> > Ken
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Deadrat
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>
>> > Possibilities are always based on probabilities. When it comes to
>> > naturally non-deliberately produced symmetry in materials like granite,
>> > marble, flint, and clay, then yes, the limits of the degree of symmetry
>> > can indeed be measured to a very high degree of predictive value.
>>
>> So you say. But you never do any calculations. Could you show
>> your work, please? And remember to include all processes that we
>> don't know about.
>
> Didn't you read the very next paragraph before you made this comment?
Excuse me, but making up numbers doesn't count as calculations.
>
>> > Naturally produced symmetry in such materials never gets close to an
>> > overall symmetry that has less than 0.001% variation between all
>> > surface irregularities (say, greater than 1 million) that have a range
>> > of more than 50% differences with respect to their distances from the
>> > center of the stone.
>>
>> And the point is, what? You're stuck with a theory of intelligently
>> designed granite.
>
> I'm stuck with the theory that any granite rock with such a degree of
> symmetry is in fact designed. I'd say that's pretty good.
For what? It's worthless for anything beyond granite rocks.
>
>> > This hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show such
>> > a granite stone, with this degree of symmetry, being produced over time
>> > by non-deliberate forces.
>
> What, no takers?
Of what? You've taken an object that you know to have been manufactured
(probably from the Toledo Paperweight Company), mentioned some characteristics
of the paperweight, and challenged me to produce a similar paperweight that
wasn't manufactured. I can't. How does this carry you beyond a theory of
intelligently designed granite paperweights?
>
>> >> The reality
>> >> is that you use your knowlege of
>> >> human-manufactured items to compare
>> >> the cube against, and assume _a priori_
>> >> manufactured, again, because polished
>> >> granite cubes are like things humans have
>> >> done for thousands of years.
>> >
>> > Any highly symmetrical granite form, not just a cube, can be detected
>> > in this manner (as described above). If you are arguing that my
>> > knowledge that humans can design and create highly symmetrical granite
>> > forms of various types comes into play, sure it does. I assume that
>> > humans can design and create just about any type of granite form
>> > imaginable.
>>
>> Game over.
>
> Not quite . . .
Really? You've been claiming some theoretical considerations for determining
design. You have steadfastly refused to outline your definitions and procedures
so that others can test them. And now you admit that your knowledge of human
design "comes into play." I'll just bet it does.
>
>> > Of course, this knowledge, by itself, just isn't enough. What if
>> > non-deliberate forces were just as capable? What would that mean? It
>> > would mean that I could not adequately tell the difference between the
>> > potential of human vs. non-deliberate processes. What I have to know
>> > at least something about is the limits of what non-deliberate processes
>> > can do to the material of granite with respect to a certain
>> > characteristic, like symmetry.
>>
>> Which limits you never define. That's why IDiocy isn't science.
>
> Didn't you just read the paragraph above where I did in fact define
> this limit when it comes to granite? - as well as other materials like
> marble, flint, and clay?
Well, I read a paragraph where you made up some numbers. They
don't seem to have any theoretical basis or applicability beyond granite,
if they have that.
>
>> > As it turns out, non-deliberate
>> > processes all have pretty much the same limited ability when it comes
>> > to producing high-level symmetry (as defined above), of any kind, in
>> > granite stones of any highly symmetrical shape (not just cubes).
>>
>> So you're pretty much stuck with a theory of intelligently designed
>> granite cubes.
>
> Are you blind? Do you not understand that this degree of symmetry in
> ANY granite shape (with regard to surface irregularities), not just
> cubes, is beyond any non-deliberate process? So, how am I stuck with
> cubes here?
OK, so you're stuck with intelligently designed granite shapes that are
symmetric in a way that we know humans can fashion them. Sorry for
the hyperbole. Could we have some evidence for "beyond any non-deliberate
process." That's a big set.
That you know about. But even granting your point, I don't see where
this gets you with regard to the Intelligent Designer. You really know
about these nearly identical etchings because you've seen the catalog
for the Toledo Paperweight Company, and you know that for a small fee,
they'll etch opposing faces of their cubic granite paperweights with any logo
you want.
>
>> >> This is further evidence of the _ad
>> >> hoc_ aspects of your claimed
>> >> method. Now you have added "etchings".
>> >
>> > I haven't "added" the etchings requirement at all. Look it up - in
>> > this forum. This requirement has been part of my hypothesis for years
>> > now.
>>
>> And it tells us nothing except that you can recognize manufactured
>> objects when you see them.
>
> I can recognize that high-level symmetry in granite is beyond the
> powers of non-deliberate forces while being well within the practically
> infinite range of deliberate capabilities of even human-level
> intelligence - when it comes to granite or marble or flint or clay . .
> . etc.
Sure. Of the forces you know about. I still don't see where this
gets you.
This is a non sequitur. We're talking about objects that we know are manufactured,
like polished granite cubes.
>> > Without this
>> > knowledge, you really can't predict the future limitations of how this
>> > material will react with non-deliberate processes.
>>
>> Well, you evidently can't, with or without this knowledge.
>
> LOL - right . . . yet another bald ad hominem?
No, I'm not saying you're stupid because you haven't given us these
procedures and predictions. I'm saying you're mistaken to think that
it's possible to do in a rigorous way. If you had the scientific theory
of IDiocy, I'm sure you would have presented it by now. But
*evidently* you can't do it.
>> > As I've said over and over again, detailed investigation is needed into
>> > the materials in question and how they relate to non-deliberate
>> > processes over time.
>>
>> Translation: Detailed investigation is needed into what manufactured
>> objects have been made in the past.
>
> Which will tell you want? That manufactured objects made in the past
> have no significant limitations when it comes to symmetry or lack of
> symmetry in granite forms. That tells you that the potential of
> manufacturing, with regard to the characteristic of symmetry, has a
> practically infinite range. The question now is, do non-deliberate
> processes also have this same range of capability when it comes to
> symmetry? The clear answer to this question is a resounding NO! There
> are very clear predictable limits to the degree of symmetry that
> non-deliberate processes can produce on granite rocks. It is this
> difference that allows symmetry to be used as evidence that something
> other than a non-deliberate force was involved with a given granite
> form of high symmetry of many irregularities.
You have simply abstracted something from your knowledge of the
products of the Toledo Paperweight Company and come up with a
theory of symmetric granite rocks. This is less than useful, as it certainly
doesn't extend to a theory symmetric iron pyrite formations. And
everywhere you try to extend it (say to marble, flint, or clay), you just
add ad hoc tests.
>
> < snip repetitions >
>
>> > An investigator does not always have access to evidence of such
>> > "technology". And, even if he/she does have access to such "tools" or
>> > other evidences of deliberate "technology", how do you know that these
>> > tools were not also the result of non-deliberate forces?
>>
>> Because they are identical to tools that we do know about.
>
> So, only humans can produce such high fidelity of copying with respect
> to iron or rock forms that have the appearance of "tools"? How do you
> know that? How do you know that such a copying characteristic is only
> within the realm of human ID? Why can't some non-deliberate force
> produce nearly identical copies of such things? What is so special
> about a hammer?
A hammer is made by the Toledo Tool and Die Company. I haven't seen
any "non-deliberate" forces making hammers. What is so special about a
metronome? And yet pulsars make excellent metronomes.
>
> The fact is, humans also make and use things that non-deliberate forces
> can also make. Like highly spherical stones. Humans can and do make
> such things. Yet, finding something that is nearly identical to a
> highly spherical stone that a human deliberately made is not enough to
> detect design in that stone. Why? Because, non-deliberate forces can
> also make such a look. Therefore, you cannot easily tell the difference
> just because something is nearly identical to something else a human is
> known to have made. This simply isn't enough information.
Did we just switch sides in this argument? Now you're saying that the
appearance of design isn't enough to conclude design. Well, OK. *Now*
is the game over?
>
>> > You see, you can't know the answer to this question unless you have at
>> > least some idea as to the limits of what non-deliberate forces can do
>> > with the materials in question.
>>
>> I don't consider "non-deliberate forces" at all when confronted with things
>> that I know to be manufactured.
>
> Yes, you do! - even if it is on a very subconscious level in your case.
>
>> I dare say that you don't either.
>
> You'd be wrong. All scientists who go about trying to detect the
> artifactual nature of objects have to have at least some idea of the
> limits of what non-deliberate forces can do to the material in
> question.
This is just another way of saying that these folks compare what
they've got to what they know to have been manufactured. I don't
see how that helps get you a scientific theory of IDiocy.
Deadrat
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
Sean A
Seanpit wrote:
> Sean A wrote:
>
> > > Compare this to a highly symmetrical granite cube with nearly identical
> > > etchings in opposing faces. This type of form is well beyond the reach
> > > of the very consistent limits of known non-deliberate forces.
> > > Therefore, such a cube is clearly the result of deliberate intent.
> >
> > How should we compare this?
> >
> > I shudder to think that their is absolutuely no math involved, and all
> > of this measuring of deliberate vs non deliberate, random, symmetrical
> > objects is followed up by a wild-assed guess. this could not possibly
> > be true, so there must a final value (shall we call it a pittman?) that
> > will tell us if the object is designed or not.
>
> I've gone over this many times already in this forum. I keep having to
> rewrite this over and over again - even for those I've already
> presented this information to before. But, anyway, here it goes again:
>
> Naturally produced symmetry in such materials (i.e., granite, marble,
> flint, clay) never gets close to an overall symmetry that has less than
> 0.001% variation between all surface irregularities (say, greater than
> 1 million) that have a range of more than 50% differences with respect
> to their distances from the center of the stone.
How do you come to these figures, except for my aforementioned
"wild-assed guess"?
>
> This hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show such
> a granite stone, with this degree of symmetry, being produced over time
> by non-deliberate forces.
Do you realize how silly that is?
Supposing that it is possible that this cube formed naturally, but
given that it is improbable (if it wasn't a fairly unique object in
terms of what is naturally seen, why would I care?), your advice is to
find a specimen or specimens of granite and then watch them over time
(thousands of millenia?) to see if they form cubes. If they don't, I
should conclude it is designed. If I happen to find other granite
cubes, they tell me nothing, because I have not witnessed how they
formed. If you can't see the absolute idiocy of this technique, in
light of better methodolgies, than their really is no hope for you.
>
> > > See the difference? Do you understand why there is no definitive answer
> > > for your scenario, but there most certainly is for the case of the
> > > granite cube or any other equivalently symmetrical granite or basalt
> > > form (with regard to surface irregularities)?
> >
> > Apparently some objects are definitively designed, some are not.
>
> Some granite stones have high-level symmetry and some do not.
>
> > It
> > would seem to me that there must be some area in-between. For example,
> > our famous cube, thrown into a river and then picked up after receiving
> > a fair amount of corner rounding and scoring as it rolled down the
> > river.
>
> That's right - - It wouldn't be so easily detectable as "designed"
> anymore.
So basically, your methodolgy fails beyond detecting anything which is
already obviously designed by humans or other animals.
Explain how you think any biological system, undergoing the type of
modifications that we know exist, such as mutation, would paralell your
pristine granite cube, rather than my "river-roughed" one. Even if you
limit yourself to those types of changes that cretinists would label
"adaption", you still could have a large variation from the original
"design".
>
> > Maybe to help us understand your methodolgy, you can simply provide us
> > with the results of your algorithim. For instance maybe a graph of
> > pittmans -vs- surface irregularity as our cube becomes more or less
> > irregular. I am certain that I have seen graphs like this on 5th grade
> > science projects, so with all your vast research, this should not be a
> > problem.
>
> You can make the graph if you like. I'm pretty much interested in the
> definitive limits beyond which the design-only hypothesis becomes
> clear.
I understand. Much like religion (since this is what it eventually
boils down to), you would prefer to deal in absolutes, rather than
having to apply different levels of confidence to differing results.
>
> > To follow it up, maybe you can provide us with a chart correlating the
> > pittman number and the degree of confidence of design.
>
> See above . . .
>
> > You seem to have this fairly complex method, which would seem to take
> > us years to ascertain if a simple cube of polished granite is designed
> > or not. At the very least, since the methodolgy seems to be hard for us
> > to determine, you could provide us with and help us to interpret the
> > results.
>
> It does take a bit of investigation and experience with the material in
> question, as it interacts with non-deliberate processes over time, to
> be able to detect the limits of what non-deliberate processes can
> achieve with respect to a certain characteristic, like symmetry. You
> can't just "know" without any prior experience. The ID hypothesis does
> not remove the need for investigation and study.
>
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> You're welcome . . .
Thanks for the verification that you have not done any of this
investigation that you feel would be required to support your
methodology.
>
> Nice name by the way ; )
Thank You.
Who knows, we might even be related...
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Hieros Gamos
> > > This hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show
such
> > > a granite stone, with this degree of symmetry, being produced over
time
> > > by non-deliberate forces.
>
> What, no takers?
Don't be silly. That is the same kind of argument _ad ignorantiam_ Dembski
tries to get away with.
In science Dembski is a laughing stock because he tries to get away with the
logical fallacy of arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a designer
because there is no proof that hypothesis is false.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html
Hieros Gamos
> My challenge is that no highly symmetrical granite rock of any kind
> will ever be found being produced, over time, by any non-deliberate
> process.
That is the logical fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_, just like
Dembski's:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html
"If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum
could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process, then intelligent
design would be falsified."
In other words you all are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a
God because there is no proof the hypothesis is false.
Von R. Smith
How did you come up with this figure? I would actually be very
surprised to find even an intelligently-manufactured granite cube built
to anywhere near that degree of precision. But then, since your
proposed "test" for your hypothesis boils down to a bet that we will
never find such a granite cube in the first place, perhaps that was the
whole point.
> This hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show such
> a granite stone, with this degree of symmetry, being produced over time
> by non-deliberate forces.
Sean might be interested to learn that, just a bit over 300 years ago,
Robert Hooke described a "design inference" method that seemed to be
almost the exact opposite of Sean's. In the first plate of his
"Micrographia", he presents as his first plate a magnified picture of
the head of a pin. Here is what he wrote about it:
"The whole Piece we have here the Picture of (according to the scale
given with it) is little more than a twentieth Part of an Inch in
Length, and appeared to the naked Eye exquisitely smooth and polished;
but, as seen by the Microscope, what a Multitude of Holes and scratches
are discovered to us? How uneven and rough the Surface! how void of
beauty and how plain a Proof of the Deficiency and Bonglingness[sic] of
Art, whose Productions when most laboured, if examined with Organs more
acute than those by which they were framed, lose all that fancied
Perfection our Blindness made us think they had! Whereas, in the Works
of Nature, the farther, the deeper our Discoveries reach, the more
sensible we become of their Beauties and Excellencies."
http://www.roberthooke.org.uk/rest5a.htm
Notice that Hooke's methodology turns Pitman's intuition about
"deliberate" vs. "non-deliberate" processes on its head. Hooke drew
upon his knowledge of human designers, and of their *known*
limitations, to formulate what sort of properties he expected man-made
objects to have. He knew that 17th century pin-makers didn't use
microscopes or machine tools, and so he could predict that examining an
artifact they had made at a resolution higher than that available to
its maker would reveal imperfections. Those objects whose degree of
symmetry exceeded the known limitations of human manufacturers could be
inferred to be products of Nature.
What Hooke didn't do was throw up arbitrary numbers about made-up
examples, and then challenge people to find real-life examples that
proved his fictional numbers wrong. He would understand that
statements like "All green unicorns are exactly 10' tall; find me one
that isn't" are useless to scientific investigation. Sean, apparently,
does not.
Seanpit
Von R. Smith wrote:
This just isn't true. Hooke wasn't looking at overall symmetry here.
Sure even a highly symmetrical polished granite cube will have a very
uneven surfaces under a microscopic examination. This has nothing to
do with the overall degree of symmetry of the cube! The fact that such
a cube's surface irregularities (as a measured distance from the
surface points to the center of the cube) are all within 0.001%
variability with the exact opposite point on the cube is most striking
and cannot be explained by pointing to microscopic irregularities. If
these microscopic irregularities were also highly symmetrical, they
would not point toward the abilities of non-deliberate processes to
produce this degree of perfection in the material of granite, but
toward an even higher level of deliberate intent.
> What Hooke didn't do was throw up arbitrary numbers about made-up
> examples, and then challenge people to find real-life examples that
> proved his fictional numbers wrong. He would understand that
> statements like "All green unicorns are exactly 10' tall; find me one
> that isn't" are useless to scientific investigation. Sean, apparently,
> does not.
LOL - Come on now. You can't be this blind. Highly symmetrical granite
cubes do in fact exist and can in fact be made by you or by me -
regardless of overall size or the type of irregularities. It is just
that non-deliberate processes cannot make such a degree of symmetry of
irregularities when it comes to the material of granite.
You can also easily prove me wrong here. Just show where some
non-deliberate processes is actually producing this degree of symmetry
in a granite rock anywhere. You can show lower levels of symmetry
being produced by non-deliberate forces quite easily. Why then do such
forces stall out, in an exponential fashion, with each increase in the
symmetry requirement?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Sean A wrote:
> > This hypothesis is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show such
> > a granite stone, with this degree of symmetry, being produced over time
> > by non-deliberate forces.
>
> Do you realize how silly that is?
>
> Supposing that it is possible that this cube formed naturally, but
> given that it is improbable (if it wasn't a fairly unique object in
> terms of what is naturally seen, why would I care?), your advice is to
> find a specimen or specimens of granite and then watch them over time
> (thousands of millenia?) to see if they form cubes. If they don't, I
> should conclude it is designed. If I happen to find other granite
> cubes, they tell me nothing, because I have not witnessed how they
> formed. If you can't see the absolute idiocy of this technique, in
> light of better methodolgies, than their really is no hope for you.
You could speed up the process by bombarding a granite rock with
randomly produced rain, wind, heat, cold, etc at extreme levels - and
see what happens. Rapid erosion could be produced in the lab and
studied over relatively short times. See if any significant symmetry
turns up in a granite rock under such conditions?
Try it with symmetry in the layout of gardens if you think the granite
example is too hard. Different types of gardens form relatively
rapidly. How me a non-deliberately planted one that comes even remotely
close to the degree of symmetry seen in a French-style garden.
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Deadrat
Of course. But the burden is on you to show that no non-deliberate
process can make such a granite cube. It is, after all, your claim.
And there are plenty of other materials that form cubes without the
intervention of a deliberate process. So I'm expecting some evidence.
IDiocy at the same time has no evidence whatsoever in its favor
(I'm not counting Sean's wishful thinking.) and requires the most
rigorous of demonstrations. Not only can Sean not give any general,
mathematical definition of design, he requires of himself that he show
that *no* *possible* non-deliberate process can come up with his
example products. So little evidence; so far to go.
Certainly, a naturally-formed granite cube would disprove your
example, but that would hardly disprove your thesis. You would
just move to another example. I'm tiring of granite cubes. How
about sandstone arches? It's just a headache having the catalog of
the Toledo Paperweight Company instead of a scientific theory.
So, please provide evidence that no non-deliberate process can
produce our example. Start with the processes you don't know
about. I'll wait.
> Just show where some
> non-deliberate processes is actually producing this degree of symmetry
> in a granite rock anywhere. You can show lower levels of symmetry
> being produced by non-deliberate forces quite easily. Why then do such
> forces stall out, in an exponential fashion, with each increase in the
> symmetry requirement?
Ah, an *exponential* fashion. I can't wait to see the data.
Deadrat
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
Von R. Smith
Actually, he was, in part. The irregularities he is describing pertain
not just to surface irregularities, but also asymmetries in the overall
shape of the pinhead.
Let us not forget that your hypothesis isn't really that non-manmade
granite cubes are vanishingly rare. In fact, your hypothetical example
on Mars specifically presupposes such a cube that was not made by
humans. Your hypothesis is that all such cubes, to include those that
come into being absent *human* intervention, will turn out to be the
product of "deliberate processes". So in order to be able to test your
hypothesis, you must first tell me how we would verify that such a
cube, *were we to find one* was in fact the product of "deliberate
processes". I already know what you would conclude about such a cube
on Mars. You have claimed that this conclusion is testable. So my
question to you is: How do we *test* that conclusion on the Martian
cube?
> You can show lower levels of symmetry
> being produced by non-deliberate forces quite easily. Why then do such
> forces stall out, in an exponential fashion, with each increase in the
> symmetry requirement?
If we fail to find a granite cube exactly as you describe on Mars, then
that is just as much a failure of deliberate processes as
non-deliberate ones to produce one. The relevant question is: how
would we test your hypothesis that such a cube were intelligently-made,
were we to find one?
Seanpit
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> > > These are the real hallmarks of human design and construction....not
> > > just the finished product.
> >
> > They are not "Hallmarks" of human design if non-deliberate processes
> > could do the same thing . . .
>
> Wrong.....they are hallmarks of human design since that is the most
> likely explanation when considering *all* the evidence.
What if non-deliberate processes could also explain *all* the evidence
just as easily? How could you detect the presence of humans then? You
see the problem? You actually have to know something about the limits
of what non-deliberate processes can achieve with respect to certain
features or collections of features when it comes to the various
materials in question.
> Ken
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
The irregularities are not symmetrical. That's my whole argument here.
Non-deliberate processes cannot produce a high degree of overall
symmetry when it comes to surface irregularities in certain materials.
Mindless non-deliberate nature does *not* have an edge in this regard
when it comes to these materials.
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Von R. Smith
You seem to have forgotten that the irregularities Hooke is talking
about are in a man-made artifact, which he is contrasting with a
comparatively high degree of symmetry and regularity he saw in natural
objects. And no, I don't think that was your argument at all.
> Non-deliberate processes cannot produce a high degree of overall
> symmetry when it comes to surface irregularities in certain materials.
> Mindless non-deliberate nature does *not* have an edge in this regard
> when it comes to these materials.
They did in Hooke's day. That was his point, and mine. What *known*
deliberate processes can do is limited by available technology,
logistics, and cultural experience; and the features we use to detect
those processes must depend on an understanding of those limitations
and of what they entail for what artifacts made by those processes will
look like. They don't just magically do anything you can imagine, in
spite of your apparent romantic misconceptions to the contrary.
I notice that you have once again passed up on my request for an
explanation as to how one *independently* tests the hypothesis that
your hypothetical Martian cube, or any other non-manmade candidate for
a deliberate artifact, is in fact intelligently manufactured.
Seanpit
Von R. Smith wrote:
> > > > This just isn't true. Hooke wasn't looking at overall symmetry here.
> > >
> > > Actually, he was, in part. The irregularities he is describing pertain
> > > not just to surface irregularities, but also asymmetries in the overall
> > > shape of the pinhead.
> >
> > The irregularities are not symmetrical. That's my whole argument here.
>
> You seem to have forgotten that the irregularities Hooke is talking
> about are in a man-made artifact, which he is contrasting with a
> comparatively high degree of symmetry and regularity he saw in natural
> objects.
And I'm telling you that Hooke would not see any higher a degree of
symmetry or regularity when looking at a naturally produced object made
out of granite or marble or even iron. Nature simply cannot outdo
human-level symmetry when it comes to these materials - not even on a
microscopic level.
> And no, I don't think that was your argument at all.
What do you think my argument has been all along?
> > Non-deliberate processes cannot produce a high degree of overall
> > symmetry when it comes to surface irregularities in certain materials.
> > Mindless non-deliberate nature does *not* have an edge in this regard
> > when it comes to these materials.
>
> They did in Hooke's day.
No, they weren't - not when it comes to the materials of granite,
marble, flint, or even iron.
> That was his point, and mine.
You took on his point as being "valid" when you made this post. The
point is mistaken when you consider specific types of materials - like
I'm doing with my granite cube and French-style garden examples. This
is obvious to anyone with a candid mind. You're just trying to cloud
the obvious.
> What *known*
> deliberate processes can do is limited by available technology,
> logistics, and cultural experience;
Right, but given the same limitations of materials, force, and time,
deliberate processes can outdo non-deliberate processes every time. ID
is limited only by the limits of the agents who have access to
intelligence and deliberate potential. ID therefore has no theoretical
limits.
Non-intelligent processes are limited with respect to certain materials
and certain aspects of these materials, like symmetry, regardless of
the degree of power employed. Turn up the intensity of the
non-deliberate force, what do you get as far as symmetry in a granite
rock or a French-style garden? No improvement at all - that's what.
Therefore, non-intelligent processes are limited along their entire
range of powers to the very same level of certain features, like
symmetry. ID is not limited like this along its range of creative
powers. Add additional knowledge and access to more energy that can be
directed in deliberate ways, and intelligence gains creative power
indefinitely.
See the difference? ID has no theoretical limitation with respect to
any feature imaginable in any material imaginable. Non-ID does have
limitations that cannot be crossed regardless of the non-deliberate
process or the power behind it.
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Von R. Smith
Seanpit wrote:
> Von R. Smith wrote:
<snip>
>
> Right, but given the same limitations of materials, force, and time,
> deliberate processes can outdo non-deliberate processes every time. ID
> is limited only by the limits of the agents who have access to
> intelligence and deliberate potential. ID therefore has no theoretical
> limits.
>
> Non-intelligent processes are limited with respect to certain materials
> and certain aspects of these materials, like symmetry, regardless of
> the degree of power employed. Turn up the intensity of the
> non-deliberate force, what do you get as far as symmetry in a granite
> rock or a French-style garden? No improvement at all - that's what.
> Therefore, non-intelligent processes are limited along their entire
> range of powers to the very same level of certain features, like
> symmetry. ID is not limited like this along its range of creative
> powers. Add additional knowledge and access to more energy that can be
> directed in deliberate ways, and intelligence gains creative power
> indefinitely.
>
> See the difference? ID has no theoretical limitation with respect to
> any feature imaginable in any material imaginable. Non-ID does have
> limitations that cannot be crossed regardless of the non-deliberate
> process or the power behind it.
The reason that ID has no theoretical limitations is because it has no
actual theory about the nature of intelligent designers, apart from
some vague belief, without apparent foundation that they can
potentially do anything. Now explain to me again how, given an
observation that exceeds your "known limitations of non-deliberate
processes", one actually *tests* whether or not the process involved is
actually intelligent design, as opposed to some unknown non-deliberate
processes, or a known one whose limitations you may have mistaken.
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Sean A wrote:
>
>
> You could speed up the process by bombarding a granite rock with
> randomly produced rain, wind, heat, cold, etc at extreme levels - and
> see what happens. Rapid erosion could be produced in the lab and
> studied over relatively short times. See if any significant symmetry
> turns up in a granite rock under such conditions?
Which would be subjecting the rock to deliberate processes!
Do you honestly think that you can replicate a million years of erosion
in the lab?
Or the effect of being ground along under an ice-sheet three kilometers
thick?
>
> Try it with symmetry in the layout of gardens if you think the granite
> example is too hard. Different types of gardens form relatively
> rapidly. How me a non-deliberately planted one that comes even remotely
> close to the degree of symmetry seen in a French-style garden.
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
More unsupported assertions and handwaving, Sean.
If you have any confidence in your methodology, apply your methodology.
We have established that it consists of:
1) Identifying all known natural processes affecting the form of
granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
You have not carried through any of the stages, yet you claim
conclusions based on your methodology.
I find this dishonest.
RF
Sean A
> Sean A wrote:
>
I am not currently going to let you change the subject to anything but
granite, since you seem to be so infatuated with it. Stick to granite,
we don't want to send you on another 10 years mission investigating the
non-deliberate limits of French-flower-gardenology.
OK, so now you are proposing to put our samples in a lab, place them in
a wind tunnel, water them every now and then, Turn the heat on, Turn
the heat off, Turn the AC on, Turn the AC off. If we dont get a cube
(is there a time limit?) than we can conclude it was designed. Genius.
Far be it from to question such mental accuity, but I just have to ask
a couple questions.
1. Why do you think random, deliberate, known processes would give us
information on the limits of random (or non random), non-deliberate,
unknown processes.?
2. Let's say for a moment that we are aware of all non-deliberate
processes, and could simulate them in a lab. What if a particular
sequence is required to produce this result? Given the amount of
sequences possible, why on Zorg do you think a random application of
these processes would prodoce the desired cube in any reasonable amount
of time, if ever? Bear in mind, nature is not random, and operates due
to the laws of physics, which often produce repeatable processes for
objects with certain initial conditions.
Also, your snippage of my other other questions is noted and
intertpreted as acceptance of the fact that 1). your figures are indeed
a "wild-assed guess" and 2.)biological systems have nothing in common
with pristine granite cubes.