ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

[chickenman]

Yet when you need to go to a doctor all of that 'guesswork' is good enough for you. You buy into everything scientists say about what is happening now but refuse to buy what they think about how it happened. The same science is used in both.

My family's doctors don't believe in evolution. Many don't. Don't make up stuff, SW, and presume to know what works for me and doesn't.

Even worse you find great awe in how God makes your cells work today but you don't think he's clever enough to create us with evolution.

He's clever enough to create us from a can of tuna fish if He wanted to. But that doesn't mean He did.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yet when you need to go to a doctor all of that 'guesswork' is good enough for you. You buy into everything scientists say about what is happening now but refuse to buy what they think about how it happened. The same science is used in both.

In Denver we don't have a National Atheist Hospital.

Although we do have.....

- Saint Lukes
- Saint Joeseph
- Saint Anthony's
- Porter Adventist

:idunno:

 

[SingedWing]

In Denver we don't have a National Atheist Hospital.

Although we do have.....

- Saint Lukes
- Saint Joeseph
- Saint Anthony's
- Porter Adventist

:idunno:

Comforting, that saint thing.

Back to your original reason for the thread. Sort of. When a friend told me of this phenomenon going on between creationists and the Dawkins people on the web I started looking into it. I found all these creation based sites on science and thought I would give an open mind to it. First site I visited was Dr. Dino. First article I read was one one Mammoths. Dr. Dino straightened us all out on that glacier thing.

They have changed the site so I can't find the exact quote but Dr. Dino said, out loud, that glaciers were a problem for evolutionists because he figured out that it couldn't snow if the earth was cold.

That pretty much closed my mind to any 'science' site that states a creationist purpose. They are all biased closed minded bigots who snip at others who do real research and some of them are so uninformed and lacking in imagination that it shook me. I started to think that some of my fellow Christians were turning the religion into a spooky dark thing reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Reassure me here. You guys are starting to scare me.

 

[GuySmiley]

Comforting, that saint thing.

Back to your original reason for the thread. Sort of. When a friend told me of this phenomenon going on between creationists and the Dawkins people on the web I started looking into it. I found all these creation based sites on science and thought I would give an open mind to it. First site I visited was Dr. Dino. First article I read was one one Mammoths. Dr. Dino straightened us all out on that glacier thing.

They have changed the site so I can't find the exact quote but Dr. Dino said, out loud, that glaciers were a problem for evolutionists because he figured out that it couldn't snow if the earth was cold.

That pretty much closed my mind to any 'science' site that states a creationist purpose. They are all biased closed minded bigots who snip at others who do real research and some of them are so uninformed and lacking in imagination that it shook me. I started to think that some of my fellow Christians were turning the religion into a spooky dark thing reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Reassure me here. You guys are starting to scare me.

That's a touching story about how you read a website once.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, I want to focus on Knight's claim. If you know the statistics I asked for in the last post, great. If you don’t let me ask it in a different, but less mathematically demanding way.

Is the probability that the MM pic will show up non-zero, if we display 256^640x480 random patterns? For example, even if the math were to show that the probability were low, say only 1 chance in ten that the exact MM pic would show up, or even 1 chance in 100, or 1000. Do you agree that the probability is not zero?

I believe Knight's point is very simple and all this talk of maths is a distraction. The point is that we all recognise intelligence. The question is how and why?

 

[ThePhy]

I believe Knight's point is very simple and all this talk of maths is a distraction. The point is that we all recognise intelligence. The question is how and why?

I believe Knight’s point is very simple too – and the math will show he is wrong. You threw the math out at me for several posts, and now suddenly you find it convenient to label the math a distraction. You two-faced moral shrew.

I guess if he isn’t up to the math, and you won’ t, then that carries a pretty clear message. I even backed away from you having to solve the math explicitly, and asked for a qualitative judgment on whether the MM pic might appear. You don’t even dare do that, do you? The second you give an honest answer to that question, you would have to turn right around and tell Knight he is wrong.

 

[ljundhammer]

I believe Knight's point is very simple and all this talk of maths is a distraction. The point is that we all recognise intelligence. The question is how and why?

I disagree that it is a distraction.

Knight's point: Complex things must be designed by intelligence

Opposite point: Complex things can occur by chance

The statistics shows this. The example of the computer image of Marilyn Monroe proves this.

Point before the preaching - I am not advocating Natural Selection is random.

 

[SingedWing]

That's a touching story about how you read a website once.

Oh I looked further. I found Hovind videos where he had some pre-schoolers and their mom's and dad's chuckling about the Big Bang and other fun 7th grade science facts. Things that only the educationally handicapped would find funny.

All these sites have about a half dozen disjointed ideas. No intermediate fossils, something from nothing, random chance, carbon 14 all wrong, one big flood made all that stuff, man rides dinosaurs. God made complex things that aren't complex enough to change but he only had six days to zap them into existence.That cover it?

You do not have a window into God's universe here like real science does you have a bunch of pinholes by pinheads.

Thats all your scientists have come up with. A bunch of folk tales of incredulity that only appeals to flawed human intuition. After studying biochemistry for many years I can stand in my back yard and look at a leaf and you know what? I don't know a pittance about what is going on in that leaf. I can then read the bible for hours and not know a spec about how that leaf ended up in my back yard.

Your whole argument for pat creationist stories is based on what I don't yet know and what you think you know for sure. My faith is based on my God given imagination and what I am still learning. It's based on the wonder of science and the real long version of the creation story that is unfolding before our eyes in this century. Real scientists are turning over those leaves every day and writing that new story. You just have to get a little humility and listen to them.

I care not that many of them claim atheism. God is not in the gaps, God is in the Stuff and these people will come to faith in their own time through the back door, if, you show them a faith worth coming to. Show them your other cheek, not snickering derision and faulty logic.

How do you feel when you argue this stuff with people? Serene? Is that a clue? where are you guys going with this. Watch Jesus camp. There are clues in it. Where do you think the new Christian Right(Republican) party is going?

You are marching your little butts to bloodshed and forced rule. More bloodshed by the righteous is what the bible is trying to warn you about.

 

[Turbo]

Point before the preaching - I am not advocating Natural Selection is random.

Psst! Neither the space signal, the Monroe pic, nor the tennis ball/brick wall scenario is meant to be analogous to natural selection.

 

[ljundhammer]

Psst! Neither the space signal, the Monroe pic, nor the tennis ball/brick wall scenario is meant to be analogous to natural selection.

I know, but I've been misquoted by creationists enough in the past (admitedly not here) to know that you have to be unequivical.

 

[Turbo]

I know, but I've been misquoted by creationists enough in the past (admitedly not here) to know that you have to be unequivical.

You're being off-topic. Natural Selection has nothing to do with the topic at hand, at all. Knight isn't even trying to draw parallels between his scenarios and Natural Selection.


It seems like you're trying to shoot down an argument that no one has made. You've set up a straw man, but I'm not sure you realize it. Maybe you're just missing Knight's point altogether, and wrongly assumed that he is talking about Natural Selection. :idunno:

 

[ljundhammer]

You're being off-topic. Natural Selection has nothing to do with the topic at hand, at all. Knight isn't even trying to draw parallels between his scenarios and Natural Selection.


It seems like you're trying to shoot down an argument that no one has made. You've set up a straw man, but I'm not sure you realize it. Maybe you're just missing Knight's point altogether, and wrongly assumed that he is talking about Natural Selection. :idunno:

I disagree that it is a distraction.

Knight's point: Complex things must be designed by intelligence

Opposite point: Complex things can occur by chance

The statistics shows this. The example of the computer image of Marilyn Monroe proves this.

There's my point, where's my strawman?

I was simply putting in an adendum to cover my butt, as I feel I have the need to.

 

[Stripe]

Let’s go back to the original issue.

In this post you originally said: “A computer that randomly generates pixels on the screen will NEVER produce a picture of Marilyn Monroe, instead it will produce meaningless snow over and over again.” You even put the “never” in caps. Include in that post is your disbelief that computers could be considered more complex than a cell. Your computer-cell comparison was not tied nearly as strongly to a timeline as the MM claim.

In response mebrainhurtz challenged you, with the proviso that the earth is the billions of years old that science thinks it is. I presume he was referring to your MM picture claim, but I could be wrong. In either case, I will have to part company with mebrainhurtz on the MM issue, at least in the time frame he encapsulated. I do not think I have said anything to support the “relatively” short time frame he said was needed.

In this post is where you flatly say your professor was wrong.

I am on your Professor’s side. Let me jump back to this thread to pursue that idea. Since Stripe seems to be willing to take on the mathematics (and I think he seems to have the right equations in hand), I will expect him to handle that end of things for you.

So, Stripe has listed 640x480 as (I presume) the number of pixels on the screen. Each pixel can have any one of 256 values (hue, intensity). He comes up with 256^640x480 as the number of possible ways the screen could be illuminated, of which only one is exactly right. Am I on target so far, Stripe?

Now, let me make the assumption that each random set of pixels remains displayed for 10 seconds, during which time we, with our perfectly calibrated eyeballs, examine it to see if it is the right one. So if we multiply the value Stripe has supplied by 10, that is how long it would take to cycle though every possible combination of pixels. Note, in saying that I am removing the “random” factor, I am simply saying if we never repeated a pattern, it would take 10x256^640x480 seconds to go through the list.

Now, and I pose this to Stripe, let’s make each selected pattern absolutely random. Let it run for 10x256^640x480 seconds. Since there is no guarantee that a given pattern (including the MM one) will show in any of the displayed patterns, is there any statistical relationship as to how likely the MM pattern will in fact show up in those 10x256^640x480 seconds?

ThePhy. Your proposal proves what you want it to prove. Now will you address the point of this thread?

 

[Stripe]

I believe Knight’s point is very simple too – and the math will show he is wrong. You threw the math out at me for several posts, and now suddenly you find it convenient to label the math a distraction. You two-faced moral shrew.

I guess if he isn’t up to the math, and you won’ t, then that carries a pretty clear message. I even backed away from you having to solve the math explicitly, and asked for a qualitative judgment on whether the MM pic might appear. You don’t even dare do that, do you? The second you give an honest answer to that question, you would have to turn right around and tell Knight he is wrong.

That's patently unfair, ThePhy. The maths is perfectly simple. The chances of 211 alphanumeric characters randomly generating a message from space aliens is way more likely than an image of Marilyn showing up on an untuned TV monitor. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that the numbers have been dealt with and believe you are using this topic to avoid the conflict between the general atheist views on this topic and the other topic.

 

[chickenman]

I've unlocked the code in SingedWing's posts. Look closely in this one for a hidden message.

Comforting, that saint thing.

Back to your original reason for the thread. Sort of. When a friend told me of this phenomenon going on between creationists and the Dawkins people on the web I started looking into it. I found all these creation based sites on science and thought I would give an open mind to it. First site I visited was Dr. Dino. First article I read was one one Mammoths. Dr. Dino straightened us all out on that glacier thing.

They have changed the site so I can't find the exact quote but Dr. Dino said, out loud, that glaciers were a problem for evolutionists because he figured out that it couldn't snow if the earth was cold.

That pretty much closed my mind to any 'science' site that states a creationist purpose. They are all biased closed minded bigots who snip at others who do real research and some of them are so uninformed and lacking in imagination that it shook me. I started to think that some of my fellow Christians were turning the religion into a spooky dark thing reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Reassure me here. You guys are starting to scare me.

 

[chickenman]

Oh I looked further. I found Hovind videos where he had some pre-schoolers and their mom's and dad's chuckling about the Big Bang and other fun 7th grade science facts. Things that only the educationally handicapped would find funny.

All these sites have about a half dozen disjointed ideas. No intermediate fossils, something from nothing, random chance, carbon 14 all wrong, one big flood made all that stuff, man rides dinosaurs. God made complex things that aren't complex enough to change but he only had six days to zap them into existence.That cover it?

You do not have a window into God's universe here like real science does you have a bunch of pinholes by pinheads.

Thats all your scientists have come up with. A bunch of folk tales of incredulity that only appeals to flawed human intuition. After studying biochemistry for many years I can stand in my back yard and look at a leaf and you know what? I don't know a pittance about what is going on in that leaf. I can then read the bible for hours and not know a spec about how that leaf ended up in my back yard.

Your whole argument for pat creationist stories is based on what I don't yet know and what you think you know for sure. My faith is based on my God given imagination and what I am still learning. It's based on the wonder of science and the real long version of the creation story that is unfolding before our eyes in this century. Real scientists are turning over those leaves every day and writing that new story. You just have to get a little humility and listen to them.

I care not that many of them claim atheism. God is not in the gaps, God is in the Stuff and these people will come to faith in their own time through the back door, if, you show them a faith worth coming to. Show them your other cheek, not snickering derision and faulty logic.

How do you feel when you argue this stuff with people? Serene? Is that a clue? where are you guys going with this. Watch Jesus camp. There are clues in it. Where do you think the new Christian Right(Republican) party is going?

You are marching your little butts to bloodshed and forced rule. More bloodshed by the righteous is what the bible is trying to warn you about.

SingedWing,
You are a Christian. Yet you are willing to give atheists a pass and assume that they will come to faith in their own time through the back door. While you cuddle up with the Godless, you call out and condemn other Christians. Now, I'm all for the latter when called for, but for you to give Godless people a pass WHILE condemning your brothers is shameful.

 

[Stripe]

SingedWing,
You are a Christian. Yet you are willing to give atheists a pass and assume that they will come to faith in their own time through the back door. While you cuddle up with the Godless, you call out and condemn other Christians. Now, I'm all for the latter when called for, but for you to give Godless people a pass WHILE condemning your brothers is shameful.

SingedWing is a CHRISTIAN!!??

 

[Pekkle]

What is shameful about condemning a christian and approving of an atheist for something unrelated to faith?

That's like saying it is shameful to condemn a christian for beating a child and approving of an atheist not beating a child.

 

[chickenman]

What is shameful about condemning a christian and approving of an atheist for something unrelated to faith?

That's like saying it is shameful to condemn a christian for beating a child and approving of an atheist not beating a child.

Pekkle,
As a Christian, then I believe you will suffer eternally since you reject God. I'm not being mean, just honest. So ultimately, the reason for my spending any time over here on the atheist threads is to trial and error some ideas that might get an atheist thinking. If I'm doing a poor job of it, so be it. If I'm flat out wrong on anything I post, then so be it. If I look like an idiotic fool, then so be it. But I am trying because I ultimately care. You might not believe that when you see criticisms, sarcasm, or other things like that. But those are part of an overall effort that I am willing to attempt, even though I realize it is likely to fail. I can live with a failed attempt. But I would not like to say that I never tried.

That all being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Christian coming down very hard on other Christians. It happens all the time around here. And there is nothing wrong with finding commonality with atheists and battling shoulder-to-shoulder against certain ideas. I have no problem with that. My problem with SingedWing is that he is apparently willing to leave atheists completely alone, assuming that your "right" position on evolution will be the door to truth one day for you. He'll go after Christians, criticizing and condemning them, but snuggle up with atheists and just love them to death.

cm :chicken:

 

[Stripe]

What is shameful about condemning a christian and approving of an atheist for something unrelated to faith? That's like saying it is shameful to condemn a christian for beating a child and approving of an atheist not beating a child.

What's it going to take to get a decent response, one that is on topic, from this lot? :sigh: