How do you detect "design"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

So if any of those QR opens a website or download a document or opens an image etc .... It would be designed


I challenge you to explicitly deny that this is an objective and viable test

Well, there is everything, something, something else and/or nothing. Now you just have to show that your example of something designed is the case for everything.
Remember it is not if the test is wrong as such. It could be that it is not universal, and that is the hidden assumption.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

,,,
You are playing silly semantics....

I am really, really not.

ok QRs are designed , but the information in the QR could be ether designed or not designed

That makes no sense.
A QR is a QR. Whether it contains actual info that goes to a website or if it contains gibberish (= a faulty QR), makes no difference at all to what it is.
We have NO USE for your silly SC stuff to determine if a thing is a QR or not. Fact.

1 A QR could be the result of You (or even a monkey) typing random letters and numbers.

A QR doesn't consist of letters and numbers.
It's a two dimensional barcode. It's an encoding of letters / numbers.
It matters not if I type the letters or a monkey or a cat stepping on the keyboard.
The thing still requires encoding through an encoding algorithm designed by a human on a computer.

There is no natural process that makes QR codes. They are made.

2 in this case the information of the QR wouldn't be designed, but rather random noise

See above.
Random noise doesn't change the fact that the "random input" is encoded by a designed algorithm into a two dimensional barcode.

I incist in my previous example


1 We don't know if the information of a particular QR was caused by a designer or by a random mechanism

2 apply the test (see if it opens a website)

3 if it opens website then it would be SC and therefore probably designed

And if the website no longer exists, it doesn't and then your silly "method" fails to detect design where design is present.
Tell me... could you no longer tell if a car is designed if it doesn't start due to a flat battery?

Having said that, once again: we don't need your silly method to know QR codes are designed. In fact, NOBODY would actually use that method to recognize a QR code as a QR code.

And having said that, this is not an example of what I requested. We already know what QR codes are. The fact that you are even trying to scan it to see if it opens a website is in fact already an acknowledgement that you know what it is even before you start your silly "test" - why else would you try to scan it???

Try again. Show me an example where SC is succesfully used to detect design in a thing where it isn't known already that it is designed.
Again, the fact that you try to scan it with a QR scanner proves that you have already recognized it as a QR even before you started.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if any of those QR opens a website or download a document or opens an image etc .... It would be designed


I challenge you to explicitly deny that this is an objective and viable test

What if it does nothing when you scan it? Does that then mean that it wasn't designed?


Why would you even try to scan it in the first place? Could it perhaps be that you do that because you have already recognized it for what it is before even starting your supposed "test"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How could you possibly know that? As you said earlier, a monkey hitting random buttons could potentially produce a QR code, and that QR code could still technically work if it was similar enough to a pre-existing one. So, how could you possibly determine whether or not that QR code was the result of conscious design or a monkey randomly hitting buttons, even if the QR code worked?

I object to the idea that a monkey randomly hitting numbers would result in an "undesigned" QR code.

Random input being encoded into a 2-dimensional barcode wouldn't suddenly make the encoded 2-dimensional barcode a non-designed natural object that you might find under a rock somewhere.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I object to the idea that a monkey randomly hitting numbers would result in an "undesigned" QR code.

Random input being encoded into a 2-dimensional barcode wouldn't suddenly make the encoded 2-dimensional barcode a non-designed natural object that you might find under a rock somewhere.

While this is true, I think we need to strip away the layers of misunderstanding one at a time here. First, rid them of the assumption that randomness can't produce the appearance of design. Then build our way towards stripping away the notion that design is an inherent facet of nature.

I hold very little hope of success, though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

While this is true, I think we need to strip away the layers of misunderstanding one at a time here. First, rid them of the assumption that randomness can't produce the appearance of design. Then build our way towards stripping away the notion that design is an inherent facet of nature.

I hold very little hope of success, though.

Or that the uinverse is orderly, "lawful" and natural as such.

I.e. understand that if we can live in the universe, it doesn't follow that we can make a valid, cohherent, correct and true model of the uinverse.
I can spot the same basic assumption both in some religious people and so non-religious. Namely that the universe must make positive sense, because they want it to be so.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Or that the uinverse is orderly, "lawful" and natural as such.

I.e. understand that if we can live in the universe, it doesn't follow that we can make a valid, cohherent, correct and true model of the uinverse.
I can stop the same basic assumption both in some religious people and so non-religious. Namely that the universe must make positive sense, because they want it to be so.

Also true.

 

[Pogo]

While this is true, I think we need to strip away the layers of misunderstanding one at a time here. First, rid them of the assumption that randomness can't produce the appearance of design. Then build our way towards stripping away the notion that design is an inherent facet of nature.

I hold very little hope of success, though.

Bingo, that is where this sidetrack started.
I posted this.

Figure 2. Two 101x100 pixel images, each with 3511 black pixels and the rest white. Both have equal information content. Which one has specified complexity, as judged by its resemblance to an image of a flower? from Has Natural Selection Been Refuted? The Arguments of William Dembski | National Center for Science Education
Then as a red herring, I created this QR code.

Which refers back to the two images.
Then the question, how do you calculate CSI a la Dembski for the images.
No answer on the two images but @leroy moved the goal posts to argue that if the QR code referred to a webpage then design
and we were off to the races.
So here we are with several layers.
First image left is high contrast dahlia. Specified Complexity or not, how do you know?
First image right is a digital conversion via algorithm. Specified Complexity or not, how do you know?
QR code does refer to a webpage so new goal. Specified Complexity or not, how do you know?
So two more QRs last night that don't refer to a page. One encodes a random string, the other an English sentence.
Specified Complexity or not, how do you know?

Anyhow, here we are and we are no closer to explaining that Dembski's idea of algorithmically calculable CSI or Specified Complexity is useless in terms of design detection without knowing the designer and it's capabilities.

Yeah, it is pretty much hopeless to try and defeat a believers Gish Gallop, but I am having fun with QR codes and you can too.
Scan these with your phone.

 

[Pogo]

Or that the uinverse is orderly, "lawful" and natural as such.

I.e. understand that if we can live in the universe, it doesn't follow that we can make a valid, cohherent, correct and true model of the uinverse.
I can spot the same basic assumption both in some religious people and so non-religious. Namely that the universe must make positive sense, because they want it to be so.

I don't assume order or sense, but it appears to to me and apparently others so that is good enough for me.

 

[Quintessence]

Detecting design? Well, it's not an emotional or preachy matter. It's a rational and probabilistic or if you may, statistical inference.

I don't agree and see no reason to limit things in that fashion (it's not as if humans can actually turn off their emotions in the first place), but I stepped out of this thread some time ago so that's probably all I'm going to say about it.

 

[F1fan]

,,,
You are playing silly semantics.... ok QRs are designed , but the information in the QR could be ether designed or not designed

You were wrong about QR codes maybe not being designed, and you conceded. Now you are making another bogus claim that is also wrong.

You always wanted me to give examples of you being wrong, here's two.

QR codes are designed to lead to information that is also created and designed. It's all designed by humans.

1 A QR could be the result of You (or even a monkey) typing random letters and numbers.

2 in this case the information of the QR wouldn't be designed, but rather random noise

That might be the case if you designed the information, just random noise. Still dsigned and intentional, even if a screw up.

I incist in my previous example


1 We don't know if the information of a particular QR was caused by a designer or by a random mechanism

2 apply the test (see if it opens a website)

3 if it opens website then it would be SC and therefore probably designed

See, you just refuse to learn.

You were asked to show a case of any QR code being a natural pattern somewhere, and you had nothing. You don't even have an explanation how it could happen. Why should we take you seriously?

You creationists always go on about how biology is too complex to develop naurally, but you refuse to explain how genetic defects happen if it was God who designed it. Let's hear why God made defects deliberately, or how God made mistakes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't assume order or sense, but it appears to to me and apparently others so that is good enough for me.

Well, to me it appears as limited in regards to an overall universal strong order and making sense. But that is me.
But here is a joke about true and false. If something is false, you should be able tp show it to be so.
So in a sense we end in the ability to accept a negative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People take it for granted that nature turns out anything useful at all to a living creature.

If you can't understand what I mean by suited function I really don't know what else to say. It's different than an arbitrary function. Life isn't arbitrary functional.

Life solves problems for life by putting parts in their right places in order to do work in the environment. You don't get from that state which doesn't work to a state that is workable without intelligence. I don't just arbitrarily know how to walk. There's no series of fortunate incidents that arbitrarily allows for me to walk as I see fit in the environment.

No, life solves problems by throwing random changes at an item and seeing if it works or not. And what happens is that as the environment changes old solutions often do not work, but sometimes a solution for another problem becomes viable.

And we have clear examples that show that life was not planned. Have you heard of the recurrent laryngeal nerve? If was "suited function" it would take a short direct route from the brain to the larynx. Instead it goes from the brain goes down inside your chest, loops around the heart and then up to the larynx. Why? Because evolution has to work with what already exists. By the way, all land vertebrates have the problem of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. On a giraffe it can be six meters long. For an adult apatosaurus it would be at least 28 meters long.


"Suited function" simply does not exist. Instead life is the ultimate kludge. If you knew some early personal computer makers you might understand this concept. In college I knew a guy that kept a can of freon handy for one circuit on his homemade PC, with a whopping one k of ram. It had no long term memory at all. One key part would sometimes overheat so he would give it a quick shot of freon. That would be slightly illegal today. But his computer worked. Not well, but it did run.

 

[leroy]

I am really, really not.



That makes no sense.
A QR is a QR. Whether it contains actual info that goes to a website or if it contains gibberish (= a faulty QR), makes no difference at all to what it is.
We have NO USE for your silly SC stuff to determine if a thing is a QR or not. Fact.




A QR doesn't consist of letters and numbers.
It's a two dimensional barcode. It's an encoding of letters / numbers.
It matters not if I type the letters or a monkey or a cat stepping on the keyboard.
The thing still requires encoding through an encoding algorithm designed by a human on a computer.

There is no natural process that makes QR codes. They are made.



See above.
Random noise doesn't change the fact that the "random input" is encoded by a designed algorithm into a two dimensional barcode.




And if the website no longer exists, it doesn't and then your silly "method" fails to detect design where design is present.
Tell me... could you no longer tell if a car is designed if it doesn't start due to a flat battery?

Having said that, once again: we don't need your silly method to know QR codes are designed. In fact, NOBODY would actually use that method to recognize a QR code as a QR code.

And having said that, this is not an example of what I requested. We already know what QR codes are. The fact that you are even trying to scan it to see if it opens a website is in fact already an acknowledgement that you know what it is even before you start your silly "test" - why else would you try to scan it???

Try again. Show me an example where SC is succesfully used to detect design in a thing where it isn't known already that it is designed.
Again, the fact that you try to scan it with a QR scanner proves that you have already recognized it as a QR even before you started.

You desire to play semantics is evidence on how desperate and cornered are you.

Yes, you are correct, QRs are created by QR generators (computers with programs) and these QR generators are obviously known to be design.

However once you have a QR generator you can ether:

1 type random letters and numbers and create a QR with these random letters (no design)

2 type letters and numbers with an intent and a purpose in mind, and create a QR with these letters and numbers (design)

The test that I suggest (if a website opens) would show that a particular QR is SC and therefore designed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You desire to play semantics is evidence on how desperate and cornered are you.

Yes, you are correct, QRs are created by QR generators (computers with programs) and these QR generators are obviously known to be design.

However once you have a QR generator you can ether:

1 type random letters and numbers and create a QR with these random letters (no design)

2 type letters and numbers with an intent and a purpose in mind, and create a QR with these letters and numbers (design)

The test that I suggest (if a website opens) would show that a particular QR is SC and therefore designed.

Yeah, the universe is just that and nothing else. In fact you are a computer and nothing else, because you happen on a computer just like QR.

 

[leroy]

What if it does nothing when you scan it? Does that then mean that it wasn't designed?

No, it means that we don’t know

1 if it opens a website it is SC and therefore designed

2 if it doesn’t do anything apparent, then we don’t know if it was designed or not

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it means that we don’t know

1 if it opens a website it is SC and therefore designed

2 if it doesn’t do anything apparent, then we don’t know if it was designed or not

Yeah, again that is not all of the universe.

 

[leroy]

You were wrong about QR codes maybe not being designed, and you conceded. Now you are making another bogus claim that is also wrong.

You always wanted me to give examples of you being wrong, here's two.

And I admit that I was wrong. ……….(see how easy it is)

I didn’t use the correct words…… that was my mistake

Sure QR are always designed…………….but the data (numbers letters etc.) that you insert in a QR generation could be ether designed or not designed (random)……….that is what I meant………but I admit that I didn’t use the correct words.

That might be the case if you designed the information, just random noise. Still dsigned and intentional, even if a screw up.

If a monkey types random letters in a QR generator……………that input wouldn’t be intelligently designed.

And here is the important thing…………….the test that I suggested (if it opens a website) can show conclusively that the input of information was designed and not created by a monkey typing random letters.

See, you just refuse to learn.

You were asked to show a case of any QR code being a natural pattern somewhere, and you had nothing. You don't even have an explanation how it could happen. Why should we take you seriously?

Well I made a mistake and I admitted my mistake……… why isn’t that enough to take me seriously?..............atleast to my knowledge admitting mistakes somethign that you have never done in this forum

You creationists always go on about how biology is too complex to develop naurally, but you refuse to explain how genetic defects happen if it was God who designed it. Let's hear why God made defects deliberately, or how God made mistakes.

Because that is a red herring fallacy

You always wanted me to give examples of you being wrong

Actually your unsupported claim is and has always been that I have been wrong on scientific issues.

That accusation has not been supported yet.

In this post I made a linguistic mistake. Not a scientific mistake.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

If a monkey types random letters in a QR generator……………that input wouldn’t be intelligently designed.

And here is the important thing…………….the test that I suggested (if it opens a website) can show conclusively that the input of information was designed and not created by a monkey typing random letters.


Well I made a mistake and I admitted my mistake……… why isn’t that enough to take me seriously?..............atleast to my knowledge admitting mistakes somethign that you have never done in this forum


...

But there truely can't be anyrthing random, if the universe is designed.

 

[leroy]

But there truely can't be anyrthing random, if the universe is designed.

Granted stickily speacking a monkey typing letters wouldn’t be truly random ………….the correct word would be chaotic or perhaps stochastic…………or random with respect to xxxxx purpose



But in our daily language we use these terms and “random” as if they were synonyms…………….I hope these doesn’t open the door for a 100 post conversation on the definition of “radnom”

But there truely can't be anyrthing random, if the universe is designed.

That I don’t know………….why can´t a designer create something random?