Intelligent Design

[Peregrinus]

Everyone should get that "Coin toss" is a layman's phrase for "50/50 Odds."

Except on internet forums where there are those whose mission in life seems to be wriggling, niggling, and trying the most outrageous thought experiments to come up with an "aha" moment showing reality isn't completely real.

 

[Fudbucker]

International Skeptics Forum should line out the word "Skpetics".

Some of you have no business posting here. Seriously.

 

[Fudbucker]

You lol? You make no effort to communicate clearly and then you lol? You mangle and warp and spit lols?

Whatever man.

Read some of the posts after yours.

That's why I lol.

You guys are trying to spank the OP and you come off like total idiots.

 

[MikeG]

International Skeptics Forum should line out the word "Skpetics".

Some of you have no business posting here. Seriously.

Congratulations on your appointment. When did you get the job of Content Arbiter?

 

[Fudbucker]

What is it about one of the possible results turning up that tells you it isn't fair?

I seriously have to answer this?

OK, let's take two coin tosses:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
and
HHHHHHHTTTHTTTTTTHHTHHHTTTTHHHHHHHTTTTHTHTT

Which result strikes you as "not fair"? That is to say, which result is more likely due to interference than randomness?

Hmmm.....

 

[abaddon]

50 heads is half as likely a combination as 49 heads and 1 tail, which is half as likely a combination as 48 heads and 2 tails, and so on.

No offense, but you have bought a unicorn there. All combinations have equal probability.

Mostly, we agree, but you are wrong on this. I suggest you do not pursue it.

 

[abaddon]

I seriously have to answer this?

OK, let's take two coin tosses:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
and
HHHHHHHTTTHTTTTTTHHTHHHTTTTHHHHHHHTTTTHTHTT

Which result strikes you as "not fair"? That is to say, which result is more likely due to interference than randomness?

Hmmm.....

Why does "fair" come into it at all? Both results you posit are samples from the resultant result space. Why you glommed onto those two out of millions of possibilities is anyone's guess.

What is not "fair" about it? You simply glommed onto two out of how many results? Because of????

You seem unable to say.

 

[Thor 2]

Why does "fair" come into it at all? Both results you posit are samples from the resultant result space. Why you glommed onto those two out of millions of possibilities is anyone's guess.

What is not "fair" about it? You simply glommed onto two out of how many results? Because of????

You seem unable to say.

Well to be "fair" to Fudbucker, he was responding to Mojo, who was questioning Fudbucker's assertion, that a lottery would most likely not be "fair" with a certain result, that seemed to indicate some bias. Bit of a storm in a teacup.

 

[Aridas]

I seriously have to answer this?

OK, let's take two coin tosses:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
and
HHHHHHHTTTHTTTTTTHHTHHHTTTTHHHHHHHTTTTHTHTT

Which result strikes you as "not fair"? That is to say, which result is more likely due to interference than randomness?

Hmmm.....

Appealing to what you consider to be "common sense," for the 7th time, when it clearly was not persuasive the first 6 times, is probably not a particularly good tactic. Even moreso when your specific claim and several others that you tried to make along similar lines have been refuted fairly soundly. At that point, it's generally worth stepping back and actually seriously considering the situation, regardless.

As it stands, this argument really can't help your case, regardless. "More likely due to interference than randomness" is a notably different concept than "fair" or "not fair," for example, and trying to conflate them isn't going to make for a valid argument... and even if we let it go, for whatever reason, it's still rather irrelevant to the various points that show that your larger arguments just fail.

 

[Aridas]

Well to be "fair" to Fudbucker, he was responding to Mojo, who was questioning Fudbucker's assertion, that a lottery would most likely not be "fair" with a certain result, that seemed to indicate some bias. Bit of a storm in a teacup.

A little bit of one, perhaps, but Mojo's point was entirely fair. If one's going to claim unfairness, it rather helps to be able to actually show reasonable basis for the claim. Fudbucker's relying on pretty shaky ground as he's trying to assert that we should simply assume, with fallacious logic, that certain results are only reasonably explainable by claiming unfairness in the selection process and that therefore, there's no need for a sample size greater than one to determine unfairness, if the first result seems likely to be the result of unfair selection.

 

[abaddon]

International Skeptics Forum should line out the word "Skpetics".

Why? At every post you promote utter bollocks. Should everyone simply bow before the bollocks? Or should everyone be skeptical of the bollocks? Does it matter if it is your bollocks, or someone elses bollocks?

So far, you seem to be promoting some kind of group think fascist dictatorship.

Is that what you really want?

Some of you have no business posting here. Seriously.

Really? Who put you in charge of the Bureau of Censorship?

 

[Peregrinus]

Since this thread has degenerated into a common-breed pie fight, we can give up on the OP. Flipping coins has bugger all to do with intelligent design - or any other design.

 

[Thor 2]

Well I did try to steer it back on course with this post:

I'm with Fudbucker I think - that is if I understand what is being suggested.

If the numbers 3141592653 were to come up in a supposedly random exercise, it would be significant because that number is a very special number, being the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle by one million. If the number 1618033989 were to come up, that would be significant also - being the value of Phi by one million.

If numbers like these were to occur, in a situation where a completely random number was expected, it would suggest some intelligent controlling influence was at work. This is the thinking behind those who suggest the proportions of our bodies and those of other creatures, show the value of Phi all over the place. The examples given are not impressive however - in fact some are laughable.

Just wondering if others can come up with something convincing to support the notion that God is at work here, leaving the fine tuning argument to one side for the moment.

Can anyone point to some animal or feature in our environment that suggests a "work of God" and cannot be summarily dismissed as a product of evolution or natural phenomenon?

 

[Fudbucker]

A little bit of one, perhaps, but Mojo's point was entirely fair. If one's going to claim unfairness, it rather helps to be able to actually show reasonable basis for the claim. Fudbucker's relying on pretty shaky ground as he's trying to assert that we should simply assume, with fallacious logic, that certain results are only reasonably explainable by claiming unfairness in the selection process and that therefore, there's no need for a sample size greater than one to determine unfairness, if the first result seems likely to be the result of unfair selection.

How many coelacanths do you need to observe before you conclude they're not extinct? How many white raves would it take to falsify the claim "All ravens are black"?

 

[Aridas]

Can anyone point to some animal or feature in our environment that suggests a "work of God" and cannot be summarily dismissed as a product of evolution or natural phenomenon?

Crocoducks come to mind, even if that really isn't a serious answer. I do challenge the creationists to show us the Crocoducks, though.

 

[Fudbucker]

Well I did try to steer it back on course with this post:




Just wondering if others can come up with something convincing to support the notion that God is at work here, leaving the fine tuning argument to one side for the moment.

Can anyone point to some animal or feature in our environment that suggests a "work of God" and cannot be summarily dismissed as a product of evolution or natural phenomenon?

it's an unfair request. The theist believes everything is God at work. The atheist believes nothing is. They're both so convinced their view of reality is correct, everything becomes filtered through their mindset. If I think this is all a dream, why would evolution persuade me that it's not? Science, which an idealist will tell you is a useful method for exploring the dream, just shows how clever the dreamer is.

 

[Aridas]

How many coelacanths do you need to observe before you conclude they're not extinct? How many white raves would it take to falsify the claim "All ravens are black"?

Invoking categorically different kinds of claims won't help you defend your failures of logic and math. Rather, it's just compounding your errors.

 

[Aridas]

it's an unfair request. The theist believes everything is God at work. The atheist believes nothing is.

And the skeptic asks to see the evidence and arguments that both sides are presenting. What's unfair about that? Is it unfair because you expect the theist's and/or atheist's arguments to be BS from the start and want to be nice to bad logic?

 

[Thor 2]

Crocoducks come to mind, even if that really isn't a serious answer. I do challenge the creationists to show us the Crocoducks, though.

You have this arse about face backwards Aridas. A crocoduck, (if we could produce one), would be the theists worst nightmare.

I am drawing on the words of the great theologian, Ray Comfort, here who thought the banana, (being so obviously designed by God for man's consumption), was the evolutionists worst nightmare.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I seriously have to answer this?

OK, let's take two coin tosses:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
and
HHHHHHHTTTHTTTTTTHHTHHHTTTTHHHHHHHTTTTHTHTT

Which result strikes you as "not fair"? That is to say, which result is more likely due to interference than randomness?

Hmmm.....

Quite right.

If one had to plot the probability of fifty tosses having 25 heads, 26 heads up to 50 heads, one would find the the 25 heads would be in the center of the plot, and the 50 heads being at the least probable end of the plot.

Let us say the first round determined one of the universal constants.

If you were ask to bet on the the number of heads one would chose a number between 23 and 27. If one got 50 heads, there would be a demand for the coin to be checked.

Then if one asked for a second round (a second of the universal constants), and fifty heads turned up, it is not impossible, but it would be very suspicious.

So go for round 3 to determine a third constant. Now you bet on 50 heads but 50 tails turn up. Now one is puzzled because the coin is not rigged.

Round 4 and 50 tails turn up. None of this is impossible, but it seems rigged in some way. Instead of 50 tosses increase to 1million. Consistently 1 million heads and tails with each round SHOULD make one wonder.

If the constants need to have 1 million (or 10 to the power of a large number) heads (or tails) in a row to determine just the right value for each of the constants, then one SHOULD be very suspicious, even if the total number of heads in the whole sequence turns out to be equal to the number of tails.

After the sequence one can say that the odds of getting the sequence is 1:1 (a certainty) because it happened, but HOW and WHY it happened is debatable.