nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 612:
Line 612: + + + + +
→Scientific Claims: Design
Anyway, what I still try to understand is you claim that the absence of "purpose" allows you to calculate "probabilities". I do know what random means, namely that you got a sample space, and a uniform distribution of that sample space. I suspect that it then depends on you definition of "purpose", since I cannot see how the absence of "purpose" ensure that the distribution on the sample space is uniform. Neither "purpose" in it functional nor teleological meaning do make sense. Rather than guess what you mean I would like to ask you to (1) define purpose, (2) give on example of a object without purpose (3) tell us what the sample space is, and why the absence of "purpose" implies that the distribution must be uniform. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:43, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Anyway, what I still try to understand is you claim that the absence of "purpose" allows you to calculate "probabilities". I do know what random means, namely that you got a sample space, and a uniform distribution of that sample space. I suspect that it then depends on you definition of "purpose", since I cannot see how the absence of "purpose" ensure that the distribution on the sample space is uniform. Neither "purpose" in it functional nor teleological meaning do make sense. Rather than guess what you mean I would like to ask you to (1) define purpose, (2) give on example of a object without purpose (3) tell us what the sample space is, and why the absence of "purpose" implies that the distribution must be uniform. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:43, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: Your explanation of your objection to the article is still difficult to follow. I assume that your first reference to "dam" ("later complain that the dam example only works") was meant to be a reference to "robot". The article doesn't mention "one-dimensional". They are not saying that it doesn't work in nature. What they are saying (one of a number of points) is that the working method is so much simpler than evolution is that it can't be used as evidence that evolution works.
: Yes, design requires a designer, by definition, but your subsequent statement that that means that there is no design in nature is begging the question, by ''assuming'' that it wasn't designed. The point is that "design" is apparent from its attributes, and we can see design in nature (things working together in non-random ways). As we can see design, and design requires a designer, then there must be a designer. This is working from the evidence to the conclusion, it's not a tautology. Saying that there is no designer because there is no design because design requires a designer but there is no designer is the tautology.
: If there is no design, then life, etc. has come about through random processes (mutations, etc.), and because they are random, the probabilities can be mathematically calculated.
: "Purpose" is the intent of the designer. An example of something without purpose is a mutation. I'm not into the terminology that you are using, so I'm not sure that I can answer your third request. I guess that the "sample space" might be "life". Without design (hence without purpose), mutations will occur randomly, and randomness only produces noise, not [[information]]. Information is non-uniform, whereas noise is statistically uniform. These sentences have non-random arrangements of letters, and the number of uses of each letter is therefore different ("E" occurs much more frequently than others, for example). If the letters were random, you'd expect all 26 letters to have about the same number of occurrences. Non-randomness/information requires design. Life is non-random. Life contains information (DNA). Therfore, life was designed.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 18 December 2007 (EST)
===Interpretations===
===Interpretations===