24 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhitehead"The fact is that the human capacity for pattern matching is impressive, but not perfect, and we both know this to be the case."
And why is it so important that they only judge what an object looks like and not what it does? Why would they succeed for one and fail for the other? I suspect you are picking and choosing results that you think match your conclusion.
So, do you want me to find an example of an object in nature that a certain percentage of people would, upon first seein ...[text shortened]... e both know this to be the case.
To show that life is designed requires more than gut feelings.
That's right, that's why scientists and laymen both employ inference to the best explanation in their reasonings. So what does that prove?
"And why is it so important that they only judge what an object looks like and not what it does?"
Why would you assume they will judge the importance of what it does if they don't know it can actually do anything? You know what it does, but even if you turn it on and do your magic with it they still won't understand the importance of what you are doing.
For all they know you could be putting on a light show for them, and showing them pictures of people and things while music is playing in the background. How do you know they won't all pull out their bic lighters and wave them in the air, because they think you are putting on a concert for them? Maybe they are not as primitive as you thought they were.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJayAn example does not prove the rule. You took an example you know the answer too and think it demonstrates your ability to be correct. Besides you took things that you know to be man made. Its as stupid as asking "which is man made, a rock or a car" then claiming this demonstrates your wondrous ability to know what is man made.
Is one clearly have ID behind it and the other not?
Kelly
Now have a look at the Mandelbro set and tell me whether it has ID behind it.
25 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayGroup A was planned. Group B doesn't appear to be planned, but that could be because I am unable to recognise a plan, so I'll flip my probability coin and say...
Which group was planned and which was not, or were they both planned,
or were they both not planned?
__________
group A
3.14
2+2=4
13-9=4
________
Group B
s4saf3
3433
44
Is one clearly have ID behind it and the other not?
Kelly
My answer to your question is both groups are planned.
I'm basing my answer to B on what appears to be a non random arrangement of letters and numbers.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadMandelbro set?
An example does not prove the rule. You took an example you know the answer too and think it demonstrates your ability to be correct. Besides you took things that you know to be man made. Its as stupid as asking "which is man made, a rock or a car" then claiming this demonstrates your wondrous ability to know what is man made.
Now have a look at the Mandelbro set and tell me whether it has ID behind it.
Great, one more thing I need to google just so I can translate Geek into English.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeActually we all know that Kelly typed it, so we know for a fact that it had ID behind it.
I'm basing my answer to B on what appears to be a non random arrangement of letters and numbers.
Of course if you found it carved into a rock somewhere, we would also assume some human wrote it.
Did you look up the Voynich manuscript that Sonhouse mentions in another thread? Its interesting that nobody has been able to conclusively show whether it contains a real language or is just gibberish. We can use our intuition, or we can use statistical analysis, but we still cannot make a determination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
25 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
Mandelbro set?
Great, one more thing I need to google just so I can translate Geek into English.
one more thing I need to google
yes, that is what he implied you should do with “Now have a look at the Mandelbro set."
There is nothing arduous about doing that. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set
“
The Mandelbrot set is a mathematical set of points whose boundary is a distinctive and easily recognizable two-dimensional fractal shape. “
and Then look at these Mandelbro set patterns:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mandelbrot+set&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=X1bJUfahI5D30gX4xIDgDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=597
and then note he asked you “and tell me whether it has ID behind it. “.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeWell if it is being displayed on a computer there is ID involved since it takes
Group A was planned. Group B doesn't appear to be planned, but that could be because I am unable to recognise a plan, so I'll flip my probability coin and say...
My answer to your question is both groups are planned.
I'm basing my answer to B on what appears to be a non random arrangement of letters and numbers.
ID to setup everything you see on the screen. It takes several things
working together for anything to end up on your screen. If you think that
is not true trying deleting your operating system and getting your video
card to work. 🙂
Kelly
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are some things we can easily determine due to or intelligence level and experience, while there are other things we will have doubts about, and other things we might be wrong about or just can't make a decision at all. That is just the way God designed it to show his superiority over everything.
Actually we all know that Kelly typed it, so we know for a fact that it had ID behind it.
Of course if you found it carved into a rock somewhere, we would also assume some human wrote it.
Did you look up the Voynich manuscript that Sonhouse mentions in another thread? Its interesting that nobody has been able to conclusively show whether it contains a ...[text shortened]... is, but we still cannot make a determination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
The Instructor
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat? Does this mean I got the right answer for the wrong reason?
Well if it is being displayed on a computer there is ID involved since it takes
ID to setup everything you see on the screen. It takes several things
working together for anything to end up on your screen. If you think that
is not true trying deleting your operating system and getting your video
card to work. 🙂
Kelly
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't recall seeing sonhouse talking about that, but I don't read all the threads or necessarily everything in the same thread. It sounds interesting though, because if it is a manuscript written by a person then I would assume it meant something.
Actually we all know that Kelly typed it, so we know for a fact that it had ID behind it.
Of course if you found it carved into a rock somewhere, we would also assume some human wrote it.
Did you look up the Voynich manuscript that Sonhouse mentions in another thread? Its interesting that nobody has been able to conclusively show whether it contains a ...[text shortened]... is, but we still cannot make a determination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf it is gibberish, then I would have to conclude it was gibberish the author of that manuscript understood. But after looking at some of those pictures, I'm not so sure I would want to try getting into his head to understand what he was saying.
Did you look up the Voynich manuscript that Sonhouse mentions in another thread? Its interesting that nobody has been able to conclusively show whether it contains a real language or is just gibberish. We can use our intuition, or we can use statistical analysis, but we still cannot make a determination.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNot necessarily. Some authors like to create gibberish that is intended to be gibberish, just as some posters over in spirituality do with their posts.
If it is gibberish, then I would have to conclude it was gibberish the author of that manuscript understood.
That is actually my guess with regards to the Voynich manuscript, that it is deliberate giberish. To what purpose, I am not sure, possibly to puzzle others, possibly to impress others, possibly as some sort of hoax. But my guess remains a guess, just as anyone claiming they know life is designed just by looking at it, is really just guessing.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat depends on what life you are referring to. If the designed parts of that life are easily seen like the parts of an automobile, then one will be able to tell it is designed just by looking at it.
Not necessarily. Some authors like to create gibberish that is intended to be gibberish, just as some posters over in spirituality do with their posts.
That is actually my guess with regards to the Voynich manuscript, that it is deliberate giberish. To what purpose, I am not sure, possibly to puzzle others, possibly to impress others, possibly as some so ...[text shortened]... st as anyone claiming they know life is designed just by looking at it, is really just guessing.
The Instructor