Her Fluxive Eyes

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh? You could have been a bit clearer. I really cant see how what you say here could be understood by what you said earlier:
[b]I feel your pain. Suffer in silence, though, will ya?

And that in response to me asking some very genuine questions.

In case you have forgotten the situation:
I suggested that the OP was a strawman.
I pointed out tha ...[text shortened]... ffer in silence'.
My only guess is that you simply cannot admit when you have made a mistake.[/b]

Oh? You could have been a bit clearer. I really cant see how what you say here could be understood by what you said earlier...
Okay, I see your point. I didn't mean for that to be taken as an invitation to leave, but I'll rescind my charge of lying.

I suggested that the OP was a strawman.
I countered that it wasn't, and gave support thusly.

I pointed out that we both agree that nature does not operate via pure randomness.
Although we agree on that point, the quotes provided say otherwise, so I cannot correct my insertions relative to this point. The quotes provided are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to that whole school of thought, and they serve to underscore the emphatic denial of the OP being a silly strawman.

The OP shows that pure blind chance (that which has been claimed to govern all of creation) cannot possible account for even a simple, 39-character phrase with a fairly simple meaning... let alone what we see today in our universe.

Your protestations regarding the involvement of other factors notwithstanding, once you begin adding all manner of force (including gravity) soon puts you at the door of a conspiratorially-large picture of order coming from order!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Okay, I see your point. I didn't mean for that to be taken as an invitation to leave, but I'll rescind my charge of lying.

Well at a minimum you declined to address the issue at all which is a conversation stopper.

Although we agree on that point, the quotes provided say otherwise, so I cannot correct my insertions relative to this point. The quotes provided are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to that whole school of thought, and they serve to underscore the emphatic denial of the OP being a silly strawman.
Yet when I tried to show that the quotes do not support that position you yourself also denied it. You said:
Is "pure randomness" your phrase, mine, or someone else's? The only place I find the word "pure" is in the quote from Monad, when he said "pure chance, absolutely free but blind chance." Sounds like you're trying to play a game with words.
Clearly by that point you had forgotten what the quotes were in answer too, or you were trying very hard to pretend that they served some other purpose.

The OP shows that pure blind chance (that which has been claimed to govern all of creation) cannot possible account for even a simple, 39-character phrase with a fairly simple meaning... let alone what we see today in our universe.
But there is a key difference between 'govern' and 'pure' and you are quite well aware of that as I highlighted it before in response to your quotes.
I can quite easily write a program, governed by pure blind chance, which will generate a simple 39-character phrase. It may not be the phrase you are looking for, but that is another story,.

Your protestations regarding the involvement of other factors notwithstanding, once you begin adding all manner of force (including gravity) soon puts you at the door of a conspiratorially-large picture of order coming from order!
I certainly believe that in many ways the universe is ordered and necessarily so due to the existence of forces. Does that mean randomness has no part? Of course not. Your claim that randomness could have no part in anything significant remains unproved by the OP and utterly ridiculous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well at a minimum you declined to address the issue at all which is a conversation stopper.

Although we agree on that point, the quotes provided say otherwise, so I cannot correct my insertions relative to this point. The quotes provided are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to that whole school of thought, and they serve to underscore the emphatic ...[text shortened]... e no part in anything significant remains unproved by the OP and utterly ridiculous.

Yet when I tried to show that the quotes do not support that position you yourself also denied it.
Don't support the position?! Here's the run-down: the OP works off the premise that other than the restriction of the symbols found on the common keyboard and the speed of the attempts, only 'pure blind chance' would be allowed to find the solution. The question it asks is 'how long would it take pure blind chance to happen upon the desired 39 character phrase?'

The answer reveals a statistical impossibility. I then provided quotes from noted scientists who insist that 'pure blind chance' is the guiding principle, the basic ingredient to all of creation. You countered by saying that chance wasn't the only ingredient, to which I agreed: I don't think any of the quotes provided lean in that direction. Moreover, I agreed on the basis of my consideration of the general order which I believe was created as such--- not by happenstance but by direct action of an intelligent being.

Along these lines, in the OP, pure random chance was funneled into action by at least two parameters: the characters on a keyboard and the speed of attempts.

You continued pressing the point that the quotes provided were misconstrued by my rendering, despite the fact that I simply repeated them verbatim or, at minimum, paraphrased with little or no variation to their basic intent and meaning.

But there is a key difference between 'govern' and 'pure' and you are quite well aware of that as I highlighted it before in response to your quotes.
You will note that despite the necessity to invoke the other forces found in the universe at a later time, not one of the folks quoted--- and these are just a small sampling, as you are fully aware--- thought to include any of the same as either 'co-governors' or 'co-basic ingredients' or 'co-anything else notable' to their equation. Clearly, all of them point to the basic idea that is inherent in the words 'govern' and 'pure,' namely, that each of these folks consider chance to be the primary, ultimate, before all other, undergirding, foundational 'force' of creation.

I can quite easily write a program, governed by pure blind chance, which will generate a simple 39-character phrase. It may not be the phrase you are looking for, but that is another story,.
I would like to see the data involved. However, the premise of the OP was that the phrase involved was considered the significant result, similar in idea to the information required for life. In other words, a simple 39 character sensible phrase might be stumbled upon--- itself no mean feat, to be certain--- but the workings in biology are much, much more complex than even this phrase, and this phrase was used to approximate the complexity therein.

Your claim that randomness could have no part in anything significant remains unproved by the OP and utterly ridiculous.
The OP did not assert this, nor do I. As stated above, I understand that some results are a result of non-purposive action on the part of agents and/or forces. I contend that nothing significant arises from these random acts.

Side note: On page three, when I said the folks at Baker Labs were making predictions, you agreed--- even said I was "correct again." On page four, you said that just the opposite, that they were 'not making predictions,' and that I was misquoting the website... despite the fact that I provided a quote from the first paragraph of the first page of the website's overview. No correction (admittance of error) on your part has been forthcoming.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Don't support the position?! Here's the run-down: the OP works off the premise that other than the restriction of the symbols found on the common keyboard and the speed of the attempts, only 'pure blind chance' would be allowed to find the solution. The question it asks is 'how long would it take pure blind chance to happen upon the desired 39 character phrase?'

Actually it asks: "how many attempts would be required" and simultaneously "how long would a computer of a given speed take to run through those attempts". Pure blind chance itself does not have a frequency and thus one cannot ask how long chance takes to do something.

The answer reveals a statistical impossibility.
No it doesn't. It reveals that it is statistically unlikely that the desired answer will be found by the given computer in the lifetime of the universe.

I then provided quotes from noted scientists who insist that 'pure blind chance' is the guiding principle, the basic ingredient to all of creation. You countered by saying that chance wasn't the only ingredient, to which I agreed: I don't think any of the quotes provided lean in that direction.
Then you are unable to read and comprehend. Do you honestly think that any one of the people you quote thinks there are no forces in the universe? Because that is what you are claiming.

Moreover, I agreed on the basis of my consideration of the general order which I believe was created as such--- not by happenstance but by direct action of an intelligent being.
I don't see how this is relevant at all.

You continued pressing the point that the quotes provided were misconstrued by my rendering, despite the fact that I simply repeated them verbatim or, at minimum, paraphrased with little or no variation to their basic intent and meaning.
I never claimed you misquoted them, I only claimed that you were not understanding the quotes or not looking at them in context.

You will note that despite the necessity to invoke the other forces found in the universe at a later time, not one of the folks quoted--- and these are just a small sampling, as you are fully aware--- thought to include any of the same as either 'co-governors' or 'co-basic ingredients' or 'co-anything else notable' to their equation. Clearly, all of them point to the basic idea that is inherent in the words 'govern' and 'pure,' namely, that each of these folks consider chance to be the primary, ultimate, before all other, undergirding, foundational 'force' of creation.
You still fail to see the difference between a process that is governed by chance and process that is pure chance. All the quotes refer to the former, yet you claim they refer to the latter.

However, the premise of the OP was that the phrase involved was considered the significant result,
And I pointed out that 'significant' is the crucial error you made.

similar in idea to the information required for life.
Not at all. Not even close.

In other words, a simple 39 character sensible phrase might be stumbled upon--- itself no mean feat, to be certain--- but the workings in biology are much, much more complex than even this phrase, and this phrase was used to approximate the complexity therein.
Well then it was a bad approximation. In fact there is no valid reason whatsoever for comparing the two.

twhitehead:Your claim that randomness could have no part in anything significant remains unproved by the OP and utterly ridiculous.
Freaky:The OP did not assert this, nor do I.
So you deny posting this:
Right now, we're just simply showing the overwhelming and profound unlikeliness that chance or randomness had anything to do with anything significant.
Or are you simply playing with words because of your inability to admit you were wrong.

As stated above, I understand that some results are a result of non-purposive action on the part of agents and/or forces. I contend that nothing significant arises from these random acts.
You said 'had anything to do with' earlier. Were you mistaken, or are you maintaining that position?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it asks: "how many attempts would be required" and simultaneously "how long would a computer of a given speed take to run through those attempts". Pure blind chance itself does not have a frequency and thus one cannot ask how long chance takes to do something.

The answer reveals a statistical impossibility.
No it doesn't. It reveals that ...[text shortened]... th' earlier. Were you mistaken, or are you maintaining that position?[/b]

Pure blind chance itself does not have a frequency and thus one cannot ask how long chance takes to do something.
You're starting to contradict your own position. Again.

Do you honestly think that any one of the people you quote thinks there are no forces in the universe?
No. I honestly think that they are saying exactly what they are saying: that pure blind chance is the governor of creation.

Because that is what you are claiming.
No, I am not claiming their exclusionary thoughts about force. I am claiming (as stated) exactly what they are saying, as I said above.

I don't see how this is relevant at all.
It is relevant in that it goes toward what informs my thinking and shows the contrast between what I believe in comparison to what someone who thinks that chance is the guiding force in the universe.

I never claimed you misquoted them, I only claimed that you were not understanding the quotes or not looking at them in context.
And I never claimed that you claimed that I was misquoting them. You emboldened a quote from me wherein I stated how you have been pressing the point that I had misconstrued the meaning of the quotes--- not misquoted--- misconstrued.

You still fail to see the difference between a process that is governed by chance and process that is pure chance. All the quotes refer to the former, yet you claim they refer to the latter.
Apparently I have a hard time distinguishing... what, exactly? You're not really helping your argument here, since both scenarios run counter to the ramifications of the OP.

And I pointed out that 'significant' is the crucial error you made.
Would you consider it significant for the program to 'find' the targeted sentence?

Not at all. Not even close.
True, it's not even close, but it is also true that the sentence acts as a extremely small scale substitute of significance within the parameters utilized. This is a miniature experiment of what supposedly happened on a large scale. If the results of the large scale model cannot be duplicated on a grossly reduced scale, why stick with something so ridiculously absurd?

You said 'had anything to do with' earlier. Were you mistaken, or are you maintaining that position?
The earlier quote from me was in reference to pure blind chance or randomness being the guiding force, the foundation of all of creation. I was emphatically not saying that non-purposive acts do not exist in the universe; I was saying that the likelihood that non-purposive acts created the universe is so small as to be absurd.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're starting to contradict your own position. Again.

No, I was stating the obvious. If you think it contradicts anything else I have said, the say so - and show me where. If you think the claim is false, then say so.

No. I honestly think that they are saying exactly what they are saying: that pure blind chance is the governor of creation.
Quite so. So what did you mean by:
You countered by saying that chance wasn't the only ingredient, to which I agreed: I don't think any of the quotes provided lean in that direction.

No, I am not claiming their exclusionary thoughts about force. I am claiming (as stated) exactly what they are saying, as I said above.
We are getting nowhere with this. You keep misinterpreting what they are saying, and the best you can come up with is "they are saying what they are saying". No help at all.

You're not really helping your argument here, since both scenarios run counter to the ramifications of the OP.
No they do not.

Would you consider it significant for the program to 'find' the targeted sentence?
Of course, but it is hardly the only possible significant outcome. Every outcome would be significant. That is where you make your error. You pick and choose what is significant then think you have proved something.

This is a miniature experiment of what supposedly happened on a large scale.
Except nobody except the strawman suggests that it happened on a large scale.

If the results of the large scale model cannot be duplicated on a grossly reduced scale, why stick with something so ridiculously absurd?
Nobody is - except the strawman.

The earlier quote from me was in reference to pure blind chance or randomness being the guiding force, the foundation of all of creation. I was emphatically not saying that non-purposive acts do not exist in the universe; I was saying that the likelihood that non-purposive acts created the universe is so small as to be absurd.
So taken literally your statement was false. Why has it taken you so long to clear that up? I've been asking you about it since the very first page.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A guy programmed a computer to randomly type 39-character lines to try to hit on Hamlet's "To be or not to be, that is the question." After about a week, the computer's best was:

ujgdEjOxeNOTejOtmbgTanglrcpqbglUzSTIzg

The 12 capitalized correct letters plus one space figure to a success rate of 33 percent (13 of 39). A quick probability calculation ...[text shortened]... Bill Sones and Rich Sones, Ph.D.

QUESTION: How old did we say the universe is, again?

The universe is that old? Wow! Here I thought it was only a few thousand years old:

The age of the universe is a point of dispute between the Bible and the opinion of the majority of astronomers today. The Bible implicitly teaches us about the age of the universe. In other words, it gives us sufficient information so that we can compute approximately how long ago God created the universe. The Bible teaches that the entire universe was created in six earth-rotation days (Exodus 20:11 ). Furthermore, the Bible provides the age differences between parents and descendants1 when listing certain genealogies. From these kinds of biblical references, we know that the elapsed time between Adam and the birth of Christ was roughly 4,000 years. From other historical records, we know that Christ was born roughly 2,000 years ago. Since Adam was created on the sixth day of the creation week, we can conclude that the earth, the entire universe, and everything in it were created approximately 6,000 years ago.

exerpt from: http://www.answersingenesis.org

Originally posted by wink
The universe is that old? Wow! Here I thought it was only a few thousand years old:

The age of the universe is a point of dispute between the Bible and the opinion of the majority of astronomers today. The Bible implicitly teaches us about the age of the universe. In other words, it gives us sufficient information so that we can compute approximately how lo ...[text shortened]... n it were created approximately 6,000 years ago.

exerpt from: http://www.answersingenesis.org

🙄

Originally posted by wink
The universe is that old? Wow! Here I thought it was only a few thousand years old:

The age of the universe is a point of dispute between the Bible and the opinion of the majority of astronomers today. The Bible implicitly teaches us about the age of the universe. In other words, it gives us sufficient information so that we can compute approximately how lo ...[text shortened]... n it were created approximately 6,000 years ago.

exerpt from: http://www.answersingenesis.org

Ouch.