How do you detect "design"?

[leroy]

The data is designed as well, regardless of whether or not it opens a website.

Numbers and letters were also invented by humans as a means to communicate with each other. They are also designed.

If you type random letters from your keyboard and create a QR, this mechanism would be a random mechanism (therefore no designed)

1 yes the computer would be designed

2 the QR generator would be designed

3 the QR would be designed

4 but the combinations of letters that you inserted where random (non designed)

Honestly……………….why is this so hard to understand?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you type random letters from your keyboard and create a QR, this mechanism would be a random mechanism (therefore no designed)

1 yes the computer would be designed

2 the QR generator would be designed

3 the QR would be designed

4 but the combinations of letters that you inserted where random (non designed)

Honestly……………….why is this so hard to understand?

Yeah, now do that for the universe using the universe's computer, camera, keybord and program and how the QR is for the universe.
Please, answer. We are so close. You just have to do it for the universe as such and you will be the greatest scientist ever. I trust that you can do it, so how come you don't?

 

[leroy]

Yeah, now type in random numbers and letter in the universe as such and explain how you do that. Where is the keyboard for the universe so we can do the test on the universe and what is a QR in regards to the universe, so we can make it random.
Can you answer that?

You keep asking that, But I honestly don’t understand your question………………I am not claiming that computers and QR in this example are analogues to the universe…. But I am not sure if that is what you are implying

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You keep asking that, But I honestly don’t understand your question………………I am not claiming that computers and QR in this example are analogues to the universe…. But I am not sure if that is what you are implying

Well, then your test is not relevant if it can't be applied to the universe, because then we can't test if the universe is designed or not.
So your test is useless in effect for whether the universe is designed or not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have been corrected multiple times and you still make the same mistakes…………….I am done with you

LOL You've not responded to any of my counterarguments to yours in any meaningful way. You just keep typing (and using incorrectly) "straw man" and then repeating the same exact thing yet again.

You do know that numbers and letters are also designed, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you type random letters from your keyboard and create a QR, this mechanism would be a random mechanism (therefore no designed)

1 yes the computer would be designed

2 the QR generator would be designed

3 the QR would be designed

4 but the combinations of letters that you inserted where random (non designed)

This speaks to my example again ...

I once created a QR code that didn't work as intended and didn't lead to any website. You seem to think that means we can't tell whether the QR code is designed, which is absurd. Of course it's designed. QR codes don't occur in nature. Also, numbers and letters don't occur in nature either. Humans made them up in order to communicate thoughts and ideas with other humans.

Your methodology is flawed from the get-go, it seems.

Honestly……………….why is this so hard to understand?

That's what I've been wondering about you in my head during this entire discussion. Do you think all the people in this thread that are pointing out the errors in your argumentation and methodology are just a bunch of thick idiots who can't grasp what you're saying, or perhaps, just maybe, you've not made a coherent argument and your methodology could be flawed? I mean if the roles were reversed here, I'd probably be re-thinking some stuff.

 

[Eli G]

I do not have, and never had, the slightest intention of explaining how cellular respiration happens, although it is easy to know what it is about. I am not an expert on the subject nor do I claim to be.

The thread is not about explaining that process, but that no scientist can explain how the process originated in the first place.

You spend too much time going off on tangents... If you were interested in the truth, you wouldn't spend so much time throwing smoke screens... I'm here to expose you in front of other readers.

We are the nemesis of the liars. Don't play with the wrong people.

 

[leroy]

Well, then your test is not relevant if it can't be applied to the universe, because then we can't test if the universe is designed or not.
So your test is useless in effect for whether the universe is designed or not.

My test tells you If anything is designed.

With my test you can ether

1 determine if the data in the QR was designed

Or

2 determine if the values of the constants of the universe are designed


does that answer your question?

 

[leroy]

This speaks to my example again ...

I once created a QR code that didn't work as intended and didn't lead to any website. You seem to think that means we can't tell whether the QR code is designed, which is absurd. Of course it's designed. QR codes don't occur in nature. Also, numbers and letters don't occur in nature either. Humans made them up in order to communicate thoughts and ideas with other humans.

Your methodology is flawed from the get-go, it seems.


That's what I've been wondering about you in my head during this entire discussion. Do you think all the people in this thread that are pointing out the errors in your argumentation and methodology are just a bunch of thick idiots who can't grasp what you're saying, or perhaps, just maybe, you've not made a coherent argument and your methodology could be flawed? I mean if the roles were reversed here, I'd probably be re-thinking some stuff.

Strawman over strawman


The data that you insert in a QR generator could be designed or random (non designed)

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Pogo]

No I did not used the SC method-…------------ ohhh see once again you received clear and direct answers from me……………….why can´t I get the same courtesy?

I am not saying that SC is the only method/way to detect design………….I am saying that it is *A* method



Someone told me that QR are designed (I even remember that moment)



I already provided the example multiple times and you keep ignoring it

The data that one insert in a QR generator could be designed or non designed




Why cant you answer with a simple yes or a simple no?.....the question was...
"The data (numbers and letters)that you insert in QR generator could be ether designed or non designed .......yes or no?"



Yes that has been granted multiple times I agree.

But the numbers and letters that one would insert in a QR generator could be designed or non designed……………………………if you don’t explicitly deny this fact I will assume that you agree and move on




Whether if it matters to you or not is irrelevant…………….we can still ask the question

¿was the paint was putted in there by design or was it spilled randomly?

The paint itself might be a manufactured (designed) object….. but the mechanism responsible for the paint in the rocks could be designed or non designed.

And I gave you a pair of QRs for you to determine design and you could not even guess. Your method is worthless which is what we are trying to explain to you.

 

[Pogo]

My point is that you can type random numbers and letters from your keyboard and create a QR

Which would or would not be designed by which of your criteria?
Would it depend on you to recognize the sequence?

 

[Pogo]

You have been corrected multiple times and you still make the same mistakes…………….I am done with you

So you can't explain your point so you run away.

This is not how to take over the earth.

 

[Pogo]

If you type random letters from your keyboard and create a QR, this mechanism would be a random mechanism (therefore no designed)

1 yes the computer would be designed

2 the QR generator would be designed

3 the QR would be designed

4 but the combinations of letters that you inserted where random (non designed)

Honestly……………….why is this so hard to understand?

so not designed as far as you can tell with your method?

 

[Pogo]

If you type random letters from your keyboard and create a QR, this mechanism would be a random mechanism (therefore no designed)

1 yes the computer would be designed

2 the QR generator would be designed

3 the QR would be designed

4 but the combinations of letters that you inserted where random (non designed)

Honestly……………….why is this so hard to understand?

How would you determine this 5th order (pentanary? condition?

 

[McBell]

Usually when people use too many words to answer a question is because no even them can understand it. Mostly they just copy/paste some supposed explanation somebody else gave.

A person who really believe something out of rational thinking, can explain it rationally to others.

The problem is, when explaining things in crayon, there is a lot that has to left out.
And this leaving out of the details in order to explain it in crayon leads to many more problems.

 

[Pogo]

I do not have, and never had, the slightest intention of explaining how cellular respiration happens, although it is easy to know what it is about. I am not an expert on the subject nor do I claim to be.

The thread is not about explaining that process, but that no scientist can explain how the process originated in the first place.

You spend too much time going off on tangents... If you were interested in the truth, you wouldn't spend so much time throwing smoke screens... I'm here to expose you in front of other readers.

We are the nemesis of the liars. Don't play with the wrong people.

Eli, give it up the claim that you don't know and it is beyond you is not proof that others are not smarter than you, If you have kids, they have already demonstrated that to you without adults reminding you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not have, and never had, the slightest intention of explaining how cellular respiration happens

You tried to explain what ATP-synthase was as an example of what good writing looks like after complaining that my explanations were too wordy (and were plagiarized). I explained to you why the words in your example were inadequate.

it is easy to know what it is about

One can Google the term and get a broad sense of what is being considered and discussed, but that is not the same as understanding it. It's a very complex and difficult subject. You thought that the actions of ATP-synthase were like breathing. That's not even ballpark.

The thread is not about explaining that process, but that no scientist can explain how the process originated in the first place.

No, that's not what the thread is about. The term hadn't been mentioned until I did so recently. The thread is about detecting (intentional) design. Irreducible complexity (IC) entered the discussion followed by ATP-synthase presumably as an example of IC. Most recently, the thread has been in part about your complaints regarding my writing style, so you decided to show me how it should be done by writing a comment that was brief but relatively content-free apart from errors.

I'm here to expose you in front of other readers.

How do you think that's going for you so far?

We are the nemesis of the liars.

From my perspective you ARE the "liars," and the critical thinkers are here to correct your errors as I did earlier. Promoting creationism isn't an honest activity, nor are its adherents interested in truth. It's a notoriously deceitful activity: Pious fraud

Don't play with the wrong people.

That's interesting. It's probably not a threat, but what is it then? Advice? If so, I've already indicated to you that I'm not in the market for life advice, and if I were, it would be from somebody I wanted to emulate - somebody who had something I wanted but lacked. Do you think you fit that description?

 

[Eli G]

... all the examples of irreducible complexity proposed by the Discovery Institute have been demonstrate by science to be as a result of natural processes. ...

I'm no religious nut, but this is just plain false. Please provide a blow-by-blow account of how ATP-synthase came to exist. Thanks.

Mmmmh, what?

 

[YoursTrue]

My responses are commonly to several posters in a single reply. When I arrive at a thread, I read it through to the end quoting whatever looks like it deserves a comment or answer, then sequence and download the lot of them to a reply box, write out my comments there, and post it en masse.

I could break it down into separate posts before hitting reply, but that adds a few steps and can lead to extra mistakes besides the usual spelling and grammatical errors, such as dropouts or posting the same reply twice.

You've indicated that your threshold for reading something is that it only be a few words long, and I may have already exceeded that here. If it helps, when I include you in a batch reply, if you don't want to look at more words than necessary, just use the find function to locate the part relevant to you. Or maybe I can remember to put your section at the top.

I might add that some other posters here also do not post long posts. (Have a nice day.)

 

[shunyadragon]

Mmmmh, what?

. all the examples of irreducible complexity proposed by the Discovery Institute have been demonstrate by science to be as a result of natural processes. ...