Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?

In the previous post within this series, can science prove or disprove the existence of God, we covered Anthropologist, Bruce Latimer’s assumption about what constitutes something intelligently designed like the foot from the argument that sore feet is proof for a poorly designed foot to one of the most marvelous and advanced designs ever to be produced in the universe, the human brain!

Now let’s turn to the fossil record, deemed to be the best evidence for evolution, is actually one of the best evidences for God!

“Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through (supposed) millions of years. No knowledgeable individual denies this.”

-Terry Scambray

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

-Stephen Jay Gould

For years, evolutionists have been trying to come up with a solution that solves this “uncomfortable paradox.” of hard evidence against evolution. Like poker players, they attempt to come up with explanations in order to bluff their way through a hand of cards that has been dealt to them unfavorably. Thus, they give an illusion that evolution is stronger than what it actually is, a theory with many falsifications!

“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”  

-Charles Darwin

The Cambrian Explosion is not the only sudden appearance of fossils in the record but also the Ediacara Explosion which is believed to have preceded the Cambrian.

“Surprisingly, however, as shown by Shen and colleagues, these earliest Ediacara life forms already occupied a full morphological range of body plans that would ever be realized through the entire history of Ediacara organisms. “In other words, major types of Ediacara organisms appeared at the dawn of their history, during the Avalon Explosion,” Dong said. “Subsequently, Ediacara organisms diversified in White Sea time and then declined in Nama time. But, despite this notable waxing and waning in the number of species, the morphological range of the Avalon organisms were never exceeded through the subsequent history of Ediacara.” 

-Science daily

If evolution was true in nature, scientists would have discovered a wide range of transitional animals, more so than the species themselves rather they discovered animals fully formed, and very complex! For example, Cambrian animals are not what one would call, “simple” by no means, but rather they are highly complex creatures! Trilobite eyes themselves are astoundingly complex!

Why do you think Gould invented his own pet theory that proposed great acceleration in evolution?  Because gradualism, a structure in nature that is achieved by progressive steps from a mindless process as Darwin proposed was being falsified by hard evidence in the fossil record! On the other hand, the Bible refers to animals after their own kind, and the only way abrupt appearances of animals in the fossil record could only happen when available specified information was present and that information came from God!

One experiment which tested to see how natural selection would choose mutations to change a species or in other words add new information which is evolution. The experiment would have broken the back of the creationist model if proven to be true rather than just using assumptions or invented explanations to argue against it. I’m referring to of course is the fruit fly experiment!

After 600 generations, the fruit flies became what? resistant to change. And after millions of generations, they became handicap, less fit…The original generation had a much more advantage in fitness over the mutated ones! If evolution was true, the mutated ones should have been more fit than the originals! The experiment utterly destroys the whole notion of evolution and unwittingly confirms creationism!

What about reproduction? Does this verify or deny either creationism or evolution? If evolution was true, not only would new information have to be created but also would have to be passed on to future generations! Organisms have an array of very complex functions from the smallest one-cell animals to humans. However, science has revealed that only some of the functions are connected with reproduction! The other functions have nothing to do with reproduction so therefore evolution could not have created them! Because evolution requires selection from something!

So we see, evolution doesn’t create. Animals are discovered fully formed, no transitions and remain the same animal. Evolution is not an engineer, so that is why it doesn’t create biological complex function. Nature is not evolving upwards but rather in a downward trend. Even resistance to pesticides and antibiotics by bacteria is not evolution in action! Existing information is used or a loss of information nothing new created.

Can science disprove the existence of God? The answer is clearly, no! Evolution doesn’t not replace a creator, in fact science has shown confirmation for intelligent design by God, confirmation in the fossil record, confirmation with engineering principles that have purpose, fine tuning, mutation experiments, and so on. What it boils down to is belief rather than hard evidence for evolution! The hard evidence favors creationism!

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?

  1. “Can science disprove the existence of God?”

    Again, that very much depends on your definition of “God”. If you keep it vague enough you cannot prove or disprove anything, of course.

  2. Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?
    What do you not understand about “No”?

    Look at the question it this way. Aside from the fact that no one can define “God” sufficiently for scientific study, every proposed definition in every religion[0] includes “supernatural.” This word refers to something that is not constrained by natural law.[1] Science, by definition, can study only phenomena which are governed by natural law — that is, phenomena that can be repeated at other times and other places with the same result.

    Scientists try to bring as many phenomena as possible under this rubric. When, for example, a replication of a study of a drug for a disease produces results inconsistent with a previous study, scientists do not attribute the inconsistency to divine intervention. Instead, they look for (natural) confounding factors, or for an extended or different natural theory that will account for the inconsistent results. So far, this strategy has worked very well. Newton thought God had to keep the planets in stable orbits; Lagrange showed that Newton’s own theory could achieve this without divine assistance. Einsteinian relativity accounted for gravitational light deflection that caused inconsistencies in Newtonian mechanics. The alternative to this approach is to do as the creationists do: proclaim every anomaly in a scientific theory as evidence of the supernatural, then close the books on it: no more study, no more attempt at explanation, no more understanding — God did it, end of story. No wonder creationism has not come up with a single scientific discovery in three centuries! Scientists learn from their mistakes, not from their successes.[2]

    It is ironic — not to say hilarious – that “creation science” has not and cannot produce any new knowledge of how the physical universe works. It must depend upon mainstream science for any advance in its own arguments. This leads to inconsistencies, such as relying upon a newer scientific result to show that an older result was wrong. If the older result is incorrect, why should the newer result not be unreliable as well?

    Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?

    No. Both the scientific model and the creationist model forbid it. The scientific model holds that God is by definition outside the ability of science to study or to prove. Creationism holds that science is an unreliable guide to reality; therefore a scientific proof or disproof of God cannot be trusted.[3]

    ===================

    [0] Except perhaps Buddhism.

    [1] There is another possibility: that God is an emergent property of the physical universe, just as consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. This would mean, however, that the universe created God, and not vice versa. Probably unacceptable to most religions.

    [2] As one scientist put it, “The most exciting moment in research is not ‘I’ve found i !d it,’ but rather ‘Hm, that’s strange.’”

    [3] Personally, Victor Stenger lost credibility with me when I learned that he lived in Hawai’i for more than three decades, then moved to Colorado, where it snows.

  3. @Chazing: first of all, which God are we talking about ? There are quite a few around:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(disambiguation)

    If you just talk about the Christian God (fifth on the list above), then as far as I know there is no “standard” theological definition of ‘God’.
    Wikipedia has it like this:
    “The theology of the attributes and nature of God has been discussed since the earliest days of Christianity, …”

    And theologists are still discussing this. So no standard here.

    I agree with Olorin that science cannot study the supernatural, but I do think science can prove (with scientific proof, obviously) whether anything supernatural exists or not. Evidence would have to be indirect, mostly.

  4. {A} Can science disprove the existence of God? The answer is clearly, no! {B} Evolution doesn’t not replace a creator, {C} in fact science has shown confirmation for intelligent design by God, {D} confirmation in the fossil record, {E} confirmation with engineering principles that have purpose, fine tuning, mutation experiments, and so on. {F} What it boils down to is belief rather than hard evidence for evolution! The hard evidence favors creationism!

    {A} For the first and only time in this post, Michael is correct. But then I’ve said many times that science cannot disprove God, and gave a couple of reasons.

    {B} Evolution does not attempt to replace a creator. What it does do is to remove the necessity for an outside agent to explain the profusion of life forms that we see in the world.

    {C} False dichotomy. Not even a full-blown proof than evolution could not produce today’s biota would be positive evidence FOR God. Proving that Theory Q is incorrect does not constitute any evidence that Theory Z is correct. No matter how strong your faith is.

    {D} False. Creationists redefine “transitional” to requires something like a crocoduck, which has the fully-formed tail of a modern reptile and the fully-formed head of a modern bird. Or a fruit-salad tree, which bears both modern pears and modern prunes. But this is a laughable mischaracterization of how evolution occurs. In fact, transitional organisms of this kind would be evidence for design, not for evolution. Tiktaalik represents one stage of a long transition between fish and amphibians. Many of its features are intermediate: The amphibian wrists are primitive, and morphologically similar to the fin bones of a lobe-finned fish; yet they can bend in the ways that an amphibian’s wrist bends. The shoulder girdle is fish-like, yet the neck allows some movement of the head, like an amphibian. Primary respiration is by gills, like a fish, yet the swim bladder has enough greater capacity that it can (inefficiently) exchange oxygen in air, like an amphibian. That is, many of Tiktaaalik’s features are not quite fish, but they are also not quite amphibian either — in other words, they are transitional.

    Here is another factor. If we use the (somewhat inaccurate) representation of evolution as a “tree of life,” look at the places in a real tree at which two branches diverge. At the junction, it is impossible to tell which branch you are looking at. They are both the same. Yet this is exactly the “transition” that creationists claim is not found. Creationists represent organisms as an “orchard” rather than as a tree. Only in this creationist model are transitions clearly visible — because the individual trees do not spring from the same trunk and are therefore always distinguishable, right down to the roots. Evolutionary trees have a single root and small changes where the branches join. Therefore, one can only distinguish specimens of different major groups at some distance from the actual transition — at which point the specimens always look more like one of the groups than like the other.

    {E} Which engineering principles did you have in mind? Human designs have an ultimate goal, toward which a number of components already in their final form are assembled. Evolution have no goal of any kind — not even survival. Organisms that fail to reproduce do not contribute to the gene pool of future generations. This does not require an outside agent; logical necessity ensures it. Rocks that crumble and erode easily cannot produce mountain ranges. Same deal; no God required.

    By the way, since when is “fine tuning” an engineering principle? What are “mutation experiments,” and what do they have to do with engineering principles? Michael, you are just making things up, and hoping that your readers are not smart enough to question them.

    {F} No, Michael; you are delusional. Refereed journals publish more than 2,500 papers per year that embody some aspect of how evolution occurs in a specific setting. Creationist papers are all based upon at least one assumption of a miracle occurring at some point in the argument. And they do not contain confirmatory data of their own — creationists never conduct experiments, do not organize expeditions for evidence, do not critique each other’s work, never question any aspect of their theory. In other words they do not do science. The entire structure relies upon reasoning from ultimately unsupported assumptions that are never questioned. Creationist papers do not build upon the work of other creationists— they seem to realize that their foundations are shaky.

    Your refusal to face the evidence for evolution does not mean than it does not exist. You just don’t like it, and therefore hide in a dark corner and close your eyes.

    This by itself is of little moment. What does concern me is that you lie about science in order to further you religious beliefs. Which, by the way, are not shared by most people, or even by most Christians. As I’ve noted before, scientists say that if you want a good education in evolution, you should go to a Catholic school.

  5. Olorin,

    You say, “{C} False dichotomy. Not even a full-blown proof than evolution could not produce today’s biota would be positive evidence FOR God. Proving that Theory Q is incorrect does not constitute any evidence that Theory Z is correct. No matter how strong your faith is.”

    So in other words if you could find an experiment where fruit flies produced beneficial mutations, that would be proof for evolution while showing creationism to be wrong, or would creationism still be right then? Otherwise you would be claiming evolution is ‘neutral’ which is is not. There is more faith invested with evolution than with creationism.

    By the way, the fruit fly experiment that I love to mention as evidence against evolution that destroys its foundation, this is not the only experiment that failed to produce positive results for evolution…

    Geneticist Gordon R. Taylor said, “It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.”

    When an experiment is conducted for 60 years and there are no results, not even one beneficial mutation to get excited over, means the theory is false! If this was a recipe for a cooked meal that was supposed to produce this amazing meal and for sixty years it was repeated over and over again only to get terrible tasting food, wouldn’t you say that recipe is no good or would you continue for the next 60 years in hopes that recipe will finally produce what you want?

  6. Eelco, the first three lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity) give a general definition. Theologians may be discussing the minutae, but the standard is there. Your use of Wikipedia as your standard ‘go to resource’ is indicative of your lack of theological understanding. What indirect science parameters in your opinion will be able to detect the supernatural?

  7. You say, “{C} False dichotomy. Not even a full-blown proof than evolution could not produce today’s biota would be positive evidence FOR God. Proving that Theory Q is incorrect does not constitute any evidence that Theory Z is correct. No matter how strong your faith is.”

    So in other words if you could find an experiment where fruit flies produced beneficial mutations, that would be proof for evolution{a} while showing creationism to be wrong,{b} or would creationism still be right then? Otherwise you would be claiming evolution is ‘neutral’ which is is not.{c} There is more faith invested with evolution than with creationism.{d}

    It is always valid to adduce evidence for or against one theory to show that THAT theory is correct or not correct.What is NOT valid is to use evidence against one theory to show that ANOTHER theory is correct. And using evidence FOR one theory to show that another theory is INcorrect is valid only if the theories are inconsistent with each other. So —

    {a} Yes, if by “proof” you mean “evidence for.” No scientific theory can be “proven” in the sense of a mathematical proof. We seem to be stuck with inductive methods.
    {b} Yes, to the extent that creationism holds that this amount of change would be incompatible with special creation. My opinion would be that such changes would at the least weigh heavily against special creation.
    {c} This makes no sense. In what way could evolution be “neutral”? If you mean, can evolution produce stasis, then the answer is definitely yes. Only one (directional) of the four types (directional, static, broadening, narrowing) of evolution lead to changes which could influence morphology to any significant extent.
    {d} A ton and a half of evidence for evolution appears in the journals every year. On the other hand, there is NO positive physical evidence whatever for a six -day one-off creation. If you think there is any at all, please cite it here _________________.

  8. Our local Lutheran church bands together with 3 other churches to host Wednesday services during lent — a Catholic church, an Episcopalian church, and a Tongan Methodist church.

    The Catholic priest is full-blooded Japanese, which is interesting.

    The Tongans always provide the choir for the anthem. The men are impressive in their black skirts with woven overlays and ornate belts. The music sounds almost Russian at times — rich, full harmony with deep bass and room-filling sound. The rhythms are much more complex, however. The Tongan language is a lot like Hawaiian, but the sounds are different.

    Different religions get along with each other very well in Hawaii.

  9. Chazing, the only one lacking is you. First of all, you focus on one particular God (the Christian version), not a God in general. The Christian God has been discussed by theologians for centuries, as clearly put in wikipedia article (I quoted that because it is readily available, and an encyclopedia), but also shown by the sheer number of books written.

    So a general definition (what I would call a vague one): yes. A standard one: no.

  10. Eelco, modern science developed in which lands? Christian or non-Christian? Once again, your inability to provide a standard or basic definition of God is indicative of your lack of theological understanding. One should be able to do this without referencing Wikipedia. Please help us understand the following: What indirect science parameters in your opinion will be able to detect the supernatural?

  11. Once again, you are the one who is lacking, not me. You seem to have a tendency to simply repeat yourself.

    And you ask very odd questions … what are “science parameters” ? Try to google on these two words (don’t forget the quotation marks). Yep, just what I thought.

  12. But I’m a nice guy: I suppose you meant to say “scientific quantities” ?

  13. Eelco, it is my hope that repetition serves to obtain answers. Since you have now turned from Wikipedia to Google and want to be uber-literalistic on “science parameters” (I find this sad coming from a supposed scientist as yourself), let me re-phrase it for you. Recall that you stated:

    I agree with Olorin that science cannot study the supernatural, but I do think science can prove (with scientific proof, obviously) whether anything supernatural exists or not. Evidence would have to be indirect, mostly.

    How can “science” “prove” with “scientific proof” “whether anything supernatural exists or not”?

  14. But I’m a nice guy: I suppose you meant to say “scientific quantities” ?

    Perhaps physicists are super literalistic. I am not. I meant ‘parameters’ which also can be defined as ‘quantity’ if that makes it easier for you to understand.

  15. Eelco, please stop making fun of science and philosophy (theory of knowledge). The burden is on you as you initially stated that you believe that science can prove or disprove the supernatural. Thus you show a ‘severe lack of knowledge’ as to how logic operates. Additionally, Randi is a known biased atheist, he is not a scientist. For you to even link to him is dreadful and insulting. If you could come up with a scientific way to disprove the supernatural, you would become rich. So proceed.

  16. Chazing, I’m only making fun of you, not of science and philosophy.

    You keep up this attitude of no respect, so I’m afraid that’s what you get.

  17. Oh, and had I not already mentioned Victor Stenger ?

    If you don’t want wikipedia or google, go to a bookstore and get one of his books.

  18. In the process of making fun of me, you are making fun of science and philosophy. I don’t care about any form of respect you may think you can give, I care about finding the truth. I am actually trying to obtain that ‘truth’ which you have offered. You however, insist on wiggling your way out of providing scientific “quantities” which can prove or disprove the supernatural. Why is that?

  19. Stenger is a biased atheist source. But anyhow, name one “science quantity” in any of Stenger’s books which can prove or disprove the supernatural.

  20. I’ve just quoted Stenger. Full of scientific quantities.

    Lots of studies on the effects of prayer. None found.

    Miracle cures. None found.

    I’m not wiggling, I’m disgusted by your attitude, which obviously stands in the way of a discussion. As a human being, I do not like being insulted, certainly not from someone who shows such a lack of knowledge on the topic of discussion.

    And no, I was only making fun of you. Not of science and philosophy, as the latter and ‘Chazing’ have nothing to do with each other.

  21. Oh, and there you go again. A personal attack on Stenger.
    1) he is not biased, he has an opinion
    2) being an theist of atheist is irrelevant – the arguments matter

    Read Stenger’s book for yourself (without prejudice). I’ve wasted far too much time on you already, which frankly, given your attitude, you do not deserve.

  22. You apparently have magically become less super literalistic. You have not “quoted” Stenger. Try your good friend Google to find out why. Once again, the question was name one “science quantity” in any of Stenger’s books which can prove or disprove the supernatural. All you are doing is stating that Stenger’s books are “Full of scientific quantities.” They might well be as he is a physicist. However, what quantity appeals to YOU? Which one have YOU read in any of Stenger’s books and find that it can legitimately prove that which you have asserted? If you do not like being insulted, try returning the favour.

  23. the arguments matter

    They do. The problem is you only read the ones you like. Have you read anything by Frank Tipler? Or any theists with PhDs in science who believe in creationism? Would you state that only the arguments matter if I quoted from a PhD in theology?

  24. Huurah !! Chazing got me ! I said ‘quoted’, but that had to be ‘mentioned’. An error !

    Now go and read the book.
    I am not going to read Stenger’s book to you: it is available in your local library. YOU insisted that I should not refer to wikipedia or use google (which are at your fingertips). So a book it is,
    and go read it for yourself. I’m not your nanny.

    Oh, and I have read lots of other books, including creationist ones. Your assertion that I only read the ones I like is untrue. Paul Garner’s book was dreadful, for example.

    So skip the false accusations, will you.

  25. “If you do not like being insulted, try returning the favour.”

    And what on Earth is that supposed to mean ??

  26. I am not asking you to nanny me, I asked: “what quantity appeals to YOU? Which one have YOU read in any of Stenger’s books and find that it can legitimately prove that which you have asserted?” You still have not mentioned any. A book is not a quantity. Which books by PhD creationists have you read? (Garner has a BSc). Why not educate us by listing one problem in one of their arguments and fully explaining why it is wrong so we can be saved from ignorance and come into the light that is evolution?

  27. You really have an attitude problem. Sort that out first. Maybe we could have a meaningful discussion then. At the moment your respectless attitude renders that impossible.

    BTW, the quantities are in the book, it is not the book itself, obviously. Chapter 6 is a good place to start. In which you can read about a quantity that I already mentioned, but you ignored.

    Bye, Chazing.

  28. You really do have a reading and understanding problem. If my attitude is “respectless” then you would not be able to survive grilling in an engineering practical exam or post-presentation Q & A. I am actually being kind to repeatedly explain what I believe is wrong with your views. I have yet to figure out which book you would have me read and which “quantity” you have referred to. Goodbye Eelco.

  29. Michael, can we move on? Chazlng’s inane personal attacks have seriously corroded the WordPress server with vitriol by now, and Eelco continues to bait him with a sharp stick.

    CEHeadlines has a post (Feb 24) on newly found complexity in brain wiring. And another on an evolution that Coppedge thinks is actually design (Feb 23). Also on old “soft tissue” preservation (Feb 22), and anomalies in the lunar-impact theory (Feb 21). (Coppedge seems to be on vacation the past two weeks.)

    Meanwhile EN&Views claims that creationist Dennis Prager pwned Lawrence Krauss (Mar 6). And Mike Behe spoke at UToronto on the limits of Darwinism (Mar 6)

    Not much of interest in AiG News & Views. (Except that they made their funding goal, so Ken Ham won’t starve.)

    Or, if you can find a new way to prove the existence of God beside false dichotomy and personal incredulity, maybe even yet another installment in this series?

  30. Truely sad, Chazing. And you keep on insulting. “Being kind” ??? That just cuts the biscuit.

    You were not grilling me at all, you were merely insulting me (and others).

    I’m not even going to say goodbye to you anymore.

  31. Olorin and Eelco, seems like you two are from the same pod. You both don’t answer direct questions, harp on minor issues, lack knowledge of basic logic and think that your arguments are splendid creations. If you want to see vitriol, then you should go to an atheist forum where your evolutionist cohorts hang out. I should add however, that there is nothing wrong with vitriol in engineering, of which I am accustomed. If the desire is truth, vitriol should be expected when encountering simplistic ideas. For the benefit of our ‘gentle readers’, once again Eelco: which of Stenger’s books and which ‘quantity’ should I look our for?

  32. Notice gentle readers, how Eelco (PhD) consistently refuses to answer direct questions. Yes, Michael, take back your blog, ban all comments.

  33. No, I simply refuse to talk to insulting, respectless people like Chazing, as I’ve explained quite a few times.

    But if it takes one line to make Chazing go away, it is worth a try:

    Chapter 6 of Stenger’s book “God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist.” (2007), ISBN 1-59102-481-1. New York Times bestseller.

  34. Oh my evolution! He answers PART of a direct question! What’s the quantity to look out for? [I do have the book].

  35. The other part I had already answered.

    But Chazing still keeps going. Oh well, it was worth a try … but predictably without success.

  36. You have not listed any quantity discussed in any of Stenger’s books. Rather you have listed side issues like prayer and Randi. But let’s move beyond that. Why should I read a book published by the biased atheistic Prometheus Press? Why would anyone in their right mind expect to find untarnished science from Prometheus Press?

  37. Gentle readers, chapter 6 of Stenger’s ‘God: The Failed Hypothesis’ is titled: “The Failures of Revelation” and mainly discusses Bible prophesies and not the supernatural. Dr Eelco has yet to provide any hard science “quantity” which has been discussed as (indirect) evidence for the (lack of the) supernatural in a hard science book by a hard science PhD published by a hard science publisher. Science can be described as “… and on and on and on …” because it is the relentless pursuit of knowledge. A string of reviews [by the charitable and polite Nick Peters] of ‘God: The Failed Hypothesis’ can be found here: http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/god-the-failed-hypothesis-a-review/

  38. I think ‘oblivious’ is the word I’m looking for in describing Chazing’s continuation.

  39. Eelco, quit poking Chazlng with your sharp stick for a moment. Chazlng, wipe the froth off your mouth.
    ———————————————–

    Duane Gish has died, at age 92, according to a news item today in Answers in Genesis.

    After a PhD in biochemistry from UCLA, Gish was assistant professor at Cornell and a researcher at Upjohn. In 1971, a year afetr its formation, he was named vice president of the Institute of Creation Research, where he served until 2005. Gish was a prolific writer and speaker. His most well-known book is Evolution: The Fossils say No! His distinctive debating style was known as the “Gish Gallop.”

  40. Olorin, if you have time to post these tidbits, you should have time to grade my answer as you stated you would.

  41. Well, I couldn’t decide between “F” and “MWAHAHAHAHAAAA.”

    Under your proposal for determining whether the sequence is random or not, it would be judged designed. In fact, any sequence whatever would turn out to be designed. A random sequence would be impossible by definition. Because, after seeing any input sequence, a receiver could be tuned to that specific sequence. Not much of a test then, is it? We might as well flip a two-headed coin.

    No test for randomness is foolproof, and all are difficult to apply in practice. Kolmogorov complexity is probably the best . Linear complexity seems to produce results very similar to Kolmogorov. Linear Hadamard spectral tests are frequently employed. Statistical data are subject to distribution tests, but are not conclusive.

    That particular question was designed to find out whether you knew anything at all about the subject. I am not an expert in information theory, but I did work at IBM Research for several years in coding theory—including the design of the Universal Product Code used by everyone in the known universe for everything.

    And it is obvious that you, sir, as Mark Twin once said, know very little, and what you do know is wrong.

    Would you care to try the next question?

  42. Under your proposal for determining whether the sequence is random or not, it would be judged designed.

    Incorrect, see term “iff.”

    In fact, any sequence whatever would turn out to be designed.

    Incorrect, see term “iff.”

    A random sequence would be impossible by definition.

    Incorrect, see term “iff.”

    Because, after seeing any input sequence, a receiver could be tuned to that specific sequence.

    Tuned to an input, not tuned to interpreting said input. Category mistake anyone?

  43. No test for randomness is foolproof, and all are difficult to apply in practice. Kolmogorov complexity is probably the best . Linear complexity seems to produce results very similar to Kolmogorov. Linear Hadamard spectral tests are frequently employed. Statistical data are subject to distribution tests, but are not conclusive.

    Irrelevant, these refer to the degree of randomness as deduced from some pre-defined and designed algorithmic logic. They give the probability that something is random but do not necessarily tell us if something is designed. Design requires intent and as such mentioning these does not help your cause unless you are trying to sound sciency for your gentle readers. Nothing in science or derived from the minds of men is foolproof.

    That particular question was designed to find out whether you knew anything at all about the subject. I am not an expert in information theory, but I did work at IBM Research for several years in coding theory—including the design of the Universal Product Code used by everyone in the known universe for everything.

    Wow, you did sciency stuff and yet don’t understand science. See below.

    And it is obvious that you, sir, as Mark Twin once said, know very little, and what you do know is wrong.

    Well, you showed me didn’t you? The problem is that you did not read my definition carefully. Nowhere does the tuning automatically select and accommodate the string as information. Also, I mentioned error checking, information formatting and intent. Your string has intent and its format is designed i.e. it uses axiomatically derived numbers. I am also not an expert on information theory but that’s my undergrad major and we never met terms like Kolmogorov complexity or linear complexity. Perhaps these relate more to computer science. They are nonetheless irrelevant since my answer holds. Terminology does not make for correctness. What is obvious is that you suffer from dissonance, Mr Kraussian emptyness. Mark Twin, the twin to Mark Twain?

    Would you care to try the next question?

    Recall:

    I asked 6 questions in the last 2 posts and you answered 1. Answer the other 5 and then I might consider showing you (and your gentle readers) how fallacious your questions are.

  44. Olorin: “Eelco, quit poking Chazlng with your sharp stick for a moment.”

    Sure, he’s all yours. I get bored of having to clean my stick all the time.

  45. An F? I was expecting better, like a “MWAHAHAHAHAAAA.” Anyways, are you going to answer the other 5 questions?

  46. I’ll actually answer your question: The sequence is intelligently designed iff it can be interpreted as information bearing (not random noise) by a receiver tuned (though not necessarily specifically tuned) to the communication intricacies of the sender of the information stream of “8, 5, 4, 9, 1, 7, 6, 3, 2, 0″ –> and even this is simplistic because there’s error checking, information formatting and intent.

    I disregarded the “iff” because it can be satisfied by any input, including a random input. A CDM receiver can always be tuned to any sequence; military cryptography uses random code sequences exclusively, and obviously, their receivers can be tuned to those codes. Likewise, any sequence, random or not, contains information; in fact a random sequence contains a maximum of information for its length. The rest of the crapola about formatting, and error checking is obfuscatory only. And “intent” — creationists always confuse “information” with “meaning.”

    I am also not an expert on information theory but that’s my undergrad major and we never met terms like Kolmogorov complexity or linear complexity.

    I had not realized that Biola University offered a course, much less a major, in information apologetics. What did you use for complexity measures, cubits?

    So, “F”.

    Keep waving your arms, tho. The breeze has a cooling effect, and the temp is still 83 here. We toured the gallery of Vladimir Kush (among many others) in Lahaina today. He’s one of my favorite surrealist artists. Unfortunately, I didn’t twig to him until his prices had already become — well — surreal.

  47. I disregarded the “iff” because it can be satisfied by any input, including a random input.

    I stated that it would be interpreted as designed if and only if it could be interpreted as information. Random noise would be accepted and discarded if no meaningful information can be extracted. This does not mean that a high encrypted stream could not be interpreted as noise. Tuned here only means accepted and interpreted as legitimate information and/or noise. Thus, once again, you are incorrect (shocker!). A random stream might be picked up by a receiver but it does not mean anything unless the receiver can decode it correctly.

    A CDM receiver can always be tuned to any sequence; military cryptography uses random code sequences exclusively, and obviously, their receivers can be tuned to those codes.

    These random military codes are probably pseudo-random. But I am quite perplexed as I have never heard of self-tuning CDM receivers (or any other types for that matter). Kindly state a model or type of CDM receiver which has shown the innate ability to tune to any signal type.

  48. Likewise, any sequence, random or not, contains information; in fact a random sequence contains a maximum of information for its length.

    Agreed but so what? Your question was not about information but about design and randomness. It might just be possible to design a signal of very low information. Who knows?

    The rest of the crapola about formatting, and error checking is obfuscatory only.

    I guess that’s why telecommunications engineers spend so much time designing different formats which enable better error checking right? They just need to zap a signal and some magical receiver will always self-tune and correctly interpret the stream 100% of the time. Evolutionary thinking anyone? Well now, we need to throw away all of communication theory, Olorin is in da house and he has new science which will revolutionize communications! Evolutionists do have a wicked sense of humour.

    And “intent” — creationists always confuse “information” with “meaning.”

    Excellent, now we have Olorin the almighty communications engineer who will list an information stream which does not have any meaning whatsoever.

  49. I had not realized that Biola University offered a course, much less a major, in information apologetics.

    I’m not American nor have I anything to do with Biola. I find it strange though, that you like to disparage organizations like the DI, ICR and now Biola. How utterly childish. If you have issues with said places, create a blog and lay out your case. Better yet, post on ENV or UD where people with PhDs can critique your posts. I strongly suspect though, that any apologetics undergrad at Biola would not be so stupid as to believe that the nothing of the big bang means a quantum fluctuation.

    What did you use for complexity measures, cubits?

    We used a measure called the “MWAHAHAHAHAAAA.” You seem to be well acquainted with this, yes?

    Keep waving your arms, tho. The breeze has a cooling effect, and the temp is still 83 here. We toured the gallery of Vladimir Kush (among many others) in Lahaina today. He’s one of my favorite surrealist artists. Unfortunately, I didn’t twig to him until his prices had already become — well — surreal.

    Seems you like this blog so that you can be like those facebook retards who think that posting what they’re eating is supposed to be riveting.

    And again,

    Anyways, are you going to answer the other 5 questions?

    I guess not. Perhaps we are to wait for your answers to evolve via punctuated equilibrium.

  50. They just need to zap a signal and some magical receiver will always self-tune and correctly interpret the stream 100% of the time.

    After three explanations, nothing has penetrated your skull.[1] You continue to confuse “information” with “meaning.”

    These random military codes are probably pseudo-random.

    No. I worked on AES[2] for a while at IBM. The military keys are fully random; only the consumer versions are pseudorandom.

    I’m not American nor have I anything to do with Biola.

    I can understand that they would not accept you. Even Biola has its standards.

    I hear that Uithoorn Bijbel Hogeschool is more forgiving, and that they have courses in biologetics, cosmologetics, perverse logic, and equivocation studies.

    ==================

    [1] I give it a Shore durometer of 100 (D scale).

    [2] You may know it as Rijndael encryption.

  51. 1. Kindly state a model or type of CDM receiver which has shown the innate ability to tune to any signal type.
    2. List an information stream which does not have any meaning whatsoever.

  52. 1. No CDM receiver has any “innate capability” of any kind. Each is designed and built by people for a particularr type of signal, and then programmed by other people to respond to a specific key. Some, such as as garage-door openers, can program (“tune”) themselves.

    2. Any random information stream (sequence) has no meaning. Yet it has maximum information for its length and symbol set. Here’s one that just happened by: “1 1 6 2 5 9 0 3 6 1”. (Courtesy of random.org, which advertises true random sequences, not pseudorandom).

  53. 1. Then you agree with me despite your blabbering to the contrary
    2. It does not necessarily have meaning to you. You simply cannot state that any stream does not have any meaning whatsoever.

  54. 1. Wrong.
    2. Wrong.

    You’re moving the goal posts again. By now they are entirely off the pitch, and into a bean patch down the road.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s