| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"snex" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2006 03:23:52 PM |
| Object: |
CSI challenge - again |
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
signal A:
110100000110111100101110010100100111101010101011001011001000111010000100
110110010000011101110100111001010111100000110101001001001111100100011001
100110011000101100001000001010011010111001000001111101010000100111110010
000110010110100001001100100110001001110111000001010011001001001100000101
101111111110110010000011111000101011000000101001011100010111100001111101
110101000010000110011111001111000101110100010110100001110111101111100110
101001011100111010110110110000111110101100000001011000100100011111010111
011100101101111001001011101111001101001001001010111011110101100000100001
100111100010000110101101011110110111100100011010101000100111000111110001
101001001011110110110011011111100110000111011000111100001010011111101101
011110011110000110111100010111110111000100010110111100100100111001011100
110111011001101100010100011111001001110100110010111001110010001100110100
001101010010110011100111101000010101010101010011001100010010111001011000
000101001110110100111110010001001111011100010101101010000000100111011110
010001001111110011011100101111101110110001000110011011111111100100000100
111010100010010001111011010110101110111001100110101111101010101010110110
100010101010011000111000101010001000111011011011000010001001010100110011
111100111111100000000110110100001001010101110101000111111010011010101001
1011110110000010101000110111
signal B:
010101010110100000100110011010010110010001100001110100010010000000110000
010101111000000101100100111101000010100101111100010101010011111101110010
001101100110101100011000011000000110000000110110100101000111010001101001
111011010110111101111100001010101101000110100100011011011001000101111111
000110110010101011110001111001101111011111001000011110101100111100001010
101000001010010101100100001000110110010001101101000100100100000001100101
001000101001010101100111001100110010111110000011010101001010000010011001
011100110000101100110111001000101101010110101100100110000110000011110010
010101101110000001010100101100101100011001100010011011010001011010100101
010000000110000110000000011011100011110100000111001001011110001001100100
000000110010101100100101001110110010001100100000011110001010101000110011
000011000000101110000001011000011110011010001001010111110011110001101100
111011000101001101100011000010000101001010111010011111111100010011110110
101011000110111001110100010111010100101010110000011000100111011101100011
011000010100110000010110000110011000000000101000110011010010110000101100
010110110101001111100011001101100000101000100001001010000001001100000111
110000101010101001101001001110100000010000100010010111010111011110000101
111001100110010010011001011101101111010001000100101001101101111101110000
1111110001110000100110101010
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: pagano still alive, but still cant support CSI |
31 Jul 2006 03:23:57 PM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> said:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
<snip>
come on pagano, anybody claiming to be able to determine intelligent
input based on information theory should be able to determine which (if
any) signals are intelligently designed. you constantly tell us that
SETI uses ID principles, yet you cant solve a simple problem that SETI
researchers might have to deal with some day?
like i said, if you think my example is inappropriate, pick something
that is and ill generate new data for you.
either way, quit jerking us around. nobody will accept CSI on your or
dembski's authority. either demonstrate it works or stop being
dishonest about it.
It is a sort of cosmic Turing Test, isn't it?
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 10:01:04 PM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1153945431.924980.195350@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
signal A:
...
This one codes for the Mona Lisa using a VandeWettering EUREKA! mapping
code.
signal B:
...
This one does too...
EUREKA! You now have an encoding that converts the genome to the Mona Lisa!
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/66c93a498ca236ca
--
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bloodbeard" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 07:45:17 PM |
|
|
I'm going to go with Signal B as having been ordinated by intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 08:39:29 PM |
|
|
Bloodbeard wrote:
I'm going to go with Signal B as having been ordinated by intelligence.
im going to have to request that you show your math and/or reasoning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bloodbeard" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 09:17:42 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
Bloodbeard wrote:
I'm going to go with Signal B as having been ordinated by intelligence.
im going to have to request that you show your math and/or reasoning.
Well, I looked at Signal A. It was convoluted and confusing. I looked
at Signal B. It was also convoluted and confusing. But, I noticed that
Signal B had long strings of zeros at both the beginning and end. I
then looked back at Signal A and realized I could come to similar
conclusions. Then, I realized that throwing this around in my head for
any longer would do no good, so I decided to go with my first answer.
Thus, Signal B.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 09:35:34 PM |
|
|
Bloodbeard wrote:
snex wrote:
Bloodbeard wrote:
I'm going to go with Signal B as having been ordinated by intelligence.
im going to have to request that you show your math and/or reasoning.
Well, I looked at Signal A. It was convoluted and confusing. I looked
at Signal B. It was also convoluted and confusing. But, I noticed that
Signal B had long strings of zeros at both the beginning and end. I
then looked back at Signal A and realized I could come to similar
conclusions. Then, I realized that throwing this around in my head for
any longer would do no good, so I decided to go with my first answer.
Thus, Signal B.
while that may be how ID proponents currently decide what has CSI and
what doesnt, i was hoping for something a little more objective and
verifiable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 11:08:46 PM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> said:
Bloodbeard wrote:
snex wrote:
Bloodbeard wrote:
I'm going to go with Signal B as having been ordinated by intelligence.
im going to have to request that you show your math and/or reasoning.
Well, I looked at Signal A. It was convoluted and confusing. I looked
at Signal B. It was also convoluted and confusing. But, I noticed that
Signal B had long strings of zeros at both the beginning and end. I
then looked back at Signal A and realized I could come to similar
conclusions. Then, I realized that throwing this around in my head for
any longer would do no good, so I decided to go with my first answer.
Thus, Signal B.
while that may be how ID proponents currently decide what has CSI and
what doesnt, i was hoping for something a little more objective and
verifiable.
In principle, both A and B can be reduced to math algorithms of
generation. How would we decide which one of them actually used an
algorithm of generation instead of being quantum indeterminate?
Also, in principle, a recognizable message can be encoded into either
A or B, even the same message. Same question as above.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev Dr Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 05:37:09 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how they
could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 07:02:10 PM |
|
|
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> said:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how they
could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
There are several punch lines here, some of them tapped out in an
encrypted form by the toad. ;-)
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 09:25:25 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> said:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how they
could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
There are several punch lines here, some of them tapped out in an
encrypted form by the toad. ;-)
"So long, and thanks for all the flies."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 08:19:14 PM |
|
|
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in
news:1153953429.182055.227250@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how they
could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
Maybe you needed the hoptoad to ask the question?
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 09:19:52 PM |
|
|
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how they
could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
Both were designed - one by you, the other by God using the toad.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 09:23:15 PM |
|
|
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how they
could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
Maybe they discovered the toad is as smart as you are but didn't want
to hurt your feelings by saying so.
:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 09:33:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, "Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote:
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how they
could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
Maybe they discovered the toad is as smart as you are but didn't want
to hurt your feelings by saying so.
Maybe the toad's message offended their sensibilities.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 03:24:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:33:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Bobby D. Bryant) wrote:
- Refer: <ea98la$ho$2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, "Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote:
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how they
could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
Maybe they discovered the toad is as smart as you are but didn't want
to hurt your feelings by saying so.
Maybe the toad's message offended their sensibilities.
Rib-it.
Adam's rib it.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev Dr Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 07:23:31 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:33:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Bobby D. Bryant) wrote:
- Refer: <ea98la$ho$2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, "Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote:
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how they
could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
Maybe they discovered the toad is as smart as you are but didn't want
to hurt your feelings by saying so.
Maybe the toad's message offended their sensibilities.
Rib-it.
Adam's rib it.
--
Well, I would let the toad respond, but he, um, well -- ya know --- he
croaked.
;>
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Bulcher" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 03:30:02 PM |
|
|
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:33:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Bobby D. Bryant) wrote:
- Refer: <ea98la$ho$2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, "Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote:
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of
CSI work for detecting the design, then put them to the test and
prove us skeptics wrong already.
<snipola>
I used to offer a similar challenge. I'd present two strings of
characters, one of which I carefully chose myself, according to a
specific complex algorithm, and one which I produced by allowing a
halfgrown southern hoptoad, Bufo terrestris, to hop across the
keyboard. I then asked IDers to tell me which was which, and how
they could tell.
Never got any intelligible answer.
Maybe they discovered the toad is as smart as you are but didn't
want to hurt your feelings by saying so.
Maybe the toad's message offended their sensibilities.
Rib-it.
Adam's rib it.
Well, I would let the toad respond, but he, um, well -- ya know --- he
croaked.
Pity. I was hoping for a warts and all exposé.
--
Tiny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 05:08:46 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
<snip signals>
has anybody noticed that whenever i repost this, the creationists in
this group mysteriously disappear until it is a good 2 or 3 pages down?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 09:40:28 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2006 15:08:46 -0700, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1154038126.673814.98150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
<snip signals>
has anybody noticed that whenever i repost this, the creationists in
this group mysteriously disappear until it is a good 2 or 3 pages down?
They have to find the time to steal more JW material from web sites.
They are incapable of defending their own opinions from their own
reserves of stale lies.
This takes time.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 06:06:47 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
<snip signals>
has anybody noticed that whenever i repost this, the creationists in
this group mysteriously disappear until it is a good 2 or 3 pages down?
You should repost it every day, then ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 03:55:26 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
Snip test for brevity
I believe Pagano was recently making the case for Forensics being an
excellent example of how design needs no assumption about the who of
the designer. Perhaps he can put this to the test.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 04:05:50 PM |
|
|
Alexander wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
Snip test for brevity
I believe Pagano was recently making the case for Forensics being an
excellent example of how design needs no assumption about the who of
the designer. Perhaps he can put this to the test.
pagano has already attempted to dismiss my example by claiming that any
data at all picked up by a radio receiver is designed. he stopped
responding after i pointed out to him that 1) people could purposely
use random data to fool us, and 2) perfectly natural random noise would
still produce a dataset, as tuning to a radio or TV frequency not being
broadcast upon plainly shows.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 04:14:19 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
Alexander wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
Snip test for brevity
I believe Pagano was recently making the case for Forensics being an
excellent example of how design needs no assumption about the who of
the designer. Perhaps he can put this to the test.
pagano has already attempted to dismiss my example by claiming that any
data at all picked up by a radio receiver is designed. he stopped
responding after i pointed out to him that 1) people could purposely
use random data to fool us, and 2) perfectly natural random noise would
still produce a dataset, as tuning to a radio or TV frequency not being
broadcast upon plainly shows.
he also declined to provide what he felt would be a more appropriate
example for me to generate data for him to apply CSI to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 04:34:20 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
snex wrote:
Alexander wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
Snip test for brevity
I believe Pagano was recently making the case for Forensics being an
excellent example of how design needs no assumption about the who of
the designer. Perhaps he can put this to the test.
pagano has already attempted to dismiss my example by claiming that any
data at all picked up by a radio receiver is designed. he stopped
responding after i pointed out to him that 1) people could purposely
use random data to fool us, and 2) perfectly natural random noise would
still produce a dataset, as tuning to a radio or TV frequency not being
broadcast upon plainly shows.
he also declined to provide what he felt would be a more appropriate
example for me to generate data for him to apply CSI to.
Odd then isn't it that he persists in claiming that forensics is such a
good forum for citing as an example of how design can be detected
without inference to a designer? Yet he doesn't seem to like the 'we
know it was a human behind the 'design' of the incident' argument when
it gets thrown back at him.
ID'ers are a strange bunch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
26 Jul 2006 10:02:26 PM |
|
|
On 26 Jul 2006 14:34:20 -0700, "Alexander"
<alexanderhudson@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1153949660.572323.133220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
snex wrote:
snex wrote:
Alexander wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
Snip test for brevity
I believe Pagano was recently making the case for Forensics being an
excellent example of how design needs no assumption about the who of
the designer. Perhaps he can put this to the test.
pagano has already attempted to dismiss my example by claiming that any
data at all picked up by a radio receiver is designed. he stopped
responding after i pointed out to him that 1) people could purposely
use random data to fool us, and 2) perfectly natural random noise would
still produce a dataset, as tuning to a radio or TV frequency not being
broadcast upon plainly shows.
he also declined to provide what he felt would be a more appropriate
example for me to generate data for him to apply CSI to.
Odd then isn't it that he persists in claiming that forensics is such a
good forum for citing as an example of how design can be detected
without inference to a designer? Yet he doesn't seem to like the 'we
know it was a human behind the 'design' of the incident' argument when
it gets thrown back at him.
ID'ers are a strange bunch.
Strange, in a car crash kind of way.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 06:13:43 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
signal A:
110100000110111100101110010100100111101010101011001011001000111010000100
110110010000011101110100111001010111100000110101001001001111100100011001
100110011000101100001000001010011010111001000001111101010000100111110010
000110010110100001001100100110001001110111000001010011001001001100000101
101111111110110010000011111000101011000000101001011100010111100001111101
110101000010000110011111001111000101110100010110100001110111101111100110
101001011100111010110110110000111110101100000001011000100100011111010111
011100101101111001001011101111001101001001001010111011110101100000100001
100111100010000110101101011110110111100100011010101000100111000111110001
101001001011110110110011011111100110000111011000111100001010011111101101
011110011110000110111100010111110111000100010110111100100100111001011100
110111011001101100010100011111001001110100110010111001110010001100110100
001101010010110011100111101000010101010101010011001100010010111001011000
000101001110110100111110010001001111011100010101101010000000100111011110
010001001111110011011100101111101110110001000110011011111111100100000100
111010100010010001111011010110101110111001100110101111101010101010110110
100010101010011000111000101010001000111011011011000010001001010100110011
111100111111100000000110110100001001010101110101000111111010011010101001
1011110110000010101000110111
signal B:
010101010110100000100110011010010110010001100001110100010010000000110000
010101111000000101100100111101000010100101111100010101010011111101110010
001101100110101100011000011000000110000000110110100101000111010001101001
111011010110111101111100001010101101000110100100011011011001000101111111
000110110010101011110001111001101111011111001000011110101100111100001010
101000001010010101100100001000110110010001101101000100100100000001100101
001000101001010101100111001100110010111110000011010101001010000010011001
011100110000101100110111001000101101010110101100100110000110000011110010
010101101110000001010100101100101100011001100010011011010001011010100101
010000000110000110000000011011100011110100000111001001011110001001100100
000000110010101100100101001110110010001100100000011110001010101000110011
000011000000101110000001011000011110011010001001010111110011110001101100
111011000101001101100011000010000101001010111010011111111100010011110110
101011000110111001110100010111010100101010110000011000100111011101100011
011000010100110000010110000110011000000000101000110011010010110000101100
010110110101001111100011001101100000101000100001001010000001001100000111
110000101010101001101001001110100000010000100010010111010111011110000101
111001100110010010011001011101101111010001000100101001101101111101110000
1111110001110000100110101010
Maybe they need you to hex or base64 encode it for them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Creationist, Ph.D." |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 06:26:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
note: line breaks are inserted by me to make them more legible. they do
not belong to the signals.
signal A:
110100000110111100101110010100100111101010101011001011001000111010000100
110110010000011101110100111001010111100000110101001001001111100100011001
100110011000101100001000001010011010111001000001111101010000100111110010
000110010110100001001100100110001001110111000001010011001001001100000101
101111111110110010000011111000101011000000101001011100010111100001111101
110101000010000110011111001111000101110100010110100001110111101111100110
101001011100111010110110110000111110101100000001011000100100011111010111
011100101101111001001011101111001101001001001010111011110101100000100001
100111100010000110101101011110110111100100011010101000100111000111110001
101001001011110110110011011111100110000111011000111100001010011111101101
011110011110000110111100010111110111000100010110111100100100111001011100
110111011001101100010100011111001001110100110010111001110010001100110100
001101010010110011100111101000010101010101010011001100010010111001011000
000101001110110100111110010001001111011100010101101010000000100111011110
010001001111110011011100101111101110110001000110011011111111100100000100
111010100010010001111011010110101110111001100110101111101010101010110110
100010101010011000111000101010001000111011011011000010001001010100110011
111100111111100000000110110100001001010101110101000111111010011010101001
1011110110000010101000110111
signal B:
010101010110100000100110011010010110010001100001110100010010000000110000
010101111000000101100100111101000010100101111100010101010011111101110010
001101100110101100011000011000000110000000110110100101000111010001101001
111011010110111101111100001010101101000110100100011011011001000101111111
000110110010101011110001111001101111011111001000011110101100111100001010
101000001010010101100100001000110110010001101101000100100100000001100101
001000101001010101100111001100110010111110000011010101001010000010011001
011100110000101100110111001000101101010110101100100110000110000011110010
010101101110000001010100101100101100011001100010011011010001011010100101
010000000110000110000000011011100011110100000111001001011110001001100100
000000110010101100100101001110110010001100100000011110001010101000110011
000011000000101110000001011000011110011010001001010111110011110001101100
111011000101001101100011000010000101001010111010011111111100010011110110
101011000110111001110100010111010100101010110000011000100111011101100011
011000010100110000010110000110011000000000101000110011010010110000101100
010110110101001111100011001101100000101000100001001010000001001100000111
110000101010101001101001001110100000010000100010010111010111011110000101
111001100110010010011001011101101111010001000100101001101101111101110000
1111110001110000100110101010
Maybe they need you to hex or base64 encode it for them?
Creationists believe that counting all of their gods add up to "1."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Clayton" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 06:32:52 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
Signal A is designed. It's Alpha Centauri-ese for "PLEASE SEND MORE
EPISODES OF FIREFLY."
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 08:50:07 PM |
|
|
Richard Clayton <rZIGeclaZIGyton@verizon.net> wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
Signal A is designed. It's Alpha Centauri-ese for "PLEASE SEND MORE
EPISODES OF FIREFLY."
you left off the rest:
OR WE'LL INVADE AND FREE JOSH WHEDON.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: CSI challenge - again |
27 Jul 2006 10:17:56 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Richard Clayton <rZIGeclaZIGyton@verizon.net> wrote:
snex wrote:
anybody care to actually try to answer this time? i know you ID
advocates are out there. if you believe your silly notions of CSI work
for detecting the design, then put them to the test and prove us
skeptics wrong already.
the CIA has been monitoring known radio communication channels of
various counties hostile to the US. one day, two signals are picked up
on different radio channels. the CIA submits the data to the NSA for
analysis. however, the NSA is strapped on time and can only afford to
work extensively on one signal. naturally, they call william dembski.
since dembski can determine which (if any) of the two signals contains
CSI, he can help the NSA determine which (if any) signal should be
analyzed. should dembski tell the NSA to analyze signal A, signal B,
neither signal, or suggest that they request more resources to work on
both?
Signal A is designed. It's Alpha Centauri-ese for "PLEASE SEND MORE
EPISODES OF FIREFLY."
you left off the rest:
OR WE'LL INVADE AND FREE JOSH WHEDON.
Oh, hell. It's gonna be another eight *years* before we find out when
the invasion fleet will arrive. Who will set up the watch rota?
Perhaps we ought to do some, ahem, ifth-a olumnc-a work, too?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
