Intelligent Design [Off topic] Triangle Puzzle Posted on May 7, 2006 Author William DembskiComments(19) Spread the love Where does this “hole” come from? Hint: Ask yourself whether triangles A and B are similar.
19 Replies to “[Off topic] Triangle Puzzle”
Triangles A & B have different slopes. The slope of B is 2/5 (0.4) and the slope of A is 3/8 (0.375). It’s very subtle and hard to see, but the hypotenuse is actually bi-linear in both pictures.
In the top picture, the hypotenuse angles inward then outward, whereas the bottom picture it angles outward then inward. The empty space is created from the difference between the two.
The “hypotenuses” (one is a subtle curve) are not identical, so the diagrams create an optical illusion.
Reminds me of Darwinian reasoning about the origination of complex biological information. You can get the extra square out of nowhere for nothing.
The explanatory power of simulation:
The source is here:
(You need Coreldraw 10 or above to open this)
Dissenters, the lot of you!!!
Those triangles are perfectly alike. We can see a common morphological trait exihibited by A & B, whose phylogenies are the same, afterall they have three side (roughly) the same length to width ratio, ergo – similar traingles. The hole is created by the non-conformity of the religiously motivated blocks C & D, in an attempt to smuggle faith into the equation. Dammit, when will science truely prevail in clear cut in circumstances as these without interference from the likes of you?? Any ‘gap’ in this theory is because of you lack of a basic understanding of biology and science…..*somebody please get me some asprin*.
– or a brain surgeon???-
The second triangle only gives the appearance of having a gap. There’s no actual gap. When trying to work out this puzzle, we must constantly remind ourselves of this fact.
I disagree with comments #1, #2, and #3. I say that the hypotenuses in both big triangles are really straight rather than bent, and that the grid has been distorted to fit the diagrams. The spacing of the grid lines is not uniform and some of those “squares” of the grids do not have equal sides.
This is a lesson for Darwinists — things are not always what they appear to be.
It’s a miracle! 😯
“ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a miracle!
Comment by DaveScot Ã¢â‚¬â€ May 8, 2006 @ 7:12 am”
Can’t you see the consequences??? The triangles are different, therefore, the religious-right will institute a theocracy! This is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo! Who designed the triangles?
Did I forgot any party line?
Brain Surgeons are not allowed to comment on evolutionary triangles without a loss of moral objectivity.
You need instead, a man of the cloth…. 😉
oops, a man of the triune cloth, ahmmm….
This proves that the only straight
thing in creation (light) b s.
Plese fix my “bends” You may need a decompression
The hypoteneuse of the second triangle is simply an older version of the first.
Due to the rate of expansion of the universe since the Big Bang
the second hypoteneuse only appears to have become curved.
This is caused by space-time dialation,
as specified by Relativity.
As for the grid itself, it was created flat,
and remains eternally flat.
I like all your responses MUCH BETTER than mine! I particularly like this one…
“The second triangle only gives the appearance of having a gap.”
Here is another one of those fun games, though with a slightly different twist:
we’ve spent hours with folks trying to figure out where the little leprechaun went 🙂
Fellows. Allow me to assist. You have systematically missed the crux of the matter entirely. By merely acknowledging the existence of the alleged “hole,” you extend an unwarranted credibility to the notion that it requires an explanation. Clearly it does not. It’s presence–or, rather, absence, is not in the least bit remarkable. The “hole,” as you incorrectly characterize it, is little more than the inevitable exposure of an eternal white grid space that necessarily follows from any number of random permuations of the component triangles. While the precise fitness function applicable to the triangle permutations is admittedly unknown, I am nevertheless confident that an unguided search of triangle-orientation-space would ultimately discover this and many additional “holes.” Your continued preoccupation with this phantasmal “hole” threatens to derail the scientific enterprise and will ultimately undermine America’s technological and economic preeminence.
Stuart Kauffman weighs in: “To state that a gap is so illogical that it requires recognition of an optical illusion is just ill-founded. The argument uses standard geometry, which does not apply to the mathematics of the triangle.”
There is no hole or “gap” in the triangles just as there are no “gaps” in the fossil record.
You can easily use your imagination to visualize the hole as it really appears filled in from the surrounding squares.
The color is missing from the square only because we have not yet found it, but the color is most certainly there.
Real science has already proven that there is no hole.
Only creationists will continue to see a white hole that really isn’t there because they are not scientists.
To insist there is a white hole in the second triangle is to postulate a capricious God, one who would attempt to fool us in thinking there is a hole when clearly there is not.
Above all, students must not be subjected to information about the hole because the hole is nothing more than a religious belief.