Steve Meyer on the logic of design detection

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 8, 2022

Design inference, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This is another excerpt from Steve Meyer’s chapter in The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021). He is discussing design theorist William Dembski’s Design Inference:

Dembski notes that complex sequences exhibit an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple rule or algorithm, whereas specification involves a match or correspondence between a physical system or sequence and an independently recognizable pattern or set of functional requirements.
By way of illustration, consider the following three sets of symbols: “nehya53nslbyw1`jejns7eopslanm46/J”
“TIME AND TIDE WAIT FOR NO MAN”
“ABABABABABABABABABABAB”
The first two sequences are complex because both defy reduction to a simple rule. Each represents a highly irregular, aperiodic, improbable sequence. The third sequence is not complex, but is instead highly ordered and repetitive. Of the two complex sequences, only the second, however, exemplifies a set of independent functional requirements — i.e., it is specified.
Steve Meyer, “The Logic of Design Detection” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 25, 2022)

That first string could possibly be a code but if we don’t know what it is a code for, it is not communication.

A great deal has been invested in not understanding something as simple and obvious as the design inference. That’s powerful evidence that it is an important insight.

The whole series here.

Comments

WJM, necessary thus eternal being, and not a CTThD. This is beyond our ability to grasp with familiarity but if there is a CTThD, then there is a root of reality a world zero of that order. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2022
April
04
Apr
11
11
2022
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

One of the big issues when it comes to the existence of anything is infinite regress, which appears to indicate that it is necessary to have an original "causeless cause" that activates potential in some way. This is one of the primary logical arguments for a deliberate, purposeful God. The problem with posing a choice made by God as a backstop to infinite regression is that it just begs the question: how much time passed before God made that decision? Which brings back the intractable problem of linear time being a necessary assumption for the concept of "making a decision" to have any non-absurd meaning. If God had no beginning, then in a linear-time framework where a decision can be made, there's an eternity of time before God made that decision. And so, we shouldn't be here pondering the question. Linear time cause and effect is actually a concept that is self-refuting even if you apply an eternal causeless cause. Whatever is going on, it can't be (logically speaking) linear-time cause and effect. That can be what it appears as, but it cannot be what it actually is.William J Murray_{April 11, 2022
April
04
Apr
11
11
2022
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

WJM, the singularity says a spacetime, causal-temporal-thermodynamic domain [CTThD] had a beginning and was caused, i.e. was created. A world does not come from utter non being and CTThD is inherently finite in the past even beyond a singularity e.g. quantum foam etc. That is forced by the logic of time succeeding by years and the infeasible supertask of attempted traversal of the transfinite. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2022
April
04
Apr
11
11
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

DD, this caught my eye:
First, you assuming that consciousness is causal rather than perceptual, something that may or may not be true.
WJM is right to say we directly experience it. Also, if that experience is delusional, i.e. it is an epiphenomenon of underlying computation on a wetware substrate in brain-cns interfacing with body, we are in big trouble. For, a computational substrate is inherently non rational and lacks therefore rational responsible freedom. Such is a dynamic-stochastic system, driven by its architecture and programming acting on inputs (including analogue computer patch jobs). It is GIGO constrained, garbage in, garbage out. That is, it is utterly blind and indifferent, it is just processing signals as organised and programmed, with utterly no relevance to ground-consequence or judgements of cogency etc. It is inherently non rational. Which reduces reason, warrant, knowledge to delusion, grand delusion. That is self-referential and includes your suggestion as quoted. Reductio ad absurdum. We can take it as a basic principle of reasoning that what reduces to or invites or suggests grand delusion is absurd. Instead, a better advised view is that though we can and do err, that is already a first point of knowledge, error exists, E. Indeed, it is undeniable as ~E means it is error to assert E. Therefore knowable truth exists and truth as what accurately describes reality, its contents and states of affairs exists. As we can know we are rational, and are self moved embodied creatures who share a common world. I have already pointed you to Eng Derek Smith's two tier controller cybernetic loop model. You may profit from it. See https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/reference-the-smith-model-an-architecture-for-cybernetics-and-mind-body-free-will-determinism-compatibilism-analysis/ KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2022
April
04
Apr
11
11
2022
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

SA @14, The point is that "God," in the ways that several here describe it and what it does, cannot be described in those terms because it's a categorical error. God is not "designing" anything because all God can do is choose a design. The idea that God "chose" a design, much like the idea that God created (or instantiated) the universe completely, as a concept, relies on God already existing in some form of linear time (before choice, after choice, before creation, after.) Then we get to "where" God instantiated its design. Unless God already existed in a spatial framework, where did God create the spatial universe? Are we going to suspend logic and claim God created something from nothing? You can't get something from nothing. We might string the following words together as a proposed explanation: the potential existed for an actual space-time physical universe. The problem with that is that in order for the potential for linear time to be drawn out of the potential, linear time must already exist - and by exist, I mean be actual in some way. Linear time must already be at least an active mental state of God in order for the concept of God making a choice, or creating anything, to have any non-absurd meaning. The idea of God creating "space" (space in the ordinary sense, meaning a place for a thing to be) is self-refuting because the thing God is creating a place for is "place" itself, or creating space for space. You can create space for a thing in already-existent space by moving things in that space around; but there's no space to "move around" to have room for space itself. It's the same thing as 'creating time." You can create a thing in a linear time sequence; you cannot create linear-time sequences themselves or else you cannot have the "before" and "after" that are necessary for the word "create" to have any meaning. We apply terms and sequences of words and attribute them to God, but they are clearly irrational and are categorical errors, concepts exported from the human perspective but which cannot be applied to the kind of God several people are arguing for here. The ground of being is potential. Potential governs what any being can do or experience, ever, anywhere, even God. Whatever "space" is, whatever "time" is, they are not things that can be "created." That's a nonsensical concept as far as I can tell.William J Murray_{April 11, 2022
April
04
Apr
11
11
2022
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc said:
First, you assuming that consciousness is causal rather than perceptual, something that may or may not be true.
I'm not assuming it. I directly experience it.
While we all experience conscious deliberation when we design things, that doesn’t mean that anything capable of designing things would also experience consciousness, and this would be especially true when talking about hypothetical “designers” who do not even have a complex living brain.
You are apparently trying to redefine the word "design" to suit your argument. From Merriam-Webster:
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE design a system for tracking inventory 2a: to conceive and plan out in the mind he designed the perfect crime b: to have as a purpose : INTEND she designed to excel in her studies c: to devise for a specific function or end

Again, we are certainly capable of performing complex, intelligent behaviors that require planning without conscious involvement,
That's interesting. Care to provide an example?
...and we simply don’t understand consciousness in a way that would tell us whether it is a causal aspect of our thinking or simply our perception of non-conscious brain activities.
Unfortunately, if conscious, aware perception is caused by non-conscious brain activities, our discussion is rendered nothing more than physical process making noises and producing mental states that may or may not have any correlation whatsoever. We would both be saying and thinking whatever various lower-level processes dictated without conscious oversight, control, error-correction, value-recognition, etc. Without conscious free will as a top-down supervisory cause, we might as well just be two trees making noises caused by the wind going through our leaves.
Second, you are reifying intelligence. Intelligence is not a thing, it is a property of living things. It is not a unitary property, it is a collection of different particular abilities.
Properties of living things are things. Sets/collections are things. Concepts are things. Again, from MW, the definition of intelligence:
(1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON also : the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
Abilities are things. Abstractions are things. Thing, from the same source:
1: an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated use this thing 2a: an inanimate object distinguished from a living being b: a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity c: the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances d: a spatial entity
William J Murray_{April 11, 2022
April
04
Apr
11
11
2022
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

WJM,
Highly complex interdependent functional machinery appears to require not only intelligence to design and build, but conscious, deliberate planning directed towards a goal. That is the only known cause for such things to come into existence. That doesn’t make it the correct conclusion; but it does make it the best one and actually the only one we have available to us at this time to explain what we see in biology. At least, it’s the only one we have without entering an entirely different paradigm of causation.
First, you assuming that consciousness is causal rather than perceptual, something that may or may not be true. While we all experience conscious deliberation when we design things, that doesn't mean that anything capable of designing things would also experience consciousness, and this would be especially true when talking about hypothetical "designers" who do not even have a complex living brain. Again, we are certainly capable of performing complex, intelligent behaviors that require planning without conscious involvement, and we simply don't understand consciousness in a way that would tell us whether it is a causal aspect of our thinking or simply our perception of non-conscious brain activities. You might read about the experiments of the late, brilliant Daniel Wegner to understand these questions better. Second, you are reifying intelligence. Intelligence is not a thing, it is a property of living things. It is not a unitary property, it is a collection of different particular abilities. To argue that intelligence is an independent cause, necessarily accompanied by consciousness, is a type of anthropomorphic fallacy.dogdoc_{April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

WJM
For God, it would just be a case of choosing what design He wanted to actualize.
Ok, but in shorthand one could call that "the design process". The information exists in potentia. Then God's will actualizes the potential - not creating from nothing but instantiating potential by making-actual. We still observe what we call "designed objects" even if everything (including random effects) emerge from pre-existing potential information.Silver Asiatic_{April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

What other source can produce the information in question?
The information must have always existed in potentia or else there is no "producing" it, whether by chance or by intelligent designer. It's not a question of producing information; it's a question of what can take information from potential into some form of actual, and what that can be said to mean. What that transition can mean largely depends on ontology. To think of the information is to draw it from potential into an active mental state. The idea of "designing" something requires this. Under non-idealism, and under the premise of linear causation/design of physical objects, it is correct to say that after the information is taken from potential into active mental states, that information is instantiated into objects. So, you have potential->active mental state->instantiation into physical objects. Under idealism, however, there is no "instantiation into physical objects." There is only the drawing of potential as information into an active mental state. The question under this ontology, however, is if deliberate design is a necessary aspect for having experiences of complex, functional things, like cars, computers, and biological nano-technology? If every possible designed thing already exists in full as potential information, it is not necessary for a conscious, deliberate entity to do any of the "designing." All that is necessary is to directly access that design information, which could be directly drawn out of potential as an entirely physical experience. IOW, the physical manifestation (as experience) of a perfectly designed thing without any deliberate designing whatsoever on anyone's part. Please note that from this perspective, even in the non-idealist version of reality and an "all-knowing" God, God doesn't have to do any deliberate designing either. God would already be aware of every possible design residing in potential. So, nobody - not even God - is actually, under any ontology, designing anything. All we can do is find designs that already exist. In the case of humans, designs are usually teased out of the potential bit by bit; for some, like Tesla, they are capable (at times) of accessing the entire design at once. But God wouldn't need to do any "designing" whatsoever. For God, it would just be a case of choosing what design He wanted to actualize.William J Murray_{April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc
This is what I meant by the hand-waiving and vague references to “a mind of some sort”. We can’t really extrapolate from our experience to imagine anything at all about what “some kind of intelligence” might mean.
I made a mistake in my reply to you in moving into the philosophical ideas about the designer before you've made a commitment to the ID inference. It seems you don't understand the ID proposal. ID is a scientific paradigm. It uses physical empirical science about what we can observe. The inference is built upon the idea that "intelligence is the only known source" for some of the complex, specified functional information, networks and processes we observe in the universe. That's it. We know what intelligence can do. We see things in nature, like coded, functional language, that are only produced by intelligence. If you have some other source in mind, you're free to propose it. The ID inference is falsifiable. If you can produce the information with a blind-watchmaker approach or any blind-unintelligent approach, please feel free to do it and show us the results. Until then, the ID inference stands. There's no need to give an identity to the designer. We know it is not blind, material outputs as the source (you can prove that wrong by showing, not telling it). We know that intelligence produces the outputs (coded communication networks, irreducible engineered systems with logic-gates and repair mechanisms). The inference is "an intelligence designed it". No hand-waving necessary.
We can’t really extrapolate from our experience to imagine anything at all about what “some kind of intelligence” might mean.
We already know of many kinds of intelligence. So, the phrase "some kind of intelligence" is well understood. There's intelligence built into computers, animal intelligence, intelligence of plants and insects and human intelligence. All of those "kinds of intelligence" create designed outputs. Are beavers "conscious" when they created intelligently-designed beaver dams? It doesn't matter for the ID inference. We know the difference between a beaver-dam and a log-jam in the stream - because one is designed by animal intelligence and is purposeful, for a purpose.
Well, if you look at a mosquito and an octopus it’s not clear that the same designer came up with both of those designs, right?
That would refute Darwin if true, since evolution is proposing a single blind-watchmaker designer for both.
Calling something a “designer” and saying it has “intelligence” doesn’t actually specify any meaningful attributes.
If it possesses intelligence, then it's not blind-materialism. That's the ID inference. You either accept that or refute it by showing us what blind, unintelligent nature can produce. Thus far, nobody shows anything close to what is needed. From non-living material, through random chance a self-replicating organism has to emerge. Not to mention the highly specified language of DNA code. That can't even be done in theory, much less in the lab. It's the monkeys typing Shakespeare.
I’m looking for some specific, describable thing that would account for the origin of biological systems, with independent evidence of its existence. You, on the other hand, are starting with a set of anthropomorphic assumptions.
I'm open to your alternatives. I propose blind chance and intelligent design as the options to work with. You're thinking there's some other alternative. What other source can produce the information in question? Where do you see evidence of this source existing? I see evidence of intelligence producing the source. Thus, the inference stands. This does not require anthropomorphism. You can propose any kind of intelligence you want. But that's the only known source we have. So, it's up to you. The ID inference is clear and can be falsified. But failing falsification, it stands as the best inference to an explanation.Silver Asiatic_{April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

There are some simulation theories that posit humans as avatars that represent the free will choices and decisions of "actual" people outside of the simulation who are interacting in an immersive way with the internal content of the simulation via some sort of technology. It's not really that far-fetched; one might consider dreams another form of an immersive simulation. Even if the external world is non-simulated, the only way we can ever interact with it is via a simulation of that world presented to us in our personal experience. Positing external reality as having innate characteristics that are being translated into personal experience necessarily means that what we experience is an internal simulation of an external world. The only logical escape from experience being some form or other of simulation is if personal experience = reality. In other words, the inner world must be the real world and not a simulation of the real world.William J Murray_{April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

F/N: Observed in the field, at Sci Am: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/
Ever since the philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed in the Philosophical Quarterly that the universe and everything in it might be a simulation, there has been intense public speculation and debate about the nature of reality. Such public intellectuals as Tesla leader and prolific Twitter gadfly Elon Musk have opined about the statistical inevitability of our world being little more than cascading green code. Recent papers have built on the original hypothesis to further refine the statistical bounds of the hypothesis, arguing that the chance that we live in a simulation may be 50–50 . . . . To understand if we live in a simulation we need to start by looking at the fact that we already have computers running all kinds of simulations for lower level “intelligences” or algorithms. For easy visualization, we can imagine these intelligences as any nonperson characters in any video game that we play, but in essence any algorithm operating on any computing machine would qualify for our thought experiment. We don’t need the intelligence to be conscious, and we don’t need it to even be very complex, because the evidence we are looking for is “experienced” by all computer programs, simple or complex, running on all machines, slow or fast. All computing hardware leaves an artifact of its existence within the world of the simulation it is running. This artifact is the processor speed. If for a moment we imagine that we are a software program running on a computing machine, the only and inevitable artifact of the hardware supporting us, within our world, would be the processor speed. All other laws we would experience would be the laws of the simulation or the software we are a part of . . . . we have some defining features of the artifact, of course it becomes clear what the artifact manifests itself as within our universe. The artifact is manifested as the speed of light. Space is to our universe what numbers are to the simulated reality in any computer. Matter moving through space can simply be seen as operations happening on the variable space. If matter is moving at say 1,000 miles per second, then 1,000 miles worth of space is being transformed by a function, or operated upon every second. If there were some hardware running the simulation called “space” of which matter, energy, you, me, everything is a part, then one telltale sign of the artifact of the hardware within the simulated reality “space” would be a maximum limit on the container size for space on which one operation can be performed. Such a limit would appear in our universe as a maximum speed.
Blissfully unaware of the self referential grand delusion. KFkairosfocus_{April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

DD, here we go again. on the world of life a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond where Venter et al are would be a possible explanation for what we see. on observed fine tuning, there is obviously an extra cosmic designer. BTW, this already demonstrates that we have observed actual intelligent, molecular tech design of cell based life through gene and wider molecular nanotech so this is fact not merely plausible. However, simulationism raises the progress of computing technology, then argues that there is a tendency to build simulations. Once that is there, the perception is, it is odds on that members of a cosmos would be in a sim world not a physical fully actualised world. This is related to the Boltzmann Brain challenge. A sim world is obviously designed but its designer would be a programmer who would not need to be a necessary being; though, as a proposed physical world hosting computers, the extended argument to ultimate, necessary being root of reality still applies. So, as a direct inference on tested, reliable signs to intelligently directed configuration, by itself the design inference, properly and for innocent reasons, does not infer any particular designer. As to extrapolation on our intelligence, we EXEMPLIFY, but cannot EXHAUST potential designers, so there is no good reason to confine inference from we exist as designers, to human only designers are possible -- rather than, simply, designers are possible. Designers leave signs, and theism itself points to the need for a regular order of nature for miracles to stand out as signs pointing beyond that order. That we generally see a lawlike regularity does not and cannot preclude action beyond that order. KF PS, I do not agree with simulationism, especially as it reduces responsible, rational freedom to algorithms exhibiting dynamic-stochastic process. If we are sims, we are not rational and we can have no warrant so no knowledge including of being sims. Grand delusion in short. While indeed, we will be able to make powerful sims, it is far more credible that we are responsible, rational self-moved creatures with significant freedom than that we are part of a grand delusion consequent on being part of a sim world. Any species of grand delusion world can be rejected as absurd. PPS, We come to mind. For that, I point to Eng Derek Smith's two tier controller, cybernetic loop architecture. Our minds would be seen then as supervisory controllers interacting with the brain-cns-body loop, likely through two way quantum related influences. And yes, that points to entities of a different order interacting with the physical.kairosfocus_{April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc, Highly complex interdependent functional machinery appears to require not only intelligence to design and build, but conscious, deliberate planning directed towards a goal. That is the only known cause for such things to come into existence. That doesn't make it the correct conclusion; but it does make it the best one and actually the only one we have available to us at this time to explain what we see in biology. At least, it's the only one we have without entering an entirely different paradigm of causation. Do I personally believe some super-intelligence purposefully designed and built life? No, but I don't base my personal beliefs on things like facts and evidence.William J Murray_{April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

SA,
The design inference will only bring us to “an intelligence”...
This is what I meant by the hand-waiving and vague references to "a mind of some sort". We can't really extrapolate from our experience to imagine anything at all about what "some kind of intelligence" might mean. For example, in humans and other animals, not all intelligent behavior is conscious, so we couldn't even say that this hypothetical "intelligence" that designed biological systems would be conscious.
We could figure out that we have, as Aristotle calls it “The first principle or primary being”. This is because of the unity of the design and consistency that we observe. Something like the Fibonacci mathematical sequence that appears in plants and animals and even non-living materials like crystals. So, this tells us that there is a unity in the design pointing to one designer.
Well, if you look at a mosquito and an octopus it's not clear that the same designer came up with both of those designs, right? But in any case, the problem remains: Calling something a "designer" and saying it has "intelligence" doesn't actually specify any meaningful attributes. We can't say if it has conscious intentions like humans do, or if it would be capable of learning French, or playing the piano, or understanding emotions, and so on.
For Sir Isaac Newton, the beauty of the cosmos could only have been created by a wise and intelligent designer.
Wise? Anyway, I think we're approaching this question from different perspectives. I'm looking for some specific, describable thing that would account for the origin of biological systems, with independent evidence of its existence. You, on the other hand, are starting with a set of anthropomorphic assumptions. Once you assume the cause of biological complexity has human-like thoughts and emotions, you can read into any possible observation with human-like motives, such as that it has an "interest in beautiful forms". Any theory of life origins has to pin down exactly what its talking about and figure out ways of testing the truth of the hypotheses. The multiverse actually has some rigorous specificity about it, but it's useless as a theory because it can explain absolutely anything we could ever observe, so it can never be evaluated against our observations to see if it is true. Likewise a "designer" - there is nothing in the description of "an intelligence" that would be inconsistent with any possible observation, so there is no way to see if that description is of something that caused life to exist.dogdoc_{April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc The design inference will only bring us to "an intelligence" and true design would be as you say: From the mind of conscious being. But we don't fully have that just by recognizing the design inference. We observe something that cannot be caused by blind, unintelligent nature. We know that "biological intelligence" could create something similar. But again, as you say, a biological being cannot be the cause of the origin of life, for example. So, it's "some kind of intelligence". But after that, we could still figure out something much more than what we have with a multiverse. We could figure out that we have, as Aristotle calls it "The first principle or primary being". This is because of the unity of the design and consistency that we observe. Something like the Fibonacci mathematical sequence that appears in plants and animals and even non-living materials like crystals. So, this tells us that there is a unity in the design pointing to one designer. Many consistent patterns are found frequently in nature in a variety of places. This just tells us something about the mathematical modelling that the universe conforms to. So, it tells us something about the mind of the designer - highly ordered symmetry. Plus, just the beauty that we see all around us. For Sir Isaac Newton, the beauty of the cosmos could only have been created by a wise and intelligent designer. We could add that the designer has that interest in beautiful forms, and also makes knowledge accessible to humans since we can observe and learn about the universe in many ways and we keep uncovering new knowledge. There's no reason why biological creatures on planet earth should ever be able to know anything at all about the universe. But, amazingly, we can know a lot and this tells us something about the intention of the design - that it was meant to be discovered and appreciated by humans.Silver Asiatic_{April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

The problem I have with the "design inference" is this: When we say something is "designed", what are exactly are we saying? I presume it means that it was envisioned in the mind's eye of a conscious being. Now, we know of precisely one type of thing that can design, and that is "living biological organisms". For me there is a great mystery pondering how the complex, functional machinery of biological systems came to exist, but it's obvious that they did not arise by the action of humans or other animals. People tend to waive their hands and mumble about "some sort of entity" or "a mind of some sort" or simply "a designer", but none of that actually specifies what we believe could be responsible. It's like a physicist talking about the "multiverse" - it can explain anything but nobody can say exactly what it is or how to decide if it exists.dogdoc_{April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

News, commenting on Meyer:
A great deal has been invested in not understanding something as simple and obvious as the design inference. That’s powerful evidence that it is an important insight
Indeed. Telling, and it points to Overton Window marginalisation of the manifest truth by powers pushing agendas locked to crooked yardstick untruths. That locks in polarisation and conflict and ultimately resorts to the indefensible to prop up power interests. In short, power backed untruth leads to or is a foundation for injustice. KFkairosfocus_{April 8, 2022
April
04
Apr
8
08
2022
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

and one more off topic comment: it is not a question whether life on Earth was design or not. The only question is, how it was done. And, it definitely wasn't done the way - let's mix some chemicals, in a flask, then let's shake it a little, then heat it and little, then cool it down a little ... you can't work like that to create any complex system. It is absurd absurd absurd... I as an engineer, i am 100% sure, that our Creator, has some other means/methods/technologies how to work with molecules ... something that hasn't be discovered yet by scientists ... something different from our commonly understood chemistry...martin_r_{April 8, 2022
April
04
Apr
8
08
2022
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

off topic, but design related. Darwinists claim, that evolution works like follows: It starts with a very simple 'system', and then the system gets more complex, by adding new parts to existing ones. I am an engineer and her is my experience, actually, IT IS A FACT: It is much easier to create new designs from scratch (mostly it is the only option) than to modify/add new parts to an existing system (unless the system wasn't designed that way in advance). The reason for it is very simple. Most of the time, you also have to modify the existing parts, so they work flawlessly with those new parts. THAT IS THE FACT. Darwinists believe in miracles, when they believe that adding a new part/feature to an existing system can be added willy-nilly. Only people or biologists who never made anything can believe such absurd things.martin_r_{April 8, 2022
April
04
Apr
8
08
2022
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

The content of the sequence isn't what matters. In cryptography as well as every other type of detective work, the PURPOSE of the sequence is what matters. Cryptographers get most of their results from traffic analysis. Who sent the message, who received it, and above all what happened when it was received. When the purpose of this message is known, the inner content is unnecessary. Other types of technicians, from telephone linemen to programmers, use 'wiggle and watch' constantly. The inner content of a miles-long underground cable is completely unknowable, but the impedance and impulse response can be measured precisely, and the location of a break or short can be inferred from those measurements. Modern digital types don't grasp traffic analysis. They foolishly believe that encrypting their email or their bitcoin wallet protects them against censorship or theft. Nope. The thieves and the censors are traffic analysts. They can see who you are, who you connect with, and what happens when you send an email or transfer fake "value" to your wallet.polistra_{April 8, 2022
April
04
Apr
8
08
2022
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply