Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[The Grand Nudger]

IOW, you accept that it is random. It also has a sequence to it.

So, lets see, things are not either "by design or random" - there are other options, and a sequence can present itself even in random things.

I can promise you that if 1000 people flipped coins just a few times, the same pattern would present itself in every case...lol. We can do it right now(in a small way), here on the boards...if you'd like

[Whateverist]

Either it's by design or its random....

My gawd but you are thick. Random processes produce pattern, even predictable pattern. If you want to equate pattern with design then you simply have to give up saying bullshit like this.

What's it like to be you? You use your intellect so often to make a case rather than to perceive the truth. I can only imagine how that degrades your humanity. So grateful my parents weren't more adept at enlisting me into that way of life.

[Huggy Bear]

IOW, you accept that it is random. It also has a sequence to it.

So, lets see, things are not either "by design or random" - there are other options, and a sequence can present itself even in random things.

I can promise you that if 1000 people flipped coins just a few times, the same pattern would present itself in every case...lol. We can do it right now(in a small way), here on the boards...if you'd like

I accept that things can occur randomly or the word wouldn't exist, sequences cannot occur randomly, take music for example.

I remember seeing a video where Dawkins used computers to simulate the adage of monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

I don't think it produced one word randomly, so he programed the computer to recognize sequence, but the simple fact of him having to program the computer in the first place suggests design does it not?

my memory could be a little fuzzy on that video, so i would appreciate if anyone has a link.

---

Either it's by design or its random....

My gawd but you are thick. Random processes produce pattern, even predictable pattern. If you want to equate pattern with design then you simply have to give up saying bullshit like this.

What's it like to be you? You use your intellect so often to make a case rather than to perceive the truth. I can only imagine how that degrades your humanity. So grateful my parents weren't more adept at enlisting me into that way of life.

once again, I don't have an issue with a pattern being produced randomly, I gave snowflakes as an example. If however all snowflakes were the same then there would have to be a reason behind it, it couldn't just occur randomly.

would you agree to that?

[The Grand Nudger]

I accept that things can occur randomly or the word wouldn't exist, sequences cannot occur randomly, take music for example.

No...take my coins. Its random, and yet you'll get a sequence. 1000 people flipping them, 1 billion, you'll still find that sequence.

If however all snowflakes were the same then there would have to be a reason behind it, it couldn't just occur randomly.

All snowflakes are not the same, similarly, you won't find any single pattern or sequence in -everything-.

But yes, when you find that a large group of things all conform to a pattern there is generally a reason for that(we don;t always know why..so that's why I say generally). Even in the example of flipped coins...there is a reason that we will find patterns or sequences in such a random thing. And?

[Esquilax]

It appears that you can't grasp the concept of the word "sequence". A sequence is never random...hence the word.

Funny you should mention that, since the implication of design is not present in the definition you gave, nor within the word. A sequence implies a timeline of events, but there's no necessity that it be designed: 1, 5, 8, 49, 65, 79. There. That's a sequence of ascending numbers that I made by pushing random keys on my keyboard.

So to be clear, you've tried to define an attribute into the term "sequence" using a definition that doesn't include that attribute, and into this patently false mix you've thrown an unearned sense of intellectual superiority. Good stuff, but even if I were to accept it all, all you've done is toyed with definitions: you would simply be asserting that the presence of these things in nature is a sequence, but you can't change reality by fiat demand. You'd have to actually demonstrate that what you're attempting to define into reality is true, because it's equally possible that these Fibonacci Sequences you're seeing in nature are just disparate, unconnected coincidences; you are asserting a connection, without ever demonstrating one, and then pretending that we somehow have to prove you wrong.

randomly banging on the keys of a piano = noise, but in sequence = music

Oh, really?





Which actually just goes to show something else that's rather important: sequences can also be identified and given significance via the observer, despite the random source. Those random notes in that video become "music" because of their pleasing sound to the ear, not just because they are in a sequence. If I draw a hand of cards shuffled at random and end up getting all the same suit in ascending numerical order, that doesn't necessitate a designer, in fact that random card order has exactly the same probability of any other hand; the thing lending that specific hand significance, what makes it a "sequence" is the human mind reading it and imposing an order upon it when the cards themselves do not care.

In this case, you're employing a sharpshooter fallacy, and picking out only the disparate data points that agree with the conclusion you want to reach while ignoring those that don't. All that shows is you've been able to find things in common in something as large as all of reality.

No matter the handwaving woo peddling you're doing here, that's no great feat.

I remember seeing a video where Dawkins used computers to simulate the adage of monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Actually, no: that video was an attempt to illustrate how natural selection acts upon evolution. I know the one you're talking about, it's really old with some positively ancient technology in it, no? If so, it doesn't demonstrate what you think it does, given that it... you know, isn't talking about what you think it is.

Hey, I found it!





Starts at 4:40, or thereabouts.

[Huggy Bear]

It appears that you can't grasp the concept of the word "sequence". A sequence is never random...hence the word.

Funny you should mention that, since the implication of design is not present in the definition you gave, nor within the word. A sequence implies a timeline of events, but there's no necessity that it be designed: 1, 5, 8, 49, 65, 79. There. That's a sequence of ascending numbers that I made by pushing random keys on my keyboard.

So to be clear, you've tried to define an attribute into the term "sequence" using a definition that doesn't include that attribute, and into this patently false mix you've thrown an unearned sense of intellectual superiority. Good stuff, but even if I were to accept it all, all you've done is toyed with definitions: you would simply be asserting that the presence of these things in nature is a sequence, but you can't change reality by fiat demand. You'd have to actually demonstrate that what you're attempting to define into reality is true, because it's equally possible that these Fibonacci Sequences you're seeing in nature are just disparate, unconnected coincidences; you are asserting a connection, without ever demonstrating one, and then pretending that we somehow have to prove you wrong.

lining up numbers in a row doesn't make it a sequence
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence

A sequence can be thought of as a list of elements with a particular order. Sequences are useful in a number of mathematical disciplines for studying functions, spaces, and other mathematical structures using the convergence properties of sequences. In particular, sequences are the basis for series, which are important in differential equations and analysis. Sequences are also of interest in their own right and can be studied as patterns or puzzles, such as in the study of prime numbers.

---

randomly banging on the keys of a piano = noise, but in sequence = music

Oh, really?





Which actually just goes to show something else that's rather important: sequences can also be identified and given significance via the observer, despite the random source. Those random notes in that video become "music" because of their pleasing sound to the ear, not just because they are in a sequence. If I draw a hand of cards shuffled at random and end up getting all the same suit in ascending numerical order, that doesn't necessitate a designer, in fact that random card order has exactly the same probability of any other hand; the thing lending that specific hand significance, what makes it a "sequence" is the human mind reading it and imposing an order upon it when the cards themselves do not care.

In this case, you're employing a sharpshooter fallacy, and picking out only the disparate data points that agree with the conclusion you want to reach while ignoring those that don't. All that shows is you've been able to find things in common in something as large as all of reality.

No matter the handwaving woo peddling you're doing here, that's no great feat.

---

I'm no musician, but the fact that he is employing the use of chords means he is not banging away randomly on the piano. The chords may be random notes, but they are still chords. And the harmony between the random notes is what's pleasing to the ear.

---

I remember seeing a video where Dawkins used computers to simulate the adage of monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Actually, no: that video was an attempt to illustrate how natural selection acts upon evolution. I know the one you're talking about, it's really old with some positively ancient technology in it, no? If so, it doesn't demonstrate what you think it does, given that it... you know, isn't talking about what you think it is.

Hey, I found it!





Starts at 4:40, or thereabouts.

---

Thanks, was looking for that.

[Esquilax]

lining up numbers in a row doesn't make it a sequence
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence

A sequence can be thought of as a list of elements with a particular order. Sequences are useful in a number of mathematical disciplines for studying functions, spaces, and other mathematical structures using the convergence properties of sequences. In particular, sequences are the basis for series, which are important in differential equations and analysis. Sequences are also of interest in their own right and can be studied as patterns or puzzles, such as in the study of prime numbers.

Yeah, I don't find fiat denials to be particularly compelling as counter-arguments, especially when the first sentence of what you bring in as a supporting quote agrees with my claim: those random numbers are a list of elements with a particular (ascending) order. How does that not fit your definition?

I'm no musician, but the fact that he is employing the use of chords means he is not banging away randomly on the piano. The chords may be random notes, but they are still chords. And the harmony between the random notes is what's pleasing to the ear.

But the pleasing notes you're hearing, the sequence, is derived from a list of random notes, played on a random scale. That's sort of the point: it's a sequence, built out of random elements. The fact that it is a sequence doesn't detract from the fact that the elements within its set were made up on the spot.

Furthermore, I take it then that you agree with me when I say the significance one draws from that comes from the observer after the fact, and is not due to intentional design beforehand?

[Jackalope]

Interesting fact about the four random notes in that video: three of them comprise the chord C# minor. (Not that that fact is particularly relevant, the chances that 3 out of 4 random notes are part of some chord or scale is pretty damn high). It's also a fact that those four notes do *not* comprise a chord, nor are there any chords which have all four notes in them. Unlike Huggy74, I am a musician.

[Huggy Bear]

lining up numbers in a row doesn't make it a sequence
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence

Yeah, I don't find fiat denials to be particularly compelling as counter-arguments, especially when the first sentence of what you bring in as a supporting quote agrees with my claim: those random numbers are a list of elements with a particular (ascending) order. How does that not fit your definition?

Your numbers may be in ascending order but they are not in sequential order. The Fibonacci sequence adds the last two numbers to get the next number, eg. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13, that's the sequence.

in your "sequence" of 1, 5, 8, 49, 65, 79, how do you get from 1 to 5? From 5 to 8?

I'm no musician, but the fact that he is employing the use of chords means he is not banging away randomly on the piano. The chords may be random notes, but they are still chords. And the harmony between the random notes is what's pleasing to the ear.

But the pleasing notes you're hearing, the sequence, is derived from a list of random notes, played on a random scale. That's sort of the point: it's a sequence, built out of random elements. The fact that it is a sequence doesn't detract from the fact that the elements within its set were made up on the spot.

Furthermore, I take it then that you agree with me when I say the significance one draws from that comes from the observer after the fact, and is not due to intentional design beforehand?

That would imply that anyone is capable of accomplishing the same thing. The man is a trained musician. Place a monkey at the piano and see if you get the same result.

[Jackalope]

in your "sequence" of 1, 5, 8, 49, 65, 79, how do you get from 1 to 5? From 5 to 8?

A sequence often, but not always, has rules to find the next member. Esq's example is perfectly valid.