Yet another false positive for ID

| 54 Comments

Remember how Dembski, despite common sense, argued that the design inference was free of false positives. And yet, history has shown countless examples of false positives. Nevertheless, IDers seem to get a lot of mileage from their Mount Rushmore example. So here is a another example of ‘design’

indian_face_google_earth.jpg

The feature can be studied in more details on Google Maps

Perhaps ID activists can explain why this example would not count as yet another false positive? Hat tip to Jim Armstrong on the ASA Reflector. Also noticeable is how the ‘Indian’ seems to be listening to what may very well have been the world’s first iPod.…

54 Comments

Quick! Someone call Richard Hoagland!

(It is an astoundingly clear 3d relief. Amazing.)

Quick! Someone call Richard Hoagland!

(It is an astoundingly clear 3d relief. Amazing.)

Dude be groovin’.

mmmm must buy a ipod.…

As if the conspiracy theorists needed more ammunition, did anyone else look at that and say that that face looks like an Egyptian Pharoe?

“did anyone else look at that and say that that face looks like an Egyptian Pharoe?”

Yep. That is precisely what I saw it as.

“did anyone else look at that and say that that face looks like an Egyptian Pharoe?”

Yep. That is precisely what I saw it as.

..did anyone else look at that and say that that face looks like an Egyptian Pharoe?

Yeah I thought the same…why do those guys always look like they are watching sport on TV, in a bar?

I also see Noah’s ark - it is stranded to the right of the eye. From this we know for a fact that the mountain must be Ararat. And you claim that design isn’t predictive? Whatever gave you that idea???

This is obviously an attempt by Apple Computer to market its iPod to a “larger” market.

[This is obviously an attempt by Apple Computer to market its iPod to a “larger” market.]

By intelligently designing the rocks? Shame on them.

So is that his ‘Medicine Hat’ he’s wearing?

(zoom out a few times on the Google Maps version)

This feature is most certainly not an ‘Indian’. It is obviously a Nubian Princess in full head dress with a smiling crocodile on her shoulder. The supposed ‘earphone’ is merely a haphazard (but still designed!) natural feature superimposed upon the edifice.

All fun aside, has anyone every thought of surveying/polling tourists visiting Mount Rushmore (before they enter the monument…)?? I’d bet a significant percentage of them would believe that the granite faces are a natural feature, not sculpted by drilling and blasting.

Oh wait! Either way, that would be evidence for the Intelligent Designer! Isn’t it grand that by using ID “logic”, you just can’t lose?

Kudos on a great post!!

Obviously it’s not designed because it’s not a former President.

Sheeesh!

(Although, it could be Coolidge at a Y-Indian Princess gathering.)

Steve Jobs is a clever bastard…

Re “say that that face looks like an Egyptian Pharoe?”

Tut, Tut!

Great! Big! If nobody else claim it as his own creation, maybe I’ll volunteer. Somebody must be responsible for that. However, I’ll give Steve a chance.

Ha, wrong again! Of course it’s intelligent design, for it’s a miracle. Please consider buying this miracle on eBay for the low starting price of $16,000.

The particular Native American depicted is chief Bay-hay, prophet of creation to the Chipiquaw people. He was sent by God or Zaphod Beeblebrox, from out of the lost tribes of Israel, to teach the New World the science of aliens and/or God creating the world from a piece of the Milky Way fallen from the heavens into the cosmic ocean. As proof, God or Zaphod instructed Bay-hay to point to the roundness of the sun and the moon, which could not randomly form into discs or spheres. As we all konw, intelligence had to carefully sculpt such perfect shapes.

God or Zaphod also told Bay-hay to prophesize of the coming of two greater prophets, Behe and Dembski, who would transform the world with magical words and numbers which miraculously bear no relationship to the corrupt world here below. That will be the proof of their own divine calling. And we shall know when the true Behe and Dembski appear when the false prophets, the “scientists”, denounce them by name. Such is the sign of their appearing. This all is in my book, “Bay-hay, lost tribe prophet and visionary design theorist”, only $79.95 on Amazon. Hurry, though, because the miracle of chief Bay-hay will sell soon on eBay. And I’m sure you’d all like to know more about the iPod through which God or Zaphod communicated with Bay-hay”.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

The brilliance of the filter is that there can be no false positives or true negatives! Since the universe might have been created by an omniscient being, everything in it could be intelligently designed. Since it all might be intelligently designed, there is nothing at all in the universe you can conclusively state is not a designed trait, so no false cases for the filter to be mistaken about.

And since the filter doesn’t even have a negative case (it’s not yes/no, it’s yes/could-be-but-maybe-not), the filter can’t possibly fail in the other direction either!

It’s a hallmark of good science that a theory be immune to testing. Ideas that might turn out to be false are untrustworthy and not worth calling science to any right-thinking person. Since no possible evidence can refute the filter, it must be true!

Bask in the warm glow of total immunity to reality!

Trivially true. The reason ID can’t be falsified is because it’s not false.

I’d bet a significant percentage of them would believe that the granite faces are a natural feature, not sculpted by drilling and blasting.

And that the huge pile of rubble at the base of the mountain was deposited during the Flood.

You’re missing the point. The issue is that since we can’t know the mind of the designer, ID can’t even be falsified in principle. Some structures work perfectly; some (for example the panda’s thumb) don’t. There’s no criterion for distinguishing between the two or divining what the designer wanted to happen. Evolution (and all of science) requires persuasive evidence and reasoning; ID is an ad hoc explanation that ‘works’ no matter what the actual world looks like. It’s useless as an explanatory theory.

Could this be what he’s listening to?

http://maps.google.com/?t=k&ll=[…]52912,0.2005

Could this be what he’s listening to?

http://maps.google.com/?t=k&ll=[…]52912,0.2005

There is another “designed” face to the northwest-ish of the “Indian” head. Looks a bit like a bearded guy in an elf hat. All of that design in Canada - hmmm…

mere metres aways from this: a snake coming out of a man’s forehead.

So we can be certain by now that Canada is a designed country?

Trivially true. The reason ID can’t be falsified is because it’s not false.

and it’s not even true either :-)

This springs to mind:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc[…]e/index.html

But then, maybe I watch too much sci-fi !

Re “Trivially true. The reason ID can’t be falsified is because it’s not false.”

Re “and it’s not even true either :-)”

So, what you guys are saying is that to be either true or false, it first has to actually say something? ;)

Henry

Bask in the warm glow of total immunity to reality!

I think that is the best line summing up the ID movement that I’ve ever heard.

There is yet another opportunity for the IDs to try to apply The Filter. According to an article in Science 22 September, there is a claim that some hills in Bosnia are actually pyramids. Some say they are just hills. No faces, so it’s hard to tell.

I still don’t accept your undemonstrated claims that all existence, life, mind and reason itself can be accounted for my mindless processess.

I await the scientific demonstration of all of the above.

I still don’t accept

Then don’t. Nobody cares what you accept or don’t accept. Heck, there are people who don’t accept that the earth is round, or that it revolves around the sun. (shrug)

my mindless processes

You said it, not us.

I still don’t accept your undemonstrated claims that all existence, life, mind and reason itself can be accounted for my mindless processess. I await the scientific demonstration of all of the above

From this I assume you are prepared to scientifically demonstrate your claims? Using the accepted methods of science?

Oh, I didn’t think so.

Bye.

I still don’t accept your undemonstrated claims that all existence, life, mind and reason itself can be accounted for my [sic] mindless processess.

And yet you no doubt believe in a virgin birth, 900 year old people, talking burning bushes, and dead men coming back to life, all because you were told so in a quaint book of tales written by ignorant desert tribesmen before we knew the world wasn’t flat.

Methinks your epistemology could use some work.

Grady Wrote:

I still don’t accept your undemonstrated claims that all existence, life, mind and reason itself can be accounted for my mindless processess.

I await the scientific demonstration of all of the above.

Wow, yet another Creationist whose primary method of argument seems to be the conflation of science with atheism. *yawn*. How pedestrian.

Are you people really so insecure in your faith that you believe that anything that does not require a god somehow denies the possibility of a god? If you were around back in the days of the first scientific explanations of weather that didn’t involve gods in the sky hurling lightning bolts around, you would be writing paragraphs like:

I still don’t accept your undemonstrated claims that all lightning, rain, snow, thunder, and hail can be accounted for by mindless processess.

Because you present a strawman version of what evolution actually says, I doubt you are actually sincerely interested in the scientific arguments in its favor, but in the off chance that you do actually care, might I recommend TalkOrigins as probably the best place to find layman-friendly summaries of the current state of evolutionary science, including a very detailed scientific argument for biological common descent.

And yet you no doubt believe in a virgin birth, 900 year old people, talking burning bushes, and dead men coming back to life, all because you were told so in a quaint book of tales written by ignorant desert tribesmen before we knew the world wasn’t flat.

Well, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. He might not be a Christian creationist; he could be a Muslim creationist, or a Hindu creationist.

(Is there such a thing as a Buddhist creationist?)

I have encountered Buddhist creationism, but it’s a rare bird, even in Buddhist parts of the world.

We need a better word for Hindu “creationism”, since their brand of evolution-denial posits a world that was never created and is infinitely old.

Re “We need a better word for Hindu “creationism”, since their brand of evolution-denial posits a world that was never created and is infinitely old.”

That’s not evolution denial, that’s Big-Bang denial. And, if they think life always existed then they’d have no need of abiogenesis. Interesting.

Henry

I still don’t accept your undemonstrated claims that all existence, life, mind and reason itself can be accounted for my mindless processess.

I await the scientific demonstration of all of the above.

Let’s start small. What about the pharaoh listening to an ipod visible in the geologic formation seen in the image at the top of this thread? Can that be accounted for by mindless processes?

We need a better word for Hindu “creationism”, since their brand of evolution-denial posits a world that was never created and is infinitely old.

Is bing-bang denial even under the purvue of this blog? I mean, does believing in an infinitely old Universe contradict the theory of evolution?

And yes, “creationism” seems to be misnomer. Better would be “incarnationism”, but I wonder if these lead to any problems with evolution.

Is bing-bang denial even under the purvue of this blog? I mean, does believing in an infinitely old Universe contradict the theory of evolution?

In their case it does, because as far as I’m aware they believe that humans have existed for as long as the earth itself has.

Henry J Wrote:
Michael Suttkus, II Wrote:

We need a better word for Hindu “creationism”, since their brand of evolution-denial posits a world that was never created and is infinitely old.

That’s not evolution denial, that’s Big-Bang denial. And, if they think life always existed then they’d have no need of abiogenesis. Interesting.

It is. They hold that the Earth is infinitely old and has always been in it’s modern state with cows, chickens, humans, pangolins, and tardigrades. So, no evolution! Evolution denies the truth of reincarnation!

It’s funny, they use the same “evidence” as the YECs. Only the fossil hammer which “proves” to a YEC that man lived with the dinosaurs 6000 years ago, proves absolutely that humans lived millions of years ago, just like cows and chickens!

Henry J Wrote:
Michael Suttkus, II Wrote:

We need a better word for Hindu “creationism”, since their brand of evolution-denial posits a world that was never created and is infinitely old.

That’s not evolution denial, that’s Big-Bang denial. And, if they think life always existed then they’d have no need of abiogenesis. Interesting.

It is. They hold that the Earth is infinitely old and has always been in it’s modern state with cows, chickens, humans, pangolins, and tardigrades. So, no evolution! Evolution denies the truth of reincarnation!

It’s funny, they use the same “evidence” as the YECs. Only the fossil hammer which “proves” to a YEC that man lived with the dinosaurs 6000 years ago, proves absolutely that humans lived millions of years ago, just like cows and chickens!

I ran the original post through my obviousness-checking proggy, and it flagged this:

Dembski, despite common sense, argued

Notice that I waited over an hour for the post to show up before reposting. Even then, despite the timestamp, they didn’t appear until sometime today after I visited this morning.

I don’t see anything except what looks like sand dunes. Am I missing something?

Mike Bradley:

I don’t see anything except what looks like sand dunes. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are. If you had followed your own advice from your “Mars Face” blog and applied your “explanatory filter”, you would have found out that these are not sand dunes.

Seriously, what is that white line that forms the “cord” of the “earpiece”?

Hey, that’s not just any Indian. That’s the “Mayan Cosmonaut” from the Palenque slab, that von Däniken loved so much! Here, he is depicted relaxing a little, listening to some good precolumbian rock’n’roll, before boarding his ship. Isn’t it obvious?

That would tend to prove that space aliens are involved.

The white line looks like a road to me, especially the bit at the end that looks like a turn around. Zoom in really close.

I suppose the only way to tell is to get out our CSI-o-meter and see if it’s specified and/or complex!

Should one compare the complxity of a three-dimensional rock formation to that of a three-dimensional organism? At first glance, this would seem to argue against creationist’s reasoning, but I do have to wonder how well organic and non-organic “structures” compare statistically. If such rock formations were a sign that “order could come from no order,” I would by now have expected to see more than one tree of life in the last four billion years.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on October 26, 2006 10:32 PM.

Iowa/Vander Plaats update was the previous entry in this blog.

Iowa situation–update on the update is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter