JohnW
Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
| Quote (Flint @ Mar. 29 2011,13:19) | | Quote | | I don't think there's any point in my responding to the rest of your post since I think it's clear that the question of whether CSI measures amount vs threshold is the crux of the difference between our readings. |
There is no versus here. The threshhold is DEFINED as the amount of CSI above which Intelligent Design can be presumed. Any smaller amount, falling short of the 500 bit threshhold, means that ID can NOT be presumed. MathGrrl is requesting a means of measuring the amount of CSI an object possesses, to determine whether that amount exceeds Dembski's threshhold.
One of the posters said the bacterial flagellum is "full of CSI". OK, HOW full? How does he know?
Dammit, CSI is being used by Dembski as a SCALAR, like numbers along the number line. |
And this gets back to the disconnect between what the IDCs claim to be doing, and what they actually do. They have never measured the CSI of, well, anything, whether known to be designed or not. What they actually do is the reverse: Looks Designed To Me - therefore it must have "a lot" of CSI. The whole point of the CSI concept isn't that it's a quantity that can be defined well enough to measure - it's that it sounds all technical and sciency. All the better to obfuscate with. The fact that it's vague enough that every UD regular has their own version of it isn't a flaw - it's a positive feature. And that's what Mathgrrl has drawn out of them so well.
At the end of the day, CSI = LDTM. By design.
--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
