Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Thank Dog @ Oct. 23 2006,15:46)|
|Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,10:38)|
|Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,11:27)|
|Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave. When will we ever learn?|
What voices of reason are left there? Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else?
That might be the first time in history someone has been banned for his opinion on snowflakes.
DharmaBum told Daveless Wonder his comments about specification were not in keeping with Dembski's current formulation. Daveless denied that, tried to bluff his way along, and got caught. No, Daveless, specification is not a quantity. No, Daveless, zero specificity occurs rarely in practice. No, Daveless, zero specificity implies negative CSI, not zero CSI. So Hummer Dave unleashed his full intellect, and linked to a picture of a snow face. After DharmaBum responded, Daveless deleted the response and decreed:
|Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us. He’s done wasting our time here.|
Now I have it from a good source that what DharmaBum pointed out was that the 35 snowflake patterns are named in terms of concepts that have nothing to do with snowflakes. For instance, there are hollow columns, 12-branched stars, and fernlike stellar dendrites. Combine these partial descriptions with the term "ice" and descriptions of size and mass, and you have snowflake descriptions. There is nothing the least self-referential in such description, and Daveless no doubt p*ssed in his pants when he saw the similarity to "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller."
As I... oops, DharmaBum pointed out to His Davelessness, the snowflake patterns serve perfectly well as prospective specifications (now that presprecification is distinct from specification), and the way to avoid a presumably false design inference is to come up with a "chance" hypothesis under which the probability of a snowflake of a particular pattern arising is non-low. Daveless no doubt sh*t his pants at this point, knowing that no one understands how snowflakes take the forms they do. In other words, the design inference is laid bare as a god-of-the-gaps argument.
The upshot is that if IDists want biologists to give a detailed account of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, they had best get to cracking on formation of snow crystals. With their dearth of biologists and plenitude of physicists, the IDists are much better equipped to research crystals than biota.
This is the end of my Thank Dog incarnation. See you in the next life.
Well you look at the evidence and tell me which is begging for a "design inference"?
I mean those snow flakes look awful designed to me...
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson