Joined: July 2006
Gordon Mullings breaks it down for us
|–> partitioned seqarches, P are a subset of latched searches, L|
–> but, suppressed context: due to the involved dynamics, we can also see that Latched searches L, are a subset of partitioned searches P
|–> That is, the two sets are equivalent, due to the dynamics of ratceting|
There's more at the link, of course. Plenty more. But if you just want to skip to the conclusion here we are
|–> In short the imagined fallacy is begging the question of the relationship between sets L and P. And, we have reason to see that L is not a proper subset of P but an equivalent set to P.|
–> And, see how thinking in terms of sets untangles the complexities of syllogistic reasoning? [Thank you, Irving Copi!]
So, er, Dembski's imagined Weasel = Actual Weasel. Somehow.
That's about as clear as how to determine FSCI.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand