Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,20:34)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2012,19:18)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,19:01)|
|Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 10 2012,19:21)|
|So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.|
This from the doofus who gave us "design is a mechanism".
So sad. So very, very sad.
According to the dictionary, design is a mechanism. So don't blame me because you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a dictionary.
But "your" design isn't just design. It's also construction and you don't have a mechanism for that.
If you do, you might let Behe know, since he stated that he doesn't have a mechanism by which the "intelligent designer" acted.
BTW: Are you going to call gpuccio on his statement that
|Again: we test dFSCI with a set of long enough strings. Some of them are designed and meaningful, some of them are generated randomly. We know the origin of each string (if it was designed or randomly originated) because we have direct knowledge of how they were produced. Then we take some independent observer, who knows nothing about the origin of the strings, and ask him to infer desing, or not, using the evaluation of dFSCI for those strings. He will recognize the designed strings, with 100% specificity. |
Ya see, you told me when I asked you to do the same thing that my random vs. non-random string wasn't about ID.
Yet gpuccio is talking about it as though he could actually use ID to determine the difference between a random string and a designed string.
So Joe, is gpuccio wrong or do you need to go ask him how it's done?
Kevin, you ignorant dumbass- design refers to the construction part too.
And the design inference refers to what it takes an agency to produce vs what blind and undirected processes can do.
So please spare me your ignorance.
OK, so let me know when you write a letter to Michael Behe correcting him. I'd really like to read it.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.