Joined: July 2006
|Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,12:55)|
|And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI.....|
This too is just a take off of Borel's law that all of us who major in science tend to run across at some point as an undergrad.
It's actually not that complicated to comprehend.
Please point me to a thing.
Please determine the amount of CSI that that thing has.
Please show how you came to that conclusion.
Now, please point me to two more things. One designed, one not designed.
Show me that there more CSI in the designed thing then the not-designed thing.
You see it's easy to say "Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI....." but what you can't do is put a specific value to it.
CSI is like obscenity in that regard. You can't tell me what it is but you'll certanly know it when you see it.
For example, once of the "variants" of CSI is being discussed here:
And little has come of it except to show that CSI is not defined in a useful way nor can it do useful things.
I guess it takes someone like you to show them where they are going wrong!
Go for it!
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand