|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
|Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,15:17)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)|
|Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,14:04)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2012,13:52)|
|Now that Jerry has decided to post in this forum, he could pick up where his prior discussion of CSI was noted here.|
That was an item in 2004 between us...lol...
I'm glad to discuss it, but your original (actually co-authored) paper that begin it all is not posted, nor is my paper on Dembski's forum posted at that link......I highly doubt that anyone but you and I would even know what we were talking about.....
Your pals may not understand how to keep a website running, but I can assure you that my papers are still available. I just checked both links to my work, and they do deliver the goods.
I don't think anyone will have any difficulty seeing that you were dismissing things without understanding them in 2004, and nothing has changed for you in the interim, apparently.
Oh, I absolutely understood them. Your problem, if I recall...is that you failed to fully grasp the logic of Dembski.
I spent most of my paper pointing out "that's not what he meant." My paper: Answering: The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance
Is here: http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi.....#000000
BTW, to my respondants on this thread, I show how the UPB is arrived at mathematically in this paper as well.
The abstract reads: "Philosopher William Dembski has proposed an "explanatory filter" for distinguishing between events due to chance, lawful regularity or design. Elsberry and Wilkins proposed that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational. They further posit in the abstract that if background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly and that Dembski fails to overcome Hume's objections to arguments from design, neither posit substantiated in the paper. I will show this paper as not based on science or logic and blatantly erroneous, as peer reviewed herein, in its basal tenets."
Yet you did not show that: "if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational"
Care to try again??
I already responded to your misunderstandings years ago.
The ball is in your court.
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker