RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   
  Topic: Creating CSI with NS, H T T H H H T H T T H H H H T T T< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,12:09   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,11:55)
Are there any scientists in here other than Wesley? Thus far it seems, I'm only getting posts (with a couple exceptions, maybe) from religionists from whom I glean I'm offending by attempting to discuss thought with them.....

Never met so many religionists on what I thought was a science forum...oh well...

Anything to get out of having to actually explain or do, huh?

That's OK.  We get that a lot.  We totally understand that you are incapable of supporting your claims.  We understand that you are incapable of explaining your notions, assumptions, and 'calculations'.

We also understand that really don't understand what we're talking about.  We understand that you don't know what evidence is and how science actually works.

We don't like it, but we understand it.

Now, you have numerous questions and many, many requests for a calculation to be done.  You've said that you've done so many times, but refuse to create a hyperlink to a place that has such information.  You refuse to perform such measurements or calculations here for us.  You refuse to even explain how one would begin to gather the information needed for such an event.

Several people (including myself) have provided you with information (not meaning, but information) in order that you calculate or measure CSI.  You have not done so.

You can't identify strings with CSI or without CSI without being told what the function of those strings are.  You "looked" at my list of numbers and decided that they were random.  You didn't calculate the CSI of those numbers to determine if an intelligence was involved in creating them.

There is an RNA sequence a few posts above this, go ahead, determine the CSI of that RNA sequence.  You won't do it.  We all know you won't do it.  You are smart enough to realize that it's a trap.  

If you guess wrong, then your entire worldview about ID and CSI and the like will come crashing down around your ears.  You can't stomach that idea.  If you guess right (and it will be a guess), then you probably think (with good reason) that I have an ace up my sleeve about that particular sequence.  You don't know what it is, but you know it's a trap.

And that's only one reason that ID is utterly without value.  You can't afford to actually do anything with it, because deep down, you know the entire concept is riddled with error, inconsistency, and crap.  You know you will be challenged, that's how science works.  But you can't let yourself be pinned on something because you know that science and math actually do work and ID doesn't.

So, again, you have a lot of fundamental errors in your work so far.  You have a lot of logical fallacies in your work so far.  You claim that analogies are equivalent to calculations.  You think that there are only two choices (random or designed).  You think that information = meaning.

So, anytime you would like to actually do something, let me know.  Or you can keep on exposing your utter and complete ignorance by ignoring what we are asking and continuing your 'insults' (or whatever they are) instead of actually talking to us.

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

  128 replies since Oct. 06 2012,18:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]