Cubist
Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007
|
| Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 22 2012,12:09) | | Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 21 2012,07:13) | I have it on good authority* that there is no reliable instrument to detect design: | Quote | | The filter was never designed to detect any and all cases of design (it is not a universal decoder algorithm, and we have good reason to believe such are not feasible), just those that are unequivocal per tested and reliable signs. |
*Spoiler: It's KF
Edit: Typo |
Hmm, let's see, there's no feasible, universal decoder algorithm (test) "to detect any and all cases of design" yet somehow design has been tested via "reliable signs"? How was/is design tested if there's no feasible, universal test? (my bold) |
I don't have a problem with that, myself. 'Reliable' isn't an absolute; something can be 'reliable' for most practical purposes, and yet still not be 100% applicable to everything. So the dude's saying he's got a decently useful design-detection thingie (which just doesn't happen to be universally applicable), fine. Not a problem. However what is a problem…
| Quote | | gordo -the messiah wannabe- mullings is just pushing the same old, lame old 'it looks designed to me so it must be designed by my sky-daddy' crap, because he is desperately trying to convince himself and others that his imaginary sky daddy isn't imaginary, |
…is right here. He does not, in fact, have the decently useful design-detection thingie he claims to have. Dude's lying.
|
