Joined: July 2006
Gordon's latest screed opens with something that would shatter any ordinary irony meter:
It is a pity that I have to start this by speaking to a serious challenge MG needs to address before she can sit to the table of reasonable discourse.
A serious challenge unmet? He's got that much right at least.
|Someone who accuses others of being “dishonest” — not merely in error but willfully deceitful — has a stiff burden of proof to meet, which MG simply has not done.|
That is sad, and it is a further demonstration of just how completely her challenge over the past weeks has collapsed.
Yes Gordy. That's right. Tard.
In another post, a 28 point monster that says nothing and signifies less he says:
|24 –> If bird songs are symbolic and functional with complexity that can be discerned beyond the 1,00 bits then that would point to design as the source. The real issue would be where the design rests, e.g are the birds giving evidence of verbal communication, and same for the dolphins or whales.|
25 –> Show the function and the complex specificity then we can look at what the design filter says about type of source.
26 –> If whales do have personal signatures that are evidently deliberately constructed on an individual basis then that is a sign that the whales are intelligent enough to do that. Which would be great news, and would compound our guilt over our wanton slaughter of these wonderful creatures.
Can we look at what the "design filters" says Gordy? Really?
Why don't you give us an example then.
|28 –> Oddly while MG casts this up as a challenge, the authors give a grudging concession:|
We note the use of examples in Dembski’s work involving a laboratory rat traversing a maze as an
indication of the applicability of CSI to animal cognition [16, 17, 19].
29 –> in other words, a success by the EF on FSCI!>>
Gordon understands "in other words" to mean something quite different to what I understand it to mean.
Gordon thinks he is very smart indeed.
|That’s pretty ridiculous. The fact that random change + selection can produce complex designs doesn’t mean it’s the fastest or most efficient way of doing so.|
Nevertheless, there are environments in which evolutionary algorithms are in fact useful and efficient.
|The fact that random change + [artificial, algorithmic] selection [matched to a specified fitness metric on the space of possibilities in an island of function set up by designers of the relevant GA program] can produce complex designs doesn’t mean it’s the fastest or most efficient way of doing so.|
There, put in the significant parts that are too often left off.
And elsewhere adds:
|* Has anyone actually OBSERVED a case of known chance plus blind necessity without intelligent guidance producing novel functionally specific complex genetic information beyond, say, 1,000 bits — 500 bases — of complexity? (Duplications of existing functional info don’t count for reasons identified in 19 – 20 above.)|
Oops, I’se be a very bad boy . . . spoiling the rhetorical force of the objection by inserting the material parts that are usually omitted when it is made.
“Well, I couldn’t resist those hot oatmeal and raisin cookies, mama . . . ”
GEM of TKI
This appears to be his "slam dunk". He's inserted the material parts that are usually omitted when that point is made. Wow. But if selection is artificial and algorithmic is it also random?
The clue is in the new disclaimer
|Duplications of existing functional info don’t count for reasons identified in 19 – 20 above|
|19 –> In addition, we have the infinite monkey analysis to tell us that it is utterly implausible that something so complexly and specifically organised will be feasible of blind random walks and mechanical necessity on the gamut of the observable cosmos.|
20 –> this is not rejected for want of empirical or analytical support, but for want of fit with the prevailing evolutionary materialistic agenda in science as exposed by Lewontin, Sagan the US NAS, etc etc. Indeed, the cite form the paper at this point is all too inadvertently revealing of the Lewontin materialist a priori at work:
It is our expectation that application of the “explanatory filter” to a wide range of biological examples will, in fact, demonstrate that “design” will be invoked for all but a small fraction of phenomena [what is the evidence trying to tell you?], and that most biologists would find that many of these classifications are “false positive” attributions of “design.”[In short a naked appeal to the evo mat consensus of the new magisterium]
Go on then Gordon, apply the “explanatory filter” to a wide range of biological examples and demonstrate "design". I fucking double dare you!
Something else that became apparent during my recent talks with Gordy was that he's a YEC that believes in a young earth but an old cosmos.
|16: Evolutionary search algorithms, in short, may well explain microevolution, but that such is possible and is empirically supported is accepted by all, including young earth creationists, who see it as a designed means of adapting kinds of creatures to environments (and for the benefit of God’s steward on earth, man, e.g. the dog-wolf kind).|
How would Gordy know or care what YEC's make of Evolutionary search algorithms unless he was one?*
He's also made passing references to the "work" being done by YEC's relating to space time and how the earth can be 7 days old in a universe billions of years old. I'd find references but the 3 people reading this who give enough of a shit about Gordy's latest foot shooting already probably read it directly on UD :) It all relates back to his mistrust of nuclear based dating methods and how they are simply untrustworthy.
So Gordy is a YEC who is too much of a fucking chicken to come out and say it but who has pretensions of creating and presumably teaching an "origins" course when he can't even commit to an opinion on the age of the earth.
* har har.
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand