keiths
Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006

A nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them): Quote  Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.
In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."
At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.
Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circularlogic fraud since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uhoh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's takeitback post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.
Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process the random scrambling of all parts which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)
The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.
Look at their reaction to Larry's ultrasimplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multif%^&ingcation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo. 
 And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  Joe G
Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there.  KF
