Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:35)|
How do we measure specified complexity?
How do we measure irreducible complexity?
What units do we measure specified complexity in?
What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?
What tools do we use to specified complexity?
What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?
What do we measure to determine specified complexity?
What do we measure irreducible complexity ?
We'll add EF to all of these...
You know, Ogre, I'm sitting here with Dembski's basic book Intelligent Design (1999), along with some of his more technical stuff like "Specification: the Pattern that Defines Intelligence""...
...and I'm just honestly wondering, Why won't Ogre just do 30 minutes of googling and reading the answers to his little laundry list for himself....? Why hasn't he been to a library to even look at the basic easy-read Dembski book?
Tell me why, Ogre. Is it so vital to persuade you that ID is science that I start running around doing all the homework you could do at your keyboard?
Don't see it. Who honestly cares if you are personally convinced or unconvinced? I can't say I am. Sorry to say it like that, but that's how you come across. We did our debate. Do some homework and show me you're interested.
Tell me why Floyd, you assume that I've never read Dembski or Meyer or Behe and haven't looked at their math (or lack thereof).
In all my years studying ID, tell me why I have never once seen a single calculation of specified complexity. Tell FL, tell me why Dembski has never calculated the CSI, or EF, or IC or anything of a single organism, designed object, non-designed object, DNA strand, or protein.
That's all I really want FL. I know you can't answer any of my questions. I know you can't because Dembski can't and he invented the stupid concept.
Tell me Floyd, tell me why, in ten years are so of peddling CSI, EF, IR, and BS that Dembski has never bothered to actually use his ideas to do any actual, you know, work.
Here's my hypothesis and, like you do to us, you prove it wrong.
If Demski does any actual calculations in support of ID, then it will prove his theory is BS.
So, come on FL. Put up or shut up.
So, where's that evidence? Where's that math? You say, I can look it up on google, then give me the search terms, or a link.
Even if you prove evolution wrong... even if you prove evolution is religion incarnate... there is still no support for ID.
And that's your problem. Everything else you say or do that doesn't provide support for ID is just wanking. Until some evidence to support whatever it is that ID says is brought out, then science (and science classrooms) are fully justified in totally ignoring it.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.