Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 27 2011,06:42)|
|Another ID Theorist has a bad day: |
|126.96.36.199 gpuccio October 26, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
I think I will not answer you any more. There is no hope, when the attitude is to serach only senseless fight.
Please review your epistemology, and think about the difference between a logic deduction and an empirical inference.
And, if you want, look for the many occasions where I have detailed, supported and motivated all those assertions here.
Again, have a good time (sincerely ).
|188.8.131.52.1 GinoB October 26, 2011 at 11:44 pm |
No one’s looking for a fight. I’m just pointing out the big problems with your arguments, ones that you obviously have no answers for.
Let’s assume for a second that that your made up, subjective ‘dFSCI’ metric has some validity. You still have the issue that at best your claim “only intelligently designed things can have large amounts of dFSCI” is a hypothesis, not any sort of established truth. To honestly test the hypothesis, you’re going to have to measure both known designed and known not-designed things. You can’t look at a whole class of unknown-origin objects (i.e biological life) and then conclude that they’re all designed based on the very thing you’re trying to test. It’s called “affirming the consequence”, and it’s horribly bad reasoning.
There’s a reason the scientific community doesn’t take such fatally flawed arguments seriously. Hint – it’s not because of an evil conspiracy to EXPEL you.
Not that that fazes gpuccio, of course. He replies with the old 'But we SEE designed things with dFSCI in them' argument (we should number these things for brevity) and kairosflatus joins in later with four zillion words ending with "But then, 200 years ago or so, Wilberforce was a spokesman for a controversial and tiny minority."
So it's definitely not a victory for reason, but I think the constant clear explanations of his mistakes is at least starting to wear poochie down a little.
Maybe we should start isolating one UDer at a time and tag-teaming them with clear, easy to understand replies to every cliched argument they throw out until they finally either learn something or at least go away.
Instead, isolate them on at a time and demand definitions, explanations, and calculated examples... until it gets through their tiny hindbrains that they cannot do the things they claim to.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.