Saturday, May 28, 2011

CSI and imaginary evidence and kairosfocus' evasion

Hey gordy, you said (in reference to CSI): "It is evident to me that to those whose minds are closed, disrespectful and hostile, no evidence or argument suitable to issues that are based on matters of fact will ever be enough."

You also said: "But we already have the means to calculate the CSI for proteins involved in bananas etc, and we already have enough in hand to see that cell based life is on the CSI metric well inside the designed threshold."

To which I said: "Then do it, and don’t forget the “etc”. I suggested several things, not all of which contain cells or proteins. If you have a credible test for CSI, you should be able and willing to apply it to anything. A pebble, a mountain, a snake, a banana, a protein, a leaf, an atom, a cardboard box, a human, or anything else. It doesn’t matter what your preconceived notion is as to whether a thing is designed or not or whether it has CSI or not. For CSI to be a credible and useful metric it only matters that people can use your alleged test to objectively establish whether a thing has CSI or not and the actual amount (or measure) of CSI. Even if you were to claim that a particular thing has no CSI, you should be able to show exactly how you reached that conclusion. Of course first you need to establish what C, S, and I actually are."

Let’s see you and your buddies at UD put CSI or specified complexity or FSCI or bsc or ID or whatever other ID related initials or words there are to the test. An actual test. Calculate the CSI, etc. of a banana, a tadpole, a tree, a pebble, a cloud, a sandstone arch, a mosquito, and a human.

If you don’t like that list then how about a snake, a pitcher plant, a meteoroid, a mountain, a fossilized skeleton of a dinosaur, a virus, and a chimpanzee?

How about any one of those things?

Do it with no links and no convoluted sermons. Include all the details and results of your tests. Regardless of what I say here (or elsewhere) you should be able and willing to show here that you can calculate the CSI in the things I suggested and show exactly how you determined those calculations. You and the other IDiots ALWAYS run away from substantiating your position. You NEVER do actual tests and calculations on actual things in nature. You just pontificate and proselytize and expect people to blindly and obediently worship you and your religious ID fairy tale.

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you don't have a clue about the scientific method. You can't just say it gordy, you have to show it. Start with a banana.