and your lies and deceptions on UD are easily apparent to anyone with a clue. You're just another insane religious zealot who wants to control the world and everyone in it. Your endless "rhetorical talking points" aren't going to prove ID, and your claims about MG are obviously ridiculous and misogynistic. You pick on her because she's a girl and because you can get away with it on UD, where you are protected from having to face the vast majority of your critics by the cowardly, dishonest moderators. You're a fucking wimp.
And speaking of "merits", how much CSI or FSCI or DFSCI or specified complexity (or whatever term is the latest claim) is there in a rock, a banana, a frog, a human, a mountain, a monkey, a quark, a cloud, and a tree? Show your complete tests and evidence. Have you ever actually tested anything?
As MathGrrl said to you:
"Continuing to repeat unfounded claims after repeatedly demonstrating that you are unable to support them is unconvincing, at best."
It is time to draw some conclusions (some of which, regrettably but needfully, will be painful) on the past several months worth of exchanges at UD on this general topic.
Some of those conclusions — as just pointed out — are not happy ones; and, it is to be noted before I go on that this morning I have received a comment elsewhere along the following lines:
[Condescending diminutive of my name] you’re a delusional, dishonest, hypocritical, pompous, narcissistic dolt.This is an example of the turnabout accusation rhetorical attack, crudely slanderously uncivil and self-justifying mentality we unfortunately too often have to deal with on the part of objectors to design thought; here in the crudest form of utterly unwarranted personal insults. Perhaps, too, this commenter needs to know that there are jurisdictions that are applicable (jurisdictions where the US’s fatally flawed libel laws do not hold), in which patently false and utterly unwarranted accusations are actionable. And even before we get to the level of action, the notion that “this is not a Sunday School,” or the like, is a thinly disguised way of admitting that one is being rude, uncivil and out of order.
You’re going to get a lot of exposure here: [blog address of an attack blog, communicated to management, UD]
Your [homosexual reference] buddies at UD won’t be able to protect you there. The truth about you and your insane religious and political agenda will come out for all to see. Consider yourself ‘outed’.
The red herring, led away to the strawman caricature, and then the pouring on of ad hominems and igniting through incendiary rhetoric, the better to cloud, choke, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, is the strongest proof of a want of basic broughtupcy and of utter want of a serious case on the merits.
Such a person should therefore pause and think twice before hitting send, when that message is going to be received in jurisdictions other than what s/he — most likely, he — has become used to. (And BTW, if you will take the moment to look above, you will see that when J went overboard above, I corrected him at once. Civility is the first requirement of serious dialogue that moves towards soundness and truth.)
A commentator like this — instead of resorting to abuse and insult — would better expend his or her energy seriously addressing on the merits the issues here, where I have laid out what serious minded citizens have to think through if they are going to come to grips with origins science and the significance of the dominant a priori evolutionary materialist school of thought for not only the world of thought but for our wider civilisation.
People like the just cited, sadly, do not seem to understand the matches they are playing with, or the fires they can set in our civilisation, even though Plato warned in his The Laws, Bk X 2350 years ago as follows:
[[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . .In the slightly more sophisticated form of the so-called new/gnu atheists, the same underlying attitude unfortunately still applies: a priori materialists see themselves as the “brights,” and any who differ with them are therefore ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
[[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . .
At the further sophisticated level we have been dealing with for some months now, all of that crudity of thought is fuzzed out by using indirection, allusion and suggestion, rather than direct declaration. That is how for instance MG managed to suggest by citing Galileo’s apocryphal “It still moves,” that this is a case of religion persecuting science. Somehow, it slipped her attention that no-one is threatening anyone with the thumbscrews here, and if anything it is the Materialist Neo-Magisterium in the Holy Lab Coat that has been persecuting those who it deems heretics in recent years.
Similarly, in the eagerness to play the rhetorical game of pushing persuasive talking points through the tactic of drumbeat repetition — see how easy it is (“nothing wrong with repeating a point over and over again is there . . . ?”), it became all too easy for MG to lose sight of the duties of care to truth, fairness, and reciprocity in a serious discussion. And, in the end, such behaviour becomes subtly willfully deceptive; tantamount to lying.
But such a process is so subtle that one may not see what one has actually done; until it is far too late.
And that is why the thread above is so subtly painful.
Oh, that it had gone in a different path, of genuine exchange of thoughts; as MG et al were invited to, over and over and over, in her case to the point of a guest post at UD.
But, day by day, week by week, it became all too plain that the point was to project talking points and play the game of selectively hyperskeptical objection, not to actually engage in genuine exchange of ideas.
So, the real bottomline for this thread was laid out in 34 – 35 above, which in the course of all but a fortnight since, MG has plainly been unable to respond.
We can therefore freely conclude that — despite the many talking points to the contrary — the concept, complex specified information is meaningful and relates to a key challenge in origins science. Secondly, the Chi metric — as the log reduced form shows — is based on well accepted information theory concepts, starting with the common basic definition of quantified information, Ik = log (1/pk).
It then raises the issue of a threshold sufficient to swamp the search resources of the solar system or the whole cosmos, and in so doing arrives at a highly useful result. Namely, a criterion of difficulty by which sufficiently specific pieces of functionally meaningful information will be so isolated in the space of possible configurations, that it is maximally implausible to try to explain them on chance and/or necessity. This is backed up by the needle in the haystack/infinite monkeys type analysis similar to that used to statistically ground the second law of thermodynamics. Such FSCI, however, is routinely and only observed to be the product of intelligence.
And so, we are well warranted to infer from CSI or FSCI as reliable sign to the best, empirically and analytically warranted explanation, design.
Never mind the ongoing drumbeat repetition of the many talking point objections to the contrary.
(Indeed, we recall here how at a certain point Einstein’s theory of Relativity became a subject of ideological objection in his native land. At one point, he was subjected to a public meeting with one speaker after another rising to subject the theory to shrill objections. His reply was, that if his theory was false, just one speaker on the merits would have sufficed to overturn it. Likewise, in the face of a cloud of angry mosquitoes tanked up on talking points and spreading them far and wide, we have yet to see that one sound speaker on the merits.)
GEM of TKI