Friday, May 27, 2011

The standards of science and evidence, by IDiots

o'leary: "Recent Uncommon Descent posts reveal starkly different standards of evidence out there …"

"They reveal the difference between “science” and science."

Unfortunately for you, dense o'leary, and the other ID nutjobs, virtually all the posts on UD by you IDiots show that you don't have a clue about science. And then there's the fact that the biased, heavy handed moderation on UD keeps many people from commenting, so that makes your comparison completely unscientific, lopsided, and moot anyway.

o'leary: "From science by contrast, one expects rigor, not speculation based on a few possible pieces of evidence."

And bornagain77 quotes Da Vinci: “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci

Really? So why don't you IDiots answer MathGrrl's questions with a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI that aligns with dembski's claims, and apply it to MathGrrl's four examples?

And where's YOUR real evidence of ID or CSI or FSCI or DFSCI, etc.? No speculation. No few possible pieces of evidence. No theistic mumbo jumbo. No transcendental stuff. No quotes from the bible or links to christian music or other irrelevant crap. No bashing of evolutionists, Darwinists, the ToE, or atheists. No preconceived suppositions. No bullshit. Just REAL, testable, verifiable, scientific, positive evidence. Let's see it!