On UD, kairosfocus said:
"Prediction 1: Confident of the implications of the principles of 2LOT and linked info theory, you are not going to get an observed case of complex, functionally specific organisation emerging on chance plus blind necessity within the observable cosmos."
Duh, gordo. Of course you're not going to get anything that is "specific", because the word "specific" in your context is the same as 'specified', which means that someone or something 'specified' (planned, designed, created) the thing in the first place. "Chance plus blind necessity" can't possibly plan, design, and create something that is 'specified'.
You're just playing your usual word games with your strawmen and red herrings.
Let me see you prove that anything in the universe is 'specified'. You can't even coherently define CSI, or test it. Aren't there any bananas available in Montserrat?
"Prediction 2: claimed cases — particularly including Weasel and kin — will equally reliably turn out to be errors or cheats."
You wish, and there you go projecting again, especially on the cheats part.
"Somewhere in the system, intelligently based active info is the root of outperforming random chance."
There's a lot more to the ToE than your lame "random chance" or "blind necessity" strawmen. The least you OUGHT to do is educate yourself on the entirety of evolutionary theory before you make a fool of yourself arguing against it.
My prediction: You will be a stupid, bloviating, sanctimonious, delusional, deranged, dishonest, religious lunatic til the the day you die, and then you'll just decompose like any other corpse.
