80
kairosfocus
08/09/2011
4:09 am
Dr BOT:
Pardon, but distractive.
We are precisely not in a case where the copyright notice or some other sign cannot be read.
If it or another similar sign pointing to intelligence were not present, there would be no issue of an inference to design.
I gave this as a WLOG concrete case to move the discussion back on tract, the logic of what Barry put in the OP.
the determination not to get back on track is what is telling the astute onlooker that something is very wrong indeed with the position being taken by objectors.
GEM of TKI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh shut up, you bloviating, arrogant gasbag.
81
kairosfocus
08/09/2011
4:17 am
PS: Please try to remember, the design inference does not offer itself as a universal decoding machine able to detect any and all cases of design.
Just the opposite, it is seeking to identify empirically tested and reliable signs that point to cases that cannot reasonably be assigned to non-design; which is why the per aspect explanatory filter has TWO successive defaults, necessity and chance.
But it now seems that not even a 196 ASCII character copyright notice in a known language, using a known code, will be enough to point to design for the sort of objectors we are dealing with.
That needs to be put on record.
PPS: pardon butterfingers this morning: track!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's "on record" for "astute onlooker(s)" and "objectors" is that you can't, don't, and won't back up ANY of your claims with an actual calculation/determination of "CSI" in ANYTHING, or a demonstration of the so-called "explanatory filter" on an actual living thing (or even a dead thing).
Take your "WLOG", your "196 ASCII character copyright notice", and the rest of your sanctimonious, "distractive" gasbaggery and shove them up your festering ass, and calculate the "CSI" in a banana or a frog. You're all arrogant talk and no action. Put up or shut up.
kairosfocus
08/09/2011
4:09 am
Dr BOT:
Pardon, but distractive.
We are precisely not in a case where the copyright notice or some other sign cannot be read.
If it or another similar sign pointing to intelligence were not present, there would be no issue of an inference to design.
I gave this as a WLOG concrete case to move the discussion back on tract, the logic of what Barry put in the OP.
the determination not to get back on track is what is telling the astute onlooker that something is very wrong indeed with the position being taken by objectors.
GEM of TKI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh shut up, you bloviating, arrogant gasbag.
81
kairosfocus
08/09/2011
4:17 am
PS: Please try to remember, the design inference does not offer itself as a universal decoding machine able to detect any and all cases of design.
Just the opposite, it is seeking to identify empirically tested and reliable signs that point to cases that cannot reasonably be assigned to non-design; which is why the per aspect explanatory filter has TWO successive defaults, necessity and chance.
But it now seems that not even a 196 ASCII character copyright notice in a known language, using a known code, will be enough to point to design for the sort of objectors we are dealing with.
That needs to be put on record.
PPS: pardon butterfingers this morning: track!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's "on record" for "astute onlooker(s)" and "objectors" is that you can't, don't, and won't back up ANY of your claims with an actual calculation/determination of "CSI" in ANYTHING, or a demonstration of the so-called "explanatory filter" on an actual living thing (or even a dead thing).
Take your "WLOG", your "196 ASCII character copyright notice", and the rest of your sanctimonious, "distractive" gasbaggery and shove them up your festering ass, and calculate the "CSI" in a banana or a frog. You're all arrogant talk and no action. Put up or shut up.
