6 August 2011
An Exchange With FG
Barry Arrington
In response to my last post here, Faded Glory writes: “But Barry, the way the design inference is formulated, it is not limited to a particular example like the one you present here. It is presented as a very general rule, as per your earlier post.”
This statement is simply false. ID never asks “What is the source of all design?” It asks, “Is this particular thing designed?” And it answers this question by determining whether that particular thing exhibits complex specified information (or irreducible complexity, which is a subset of CSI).
Faded Glory writes: “The moment someone uses the inference, in a non-controversial, way like your concrete example, anyone is warranted use exactly the same inference on any other example of CSI and IC one cares to investigate. Why not, after all?”
You are exactly correct. Anyone is warranted to use exactly the same inference with respect to any other example of CSI or IC. Why does this surprise you? This is what we have been saying all along. Indeed, this is the essence of the ID project.
Faded Glory writes: “Don’t blame us for following the inference where it leads.”
Actually, I would never blame anyone for following the ID inference where it leads. I would blame someone for following the inference where it does not lead, i.e. to the infinite regress. As even you agree, my example shows that the inference does not lead there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey barry, you stupid lying blabbering fuckwit, let's see you determine and calculate the "CSI" and "IC" of a banana, or anything else in nature! You and your fellow dipshits keep saying that by ID can "determine" or "calculate" whether a "particular thing exhibits complex specified information (or irreducible complexity, which is a subset of CSI)". So fucking DO IT THEN! Quit your fucking evasive bullshit and get busy backing up your grandiose claims!!!!!!
An Exchange With FG
Barry Arrington
In response to my last post here, Faded Glory writes: “But Barry, the way the design inference is formulated, it is not limited to a particular example like the one you present here. It is presented as a very general rule, as per your earlier post.”
This statement is simply false. ID never asks “What is the source of all design?” It asks, “Is this particular thing designed?” And it answers this question by determining whether that particular thing exhibits complex specified information (or irreducible complexity, which is a subset of CSI).
Faded Glory writes: “The moment someone uses the inference, in a non-controversial, way like your concrete example, anyone is warranted use exactly the same inference on any other example of CSI and IC one cares to investigate. Why not, after all?”
You are exactly correct. Anyone is warranted to use exactly the same inference with respect to any other example of CSI or IC. Why does this surprise you? This is what we have been saying all along. Indeed, this is the essence of the ID project.
Faded Glory writes: “Don’t blame us for following the inference where it leads.”
Actually, I would never blame anyone for following the ID inference where it leads. I would blame someone for following the inference where it does not lead, i.e. to the infinite regress. As even you agree, my example shows that the inference does not lead there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey barry, you stupid lying blabbering fuckwit, let's see you determine and calculate the "CSI" and "IC" of a banana, or anything else in nature! You and your fellow dipshits keep saying that by ID can "determine" or "calculate" whether a "particular thing exhibits complex specified information (or irreducible complexity, which is a subset of CSI)". So fucking DO IT THEN! Quit your fucking evasive bullshit and get busy backing up your grandiose claims!!!!!!
