20
William J Murray
October 24, 2011 at 8:14 am
“Unless ID proponents provide a design metric that describes what ID is (and is not) capable of, the claim that ID can and did produce current biological features is non-falsifiable.
When ID proponents refuse to provide such a metric, but rather rely on subjective “it looks designed to me” narratives that assume their conclusion, then skepticism is a proper response.”
Nobody here (that I’m aware of) is claiming that ID did produce such features as a matter of scientific fact, but rather is only claiming that ID is the best provisional explanation for some features, because the only agency or process we know of that produces well over 500-1000 bits of FSCO/I is intelligent design (that of humans).
500-1000+ bits of FSCO/I is the ID metric where the “best explanation” of any phenomena moves from “physics & chance” to ID agency. ID is unnecessary to explain FSCO/I below that amount, thus it is falsifiable in terms of the only thing it claims according to the metric it provides: “best provisional explanation”.
Darwinists, however, claim that RM & NS are what factually generated the features in question, without a means of falsifying it even as “best provisional explanation”.
20.1
GinoB
October 24, 2011 at 8:43 am
William J Murray
500-1000+ bits of FSCO/I is the ID metric where the “best explanation” of any phenomena moves from “physics & chance” to ID agency.
That would be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects, right?
In other words it’s just another way of saying “this looks designed to me” with lots of pseudo-technical jargon added for window dressing.
20.1.1
William J Murray
October 24, 2011 at 9:07 am
That would be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects, right?
No. It is rigorously defined, and it can be calculated handily. You can find the definition and reference in the FAQ and Glossary on this site, or by googling “kairosfocus FSCO/I” and finding many exhaustive epxlanations and examples on this site and others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, YES, that WOULD be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects. "FSCO/I" cannot be "calculated handily" and has never been "calculated handily" because it is a completely bogus term.
Want to prove me wrong, willy? Then handily calculate the "FSCO/I" in a banana, a frog, a rock, a cloud, a hydrogen atom, a galaxy, a fish, a mushroom, a pumpkin seed, and a petunia. Show your work. Maybe the almighty kairosflaccid can help you. LMAO!
William J Murray
October 24, 2011 at 8:14 am
“Unless ID proponents provide a design metric that describes what ID is (and is not) capable of, the claim that ID can and did produce current biological features is non-falsifiable.
When ID proponents refuse to provide such a metric, but rather rely on subjective “it looks designed to me” narratives that assume their conclusion, then skepticism is a proper response.”
Nobody here (that I’m aware of) is claiming that ID did produce such features as a matter of scientific fact, but rather is only claiming that ID is the best provisional explanation for some features, because the only agency or process we know of that produces well over 500-1000 bits of FSCO/I is intelligent design (that of humans).
500-1000+ bits of FSCO/I is the ID metric where the “best explanation” of any phenomena moves from “physics & chance” to ID agency. ID is unnecessary to explain FSCO/I below that amount, thus it is falsifiable in terms of the only thing it claims according to the metric it provides: “best provisional explanation”.
Darwinists, however, claim that RM & NS are what factually generated the features in question, without a means of falsifying it even as “best provisional explanation”.
20.1
GinoB
October 24, 2011 at 8:43 am
William J Murray
500-1000+ bits of FSCO/I is the ID metric where the “best explanation” of any phenomena moves from “physics & chance” to ID agency.
That would be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects, right?
In other words it’s just another way of saying “this looks designed to me” with lots of pseudo-technical jargon added for window dressing.
20.1.1
William J Murray
October 24, 2011 at 9:07 am
That would be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects, right?
No. It is rigorously defined, and it can be calculated handily. You can find the definition and reference in the FAQ and Glossary on this site, or by googling “kairosfocus FSCO/I” and finding many exhaustive epxlanations and examples on this site and others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, YES, that WOULD be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects. "FSCO/I" cannot be "calculated handily" and has never been "calculated handily" because it is a completely bogus term.
Want to prove me wrong, willy? Then handily calculate the "FSCO/I" in a banana, a frog, a rock, a cloud, a hydrogen atom, a galaxy, a fish, a mushroom, a pumpkin seed, and a petunia. Show your work. Maybe the almighty kairosflaccid can help you. LMAO!
