My responses are in bold type.
4.1.2.1.2
gpuccio
October 27, 2011 at 12:14 am
GinoB:
Well, just to explain why I say that you are just “looking for a fight”:
a) Have you read my many detailed posts about dFSCI? It seems not, from what you write. So, why are you jumping to the conclusion that it is a “made up, subjective metric”?
I've read them and am worse off for it. All you've done is type a massive amount of bald assertions and dogmatic, subjective, made-up, non-scientific crap. Simply asserting tons of convoluted, sciency sounding gobbledegook will not get science to take your bullshit seriously.
Learn the SCIENTIFIC method, coherently define your terms, do some actual research, get some actual evidence, test, retest, and test again, build up a convincing SCIENTIFIC case, throw out any and all thoughts about and references to religious fairy tales, write some SCIENTIFIC papers, submit them to legitimate SCIENTIFIC journals, and IF you actually have a relevant, legitimate, SCIENTIFIC point to make you just might get published, and then you can and SHOULD pay close attention to any critiques of whatever gets published and be willing to accept that even if you are published you could still be wrong. Simply blabbering on UD won't get you anywhere with science. You IDiots need to realize that you are NOT scientists and you are NOT gods or any other authority that can dictate how science should be done.
b)You say:
at best your claim “only intelligently designed things can have large amounts of dFSCI” is a hypothesis, not any sort of established truth.
What you are expressing here is not the initial hypothesis, but the final inference. It is obvious that you don’t know, or don’t understand, the ID position.
What you are expressing is just your dogmatic, subjective, personal view, which it totally based on your crazy religious beliefs. Playing word games with "inference", "hypothesis", and "theory" just shows how little you know about science and how desperate you are to try to pass off your religious agenda as a scientific endeavor. Everyone who pays attention to the ID agenda knows and understands the "ID position" and they know that it's just a religious and political agenda. You IDiots know it and so do your opponents. You're just too dishonest to admit what the ID agenda really is, but you're not fooling anyone with a clue.
c) You say:
To honestly test the hypothesis, you’re going to have to measure both known designed and known not-designed things.
That’s exactly what I explicitly do in my reasoning about dFSCI. I show that known designed objects, that is human artifacts, often exhibit dFSCI (very easy to demonstrate). And that no known not-designed object exhibits it (equally easy to demonstrate).
No, that is not what you do. You haven't actually measured/calculated the alleged "dFSCI", "CSI", dFSCO/I", or "FSCI" in anything, and you haven't even coherently defined those terms or proposed a way to use them on any real things. Your alleged "reasoning" doesn't prove squat! It is already known that humans design things, IDiot. Let's see you or any other IDiot easily demonstrate the amount of alleged "dFSCI", "CSI", dFSCO/I", or "FSCI" in the things I listed in a previous post. Start with a banana.
After your "easy" demonstration, you can eat the banana while you try to "conscientiously" "get in the state of mind of a monkey".
From those empirical observations, and only from them, derives the concept that dFSCI is an empirical indicator of design. Then I use that indicator to formulate a design inference for biological information, that does exhibit dFSCI in great amounts.
That is the correct epistemological sequence.
How stupid can you get? You throw the words "empiriical" and "epistemological" (and other words) around as though you actually know what they mean and you, like other IDiots, think that using fancy words will magically legitimize your unsupported assertions. You also obviously think that just because you say that "biological information" or biological entities contain or "exhibit" "dFSCI", it's somehow instantly verified. As your buddy joe-boi says, you can't just say it, you have to show it.
d) You say:
You can’t look at a whole class of unknown-origin objects (i.e biological life) and then conclude that they’re all designed based on the very thing you’re trying to test.
Obviously. I have never done that. That kind of statement only demonstrates that you have never read my posts on the subject. or never understood them
So, either you are cognitively superficial and arrogant, or you are just looking for a fight. QED.
Q.E.D. yourself, dipshit. You're the one being superficial and arrogant and you're a liar too. Your arguments are so dishonest, circular, and ridiculous it's not even funny.
4.1.2.1.2
gpuccio
October 27, 2011 at 12:14 am
GinoB:
Well, just to explain why I say that you are just “looking for a fight”:
a) Have you read my many detailed posts about dFSCI? It seems not, from what you write. So, why are you jumping to the conclusion that it is a “made up, subjective metric”?
I've read them and am worse off for it. All you've done is type a massive amount of bald assertions and dogmatic, subjective, made-up, non-scientific crap. Simply asserting tons of convoluted, sciency sounding gobbledegook will not get science to take your bullshit seriously.
Learn the SCIENTIFIC method, coherently define your terms, do some actual research, get some actual evidence, test, retest, and test again, build up a convincing SCIENTIFIC case, throw out any and all thoughts about and references to religious fairy tales, write some SCIENTIFIC papers, submit them to legitimate SCIENTIFIC journals, and IF you actually have a relevant, legitimate, SCIENTIFIC point to make you just might get published, and then you can and SHOULD pay close attention to any critiques of whatever gets published and be willing to accept that even if you are published you could still be wrong. Simply blabbering on UD won't get you anywhere with science. You IDiots need to realize that you are NOT scientists and you are NOT gods or any other authority that can dictate how science should be done.
b)You say:
at best your claim “only intelligently designed things can have large amounts of dFSCI” is a hypothesis, not any sort of established truth.
What you are expressing here is not the initial hypothesis, but the final inference. It is obvious that you don’t know, or don’t understand, the ID position.
What you are expressing is just your dogmatic, subjective, personal view, which it totally based on your crazy religious beliefs. Playing word games with "inference", "hypothesis", and "theory" just shows how little you know about science and how desperate you are to try to pass off your religious agenda as a scientific endeavor. Everyone who pays attention to the ID agenda knows and understands the "ID position" and they know that it's just a religious and political agenda. You IDiots know it and so do your opponents. You're just too dishonest to admit what the ID agenda really is, but you're not fooling anyone with a clue.
c) You say:
To honestly test the hypothesis, you’re going to have to measure both known designed and known not-designed things.
That’s exactly what I explicitly do in my reasoning about dFSCI. I show that known designed objects, that is human artifacts, often exhibit dFSCI (very easy to demonstrate). And that no known not-designed object exhibits it (equally easy to demonstrate).
No, that is not what you do. You haven't actually measured/calculated the alleged "dFSCI", "CSI", dFSCO/I", or "FSCI" in anything, and you haven't even coherently defined those terms or proposed a way to use them on any real things. Your alleged "reasoning" doesn't prove squat! It is already known that humans design things, IDiot. Let's see you or any other IDiot easily demonstrate the amount of alleged "dFSCI", "CSI", dFSCO/I", or "FSCI" in the things I listed in a previous post. Start with a banana.
After your "easy" demonstration, you can eat the banana while you try to "conscientiously" "get in the state of mind of a monkey".
From those empirical observations, and only from them, derives the concept that dFSCI is an empirical indicator of design. Then I use that indicator to formulate a design inference for biological information, that does exhibit dFSCI in great amounts.
That is the correct epistemological sequence.
How stupid can you get? You throw the words "empiriical" and "epistemological" (and other words) around as though you actually know what they mean and you, like other IDiots, think that using fancy words will magically legitimize your unsupported assertions. You also obviously think that just because you say that "biological information" or biological entities contain or "exhibit" "dFSCI", it's somehow instantly verified. As your buddy joe-boi says, you can't just say it, you have to show it.
d) You say:
You can’t look at a whole class of unknown-origin objects (i.e biological life) and then conclude that they’re all designed based on the very thing you’re trying to test.
Obviously. I have never done that. That kind of statement only demonstrates that you have never read my posts on the subject. or never understood them
So, either you are cognitively superficial and arrogant, or you are just looking for a fight. QED.
Q.E.D. yourself, dipshit. You're the one being superficial and arrogant and you're a liar too. Your arguments are so dishonest, circular, and ridiculous it's not even funny.
