Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, February 04, 2007

A secondclass lowlife (or secondclass = no class)

It seems that anti-IDists cannot stand to be shown that they are wrong. When that happens they run to another venue and spew nonsense and lies. secondclass is just the latest lowlife to do so:

Truly secondclass

This guy thinks that I can remember EVERYTHING from books I read years ago. He also thinks that Dembski is the "say all, do all" of ID. He doesn't understand that people can take Dembski's ideas and couple them with any number of pro-ID ideas in order to get a more complete picture of ID.

1. Joe doesn't know that the "complexity" part of "specified complexity" is synonymous with improbability.

Improbability is Dembski's way of mathematically verifying that complexity exists. Complexity exists whether or not we can calculate its improbability.

(added in edit)

I have always maintained that it is true the greater the complexity the smaller the probability (of occurring by chance or any combo of chance & necessity).

2. Joe doesn't know that specificity is positively correlated with simplicity of description.

Secondcalss doesn't know that simplicity of description requires pre-existing knowledge. For example Dembski's example of a "royal flush" for simplicity of description is useless unless one understands poker.

3. Joe doesn't know that Dembski's most oft-used example, the Caputo incident, is an instance of specified complexity, according to Dembski.

That is just a lie. And I also noted that Caputo got away with it. IOW the Court did NOT share Dembski's inference.

4. Joe doesn't know that knowledge of designers' capabilities plays no role in Dembski's approach. He has failed to realize the Dembski's approach is eliminative, with design exempt from consideration for elimination.

Another lie. As I have shown we have to have some knowledge of designers plus some knowledge of what nature, operating freely, is capable of BEFORE reaching an reasoned inference. Also seeing that I have blogged about the EF being eliminative- it eliminates via consideration- secondclass is just spewing more lies.

And until he was corrected, Joe thought that detachability was a sign of fabrication rather than a requirement for specification.

Yes, in my haste to figure out what secondclass was talking about I re-read TDI- a book I had read some 7 years ago- and misread Dembski. However I will note that all of what secondclass posted was nothing more than a deceptive distraction as it had nothing to do with pulsars and the EF.

And in the end it was secondclass who was improperly applying the EF. And when that was exposed he decided to go somewhere else and start his spewage. Typical...


Post a Comment

<< Home