-
If one wants to debate like an evolutionist here are some rules you must follow:
1- Never, under any circumstances try to support your position. Doing so will only expose weaknesses and holes
2- Always misrepresent your opponent. When they say something twist it into something else and then accuse them of being stupid.
3- Always change the subject.
Speaking of supporting a position, any headway made on how to determine of Stonehenge was designed?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
ReplyDeleteAnd you would support your conclusions with?
ReplyDeleteResearch/ investigation, which would include observations and testing.
ReplyDeleteAnd those observations and testing include?
ReplyDeleteNothing a clown would understand.
ReplyDeleteSupporting Intelligent Design
ReplyDeleteWhy can't the anti-IDists support their position?
And why do all their arguments against ID boil down to strawman after strawman?
Joe, all this time and you still can't calculate, CSI / FCSI. Your blog is a microcosm of the hilarious failure that is ID.
ReplyDeleteRich,
ReplyDeleteYou don't calculate CSI.
It is a MEASUREMENT.
It is also very telling that you cannot support your position.
You prove that your position is a failure.
1- Never, under any circumstances try to support your position. Doing so will only expose weaknesses and holes
ReplyDeleteCheck.
2- Always misrepresent your opponent. When they say something twist it into something else and then accuse them of being stupid.
Check
3- Always change the subject.
Check.
In any case it looks like I can predict the actions of evolutionitwits.
Thank you for continually helping me to prove my points.
How much CSI does Stonehenge contain? That's a measurement. Or how about a baseball? That's a measurement.
ReplyDeleteThen start measuring.
ReplyDeleteI (and many others) have presented our measurements of the CSI of a baseball.
ReplyDeleteYou claimed that they were all wrong, but never provided the correct answer.
It is interesting that you are the only person here to never give a value for the CSI of a baseball. Why is that?
I (and many others) have presented our measurements of the CSI of a baseball.
ReplyDeleteNo, you didn't.
I know you didn't because a) you didn't follow my directions and b) you didn't show your work.
IOW Erik you once again revert to lying.
Also one doesn't measure the CSI.
I have also told you that but you think your willfull ignorance is meaningful discourse.
One measures the specified information to see whether or not CSI is present.
CSI present means the design inference is confirmed.
Also I have presented an EXAMPLE of measuring SI to see if CSI is present.
That would be good enough for people who didn't run around with one thumb in their mouth and the other one up their ass waiting for someone to ring a bell and yell "switch".
And yet here you guys are.
I didn't say I provided the measurement of CSI. I said I (and many others) provided the VALUE of the CSI of a baseball.
ReplyDeleteWe all gave our reasoning and showed our work. The thread is available, Joe.
Your directions are unfollowable because they are extremely vague. This is the reason we asked you for the correct answer. We need to understand why our attempts to follow your directions were wrong.
You never provided the reasoning or EXAMPLE of why we were wrong.
It would be VERY easy for you to clear up our misunderstandings. It is telling that you do not.
Erik,
ReplyDeleteNeither you nor anyone has provided anything.
Also my directions are clearer and more specific than anything your position has to offer.
That you say my directions are vague proves you are nothing but a waste of my time.
Also I have presented an EXAMPLE of measuring SI to see if CSI is present.
That would be good enough for people who didn't run around with one thumb in their mouth and the other one up their ass waiting for someone to ring a bell and yell "switch".
So what is your problem?
So you still have no idea what the information content of a baseball is?
ReplyDeleteThis must be the most difficult value in the universe to come up with.
YOU don't have any idea.
ReplyDeleteStop projecting your ignorance onto others.
However the most difficult anser to come up with appears to be finding something that would support your position.
So the take-home lesson is that Erik Pratt runs around with one thumb in his mouth and the other one up jis ass and waits for someone to ring a bell a yell "switch".
ReplyDeleteWe've put the information content of a baseball anywhere from 120 bits to 600 bits. You've said this is wrong, but have never supplied an answer or reasoning that these answers were wrong.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could supply an answer now and clear it all up. It's probably a very simple problem, right?
We've put the information content of a baseball anywhere from 120 bits to 600 bits.
ReplyDeleteReference please.
Or better yet start supporting your position or fuck off.
ReplyDeleteOn the "Of Baseballs, Softballs, Cakes and Specified Information" thread we have the following:
ReplyDeleteHawks: 193 - 211 bits of information
And he asked you if your numbers were similar. You didn't answer.
In fact, later on in the thread, Hawks also calculates the information content of ice.
You tell him he is wrong, but somehow never get around to telling us the right answer....
You have failed to suport your claim which was:
ReplyDeleteWe've put the information content of a baseball anywhere from 120 bits to 600 bits.
Hawks failed to understand bit structure.
And he didn't follow my directions.
So you would put the information content of a baseball at? Plus or minus 25 would be fine.
ReplyDeleteSo you would put the information content of a baseball at?
ReplyDeleteSo "at" implies "where", meaning a place.
So your question doesn't make any sense.
So what is your problem?
So why should I care?
Great, Joe. We understand that you have no idea what the information content of a baseball is and we know that you have no idea how you would go about calculating it. We've seen that dog and pony show.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're getting here is an opportunity. You're getting an opportunity to show that you are something besides a howling maniac. You are getting the opportunity to provide a piece of information that will show the world that you should be taken seriously.
The fact that you can't solve one simple problem (nor, apparently, even know how to tackle it), is not a problem for anyone but you. You should seize this opportunity, Joe.
Joe, you're going to amazing lengths to avoid answering this question. You've been asked numerous times the following question:
ReplyDelete"What is the value of the information content of a baseball?"
You can't answer that question, so when it is rephrased you claim not to be able to answer it. Pathetic.
CSI and baseballs for a clueless clown
ReplyDeleteThat you keep asking me for something already explained proves that you are a puss-licking maggot.
What you're getting here is an opportunity. You're getting an opportunity to show that you are something besides a howling maniac. You are getting the opportunity to provide a piece of information that will show the world that you should be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly what I have given you day after day- an opportunity to support your position and that you are something besides a howling maniac.
Yet day after day you prove that you are a clueless twat.
Go figure...
I'd like to know what question you've been asked in your life that you've gone the furthest to avoid answering.
ReplyDeleteIs it the baseball question? I mean, you actually claimed not to understand what was being asked of you. That's pretty awesome.
I would like to know why you never support your claims.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to know why you think your ignorance and bullshit are meaningful discourse.
So perhaps if I don't answer your questions to your satisfaction the reasoning is you never answer my questions.
Or it could be that I have answered your questions- as I did the baseball issue- and you are just too stupid and dishonest to understand that.
So, it is your position that to determine the information content of an object that at no point do we count the number of characters in our bill of materials.
ReplyDeleteAlso, at no point do we count the number of English characters in the assembly instructions.
This is news! So, what do we count?
Also, if we DO count the number of English characters at any point, why do Spanish objects have different info content than English objects?
Do you think this means that there needs to be an information conversion when scientists of different nationalities work on the same problem?
Is there no universal information unit?
CLOSE THE THREAD!!! CLOSE THE THREAD!!!! CLOSE THE THREAD!!!!!!
So, it is your position that to determine the information content of an object that at no point do we count the number of characters in our bill of materials.
ReplyDeleteMy position is if a bill of materials exists it can be used to help determine the information contained in an object.
I explained that.
So what is your problem?
IOW why do you always have to twist what I say?
Also, at no point do we count the number of English characters in the assembly instructions.
The language used is for convenience only- and for simplification- reducibility.
I have explained that also.
You don't seem to be able to grasp anything I post so why do you bother?
Is there no universal information unit?
It's called the bit.
Again that has also been explained.
All of your alleged/ imagined "issues" have already been addressed and put away.
Why do you think your ignorance adds to the discussion?
And in case you have forgotten:
It is your ignorance that closes threads.
If you could ever stay on topic, ask relevant questions or add something to the discussion- one, each case it would be a first and threads would not close.
If we're going to look at the information content of objects, I agree that we should look at the component parts (and many other things as well).
ReplyDeleteHowever, you and me believing that does not constitute an EXAMPLE of how to calculate the information content.
You have done nothing but say "take the components and calculate the info content, DUH!"
That statement, however, says NOTHING about HOW to calculate the information cont of an object.
When asked about the HOW, you say count the bits in the words (your character methodology).
You need to work an example to explain your methodology. It can be a simple one, if you'd like--say, an atom of hydrogen.
What's the information content of an atom of Hydrogen?
You have done nothing but say "take the components and calculate the info content, DUH!"
ReplyDeleteNo, THAT is YOUR STRAWMAN.
Taking only the components would be akin to using only the bill of materials.
I have already said and proven that is NOT my methodology.
When asked about the HOW, you say count the bits in the words (your character methodology).
You HAVE to break the characters down into bits.
You need to work an example to explain your methodology.
I have done more than enough. Now it's your turn.
But anyway thank you for continuing to prove the points presented in this OP.
Measuring Information/ specified complexity
Destructing oleg, cakeboy strikes back!!!
Of Baseballs, Softballs, Cakes and Specified Information
CSI and baseballs- a Repost for blipey the clueless clown
It's all in those links- EXAMPLES, METHODOLOGY and REASONING.
Three things that blipey will never provide to support his position.
Joe, I have acknowledged on several occasions that you want us to use the bill of materials and the assembly process. In fact, if you merely read my comment two up the thread, you'll see that I acknowledged it. That you failed to quote that part shows your dishonesty.
ReplyDeleteIt is not the bill of materials that is my argument. IT is the counting of characters. If you would care to address that at some point, I'm sure the world will be knocking at your door.
Joe, I have acknowledged on several occasions that you want us to use the bill of materials and the assembly process.
ReplyDeleteThen WHY did you say:
"You have done nothing but say "take the components and calculate the info content, DUH!"
THAT has NOTHING to do with the assembly process.
It is not the bill of materials that is my argument.
You don't have an argument.
IT is the counting of characters.
Is that because counting is beyond your capabilities?
If you would care to address that at some point,
I already have. And I have told you that more than once.
So the question remains:
Why do you think your ignorance and stupidity are meaningful?
All of your alleged/ imagined "issues" have already been addressed and put away.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of that don't you understand?
It's all in those links- EXAMPLES, METHODOLOGY and REASONING.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of THAT don't you understand?
So, why does a Spanish aardvark have a different information content than a Bulgarian aardvark?
ReplyDeleteAnd why when asked for an example of how to calculate the information content of an object do you provide an example that you later says doesn't really cover the material?
How about just working an EXAMPLE for us, Joe. This is something you've yet to do.
If you really want to get this stuff into classrooms, you'll have to write a textbook that has some EXAMPLES.
So, why does a Spanish aardvark have a different information content than a Bulgarian aardvark?
ReplyDeleteImaginary animals can have any amount of information.
And why when asked for an example of how to calculate the information content of an object do you provide an example that you later says doesn't really cover the material?
I didn't say that.
I have provided EXAMPLES, METHODOLOGY and REASONING.
Erik Pratt has provided absolutely nothing except ignorance, lies and nonsense.
How about just working an EXAMPLE for us, Joe. This is something you've yet to do.
Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
If you really want to get this stuff into classrooms, you'll have to write a textbook that has some EXAMPLES.
Your stuff is in classrooms without any examples.
Not my stuff, Joe.
ReplyDeleteYou did say that your example didn't cover the material, Joe. When asked for an example of how to calculate the information content of a thing, you provided the aardvark example. Then you said that the aardvark example didn't really calculate the information content of an aardvark, merely of the word "aardvark".
So, why does an actual aardvark have different information content in English than it does in Spanish? Which it would have to have, unless the example you gave is bogus. Which you said it was and now you say it wasn't.
Please use this thread when you try to get ID taught in New Hampshire schools.
Not my stuff, Joe.
ReplyDeleteRight, you don't have anything.
That is besides for ignorance, lies and nonsense.
You did say that your example didn't cover the material, Joe.
The EXAMPLE, along with the methodology, explanations and reasoning was more than enough.
Far more than you have ever provided.
And just because you are too stupid to understand the EXAMPLE and how it goes with all that other stuff, doesn't mean a thing to me.
As I keep telling you you are a clown for a reason.
BTW the word "aardvark" is a thing.
A cake is a thing.
So, why does an actual aardvark have different information content in English than it does in Spanish?
Only an asshole would even try to make such a comparison.
That doesn't even make any sense using my methodology.
I went over this already.
It is all in the links I have provided again and again.
YOU are just too stupid to understand what is posted.
So I will tell you what to do-get an education.
But I thank you for continuing to prove your ignorance, that you are a liar and that all you have is nonsense,
This thread could be a very important learning tool.
You have embodied everything in the OP.
Not only that I could easily use what I have already presented- the links you are too stupid to understand- to NH students and they would easily understand what it is I am talking about.
I am sure I can incorporate it into this year's "Intelligent Design Awareness Day".
Last year's went much better than I hoped it would.
This next one should be more better.
And if they asked you to work an EXAMPLE, you would show them what?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that concepts as easy as subtraction are shown to students through the use of worked EXAMPLES?
ReplyDeleteAnd if they asked you to work an EXAMPLE, you would show them what?
ReplyDeleteThe stuff in the links you are too stupid to understand.
You do realize that concepts as easy as subtraction are shown to students through the use of worked EXAMPLES?
Then why can't you provide any EXAMPLES that support your position?
What I am saying Erik, is just because you are too stupid to understand what I am saying that doesn't mean everyone else is.
ReplyDeleteSo do you have anything to actually add to the discussion?
Or are you OK with proving everything I said in the OP?
So you would not work any examples for your students who asked to see one?
ReplyDeleteThat's good. I'd take that approach with the curriculum people. You'll be a shoo-in.
As I said just because you are too stupid to understand the validity of the EXAMPLES provided doesn't mean everyone is.
ReplyDeleteThe kids I talk with are smart enough to understand the EXAMPLES, METHODOLOGY and REASONING provided.
They can also ADD to the discussion.
OTOH you are a clueless dolt and you appear to be very proud of that fact.
Also I thank you for providing fodder for the kids amusement.
Well it looks like we have reqached that point again-
ReplyDeleteNo one has anything to add and blipey is still spewing ignorance.