MathGrrl, Still Proud of Her CSI WillFul Ignorance
-
MathGrrl is still spewing her ignorance of CSI.
I have provided quotes from Dembski and other IDists proving that CSI pertains to origins and she prattles on as if I didn't provide them.
I said:
"Another confusion for MathGrrl is her refusal to understand that CSI pertains to ORIGINS. I provided the quotes from Dembski and Meyer but she refuses to accept it. Willful ignorance is not a good way to try to learn about something."
MathGrrl responded with:
Yet Dembski's book, "No Free Lunch" makes it very clear that CSI pertains to origins. But MathGrrl still refuses to read the book, meaning hers is an "argument" from willful ignorance.
MathGrrl is sadly pathetic.
MathGrrl is still spewing her ignorance of CSI.
I have provided quotes from Dembski and other IDists proving that CSI pertains to origins and she prattles on as if I didn't provide them.
I said:
"Another confusion for MathGrrl is her refusal to understand that CSI pertains to ORIGINS. I provided the quotes from Dembski and Meyer but she refuses to accept it. Willful ignorance is not a good way to try to learn about something."
MathGrrl responded with:
That appears to be your own idiosyncratic view, not shared by many, if any, other ID proponents.
Yet Dembski's book, "No Free Lunch" makes it very clear that CSI pertains to origins. But MathGrrl still refuses to read the book, meaning hers is an "argument" from willful ignorance.
MathGrrl is sadly pathetic.
posted by Joe G @ 7:46 AM
48 Comments:
At 9:35 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Who said this:
"A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."?
The are talking about CSI. Are they talking about life?
At 9:43 AM,
Joe G said…
What does that have to do with the OP?
Why are evotards so fucked up that they cannot stay on-topic?
At 10:10 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"What does that have to do with the OP?"
Everything. You're just not well enough informed.
At 10:27 AM,
Joe G said…
IOW it has absolutely nothing to do with the OP and you are once again lying.
Strange how you never make your case...
At 10:33 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"IOW it has absolutely nothing to do with the OP and you are once again lying."
Parking lot joe / Jim / John. I don't think you should be telling people of for lying, given your history and all.
It is of course Demski, talking about CSI, of non living things.
You your wrong. Again. Shock!
At 10:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Richtard/ delusional prick/ ignorant asshole/ liar extraordinare
So it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP. Nothing at all.
Thank you for continuing to prove that you are a liar and an asshole.
Of course CSI refers to non-living things also. Are you that fucking stupid?
So exactly what was I wrong about?
At 11:27 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
To avoid eqivocation, be precise about what you mean by origins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin
"Are you that fucking stupid?"
well you may well be, Cakeboy.
At 11:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Bathroom stall RichTard:
To avoid eqivocation
Sed the evotard equivocator.
Bathroom stall RichTard:
be precise about what you mean by origins:
Inception:
: an act, process, or instance of beginning
Again what does anything you have posted hae to do with the OP?
At 1:08 PM,
CBD said…
Can you do something with all this CSI knowledge?
Can you determine with it a *single* thing that was not known before?
What can CSI actually be used to do?
Anything?
At 1:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, the presence of CSI means an agency was involved and we investigate accordingly.
IOW it makes all the difference in the world.
The diffrenc btween geologists studying Stonehenge as the result of unknown geological processes and archaeologists studying it as the result of unknown design processes.
One team would have much greater success at explaining the structure- and it wouldn't be the geologists.
But anyway thanks for once again refusing to stay on-topic.
Go back to your swamp and your own blog...
At 1:37 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Yes, the presence of CSI means an agency was involved and we investigate accordingly.
Do you have a specific example and a specific outcome that could only have arise because of the determination of design.
Can you determine with CSI a *single* thing that was not known before?
All you did just then was to describe what you've already described 1000 times over.
What I'm asking for is for ID do *do something* of practical use.
Can it? Can you?
At 1:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, the presence of CSI means an agency was involved and we investigate accordingly.
OM:
Do you have a specific example and a specific outcome that could only have arise because of the determination of design.
Our knowledge of Stonehenge- well all artifacts. All crimes.
OM:
Can you determine with CSI a *single* thing that was not known before?
It was designed. That is what CSI is used for, duh.
All you did just then was to describe what you've already described 1000 times over.
And you still can't grasp it.
What I'm asking for is for ID do *do something* of practical use.
And I have told you. I tke it you are just too scientifically illiterate to understand it.
Even Dawkins said it- it makes a difference how things orginated. That is one of the three basic questions scince asks- how did it come to be this way?
You are obviously a moron...
At 1:46 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Our knowledge of Stonehenge- well all artifacts. All crimes.
So no examples that relate to "Intelligent Design" then?
Thought not. Fact is Joseph (John Paul) that whatever we know about Stonehenge we'd know if Dembski had never written a single book.
Intelligent Design has not contributed to our knowledge of Stonehenge in any identifiable way.
It was designed. That is what CSI is used for, duh.
CSI is impossible to calculate. If you can calculate it for Stonehenge you could calculate it for MathGrrls examples.
Tell me Joe, what is the value of CSI for Stonehenge?
"A lot"?
That is one of the three basic questions scince asks- how did it come to be this way?
And all ID can say is "it was designed".
At 1:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Our knowledge of Stonehenge- well all artifacts. All crimes.
OM:
So no examples that relate to "Intelligent Design" then?
It applies to ID also. The whole game changes.
Intelligent Design has not contributed to our knowledge of Stonehenge in any identifiable way.
The design inference did. And ID is about the design inference and what happens next.
CSI is impossible to calculate. If you can calculate it for Stonehenge you could calculate it for MathGrrls examples.
You are a moron.
1- MathGrrl's examples are bogus for the reasons I provided
2- It wouldn't apply to Stonehenge.
That is one of the three basic questions scince asks- how did it come to be this way?
And all ID can say is "it was designed".
That's not all but that would be a start in the right direction.
Again you think yor ignorance means somthing.
At 2:00 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
It applies to ID also. The whole game changes.
ID claims to be no such thing. Check out the "about" link on UD
At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution
Nothing about Stonehenge.
The design inference did. And ID is about the design inference and what happens next.
Not according to the people who wrote the about section at UD.
2- It wouldn't apply to Stonehenge.
But a moment ago you said
Yes, the presence of CSI means an agency was involved and we investigate accordingly.
So if by definition CSI indicates a designer and if Stonehenge was designed then Stonehenge has some value of CSI.
That's not all but that would be a start in the right direction.
Well, what else then? A child of four call tell Stonehenge was designed. Is that the sum total of what ID can tell us then?
"It was designed".
How was the design implemented?
"Design is a mechanism".
Pathetic. But amusing.
At 2:04 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So you mean inceptions, then?
At 2:14 PM,
Joe G said…
It applies to ID also. The whole game changes.
OM:
ID claims to be no such thing.
ID claims to be able to dtect design andstudy it.
The design inference did. And ID is about the design inference and what happens next.
Not according to the people who wrote the about section at UD.
According to Dembski and every IDist I have ever read.
So if by definition CSI indicates a designer and if Stonehenge was designed then Stonehenge has some value of CSI.
That could be but CSI is a tool and not a tool for detemining if Stonehenge was designed or not.
That's not all but that would be a start in the right direction.
Well, what else then?
Do you think archaeologist just go home after determining design?
Are you a moron?
Yes ho the design was implemented would be one ofthe questions to be answered, meaning the design inference is not a dead end.
At 2:15 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
So you mean inceptions, then?
Could be singular. That is why we invstigte further- to try to figure that out.
Do you hae point?
At 4:40 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
That is why we invstigte further- to try to figure that out.
And what have you discovered to day in that regard?
At 4:48 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
And what have you discovered to day in that regard?
Not even working on it yet.
First things first...
At 6:07 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Not even working on it yet.
Oh? What's the plan and time line then?
At 7:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Not even working on it yet.
First things first...
OM:
Oh? What's the plan and time line then?
The plan is to not follow your lead and to basically ignore your ignorant spewage. And that timeline has been running....
At 6:00 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
And that timeline has been running....
Some timeline. You've been spewing the same old tired canards since 2005 at least.
When will something change?
At 7:16 AM,
Joe G said…
The plan is to not follow your lead and to basically ignore your ignorant spewage. And that timeline has been running....
Some timeline.
Yes, it is. No one should follow your lead- that is just plain stupid.
You've been spewing the same old tired canards since 2005 at least.
What canards? Methinks you are a fucking liar and loser who can only spew bullshit and false accusations.
bye-bye loser.
At 8:48 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
What canards?
Like the one that allowed me to track down your "John Paul" identity.
At 8:55 AM,
Joe G said…
I will ask you again-
What canards?
Be specific or leave.
At 9:51 AM,
The whole truth said…
Joe, you keep saying that CSI can be measured and calculated. If you're not just talking out of your ass, go outside and find a rock, then measure and calculate the CSI in it. Do the same thing with a blade of grass, a feather, a worm, a tree, a frog, and your well-used blowup doll. Report your findings here and describe in detail how you went about your tests, observations, and calculations.
At 9:57 AM,
Joe G said…
the whole tard,
Why do you think your ignorant spewage means something?
Why are you such a piece of shit?
Why can't you stay on topic and support your position?
At 10:01 AM,
The whole truth said…
Hey Joe, do these words look familiar?
"Now if we do determine design- IOW once the design inference is given a “Go” then we set out to TRY to answer the questions a design inference produces- the who, how, where, when."
Who's stopping you or anyone else from doing any amount or type of research into the "design inference"?
Who's stopping you from calculating the CSI in MathGrrl's examples or in anything else?
Given a "GO" buy whom Joe?
If ID and/or CSI are as easily observable and calculable as you say they are it should be easy for you and other ID-ists to demonstrate exactly how it's done, with any organism or non-living thing.
At 10:05 AM,
Joe G said…
the whole tard:
Who's stopping you or anyone else from doing any amount or type of research into the "design inference"?
Resources- as in a lack of resources.
Your position has all the resources and still can't produce shit.
Who's stopping you from calculating the CSI in MathGrrl's examples or in anything else?
MathGrrl can do it for herself or she needs to change her name.
If ID and/or CSI are as easily observable and calculable as you say they are it should be easy for you and other ID-ists to demonstrate exactly how it's done, with any organism or non-living thing.
Nice starwman. Who said it was "easy"? And I have told people how to do it.
OTOH you are still a fucking retarded monkey.
At 10:45 AM,
The whole truth said…
Lack of resources? That's really lame Joe.
If you had all the resources on Earth at your disposal, what exactly would you do with them to determine and calculate the CSI and ID, or lack thereof, in a rock, a blade of grass, a tree, a worm, a feather, and your well used blowup doll?
How exactly would those "resources" help to prove ID or CSI?
Exactly which "resources" (e.g. tools or scientific research findings) that are allegedly unavailable to ID-ists, would enable you or other ID-ists to prove your position?
At 11:20 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Resources- as in a lack of resources.
Write up a proposal, ask the Templeton foundation for funding.
Until you've done that you've no cause to complain.
At 11:21 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
MathGrrl can do it for herself or she needs to change her name.
MathGrrl does not know how. Neither do any ID supporters.
What *can* CSI (as defined by Dembski) be calculated for Joe?
Name just one thing....
At 11:50 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Write up a proposal, ask the Templeton foundation for funding.
It's more than money, asshole. Again your position has the funding and other resources and sill hasn't produced anything.
So until you actually poduce somethng you have no cause to complain.
At 11:51 AM,
Joe G said…
MathGrrl can do it for herself or she needs to change her name.
OM:
MathGrrl does not know how.
Yet she has been told how.
Neither do any ID supporters.
Yet we can tell people how to do it- strange, that.
What *can* CSI (as defined by Dembski) be calculated for Joe?
Name just one thing....
Living organisms.
At 1:26 PM,
The whole truth said…
I see that you're trying to drum up support on UD for your "origins" crap Joe. What's the matter, are you feeling alone? Does it make you think that your position is stronger when you appeal to popularity and authority?
Aligning yourself with other delusional ID zealots, and thinking that it will make your position stronger, just makes you and your position look weak and baseless.
At 1:27 PM,
The whole truth said…
Hey Joe, are you ever going to calculate the CSI of anything?
At 2:30 PM,
Joe G said…
the whole tard:
I see that you're trying to drum up support on UD for your "origins" crap Joe.
As I have supported, it isn't crap and it isn't mine. Also MathGrrl made a claim that I am going to refute, again.
That as the point of that post, moron.
the whole tard:
Does it make you think that your position is stronger when you appeal to popularity and authority?
Again with the ignorant spewage.
MathGrrl made a claim basically saying my position of CSI is mine and mine alone.
I have provided the evidence to refute her lies and I just want to see how many people agree with me.
But thanks for proving that you are a moron.
At 2:42 PM,
Joe G said…
the whole tard:
Lack of resources? That's really lame Joe.
It's a fact. And look at your position- all the resources and still nothing to show for itself.
If you had all the resources on Earth at your disposal, what exactly would you do with them to determine and calculate the CSI and ID, or lack thereof, in a rock, a blade of grass, a tree, a worm, a feather, and your well used blowup doll?
Why should I bother with your suggestions?
To me your suggestions prove that you are a drooling moron.
How exactly would those "resources" help to prove ID or CSI?
Science isn't about proving.
However we would/ could use the resources to determine all the factors- the complexity, the specification and the amount of information.
Then once the design inference is made and accepted we proceed from there- just like forensics and archaeology.
Exactly which "resources" (e.g. tools or scientific research findings) that are allegedly unavailable to ID-ists, would enable you or other ID-ists to prove your position?
Money, labs, people- look at your position, you have it all and yet have completely failed to produce anything.
IOW fuck off and come back when you actually have something.
At 2:45 PM,
Joe G said…
the whole tard:
Hey Joe, are you ever going to calculate the CSI of anything?
I will do it again as soon as someone starts paying me to.
Other than that there isn't any need for me to do it again.
At 9:23 PM,
The whole truth said…
"It's a fact. And look at your position- all the resources and still nothing to show for itself."
Nothing?? Your position is the one with nothing.
"Why should I bother with your suggestions?"
Why not? Just admit you can't do it Joe.
"To me your suggestions prove that you are a drooling moron."
Says the real drooling moron.
"Science isn't about proving."
How about 'verifying'? You sure are full of lame excuses Joe-boi.
"However we would/ could use the resources to determine all the factors- the complexity, the specification and the amount of information."
Who's "we"? Exactly how would you determine all the factors.
"Then once the design inference is made and accepted we proceed from there- just like forensics and archaeology."
The design inference has already been made and accepted by you and other religious blowhards. Who else should make it and accept it?
There are plenty of "resources" available to you or anyone else who wants them and has the ambition to do something with them. Millions of dollars are wasted by religious kooks a.k.a ID "researchers" (ha ha) on absolute crap and the attempt to overthrow the ToE. Fewer stained glass windows and Rolex watches might help pay for some research too.
"Money, labs, people- look at your position, you have it all and yet have completely failed to produce anything."
I said "exactly" Joe. Your constant evasion speaks volumes.
"IOW fuck off and come back when you actually have something."
You and your ID buddies should do that with your ID, CSI, FSCI, specified complexity, irreducible complexity, islands of function, youtube videos, bible thumping, gods, pomposity, lame excuses, creation "museum", ark park, idiotic websites, lies about research, lies in general, empty claims, snake oil, etc., etc., etc. Come back when you actually have something.
At 7:03 AM,
Joe G said…
It's a fact. And look at your position- all the resources and still nothing to show for itself.
the whole tard:
Nothing??
That's right, nothing.
Ya see moron if you had smethng you would present it.
If your position had something ID would not be around.
You can't even muster a testable hypothesis.
You are so pathetic you think your ignorant spewage is meaningful discourse.
So here it is either you start defending your position or go fuck yourself.
Put up or shut up...
At 8:46 AM,
The whole truth said…
Defend your position by calculating the CSI in a feather, a blade of grass, a rock, a worm, a tree, and a frog.
This is your website, where you publicly put forth your position. I am challenging and questioning your position and expecting you to defend it in the same way that you expect others to defend their position, even when they don't state what their position is.
Come on Joe, let's see your calculations for the CSI in the things I suggested. Put up or shut up Joe.
At 9:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Your suggestions are bullshit, just like you.
This is my blog and I have defended ID here and other places.
OTOH all you can do is spew your ignorance as if that means something.
You can't even stay on-topic!
My blog, my rules- my rules are simple, stay on-topic and be prepared to defend your position.
Obviously you are incapable of doing either...
At 3:54 AM,
The whole truth said…
I haven't stated my position Joe, so there's no position for me to defend. I'm challenging and questioning your stated position Joe. Why are you afraid to defend it? All you do is bluster and pout and rage and evade.
My comments are all on topic Joe. They all pertain to things you've said, including all your name calling and insults.
Where's your "testable hypothesis" for ID, CSI, specified complexity, FSCI, irreducible complexity, telic/teleological creation/origins and design, and all your other claims?
Let's see you use whatever "testable hypothesis" you can conjure up on all the things I suggested (rock, feather, frog, etc.). You can actually apply your "testable hypothesis" to actually test such common things, can't you Joe?
And where's your "testable hypothesis" for determining that non-telic and non-teleological processes are NOT responsible for life and its diversity?
At 7:53 AM,
The whole truth said…
Joe: "MathGrrl made a claim basically saying my position of CSI is mine and mine alone."
Uh, no Joe. She pointed out that there is disagreement in the ID ranks and asked some of the ID proponents on UD to explain and/or verify their disagreement with Dembski, or whomever, when it comes to calculating CSI.
At 8:01 AM,
Joe G said…
MathGrrl made a claim basically saying my position of CSI is mine and mine alone."
the whole tard:
Uh, no Joe.
Yes she did you fucking asshole.
At 8:01 AM,
Joe G said…
the whole tard:
I haven't stated my position Joe, so there's no position for me to defend.
Then state it and defend it or fuck off.
It is that simple.
Post a Comment
<< Home