Intelligent Reasoning

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

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Another Dumbass Bogus CSI "Challenge"

Lizzie, please, just give up. I know that you think that you are onto something but you are not. You also seem to think that Dembski's paper "Specification" lives in total isolation. It does not.

Lizzie has claimed to have read "No Free Lunch" yet she chooses to ignore it. Must have been way over her head.

Lizzie's dumbass bogus CSI "challenge"

A picture? Really? If you give a staged picture of a person with his eyes closed to a forensic scientist do you think he/ she could tell if the person is dead or alive? Could that scientist tell you how he might have died?

The point is science is not done via photos alone. And if all you have are photos then you had better have high resolution and many angles before even beginning.

We need to see the actual thing, Lizzie. Or are you asking if agency involvement was required to make the picture?


  • At 4:01 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    LOL! It's not a photo of an object you obese moron, it's a 2 dimensional pattern. Dr. Liddle gives you the exact number of pixels and the grey scale value for each. That's all the information needed to generate the pattern, which you claim is sufficient to calculate the CSI.

    Go ahead Chubs, calculate the CSI of the pattern itself and determine "intelligently designed" or not like you bragged you could do.

  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks for proving that her "challenge" is total bullshit.

    Obvioulsy nature, operating freely, didn't produce it, even if CSI was not present.

    So yes, it was obvioulsy intelligently designed, and I didn't need CSI to determine that.

    Dumbass ignorant evoTARDs

  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    Obvioulsy nature, operating freely, didn't produce it

    How did you determine that the pattern wasn't naturally produced Chubs? Suppose it is just a digitized example of the pattern in a butterfly's wing?

    What's the CSI value of the pattern?

    You can't calculate it despite are your blustering bullshit.

  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dumbass, Lizzie said she produced it. And your position cannot account for a butterfly's wing- your position cannot account for anything.

    So if it were a butterfly's wing it would contain CSI. The minimal living organism contains CSI therefor all organisms do, duh.

    And CSI is a yes or now thing, you fucking ignorant dickeater. The value for CSI is 500 bits.

    And again, I wouldn't use CSI on a pattern. That is just the wrong tool. But you wouldn't know about that because you are just an imbecile.

  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    And CSI is a yes or now thing, and I'm a fucking ignorant dickeater. The value for CSI is 500 bits.

    LOL! So all items either contain 500 bits of CSI or they contain 0. It's a "yes or now" thing, right?

    How many bits does the pattern contain? Where are your calculations? You can't do them!

    I think the fat cells finally strangled the last firing neuron in your brain Chubs.

  • At 8:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, you are an ignorant dickeater.

    And no, just because CSI is a yes or no thing does not mean that it is either 500 bits or 0. Only a syphilis riddled dick munching asswipe would even think such a thing.

    And are you admitting that you cannot do the math? Oh, that's right, you think that 32 base pairs = 5 bits:

    thorton blows 1st grade math

    So obviously YOU CAN'T DO THEM, penis breath loser.

  • At 9:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW dickeater, Lizzie is just asking if it contains CSI. She isn't asking for any specific number.

    Even she is as ignorant as you are.

  • At 9:06 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    Lizzie is just asking if it contains CSI. She isn't asking for any specific number.

    Then do the calculation and tell us if it has "500 bits" or not.

    You're the ass who keeps claiming we can tell just by examining the design. But every time you're given a chance to demonstrate an actual calculation of CSI you shit your pants.

  • At 9:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway- doing the maff:

    523,110 pixels with each pixel having a value of 0-255. That is 8 bits per pixel.

    523,110 x 8 = 4,184,880 bits of information carrying capacity.

    But that is the image, not the actual thing.

    So the image contains complex Shannon information.

  • At 9:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thorton lies:
    You're the ass who keeps claiming we can tell just by examining the design.

    Nope. I never said such a thing. I said the opposite in this very thread you piece of shit loser.

    CSI is NOT the tool to use in this case. AND no scientist would ever deem it necessary to investigate that image.

    You morons think that science is a parlor game and that just proves that you are clueless faggots.

    Also Lizzie said it is a photo, tardboy. She even gives the file of the MysteryPhoto.

    So what the fuck is your malfunction?

  • At 10:55 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    So the image contains complex Shannon information.

    But Chubs, you were suppose to calculate the complex specified information in the pattern to see if it's over 500 bits, to tell if the pattern was intelligently designed or not.

    You can't tell if the pattern came from a butterfly's wing (with gobs of CSI supposedly) or is just the patterns of melting snow which has 0 CSI.

    You can't do it. Another big FAIL for the fatboy.

    Now go change out of those shit-filled pants. You stink.

  • At 11:43 PM, Blogger bpragmatic said…

    let us cut to the chase, so to speak. no so called god allowed. let us consider something called natural processes so to speak. so per scientific demonstration, please show how these natural processes came into existence. then, aside from speculation, demonstrate the requirements, or even no, how speculative forces would be available to utilize needed resources, that came from speculative sources, to arrive at what, for speculative reasons, we think we can observe,sufficiently to really know the answers to all of the questions that are involved in WHAT IT IS YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

    Thorton, this is a long winded way of pointing out that you dont know shit. So, please stop saying that you know anything regarding these questions, you stupid ass.

    Realize that nobody here is saying that they for sure know that gawditit. You ass, you want it to not be true, or you wouldnt spend all this time conjecturing and pointing to bullshit speculation to support your preferred philosophical stance on why the fuck you can even think. You jackass.

  • At 1:04 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Bwahahahah Joe fails CSI math. We don't want the configuration space, we want the CSI calculation. Fucking bluffer.

  • At 7:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Richie dipshit. I have never claimed to be able to calculate the CSI of a doctored photo. Never. No one has made that claim

    IOW you evoTARDs are just stupid fucking morons.

  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM dipshit chimes in:
    No doubt it is also “chock full” and “replete” with FSCO/I as well.

    Nope. There isn't any functional information there.

  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lizzie blathers:
    Right, now all he has to do is compute the compressibility of my image, and the proportion of other possible images with the same amount of Shannon Information that are as, or more, compressible.

    Lizzie you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I take it that you are proud to be an asshole.

    Nice job...

  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Earlier Lizze sed:
    Well, if I’m understanding Dembski correctly...

    It's a given that you don't understand Dembski correctly. It has been pointed out to you many times that you don't and yet you refuse to correct your thinking.

    It's as if you are proud to misrepresent ID.

  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    You are a fucking liar and a moron. The "challenge" is totally bogus. IOW you are so fucking stupid that you can't even properly respond to the OP.

    Not only that you LIED about the photo.

    So if you can't stay on-topic then you don't get to post here, got it?

    Only imbecilic morons think that science can be conducted using picture. And here you are, along with Lizzie and all the other clueless loser evoTARDs.

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    LOL! Once a chickenshit always a chickenshit, eh fatboy?

    Hide here in your shithole blog, scream insults to make your fat ass feel better about being such a loser. It's all you've got.

  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, thorton, YOU have been a chickenshit coward and ignorant fuck your entire life.

    That isn't something to be proud of, yet you are. Strange...

    Keep hiding in your sock-puppets, loser.

  • At 12:13 AM, Blogger Diogenes said…

    A classic. Another example of Joe Security Clearance saying that CSI can never be produced by natural processes, then when we ask him and all the other ID posers to calculate CSI for the simplest patterns we can conceive, Joe Security Clearance shits his pants and says DUH, it has Shannon information. We didn't ask you to compute Shannon information.

    You won't compute Dembski's CSI for this, or any other pattern, yet you claim it's been proven that natural processes can never produce the quantity you can never compute for any pattern ever. If you can't compute CSI for any pattern, no matter how easy we make it for you IDiots, how can you know that nature can't produce it?

    Because Intelligent Design is a fraud and anti-evolutionists pretend to know things they do not. The shit in your pants can be smelled across the internet each and every time we ask you these questions. There will be more. We will make it easier and easier for Intelligent Design dumbfucks but we know you'll never answer.

  • At 5:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow, another ignorant coward chimes in with a substance-free cry-baby rant.

    Shannon methodology is how we calculate quantity, dumbass.

    CSI has been calculated and it is in peer-review, moron.

    BTW ID isn't anti-evolution you ignorant punk. And if your position has something to support it besides ignorant assholes like you ID would fade away.


Post a Comment

<< Home