Elizabeth Liddle, So Stupid it Hurts

-
Poor old Lizzie Liddle, clueles until the end. Lizzie sez:

It doesn’t matter how “consistent” Dembski has been in his assertion that Design detection requires “careful investigation to identify the relevant chance hypothesis”. Unless Dembski can actually compute the probability distribution under the null that some relevant chance hypothesis is true, he has no way to reject it.

You stupid fuck! YOU or someone from your position needs to show that it even deserves a place at the probability table.

IOW no one can even demonstrate any "relevant chance hypothesis" wrt the OoL nor the evolution of any biological system or subsystem.

You evoTARDs are so fucking stupid that you don't even grasp that simple fact.
That is the real elephant in the room, Lizzie, you clueless loser.

And keiths proves he is still a cluless fuck:

It’s ironic that ID proponents are always demanding mutation-by-mutation accounts of how this or that biological feature evolved, because that is the level of detail they must provide in order to justify the values they assign to P(T|H).

Umm, dumbass, it is your position making the claim that accumulations of random mutations can do this or that. Therefor the onus is on you to demonstrate such a thing. IOW don't blame us because your position is writing checks it cannot cash.

It’s even worse for them, in fact, because P(T|H) must encompass all possible evolutionary pathways to a given endpoint.

AGAIN, it is up to you to show that your position even deserves a place at the probability table. And stop blaming us because you are unable to do so.

Also it is NOT about "evolutionary pathways"- that is just cowardly equivocation. It is all about blind and undirected chemical processes being able to produce something. And to date you can't even muster a testable hypothesis for such a scenario.