Richie Hughes- Still Choking on the EleP(T|H)ant in the Room
-
Poor Richie, he still doesn't understand that his position needs to provide the "H" even though it is Dembski's equation. Einstein didn't provide all the "E"'s and "M"'s for his E=MC^2. Pythagoras also used variables for a reason.
P(T|H)- This is a conditional probability equation with the "H" referring to any and all known necessity and chance hypotheses, which includes Richie's position. If Richie's position had something more, like actual evidence as opposed to throwing father time around to solve all woes, the equation would be moot. However our opponents have nothing but a change in allele frequency so Dembski produced a formula to help flesh out the probability of our opponents' claims.
In case you have forgotten "H" includes natural selection (which includes random, as in happenstance, mutations). And if someone could model natural selection producing something like ATP synthase, we wouldn't need the formula. If someone could produce testable hypotheses for natural selection producing ATP synthase we would perhaps only need the formula to see if it checks out.
However our opponents don't have any of that so Dembski's formula is front and center. However just because it is Dembski's formula they mistakenly think that he/ we have to provide all of the numbers- as if we have to cover their ass.
And then they whine about no one calculating CSI AFTER we provide a peer-reviewed paper that dos that with respect to biology.
Never in the history of this planet has there been a more ignorant and dishonest group of self-promoting people than the opponents of ID.
Poor Richie, he still doesn't understand that his position needs to provide the "H" even though it is Dembski's equation. Einstein didn't provide all the "E"'s and "M"'s for his E=MC^2. Pythagoras also used variables for a reason.
P(T|H)- This is a conditional probability equation with the "H" referring to any and all known necessity and chance hypotheses, which includes Richie's position. If Richie's position had something more, like actual evidence as opposed to throwing father time around to solve all woes, the equation would be moot. However our opponents have nothing but a change in allele frequency so Dembski produced a formula to help flesh out the probability of our opponents' claims.
In case you have forgotten "H" includes natural selection (which includes random, as in happenstance, mutations). And if someone could model natural selection producing something like ATP synthase, we wouldn't need the formula. If someone could produce testable hypotheses for natural selection producing ATP synthase we would perhaps only need the formula to see if it checks out.
However our opponents don't have any of that so Dembski's formula is front and center. However just because it is Dembski's formula they mistakenly think that he/ we have to provide all of the numbers- as if we have to cover their ass.
And then they whine about no one calculating CSI AFTER we provide a peer-reviewed paper that dos that with respect to biology.
Never in the history of this planet has there been a more ignorant and dishonest group of self-promoting people than the opponents of ID.
posted by Joe G @ 12:16 PM
7 Comments:
At 1:48 PM,
Unknown said…
Wrong again. There is nothing and no reason that those supporting mainstream evolutionary theory need to do a single thing dealing with Dr Dembski's formulation.
We can just let him and you stew in your own juices. Have a good time.
At 2:08 PM,
Joe G said…
What evolutionary theory? The people who support unguided evolution don't have any evidence to help them.
We let you and your ilk stew in your ignorance.
At 2:15 PM,
Joe G said…
So that we are clear- Jerad is OK with the fact that his position doesn't have a theory, it doesn't have any testable hypotheses, it cannot be modelled and it doesn't make any predictions based on differing accumulations of genetic accidents.
And yet Jerad thinks his position is somehow science...
At 4:06 PM,
Unknown said…
The evolutionary camp has no obligation to provide any arguments for Dr Dembski's formulation.
If he came up with some kind of hypothesis then it's up to him and/or his supporters to provide the data.
Grow up.
At 4:09 PM,
Unknown said…
If you and/or Dr Dembski think you have a case to make then write it up and publish it.
Oddly enough, Dr Dembski has done very little work around his argument for over 10 years. And, as far as I know, you (Joe) have published nothing.
If you're right why haven't you presented your findings? To a peer-reviewed journal?
At 10:15 AM,
Joe G said…
The evolutionary camp has no obligation to provide any arguments for Dr Dembski's formulation.
LoL! The evolutionary camp has an obligation to provide evidence for the claims of their position and it cannot. The evolutionary camp is full of bluffers, liars and losers.
If the evolutionary camp had an argument they would write it up and submit it to peer-review. Yet they haven't
At 10:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Evolutionary biologists can't even explain how unguided evolution produced eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes. And THAT is GIVEN starting populations of prokaryotes.
No model, no testable hypotheses and no predictions based on the proposed mechanisms.
Post a Comment
<< Home