How to have a good debate OR why Richie TARD Hughes is an Asshole
Richie's new thread in which he tries to goad kairosfocus into a "debate" demonstrates that Richie doesn't know his place. The skeptical zone is not a good place for a debate for the simple reason is that not one of the regulars can produce any evidence nor models nor testable hypotheses for unguided evolution. All you chumps do, Richie, is pontificate and equivocate. If you assholes had something then you wouldn't have to even discuss ID as the evidence for your position would be evidence against ID's claims*.
Show us that the environment can produce biological design. Show us a model of unguided evolution producing something of note. Show us how to test the claim that unguided evolution can produce ATP synthase.
I think many people find massive holes in his FSCO/I conceptSo what? Those people cannot provide a scientifically viable explanation for unguided evolution producing what KF says has FSCO/I. You have NOTHING but a massive hole where your hypotheses and models should be.
Your criticisms of ID would be listened to if you could just lead by example. But you can't and that is why there isn't any good debate with you and your ilk. You are just a bunch of sore losers.
Also it is very telling that you assholes say that FSCO/I or CSI has never been calculated for anything and when KF does so for objects known to be designed all you do is have a hissy fit. And then when we show you a peer-reviewed paper that calculates it wrt biology you throw another hissy fit.
You have never demonstrated any understanding of ID's concepts, Richie. You choke on CSI. You choke on Specification. You think active information replaced CSI. You think algorithmic specified complexity is something other than a way of measuring specified complexity. You are a fucking moron who has to hide behind others. Not one of you could stand alone against either me or KF. Without a mob all you do is cower- all of you. So why would KF engage you at TSZ?
*1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.