Comments on: Lenny Susskind on the Evolution of Physicists

By: kairosfocus

kairosfocus — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:53:11 +0000

PPS: I should clarify. At 115, Rob cites me from 104, without referring to the context in 104 properly, and in alluding to weak argument corrective no 28, he failed to address its substance, which includes the example of a screen-full of functional information [calculated to have over 11 million functional bits], not just snow or random hash.

By: kairosfocus

kairosfocus — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:30:54 +0000

PS: In the other thread at 83 I have also documented from the text of the weak argument corrective no 28, how Rob's highly selective cite in 115 above omits highly material immediate context that shows that by "we" I am speaking of any observer capable of looking at a computer screen-full of pixels exhibiting a functional pattern, as an illustration of a general pattern where by 1,000 functional bits shows a threshold where we may confidently infer to intelligent design. Once the clipped out clause is seen in its IMMEDIATE context, the rhetorical force of Rob's argument by citing and shifting context, at 115 above, evaporates.

By: kairosfocus

kairosfocus — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:07:15 +0000

Footnote:

In the current OOL thread, I responded to Rob’s assertions at 115 above (which he also raised there), expanding on the issues that Jerry raised in 116, whch in turn refer back to my comment to Nakashima-san, at 104.

Cf remarks at 82 in the current OOL thread.

GEM of TKI

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:29:18 +0000

R0b,

If you don’t like the design inference pertaining to FCSI or CSI then just demonstrate tat nature, operating freely can account for it.

IOW griping isn’t going to accomplish anything.

By: R0b

R0b — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:58:42 +0000

kairosfocus:

[By contrast we know that intelligence routinely generates such FSCI.]

Who is “we”? It certainly doesn’t include me. In the UD FAQ, you refer to “massive evidence” of this, but I see none. It certainly isn’t documented anywhere.

The determine whether intelligence (I assume you’re referring to humans) generates FSCI, you have to take into account the FSCI that exists prior to the design event. Sure, a human can come up with English text of more than 143 characters, but that ability requires a vocabulary stored in a language-processing mind. How do you measure the FSCI in that mind (whether it be pure gray matter or immaterial)? To quote Dembski, “Remember that we are interested in the **generation** of specified complexity and not in its reshuffling.”

When we lack prerequisite information, we humans fail to find functional targets. The security of passwords and combination locks depends on that fact.

By: PaulBurnett

PaulBurnett — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:17:44 +0000

“Upright BiPed” (#113) wrote: “PaulBurnet makes a startling and comprehensive rebutal of the physical evidence for design in post 107.” /sarcasm mode OFF

I merely pointed out that (for whatever reason) you had neglected mentioning that the council whose journal Meyer’s article was fraudulently posted in had determined that the article was not scientific – thus breaking the chain of causality of subsequent articles depending on it for authenticity as being scientific. I made no claim that this was “a startling and comprehensive rebutal of the physical evidence for design.” But if that floats your boat, go for it.

By: Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:03:10 +0000

PaulBurnet makes a startling and comprehensive rebutal of the physical evidence for design in post 107. Please everyone, please, please read it.

- – - – - – - – -

Winston, it seems by your post that you have access to the Internet, perhaps I am missing what you are asking. All of the papers are available on-line.

Best regards…

- – - – - – - – -

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....id=1208958

http://www.culturaleconomics.a.....201968.htm

http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf

http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....38;id=2177

http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47

By: allanius

allanius — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:11:37 +0000

So the Matrix really does exist. Only the freedom-loving rebels are not the ones who are trying to smash it (the smashers are the ones in charge). Instead, the rebels are persecuted simply for acknowledging its existence.

By: Clive Hayden

Clive Hayden — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:00:36 +0000

PaulBurnett,

——”Again, standard creationist carping about missing intermediates.”

Standard strawman characterization by evolutionists.

By: Clive Hayden

Clive Hayden — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:58:53 +0000

PaulBurnett,

——”This has (among other things) the effect of discouraging dissenters from commenting and chasing them away, leaving the survivors congratulating themselves that they must be right, because nobody appears to disagree with them.”

People that have been put on moderation have been put there for a reason. If you don’t like the delay, don’t misbehave in the first place and have yourself moderated.