[robindch]

Originally Posted by [-0-]

it is a crying shame that people like this exist.

Wright's views, and those of her supporters, might be moronic, but they have a right to hold them. And while both sets of people are unlikely to the point of certainty, never to make a positive or useful contribution to the sum total of human knowledge or human honesty, that's the way they have chosen to spend their limited time alive. It's a crying shame that they've made this choice, but it's not a crying shame that they exist -- that judgement is one that they can only make for themselves.

[robindch]

Originally Posted by oldrnwisr

No, JC, you still don't seem to understand

oldrnwisr -- I'd have stopped writing at that point

[oldrnwisr]

To continue my previous thread regarding Dembski...

Problem 3 - Mathematics

Mathematics is not Bill Dembski's friend. Despite being a mathematician, it is from this field that some of the strongest criticism of Dembski's work has come, particularly in relation to Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information" which is mathematically unsound.

The summary of Dembski's "argument" is given on page 62 of "No Free Lunch":

“Given a reference class of possibilities, a chance hypothesis H, a
probability measure induced by H and defined on (i.e., P(·|H)),
and an event/sample E from W; a rejection function f is detachable from E if and only if a subject possesses background knowledge K that is conditionally independent of E (i.e., P(E|H&K) = P(E|H)) and such that K explicitly and univocally identifies the function f. Any rejection region R of the form T = {! 2 |f(!)} or T = {! 2 |f(!) } is then said to be detachable from E as well. Furthermore, R is then called a specification of E, and E is said to be specified.”

OK, I've just realised that this is not going to be possible on boards because of the level of mathematical operators required. Instead, please have a look at this link which covers in detail, the reasons why the above stated argument is deeply flawed.

On Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information

Instead of spelling out the math mistakes here, I am going to provide three simples lessons about probability which you, JC, and Dembski sorely need.

1. Let us assume that we are playing a game of cards. Each player gets dealt a hand of 5 cards. Now we will assume that there are six players at this particular game. Therefore thirty cards will be dealt. The first card dealt is the Ace of Hearts. The chance of this is 1/52. The next card is the four of clubs. The chance of this card being dealt is 1/51. So the probability that the first two cards to be dealt are the Ace of Hearts AND the four of clubs is (1/52) x (1/51) or (1/2652). Now let us deal the rest of the cards. The full sequence having been dealt, we can say that the chance of that specific sequence being dealt is (1/52) x (1/51) x (1/50) etc. so that the chance of dealing the entire sequence is approximately 7x10^46. You would conclude that such an event would be extremely unlikely to occur. Yet it did occur. You just dealt the cards in that pattern. So the actual probability of that sequence is 1. Thus, there is no value in attempting to determine the probability of an event which has already occurred.
2. In this second scenario, we are going to deal all of the cards. The initial conditions are still the same, just that this time the chance of the final sequence being dealt is 1 in 8x10^67. In this scenario, we have again calculated the chances of this specific sequence of cards being dealt. However, since 52 cards were going to be dealt anyway, all that you have done is calculated the odds of one specific sequence. The odds of any sequence of 52 cards is again 1. This is particularly relevant since bogus probability calculations pop up in creationist claims about the chances of a protein or similar compound forming by chance. Leaving aside, for the moment, that chance is irrelevant to a process not governed by it, all that these creationists have done is calculate the probability of one specific mechanism between A and B.
3. A nice short, easy one to finish on. This is particularly relevant to Dembski since he makes this mistake time and again. Let's suppose that I give you a deck of cards and ask you to pick one at random. The chances of that card being, say, the eight of diamonds is 1/52. Now, instead let's suppose that I asked you to reach into a black box and pull out a card. What are the chances that that card is the eight of diamonds? The short answer is it's indeterminate. You, in this case, have no idea how many cards are in the box, which is a necessary piece of information. It could be 1/4 or 1/400. This is the mistake made by Dembski and others. You need to know what the available range of values to choose from is in order to determine probability. In the cases commonly quoted like the bacterial flagellum, this value range is not just unknown but unknowable given our current scientific understanding. So any calculation of its probability is meaningless.

[robindch]

Originally Posted by oldrnwisr

I've just realised that this is not going to be possible on boards because of the level of mathematical operators required.

Boards supports LaTeX. For example, to produce this:



...you enter this:

[latex]x=\frac{-b + \sqrt {b^2-4ac}}{2a}[/latex]

Though I wouldn't bother wasting time doing while refuting Dumbski, since he's still at "pushing colored beads around in the sand" stage.

[oldrnwisr]

Originally Posted by robindch

Boards supports LaTeX. For example, to produce this:



...you enter this:

[latex]x=\frac{-b + \sqrt {b^2-4ac}}{2a}[/latex]

Though I wouldn't bother wasting time doing while refuting Dumbski, since he's still at "pushing colored beads around in the sand" stage.

Thanks, for that Robin. For the moment, though, Tellgren's essay serves my purposes well enough although it might be necessary if the essay proves too challenging.

[J C]

Originally Posted by robindch

Wendy Wright is perhaps the stupidest human being I've seen.

She is a walking, bleating warning concerning the dangers of stupidity. She produces and revels in the vast clouds of stupid which exude from her every stupid pore and with every stupid syllable. And the wall of stupid she has erected around her stupid views is as stupidly impenetrable as it is stupidly high.

In fact, she takes the concept of stupid to a whole new level -- her stupid views are so eye-rollingly, forehead-slappingly, arse-sphincter-clenchingly, thigh-wallopingly stupid that the word "stupid" don't even begin to convey how stupid they are. I have eaten pancakes with more common sense than her views, while sitting on stones which are not as stupid.

I have absolutely no idea how Dawkins managed to remain unfazed in the face of such a continual barrage of, well, stupid.

You are very fond of the word 'stupid', Robin ... are you 'compensating' for something????


Here one of the world's leading Atheists claims that many churchmen believe that Evolution could be for the greater glory of God ... even though he freely admits that a Darwinian Society would be a thoroughly nasty place!!!!:



... anyway Wendy metaphorically 'sliced and diced' the good professor ... he just kept bringing up points ... and Wendy knocked them all down ... as quick as you could say "Miriam O'Callaghan"!!!

... this is what actually happened:-

[koth]

Originally Posted by J C

Here one of the world's leading Atheists claims that Evolution could be for the greater glory of God!!!!:

Do you have some sort of quota for misrepresenting what people say.

He said, "I know evolutionists colleagues who are devout Christians that think it is to the greater glory of God to study the way science is."

I've bolded the part of the sentence that you left out.

[Jernal]

Originally Posted by robindch

Boards supports LaTeX. For example, to produce this:



...you enter this:

[latex]\displaystyle x=\frac{-b \pm \sqrt {b^2-4ac}}{2a}[/latex]

Though I wouldn't bother wasting time doing while refuting Dumbski, since he's still at "pushing colored beads around in the sand" stage.

Improved it for ya.
*I <3 LaTeX.*

[The Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen

I am disappoint with the pitiful number of thanks oldrnwisr has for that post.
I learned from it. And learning is cool! /nerd
Herd some cats in here and get the number up!

Partly I think it's due to the fact that only gluttons for punishment are still reading this train wreck of a thread.

Originally Posted by robindch

Wendy Wright is perhaps the stupidest human being I've seen.

She is a walking, bleating warning concerning the dangers of stupidity. She produces and revels in the vast clouds of stupid which exude from her every stupid pore and with every stupid syllable. And the wall of stupid she has erected around her stupid views is as stupidly impenetrable as it is stupidly high.

In fact, she takes the concept of stupid to a whole new level -- her stupid views are so eye-rollingly, forehead-slappingly, arse-sphincter-clenchingly, thigh-wallopingly stupid that the word "stupid" don't even begin to convey how stupid they are. I have eaten pancakes with more common sense than her views, while sitting on stones which are not as stupid.

I have absolutely no idea how Dawkins managed to remain unfazed in the face of such a continual barrage of, well, stupid.

Crea-TORRR.

[J C]

Originally Posted by koth

Do you have some sort of quota for misrepresenting what people say.

He said, "I know evolutionists colleagues who are devout Christians that think it is to the greater glory of God to study the way science is."

I've bolded the part of the sentence that you left out.

... he also said ... in part 7 "you would think that these fossil histories are to the greater glory of God" ... and then promptly denounced the Darwinian process that supposedly produced these fossil histories as a thoroughly unpleasant process that would create a horrific society that he wouldn't want to live in ... so Darwinian Evolution, if it existed, would actually be to the greater shame of God ... and not to His glory!!!!

[J C]

Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter

Crea-TORRR.

I just love the way Wendy purrs ...just before she metaphorically 'moves in for the (debating) kill'!!!

[koth]

Originally Posted by J C

... he also said ... in part 7 "you would think that these fossil histories are to the greater glory of God" ... and then promptly denounced the Darwinian process that supposedly produced these fossil histories as a thoroughly unpleasant process that would create a horrific society that he wouldn't want to live in ... so Darwinian Evolution, if it existed, would actually be to the greater shame of God ... and not to His glory!!!!

That's twice in a row you've distorted/lied about what was said in the videos.

Dawkins was commenting on a society that existed on the priniciple of "survival of the fittest". It had nothing to do with evolution, he was talking about a type of society.

[J C]

Originally Posted by koth

That's twice in a row you've distorted/lied about what was said in the videos.

Dawkins was commenting on a society that existed on the priniciple of "survival of the fittest". It had nothing to do with evolution, he was talking about a type of society.

I distorted nothing ... there is an inherent contradiction in Prof Dawkins claim that if Darwinian Evolution happened, that this would be to the Glory of God ... and then denouncing a Darwinian Society (based on Evolutionary Principles) as a thoroughly nasty place!!!!
Prof Dawkins point in the interview was that Evolution and 'survival of the fittest' is a nasty competitive system involving death and disease in nature ... but that this doesn't alter the fact that if it exists we should accept that it does ... but we shouldn't construct our societies along its nasty principles.

Prof Dawkins logic is correct that if Evolution exists, the fact that it is nasty shouldn't stop us accepting that it exists and doing all within our power to not model our societies on it ... where his logic fails is when he recommends that Theists should consider a nasty system like Darwinian Evolution to be to the glory of a loving God.

[koth]

Originally Posted by J C

I distorted nothing ... there is an inherent contradiction in a claim that if Darwinian Evolution happened, that this would be to the Glory of God ... and then promptly denouncing a Darwinian Society (based on Evolutionary Principles) as a thoroughly nasty place!!!!

There is no contradiction. You are deliberately distorting the nature of the conversation in attempt to gain a point for your side of the discussion.

[J C]

Originally Posted by koth

There is no contradiction. You are deliberately distorting the nature of the conversation in attempt to gain a point for your side of the discussion.

There may be no contradiction if you believe that God is nasty ... but remember that Prof Dawkins is recommending Darwinian Evolution as the glory of God to Christians ... while simultaneously accepting that Darwinian Evolution is a such nasty system ... that he personally wouldn't apply it to any society that he would want to live in.