Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 08, 2010, 23:33 (5401 days ago) @ David Turell

And Dembski solved that problem incorrectly skewing his result by 100 orders of magnitude (against himself, I add). I reiterate that the fact he's not willing to fix an error (that would even work in his own favor) means he's deliberately dishonest. That book's been in print for over 10 years and no errata has appeared on his website to address this. I still don't know why you care to quote him, he is beyond contempt in my view. -All the rest of your post has some good critiques, but I stress that it is all based only on what we know at present, looking at life at present, etc. etc. -There isn't enough certainty in any of this to justify a creator--there's far too little information.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"