Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, February 09, 2010, 02:43 (5401 days ago) @ David Turell

David
> 
> I don't care if he made an error. My point was, obviously, he had some way of using necessary proteins to make such a calculation for 'chance',and by your own discussion his odds were more enormous that he stated. The discovery of the error only makes his point stronger, it seems to me, as it increases the odds against 'chance'. You are quite overly emotional about Dembski.-The issue is a matter of honesty; he has been publicly confronted about this (and other errors, some of which I've already shown to you and you at least appeared to take them seriously.)-Dembski deliberately misleads through mathematical obfuscation. He does this because its the one thing that the majority of his audience is ignorant to (including yourself, by your own admission!) 
"I just don't know enough math to even try" -The goal of a practitioner of science isn't to obfuscate, but to clarify. -I've gone over exactly why Dembski's premises are wrong, he's calculating the odds of a single linear combination of events, as if there was only a single attempt at each step. This clearly wouldn't be the case with or without a designer. His formula also doesn't talk about time, which is something that he would absolutely need to provide. -I've enumerated a countless number of his fatal mathematical flaws throughout my time here, beginning with your initial probing of Information theory back on my first post.

--
\"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.\"