tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post7478396932546502963..comments2023-09-16T09:31:23.577-04:00Comments on Please be patient, I am evolving as fast as I can!: Tautologically speaking -- Yes, Dembski again :-)Ted Herrlichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-78776021894948865582009-05-13T12:00:00.000-04:002009-05-13T12:00:00.000-04:00I'm not sure how 'smart' Dembski is, oh he is educ...I'm not sure how 'smart' Dembski is, oh he is educated, but smart? Anyone who says that the other esoteric mathematicians, who claim his 'work' is nothing but the unmitigated soil of a well-few male bovine, aren't smart enough to understand it . . . that's pure ego to me!Ted Herrlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-42657645420518865932009-05-13T10:58:00.000-04:002009-05-13T10:58:00.000-04:00So these guys must have some kind of smarts. They ...So these guys must have some kind of smarts. They go to all that trouble to get a Phd and spend the rest of their careers trying to prove that what happened didn't happen.<br /><br />I guess it's a paycheck.scriptohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899049404620738944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-65735727946447023122009-05-12T12:39:00.000-04:002009-05-12T12:39:00.000-04:00I think they [ID Supporters] keep trying to come u...I think they [ID Supporters] keep trying to come up with ways to equate ID and Evolution, but always come out on the losing end of the stick. So they try and rationalize it with tactics like equating Evolution to a religion, claiming that both are simply two different points of view that start from the same evidence, and the whole micro-macro evolution lunacy. They would love to be perceived to be at the same level as science, but as of yet only hard-core believers pay much attention to it. In the mean time Dembski keeps muddying the waters with unsupported assumptions and wishful thinking -- the only thinking that seems to appear to be in his work at any rate.Ted Herrlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-65583552960554337122009-05-12T11:12:00.000-04:002009-05-12T11:12:00.000-04:00"Unless possibilities are excluded, no information...<I>"Unless possibilities are excluded, no information can be conveyed. To say "it is raining" or "it is not raining" is uninformative because that statement excludes no possibilities."</I> <br />I'm trying to wade through this thing. But this statement on the face of it seems needlessly simplistic. I'd maintain that information is conveyed in that statement, namely the state of knowlege of the agent making the statement. Or it could apply to weather on a global scale comparative to say weather on a waterless planet.<br />I don't see how it is possible to exclude all possibilities when the backgound knowlege is a work in progress. These ID'ers seem to start with an assumption that what happened had to happen in the way it happened and base their calculations working backward from there. They ignore the fact that there is an enormous number of potential variants acting simultaneously with an enormous number of fitness functions over an enormous time period. How can you eliminate a universe of poorly understood possiblities?<br />It would seem to me that the only way that they could compare ID with TOE would be to offer some sort of comparative process. Then they could play games with which is more statistically likely.scriptohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899049404620738944noreply@blogger.com