"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Denial of a Young Earth ... and excuses to continue believing in the 'long ages' required to give any credibility to M2M Evolution.

The dating of coal and diamonds has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. You have presented absolutely no evidence of a young earth. I can present mountains of evidence of an earth which is billions of years old. You lose.

Face it, you're fooling nobody only yourself.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

The dating of coal and diamonds has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. You have presented absolutely no evidence of a young earth. I can present mountains of evidence of an earth which is billions of years old. You lose.

It is you who raised this issue ... when you thought it would help your case ... and now that it has 'blown up in your face' you are saying that it nothing to do with Evolution!!!

Please do yourself a favour ... and stop digging!!!:eek:

Corkfeen

This thread is becoming painful...... J C I take it that you're also the under impression that this is what life used to be like.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY6LwQrdjcg

*Sigh if only....*:pac: By the way, Dinosaurs have been carbon dated to over 200 million years ago....

J C

... so you have no scientifically valid answers ... and you're now resorting to children's cartoons!!!:):pac:

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

... so you have no scientifically valid answers ... and you're now resorting to children's cartoons!!!:):pac:

Erm. It was to illustrate a point more than anything. Dinosaurs being radiocarbon dated back to 200 million years would sort refute the point which you were just making. Any children's encyclopedia should illustrate this for you. This is a scientifically valid answer by the way.

Edit: Error correct in post below. And damn, should have noticed that earlier post... :P

J C

Corkfeen wrote: »

By the way, Dinosaurs have been carbon dated to over 200 million years ago....

No they haven't ... Carbon Dating cannot, even in theory 'date' aretifacts that are millions of 'evolutionist years' old.

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

No they haven't ... Carbon Dating cannot, even in theory 'date' aretifacts that are millions of 'evolutionist years' old.

Apologies, I was incorrect. However they use different methods to date dinosaurs, radiometric dating. My point still stands essentially.

Dating Sedimentary Rock
The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.
Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.
So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.
Using the basic ideas of bracketing and radiometric dating, researchers have determined the age of rock layers all over the world. This information has also helped determine the age of the Earth itself. While the oldest known rocks on Earth are about 3.5 billion years old, researchers have found zircon crystals that are 4.3 billion years old [source: USGS]. Based on the analysis of these samples, scientists estimate that the Earth itself is about 4.5 billion years old. In addition, the oldest known moon rocks are 4.5 billion years old. Since the moon and the Earth probably formed at the same time, this supports the current idea of the Earth's age.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

It is you who raised this issue ... when you thought it would help your case ... and now that it has 'blown up in your face' you are saying that it nothing to do with Evolution!!!

Please do yourself a favour ... and stop digging!!!:eek:

Yes - I raised the issue, when you routinely stated that the Earth was 6,000 years old. I then asked you to present evidence to support your claim, and the best you could come up with was erroneously dated coal and diamonds, that set them at 50,000 years old.

You're so odiously awful at this debate, that even with your fabricated nonsense, you still can't even get your story right.

The only thing that has blown up in my face, is hot air from you. Like I said - you're fooling nobody on this thread but yourself.

J C

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm. It was to illustrate a point more than anything. Dinosaurs being radiocarbon dated back to 200 million years would sort refute the point which you were just making.

It might ... if it did ... but unfortunately for your idea, radioscarbon 'dating' isn't capable of doing this ... even in theory.

Corkfeen wrote: »

Any children's encyclopedia should illustrate this for you. This is a scientifically valid answer by the way.

It isn't scientiically valid ... please ask any physicist, who will confirm that I am correct on this issue.

Sarky

I live with a physicist and he thinks you're a moron.

Edit: Actually, the other half-dozen or so physicists I occasionally go drinking with also reckon you're a bit thick. I know a couple of geologists too who took a look at some of your posts about the floods and isotope dating, and the just felt sad about how wrong you'd gotten it all. I have friends in a couple of other disciplines too, microbiology, mathematics, chemistry, statistics, philosophy... Every time I've shown them something that you wrote, J C, they have told me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Further edit: I should probably point out that those aren't my words. I merely call J C intellectually dishonest and evasive to the point of cowardice. Anyone I show his posts to though, not being on boards.ie, tend to be less diplomatic in their judgements. I'm sure J C will say I'm spewing evil mean ad hominems at him, of course, but he tends to do that whenever someone points out that something he's posted is very stupid...

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

LOL, you mean the non-ID, non-Creation Science W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California where natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with Evolutionist 'ages' in excess of 100 Ma yielded 14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.:eek::D:)
Reference Taylor RE, Southon J (2007). "Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259: 282–28. Bibcode 2007NIMPB.259..282T. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.239.

When you're in a hole ... the first rule is to stop digging!!!:)

As someone else pointed out, you can't even date diamonds using carbon dating.
As for the last line, take your own advice.

J C wrote: »

I feel your pain ... and I can assure you that Jesus loves you and wants to Save and prosper you.

I thought we were having a scientific argument? What has Jesus got to do with it?

J C wrote: »

Denial of a Young Earth ... and excuses to continue believing in the 'long ages' required to give any credibility to M2M Evolution.

Denial of a young earth = accepting scientific fact. Putting long years in inverted commas doesn't make it any less believable either. From now on when you say long years, I suggest people read it as 'real time'.

J C wrote: »

It is you who raised this issue ... when you thought it would help your case ... and now that it has 'blown up in your face' you are saying that it nothing to do with Evolution!!!

Please do yourself a favour ... and stop digging!!!:eek:

It hasn't blown up in his face, he pointed out why you're wrong. It's completely relevant because it's showing creation scientists just pull figures out of their ass.

J C wrote: »

No they haven't ... Carbon Dating cannot, even in theory 'date' aretifacts that are millions of 'evolutionist years' old.

So...you're invalidating your earlier argument?

Where's your response to the rest of my last post? Or was 'Jesus loves you' all you had to say? Because like I pointed out, I'm not having a religious argument with you, I'm having a scientific one.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

No they haven't ... Carbon Dating cannot, even in theory 'date' aretifacts that are millions of 'evolutionist years' old.

You are correct. They cannot date artefacts that are over 58,000 years old (dinosaur fossils included). Do you know what else that cannot date? Coal and diamonds. That is why scientists use other radiometric dating methodologies for dating fossils (well technically, the surrounding rocks).

J C

Corkfeen wrote: »

Apologies, I was incorrect. However they use different methods to date dinosaurs, radiometric dating. My point still stands essentially.

... these other methods are equally invalid ... they are based on assumptions that cannot be verified ... things like the parent isotopes were originally 100% and the daughter isotopes were 0 ... and no dilution occurred via leaching.
Please stop digging!!:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... these other methods are equally invalid ... they are based on assumptions that cannot be verified ... things like the parent isotopes were originally 100% and the daughter isotopes were 0 ... and no dilution occurred via leaching.
Please stop digging!!:)

See the bit I've underlined? That sums up every single one of your arguments so far.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... these other methods are equally invalid ... they are based on assumptions that cannot be verified ...

Er, yes they can be verified - otherwise scientists would discard them for a more accurate dating methodology. Scientists unlike yourself, have no dogmatic agenda. They pursue scientific truth, and don't try to bend or fabricate stories to try and suit a 2,000 year old tale from a bunch of Palestinian goat-herders.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes - I raised the issue, when you routinely stated that the Earth was 6,000 years old. I then asked you to present evidence to support your claim, and the best you could come up with was erroneously dated coal and diamonds, that set them at 50,000 years old.

You're so odiously awful at this debate, that even with your fabricated nonsense, you still can't even get your story right.

The only thing that has blown up in my face, is hot air from you. Like I said - you're fooling nobody on this thread but yourself.

Scales and calibration curves are used as well as differential equations ... and the radiocarbon 'ages' are determined on the basis of these assumptions.

The 50,000 year figure isn't correct ... but I will agree to differ with you on this ...
... but the fact that any 14C is detected within diamonds that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years 'old' proves that they aren't hundreds of millions of years ... no matter how much 'long agers' wish them to be.:);)

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Scales and calibration curves are used as well as differential equations ... and the radiocarbon 'ages' are determined on the basis of these assumptions.

Which is why they have 'error margins'. All considered by scientists long ago. Uranium-lead dating for example has an error margin of 2% - 5%. That means, that in every billion years - they could be off by a maximum of 5 million years. Hardly the error margin you'd require for young earth lunatics to invalidate the methodologies.

And as earlier requested by you, I asked you - if you don't agree with these dating methods - then you're more than welcome to provide a methodology, which is repeatable, testable and put forward for a peer-review. Instead of doing this - all you did was bring up the same old canard about diamonds, which I have already shown to be fake.

J C wrote: »

The 50,000 year figure isn't correct ... but I will agree to differ with you on this ...

You're damn right it isn't correct. So why use it in the first place?

J C wrote: »

... but the fact that any 14C is detected within diamonds that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years 'old' proves that they aren't hundreds of millions of years ... no matter how hard 'long agers' wish them to be.:);)

No, it isn't proof. The only thing it proves is that you don't understand how radio-carbon dating works, how carbon-14 is acquired, and what it can be used to accurately date, and what it cannot be used with.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Er, yes they can be verified - otherwise scientists would discard them for a more accurate dating methodology.

There are no accurate (millions of years) dating methods ... they are all based on 'long ages' assumptions.

dlofnep wrote: »

Scientists unlike yourself, have no dogmatic agenda. They pursue scientific truth, and don't try to bend or fabricate stories to try and suit a 2,000 year old tale from a bunch of Palestinian goat-herders.

You keep forgetting that Creation Scientists are also conventionally qualified scientists.
... and if young earth creationists can be accused of bias in favour of a young earth ... old earth evolutionists can equally have bias in favour of an old earth.
There is a 'fall back' position for Young Earth Creationists ... of old earth creationism and even theistic evolutionism ... but M2M Evolutionists have no fall back philosophical position ... and an old earth is the 'only game in town' for them.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

There are no accurate dating methods ... they are all based on 'long ages' assumptions.

No, they are based on scientific evidence.

You keep forgetting that Creation Scientists are also conventionally qualified scientists.
... and if young earth creationists can be accused of bias in favour of a young earth ... old earth evolutionists can equally have bias in favour of an old earth.
There is a 'fall back' position for Young Earth Creationists ... of old earth creationism and even theistic evolutionism ... but M2M Evolutionists have no fall back philosophical position ... and an old earth is the 'only game in town' for them.

First of all, 'Old Earth Evolutionists' do not form a scientific discipline. The word you are looking for is 'Geologists'. Well, other disciplines too, but certainly not ones you just made up.

'M2M Evolutionists' are not a scientific group either. It's something you or some other creationist made up in an attempt to make it sound ridiculous.

Sarky

Bets on J C's "scientific qualifications" turning out to be a mail-order degree in homeopathy or something? He certainly didn't learn the kind of science that uses observation of evidence to model and predict the processes of reality.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Which is why they have 'error margins'. All considered by scientists long ago. Uranium-lead dating for example has an error margin of 2% - 5%. That means, that in every billion years - they could be off by a maximum of 5 million years. Hardly the error margin you'd require for young earth lunatics to invalidate the methodologies.

They could be off by almost any amount.

dlofnep wrote: »

And as earlier requested by you, I asked you - if you don't agree with these dating methods - then you're more than welcome to provide a methodology, which is repeatable, testable and put forward for a peer-review. Instead of doing this - all you did was bring up the same old canard about diamonds, which I have already shown to be fake.

You're damn right it isn't correct. So why use it in the first place?

... it's more like less than 10,000 years.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it isn't proof. The only thing it proves is that you don't understand how radio-carbon dating works, how carbon-14 is acquired, and what it can be used to accurately date, and what it cannot be used with.

I know all about it ... you are the guy who was claiming that radiocarbon dating could date artifacts that were supposedly hundreds of millions of years old ... until I corrected you on it.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

First of all, 'Old Earth Evolutionists' do not form a scientific discipline. The word you are looking for is 'Geologists'. Well, other disciplines too, but certainly not ones you just made up.

'M2M Evolutionists' are not a scientific group either. It's something you or some other creationist made up in an attempt to make it sound ridiculous.

I never said they were scientific groups ... they are worldview (or religious) groupings.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Bets on J C's "scientific qualifications" turning out to be a mail-order degree in homeopathy or something? .

You're wrong about that too!!!

Sarky wrote: »

He certainly didn't learn the kind of science that uses observation of evidence to model and predict the processes of reality.

... and you're the ones denying reality ... and the physical evidence under your noses ... to try and cling to your faith that intelligence(s) of epic proportions didn't Created life.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I never said they were scientific groups ... they are worldview (or religious) groupings.

They aren't even that though. And you know quite well that you claiming they are is just an attempt to make it seem like they're something which can be compared. Which they aren't.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

You're wrong about that too!!!

Prove it. Until you do I'll trust the opinions of my friends across multiple scientific disciplines that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You were willing to make a fool of yourself with your incredibly shoddy attempt to "review" a scientific paper. Why stop there?

sponsoredwalk

First off, apologies that I haven't returned to sort out the video lecture
idea, was just so ridiculously busy this week which was the culmination
of an entire christmas of non-stop work.
Screw John May, I don't want to have to deal with getting him on here,
lets do the videos anyway :cool:
We'll start this week:

Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior:
1. The Nature of Evolution: Selection, Inheritance, and History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgHd6HKtvE

I'll try post some things from the chapter later in the week, but I'm still
insanely busy so we'll take it easy for now

sponsoredwalk

Second, I've browsed JC's response to the paper that you guys have
been at JC non-stop to respond to & honestly it's a bit strange that not
one person bothered to quote his arguments. You'll notice that the vast
majority of his responses were merely trying to point out that there is a
distinction between design & intelligent design. I don't know how or why
that paper matters so much, & I'm not sure if the distinction he's trying
to point out is a valid one, but the least you guys could do would be to
respond properly to him - you'll notice that in all my discussions with JC
from over a year ago I at least used his own words against him rather
than just blatant insults. I understand how frustrating it is but considering
this paper has taken up half a year of this thread, and that he's only
agreed to respond to the paper properly now, I don't think it's too much
to ask to engage or at the very least point out exactly where he's lacking
in evidence for his claims...

J C wrote: »

However, the Kolmogorov complexity of a 100 chain amino acid critical sequence biomolecule choosing from 20 AAs at each point on the chain is <=10^-131 which is orders of magnitude beyond the estimated number of electrons in the Universe ... and thus it is a statistical impossibility to produce such specific functional bio-molecules using non-intelligently directed processes.

Ignoring Kolmogorov complexity I addressed this argument over a year
ago. Your argument makes perfect sense if an amino acid exists in
space stuck in some kind of never-ending sequence of permutations of
elements all readily accessible at a moments notice. In other words, you
totally ignore reality with an argument like this. Furthermore you totally
ignore basic chemistry such as the hydrophobic/philic nature of amino
acids & basic thermodynamics (see the video below), totally ignore
environmental influences, totally ignore a little thing called RNA, totally
ignore another little thing called DNA, totally ignore what viruses do,
basically just totally ignore the idea of gradual complexity (i.e. simple to
complex, muck to man in small steps). You can sum it all up in this video
(which you never gave a proper answer to even though I tried more than
once):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Since you're a fan of Richard Dawkins I'll paraphrase something from
the Blind Watchmaker - your argument is akin to believing that by
throwing a bird into the air we should expect the bird's motion to follow
that of a parabolic arc... If you can be honest & think through that little
argument, the possibility of both a live & a dead bird & how each
scenario applies to what I'm saying, I think you'll finally give up on this
point only because of how flawed it is

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

OK let's start with the 'paper'.

Please resist the temptation to use ad hominems ... when ye have no other answer to what I have to say.

My comments will be in blue ... and the text of the paper will be in black.
Quote:-
Abstract
Intelligent design advocate William Dembski has introduced a measure of information called complex specified information", or CSI. He claims that CSI is a reliable marker of design by intelligent agents. He puts forth a "Law of Conservation of Information" which states that chance and natural laws are incapable of generating CSI. True
In particular, CSI cannot be generated by evolutionary computation. True ... and has never been done since, either.

Dembski asserts that CSI is present in intelligent causes and in the flagellum of Escherichia coli, and concludes that neither have natural explanations. He concluded that they have intelligent causes ... without any claim as to whether the intelligence is 'natural' or 'super-natural'. Indeed CSI is found in Human writing, for example ... and this doesn't have a 'super-natural' origin.
In this paper we examine Dembski's claims, point out significant errors in his reasoning, and conclude that there is no reason to accept his assertions. This is an assertion and a claim that I intend to show to not have been achieved in the paper.

Seeing as sponsoredwalk made a good point about no one actually responding to J C'S defence of the paper, I'll at least give it a shot.

1st paragraph: Both you and dembski take the existence of CSI as a given. Can you provide a definition of CSI (Not just what each letter means, a detailed definition) and how can you prove it's existence scientifically?

2nd paragraph: I'm slightly confused by this, a clear definition of CSI may help.

J C wrote: »

1 Introduction
In recent books and articles (e.g., [16, 17, 19]), William Dembski uses a semi-mathematical treatment of information theory to justify his claims about "intelligent design". He has backed up his contentions with mathematical rigour.

Can you back up Dembski's mathematics?

Roughly speaking, intelligent design advocates attempt to infer intelligent causes from observed instances of complex phenomena. They infer intelligent causes from observed instances of complex and specified phenomena
Proponents argue, for example, that biological complexity indicates that life was designed. They argue that biological complexity and specificity indicates that life was designed. There are many complex phenomena that are the result of random or deterministic processes ... things like mixtures of different coloured sand ... or snowflakes are examples of complex phenomena that are the result of random and deterministic processes respectively. They differ from living systems in their (lack of) specificity ... and not in their complexity.

The adding of the word specificty here seems to be purely a tool to distract from the point. Plenty of these complex phenomena could also be described as 'specific'. The specificity of living organisms is adequately explained by evolution in any case. Also, to bring up an often used but good argument, if we assume an intelligent designer created life, how do we explain useless or flawed organs, etc?

This claim is sometimes offered as an alternative to the theory of evolution. It scientifically invalidates Materialistic 'Microbes to Man' Evolution. The appliance of intelligence is potentially capable of Creating a Man and/or developing a Man via a series of intermediary steps from a Microbe. Non-intelligently directed processes, like Materialistic Evolution cannot, even in theory, do this because of the observed specificity of all functional living processes and the effectively infinite combinatorial space occupied by non-functional systems.

You say it scientifically invalidates Evolution, but you don't explain how. Even if ID could be scientifically proven as a possibility, that doesn't automatically eliminate traditional ideas of evolution.

Christian apologist William Lane Craig has called Dembski's work "groundbreaking" [17, blurb at beginning]. True.
Journalist Fred Heeren describes Dembski as "a leading thinker on applications of probability theory" [38].1 At a recent conference [53], University of Texas philosophy professor Robert Koons called Dembski the "Isaac Newton of information theory."2 True.
Is such effusive praise warranted? Yes it is ... and I intend to show that such praise is warranted, by the time I have fully reviwed this paper.

I think it's very important to note that one of this praise comes from a biologist, or scientist of any other relevant discipline.

J C wrote: »

We believe it is not. They are entitled to their beliefs

Of course they are entitled to their beliefs. As are creationists. The issue is when they misrepresent their beliefs as science.

As we will show, Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results. We shall see if any of these, as yet, unsubstantiated assertions can be stood up.
As a result, we believe few if any of Dembski's conclusions can be sustained. Again we shall see if this assertion can be sustained.
Several writers have already taken issue with some of Dembski's claims (e.g., [23, 71, 72, 92, 78, 22, 94, 32]). In this paper we focus on some aspects of Dembski's work that have received little attention thus far. I can hardly wait!!!
Here is an outline of the paper. First, we summarize what we see as Dembski's major claims. Next, we criticize Dembski's concept of "design" and "intelligence". We then turn to one of Dembski's major tools, "complex specifed information", arguing that he uses the term inconsistently and misrepresents the concepts of other authors as being equivalent.
We criticize Dembski's concept of "information" and "specification". We then address his "Law of Conservation of Information", showing that the claim has significant mathematical flaws. We then discuss Dembski's attack on evolutionary computation, showing his claims are unfounded. Finally, we issue a series of challenges to those who would continue to pursue intelligent design. Some of our ideas are based on Kolmogorov complexity, so we provide an introduction to this theory as an appendix. The appendix also contains an alternate account of specification and a suggested replacement for CSI. Good summary of what is being addressed in the paper.

We note that our criticism is based on all of Dembski's oeuvre, not simply his most recent work. We regard this as completely legitimate; all of Dembski's claims are assumed to be in force unless explicitly retracted, and virtually no retractions have been forthcoming. Fair enough - but I reserve the right, in common with all other sceintists, to amend/withdraw claims, as new evidence is uncovered and our understanding of ID has developed.

Not really much I can add/argue with here.

There J C, Is a response to your first few posts on the paper, without resorting to any kind of attacks, or avoiding the topic. I realise I may have made some stupid points, I don't claim to be an absolute authority on what I'm talking about, but that's my shot at it.

Sarky

J C added nothing in the last few dozen posts that hasn't already been exhaustively shown by others to be either severely misinformed or an outright lie.

Responding to his "review" will just make him think there was a shred of validity to it. There isn't. He will probably parrot on and on about it for the next few weeks as some great triumph over the evil conspiracy that is modern science, instead of what it really is- the same old poorly (or not at all) researched, mathematically flawed mistakes that have been dealt with in this thread a dozen times over already.

When he actually backs up his opinions with something we haven't already shown to be a gross misunderstanding of whatever discipline he's butchering that day, then maybe we'll be getting somewhere.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

J C added nothing in the last few dozen posts that hasn't already been exhaustively shown by others to be either severely misinformed or an outright lie.

Responding to his "review" will just make him think there was a shred of validity to it. There isn't. He will probably parrot on and on about it for the next few weeks as some great triumph over the evil conspiracy that is modern science, instead of what it really is- the same old poorly (or not at all) researched, mathematically flawed mistakes that have been dealt with in this thread a dozen times over already.

When he actually backs up his opinions with something we haven't already shown to be a gross misunderstanding of whatever discipline he's butchering that day, then maybe we'll be getting somewhere.

Isn't denial a terrible thing?
... and isn't it amazing that the guy 'sticking his fingers in his ears' and keeping his 'eyes wide shut' is an Evolutionist ?... who prides himself on being a 'skeptic' ... who is seemingly skeptical of everything ... except one of the most dubious ideas of all ... 'Microbes to Man' Evolution!!!
... please start living in the real physical world ... where ID is indeed a scientifically valid fact!!!