A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[createdtoworship]

My site, and if you read yours more carefully it actually agrees with me. It says:

"The expert, of course, may not be expert,"

The same thing that I said. The appeal to authority error occurs when the "expert" that you appeal to is not an expert in the field of study being discussed.

already answered this, please read the posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am juggling about five of you, without a sweat.

LOL. Please, don't kid yourself. You have been exposed for using bogus sites and going back on your word so far.

And there are only two of us right now actively debating. Cearbhall is just enjoying himself at your expense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

unqualified authority was a change later made. not originally by john locke did appeal to authority involve an unqualified authority....

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

Correct, people realized that Locke was in error in this case. There are times when it is valid to appeal to an authority that is an expert in the area being discussed.

Now you know your error. Try not to repeat it.

 

[pitabread]

focus on your off topic discussion, or the fact that the op is about evolution?

Uh, you're the one who provided a link to that article about purported design in birds, not me. I was merely responding to your linking of it by pointing out that it is a crap article that fails to provide said evidence.

At this point you seem to be doing everything you can to distance yourself from talking about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

already answered this, please read the posts.

Nope, you failed again. In fact you shot yourself in the foot.

And we cross posted. Don't complain.

 

[pitabread]

And there are only two of us right now actively debating.

I'm not even really debating. I just want them to show me where the evidence is contained in that article they linked. Not an unreasonable request, I'd wager.

 

[createdtoworship]

Correct, people realized that Locke was in error in this case. There are times when it is valid to appeal to an authority that is an expert in the area being discussed.

Now you know your error. Try not to repeat it.

but you didn't do that...let me help you...

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority). “Accept this because some authority said it.” As we all know, “authorities” can be wrong, and often are. Furthermore, there are conflicting authorities. Which one should I accept? The mere appeal to authority should never be substituted for evidence or a good argument.
...

[1] Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). PhD philosophy. Come, let us reason: an introduction to logical thinking (pp. 98–99). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not even really debating. I just want them to show me where the evidence is contained in that article they linked. Not an unreasonable request, I'd wager.

just read it for crying out loud. it has specified complexity. Thats all I claimed. Now move on, geesh.

 

[createdtoworship]

(When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects":
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators
And that is what separates mere complexity (Shannon) from specifiedcomplexity.)

Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function

Complex Specified Information is 500 bits or more of specified information

MathGrrl wants a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI and I say that is like asking for a mathematically rigorous definition of a computer program (which contains CSI).

The mathematical rigor went into calculating the probabilities that got us to 500 bits of SI = CSI


Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
Biological functionality is specified information.

So what do we have to do to see if it contains CSI? Count the bits and figure out the variation tolerance because if any sequence can produce the same result then specified information disappears.

And again, CSI is all about origins…"

source:Intelligent Reasoning: Complex Specified Information

 

[createdtoworship]

Uh, you're the one who provided a link to that article about purported design in birds, not me. I was merely responding to your linking of it by pointing out that it is a crap article that fails to provide said evidence.

At this point you seem to be doing everything you can to distance yourself from talking about it.

a response to a question that is on topic, does not merit twenty or thirty post discussion that's off topic. the bird thing was a response.

 

[pitabread]

just read it for crying out loud. it has specified complexity. Thats all I claimed. Now move on, geesh.

Nope, not letting you off the hook yet.

Yes, the author makes reference to specific complexity (actually "specified functional complexity" in their words). But so what? Specified complexity (per Dembski's concept) is of dubious validity to begin with, so we're on shaky ground from the get-go.

Furthermore, the author doesn't actually demonstrate anything with respect to that concept. They merely assert it a few times. Big deal. Anyone can do that.

So I'm still waiting. The article claims to show evidence for design in birds, but utterly fails to do so. Maybe you can demonstrate something, because that author clearly cannot.

 

[pitabread]

a response to a question that is on topic, does not merit twenty or thirty post discussion that's off topic. the bird thing was a response.

Which in turn invited my response to your response, spiraling into this discussion involving me trying to prod you into supporting an article you linked and you doing everything in your power to avoid doing so.

I mean, really, this whole thing could have been avoided if you'd admitted it's a crap article from the get-go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but you didn't do that...let me help you...

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority). “Accept this because some authority said it.” As we all know, “authorities” can be wrong, and often are. Furthermore, there are conflicting authorities. Which one should I accept? The mere appeal to authority should never be substituted for evidence or a good argument.
...

[1] Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). PhD philosophy. Come, let us reason: an introduction to logical thinking (pp. 98–99). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

But you have no evidence. You do not even understand the concept.

So forget conflicting authorities, that is miles beyond your pay grade.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Then stay out of the maters of science. It is really that simple. You want it both ways. That is more than bit hypocritical.

Good point. Why do fundamentalists even care about Creation Science since they disdain science to begin with?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good point. Why do fundamentalists even care about Creation Science since they disdain science to begin with?

I have a feeling that many of them fear that if they can't believe everything they can't believe anything. Creationists seem to have an all or nothing attitude. Their beliefs are threatened by the tiniest possible flaw in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good point. Why do fundamentalists even care about Creation Science since they disdain science to begin with?

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a feeling that many of them fear that if they can't believe everything they can't believe anything. Creationists seem to have an all or nothing attitude. Their beliefs are threatened by the tiniest possible flaw in the Bible.

Either that, or it's a contradiction in terms.

 

[AirPo]

Makes no sense either. try rewording in in English

Everyone else got it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

Even in their own terms, YECs are not known for their philosophical astuteness.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, not letting you off the hook yet.

Yes, the author makes reference to specific complexity (actually "specified functional complexity" in their words). But so what? Specified complexity (per Dembski's concept) is of dubious validity to begin with, so we're on shaky ground from the get-go.

Furthermore, the author doesn't actually demonstrate anything with respect to that concept. They merely assert it a few times. Big deal. Anyone can do that.

So I'm still waiting. The article claims to show evidence for design in birds, but utterly fails to do so. Maybe you can demonstrate something, because that author clearly cannot.

you got it, specified complexity, mentioned a few times, even once is evidence of it existing.