Posted: Nov 21, 2016 12:48 pm
by Cito di Pense
Shrunk wrote:And also, though I believe most of you are already familiar with this, I would be remiss if I didn't post this account of the ID Creationists' most spectacular and public failure to quantify "information" in their own terms:

http://www.softwarematters.org/mathgrrl.html


Or 'awareness' if you're following the Little Idiot nonsense. There's a pattern, here. They can't or won't do it, even in their own terms, because all they're interested in is making a noise. They throw shit on a wall and see if anything sticks. Some people, like Dembski, throw stickier stuff than LI (who is just trying to imitate a style of apologetics the understanding of which is well beyond his capabilities).

From the above link:

When asked for links to the answers they claimed to have produced, these IDCists either referred to comments that didn't actually contain such answers or simply resorted to insulting those requesting the links.


This is what I mean by style.

What I was surprised to learn was just how little IDCists know or care about the actual practice of science and how willing they are to out and out lie in defense of their position.


This should not be surprising. It's tempting to continue to give prevaricators a chance, but it never bears fruit. Documenting their failures is far more productive than arguing with them or lamenting their deficiencies.