spendius wrote: He is just bragging that the complexities he can see, or thinks he can see, are more complex than the ones the ordinary average Joe can see like somebody might be a better shot than the rest of us or have had a more unfortunate start in life like Monte Python once sketched with four equally rich self-improvers arguing about who had come furthest.
Uh, no. Did you actually take that five minutes to learn about Dembski? You could at least start with wikipedia
.
He promotes specified complexity by hiding his fallacies in the language of math, often in words he just makes up. He attempts to show what "complexity" is, describes it with a bunch of metaphors and some actual allusions to math. Then he does the same for "specification". Never does he actually present some clear models or his actual math, though, which for someone touted as a mathematician possessing something of worth, is like a coworker who shows up naked and drunk to the office.
His basic claim is "lookit my pseudomath" and "my pseudomath shows how only designers make that stuff".
spendius wrote: Calamity Jane said that scientists were "nerds" on these very threads and nerds can't pull without the get-up-and-go spirit which, as every scientist knows, runs directly opposite, 180 degrees, to the conservation of energy principle and the thesis that evolution wastes no energy. (Unless you're Jewish I mean.)
LOL, spendi, for the sake of your relativist God, stop pretending to know anything about science. There's nothing about the conservation of energy that runs counter to a "get-up-and-go" spirit, even symbolically.
spendius wrote:I can't find any info on his personal life. Is that an oversight on the part of Google and Wiki or is he hiding something?
I know little about it, other than he's the son of a science professor and has a hilarious problem keeping his religion out of his math.
spendius wrote:He's looks like a loser of expensive (for the taxpayer) court cases to me.
Pretty much, although he's too cowardly to even have the decency (like Behe) to perjure himself. At Dover, he bailed out at the last minute.
spendius wrote:I can't see why his name appears on a science thread.
The thread is about Intelligent Design. Dembski's ideas constitute approximately a third of the rhetorical support of the ID movement. Behe's are the other third, and this last third is a big mishmash of arguments from ignorance and propaganda.
spendius wrote:Try Personal Relationships S.
Um....
georgeob1 wrote:Spendius is a bit cranky, and he delights in confounding others with his often overstated views, however, he is a man of great insight and discernment.
This thread disagrees
. He has overstated views, definitely, but he seems to be a man with some education but confused ideas who hides those ideas behind sloppy attempts at colorful writing.
.
