Again, I'll use the Autocad file for the storage shed as an example… but Darwinists claim is the equivalent, roughly, of the following: You take that Autocad .dxf file containing plans for a storage shed and copy it a zillion times and then you open the file up in Autocad and viola, you've got plans for a four-bedroom house. That's a picture of Darwinism, basically.Hmm. I suspect there's a few bits missing there. So, here we have an admitted non-scientist (a "artist" no less) sounding off on why evilution is wrong. Get a life, mo-ran.
The question he keeps ducking is simple really
The specific quantity of CSI isn't nearly as important as the fact that CSI is present in virtually any quantity.
No, I don't personally feel the need to do the calculations. I have little doubt that qualified ID scientists are pursuing such things as we speak.
So, he admits to a "little doubt" eh? Let's keep working on that......
He does not "personally" feel the need to do the maths, but is perfectly happy to spout his bullshit to what he thinks is a audience of "kidz" who are there to see the "crazy but cool and true ID revolution happen". I'd be dialling 91 and holding my finger over the 1 if this middle aged mo-ran turned up at any school to infect kids brains with his garbage.
Perhaps he could list the "qualified ID scientists" that are working away on this problem? It's amazing how such an ignorant turd can talk about the fall of darwinism and yet "be sure" that "ID Scientists" exist. In fact, they do not, the ones he's thinking of either a) are scientists at religious universities (Dumbski) or piss-poor "real" scientists (behe et al) who's work is torn to shreds by real scientists almost as soon as the ink is dry.
Hey, but at least we have another new math rule for ID!
"the fact that CSI is present in virtually any quantity"
so, we can now assume that the value for CSI for any object at all is "virtually any quantity" at all. So that's good and usefull. I wonder when, if the math is so simple, somebody will work out the CSI in a everyday object such as a chair. A simple task, but nobody has risen to it yet (see my very 1st post for the challenge).
And, to finish off, let's quotemine troutyboy.
"ID theorists recognize that this is a lousy way to approach the question of origins"
At least we can agree on something! Trouty, it's obvious you are preaching to the idiotic, so just give up and fuck off. We all hate your bullshit, but when you aim it at what you think are Kids, you can just ficking drop dead. Luckily for everybody, there are no KIDS at OE - they got bored in 10 seconds (hey, you used the word Zany on the front page - so 30 years ago!) and went off to try and wash their minds out.