Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
It is the same problem here when you present bogus arguments from the ID perspective, and The Lurch repeated documents him as wrong. One of the most humorous was your posts on Tree Galling, which you repeated refused to take responsibility for very bad and erroneous arguments.
I outlined some of the very fundamental misuse of probability, whivh I documented in references in the following from the other thread.
Source: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index....4/BIO-C.2018.4
Remark. It should be noted that although Landman claims [8] that the number of possible states should be used as the replicational resources (scaling constant) r rather than the number of possible events, it should be clear that such a claim is mistaken, since the replicational resources represent the number of attempts a system is given to produce a given result (if every operation on every bit were a sampling attempt), which corresponds to the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang (and not to the number of possible states). In either case, since we are concerned with proving bounds for Dembski’s model, and he uses the scaling constant of 10120, we do so here as well.
© Copyright Original Source
If one understands statistics the efforts of this paper is 'front loaded' statistically to get the desired result. More comments may follow. Also basically neglects that the laws of nature constrains the outcome of each cause and effect event, and cannot be statistically projected as simply the probability of 'the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang.'
I believe that Landman referred to this limitation as 'the number of possible states.' I comment with caution on Landman, because I lack his full reference. I may word this more completely as the limitations of the possible states of the outcome of each cause and effect outcome constrained by the laws of nature.
I believe they have tried this before.
Source: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/11/15/liars-figure/
The old saying, that “figures won’t lie,” is true, without doubt; and the same may be said of letters, marks, and other signs of thought. But the mode in which many use figures, in order to carry a point, has sometimes tempted us to believe that the hasty remark of the Psalmist, if paraphrased thus – “all men” – who deal in statistics “are liars,” – is not far from the truth.
© Copyright Original Source
You tried to assert the low probability for whole chains of cause and effect events as many bogus ID advocates assert. The reference in the peer reviewed references clearly refuted this tactic.
In the thread cited you raised objections, but these objections were already refuted if you read the sources cited.
Comment