(January 15, 2016 at 11:29 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Still no response to the clear and obvious refutations of Dembski?
Maybe he's actually reading the links I posted.
...
I watched the video. It seemed to be the guy saying well we don't know if his statistical analysis is accurate, therefore the intelligent design is wrong. But if (like he said in the video) Demski's test always gives the conclusion of design when we know the test subject was designed, then I don't see the problem. Is the thought: Well maybe it gives the result of design no matter what the test subject is? This is very unlikely considering things that we know not to be designed that still have complexity do not have a sequence that could even be tested. The fact that we can't even find an item that wasn't intelligently designed that fits the criteria to be tested should tell you something.