Vacuity of ID: Accusations of censorship continue

Salvador has 'responded' on Gross and Forrest's propaganda piece in the York Daily Record

Wesley has challenged Salvador to support his claims.

I'm putting them on notice by posting here, that I won't tolerate PvM's antics or anyone at PandasThumb. If they pull junk like that they'll be called on it publicly. They can't be pretending their forum is open to other posters while deleting posts which give the most incriminating evidence.

Of course, if they have now removed the auto-censorship feature (which seemed in place on one of the treads), the IDists might feel free now to keep posting the Forbidden URL quite frequently whenever they visit PandasThumb as means of exposing how critics use illegitimate tactics against IDists. [Wink] (hint, hint, hint).

Since Salvador promised to abide by the rules of Panda's Thumb and take the discussion to antievolution.org where Wesley Elsberry has maintained the discussion in spite of Sal's accusations that his comments are somehow censored, it seems clear that Sal's objections are mostly sophomoric.
The 'auto censorship' function is an annoying by necessary feature called SPAM filtering which disallows links which have too many hyphens. This can be easily addressed by using tinyurl.com to generate a short link. Of course, anyone who uses this to spam the boards with unrelated comments will likely end up on the Bathroom wall.

Speaking of 'illegitimate tactics', can Salvador explain why ARN has been censoring more and more ID critics? That's realy censorship going on here... While ID proponents seem to be able to mostly make any claim, ID critics end up being banned for simple jokes.

SO let's have a look at Sal's rebuttal

Now looking at
Elsberry and Shallit 2003

notice the following key phrases were missing:

1. "physical information"
2. "conceptual information"
3. "coincidence of"

[Eek!]

The crucial phrase is: CSI is "coincidence of conceptual and physical information". To write a paper to refute CSI and not include the most central definition of CSI is inexecusable.

That's it? Elsberry and Shallit succesfully refute the claims based on CSI and all Sal can do is accuse them of not using the 'central definition' of CSI? In order for this to be a rebuttal, Sal has to show that such omission is central to the claim by Elsberry and Shallit.
Which it of course isn't. So all Sal has done is erect a 'strawman' argument to allow him to ignore the devastating criticisms raised by Elsberry and Shallit.

Which may help explain his sophomoric behavior.

If people can't see through the rather sophomoric posturing Salvador engages in ("To write a paper to refute CSI and not include the most central definition of CSI is inexecusable", when we extensively critiqued the mathematics that instantiate CSI according to Dembski, for instance), I don't know that further discussion on my part will do much to correct the situation.

Wesley has extended the following challenge to Salvador

I posted that on August 31st. As far as I can tell, neither Salvador nor any other ID advocate has made the slightest headway in showing that I was inaccurate in either claim made above. Salvador has taken up an aggressive grandstanding technique, though I think that it is obvious to all that there is little to no substance as yet to back it up. If I were wrong on the two points above, it seems to me that it would be simplicity itself for some ID advocate to show that I was wrong, and I would have expected that to happen already. I predict that what I've written here will again disappear into the ID memory hole of inconveniently true criticisms.

If I'm wrong here, though, I'm willing both to take my lumps and acknowledge whoever it is that shows me to be wrong. I'm still waiting for the documentation. I suspect I will wait a long, long time.

We may indeed have to wait a long long time...

Read more!