|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God
>>> exists to design it.
>>
>> So, complexity indicates intelligent design? That doesn't make sense.
>
> I'm just telling you what it says. I don't think it's so much the
> complexity - soap foam is complex - as it is the complex usefulness.
>
> Of course, when you put watch parts in an environment of mutation and
> natural selection, you get watches evolving too.
>
The usual argument is actually something like, "You can't get there from
here." The idea being a bit like the age old, "A giant must have placed
that boulder on top of the pillar, because there is no way it just
'formed' there." I.e., irreducible complexity, which really just means,
"We don't know precisely how it got there, but some idiot thinks it had
to be designed, because we can't see the transitional state where the
new and original copies existed, and you could still remove the new one,
and removing any parts will break it." The problem starts with the false
premise that you can't "get" to irreducibility save by design, and is
further mangled by people like Dumbski, who are supposed math experts,
but somehow can't do "basic" statistics correctly, with the result that
they do stupid BS like suggesting that if the odds of something
happening is 1:10,000,000, it will *never* happen, even if you have
1,000,000 trillion attempts, in a span of a billion years...
No, design implies design. How do you determine design? Some sort of
tool marks help, but the "design" needs to show some consistent
implication that it does what it does "specifically", and not via
accident. Well.. DNA show a "lot" of accidents, and no "design".
Stupidest thing I recently saw was, "Well, obviously dinosaur feet where
designed, how else do you get only fingers 2-4?" Uh.. By knowing what
the frack you are talking about? lol Fingers are numbered starting with
the thumb, because humans didn't know any better. They "grow" in this
order: 4 -> 5 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 - stop, in humans. So, to get a dinosaur
(and birds) you need two mutations:
Mutation #1 - Stop short.
4 -> 5 -> 3 -> 2 - stop (no thumb)
Mutation #2 - Frame shift.
3 -> 4 -> 2 - stop
Since only one step is "ever" taken from the start towards the "pinky",
only digit 4 is produced, before #2 starts growing. But, since #2 is the
index digit, the "stop short" prevents a "thumb/big toe" forming. Some
bozo named Safarti tried to make the argument that the difference had to
be "design", not mutations.. lol
Full article on what he gets wrong, and why here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html
They keep looking, and looking, and looking, for a smoking gun, and all
they find is this kind of silly BS, where they don't get the actual
details of what is going on, or worse, make shit up, claim its true,
then whine when its pointed out that they made it up (same bozo also
claims that he mechanisms by which frogs and humans develop are
completely different. In reality, most of it is identical, with the main
differences being in a "few" new tweaks (some of them rather stupid
ones, from a design perspective), and a lot of stuff involved in telling
things to turn on/off at different times between the two (which can also
include some damn stupid flaws).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |