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