Hello Ten-Sai,
You said:
Your tornado and junkyard have absolutely no parallel with life and the universe.
I say:
Wrong! The parallel was one of probabilities, which is obviously not your field.
You're correct, I'm no probabilitist and no scientist. Forgive me.
For anyone to claim they know the true probability of abiogenesis is talking nonsense. These figure can only be acurately determined if we have knowledge of all contributing factors. If that were the case, the scientific community would hang up their brains tomorrow - we would be all-knowing.
You say:
It's a pointless and irrelevant analogy.
I say:
Again, it wasn't pointless NOR irrelevant; it was an analogy which begs you to delve into the finer points of statistical analysis, information theory, probabilities, et al. The only thing pointless and irrelevant was your bunk knee jerk reaction to the obvious. That is, unless you had some other definition of "pointless" AND "irrelevant" in mind? Love to hear your subjective definitions of the aforementioned words...
An analogy by definition is a comparison based on similarity. I see no similarity, therefore I see it as irrelevant. Though I do now feel I was wrong to use the word pointless - most analogies are merely used to generalise and simplify in such a way that they only serve the users own belief.
That is the point I missed.
You say:
As for the deformed babies thing, you seem to be suggesting that deformed babies are designed by God on purpose, or badly designed at least.
I say:
Deformed babies are clear facts AGAINST evolution in yet another example that mutations are bad, bad, bad... as in, opposite of evolution?
It all depends on the mutation. A baby missing a limb has no advantage within it's environment. This also shows imperfection in biological design - God is allegedly perfection, so that doesn't figure.
Kinda like the Fruit Fly experiment...Talk about arguments from utter ignorance;
I don't claim to know enough about the Fruit Fly experiment, which is why I haven't spoken of the subject. Enlighten me as to how it counters claims of imperfection in biology. I really would love to know how this shows me as utterly ignorant.
would you be one of those evos who "believe" in vestiges? Which vestigal organs do you "believe" you are in possession of? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ever had your wisdom teeth pulled out? I have, as they were impacted and extremely painful. I asked the dentist what wisdom teeth were for, he replied, "To keep me in business!"
I later learnt that over 90% of humans grow wisdom teeth, but only a third break through the gumline. These third molars would have been used by herbivore ancestors, but are utterly useless to you and I (unless, of course, you are a dentist.)
These damn teeth are like the pelvic bone of the whale, or the eyes of the blind salamander, or caruncle of some newborn marsupials. Useless.
It's not a case of 'believing' them. They are there for all to see (unless you happen to be a Mexican Tetra.)
In closing, it is one thing to respect another man's faith, but quite another to respect his lack of faith.
So you feel it correct not to give atheists any form of respect? And you proceed to call
me a bigot?
Therefore, if you wish to believe in abiogenesis, panspermia, or whatever's the clever "scientific" belief of the day, fine
I'm unsure about panspermia, but it is another possiblity for life on earth that requires continued research, as in all areas of science.
As for "belief of the day", I find it ironic hearing that from a creationist. How many goal posts have you moved in your lifetime?
just don't go tossing around YOUR belief as the end of God. It is quite bigoted.
I never claimed such a thing. I was objecting to the analogy, and nothing more. You've clearly flown off the handle.
™ Version 4.2
