On Aug 28, 10:03Â pm, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:> Erwin Hessle wrote, On 8/28/2008 8:37 PM:
>
>> On Aug 28, 6:31 pm, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:>>> Erwin Hessle wrote, On 8/28/2008 4:00 PM:
>>>> On Aug 28, 2:06 pm, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:>>>>> Erwin Hessle wrote, On 8/28/2008 12:01 PM:
>>>>> That is a false assumption since you can't say for sure that
>>>>> inorganic beings would "evolve" similarly, or at all.
>>>> Wrong. "Inorganic" life would be just as complex as organic life, you
>>>> utter dimwit.
>>> Complex or not, you cannot assume that it evolved from less complexity,
>
>> Yes you can, dimwit, because complexity arises from simple beginnings.
>
> You just don't know if that is always true, it's still an assumption on
> your part.
It's not an "assumption" - once again, it is what the evidence
strongly suggests always happens in this universe.
> There may be things that always have the properties of
> what you may consider to be complex.
There may be. But once again, the evidence suggests that it is very,
very, very unlikely, and there are no known examples of such things
anywhere in the universe. This idea of yours is not just a mere
speculation, but it's a speculation that flies in the face of just
about everything we know about how things arise.
> The numbers just numb you mind. Take the task of
> computing what was the probability of the Birth of
> Erwin
It's precisely the "huge numbers" of the improbabilities that support
the conclusion you believe yourself to be arguing against. The vast
improbability of a complex thing leads one very strongly to the
conclusion that it developed over a long period of time as a result of
countless numbers of small steps, none of which were particularly
improbable in and of themselves, but which cumulatively lead to a
vastly improbable situation. The development of complex things from
simple things via small steps is the only known theory which can come
even close to solving the problem of improbability. This is why
evolution, for instance, does an infinitely better job of explaining
why things "look designed" than the actual "theory" of design itself
does, the latter not even beginning to address the actual problem it
purports to explain. As I told you, you simply do not understand the
underlying ideas well enough to be able to make the kind of claims you
are making, which is why you keep making all these schoolboy errors.
You'd be far better off actually learning about the subject you're
interested in as opposed to rejoicing in your foolish stories.
To reiterate yet again, what you are doing is engaging in wishful
thinking in order to prop up your ridiculous fantasies, and then
deluding yourself into thinking there's anything remotely scientific
about what you're engaging in.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
