Erwin Hessle wrote, On 8/29/2008 12:23 AM:
> On Aug 28, 10:03 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.
>
Right, "strongly suggests."
>> 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.
That we know of so far.
> 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.
>
Heh.
>> 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,
There you go, thanks.
> none of which were particularly
> improbable in and of themselves, but which cumulatively lead to a
> vastly improbable situation.
A situation now called Erwin.
> 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.
Foe now.
> 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.
They are still anthropomorphizing.
> 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,
So.
> which is why you keep making all these schoolboy errors.
You mean the errors made trying to explain some damn good concepts.
> You'd be far better off actually learning about the subject you're
> interested in as opposed to rejoicing in your foolish stories.
>
I've done that, now you're (plural) complaining about my articulation
skills.
> To reiterate yet again, what you are doing is engaging in wishful
> thinking in order to prop up your ridiculous fantasies,
The thinking has already been done centuries ago, now is the time to use
our new information, but you (plural) complain when an average dude
from the streets does it, elitism is no longer holding water.
> and then
> deluding yourself into thinking there's anything remotely scientific
> about what you're engaging in.
>
Yeah, too bad I wasn't in a lab. Heh.
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
