3
GilDodgen
September 4, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Nick.
The problem with your argumentation is that you never address the critical essentials:
What random mutations would be required to engineer the requisite capabilities?
What is the probability of these random events occurring?
Are the probabilistic resources available to fix these beneficial random errors in the population?
I was once a radical, evangelical atheist — who despised people of traditional religious faith with a visceral, irrational passion, especially Christians, just like you — but once I started asking the hard questions referenced above, I realized that design, from whatever source, was the only rational explanation. Blind faith in transparent Darwinian nonsense — in contradiction to everything I have learned from modern science, mathematics, and multiple engineering disciplines — was no longer a viable option. Reasonable faith in design became the only rational option.
Storytelling based on a conclusion reached in advance is not science; it is the antithesis of science.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/remember-that-darwin-eating-plant-now-threatening-to-eat-nick-matzke/comment-page-1/#comment-398435
------------------------------------------------------------------------
gildo, you religious IDiots have nothing but blind faith in irrational, nonsensical stories, and conclusions reached in advance. Your insane beliefs are the "antithesis of science".
Maybe you can show where YOU have addressed the "critical essentials"? And I don't mean the lame-ass bullshit about "probabilistic resources".
GilDodgen
September 4, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Nick.
The problem with your argumentation is that you never address the critical essentials:
What random mutations would be required to engineer the requisite capabilities?
What is the probability of these random events occurring?
Are the probabilistic resources available to fix these beneficial random errors in the population?
I was once a radical, evangelical atheist — who despised people of traditional religious faith with a visceral, irrational passion, especially Christians, just like you — but once I started asking the hard questions referenced above, I realized that design, from whatever source, was the only rational explanation. Blind faith in transparent Darwinian nonsense — in contradiction to everything I have learned from modern science, mathematics, and multiple engineering disciplines — was no longer a viable option. Reasonable faith in design became the only rational option.
Storytelling based on a conclusion reached in advance is not science; it is the antithesis of science.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/remember-that-darwin-eating-plant-now-threatening-to-eat-nick-matzke/comment-page-1/#comment-398435
------------------------------------------------------------------------
gildo, you religious IDiots have nothing but blind faith in irrational, nonsensical stories, and conclusions reached in advance. Your insane beliefs are the "antithesis of science".
Maybe you can show where YOU have addressed the "critical essentials"? And I don't mean the lame-ass bullshit about "probabilistic resources".
