Replies

Okay, I'll agree to a smaller chain if you agree to insert a designer such as the ones in your example into the discussion. That's the point

What makes you think I care if you "agree"? Your numbers are ludicrous, whether you "agree" or not. Reality is funny that way - it's not contingent on your approval.

If, you agree that you reversed your sentence construction, there is no issue

Now I think you're just looking to save face as you back out the door. Models represent reality - the model is not the thing itself. Do you want lessons in the epistemology of science in addition to correcting your math?

You are flailing General,

A valid model represents some subset of reality it wishes to study. If a model has factors not in that reality, it is not valid. Your quote has this 180^o off.

I still see no alternative proposal.

I have given anti-IDers and anti-creationists the benefit of every doubt. The magnitude of the numbers are just too great. I have been more than fair in giving spontaneous generation of life a chance. More fair than I have been to the creationist and ID desired result. Consider:

I have assumed that amino acids existed from the instant the planet formed, and in enough quantities to prevent starving or steady state equilibrium. Surely, C, H, O, N, and P had to first work out efficient molecular arrangements, and this took some time.

I have assumed that enough energy to facilitate the necessary reactions was continuously present throughout the local densities where the molecules would form. Surely there would be moments of insufficient solar, geothermal, and electric (lightning / plasma) energy and moments where large amounts of these same energies would be destructive.

I assumed a geometric curve for genetic efficiencies of scale. Nothing in empiric data suggest anything more ambitious than linear or maybe quadratic curves.

I assumed that the chemical assembly of the molecule was all that was required for life. We have no understanding of where or how the “spark of life” enters the process. So this crucial aspect of ID and creationism is simply ignored to give randomness the greatest chance of success.

All this generosity to the opponents of ID and creationism in making the calculation, and your very professional and scientifically rigorous assessment: garbage, ludicrous, et al.

LOL. Barricade yourself with Huxley’s monkeys if you wish. The rest of us will continue to seek the truth.