"Thanks for the good word. These threads can get depressing. The Darwinists never stop pasting in their boilerplate until they've beaten all signs of anyone wanting to argue with them into the ground. When the dust clears, everyone else has abandoned the thread."
I agree completely. And like you, I sometimes dream about reaching these folks through reason, but its a tough nut to crack.
By the way, did you read my article called The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker at http://RussP.us/Dawkins.htm ?
You are a shameless liar. I seldom cut and paste, and I can name a dozen others who write responses that are composed on the spot. Even those who post prepared responses do so only once or twice a thread, and only in response to tired and easily refuted arguments. You have to realize that we don't give a hoot how ignorant you remain. Our goal is to prevent FR from being a mirror image of DU, a place where ignorance goes unchallenged.
No, I hadn't read it, but I just did.
I liked your point about beneficial vs harmful mutations, especially this bit I have extracted:
"The other side of the equation, which is often ignored, is that harmful mutations obviously work against survival. So a key input to even the simplest evolution model or simulation would have to be the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations . . . .
"Like most evolutionists, Dawkins never even mentions this ratio. He discusses the overall mutation rate, but the significance of the ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations never seems to occur to him. Or perhaps he simply avoids the issue because it does not help his cause. Clearly, the rate of harmful mutations exceeds the rate of beneficial mutations . . . . But what is the ratio? Common sense suggests it is probably rather high. Imagine a random bit flip in the binary executable code of a computer operating system (e.g., Linux). What are the chances that it will improve the functioning of the system? Obviously very small. And what are the chances that it will be harmful? Obviously much higher. Perhaps several orders of magnitude higher."
I have pointed out on numerous threads that as some of the more intelligent ID exponents have argued, the odds against developing the complexity we see today, on both the macro and micro levels, is too astronomically high to be conceivable, even given the enormous size and age of the universe. You add a nice touch to this.
It's not tough if you actually *use* reason, and not multiple fallacies and misrepresentations and errors. Feel free to improve your presentation.
By the way, did you read my article called The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker at http://RussP.us/Dawkins.htm ?
Yes, but I stopped after the tenth error. It's not as pathetic as the average anti-evolution screed, but it doesn't even rise to the level of a competent effort.
If it were presented in a college-level biology class, it would earn no higher than a C-, at best.