Replies

1. Your response to a reasoned and well-thought out argument is juvenile and idiotic. Please, dance with simpering glee some more, and maybe you can alienate the rest of us. Then, you will both wrong AND alone.

2. It is plain for all to see that you are wilfully avoiding precise definitions. You have confused the definition of "trivial," as has been pointed out to you. You have confused the definitions of "improbable" and "impossible." You have confused "large but finite" with "infinite". This has been pointed out ot you, and you fail to respond or acknowledge. Why?

3. Your typing-monkey link does not disprove the essential argument that any possible but improbable event can occur within a finite time. The length of the finite interval depends on the probability of the event, but as long as the probability is non-zero, the event WILL occur.

4. Your application of Occam's razor is faulty. At the simplest, the tally is thus:
Evolution
1. The observed universe exists.

I.D.
1. The observed universe exists.
2. A designer exists independent of the observed universe.

I am sure you will suggest that additional assumptions must be added to Evolution. They are hairsplitting and arbitrary, as are the obvious additions to ID ("The designer has the ability to create the universe", "The designer wants to influence the universe", etc.). ID cannot overcome this fundamental imbalance in the required assumptions - that is why it fails Occam's razor.

4. Cars are foolish analogies to fossils. Cars do not live. Dinosaurs and whales did. If we found a junkyard composed entirely of '88 Buicks, we would not assume that they were "related" to each other, that some had given birth to others. We know Buicks do not live. Just as similarly, we have no possible mechanism to suppose that Buicks are self-replicating (like nanotech robots might be). Also, we know that plastic and pressed steel do not occur naturally. Thus, a designer is the only hypothesis available. However, we do know that whales reproduce, and that whales occur naturally - thus, we do not need to hypothesize a designer.

5. ID is not genetic engineering. You may say that it is, but it is not. What is the ID explanation for the stunning similarity between human and chimp DNA? What reason does ID give for choosing pigs to clone human-usable organs in, and not housecats or snakes? Why would your fanciful ID geneticist not try to grow replacement tranplant eyes on a fern? And, according to ID, why might some of those choices be better than others?

That's enough for now... Don't forget to visit the Crevo List for all the latest!