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!
That's incorrect. A very low probability event will not occur in a finite period of time. In an infinite amount of time, yes, but not in a finite amount of time. The known universe has been around less than 17 Billion years. This is a finite, not an infinite, amount of time.
The MATH which supports my point and debunks your folklore in listed along with charts, equations, and calculations in the link provided for your convenience in Post #310.
Go forth and read it. You need it.
I.D.
1. The observed universe exists.
2. A designer exists independent of the observed universe."
First, it wasn't my idea to use Occam's Razor. I only illustrated in Post #194 how Occam's Razor would appear if one insisted upon applying Occam's Razor to choose between Evolution and Intelligent Design.
With that said, most Evolutionists insist that for Evolution to occur in an appropriate environment, one must have Natural Selection and Random Mutations.
You seem to have ommitted those items from your version of Occam's exercise, however. Do you honestly hold that you can have Evolution without Natural Selection and Random Mutations, or did you merely omit them so that you could force-fit Occam's Razor to unscientifically support your pre-disposed "answer"?
Why is that scientifically important when discussing "design"?
Please, be specific when you answer that question.
1.The question is not whether ID is genetic engineering, but rather whether you can have genetic engineering without intelligent design.
2.Similarity between the DNA code for chimps and humans is analogous to the stunning similarity in code between Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word. One expects to see similarities between designs whenever code re-use is present. In DNA, this code re-use is observed in shared genes. In computer code, this re-use is observed in Objects, API's, DLL's, and subroutines.
3.Why would an intelligent designer use one animal over another life form for various new processes? Because it is intelligent to use that which offers the easiest, quickest, cheapest, and most predictable desired output.