"As I suspected, you are just a poseur and have requested nothing."
OK, idiot, give me a probabilistic analysis of the development of the eye. Dawkins never did it, nor did he ever cite anyone else who did. All he does is repeat over and over that random mutation combined with natural selection can do amazing things and give the "appearance" of intelligent design. Ya? How amazing?
Suppose I told you that I am going to develop a computer operating system according to the NDT model. I'm going to start off with random bits and distribute it to millions of "users". Then I'll have them randomly change bits on occasion, and if some benefit results we'll "select" that "mutation." What do you suppose the chances would be of coming up with a functional operation system? Not very good in the short term, eh? How about the long term, say the next 4 billion years?
Just for the sake of argument, let's say we start off with a functional operation system, say Linux 1.0. Now, what do you suppose the probability is of a randomly flipped bit actually improving the function of the operating system? Is it 50/50? Of course not. The probability is probably less than 1 in 10,000. So ask yourself which will happen first: will it "evolve" to Linux 2.0, or will it go "extinct"?
The theory of evolution says that life itself, which is infinitely more complex than any computer operation system, "evolved" by a similar mechanism, with absolutely no "intelligent" input. Yet, no evolutionist has ever even bothered to compute the probabilities. Dawkins waves his arms and you chumps are all amazed at his brilliance. He doesn't even understant the problem -- and people like you have no clue. But you are very good at browbeating people with the scientific "consensus" -- because you are either incapable of thinking for yourself or unwilling to do so.
Gee, shit-for-brains dumbass, let me point out that you haven't defined which "eye" you want analyzed and that is important since they have evolved independently several times. Or didn't you know even that much of natural history?
Just for the sake of argument, let's say we start off with a functional operation system, say Linux 1.0. Now, what do you suppose the probability is of a randomly flipped bit actually improving the function of the operating system?
Well, gee, shit-for-brains dumbass, is there a mechanism that randomly flips bits in your universe, because I don't see it in mine.
The theory of evolution says that life itself, which is infinitely more complex than any computer operation system,
Gee, shit-for-brains dumbass, you really are more stupid than I thought. Life is not a computer program and the Theory of Evolution does not say that.
Yet, no evolutionist has ever even bothered to compute the probabilities.
I ask you again, shit-for-brains dumbass, the probability of what? With what initial conditions? Or are you just too stupid to understand that question?
Dawkins waves his arms and you chumps are all amazed at his brilliance. He doesn't even understant the problem -- and people like you have no clue.
Hey, shit-for-brains dumbass, I'm not Dawkins, Dawkins doesn't speak for me, and I don't give a sh!t about Dawkins, although he, at least, can spell. How 'bout you? Do you have a point to make? Can you articulate a direct question, I suggest you make it in short, to-the-point sentences if you are capable of such?
But you are very good at browbeating people with the scientific "consensus" -- because you are either incapable of thinking for yourself or unwilling to do so.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Have I browbeat you, shit-for-brains dumbass, or are you just out to ruin Christmas for everybody??