RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2007,07:01   

Further down the page, Denyse finds some more prime quality tard:

 
Quote
At Phi Beta Cons Carol Iannone asks,

- 0 -

I hold no brief for ID, but why isn’t it scientific to say, as IDers do, that certain biological mechanisms are irreducibly complex (i.e., inexplicable by random mutation and natural selection)? Why aren't the probability models that show that the components of life would take a trillion times the age of the earth to evolve by chance, why aren't they science?



And this is from the National Review, no less.  

As a New Year's courtesy to the people at National Review, I'll answer the questions:

1. It's not scientific to say that "certain biological mechanisms are irreducibly complex (i.e., inexplicable by random mutation and natural selection)" because none have been found yet.  Apparently saying things that aren't true violates some vague scientific-type principle.

2. Why aren't the probability models that show that the components of life would take a trillion times the age of the earth to evolve by chance, why aren't they science?  

Because they're bogus calculations made by people who don't understand what they're criticizing.  Those calculations are for how long it would take to form a complete molecule in one swoop.  Evolution doesn't work like that.  It forms its molecules a few base pairs at a time, which is billions of times faster than waiting for it all to form at once.

Did anybody else think that the con in "Phi Beta Cons" means a con game?  I did.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]