Joined: July 2005
Abrax and Saddle
First if you can point out one error in my analysis of Shapiros book that might make your rediculous statement have some congency. The sub-title is "A Skeptics Guide...." Seems like he was intent on laying out the facts with both pro and con expressed .. see thats what is called "Intellectual Honesty".
Lets see I have a library on the subject that has some 20 year old books largely still acurate and written by your preeminent scientists.... and you complain.
Your theory rests on the writings from a 120 year old book by a mentally deranged manic depressive without an earned doctorate, a theological drop-out, no math training, no physics training, pre-molecular biology, pre-atomic theory, pre-genetic code and when protoplasm was the height of the knowledge of the cell.
And you think my reading is out of date... LOL.
Abiogenesis has been an active area for 100 years without a single hint of success and made mathmatically laughable by the best and brightest in your own camp.
Oh! I have a reproduction of Mathmatica Principia also ... should we toss it as well.
Tell me three things you think evolution has predicted that have been proven true experimentally and are without dispute in your own community that depend on a world view excluding the creation of life by an intellegent designer adequate to explain life as we see it with identified ranges of variation in form and feature within kinds.
Get a new bookie who understands that one time special creation affords no cogent calculation of probabilities.
Unlike the trillion step process from helium gas to the human brain where your own camp makes calculations of improbability that stagger the imagination, cannot be appreciated and are beyond the reach of the time since the big bang as in the simplest imaginable replicator in consensus beinging about 10**-50 under the best scenario.
Can't you two do any better than this child's pratter?