Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 26 2007,06:59)|
|In short, although Miller was not, apparently, addressing himself to any of Dembski's arguments in the BBC special, and certainly not during his Doverloo testimony, his criticisms would have been appropriate to Dembski's argument vis the flagellum as combintorial object in NFL, which were again restated in this exchange, if he had.|
|Further to this, Mr Miller either knows, or should know based on duty to do due diligence, that he consistently severely misrepresents the inference to complex, specified information... if a microstate or clustrer of microstatesis both hihgly improbable and functionally specified, it is not at all likely to be reached by chance.|
No one claims that organisms arose by chance alone. That is the strawman that underlies Dembski's argument.
|The classic examples are things like finding 500 coins, all heads-up...|
Um, then Miller was properly representing the argument as one of pure combinatorial chance. (Atoms will align themselves in just such a manner. They're called crystals. If you magnetize coins, they also align.)
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.