stevestory
Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote | 3 rvb8November 5, 2016 at 11:03 pm So chrystals and snowflakes have ‘complexity’ but no ‘specificity’? And if crystals lack ‘complexity’ because they are repeated molecules, can they gain, develop, evolve, complexity?
You are saying some things are plainly designed because they have, ‘complexity’ and ‘specificity’? You, that is Kairos, have taken Dembski’s CSI and invented a new acronym FSCO/I, to what end exactly? To convince whom exactly?
Design detection appears to be your goal, and what happens when you detect design? Will you use the eternal science stopper; ‘no need for further investigation, the designer has left Her/His/Its undeniable mark’?
At some point you must realise no one, but us here, are paying attention. Being noticed, and being popular are two massive motivations that Darwin realised are central to compitition, survival, and evolution.
Thank you for proving our case!
You waste a lot of ink repeating the same thing, and each time you expect a different outcome? This is the defintion of something that escapes me at the moment. | am i wrong in thinking that rvb8 and a few others are getting away with stuff they wouldn't have a year ago?
|