Re: More Evidence for Intelligent Design
- From: "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwhipp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:24:41 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 8, 1:06 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you are indeed sincere in your inquisitivness, and not simply
reassuring yourself of your own omniscience, have some C3P0 that you
know crunch the numbers on the odds of the conditions arriving with
the climate at the crucial time to spark life,
OK smarty pants. How complex does a molecule need to be to self-
replicate? Because every time I see this dodgy argument from
ignorance, some fundy nut does some maths that shows that a full DNA
strand is highly unlikely. And guess what, no shit. Once there's so
much as one self-replicating molecule/structure, then evolution can do
the rest. No one thinks that a DNA stand formed itself in one magic
moment
Go look at some chemistry books relating to crystal seeds, clay, super
saturation. There's lots of complexity and borderline self-
replicators around before we even look at catalysts.
Al
.
- References:
- More Evidence for Intelligent Design
- From: Jehovah Jirah
- Re: More Evidence for Intelligent Design
- From: Frank J
- Re: More Evidence for Intelligent Design
- From: J.LyonLayden
- Re: More Evidence for Intelligent Design
- From: Free Lunch
- Re: More Evidence for Intelligent Design
- From: J.LyonLayden
- More Evidence for Intelligent Design
- Prev by Date: Re: science, space, and creationism vs. evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Penguins are the best --- ????
- Previous by thread: Re: More Evidence for Intelligent Design
- Next by thread: Re: More Evidence for Intelligent Design
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
