subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
![](/img/blank.gif) |
![](/img/blank.gif) |
![](/img/blank.gif) |
Letters
[Write a Reply]
[Letters Index]
Title |
Author |
Date |
Tremblay's argument |
Tremblay, Francois |
Mar 10, 2005
|
Your objections are not relevant to the question of complexity. The sole criteria of design for most Creationists is complexity, defined by the inverse of the probability of the system coming about by chance. What is
the probability of millions of raindrops coming about by chance to project a perfect rainbow showing colours in order? I will leave the calculations to you.
As for living organisms, we know that the probability of their emergence is one, given that the necessary facts for evolution (heredity, finite resources, mutations) exist. Therefore no design can possibly exist at that
level.
If you have a different criteria of design, you are free to present it. You say: "I would never refer "Rainbow" as an example for a complex piece of structure or a mechanism exhibiting design". But this is circular reasoning: the fact that a rainbow is complex/designed or not is precisely the point under question. Try again.
|
Related Articles: |
Harun Yahya Retreats to Miracles
|
|
![](/img/blank.gif) |