Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin followers at BigThink discover rich new vein of comedy


Unintended irony.

Further to “Kas Thomas still hanging in at BigThink, despite Darwinists’ attacks,” here is some of the assorted wisdom Thomas is privileged to hear, 638 comments later:

I have no idea why you think the number of particles in the universe is relevant , but whatever, likelihoods of “one chance in 20^250” happen every day.

Sell this person a bridge. Soon.

That said, some commenters appear to be trying to find the road to reality:

I don’t think anyone doubts the existence of random genetic mutations and natural selection. Aren’t they both obvious and demonstrable in the lab?

What many of us do doubt is whether these can produce new genetic information. Everything seems to point in the opposite direction.

Everything, that is, except the magic attributed to natural selection.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I have forgotten the man's name, but one of the classic probability facts is that there is a CHANCE that all of the oxygen atoms in the room will randomly move to the far corner, and you will suffocate breathing pure nitrogen. One of the many problems is that the atoms are repositioning themselves many times a second and they'd have to remain in that far corner for quite a few minutes. And the probability of THAT is astronomically small. So, yeah, of course, “one chance in 20^250? happens every day. But does it trigger a sustained series of related reactions? Nope. If infant morality in alligators didn't run well over 90%, we'd all be up to our butts in alligators. On the other hand, if alligators laid fewer eggs, perhaps the infant mortality rate would go down. A viable explanation has to show some chance of survival and permanence. mahuna
I like to answer all relevant arguments while being as generous as I can. I'd like to think that observers can see the difference when you respond with transparency and kindness. It can be hard to do though. Yarrgonaut
The stupid is strong in this one... Sebestyen
Berceuse- Timmy Horton is a liar, loser and cowardly equivocator. He is also a hater- he hates it that his position has nothing but equivocations. He hates it that ID has more explanatory power than materialism. And he hates it that his ignorance gets exposed at every turn. Joe
I have no idea why you think the number of particles in the universe is relevant , but whatever, likelihoods of “one chance in 20^250? happen every day.
I like what one guy replied:
...roll a RANDOM string of ALL ONES then get back to us. See, the problem isn't just an unlikely random string. The problem is a rolling a SPECIFIC random string, in the case of the origin of life, it's the "string" that creates a digitally coded, self-replication system, with self-correction that we have as the basis of life. Without that, any sort of blind evolution is a non-starter. After that where are all sorts of other problems. But deal with OOL first, then get back to us.
Right, like the multiverse, that has a lot of evidence. There's clearly no ideological motivations there at all.
An opinion or evaluation only holds weight with the scientific community if it's backed by solid supporting positive evidence.
Another great design for evolution is "no matter how great the odds are against the first life happening by chemical interaction and blind chance , the fact is life is here, and therefore evolution is true" The classic evolution of the gaps argument. I can't believe I fell for this theory in college, but then again they wouldn't allow us to be exposed to anything else, but it sure ticked me off when I woke up and smelled the missing missing link lol wallstreeter43
This Timothy Horton guy sure has a bone to pick. It seems that he's familiar with UD....why doesn't he come on down and educate us? Berceuse
My favorite:
Mice can't live underwater. Bad design.

Leave a Reply