Great video again. The creationists' complexity argument frequently drives me crazy. They, as you showed here, never acknowledge that simple rules - especially when reiteration is involved - can lead to infinitely complex results. Therefore, fractals don't exist even as a concept. An in reality, there are no minerals, except if god spends his valuable time assembling them personally atom by atom. Which is maybe the reason he sometimes seems distracted from lesser issues like r**d and mu**d children's cries for help. And while they never stop talking how complex and therefore godly everything is, they vehemently deny that things that they want to be simple might be complex, too. Like social interactions. Or gender. Then it's just right or wrong camp, good or evil, christian or communist, male or female.
We can chill Sir, the future lies with us and not liars for the baby jesus. History shows that all primitive and unsophisticated infantile fantasies are destined to decline given time.
Rudy Raff was literally my friend (more like a family friend as he was a generation older), so I guess I'm not a creationist. He once visited my third grade class for show-and-tell with a bunch of fossils which he passed around. He was a an all-around great guy who will be dearly missed by all who knew him
they will burn the world until there literally is nothing left but the explanations for things they choose for themselves. that's how they think this will help their cause. that's why we often associate them with literal nazis.
Almost *everything* can be both simple and complicated depending on what you're doing. You learn addition in grade school, but it doesn't become untrue just because a 3rd grader can't go to the chalkboard and walk you through a rigorous proof for 1+1 = 2.
I said this over on the blog, but complex systems arising from a set of simple interactions is the rule in nature on pretty much every scale, from galactic clusters to atomic nuclei and everywhere in between.
Odd complaint. The formula that generates the Mandelbrot set is about as simple as it gets but the boundary of the set is literally infinitely complex.
Given the evolution of a new species from the old is an observed fact the debate should be over . The question is not if it happens any more , but just the details how . Like watching it rain , there is no doubt it happens even if you do not know the details how . We evolve .
Sure, but Stephen Meyer and the other frauds at Discovery Institute certainly aren't. You simply cannot do this kind of quote mining as he did here, and cut out all the pieces in the quote that don't fit your narrative, without knowing what you're doing. And they do that all the time, it's actually the one thing they are good at.
That's the ones who aren't their talking heads or "scientists". The average creationist may be honest. The apologists and "scientists" ... not so much.
