Posted: Sep 02, 2013 11:51 am
stevebee92653 wrote:ElDiablo wrote:stevebee92653 wrote:ElDiablo said:
I'll stick with mine. A car maker may get everything else right but the shell. With my analogy you're wrong from even the most fundamental aspect of alternator repair. If you can't get the basics right, how can you get anything else right?
Well, the discussion is primate coverings and human skin appearing at a 625:1 ratio. You example an internal electromechanical car part, and think that's a good analogy. Then you are able to declare that I'm wrong. So, good for you. Me? I think randomness can't produce a 625:1 ratio. But that's what I learned in very basic math, and what I deduce from total obviousness. You stay with yours, I'll keep mine.
As Tolman correctly points out, my example has to do with credibility. You claim to have a high level of understanding of science but what I've read of yours shows otherwise. You misrepresent science even at the most fundamental level therefore your book lacks credibility.
Oh. Eye of the beholder here, eh? I love the broad generalizations that you and your fellow skeptics pour out on all threads here at ratskep, not just on this one. You are typical. Whatever you do, don't read the book before making big decisions like these.
No, it's not about personal interpretation. You make a specific statement about the human skin that shows a fundamental error in your understanding of evolution. Considering your "enough courses in biological sciences to have a masters" you shouldn't be getting this wrong, yet you do.