Title Author Date

Tremblay's argument Ashraf, Sharf Mar 10, 2005

Dear Tremblay
Thank you for your for reply, though it is far from convincing. I would like to answer
one specific question you have raised about "rainbow”. There appears to be a great light years gap between mine and your understanding of terms such as design, order and complexity.

I would never refer "Rainbow" as an example for a complex piece of structure or a mechanism exhibiting design. Rainbow is simply a result of refraction between the huge amount of water particles and light.

There are no distinct components co-coordinating between themselves in the rainbow so I won’t call rainbow a "Design".
Are they ordered? yes but what order are we taking about? For example
If you drop 7 balls with different weights from an altitude, the rate at which the balls descend will always be in a particular order, here the force at work is the weight of the ball. Nevertheless one cannot treat this event as an "ordered descedence" and claim some one is at work in the transit. Similarly in the case of rainbow we have speed and wavelength at work by which we can exclude the hand of a creator. But which physical or chemical laws are we attributing, to the complex piece of design such as the central nervous system found in the living organism?

May be for you the real Design in living creatures are simply appearance similar to what Richard Dawkins mentioned in his blind watch maker and the mere appearance of Rainbow is a marvelous design. I don’t understand this rule of reasoning.

Related Articles: Harun Yahya Retreats to Miracles

Title Author Date

Tremblay's argument TalkReason , Mar 10, 2005

Mr.Sharfudeen:

According to our usual practice, we have forwarded your letter to Francois Tremblay for a possible reply (although the decision of whether to reply is up to him). In the meantime we feel it proper to point out that your letter contains at least one error demonstrating your insufficient ken in seminal concepts of physics. You write, "For example If you drop 7 balls with different weights from an altitude, the rate at which the balls descend will always be in a particular order, here the force at work is the weight of the ball." We regret to point out this statement of yours is absurd. From the introductory course of physics you should have learned that all balls, regardless of their weight, fall with exactly the same acceleration, so the "rate at which the balls descend" does not depend on their weight. This was already established by Galileo several hundred years ago and is explained in every elementary course of physics. Your statement shows that, regardless of whether or not Francois Tremblay decides to reply to you and regardless of what he would say in his reply, it seems obvious that you need to substantially improve your knowledge of elementary concepts of physics before embarking on a serous discussion.

Best wishes.

Talk Reason

Related Articles: Harun Yahya Retreats to Miracles

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