Letters

[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

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