Unsupported assertion
Cummins: The concept of nature creating complexity is an absurdity.
Appeal to ignorance.
Cummins: Why can't scientists get nature to create life?
Strawman argument.
Cummins: Because nature doesn't create complexity.
Conclusion reached from incorrect data.
CumminsL Why can't scientists get fruit flies to be anything more than screwed up mutants?
Strawman
CumminsL Because nature doesn't create complexity.
Repetetion of erroneous statement
Cummins: Why can't someone write a computer program that creates
complexity? Because, apart from intelligence, only nature is left and
nature can't create complexity.
Ignorance.
CumminsL The Evolutionist, when not playing games about the meaning of "evolution,"
"complexity," or some other word, points to snowflakes, Miller's amino
acids, whatever.
Strawman.
Cummins: But, even a fool can see that nature isn't really creating
complexity.
Personal incredulance.
Cummins: These are just conditions of equilibrium, and the same forces
that cause these things would also destroy any imposed complexity.
Ignorance of science (far equilibrium process create complexity all the time).
Cummins: Or, they'll equate a fortuitous mutation with an increase in complexity.
So evolution does exist.
Cummins: But, again, even a fool can understand that something doesn't have to be more
complex to be helpful.
Hurah. So your assertion that evolution has to be leading to more complexity is merely a strawman for you to beat up on ?
> We read in Isaiah 29:13-24 that God has promised to do something about
> this. I believe the language of number to be His means of 'destroying
> the wisdom of the wise'.
Cummins: Don't forget the NT passage about some people being willingly ignorant about
the Flood.
We agree. So is it not time for you to learn something ?