[MD] Evolution's new wrinkle:

[Platt Holden]

> > > [Krimel]
> > > Except that the creative power of chance has been so clearly
> > > demonstrated,
> > > in such a variety of situations that only a pin head could miss it. 
> > 
> > [Platt]
> > Demonstrated? How? 
> > 
> > [Krimel]
> > Sunspots, lightening, crystals, sand dunes, dust devils, hurricanes,
> the
> > jet stream, the Gulf stream, stars, spontaneous magnetism, the
> > Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, snowflakes, clouds, rivers, the spot on
> > Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, galaxies, magnetic fields, Bénard cells
> > and all of biology.
> 
> [Platt]
> That's not demonstration. That's just a recitation of "what is" according
> To SOM. What experiment predicts a repeatable measurable result of
> chance? 
> 
> [Krimel]
> There is no need to look to science for this there are casinos and
> insurance
> companies aplenty that thrive on it. But I have neither the patience nor
> the
> inclination to help you overcome willful ignorance. If you are really
> interested try Google.

I see you have no answer and resort to name calling as a last refuge. 

> > [Platt]
> > Is chance that your conception of God?
> > 
> > [Krimel] 
> > No, chance is my conception of chance. Any conception of a creator god
> > acts
> > in ways that are indistinguishable from chance.
> 
> [Platt]
> Wrong. A creator god can be conceived as acting with purpose as 
> distinguished from playing dice.  
> 
> [Krimel]
> One can conceive of purposeful unicorns and elephants in pink tutus as
> well,
> so what? If you mean these conversations to actually mean anything why
> don't
> you try answering Arlo's questions? As it stands the only reason for
> continuing this for the umpteenth time would be to show newcomers how
> foolish your end of these discussions always looks.

You blurted  "Any conception . . ."  Now you backtrack, obfuscate, and 
resort to name calling. Newcomers will duly take note.