That's known as Hoyle's fallacy, Alan B.

<<... given the varied and massive complexity of life, The odds of a whirlwind, whipping through a junkyard and creating a flying 747 are less than the theory of blind chance culminating in evolution that produces something far more complex!>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

There is nothing about a 747 being randomly assembled by a tornado in a junkyard that is in any way analogous to abiogenesis.

Furthermore, complexity does not imply design. Complexity arises out of necessity or sloppy design - neither of which should be the case when anything that could qualify as a god is involved.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity

AJPhillips...you poor lost sheep you....

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in regards to faith and science:

**Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. ... Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.[3]**

The humble and presevering investigator...you are neither of those Phillips.
What you are is a twisted negator of truth...in truth!

Sounds like ye olde god of the gaps, DD.

Every scientific advance fills space that faith inhabits, making the concoction of an omnipotent being seem more and more absurd.

But do carry on.

Aj Philips: Being able to produce labels, with surnames attached to them, proves nothing other than a very obvious confirmation bias!?

I don't know why some folk believe in the still unproven theory of evolution? Which to this day, remains like the Big Bang Theory, A God or intelligent design denialists convenience and for the zealot evolution fundamentalist. Far more unquestioned faith in this belief system, even where the science calls into question some or all those beliefs.

One of those inconvenient facts being the complete and defining lack of nitrogenous coke, which would have at least proved a primordial soup! Even old continents like Australia, where no significant mantle folding has apparently occurred?

The usual trotted out excuse, that fundamental evolution zealots trot out as the reason for their complete absence!?

Science has been apparently able to construct viruses pseudo life, in the lab? But only under strictly controlled and deliberately designed conditions and in the presence of a supervising intelligence!
Alan B.

"Light Is (Inherently) Indivisible, Non-Separate, and One Only."
Daffy Duck, the philosopher to whom you refer in that piece obviously is out of his depth even before he got going.

David

diver dan,

I've been happily arguing against religious apologetics for years now. Why the sudden interest in my activities here now?

<<The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in regards to faith and science:>>

Yes, and it's wrong, too. Faith is the antithesis of reason; it is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe something. Faith is not a source of knowledge, nor a pathway to truth. Faith is where reason goes to die.

You can call me “lost” and “twisted” all you like, but until you can provide some reasoning behind your accusations, I think Hitchens’ Razor applies.