23 May '12 07:35>
Originally posted by jaywillSo do you agree that the English composition is incorrect in that sentence?
If this is your main complaint about the weakness of the article then that's not very impressive. You are trying to make a major objection about a rather minor issue of English composition.
The sentence - [b]"There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms" ripped out of all context by you, only showcases your own desperate cleverness. [/b]
When did I 'rip it out of all context'? I was the one that gave you the link to the article (which you had not read) and when I quoted the sentence it was after you had read the article and I assumed you knew the context, and you asked specifically for a quote of only the portion that was blatantly false.
Who is desperate?
There is no reason to ignore the word [b]THEREFORE in the sentence to see precisely what rational has proceeded the sentence. [/b]
I do not ignore it. The sentence in context, remains false.
It is reasonable to assume that mainly the author is discrediting the analogy as it relates to the origin of life.
There is no need to make any assumptions. The author makes it quite clear what properties are involved in the analogy:
Sometimes evolutionists claim that snowflakes show that order can arise from disorder, and more complex structures from simple ones, based purely on the inherent physical properties of matter. Therefore, the reasoning goes, life could have arisen from simple molecules that organize themselves in a way that ultimately leads to more complex structures, and eventually the first living cell.
But he then ignores the whole concept of an analogy and goes on to find differences between snowflakes and life and then makes the outrageous claim that 'there is no analogy'.
If you WANT to twist your case you could understand the man to be saying that NO POSSIBLE ANALOGY OF ANY KIND could EVER be made between snowflakes and living organisms, sure, you could push that. But I count is not terribly honest of you. And if that is your main objection to the article it certainly doesn't merit it being ignored by most reasonable people, I think.
It isn't my objection. I realised from the beginning that what he meant was 'its a poor analogy for the properties in question'. But the problem is he goes about it by deliberately finding new properties that were not included in the original analogy he is trying to discredit.