Stonehenge and ID

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Weyland:
.....For a bonus mark, how would you use the EF to distinguish between stonehenge (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation) from the giants causeway (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation)
Please pay particular emphasis to how you would make this distinction if the Victorians had not spent so much time and effort putting the lintel stones back across the uprights - ie the henge consisted of some freestanding pillars and some fallen stones.[/B][/QUOTE]If John Paul responds to this, his response will certainly
consist of nothing but a bunch of content-free huffing and puffing.
Hopefully, JP's huffing and puffing will be at least a little bit entertaining....

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Humour me and apply the filter to DNA will you....

​

I know (don`t ask me how I just have this feeling) your going to get to step three and exclaim design, what I`m really intrested in is where you eliminate the possibility of chance changes WITH a selection mechanism.....

​

Because untill the filter acounts for selection it really can`t be applied as a critique of evolution, can it!

---

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd like to point out once again that DNA sequence data for a number of organisms are available at http://www.tigr.org/tdb . There's plenty of data there for use with entropy/information/"specified complexity" computational exercises. Unfortunately, however, creationists seem to have a pronounced aversion to the notion of testing their "theories" with this sort of real-world data, so I doubt that we'll see them do anything with it.