[QUOTE][B]Distortion of my words, and also a fallacy.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually it's called an analogy.
[QUOTE][B]In logic this type of reasoning is called an "extension", and belongs to the type of "faulty analogies". A faulty analogy is an inappropriate comparison or an attempt to compare two or more dissimilar things.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
From:
Forbidden
[QUOTE][B]Identify the two objects or events being compared and the
property which both are said to possess. Show that the two
objects are different in a way which will affect whether they
both have that property[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Your argument is that, if the location on the genome where mutations occur are stastically weighted, they are necessarily encoded by God.
His argument is that if something "random" but statistically weighted is necessarily from God, as you assert, then precipitation is necessarily from God because it is statistically weighted in a very similar manner. The property (weighted probability) exists in both the subject and the analogy, therefore the analogy is a good one. The faulty argument that mutations must be from God because of weighted probability has been adequately refuted, unless you can follow the proof I quoted above and find that property that distinguishes the subject from the analogy.
™ Version 4.2