Problems for Darwinian Evolution with this analogy of the first:
“Say for example the computer was originated in 1960. So if one examines the computer and it’s development from 1960 until 2007, one will find, ‘a sequence of cumulative steps from very basic design’ to the imac.”
1. Your question about what the inventor could have imagined is irrelevant.
2. The whole analogy of the first computer in the 1960’s slowly developing to the heights of the iMac in 2007 actually shows how an the immaterial mind(s) of intelligent computer designers work to develop a product into what is now. Left to chance alone acting upon material the computer would not make itself. So, this computer version of the ‘Mount Improbable’ analogy cannot be analogous to Darwinian Evolution where there is no mind at work, no one outside/transendent of the material world to develop things along.
3. In your analogy both the first computer and the 2007 computer are both computers. The latest product is still a computer. So what you describe is not analogous or accurate to ‘molecules-to-man evolution. It is sort of analogous to micro-evolution which I already believe in where, in this analogy, one kind of computer develops into another computer.
4. The analogy actually shows an increase of information, fine tuning of manufacturing, more sophistication, micro sizing, more power, better performance, higher graphics, better user interfaces (GUI) and so on. Again, not an accurate analogy/comparision to Darwinian Evolution. Genetic mutations and nature acting upon genes over time do not add new information.

Mount Improbable – There is a major flaw with the mount improbable analogy – it has a false starting point. Why start at the first living organism and not at the very beginning of things? It seems that this analogy conveniently begins with a fully functioning, reproducing, living organism which is laden with genetic information when in reality this isn’t the starting point at all. So instead of starting at the bottom of the mountain, as the analogy goes, really Dawkins takes you almost to the top of the mountain and imagines evolution moving things upwards gradually to the peak, then claims that evolution has taken us all the way from the very bottom to the top.

Must move past analogies – Get new analogies or just stop trying to fob them off as being accurate to how evolution is supposed to work. Anyway, we’d need to move past analogies. This might be hard for both of us because we are not trained or particularly skilled at science. However, we both are intelligent, have access to resources and should be able to reason these things out to some extent. Lets show evidence, actual exhibits.

Chance acts upon us

“theme that perhaps certain leaps in advancement came about by chance, just like the apple falling from the tree.”

Again, your comment on chance acting on the mind of Isaac Newton does not show Darwin Evolution. Infact, such a seemingly random event would show the interaction with the immaterial mind and how that spurs development of science etc. Incidentally, Isaac Newton was a believer in the Creator God revealed in Scripture, trusted in Jesus Christ and was a strong creationist to boot! He studied and wrote more on theology than he did science.

Finally, something you said in your last post:

“So I will say that whilst the designer of the Imac did indeed design the Imac, it is probable that it came about by chance.”

At least you are willing to be consistent when you deny the need for a Designer where design is clearly evidenced in a world jam-packed full of designed stuff and you’re willing to state that something else that we know is designed (iMac) could also come about by chance without a designer. Although both statements of denial are unscientific and impossible to sustain.

Its only a suggestion, but wouldn’t you be better to just say, “I can’t deny there is design in nature, therefore there must be a Creator but I reject him because from what I know of the Creator I don’t like”? That’d be more consistent with the evidence (design) and where the evidence points (a designer).

Anyway, so whilst you and I both use our five senses in the present, to make observations, carry out experiments and repeat our findings, we both deduce that a product such as the iMac displays all the features of design and is inescapably the product of intelligent design. There you would say such a thing as “it is probable that it came about by chance.” Now, I know your power of deduction couldn’t possibly be so faulty that you can’t observe + deduce design in computers and in nature. Come on then, you know better than to make such an illogical conclusion. Its not probable that an iMac could come about by chance – its not even possible at all. How unscientific Keith!

Much more then, if an iMac needs a designer(s), how much more then must we and all living things, the planet and the universe need a designer. The Scriptures say to those who reject their Creator in their mind and heart that although they “profess themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Come on Keith. Change your mind. Come home to God. He still loves you and wants to you for himself even though you have rejected him for so long. “God proved his love toward you, in that, while you were yet a sinner, Christ died for you.”

Welcome to the debate and I’m glad you,”waded in.” In regards to computer design, I am clearly out of my depth and I agree with you that perhaps my argument is, “poorly formed.”
However you didn’t take my argument in it’s wholeness or perhaps as you suggested it was indeed, “poorly formed.”

So to look back at my original response to David,

“Say for example the computer was originated in 1960. So if one examines the computer and it’s development from 1960 until 2007, one will find, “a sequence of cumulative steps from very basic design,” to the IMac that David describes. Would the original inventor of the computer ever imagined the improbable heights of the IMac in 1960?
Using the hypothesis of mount improbable we can clearly follow a slow gradual process, or “ramp evolution” We have went from something not very well designed to something very well designed that would have been thought mount improbable in 1960.”

Of course the IMac was intelligently designed. I didn’t intend to suggest that it “ONLY” came about by chance. My argument was supposed to co-relate with two different themes. One was, “gradual design” (slowly climbing up mount improbable) and the other theme that perhaps certain leaps in advancement came about by chance, just like the apple falling from the tree.

However Andy I see where yourself and David are coming from and your argument is clearly formed. In all sincerity Davids explanation of a timeless God is perhaps the best I’ve heard yet.

“by the Creator’s own definition, the Creator is eternal, above time, beginning-less. Our argument is that only things which have a beginning require a cause; God has no beginning so requires no cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore it needs a Beginner.”

However it still leaves us with the same old problem. EVIDENCE! Whilst we can take apart the IMac and see that it does indeed exist (I’ll get back to that in a minute) we can’t do the same with God. I don’t believe God to be separate from us or that God exists in the sky where prayers are teleported to him and he knows exactly that over six billion of us are thinking at any one time. In all sincerity and I don’t want to be rude but, I think that is silly and once again unprovable and you will find that sooner or later you will have to rely on faith, which is? Belief without EVIDENCE!

Your point Andy about my issue being trust is incorrect! The main reason I don’t believe in God is the Bible. I don’t believe that God revealed itself in THAT book. I believe that there is too much horror commanded by God and I will just focus briefly on one issue that I’ve previously pointed out. God destroyed 99.9 percent of the population including innocent children. God chose to save Noah, (I don’t like what I read about him in the Bible either) his family and animals two by two. I would like to discuss this issue and others, but in a separate debate.

“I have never seen your brain. Haven’t seen your heart. Man, I don’t even know who you are, nor have I ever seen you. But I believe you exist.”

“Realizing the doctrine of dependent arising,
The wise do not partake of extreme views”
- Buddha

Not once have I said that nothing exists! Instead I mention dependant arising and that things are empty of true existence in that they rely on terms and conditions. What Buddha is warning us against in not partaking of extreme views, is that phenomena is not independent and against the other extreme which is nilism (that things don’t exist)

“Just as a chariot is verbalized
In dependance on collection of parts
So conventionally a sentient being
Is set up depending on the meental and physical aggregates”
- Buddha

In relation to your last point Andy,

“I watched an interview on the BBC with Dawkins. The interviewer (William Crawley) asked him when he became an atheist. His answer, 14 years old. Why then would you put your trust in the ideology of someone who decided at the age of 14 that there was no God?”

Thankfully I don’t fully trust or believe all what Prof. Dawkins says and disagree with him about many issues, such as the value of religion. As a free thinker I am free to make up my own mind and am not tied by any dogma. I do like that Richard Dawkins always drives home the need to provide evidence and I find his mount improbable idea very convincing. Like I’ve said previously and I hope you ll go back and read my complete argument that my thinking has evolved very slowly over twenty years and at about the same time that Dawkins became an Atheist I was a Christian.