|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Show me the intelligence ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Tee hee hee, if there were no dung beetles to eat the dino dung we would be knee deep in turd, so we would have had to evolve turd buds. Get it now?
Ah, I see. Well that's me stumped. See you Sunday! Gosh, let's see... maybe there were dung beetles (or insects doing that sort of 'job') in the Jurassic? Insects had been around since the Carboniferous at least. Maybe bacteria just broke it down like they still do? Maybe there was no more poo then than now: a given area of land can only produce a certain amount of plant matter, and it doesn't matter whether that's eaten by 500 one-ton cows or 5 100-ton Argentinasauruses. Roughly the same amount of crap will come out at the (other) end. So what's so special about dinos? I guess you're saying that the seabed should be miles deep in fish-crap. Ho hum.
I know... I'm just in a silly mood. I didn't know turd was a word so I typed tird. I thought you meant you were tired. "... and emotional", probably.
We're talking your basic Biblical chap who just happened to make the universe. Ah well, there goes my argument then. Cos there’s bits of the bible that suggest that the god in question is neither omnipotent (eg Judges 1:19, Mark 6:5) nor omniscient (Genesis 3:8, 18:20-21, Hosea 8:4, etc). So he could indeed be the creator who’s apparently responsible for all the clumsy, foolish and downright stupid designs we find in nature. Fair enough! DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
The turd buds was a joke by the way. Not a creationist argument. But then I do know how they're hard to tell apart. Tee hee hee.....the nasty evo part of me is coming out.
So he could indeed be the creator who’s apparently responsible for all the clumsy, foolish and downright stupid designs we find in nature. Fair enough! What, like an Irish elks antlers? Now I thought they would surely prove silly - for what would 12 foot antlers serve them evolutionarily. However, creationarily I could understand it. Have you any clumsy foolish or stupid examples? I'd like to now why you would think this way. You'll have to speak layman's terms though. Because I am a simple program.
Cos there’s bits of the bible that suggest that the god in question is neither omnipotent (eg Judges 1:19, Mark 6:5) nor omniscient I think we'll leave that out of this topic, we'd only get shut down if I responded. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-15-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Sexual display. Just like bright plumage on male birds or risk-taking behavior in male humans.
quote: The human air and food tubes cross and share a common opening in the throat, making it very easy to choke and quickly die from lack of oxygen. Our spinal columns and knee joints are very poorly designed for upright locomotion. We have a sharp ridge on the inside of our skulls. No, mike. Nature is full of "good enough" design, and it's also full of design that is clearly modifications of existing structures or systems to serve new purposes, or multiple purposes. We can directly observe evolution producing these changes. You are too smart to not see this. You are too smart to lie to yourself about reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
columbo Inactive Member |
Sexual display. That's what Mrs Columbo says when I suck on a big cigar.
We have a sharp ridge on the inside of our skulls. And an even sharper tail when we fall on it. Ouch!
Our spinal columns and knee joints are very poorly designed for upright locomotion. Take some oil for it, meanwhile I'll investigate.
We can directly observe evolution producing these changes. You're probably right, hell you know more than me about it - I'm not even going to argue.
You are too smart to not see this. Problem is I'm a layman, you'd have to show me an experiment, and even then I'd ask questions....I have to fully inquire, a good detective needs evidence. Thanks for the vote though Schraff. Don't count me out......I'm not exactly super biased at the moment, at the moment I would say the TOE is good science. Err, just one more question mam..... Would you rather have no skull? [This message has been edited by Columbo, 01-16-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Am I to take it, judging by the sharp change in direction,
that there is nothing that anyone can think of about any object that they may come across from which the input of an intelligence could be inferred/deduced or otherwise determined?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, I'd rather have a skull with no sharp ridge on the inside.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The pocket watch fits in fine here, which has probably been mentioned. It is complex but doesn't reproduce. How about this question, if a machine were able to reproduce (von Neumann machine), would we assume intelligence had a role or assume abiogenesis followed by evolution, and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TruthDetector Inactive Member |
Read Genesis 1:9,12,18,21,25 then tell me if you found perfect in any of them. I belive God DIDN'T want our life on earth to be perfect, that way we would need him. Stop using 'flaws' in God's creations as an argument against him when he himself said, it was good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I think you are badly off toic. If you want to discuss this move it to the bible inerrancy thread perhaps.
What goes? The Nose Knows!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Um... he said it was good. Okay. By what criterion of design does ‘good’ encompass wasteful, pointless, excessively convoluted, less effective than other designs he knew of, dangerous to its owner, and plain bloody stupid?
Please explain what is ‘good’ about the position of the marsupial birthing canal. What’s ‘good’ about a beetle having wings when it lives entirely on the ground -- wings that cannot work because they are sealed in under the wing covers, and which would not work anyway because they are too rudimentary? What’s ‘good’ about having external testicles? This is obviously some strange definition of the word 'good' I wasn’t previously aware of. Please tell us what dictionary god -- and yourself -- were using. TTFN, DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: I thought external testicles helped keep the sperm cooler.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I thought external testicles helped keep the sperm cooler. I think his point is that it's poor design to require sperm production to have to occur at a lower body temperature, necessitating the external testicles. If I were God, and the guy I had design Woman showed up and was like "well, they're going to have to do this 'mensturation' thing," I'd send him back to the drawing board. But that's just me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
I think his point is that it's poor design to require sperm production to have to occur at a lower body temperature, necessitating the external testicles. There's a variety of related points here. Firstly, the obvious one: why can’t sperm be made at body temperature? After all, females make eggs inside their bodies just fine, so it’s not like there’s some intrinsic biochemical process that’s temperature-dependent in gametogenesis. Even if an external set-up were in some way unavoidable, they could still be protected -- a shield of cartilage, perhaps? But it seems very improbable that they do have to be external from a design point of view: not only mammalian females, but males of most animal groups -- and even some mammals, eg whales -- have their gamete-making structures internal. Remember, the point is not, why isn’t sperm made at body temperature, but why couldn’t it be? Is god in some way limited in matters of sperm production? And the reason why a vastly intelligent creator should have had a crack at doing internal testes is that it leads to a bunch of other poor design features.
Inguinal hernias apparently affect 500,000 people per year in the US alone. I can’t track down a percentage for how many people will suffer it at some point, but as a rough guess, across 30 years there’d be 15 million people, which I estimate is about 7%... and since it’s men, that’s 14% of the population. Call it one in ten, to be on the safe side. (I’ve also noticed some sites saying that inguinal hernais are more common in men than women -- anyone know why women can suffer from it at all?!) Now, there are good evolutionary explanations of why sperm might need to be made outside the body. But I do struggle to see how this can be even merely ‘good’ design from an allegedly vastly intelligent creator. Can any creationists explain it please? Cheers, DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: quote: Ok, so my answer was correct: the problem is that the wrong question was asked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TruthDetector Inactive Member |
I cannot explain for God, but I can offer one simple explaination.
Mabey the ancestor of the beatle used the wings, then after the Flood, when the environments changed, they were useless, so they became unactive. I am just guessing. Remember, God said, "was Good", not was PERFECT.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024