How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Positive evidence for IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria.

---

But all of the components are not required for it to perform A function. This is a critical consideration and you seem to be missing it. Think about a car. Remove the wheels and you have destroyed its ability to function as a car, but it still functions as a shelter complete with heating and AC. Remove the AC; it still functions as a shelter against wind and rain. Remove the body, you still have a power station-- the engine-- that can be used to generate electricity by turning the alternator, and which could also turn any number of machines via the drive shaft. Remove the gasoline engine and you still have countless components that STILL FUNCTION as something, even though the whole is far from functioning as a car.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

Originally posted by Peter:
Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.

​

who says?

---

If you moved to the artic, would you adapt or would the environment?

quote:

---

Peter:
The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,
life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.

​

who says?

---

The universe was here some 10 billion years before the Earth showed up, give or take. And the Earth was here 1.5-2 billion years before life showed up. So what do you think is adapting to what? Is the Universe and the Earth finely tuning themselves to life-- which didn't exist during most of that fine tuning process--, or is life adapting to the universe? Its a pretty simple causal relationship.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
oh... that's who said... and silly me was thinking the assertions above were merely made from presuppositions

---

Do you have a problem with the reasoning? If so, post it. If not, why the sarcasm?This seems an awfully shallow response, and for you, that is atypical.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
it occured to me that peter had made a couple of assertions with, as far as i could tell, only his opinion to back them up...

---

Peter didn't elaborate on the statements, though I am sure he could. I did attempt to explain the reasoning and met with sarcasm in return. So, do you have a problem with the reasoning?

quote:

---

God finely tuned the universe so that life would be possible on earth.

​

God created life on earth after having molded earth in such a way as to support that life.

---

The difference between your statements and Peter's is that you postulate a driving force for which we have no evidence. Peter's statements are within the bounds of what we know.Sorry, got to go. Mommie is rushing me ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com