flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas

There is design everywhere you look in this world. Man has never designed anything approaching the complexity of your own body. Actually I've actually already covered this in post 25 of this thread.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

GDR, don't go there. You probably want to take this to another thread because you are about to get shredded (I've seen it happen to many before you).The first question will be "how do you measure complexity?...and it will get worse from there.The second will be "how do you define and recognize design"....I've never seen anyone come up with a good answer for either question.This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 05-04-2006 01:21 AM

You're the one doing that. You're the one setting scientific explanations of the mechanisms of events against subjective religious stories about why they happen, as though those two things were mutually exclusive, and the presence of the second nullified the first. Who cares why they exist? It's hardly necessary for us to know the origin of the laws of physics for us to draft models that employ them to explain phenomena. Where in this thread have I made any assertions about my view of the origin of the laws of physics?Also, this is a substantially different claim than the one you were originally making. Can we assume, because you've abandoned any attempt to support it, that you no longer hold the position that mutations are pre-programmed into the DNA of organisms?

Good advice.We are outside the realms of science and crashfrog and others just bog the whole discussion down in scientific details. My point is simply the point that Paley made regarding the human eyeball hundreds of years ago. Dawkins may very well be able to demonstrate how it could have happened naturally. Because it could have doesn't mean that it did.I still agree with Paley that the eyeball was designed rather than just occurring randomly in a meaningless universe. It ain't science. The eyeball exists and it is either designed or it isn't. It can't be proven either way. No matter how much detail crash goes into he can only suggest how something happened, he can't tell me definitively why the eyeball or anything else exists.

To be fair to Crash he would say that there is no reason why. What survived and is..is just what survived and is.I do wonder about ToE myself. Like how carnivores managed to evolve. Presumably the first mutation which invoked the notion: "eat another live animal" would have resulted in the animal eating its own young. This given that it would be a lot easier than chasing your dinner around. And one would have no need to have evolved protecting ones young against being eaten alive without there being carnivores around.

Eyes exist because seeing is useful. That's a perfectly scientific answer to a perfectly scientific question.I mean how hard is that? Why is it that you two insist on taking perfectly answerable, scientific questions and acting like the answers are somehow beyond the scope of human knowledge?I mean, did you two really need me to tell you what to do with your eyes? Reading books with them would be my first suggestion. Carrion eating would be the transitional state, there, I suspect. Eating your own offspring costs you nothing (setting aside diseases) if they're already dead, or even if they're likely to die. This is a strategy that many insects employ - spiders eating their own young, etc.But honestly? What makes you think that carnivores evolved from herbivores in the first place? Carnivores and herbivores are more likely to be specialized derivatives of omnivores.

GDR: I agree with you. The idea that evertything we see came about because everything built it'self into order without something guiding it is very far fetched. But many on here dont see that.There is a saying about this: "Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes ." But tell that to many on here!

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Why? What leads you to believe that chaos, and not order, is the natural consequence of a lack of guidance in the natural world?(What I love is the idea that the best-supported theory in biology is somehow "far-fetched", but a magic sky-man who grants wishes is totally reasonable.)

This might be the most oft repeated nonsense on this board because NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING!The universe simply exists. There is no concept of "before" the universe because time is a property of the universe.Ask cavediver if you don't believe me.

Hehe, I was waiting for the atheist fundies to attack LOL.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

You are no doubt correct that people have responded to the statement, though I could only guess what they believe the whole universe (including the Big Bang) came from, let alone what was before.BTW: I love your username. Makes me think of "superintendent Chalmers" from the Simpsons. I get the giggles about it.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

You mean "respond to your goading." Mission accomplished - you were able to be rude and dismissive enough for someone to reply in the same manner. Do you want your cookie now?

Um, I wasn't rude first. You made the "guy in the sky" remark before my "atheist fundie" remark.Oh, I dont need a cookie. I got decaf coffee.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

What would you call message 37, if not rude? You basically implied that evolutionists were idiots who couldn't see something so obvious it was hitting them right in the face. What? Cookies go great with coffee.

I didn't mean to be rude. Evos have posted opposite yet similar things on this forum.and cookies might go great with coffe, but I usually keep coffee to it'self. I think Starbucks is a ripoff (i get better black coffee with home made folgers But to me, coffee is coffee.Unsweet tea is fantastic.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4