A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

Hi, Peg. You've heard of owls, right? How about nighthawks? These are nocturnal birds. Yet, they have feathers and flow-through lungs; and lack teats and improved hemoglobin. If the difference had anything to do with nocturnality, you would expect the owls to have converted over to the bat strategy.So, clearly, the "nocturnal" portion isn't important in determining the differences between bats and birds. That leaves just the "mammal" portion, which, curiously enough, was the whole point that Taq was presenting.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

So why don't owls, who are nocturnal birds, have three middle ear bones or teats?

Or maybe they are the same and the designer is incompetent.

Another thought came to mind. Perhaps it was like a game of Chinese Telephone, the game where you whisper a sentence into the ear of the person next to you and the message is passed on to others. After 20 or so people the message has changed from the original. Perhaps this is how life was made, but instead of passing message on to one person you pass it on to two persons.

if you're sold on ID, then multiple designers are indeed most consistant with the evidence. in fact, NO evidence counters the hypothesis of multiple "intelligent designers"which is why cdesign proponentists avoid the subject like the plaguePage not found · GitHub Pages

Heh. That is another problem with the "common design indicates a common designer" that IDistas try to pass off as a cogent argument.In explaining why a common designer would resuse common designs over and over again, they almost always make a comparison with human engineers. Well, the reason that human engineers reuse designs is because they have limitations on budget and on their ability to think of new designs. So, in essence, the "common design indicates a common designer" folks are admitting that their creator is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

---

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

That is pretty much a know it all attitude. Pretty ignorant if you ask me. Like the speck (aka us) of the universe explaining what the universe is all about. It is a completely illogical statement, given all the assumptions.The bible says that God's ways are not our ways. I am not quoting that to say that the bible is always right, but in my life, as I continue to learn things and never stop, even my own ways of 40 years ago are not my ways now. If there is a God, and He did create it all, then I would logically think that it is safe to say, His ways are not our ways, and we have not but a little glimpse of how or what He created.In other words, it is pointless to say God is incompetent. It makes no sense logically, or comically.I guess you see no purpose in things that we deem "bad" and then associate it with an incompetent designer.

We don't have to know everything in order to know that the designer was incompetent.At the same time, this same "speck" can claim that it can detect the actions of supernatural deity by looking that how nature is put together.If we are adequately intelligent to detect design then we are also adequately intelligent to judge that design.

He said "maybe". That is not being a "know it all", that is being a "not so sure about it all". But within the speck community there are specks that claim that there is a bigger speck that created all the specks. How do those specks know that the bigger speck exists?I mean, they are just specks making claims also, right?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Again, more ignorance. How do you qualify that statement? Oh really? You think free will and the randomness of quantum physics have anything to do with each other?And lets look further into how nature is put together. So far as we know, as of this date, nature is "put together" by gravity. Gravity is the glue of the universe. Can you fully explain gravity to us? Where it comes from, how it works. Maybe we can finally get rid of the theory of gravity, since you are going to explain to us in detail. Yea, you could also get into a car crash, wake up 7 months later, and detect that you are in a hospital, but have no clue how you got there.Look, scientists know dam well that we are only uncovering the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding life, the universe, and everything. My advice to you, is to not think "we know enough". A better scientific attitude would be that we know what we know, until we know something else. You will never prove God is a farse by calling Him incompetent. You sound more like a child calling his parents idiots for grounding him.

Fine. But I don't get that feeling from the flavor of the post. He does not come across as not sure of himself.By faith alone. Can't prove a thing. Correct.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Do I have to know the blueprints of a Ford Pinto inside and out in order to know that it was a poor design? Nope. The fact that it explodes into a fireball on impact is all I need to know.The fact that my eating hole and breathing hole are one in the same is all I need to know that someone was asleep at the wheel. This is a design flaw. I can cite quite a few if you want.

I'm 100% natural. My atoms are held together by electromagnetic fields. The nuclei of my atoms are held together with strong and weak nuclear forces. Gravity has little to do with keeping me together.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Many on this site could, you just wouldn't understand it, or probably wouldn't want to understand it. You do understand that the theory of gravity DOES explain what gravity is and "where it comes" from, right? I doubt you actually have a clue what scientist "know". We are well past the tip of the iceberg, catch up. What physical evidence do you have that a god/designer is necessary?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

wrong source, sorry, see next post insteadEdited by hari, : No reason given.