Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
70 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,327 Year: 4,439/6,534 Month: 653/900 Week: 177/182 Day: 10/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution......?
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 60 (8606)
04-15-2002 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mark24
04-08-2002 8:36 PM


Hello Mark,

"That’s not the point, you don’t need to understand nuclear fission to observe the sun is bright. You don’t need to understand a mechanism for evolution to see it in the fossil record. There are many examples of slight changes as you go higher in the fossil record. Foraminifera, trilobites, sticklebacks, radiolarians. Understanding the biological processes (or otherwise, as you point out) behind these changes in no way detracts from the FACT of small changes accumulating in higher strata."

OK, I agree with the FACT of small changes accumulating in higher strata. Unfortunately, this does not mean evolution. Evolution is the development of organisms from a common ancestor. However, if evolution was defined as "small changes accumulating in higher strata", then the observation of small changes accumulating in higher strata would make evolution fact.

I will concede, however, that small changes accumulating in higher strata is probably the best evidence for evolution.

"As regards progressive creation, phylogenetic evidence points away from this. Unless God deliberately deceived, to make it look like there was common descent back to prokaryotes."

Well, in regards to evolution, the Cambrian explosion points away from this.

"When you know all there is to know, then you can say that natural mechanistic processes don’t (or do) explain life. This is a premature statement."

Actually, it is not a premature statement. Notice what I say: "IF a blind mechanistic process fails to explain life". Thus, my statment was not premature, because I was proposing a "what-if" scenario.

"I wouldn’t suggest anything as evidence of creation, the evidence by itself should be able to be interpreted as such, & support a testable hypothesis, with falsifications."

This right here is the problem. You need to identify what exactly would constitute as evidence. Basically, if I give you "evidence", you are probably going to classify it into two things:

1. Argument from incredulity
2. God of the Gaps

Thus, I would like to know what you would consider "positive evidence" before I present anything. However, I will give it a shot.

"1/positive evidence of creation"

1. Design in living organisms
2. Irreducibly Complex Structures
3. Symbiotic Relationships

"2/ God/Supernatural"

Well, I don't really see why evidence for God is NECCESARY, but I will attempt.

1. Cause and effect principle (more on that later)
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics vs a closed system (the universe). Unless a creative force was responsible for the creation of the cosmos, it makes no sense that the universe would go from the hypothetical "Big-bang" scenario into a universe with galaxies, stars, planets, and living life forms.

"Supposition. I could just as easily say, with just as much basis, that evidence of a Supreme Creator is a falsification of him, using you own criteria. He can’t be the supreme creator because He’s amazing, & complex, & therefore designed, is therefore evidence of a designer, so isn’t supreme. ad infinitum."

You could easily say it, but it is not a valid argument. God is beyond the limits of time and natural laws. Only things that had a beginning require a cause. God requires no beginning, thus he requires no cause.

"Secondly, present POSITIVE evidence that there is design in nature."

Once again, what constitutes "positive evidence". Unless I recieve some guidelines, I'm afraid that your not going to be convinced (If the human brain with 120 trillion connections doesn't constitute "positive evidence" of design, I need some guidelines here.)

"Thirdly, a hypothesis that is testable, with falsifications, please."

I am currently in a debate with Quetzal concerning the matter, although I'm afraid my hypothesis is becoming falsified.

"1/ Produce this well established historic event from independent, non-religious sources please."

I was under the impression that the existence of Christ and his crusifiction were generally acknowledged, as well as the empty tomb.

"2/ Written historical documents aren't admissable as evidence anyway."

Yeah, I can't believe my teacher looked at me funny when I told him that the existence of Abraham Lincoln was obviously a conspiracy set up by Republicans to portray a great president.

"Your going to have to present evidence of the supernatural, mate, if you want to have progressive creation/guided evolution."

I don't see why. SETI claims that it can identify desingned radio signals and interpret them as being sent from a designer with which they have no other evidence for.

"I’m as worried about the Supreme Designers opinion as you are of the Bogeymans"

Oh no! Is the Boogyman going to sentence me to eternity under my sheets?

"I really must see that Dawkins quote. Cite please, page numbers if possible."

I think I discussed this on a seperate forum. It was a case of bad wording on my part, sorry.

"Please elaborate."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp

"The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time — God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause."

"How? Without first assuming the supernatural to be indicative of reality without a scrap of positive evidence for it?"

The desing IS the evidence for the Creator. I don't understand why this is so unreasonable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 04-08-2002 8:36 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 04-16-2002 12:08 AM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 20 by compmage, posted 04-16-2002 2:45 AM Cobra_snake has taken no action
 Message 21 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-16-2002 2:45 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 04-17-2002 8:08 AM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 17 of 60 (8608)
04-16-2002 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 11:55 PM


quote:
Well, in regards to evolution, the Cambrian explosion points away from this.

JM: How? Please explain to me what YOU think the Cambrian explosion is and then explain to me what you think conventional science thinks it is and finally why your second answer is a problem for evolution.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 11:55 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 1:03 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 60 (8615)
04-16-2002 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Joe Meert
04-16-2002 12:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: How? Please explain to me what YOU think the Cambrian explosion is and then explain to me what you think conventional science thinks it is and finally why your second answer is a problem for evolution.

I think the Cambrian Explosion is the appearance of every major phyla of living organisms appearing in a relatively brief geological time period. "Conventional science" thinks it is a "fascinating intellectual challenge".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 04-16-2002 12:08 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Joe Meert, posted 04-16-2002 1:11 AM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 19 of 60 (8618)
04-16-2002 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 1:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I think the Cambrian Explosion is the appearance of every major phyla of living organisms appearing in a relatively brief geological time period. "Conventional science" thinks it is a "fascinating intellectual challenge".

JM: Does this mean you accept that it happened in a 50 million year time frame? Do you realize that the more the 'so-called' explosion is examined, the slower it becomes? The explosion is now referred to many as a 'slow burn'. However, what is the creationist explanation for these observations? If you accept that the 'explosion' is indeed a real event in the geologic record, then what meaning does it have for creationists?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 1:03 AM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 4393 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 20 of 60 (8620)
04-16-2002 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 11:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"1/positive evidence of creation"

1. Design in living organisms
2. Irreducibly Complex Structures
3. Symbiotic Relationships


1. No design in living organism is apparent.
2. Irreducibly Complex Structures have yet to be found.
3. Symbiotic relationships can be explain by natural processes.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"2/ God/Supernatural"

Well, I don't really see why evidence for God is NECCESARY, but I will attempt.


If you want to claim that the universe is designed you must provide evidence of said designer.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

1. Cause and effect principle (more on that later)
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics vs a closed system (the universe). Unless a creative force was responsible for the creation of the cosmos, it makes no sense that the universe would go from the hypothetical "Big-bang" scenario into a universe with galaxies, stars, planets, and living life forms.


1. Waiting for the "more".
2. "...it makes no sense..." isn't evidence.

------------------
compmage


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 11:55 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2456 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 21 of 60 (8649)
04-16-2002 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 11:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]Hello Mark,
Evolution is the development of organisms from a common ancestor. However, if evolution was defined as "small changes accumulating in higher strata", then the observation of small changes accumulating in higher strata would make evolution fact.

I will concede, however, that small changes accumulating in higher strata is probably the best evidence for evolution.
[/QUOTE]

One question Cobra, by your statement above were you defining evolution as one common ancestor for all organisms or per major family group? I do not mean to nit pick but common descent with modification is a hall mark of Natural Selection, not evolution persay. Evolution of unrelated family groups could have occured (although the genetic evidence points away from this) which would remove a section of NS and leave evolution, as change of living organisms over time, intact.

quote:

Well, in regards to evolution, the Cambrian explosion points away from this.

I have heard this a number of times and have never really gotten why people think that this is a problem.
1)The "explosion" occured over roughly a 500 million year period with predating fossils from various areas of the world.
2) There was not hierarchal constraint or historical constraint so of course the earliest genetic and morphological patterns would occur here. Some occured earlier as has been seen by further fossil work. One wonderful book is "Crucible of Creation" by Simon Morris, it gives a wonderful account of the most recent (as of 1998) research into the Cambrian "Explosion".

quote:

Thus, I would like to know what you would consider "positive evidence" before I present anything. However, I will give it a shot.

"1/positive evidence of creation"

1. Design in living organisms
2. Irreducibly Complex Structures
3. Symbiotic Relationships


Well, first off I have to disagree with design being currently available as evidence. So far the ID group at the Discovery Institute has yet to be able to generate ANY data for design. And they have made some substantial financial arangements for the "research" into this area of biology without success. The same holds true for Irreducibly complex system, most of Behe's examples are erroneous. Finally, why are symbiotic relationships a problem? There is a great deal of research into both symbiotic relationships and into "altruistic" behavior and how it can be defined in Neo-Darwinian terms by the application of Game theory.

quote:

"2/ God/Supernatural"

Well, I don't really see why evidence for God is NECCESARY, but I will attempt.

1. Cause and effect principle (more on that later)
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics vs a closed system (the universe). Unless a creative force was responsible for the creation of the cosmos, it makes no sense that the universe would go from the hypothetical "Big-bang" scenario into a universe with galaxies, stars, planets, and living life forms.


OK, for number one can I assume that you are refering to First and second or Primary and Secondary causes? As for the second, I am sorry but this is just plain wrong from a Thermodynamic point of view. This arguement pretty much assumes that all thermo is irreversible, this is incorrect. There is a whole sub-field within thermo that deals with reversible thermodynamic reactions, events ect. Entropy can be transferred within a system and the whole system will still have increased entropy even if small areas within it have decreased entropy.

quote:

You could easily say it, but it is not a valid argument. God is beyond the limits of time and natural laws. Only things that had a beginning require a cause. God requires no beginning, thus he requires no cause.

This is what I mean by primary and secondary cause. And it does nothing to prove design or to disprove evolution. In fact, God by this definition can neither be proven nor disproven.

quote:

Once again, what constitutes "positive evidence". Unless I recieve some guidelines, I'm afraid that your not going to be convinced (If the human brain with 120 trillion connections doesn't constitute "positive evidence" of design, I need some guidelines here.)

I think that if you followed any of the general guidelines or philosophical underpinings for science that you would be able to satify most of the people on this board. Unfortunately going over these is not a simple matter. I think that you already know about falsification, another is simplest fit to the evidence. However, that does not mean that "God" or any other non-defined designer is the simplest fit because then you need to define the mechanism that this designer used. That is rather a problem to define a natural occurance with a supernatural (in the case of God) means.

quote:

"1/ Produce this well established historic event from independent, non-religious sources please."

I was under the impression that the existence of Christ and his crusifiction were generally acknowledged, as well as the empty tomb.


I think that Joshua of Aramethia is generally acknowledged as having existed as was his death by crucifction but that does not prove that he rose from the dead or was the son of God.

quote:

"2/ Written historical documents aren't admissable as evidence anyway."

Yeah, I can't believe my teacher looked at me funny when I told him that the existence of Abraham Lincoln was obviously a conspiracy set up by Republicans to portray a great president.


I think that the point was that the bible was written well after the fact, somewhere between 100 and 300 AD and by people who were not part of the events of 30 AD.

quote:

"The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time — God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause."

Sorry but this just proves that a cause is needed, it does not prove god or God. You are picking one possible (and supernatural) explanation for the start of the universe. Maybe was are all just living in negative gravity flux and the flux is contained within something which has no beginning and no end, ala Steven Hawkins.
[QUOTE]
The desing IS the evidence for the Creator. I don't understand why this is so unreasonable.[/b]


The problem is that neither you nor anyone else to my knowledge has proven design. Linkage could provide the answers as to why the universal constants are as they are, or the multiuniverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, or the strict Copenhagen interpretation. A creator is not the only alternative, and the creator of christian religion is only one potential candidate within this small are of the total possibilities.

I do have to say that if we continue to try to solve these problems that we will never be bored.

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 11:55 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 60 (8665)
04-17-2002 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 11:55 PM


Hi Cobra,

I’ll pick up on stuff that never got covered.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Hello Mark,

"2/ Written historical documents aren't admissable as evidence anyway."

Yeah, I can't believe my teacher looked at me funny when I told him that the existence of Abraham Lincoln was obviously a conspiracy set up by Republicans to portray a great president.


I should have worded it better. Written historical documents are not admissible as evidence in the physical & natural sciences.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Your going to have to present evidence of the supernatural, mate, if you want to have progressive creation/guided evolution."

I don't see why. SETI claims that it can identify desingned radio signals and interpret them as being sent from a designer with which they have no other evidence for.


The program is looking for signals that have no known natural (in the astronomical sense) cause. That is to say, they must not conform to patterns of rotational systems etc. In essence, SETI has a frame of reference. To compare that with ID, ID would look at the entire universe & try to infer design without that referential frame. That is, it looks at ALL life & makes the inference without a frame of reference. Even if SETI DO get that elusive signal, we cannot rule out that it was from an as yet unknown natural source. As such, SETI & ID is a false analogy.

Also, I asked for evidence of the supernatural, not a reason why you don’t have to produce the evidence .

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Once again, what constitutes "positive evidence". Unless I recieve some guidelines, I'm afraid that your not going to be convinced (If the human brain with 120 trillion connections doesn't constitute "positive evidence" of design, I need some guidelines here.)

Fair question. There's two ways I can think of showing design in nature. However I throw it around, it comes back to these two.

1/ “Prove” IC.

2/ Show the existence of God/Supernatural entity, & His/their previous work in complex supernatural design. At least you have a referential frame, a la SETI. In the same way that I could potentially identify an Egyptian artifact, by looking at the similarities/differences of that artifact, & comparing to other artefacts that came from Egypt, & elsewhere. To be fair, this is a tough act to follow as it assumes an aspect of nature has already been identified as being designed, but how can there be a supernatural reference frame without this?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 11:55 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
techristian
Member (Idle past 3342 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 23 of 60 (8700)
04-19-2002 12:47 AM


Testing.

The BACK BUTTON erased my message. Will try again tommorrow.


  
techristian
Member (Idle past 3342 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 24 of 60 (8759)
04-21-2002 4:09 PM


Good questions Quicksink!

QUOTE FROM MARK 24
The precise mechanism need not concern us, we are just attempting to establish whether evolution happened or not.

Why shouldn't the precise mechanism concern you? Is this really SCIENCE or is this just the FAIRY TALE of evolution that you defend.
It is all very fine to come up with a HYPOTHESIS that man came from a MONKEY RELATIVE, but in the last 150 years no one can prove it. When I ask for DNA evidence from "LUCY" they can't supply it! When someone intelligent such as Quicksink asks "How does a bat get echo location through random mutations?" No one even attempts to make a HYPOTHESIS about how it happened! So I will add a few more INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS taken from the book "Darwin on Trial"

The story to be tested is that a fish species developed the ability to climb out of the water and move on land, while evolving the peculiar reproductive system of amphibians and other amphibian features more or less concurrently. No specific fossil fish species has been identified as an amphibian ancestor, but there is an extinct order of fish known as the rhipidistians which Darwinists frequently describe as an "ancestral group." The rhipidistians have skeletal features resembling those of early amphibians, including bones that
look like they could have evolved into legs. But according to Barbara
J. Stahl's comprehensive textbook. Vertebrate History, "none of the
known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land
vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared,
and those that came before show no evidence of developing the
stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapods."

In 1938, a coelacanth (pronounced see-la-kanth), an ancient fish
thought to have been extinct for about seventy million years, was
caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean. Many paleontologists
considered the coelacanth to be closely related to the rhipidistians,
and thus a living specimen was expected to shed light on the soft
body parts of the immediate ancestors of amphibians. When the
modern coelacanth was dissected, however, its internal organs
showed no signs of being preadapted for a land environment and
gave no indication of how it might be possible for a fish to become an
amphibian. The experience suggests that a rhipidistian fish might
be equally disappointing to Darwinists if its soft body parts could be
examined.

As you can see Mark it is easier to believe the argument for DESIGN rather than random mutations. The answer to Quicksinks question is simple to answer. God DESIGNED THE BAT THAT WAY.

Dan

http://musicinit.com


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Joe Meert, posted 04-21-2002 7:16 PM techristian has taken no action
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 04-21-2002 8:43 PM techristian has taken no action
 Message 60 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2003 2:53 PM techristian has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 25 of 60 (8760)
04-21-2002 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by techristian
04-21-2002 4:09 PM


quote:

As you can see Mark it is easier to believe the argument for DESIGN rather than random mutations. The answer to Quicksinks question is simple to answer. God DESIGNED THE BAT THAT WAY.

JM: Ok, let's follow your line of reasoning for a moment. Why didn't god give bats good eyesight? Why did God design the human knee the way he did? An engineer could come up with a more efficient and more trustowrthy design. Ditto for the back. Why did God give wings to the Penguin and the ostrich? Why did god give whales the vestiges of a leg or humans a tailbone? Why did God design humans with 5 fingers instead of 4? What is magic about 5? Why didn't god give humans echolocation? I can think of many wonderful uses if I had that power.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by techristian, posted 04-21-2002 4:09 PM techristian has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2002 9:29 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 26 of 60 (8761)
04-21-2002 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by techristian
04-21-2002 4:09 PM


There are plenty of phenomena that doesn't have a mechanism to explain it yet.

Now, you've dodged this over on the Dinosaurs/Man thhread, so whilst Ive got youu here, I'll ask again. What would you accept as a transitional? The question would be better asked as, what criteria would you apply to all fossils to determine whether they are transitional or not?

FYI, the ceolocanths aren't thought to have given rise to amphibians anyway. It is the rhipidistans. Another straw man bites the dust.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-21-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by techristian, posted 04-21-2002 4:09 PM techristian has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4272 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 27 of 60 (8803)
04-22-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Brad McFall
04-10-2002 11:50 AM


Sharf,

I take it you do not, like the guy in IDAHOE who works for USDA really think that bees polinate "at random". That is what he said on TV when discriminating what most selective sounds like. What he meant was that he used calucation of mendelisms while bees use physiological calculations. It is rather a matter of probability than possibility as this evolutionist spoke yesterday.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 04-10-2002 11:50 AM Brad McFall has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 60 (8812)
04-22-2002 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Joe Meert
04-21-2002 7:16 PM


"JM: Ok, let's follow your line of reasoning for a moment. Why didn't god give bats good eyesight?"
--Who's to say this was not so? Though irrelevant in a certain way. It is very possible that very sufficient eyesight were once in their possession. We know that it is a nocturnal creature and thus it has not as much a need for this type of eye sight. Eyeless fish live in submerged caves who may have never seen the light of day for many many generations, they have lost their eye sight and/or have been reduced to very dark environmental adoptions. To say the bat is much different is nothing more than speculation.

"Why did God design the human knee the way he did? An engineer could come up with a more efficient and more trustowrthy design. Ditto for the back."
--What other way would he have designed it, is it bad? And I'm sure that if an engineer (oddly, an engineer isn't a biologist or anatomologist, its a bit like comparing abiogenesis to letting car parts sit there so they could form a new car). Also, I don't remember anything about saying we were perfect in an immortal way (without problems).

--Even though Vestiges have nothing against any (for)creationist argument, I do think a critique is highly needed here.

"Why did God give wings to the Penguin and the ostrich?"
--I'm sure any organismic biologist will tell you how useful a penguin's 'wings' are while doing what they do best, swim. An ostrich's rings are very useful in the sense that they would simply loose balance while going 60 km/h.

"Why did god give whales the vestiges of a leg or humans a tailbone?"
--If I am not mistaken, a whales 'legs' are very useful in mating, and a humans 'tail-bone' (coccyx) is relatively useful. If I may insert an image from an anatomy text-book, I am quite sure the forum participants here are have the maturity to handle it unlike others I have spoken to on this vestige:


--Percy, I would be most appreciative if you would insert this into your image archive, it is quite small in file size (about 25k). If this isn't possible, I can understand, bandwidth is a bit of an obstacle at times.

--And If I may duplicate a descriptional table on the facing page.

(added by edit - I couldn't bear to see how horrible it showed up so I posted it on my server): http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/coccyx.htm

"Why did God design humans with 5 fingers instead of 4?"
--My best guess is more efficient maneuverability and grasping power.

"What is magic about 5?"
--See above, I don't know.

"Why didn't god give humans echolocation? I can think of many wonderful uses if I had that power."
--Why didn't god give us the ability to see ultra-violet light? We weren't made to be Gods or without limitations.

(Added by edit) - Resource: Human Anatomy and Physiology; Elaine N. Marieb

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Joe Meert, posted 04-21-2002 7:16 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Joe Meert, posted 04-22-2002 11:08 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 31 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 04-29-2002 2:42 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 29 of 60 (8817)
04-22-2002 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TrueCreation
04-22-2002 9:29 PM


TC,

God said we were created in his image and that we were 'good', guess that doesn't mean 'great' according to you.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2002 9:29 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 04-29-2002 12:43 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 60 (9108)
04-29-2002 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Joe Meert
04-22-2002 11:08 PM


"God said we were created in his image and that we were 'good', guess that doesn't mean 'great' according to you."
--Being opinionated as it is, I'd have to say, its more than 'great'. And again I must put emphesis on the fact that we were not created to be void of limitations. I am perfectly fine living without the ability to see UV rays.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Joe Meert, posted 04-22-2002 11:08 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022