Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
37 online now:
GDR, Hyroglyphx, jar, PaulK, ringo, Son Goku, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,021 Year: 22,057/19,786 Month: 620/1,834 Week: 120/500 Day: 17/61 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 286 of 352 (508510)
05-14-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by traderdrew
05-14-2009 12:30 PM


Re: General Reply
Once again, neo-Darwinism is at an extreme of theories pertaining to evolution.

No, wrong.

The theory of evolution is mainstream, accepted by something like 99.9% of biologists and evolutionary biologists.

The only class of people unwilling to accept the theory of evolution is religious fundamentalists, and their "evidence" comes from religious beliefs rather than scientific investigation. They simply try to couch their religions beliefs in scientific terms to rationalize those beliefs.

Also, the "what ifs" put forth by fundamentalists do not constitute scientific theories, so there are not multiple "theories pertaining to evolution" of which neo-Darwinism is at an extreme.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by traderdrew, posted 05-14-2009 12:30 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 287 of 352 (508511)
05-14-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by traderdrew
05-14-2009 12:39 PM


Re: General Reply
Hi, Traderdrew.

traderdrew writes:

The genome has error correction mechanisms that prevent random mutations.

Chemical processes are inherently imperfect.

Why would the genome need error-correction mechanisms if errors are not made?

And, if the nucleic acid-and-proteins system that replicates DNA makes errors, and the error-correction mechanism is based on essentially the same nucleic acid-and-proetins system, why should you assume that it doesn't also make errors.

It's actually a well-documented fact that many replication errors are overlooked by the error-correction system.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by traderdrew, posted 05-14-2009 12:39 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 288 of 352 (508513)
05-14-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by traderdrew
05-14-2009 12:30 PM


Re: General Reply
Hi, Traderdrew.

traderdrew writes:

In other words we are still evolving better eyes. I don't know of any scientific evidence that is saying that we are.

What evolutionary pressure is there for humans to develop better eyes? Glasses, contacts and laser surgery largely remove the detrimental effects of bad eyes, so what could possibly be driving us to develop better eyes?

Furthermore, evolution does not have to happen in the direction of "better": cavefish and centipedes lost their eyes entirely due to the lack of evolutionary pressure to improve upon them.

And, evolution certainly doesn't have to be working towards a maximum for any given trait.

-----

traderdrew writes:

Mutations at this stage typically kill or serverely cripple unborn fetuses.

What do you mean: mutations that occur during the embryonic stages, or mutations whose effects are expressed at this stage?

The problem with your claim is that there is currently no practical way of testing for the occurrence of a mutation without observing a visible handicap or other phenotypic change, so, by definition, all (or at least most) mutations we have so far observed would be detrimental.

But, how exactly can you extrapolate it to those mutations that we can't detect?

-----

traderdrew writes:

I would be more inclined to believe in some sort of guided evolution. I don't think many scientists like this idea simply because any theory that incorporates it gets closer to the idea of the existence of an intelligent creator. Once again, neo-Darwinism is at an extreme of theories pertaining to evolution.

Well, of course there are a lot of scientists who don't like the idea. You could come up with any category of opinions, and you will find many scientists who fit into it.

That's not the point, though: I am a scientist, and I personally would be very interested (and, theologically speaking, relieved---I am a Christian, after all) to learn that there is a Designer involved in the process of evolution somehow. But, I do not spend my time trying to find evidence for it, because such endeavours have a long history of disappointing failures, and I have a wife and a baby whose sustenance depends on my ability to convince funding agencies and employers that my research is worth the money they'll pay me.

Over the years, a heavy amount of inertia has developed in the search for Design in nature, because not a single attempt to uncover such a mechanism in action has ever succeeded in producing positive evidence to support it.

Economically speaking, don't you agree that it sounds silly to keep looking for evidence for a Designer, which has consistently eluded us for 150 years, particularly when supporting evidence for an alternative explanation is so easy to come by?

That's the real reason scientists are hesitant to get involved in ID. It is usually not because they are philosophically opposed to it, but rather, because science has no future in that direction, just as it has no future in the direction of phlogiston, alchemy or geocentric astronomy.

Edited by Bluejay, : added "practical" and "(or at least most)" in there


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by traderdrew, posted 05-14-2009 12:30 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by OriginLifeandDeath, posted 05-14-2009 9:52 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

OriginLifeandDeath
Junior Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 289 of 352 (508581)
05-14-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Blue Jay
05-14-2009 1:18 PM


Re: General Reply
the topic originator is seduced by his own intellect that he/she has failed to realize that man is not the apple of God's eye. Life itself and more eaxactly the origin of life and its continuance is the priority. Man and all other life that evolved from the first created cell are the mistake rich forms that evolution would create in service to life and its continuance. Back problems aside, mistake rich evolution maximizes the creation of survival strategies.

http://www.cafepress.com/Origin_of_Death

A mosaic book which examines the causes of life and death by cobbling various scientific investigations into an unmistakable conclusion: Charles Darwin and creationist prove to be both right and the same.
Synopsis
Life on our planet has adapted to live in the Antarctic, thermal fissures, sulfur pools, near molten lava (extremophiles), fresh and salt water, as well as Florida and other more comfortable environs. Given that life is so virile and adaptive, why does it succumb to death just because it has lived? By embracing Darwin's work, studying it and determining its limits of application, we are left with a firm understanding of evolution (origin of species). The fit is great and supported by a wealth of evidence. Darwin's theory propels a very accurate understanding of the origin of species but not the origin of life and death. Evolution provides no answers or scientific explanation for the origin of life and death. This is not because Darwin's work is unfinished but rather because evolution has no application here. One of the main arguments employed by creationists against the theory of evolution is expressed in the form of a rhetorical question, how can chance mutations (mistakes) create all the complicated life forms we see? It is a good question. The question's underlying assumption maintains that evolutionists believe that organisms, which more recently evolved, are further evolved, improved and therefore more complex than earlier creatures on the evolutionary path. Indeed, most evolutionists believe this hierarchy of complexity. But what if that very first cell was in fact more complicated than all life that followed? The answer to this question places evolution and creationism on the same track. This book reveals their co-existence with an enormity of sceintific fact. This book reveals that evolution is God's creation to serve the life he also created. Darwin actually does more to prove the existence of a creator than anyone.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide spammish material.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Blue Jay, posted 05-14-2009 1:18 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by cavediver, posted 05-16-2009 2:15 PM OriginLifeandDeath has responded

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3277 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 290 of 352 (508611)
05-15-2009 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Coyote
05-11-2009 10:29 PM


Re: General Reply
Otherwise, sans miracles, those little micros just keep adding up and pretty soon, either through time or geography, you have two separate species.

The only problem with that is that it has never been shown that the little micros as you call them amount to anything more than adaptation. salamanders remain salamanders etc. But you sidestep your problem by suggesting that the little micros do, then asking for a 'mechanism' to stop it. Sounds like proving a negative to me.

All you have proven here is how far the evolutionist will reach with little or no hard evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 10:29 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Coyote, posted 05-15-2009 3:27 AM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 293 by Percy, posted 05-15-2009 7:04 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 291 of 352 (508612)
05-15-2009 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by IchiBan
05-15-2009 2:58 AM


Its evidence you be wanting, eh?
The only problem with that is that it has never been shown that the little micros as you call them amount to anything more than adaptation. salamanders remain salamanders etc.

Nice try, but "salamanders remaining salamanders" is not the issue; its different kinds of salamanders that we're talking about.

And that variation that you admit to, adaptation, has no specific direction--it reacts to environmental stresses. And when a population separates, either through geography or time, there is nothing to keep one group from drifting apart from the other through lots of those little micros.

But you sidestep your problem by suggesting that the little micros do, then asking for a 'mechanism' to stop it. Sounds like proving a negative to me.

Not so; creationists admit to variation, or micros, but creationists can't come up with a mechanism to limit those micros. Creationists are stuck supporting their biblical belief in "kinds" without being able to provide any mechanism to prevent those micros, either over a geographic area or through time, from adding up to "macros."

All you have proven here is how far the evolutionist will reach with little or no hard evidence.

We can see the changes both through time and geographically. We can see them go beyond simple variation to speciation. Through geological time we can see evolution in action, with speciation all over the place. We have tons of evidence.

It seems to me that creationists are the ones without the evidence, stuck supporting a religious belief that is contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

And all they can do about that overwhelming evidence is sullenly deny it.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by IchiBan, posted 05-15-2009 2:58 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3911
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 292 of 352 (508613)
05-15-2009 4:24 AM


Repeat of message 1
He's either an idiot, or for a deity, remarkably hard-up when it comes to paying for design plans. He uses the same basic body plan for fish, quadrupeds, bipeds, birds, etc. Why should us bipeds have to put up with a skeletel structure that designed for walking on all fours? Did God force us into second-hand body-plans post-fall, just so that we could enjoy the delights of back-pain?
Why do we have sub-optimal eye design, especially compared to the octopus? Why do we have such stupid "programming" restrictions in the articulation of our arms? Did we not itch in that impossible-to-reach spot on our backs, pre-fall? Why are our genitals so exposed to damage?

Why do we hurt, damage and even kill ourselves when we fall over? Was the ground softer pre-fall? Why do our bones break, limbs dislocate, etc? Why do we need to eat? Why do we need to breathe?

If you can point out to me the guy responsible for all of this, I will not bow down and worship... I will laugh becasue he has made one hell of a joke. As an exercise in what physical laws can produce, the human life is a stroke of genius. As an exanmple of what a deity can spontaneously 'create', it's pathetic...

I also note this topic is in the "Theological Creationism and ID" forum. I'm rather fuzzy on the purpose of that forum, but I interpret it to be a "Why did God do it that way" sort of thing.

Anyhow, try to use the guidence of the above for future messages in this topic.

Recent messages seem to be pretty remote from the topics intent. A lot (all?) of the recently explored themes would better belong elsewhere.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


Percy
Member
Posts: 19079
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 293 of 352 (508624)
05-15-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by IchiBan
05-15-2009 2:58 AM


Re: General Reply
Hi IchiBan

There's some intractable force that somehow inevitably leads all threads about creation and ID to instead talk about evolution, probably explaining this off-topic mutation discussion. I'm not going to discuss mutations, but I would like to address an error in your logic when you describe the request to provide evidence of something which would stop small microevolutionary steps from accumulating into large macroevolutionary changes as a request to prove a negative.

It's not a request to prove a negative because you're the one who claimed that something doesn't exist (namely, macroevolutionary change). You're the one who made the negative claim. The problem with most negative claims is that they can't be proven. That's why making such claims is a form of logical fallacy. Coyote was not asking you to prove that there's no such thing as macroevolutionary change.

What Coyote did do was sensibly assume that you're actually trying to make a positive claim, that there exists some mechanism that keeps evolutionary change within the boundaries of a species. It is this mechanism for which evidence was requested, and it is the opposite of a request to prove a negative.

Of course, this is probably not the right thread to be discussing macroevolutionary processes, so answering Coyote would likely be off-topic, but I did want to clarify why Coyote was not asking you to prove a negative.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by IchiBan, posted 05-15-2009 2:58 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 294 of 352 (508657)
05-15-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by traderdrew
05-14-2009 12:30 PM


Re: General Reply
I write:

If that were true we would all be using 8086 computers right now (no offense to Mac users). We aren't. Your refutation failed.

traderdrew responds:

In other words we are still evolving better eyes. I don't know of any scientific evidence that is saying that we are. You haven't convinced me. Tag clearly has knowledge on neo-Darwinsism but this isn't the first time that I have got the impression that Tag is reaching.

The problem here is that there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary pathway that will allow us to change the flaw inherent in the vertebrate eye. The design of the eye is rooted deep in vertebrate embryonic development. IOW, there is no straightforward way to evolve from an inverted retina to a foward facing retina like that found in cephalopods (e.g. squids and octopi).

There had to be two designers, one each for the cephalopod eye and one for the vertebrate eye, or the single designer purposely built the vertebrate eye with an inherent flaw. If you want to argue for a single designer then the conclusion that this designer was inept or purposely inept is well supported by this example.

Let's bring this full circle. Let's say that Bill Gates claims to have built a camera that is "good enough". In that camera the wires pass in front of the light sensing diodes. Bill Gates even made these wires so that they were translucent which increased the light that could pass through them. However, the image is still slightly blurred by the wires passing in front of light sensing diodes. At the same time, there are known designs where the wires exit out the back of the light sensing diodes and never pass in front of the incoming image.

Is Bill Gates (in this example) an inept engineer. I would say, unequivocably, YES. Do you agree or disagree?

To end this post. I would be more inclined to believe in some sort of guided evolution.

With all due respect, I would rather talk about evidence and how they support hypotheses than what you prefer to believe or not believe. I don't mean any disprespect, but I have found that butting heads over preferred beliefs doesn't get anywhere.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by traderdrew, posted 05-14-2009 12:30 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by traderdrew, posted 05-16-2009 12:18 PM Taq has not yet responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3493 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 295 of 352 (508818)
05-16-2009 12:12 PM


General Reply
The theory of evolution is mainstream, accepted by something like 99.9% of biologists and evolutionary biologists.

That may be true but why derive the numbers only from biologists? Why not take a survey of other types of scientists such as biochemists? Do numbers matter or does the evidence matter?

What do you mean: mutations that occur during the embryonic stages, or mutations whose effects are expressed at this stage?

I'm sure that there are errors in the replicating systems but one of my questions is, "Are there enough errors in biological systems to keep up with dramatic changes in the environment?"

My thoughts were from the book, "Icons of Evolution". I haven't read much of this book but the author was referring to the studies of purposely mutating fruit flies. Do a google search on "mutations can shut down a complex network of interactions" and you should find that page from this book.

I am a scientist, and I personally would be very interested (and, theologically speaking, relieved---I am a Christian, after all) to learn that there is a Designer involved in the process of evolution somehow. But, I do not spend my time trying to find evidence for it, because such endeavours have a long history of disappointing failures, and I have a wife and a baby whose sustenance depends on my ability to convince funding agencies and employers that my research is worth the money they'll pay me.

I don’t mean to insult your objectivity as a scientist but I do question it. By the way, I never would have thought that a Christian would declare the quote "Darwin loves you" in public. Anyway, sometimes the evidence for a creator is there before us but our paradigms don’t let it filter through. We think and perceive the world from our paradigms. Consider for instance a total solar eclipse. Has it ever struck you that this phenomenon suggests design? The moon covers the sun just perfectly from our perspective. The naturalistic paradigm prevents us from seeing the idea that this could be an example of design.

Then again, your belief system supports a theory of mine. It says that the creator isn’t interested in providing a clear pathway for us to find proof of an existence through an intellectual process. If you are correct then my creator disguised the creation process better than I thought.

the topic originator is seduced by his own intellect that he/she has failed to realize that man is not the apple of God's eye.

If you are referring to me you are confusing my religious belief system with my viewpoints on I.D. The idea that we are the apple of God's eye might part of my religious belief system but I choose not to declare my religion on this forum. I shouldn’t need to do this in order to present a case for I.D. Why should we be the only apple of God's creation? Do you think that the creator can’t focus on more than one thing at a time? We can only pay attention to one thing at a time but it is mind boggling to think about watching millions of apples at different places at once.

I find it interesting that there are scientists who don't believe in I.D. but believe in guided transpermia. And there are scientists who believe that God operates through forms of quantum physics that is undetectable through our Newtonian like perspectives. These scientists seem to be repulsed by I.D. However, I define their beliefs as examples of I.D. If find this dichotomy kind of funny because I see the dichotomy of their belief systems but they apparently don't.

Is Bill Gates (in this example) an inept engineer. I would say, unequivocably, YES. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. However, you don't see the point that there was probably no tradeoff necessary in your example. I don't pretend to understand the biochemical reasons why the retina needed to be inverted to allow vertebrates to process the larger amounts of nutrients we need.

Apparently engineers understand that tradeoffs are necessary in order for their designs to function optimally. What is a perfect computer or a perfect camera? What kind of functions are a perfect examples of machinery capable of? What are their limits?

Edited by traderdrew, : Minor correction

Edited by traderdrew, : Minor editing

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by onifre, posted 05-16-2009 1:04 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 299 by bluescat48, posted 05-16-2009 2:04 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 301 by Blue Jay, posted 05-17-2009 12:48 AM traderdrew has responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3493 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 296 of 352 (508819)
05-16-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Taq
05-15-2009 12:26 PM


Re: General Reply
The problem here is that there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary pathway that will allow us to change the flaw inherent in the vertebrate eye.

By the way, how many more dead ends exist in the evolutionary process of neo-Darwinism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 05-15-2009 12:26 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 05-16-2009 1:52 PM traderdrew has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1290 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 297 of 352 (508825)
05-16-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by traderdrew
05-16-2009 12:12 PM


Re: General Reply
Consider for instance a total solar eclipse. Has it ever struck you that this phenomenon suggests design? The moon covers the sun just perfectly from our perspective. The naturalistic paradigm prevents us from seeing the idea that this could be an example of design.

That's because it's not designed, and it doesn't cover the Sun perfectly for me if we were in different geographical locations but still close enough to each other to both see the same eclipsing moment.

It can cover the whole sun for you but only partially for me if we were in different locations on Earth. So it doesn't cover the sun perfectly relative to where one is standing on th planet.

Face it, you are looking up at the sky and thinking the God Ra brings the Sun up every morning with his winged chariot, you are just doing it in 2009, so your arguments have gotten more sophisticated.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by traderdrew, posted 05-16-2009 12:12 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 12:53 PM onifre has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19079
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 298 of 352 (508836)
05-16-2009 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by traderdrew
05-16-2009 12:18 PM


Re: General Reply
traderdrew writes:

The problem here is that there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary pathway that will allow us to change the flaw inherent in the vertebrate eye.

By the way, how many more dead ends exist in the evolutionary process of neo-Darwinism?

The wonderful charm of misconceived posts like this combine with their unfathomable ignorance to cause an indescribable dissonance in those like myself who inexplicably decide to attempt a reply. One almost doesn't know where to start. In fact, let me correct that. I'm sure I don't know where to start.

First, I guess I'll say that the mammalian eye is not an evolutionary dead end. Mammals are not extinct, nor are they heading for extinction, and the mammalian eye is still free to evolve, so obviously there's no evolutionary dead end.

Second, yes, the evolutionary process combined with environmental change can evolve creatures into dead ends from which there is no escape. While the term "evolutionary dead end" is usually reserved for particularly obvious or ironic examples of extinction, it's still relevant to say that extinction has happened so many millions of times that the vast majority of species that have ever existed are extinct. The theory of evolutionary explains why extinction happens.

Third, you seem to think that flaws are evidence against evolution. This couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution is a tinkerer's approach, a spit and baling wire approach, almost a Rube Goldberg approach. "Good enough to work" is evolution's motto. Certainly the mammalian eye works well enough, and that's all that's required for selection.

Fourth, you missed Taq's point. Taq was explaining why fixing the mammalian eye is a "You can't get there from here" type of problem. Evolution can only work with what currently exists. There is no way to gradually evolve a forward facing retina from a rearward facing one, for reasons similar to why no country that drives on the left side of the road could gradually change to driving on the right. You have to do what Burma did in the 1970's, pick a day and change all at once. Sudden large change like this is analogous to a miracle, and it's something that gradual evolution could never do.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify my first point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by traderdrew, posted 05-16-2009 12:18 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 1:01 PM Percy has responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2529 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 299 of 352 (508838)
05-16-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by traderdrew
05-16-2009 12:12 PM


Re: General Reply
traderdrew writes:

We think and perceive the world from our paradigms. Consider for instance a total solar eclipse. Has it ever struck you that this phenomenon suggests design? The moon covers the sun just perfectly from our perspective. The naturalistic paradigm prevents us from seeing the idea that this could be an example of design.

Yes it coves the sun exactly when it is a the right distance from earth but if the eclipse were to occur at apogee there would be a ring of sun around the moon, annular eclipse, total lack of design. If it were designed, I would think the designer would go for perfection, circular, not eliptical orbits.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by traderdrew, posted 05-16-2009 12:12 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1983 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 300 of 352 (508839)
05-16-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by OriginLifeandDeath
05-14-2009 9:52 PM


Re: General Reply
the topic originator is seduced by his own intellect that he/she has failed to realize...

Ahem, I think you simply failed in your ability to read :D

cavediver writes:

As an exercise in what physical laws can produce, the human life is a stroke of genius. As an exanmple[sic] of what a deity can spontaneously 'create', it's pathetic...

I must say, at the closing end of this thread, I have seen bluster, affront, and nonsense, but nothing to challenge my opening comments. The deity behind Young Earth Creationism is a buffoon, inept in just about every aspect of his creative ability. The deity behind Intelligent Design? Well, that is for another thread :)

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by OriginLifeandDeath, posted 05-14-2009 9:52 PM OriginLifeandDeath has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by IchiBan, posted 05-17-2009 7:00 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 334 by OriginLifeandDeath, posted 05-21-2009 12:04 AM cavediver has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019