Why would an intelligent designer design these?

Eledhan writes: Did it ever occur to you to consider that it is possible that there could be a creator

We consider it on a daily basis. That's where these discussions come from, remember?

Eledhan writes: [...] and that the only reason for creating something so bizarre as this creature was to show us just how powerful He is?

Creating something quite ordinary would also show his power, no need for anything bizarre. Besides, the bizarreness of Hallucigenia is relative. If it could think, it would probably find us rather out of the ordinary.

Eledhan writes: What if there is a God, and He simply wanted to show us how creative He is, so that we could see that no matter what, He will always love us?

This is what's really bizarre. I fail to see the logic. How does "no matter what, He will always love us" follow from "show[ing] us how creative He is"?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Thank you for elaborating your point. I'd like to say something about it right now, but I'm pressed for time. Probably others will be here first, but I'll get back to you in a few hours. Stay tuned.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Well, it seems Holmes has pretty much answered your previous post the way I would have. There are some leftovers however, and I'll just finish those first. (Sorry it took so long.)

Eledhan writes: There is no way that any devout Christian is going to be persuaded otherwise, but there is also no way that a strong believer in evolution is going to change his beliefs either.

I don't know about the devout Christian, but you're definitely wrong about the evolutionist. First, evolutionists aren't "strong believers", because evolution isn't a belief. Second, the moment compelling evidence is presented that really seems to falsify evolution, the shit will hit the fan. Every evolutionist on earth will want to verify the evidence. And if they can, the theory of evolution is in deep trouble. I think I can safely say that any real danger for the theory of evolution wouldn't come from creationists, but from the way science is practiced.

Eledhan writes: Of course that is the very argument used against Creation, is that it cannot be proven wrong, due to the "God of the Gaps" scenario.

Well, since you brought it up yourself, how about a defense? You see, this is why "your theory" isn't as good as "mine": it's not falsifiable. The moment someone opposes it with a good argument, the God of the Gaps jumps on stage.

Eledhan writes: You still have to explain to me how it is possible for all that matter to get there in the first place. The origin of the universe is a great little topic, one for which evolutionists have absolutely NO answer for

Evolutionists aren't cosmologists. Evolutionists deals with the explanations for the diversity of life, nothing more, nothing less.

Eledhan writes: You CANNOT rule out God at this point, because "natural mechanisms" do not account for the obvious fact that any one of us can see is here today; the fact that there are only 2 sexes, no more, no less.

Look again. Here for example: "Mushrooms have as many as 36,000 sexes, and a strange growth called slime mould has about thirteen." This site gives a possible explanation for why there are only two sexes in most sexually reproducing organisms.

Eledhan writes: P.S. I think I like this forum (its my first day here), and I do beleive I will stick around

By all means, do, and feel welcome.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Jun-2005 10:06 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Eledhan writes: What I think we disagree on is the fact that you can disagree with evolution, or at least question the evidence used to support it; but only if you are not trying to support ID, or creation, or whatever.

No, you can always disagree with evolution, no matter what your beliefs are.

But there are two things you must consider when disagreeing with evolution: first, that you must support why you disagree with (certain aspects of) evolution - if your support holds water, evolutionists will acknowledge that, because that's how science works - and two, don't expect that invalidating the theory of evolution implicitly supports ID or creationism. They need support of their own.

Eledhan writes: As for "God of the Gaps", my point is that both evolutionists and creationists use "gaps", the only difference is, creationists use a God to fill the gap, and evolutionists use extremely long lengths of time and miniscule chance in order to explain how something happened. Neither of these is satisfactory in a sense[...]

In what way are the "gaps" of evolution not satisfactory?

Eledhan writes: I think that if there is a God, which is what I believe, then He would have created a world where we could find His hand in it if we wanted to find Him.

Well, since many people have wanted this, and did indeed try to find God's hand in the world, and nothing definite has come up as yet, maybe the tentative conclusion should be that God might not exist. In the mean time, it might not hurt to try an alternative explanation, called evolution, and see what it has to offer. Did you know that medical science is for a large part based on the theory of evolution? If evolution is not true, then it's a complete mystery how some of it works.

Eledhan writes: I prefer to use more of a common sense

You know, the trouble with common sense is that is isn't really so common, and often it isn't even sense. At one time, it used to be common sense that the earth was flat.

Sometimes, common sense isn't the way to understand what's going on.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Jun-2005 10:57 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Eledhan writes: Oh, and Parasomnium, I hope none of this seems too hostile. I'm not "attacking" you as a person, I'm "attacking" your ideas that you have presented. I hope you will do the same.

Don't worry. Your attacks are appreciated for what they are.

Anyway, you're ahead of me, post-wise. For now, I'll let others demolish your arguments, I'm off to bed.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Eledhan writes: How come it's okay for an evolutionist scientist to say this, but it's not okay for a Christian to say something very similar about God, and still be taken seriously?

Because other scientists can check the claims of the first scientist, they can say: "If this claim is true then we should also see such-and-such", they can perform tests and see if the claim is valid. If so, further science can be built on it. If not, it is flatly rejected.

None of that can be done with regard to a claim of the god-did-it variety. And if you can't test them, you can never know whether such claims are reliable. That makes them useless.

Eledhan writes: This same scientist went on to say that "we THINK (emphasis added) that we got [mitochondria] about two billion years ago from bacteria taken into ourselves." Well, this still doesn't answer the question of how the bacteria developed these mitochondria

They didn't. They idea is that our mitochondria are these bacteria, or rather their descendants. By the way, the fact that the scientist said "we think" is normal practice, because scientists generally are very weary of making the mistake of saying that they know something for certain. Creationists, on the other hand, do make this mistake continually, in the absence of evidence for their claims, and even in the face of evidence against them.

Eledhan writes: nor does it answer the question of how we obtained traits from something that was living inside of us!!! I would sure like to see that explained!

Who said we obtained traits from our mitochondria? They have their own traits, they pass them on independently in the maternal line of descent. Please, pick up some basics before you engage in a debate about something you hardly know anything about.

Eledhan writes: The bottom line is, there are gaps that the evolutionary theory, or atheistic worldview, or whatever; cannot answer. It cannot give a comprehensive view of everything that must take place in order for us to be here without the existence of a supernatural being.

So, what should we do? Just give up and assume that a God did it all? Or should we try and fill the gaps in our knowledge, slowly but surely, as has been done for a few centuries by now, ever since real science took off?

[rant mode ON]

I am very tempted to suggest a stand-off between creationism and science. Let's not try to shoot each other's arguments out of the water any longer. Let's just leave one another in peace. In fact, why don't we just segregate altogether? Why don't we let religious people just rely on their god for whatever it is they need, and leave the benefits of science to those who hold it in high esteem. So: no more prayer for the unbelievers, no more spiritual guidance for them, no more consolation. But also: no more medication for the religious, no more electricity to their houses, no more computing power to their businesses, no more scientific education to their children. Let their god sort it out for them. Maybe we shouldn't even help them if disaster strikes. After all, isn't it the will of their god? Surely, if their god is so wonderful, won't he help them? Anyway, they wouldn't want us to go against its wishes, would they?

I say let them stew in their own broth of ignorance.

[rant mode OFF]

Have a nice day.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-Jun-2005 09:11 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Eledhan writes: please feel free to show me where I have erred, but I believ you will find that very hard to do.

You know, I had a fun time doing just that. All of the 6.9 seconds it took to google "why only two sexes" and clicking on the first result.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Wounded King writes: Who said we obtained traits from our mitochondria? This is arguably true, leaving aside the dubious term 'traits', in as much as there is significant evidence of the transfer of mitochondrial DNA to the nuclear genome (Woischnik and Moraes, 2002).

Thanks WK, I didn't know that. This answers Eledhan's question even better.

P.S.: I guess I should swallow "Please, pick up some basics before you engage in a debate about something you hardly know anything about."

Thanks for the humbling experience.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-Jun-2005 10:48 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Eledhan,

I was just sort of joking with my rant. You didn't trigger it, I had it ready for a couple of weeks and this just seemed the right place to post it. I am not offended by you, as you shouldn't feel offended by anything I write. It's never personal, OK?

Eledhan writes: Along those same lines, you would have to get rid of the United States

I must say it's tempting, but there are still some atheists in the US, so maybe we'll have to wait until they've all jumped ship. (Only joking, OK?)

Eledhan writes: This very country, assuming you live in the U.S., was founded by Christian "religious" people.

Well, lucky me: I live in Europe. And I think you'll find that your "Founding Fathers" had some bones to pick with the Christians of their day.

Eledhan writes: some of the most powerful people in the world are "religious"

All the more worrying, I'd say. The world is in a sorry state indeed. Where is an educated leader if you need one?

Eledhan writes: You on the other hand, are not willing to admit that your belief is not 100% provable

How do you come to that conclusion? Nothing I said would indicate that. Quote me please.

Eledhan writes: What happened in a creature's body 2 BILLION YEARS AGO is not science, but speculation.

If that is true, then forensics is also speculation, which means that some states in your country are willing to put people to death based on speculation. Speaking of food for thought...

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins