Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 12:24 AM
23 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Pressie, Theodoric (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 95 (340069)
08-14-2006 7:02 PM


He announced his attention to run away from the debate. You're arguing with a puff of dust and a pair of heels disappearing into the distance.
  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 95 (340312)
08-15-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Nighttrain
08-12-2006 5:05 AM


Bad design is a myth
Evolutionists are not willing to admit that there is intellegent design in nature even though it is very obvious, this is because accepting design means accepting that there is a designer. Even worst, some evolutionists go as far as to make a very strange claim: "There is BAD design in nature"!!!!!!!! Since evolution relies on random mutations, blind coincidences, and unconcious nature, there should be some examples of bad and lousy design. But when we see excellent and intellegent design in nature (and there are many examples of it), this alone invalidates evolution and proves creation. Therefore, evolutionists desperately attempt to point out some strange examples of the so-called "bad design" such as this one:

So the millions of children that suffer and die each year from God-created diseases are part of the Grand Design? The parasites that cripple and blind us were designed from the start? The bacteria and viri we fight should be allowed to run their course because the ID wants it that way? Sounds like the sickest God I ever heard of.

Obviously, this is a very invalid example and you cannot consider deseases an mutations as bad design. Just what do you want God to do in order for you to admit intellegent design? Create a life for humans with absolutely no diseases, no body gets tired or hurt, nobody experiences unfortunate events, nobody dies and everyone is immortal and lives forever in a happy utopia?!! This kind of perfect life is only in paradise and not in the worldy life. This life is intentionally designed with some difficulties and harsh conditions, and diseases are part of these difficulties and they do not constitute examples of bad design. I am sure that you still wont understand what Im saying since you dont believe in God in the first plance.

By the way, you still failed to give examples of bad design. Even viruses/bacteria/microbes have intellegently designed structures and even behaviours. Take the virus for example, it does not have a brain and it is not even a cell, it is a programed genetic material protected by a coating protein capsul that is designed to inject it into a host cell. Where did the virus get intellgence that allows it to capture a cell's replication machinary and create other viruses? If you want examples of bad design, you should look for designs in nature that fail because of their design or do not function at all.

Since you are trying to desperately find examples of bad design, I'll give you and example of intellegent design to think about: The Avian lungs of birds. Unlike normal lungs of land animals, the avian lung is designed to have a unidirectional air flow where air enters from one end and exits from another in addition to additional air sacs. This design provides the bird with a 24 hours oxygen supply to satisfy its high motabolism that is also designed for flight. Chseck this sight for information about the avian lung:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_6.php
How does evolution accout for the avian lungs? Keeping in mind that a gradual evolution of lungs (particularly from normal to avian) is impossible becuase there cannot be an intermediary in between the two nor is there an example of such a "transitional" lung. The sight above contains many interesting quotes such as:

"The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its bidirectional air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its unidirectional flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a creature to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes."

Another nice quote by Michael Denton:

"Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner."

Another interesting quote by Denton is this:

The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I have posted this link in a previous post but non of the evolutionists replied. So if you can reply make sure you read the entire article first and do not ignore it. In addition, think about it if you are an open-minded science person and do not close your eyes on the facts and say "No,no,no... evolution must be true!" In addition, any evolutionist should reply to the challanges proposed by the scientists in the article and not to me only and then say "I have refuted creation". If you can only speculate and make up imaginary scenarios then dont bother replying because it is a waste of time to read fantasies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Nighttrain, posted 08-12-2006 5:05 AM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 08-15-2006 2:48 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-15-2006 3:52 PM mr_matrix has responded
 Message 71 by Nighttrain, posted 08-15-2006 9:51 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 63 of 95 (340331)
08-15-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 1:36 PM


Re: Bad design is a myth
mr_matrix writes:

This life is intentionally designed with some difficulties and harsh conditions, and diseases are part of these difficulties and they do not constitute examples of bad design.

So, if an engineer intentionally designed a car that would flip over without warning - just to keep drivers on their toes - you wouldn't consider that a bad design? What if he deliberately designed the paint to flake off? Or the windshield to cloud over as time passed?

You wouldn't consider him a bad designer?

Most of us would consider a good designer as one who designs things as well as he can, with as few flaws as possible - not one who deliberately puts flaws in to consternate his customers.

You seem to have a lower opinion of your Designer than we do of our designers.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 1:36 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by MangyTiger, posted 08-15-2006 9:08 PM ringo has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 95 (340339)
08-15-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 1:36 PM


Evolutionists are not willing to admit that there is intellegent design in nature even though it is very obvious, this is because accepting design means accepting that there is a designer. Even worst, some evolutionists go as far as to make a very strange claim: "There is BAD design in nature"!!!!!!!! Since evolution relies on random mutations, blind coincidences, and unconcious nature, there should be some examples of bad and lousy design. But when we see excellent and intellegent design in nature (and there are many examples of it), this alone invalidates evolution and proves creation.

But you do not "observe intellegent design in nature", do you? What we observe in nature is mutation and selection, not miraculous fiat creation of species.

This life is intentionally designed with some difficulties and harsh conditions, and diseases are part of these difficulties and they do not constitute examples of bad design.

Have it your way: the total malfunction of a system is not bad design, because God meant it to go wrong. So please tell us what sort of thing you would consider evidence of bad design, given that total failure doesn't fall into this category.

If you want examples of bad design, you should look for designs in nature that fail because of their design or do not function at all.

Okay then, the tail of a human embryo. What function does it serve?

How does evolution accout for the avian lungs?

It should be pointed out that studies of the foramina of dinosaurs strongly suggest that they had a similar arrangement.

Keeping in mind that a gradual evolution of lungs (particularly from normal to avian) is impossible becuase there cannot be an intermediary in between the two ...

But this is not true. The merest glance at the respiratory system of birds would show you that if the air sacs inflate and deflate simulataneously, you have a two-way lung; if they inflate and deflate completely out of sync, you have a one-way lung, and in intermediate cases, the lung functions as a two-way lung when the sacs are doing the same thing and as a one-way lung when they're doing the opposite thing.

It is interesting, though irrelevant, to note that humans are capable of "circular breathing": the technique is used in playing the didgeridoo, and, IIRC, in Tibetan Buddhist plainsong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 1:36 PM mr_matrix has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 5:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 95 (340362)
08-15-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
08-15-2006 3:52 PM


I dont realy consider this a strong reply. YOu did not refute any of my arguments but you only insisted on your opinions. In addition, All of these latest replies have only picked few quotes from me and not replied to all of the arguments, nor did I see strong replies. Just look at your replies:

But you do not "observe intellegent design in nature", do you? What we observe in nature is mutation and selection, not miraculous fiat creation of species.

It is not a good tactic to misunderstand my argument and reply to the misunderstood argument. This is known as "Straw man". Obviously I never said that we observe flat creation in nature since this creation has been done long ago. I always say that we see countless examples of intellegent "design" and not present tence "designing". ID refers to systems in nature that are alredy designed and points out the intellegence involved in their design and it is not about observing the creatioin process. I have pointed this out before but evolutionists refuse to understand and continue their straw men.

Now I ask you, have you (or any other evolutionist)ever observed a species turning to a different kind of species? Non of the evolutionists in these posts ever mentioned examples of newly evolved species.

Have it your way: the total malfunction of a system is not bad design, because God meant it to go wrong. So please tell us what sort of thing you would consider evidence of bad design, given that total failure doesn't fall into this category.

What I said about this topic in the previous post is not hard to understand. God does not create a perfect life on this world but only in paradise. But how can you understand if you dont even believe in God? I still ask you to show examples of bad designs in nature instead of asking me to show such examples since my answer is "non" because there is no bad design in nature.

Okay then, the tail of a human embryo. What function does it serve?

Do you mean the spinal cord in its first stages of development before the development of legs given it a shape of a tail?

Lets say that it is a tail, where is the bad design? If there is realy a tail we should all be born with functionless tails, but there is no such thing because it is a spinal cord that finishes debelopment in later stages.

How does evolution accout for the avian lungs?
It should be pointed out that studies of the foramina of dinosaurs strongly suggest that they had a similar arrangement.

But you did not answer the question. How does evolution accout for avian lungs? I bet that you didn't even read the article I posted nor did you pay attention to the quotes I included in the previous post. As I said, ignoring the article and replying to me right away is not sufficient. Just saying: "other dinasaurs have avian lungs" is not a reply to the article. In addition, there isn't even a strong proof that they did. If you just mention species that have avian lungs (i.e. hummingbird, ostriches, hawks) that does not make you cross over the evolution of avian lungs impasse. Are there any examples of intermediary lungs between normal and avian in some living species? How can normal lung turn avian? Here is another quote from the same article:

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development. As H. R. Dunker, one of the world's authorities in this field, explains, because first, the avian lung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled with either air or fluid.
(http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_6.php)

How can the avian lung evolve from a normal lung? Any evolutionist willing to explain? Who can respond to the article linked above with a detailed scientific reply that explicitely shows the possiblity of such lung evolution and not a 100% imaginary scenario? Are there any species demonstrating intermediary lungs? Again, dont just reply to me and be happy about it, but reply to the article if you can and with no imagination.

Just watch how many coming replies will focus on the disease and bad design rather than my previous two posts that still did not see a strong "scientific" reply, and how many will reply to insignificant scentence fragments and pretend to be tough... Typical straw man arguments!!!

Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-15-2006 3:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 08-15-2006 6:20 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 67 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 6:47 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 7:03 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 9:04 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-16-2006 6:09 AM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-16-2006 6:36 AM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 66 of 95 (340369)
08-15-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 5:57 PM


mr_matrix writes:

Just watch how many coming replies will focus on the disease and bad design....

You're the one who brought up bad design with your "Bad design is a myth" Message 62. Don't complain if people respond to it.

How can disease not be bad design?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 5:57 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 67 of 95 (340373)
08-15-2006 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 5:57 PM


Now I ask you, have you (or any other evolutionist)ever observed a species turning to a different kind of species?

Culex molestus speciated from Culex pipiens due to behavioral and geographic isolating mechanisms within the last 100 years. Attempts at forced-breeding experiments show each species is a "true" species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 5:57 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 68 of 95 (340376)
08-15-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 5:57 PM


How can the avian lung evolve from a normal lung? Any evolutionist willing to explain? Who can respond to the article linked above with a detailed scientific reply that explicitely shows the possiblity of such lung evolution and not a 100% imaginary scenario? Are there any species demonstrating intermediary lungs?

Theropod dinosaurs which predate modern birds, show most of the characteristics you are looking for in "intermediary lungs", especially the early theropod Majungatholus atopus. See O'Connor PM, Claessens PAM, 2005, "Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs", Nature 436:253-256. In other words, birds inherited their lungs from their theropod predecessors.

In addition, you are incorrect concerning avian anatomy. Many modern birds have both uni-directional (via the palaeopulmonic bronchi) and bi-directional flow (via the neopulmonic bronchi). I guess, based on your definition, this means that modern birds ARE the "intermediaries" you were looking for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 5:57 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Clark, posted 08-16-2006 11:26 PM Quetzal has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 69 of 95 (340400)
08-15-2006 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 5:57 PM


I still ask you to show examples of bad designs in nature instead of asking me to show such examples since my answer is "non" because there is no bad design in nature.

How about the mammalian recurrent laryngeal nerve? Talk about kludgy design. This nerve is crucial for servicing the larynx. In a "good" design, it would branch off the spinal cord, go directly to the larynx, and voila. However, your brilliant designer decided that was entirely too easy. The nerve actually does branch off the spinal cord in the neck, but then travels down the back, loops around the back side of the aorta near the heart, then travels all the way back up to the larynx again. Lots of "extra" nerve fibers required in all that down and up again wiring. In the giraffe, this translates to something on the order of 5 meters of extra wiring. Good design, hunh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 5:57 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 70 of 95 (340402)
08-15-2006 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ringo
08-15-2006 2:48 PM


Re: Bad design is a myth
What if he deliberately designed the paint to flake off? Or the windshield to cloud over as time passed?

We used to call that "Built-in obsolescence" (whatever happened to that phrase? you never hear it any more[1]) - so his boss in Detroit might well regard him as a good designer :)

On a serious note, I have said on numerous times that we cannot say whether a design is good or bad or not without knowing the requirements it is trying to satisfy.

[1]The answer of course is that goods and credit are so cheap now we just buy a new one - without the pain level we used to have...


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 08-15-2006 2:48 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 08-15-2006 11:29 PM MangyTiger has responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 71 of 95 (340409)
08-15-2006 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 1:36 PM


Re: Bad design is a myth
Obviously, this is a very invalid example and you cannot consider deseases an mutations as bad design. Just what do you want God to do in order for you to admit intellegent design? Create a life for humans with absolutely no diseases, no body gets tired or hurt, nobody experiences unfortunate events, nobody dies and everyone is immortal and lives forever in a happy utopia?!! This kind of perfect life is only in paradise and not in the worldy life. This life is intentionally designed with some difficulties and harsh conditions, and diseases are part of these difficulties and they do not constitute examples of bad design. I am sure that you still wont understand what Im saying since you dont believe in God in the first plance.

Ah, the old 'how would you understand it, you`re not a believer' nonsense.

Au contraire, I think diseases are a very good example of design. So effective, so difficult to cure, some even have a near 100% mortality result. Can`t knock that kill rate. Just what you would expect from a kind, loving God. One that gives you freewill. Must have come as a shock to believers who saw their babies and children die in agony before experiencing all that Godly Love. Let alone freewill. But 'Intelligent'? I think not.

Immortality? Let`s see what we have to fight before we add the disease overload:
Gravity
Solar radiation
Toxic plants
Toxic minerals
Gases, like radon, Co, Co2, methane, etc.
Environment--heat, cold, drought,atmospheric contamination (and not from Man)
Natural Events (Acts of God)floods,famines,earthquakes,eruptions,tsunamis,tornados,hurricanes
Predators--animal,reptile,insect,marine
Bacteria-on and within our bodies (was it 213 species at last count?)
Parasites--fleas,ticks,leeches,flies,mosquitoes (all lining up to carry disease),tapeworms and their wriggly relations, flukes
Fungi
If it stung, bit or consumed, God lined them up.

But of course, God wasn`t content with that little load, He had to add the diseases. Not just any old disease. No, He specialised in crippling, eating, maiming, blinding, fevering,painful diseases. Lifetime diseases. Fatal diseases. Like any self-respecting Designer would do.[/switches off irony]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 1:36 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 72 of 95 (340411)
08-15-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by mr_matrix
08-11-2006 2:10 PM


mr_matrix STILL manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
then i will be leaving again since im not very interested in long debates on this site.

In other words there is no need to address replies to you as you are abandoning the debate due to insufficient supporting material and inability to put together a logical cohesive rebuttal of any of the challenges to your assertions.

Thus my comments are directed at those that think there is some value to mr_matrixes posts.

Most of his post is blather of rather insignificant import, as it makes the same mistakes as previous posts and is tediously repetitious, so I'll hit the main points:

It does not need different logics to calculate this because 4 is a universal answer that everyone knows, ...

mr_matrix claimed in Message 31 that there is a different logic for creationists, but then abandons this concept here before giving us any examples of how it works ....

There is no difference between the universality of 2+2=4 and the logical structure of:

precept #1 - if {A} then {B}
precept #2 - if {B} then {C}
conclusion - if {A} then {C}

If the two precepts are true the conclusion is true in the same way that 2+2=4 is true -- it doesn't matter what the precepts are or where they came from.

there is no "evolutionist" logic, and there is no special "creationist" logic -- amply demonstrated by the total lack of any examples from mr_matrix.

Logical Conclusion: the existence of any kind of "special creationist logic" is refuted.

... since i dont need you to teach me what logic is. The last thing i would need is to learn logic from an evolutionist ...

This is a prime example of the fact that mr_matrix does indeed need lessons in logic, as this is a logical fallacy of giving more importance to {who} is making the argument rather than {what} the argument involves. It is like the ad hominum and argument from authority in that regard except that this is the rejection of the source: it is blatant bias and bigotry and not reason or rationality.

... show the evolutionists' desperation to absolutely prove their theory, ...

There are NO proven theories. NONE. Whether we are talking about evolution or physics or whatever. This is a typical creatortionista strawman that mr_matrix has been corrected on, but still he denies the reality. Unfortunately for mr_matrix the world is unimpressed with his denials.

Ok! since i am ignorant of the facts why dont you enlighten me and give a list of the latest evolved species ...

There are many sources of this kind of information -- for those who are willing to LOOK for it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Notice that this next example is a question on a biology exam (and read the requirements for taking the test)
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/bio112/112cp/review1key.html

Discuss in detail one type of speciation. Provide one real example that illustrates that form of speciation event, and list up to two isolating mechanisms that are more likely to be involved in reproductively isolating the species (12 pts).

Logical conclusion: there have been many observed speciation events, and no amount of denial by mr-matrix or anyone else will change that fact.

I know that the website shows only the skull and not the entire skeleton. However, this is not intended to mislead, because we know that there are defferences in the skeleton but the article was focusing on the striking similarites in the shape of the skull.

(1) This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. mr_matrix had originally claimed in Message 21 that the thylacines were in fact wolves lock stock body and soul. He has backpedaled from that position to relying on just the similarity of the skull, BUT

(2) What I showed mr_matrix was that the skull was only similar from the one angle - from a different angle the SKULL is different in appearance, and the teeth are entirely different.

Logical conclusion: there is no relationship between true wolves and thylacines, thylacines filled a similar niche in the ecology of Australia and evolved SOME similarity in SOME features as a result, but the similarities are only superficial -- as predicted by convergent evolution of different species to fill similar niches.

Obviously, I never said that "helicopters are based on hummingbirds that have wings rotating on top of the body" ...

Message 25
The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight.

mr_matrix is now furiously backpedalling from the obviously absurd assertion he made in message 25 and trying to pretend he said something different ... and still gets it absolutely wrong.

Helicopters generate vertical air currnent, thats why they can fly upward right away without havind to move on land first like normal airplanes. The only horizontal current is when the already "vertical current" in the propellor is slanted towards the front so that the helicopter can fly forward . The hummingbird also relys on vertical air current and not on horizontal like other bird.

All wings generate lift from the curvature of the wing form and the passage of air (or water or any other suitable gas or liquid -- it's basic physics, not magic) because the air passing under the wing is slowed (bunched up by the cup of the wing) while the air over the top is sped up (stretched over the top of the wing) and this creates a pressure differential on the wing that "lifts" it relative to the air. In reality the helicopter is sucked into the air rather than pushed as mr_matrix would have it. Without movement of the wing relative to the air (or the air relative to the wing) there is no lift.

For mr_matrixes concept to work it would take more energy to fly the higher a helicopter flies and there would always be a blast of air on the ground and they would become more and more unstable the higher they flew (the taller the magic column of air becomes) -- none of these effects are observed for high flying helicopters.

Compare this to a hovercraft that DOES use a flow of air to push the craft off the ground: as soon as the skirt raises off the ground lifting force is lost and it is incapable of flying higher. If what mr_matrix said was true there would be no such flight limitation on hovercraft.

The flight of the hummingbird in generating lift from the movement of their wings through the air is no different than the flight of other birds in generating lift from the movement of their wings through the air.

... otherwise birds would never be able to fly if they were badly designed as you claim. But they failed becuase no human intellgence can design systems as marvelous as those in nature.

Two more logical fallacies from mr_matrix.

(1) Being badly designed does not mean unable to fly, just not as able to fly as well as possible with a better design: compare bats to birds as an example.

(2) When birds manage to design supersonic flight then I will believe they can match human understanding of the design parameters and physics of flight.

Obviously, this is a complete fallacy that ignores an important truth: airplanes conform aerodynamics because this is how they are desinged by humans and did not come about by chance, so if birds and insects conform aerodynamics as well and in even better ways than airplanes, then who designed them?

They were designed by mutation and natural selection -- mutation to cause variations in features, and natural selection to differentiate between the more successful and less successful variations. This is all that is necessary to make a workable system better. Generations of trial and error, a primitive mindless form of "computation" for solving problems, but effective in the long run.

Whether it is a gliding frog, a flying fish, a fly, a snake or a squirrel, the features in question are found to have some beneficial advantage for the ones that can do it a little better than the others -- they survive and pass on their genes to the next generation.

The vast multitude of similar but different mechanisms used for flight show a lack of design conformity at the beginning and a convergence of ability and mechanism as it evolves even though the structures remain different. An insect wing does not resemble a bird wing or a bat wing.

THe designer is God ...

The leap of faith with an absolute absence of evidence to substantiate it. It's another logical fallacy argument from incredulity and ignorance.

Denial of the mechanisms of evolution do not make them stop working no matter what you believe is the truth. Making a conclusion based on a rejection of evidence is not logic, it is fantasy, delusion based on faith.

One is free to believe what they want, the problem is not in what they believe but in what they deny in the process. The denial of evolution does not make it any less real, any less valid, and less active in the real world, it just make the person doing the denial a little smaller than they could be.

... that you and other athiests try to desperately ignore.

Of course the fact that I am not an atheist falls on deaf, arrogant, biased and bigoted ears eh? Is anyone who disagrees with mr_matrix's fantasies an atheist?

Just another in a long line of logical fallacies, erroneous assertion and intentional ignorance eh?

Certainly no new information.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mr_matrix, posted 08-11-2006 2:10 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Nighttrain, posted 08-16-2006 12:05 AM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 73 of 95 (340416)
08-15-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by MangyTiger
08-15-2006 9:08 PM


Re: Bad design is a myth
MangyTiger writes:

I have said on numerous times that we cannot say whether a design is good or bad or not without knowing the requirements it is trying to satisfy.

I'll admit I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of the "customer" - but the greedy-corporation scenario doesn't really apply, does it?

I know that Ford, Chysler, et al. are trying to screw us out of every cent they can, but how can you apply that to "The Designer"? I mean, what would he/she/it have to gain by us wearing out "prematurely"?

My other excuse for taking the customer's viewpoint is that it's the only viewpoint we have. If we don't know the designer's intentions, we have only our own expectations to go by.

(By the way, wouldn't mange be an example of bad design?)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by MangyTiger, posted 08-15-2006 9:08 PM MangyTiger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by MangyTiger, posted 08-16-2006 3:35 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 74 of 95 (340418)
08-16-2006 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
08-15-2006 10:27 PM


Re: mr_matrix STILL manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
the problem is not in what they believe but in what they deny in the process. The denial of evolution does not make it any less real, any less

Great line, Razd. Mind if I use it?

Redacted--It`s not what you believe, but what you deny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2006 10:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2006 7:14 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 95 (340435)
08-16-2006 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 5:57 PM


It is not a good tactic to misunderstand my argument and reply to the misunderstood argument. This is known as "Straw man". Obviously I never said that we observe flat creation in nature since this creation has been done long ago. I always say that we see countless examples of intellegent "design" and not present tence "designing". ID refers to systems in nature that are alredy designed and points out the intellegence involved in their design and it is not about observing the creatioin process. I have pointed this out before but evolutionists refuse to understand and continue their straw men.

But what is your point? You say that we see intelligent design. Are you merely committing petitio principii?

Now I ask you, have you (or any other evolutionist)ever observed a species turning to a different kind of species? Non of the evolutionists in these posts ever mentioned examples of newly evolved species.

Yes, many times. Unlike intelligent design, evolution is something we observe in nature.


What I said about this topic in the previous post is not hard to understand. God does not create a perfect life on this world but only in paradise.

So you get to count every example of fatally bad design as good design. A guy has an immune system which kills him if he so much as inhales near a packet of peanuts. No, that's not a design flaw, it's God being intentionally mean, right? A fatal design flaw is good design. "The white knight is sliding down the poker; he balances very badly."

I still ask you to show examples of bad designs in nature instead of asking me to show such examples since my answer is "non" because there is no bad design in nature.

You misunderstand me. I asked you what you would consider bad design.

Lets say that it is a tail, where is the bad design?

Because an embryo has no need for a tail.

If there is realy a tail we should all be born with functionless tails

You do not explain your reasoning.

but there is no such thing because it is a spinal cord that finishes debelopment in later stages.

Specifically, the spinal cord finishes its development by losing the caudal appendage. I would call that a tail, but let's not quarrel over words.

What is the function of this caudal appendage?

Denying that it's a tail does not give it a function.

How about the coat of hair grown and then lost by a human embryo? What function does that serve? Feel free to deny that it is hair, if you like. But what is its function?

But you did not answer the question. How does evolution accout for avian lungs?

They evolved from the lungs of dinosaurs.

How can the avian lung evolve from a normal lung?

You have not said what you consider to be a "normal" lung. If you consider a dinosaur's lung to be normal, then you have your answer.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 5:57 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019