Way is it?

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]That Evolutionists always attack the creationists point of view?

Correct. If a person does not believe in there being a God who created the Heavens and the Earth - then people who do believe in such an entity (such as myself) may appear to them as being irrational in their thinking, as it is impossible to prove that God does exist. At the ver ...[text shortened]... perhaps atheists should keep an open (albeit sceptical) mind on matters of the supernatural.[/b]

“....Evolution will not be proven wrong because it is still theory not fact, when it comes to the claim “the origin of life”. ...”

evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. No part of the theory says anything about abiogenesis.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
True that the Evolution Theory first propounded by Darwin is the one that convincingly explains the Origin of Man and many other concepts. It is also proved by fossils and other evidence. Unquestionably Darwin developed it logically although he had not much benefit of modern scientific advances such as knowledge about DNA,Genes,Chromosomes et al. The foss ...[text shortened]... ead facing the exit i.e. allowing the new born to breathe immediately. Is it not good design ?

I don't follow your argument on what you call “grey areas”:

“...SEEMS to me,a case of Fast Track Project Management i.e. as if it was decided that the present stage of bone development is good enough for survival and let the baby grow bones outside the mother's body. ...” (my emphasis)

why “SEEMS”?
Isn't the most obvious hypothesis is that it simply evolved that way?
I don't see how this presents any sort of problem for evolution theory.

Originally posted by divegeester
Similarly until it is possible to prove otherwise, perhaps atheists should keep an open (albeit sceptical) mind on matters of the supernatural.

What is, in your opinion, 'the supernatural'? I have never managed to get anyone to give me a definition that does not essentially amount to an illogical claim. I believe that illogical claims are necessarily false and therefore 'proven otherwise'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is, in your opinion, 'the supernatural'? I have never managed to get anyone to give me a definition that does not essentially amount to an illogical claim. I believe that illogical claims are necessarily false and therefore 'proven otherwise'.

I pretty much agree with this definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. No part of the theory says anything about abiogenesis.

Interesting, thanks. Though Darwin and other evolutionists have speculated on the circumstances of spontaneous abiogenesis I believe.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I don't follow your argument on what you call “grey areas”:

“...SEEMS to me,a case of Fast Track Project Management i.e. as if it was decided that the present stage of bone development is good enough for survival and let the baby grow bones outside the mother's body. ...” (my emphasis)

why “SEEMS”?
Isn't the most obvious hypothesis is that it ...[text shortened]... y evolved that way?
I don't see how this presents any sort of problem for evolution theory.

The word" seems" is there only because I am not aware of the exact reason as to why the skull bones are not closed at the time of the birth of the human baby. I have made a guess that it looks like a case of Fast Track Project Management on the part of God to let the baby go out and develop further bones outside the mother's body in order to cut down an unnecessarily long confinement. Sort of " good being better than the best" and looking like a good design.
Are guesses outlawed in the new papacy of science ?
How does then the Evolution theory explain this ? By saying that" it just evolved that way" ? No guesses even ?
There is a mention in Evolution literature( I do not recall where I had read it) reg. the bees being able to see many more colours than humans or that matter other beings and thus pollinating flowers of these "invisible" colours also so that those particular trees having these flowers develop fruits. This is said to be a case of Evolution of the trees which develop these flowers visible only to the bees. How does the tree "know" what is visible to the bees ?Evolutionary theory says that many types of flowers exist on many types of trees and those flowers the colours of which are visible only to the bees enable the survival of these types of trees also. Since many trees with "visible" flowers also get pollinated by bees,this example of Evolution looks quite a bit absurd.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The word" seems" is there only because I am not aware of the exact reason as to why the skull bones are not closed at the time of the birth of the human baby. I have made a guess that it looks like a case of Fast Track Project Management on the part of God to let the baby go out and develop further bones outside the mother's body in order to cut down an u ...[text shortened]... ers also get pollinated by bees,this example of Evolution looks quite a bit absurd.

“...I have made a guess that it looks like a case of Fast Track Project Management on the part of God to let the baby go out and develop further bones outside the mother's body in order to cut down an unnecessarily long confinement. ...”

why can't evolution “ let the baby go out and develop further bones outside the mother's body in order to cut down an unnecessarily long confinement”?

“...Are guesses outlawed in the new papacy of science ? ...”

evidence/reason-based ones or ones based on silly superstition?

“...How does then the Evolution theory explain this ? By saying that" it just evolved that way" ? ...”

it “just evolved that way” because it helps to pass-on the genes. Delaying the birth of the baby to give more time for the bone to grow would have put extra burden on the mother and, of course, if the mother dies, the baby would die also and then both the mother and baby would not pass-on their genes.

“...the bees being able to see many more colours than humans or that matter other beings and thus pollinating flowers of these "invisible" colours also so that those particular trees having these flowers develop fruits. This is said to be a case of Evolution of the trees which develop these flowers visible only to the bees. ...”

there are no “flowers visible only to the bees.” . You mean “flowers with colours only visible to the bees”

“...How does the tree "know" what is visible to the bees ? ...”

they don't “know” what is visible to the bees. And they don't need to “know” anything for natural selection to work.

“...Evolutionary theory says that many types of flowers exist on many types of trees and those flowers the colours of which are visible only to the bees enable the survival of these types of trees also. ...”

correct.

“...Since many trees with "visible" flowers also get pollinated by bees,this example of Evolution looks quite a bit absurd. ...”

all flowers are “visible” but you mean “flowers with colours only visible to the bees” but I still don't follow you:
Those flowers that have only visible (to us) colours would get pollinated for exactly the same reason why those flowers that have additional invisible (to us) colours get pollinated. So what is “absurd” about that? The evolution of the colours of flowers does not discriminate between colours that are visible to us from those that are not because it is not WE who are pollinating them, it is the bees! So what colours are or are not visible to us as opposed to what colours are or are not visible to the bees is irrelevant!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I have made a guess that it looks like a case of Fast Track Project Management on the part of God to let the baby go out and develop further bones outside the mother's body in order to cut down an unnecessarily long confinement. ...”

why can't evolution “ let the baby go out and develop further bones outside the mother's body in order to cut d ...[text shortened]... to us as opposed to what colours are or are not visible to the bees is irrelevant!

Well I say it a case of good design. You say that evolution,in its defence, can say the same thing.
Your justification is that more time for baby would have put extra burden on the mother. True . But would it not have made the baby's skull safer and therefore bettered its chances of survival and passing on its genes etc.?Then why is it that the baby is born with the skull unclosed ? You take up only that guess which is favourable to the Evolution theory and refuse to consider other probable reasons like good design. Any other guess than yours is prejudged as Superstition ! A case of hardened Reason( like hardened Arteries).
Yes,I agree about my mistake .I did mean the flowers with invisible colours. Not invisible flowers.But, yes, this example was given as an argument in favour of the evolution of trees having flowers with invisible colours !

Originally posted by divegeester
I pretty much agree with this definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

That definition, it seems to me, results in an illogical claim. It suggests the existence of something, that follows no pattern, cannot be observed, does not interact with us in any way and yet somehow can be said to 'exist' and can be known about.

Or am I reading the definition differently from you?

Do you agree that the definition rules out any form of interaction between us and the supernatural? It essentially say 'no observation' in a number of different ways.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Well I say it a case of good design. You say that evolution,in its defence, can say the same thing.
Your justification is that more time for baby would have put extra burden on the mother. True . But would it not have made the baby's skull safer and therefore bettered its chances of survival and passing on its genes etc.?Then why is it that the baby is b ...[text shortened]... ven as an argument in favour of the evolution of trees having flowers with invisible colours !

“...Well I say it a case of good design. You say that evolution,in its defence, can say the same thing. ...”

exactly! Therefore nothing in the evidence suggests intelligent design as opposed to evolution.

“...Your justification is that more time for baby would have put extra burden on the mother. True . But would it not have made the baby's skull safer and therefore bettered its chances of survival and passing on its genes etc.? ...”

because if that was true then it would have evolved that way precisely because of the above reason!!!

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The word" seems" is there only because I am not aware of the exact reason as to why the skull bones are not closed at the time of the birth of the human baby. I have made a guess that it looks like a case of Fast Track Project Management on the part of God to let the baby go out and develop further bones outside the mother's body in order to cut down an unnecessarily long confinement.

The main reason I believe is that it makes the head flexible during birth and allows it to get out of the mother more easily.

But for this discussion, the only questions are:
1. Is the design useful.
2. Could the design have come about through evolution.

I think the answers are 'yes' to both.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Well I say it a case of good design. You say that evolution,in its defence, can say the same thing. ...”

exactly! Therefore nothing in the evidence suggests intelligent design as opposed to evolution.

“...Your justification is that more time for baby would have put extra burden on the mother. True . But would it not have made the baby's sku ...[text shortened]... e if that was true then it would have evolved that way precisely because of the above reason!!!

Some time ago,on this forum /in the thread of" Science as a collection of successful recipes" , you asked me for some example of Circular Argument that is,according to me, many a times used in Scientific Description. Well,you are giving an example yourself by stating " because if it was true---" etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The main reason I believe is that it makes the head flexible during birth and allows it to get out of the mother more easily.

But for this discussion, the only questions are:
1. Is the design useful.
2. Could the design have come about through evolution.

I think the answers are 'yes' to both.

Please see my reply to Andrew Hamilton reg.circular argument. Granting that Evolution ( we have to firstly credit this Process with a distinct bias in favour of perpetuating Life and Species in this otherwise dead Universe--No one can say why is this bias) has caused the skull bones to remain unclosed,the possibility of a good design ( by good I mean indicating fitness for the purpose) must also be considered as equally likely. After all,apart from Argument neither side has any proof.
Take ,for example, the development of teeth of the baby outside the mother's body.To a construction engineer like me it seems to be done just in time to wean the baby away from mother's milk and allow it to eat semi-solid/solid food. Otherwise there was no bar to have the teeth developed when the baby was inside the womb. But that would have been a waste of scarce resources like the Calcium stock in the mother's body.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Please see my reply to Andrew Hamilton reg.circular argument.

Please explain why any of what I said, is a circular argument.

... (we have to firstly credit this Process with a distinct bias in favour of perpetuating Life and Species in this otherwise dead Universe--No one can say why is this bias)...
Life by definition perpetuates itself. Those that survive, survive, those that die out, die out. The bias is that those that survive, are those that are good at surviving - which results in more successful life forms surviving.


Granting that Evolution has caused the skull bones to remain unclosed,the possibility of a good design (by good I mean indicating fitness for the purpose) must also be considered as equally likely. After all,apart from Argument neither side has any proof.
Actually evolution has plenty of proof. The problem is that you are focusing on a given design then asking its origin, but refusing to look at its origin and instead trying to deduce its origin from the functionality of the design then realizing that this cannot be done.

Take ,for example, the development of teeth of the baby outside the mother's body.To a construction engineer like me it seems to be done just in time to wean the baby away from mother's milk and allow it to eat semi-solid/solid food. Otherwise there was no bar to have the teeth developed when the baby was inside the womb. But that would have been a waste of scarce resources like the Calcium stock in the mother's body.
As noted above, taking example after example of good designs will get us nowhere. Evolution results in good designs, so nether of us disputes that what happens in real life is a good design. What we disagree on is how they came about. If you are really interested in how useful a given design is, then we can discuss that for example I explained why the babies skull is the way it is, and I can tell you that teeth do not develop before weaning because it can be quite painful for the mother if the baby has teeth. But that helps us not at all with the question of how the design came about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because we believe they are wrong. Surely that is a valid enough reason. At least most of us try to explain why we feel this way instead of resorting to insults. If you think you are right and I am wrong then explain why.

[b]They are always hostile :'( that is rude and ignorant, is it because if evolution is proven wrong then there is nothing left but ...[text shortened]... n my world view. If evolution was proven wrong, it would not lead me to believe in a creator.

But there is more evidence that lends itself to an intelligent cause than there is not......and what many persons do is..... that they do not acknowledge all the intelligent phenomena that is around them,

And just observe a Dunn beetle collecting it crap and rolling it up and marching away with it.

Look at anything .......and it is existing with incredible functionality .

Just look at the human body with all its amazing features....and to think this happened out of a puddle.