Originally posted by scottishinnzI admit that, it doesn't mean my observation is without merit. You
You are giving opinion based on your poor understanding of science. Scientists give qualified opinions based upon what is, and is not, physically possible according to the physical and chemical rules on which the universe seems to operate. Notice any difference?
have to admit you don't know the cause only the results of the
findings, your beliefs about the cause rests more with what you want
to believe in my opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinLooking at this post, your complaint is that the eye isn't perfect in
[b]All you have to do is prove a lack of intelligence and a lack of design.
My example of the eye is evidence of bad design and lack of intelligence, however intelligent design can never be formally disproven as you have just demonstrated: somebody can always claim that there was an intelligent decision to make it that way. The onus is then on ...[text shortened]... the human eye can percieve is tiny.
--- Penguin (who really must go and do some work now).[/b]
your estimation therefore it cannot be a product of design, is that
are argument? Just a heads up too, this place logs posts according
to the time frame we live in, your 10:42 is a 2:42 for me.
Kelly
Originally posted by jaywillThis person knows nothing about how evolution works, or deliberately misrepresents it. Go away, find something decent to post, instead of this drivel.
What is Wrong With Evolution? Is the theme of this thread. Here's a quotation for consideration of that question:
[b]"Evolution is thus basically an attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy without the aid of know-how, concept, teleonomy or exogenous (extra-material) information. It represents an attempt to explain the formation ...[text shortened]... on, c1981, Master Books, Orig. German (Die Naturwissenschaften Kennen Keinen Evolution) [/b]
Originally posted by KellyJaySo why didn't God give us the ability to view IR, or other radiative energy? It seems very restrictive of him to limit us to only visible light. Of course, evolutionary theory can explain it well.
Looking at this post, your complaint is that the eye isn't perfect in
your estimation therefore it cannot be a product of design, is that
are argument? Just a heads up too, this place logs posts according
to the time frame we live in, your 10:42 is a 2:42 for me.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell no, more that the obvious design flaws are not the sort of thing you would expect from an omnipient God (although he can put them in if wants to) but are exactly the sort of thing that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
Looking at this post, your complaint is that the eye isn't perfect in
your estimation therefore it cannot be a product of design, is that
are argument? Just a heads up too, this place logs posts according
to the time frame we live in, your 10:42 is a 2:42 for me.
Kelly
An absence of any discernable design flaws in biological organisms would be a clear indicator of an intelligent designer but the presence of such flaws (although not precluding such a designer because he could have deliberately set out to mislead us) clearly supports evolution.
So I suppose my statement is: The theory of evolution actively predicts, indeed demands the presence of design flaws. Creeationism says nothing about such features. So when we find features like the blind spot in the eye or a vestigial organ such as the appendix, this is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.
And my question is: Do you agree with this statement and if you do not, why not?
And thanks for the heads up. I had not registered that you were in sunny California. It's a shame the forum posts are not numbered. I'll try to ensure any timestamps I use are in UTC (and labelled as such) in future.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinJust as the people most prone to discuss "natural selection" are evolutionists so the people most prone to discuss "spontaneous generation" are usually evolutionists.
Can you give a reference for that for me to check it out? Surely no-one with an understanding of the theory could ever claim that it explained tha first origin of life since one of evolutions pre-requisites is life (the existance of self-replicating structures). So I'd like you to point me at documents or reputable papers where this claim is made by evolutio came about (given the pre-existance of self replicating structures a few BYA).
--- Penguin.
"By the end of the nineteenth century, the majority of scientists believed that spontaneous generation was not possible. Loyal Darwinists, however, insisted on spontaneous generation, recognizing that it was the foundation upon which evolutionary theory rests. Ernst Haeckel, one of the chief proponents of Darwinism, stated in 1876: "If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation."
Reheated
The spontaneous generation debate heated up again in 1924 when Russian biochemist, I.A. Oparin proposed that life had arisen from simpler molecules on the lifeless earth under much different atmospheric conditions than exist today. However, instead of life arising suddenly, as previous spontaneous generation theories proposed, Oparin believed that it occurred over a very long period of time.
In 1929 English biologist J.B.S. Haldane published a paper in which he proposed that ultraviolet light, acting on a primitive atmosphere containing water, ammonia and methane produced oceans with the consistency of a "hot dilute soup" containing the building blocks of life. In the nineteenth century Ernst Haeckel argued that although spontaneous generation was not observable under the current conditions on earth, it did take place in the past under different chemical conditions. Oparin and Haldane made the first serious proposals regarding those conditions.
In 1952 Harold Urey noted that most of the planets in our solar system, except earth, have an atmosphere which contains little or no free oxygen. Furthermore, Urey knew that the building blocks of life are quickly destroyed (oxidized) if they are exposed to an environment containing oxygen. Therefore, he concluded that spontaneous generation must have occurred on the early earth with an atmosphere consisting mainly of hydrogen, ammonia, methane and water vapor, but little or no molecular oxygen. Lightning, volcanic eruptions, sunlight, and deep oceanic volcanic vents are among the energy sources proposed to stimulate the necessary chemical reactions. It was presumed that the building blocks of life were made in the atmosphere and then gradually fell to earth eventually accumulating in the primeval ocean.
Despite absolutely no geological evidence for the existence of this "primeval soup" the Oparin-Haldane-Urey theories became scientific dogma. These foundational assumptions have provided the framework for the modern theory of evolution for the last forty years. "
Quoted from TrueNews.Org.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWe got what was needed. Why don't we breath underwater all our lives
So why didn't God give us the ability to view IR, or other radiative energy? It seems very restrictive of him to limit us to only visible light. Of course, evolutionary theory can explain it well.
too, it is because we were meant to live where we do. You are asking
me why God designed us the way He did, like I would know?
Kelly
=============================
Well no, more that the obvious design flaws are not the sort of thing you would expect from an omnipient God (although he can put them in if wants to) but are exactly the sort of thing that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
=============================
Again you admit that design is detectable. This concedes that intelligent design detection is not therefore excluded from being an imperical science.
Sub-optimal design is still design. Not quite perfect design is still a design.
The imperfection proposed by the critic of a design may not be an imperfection. The panda's thumb has been used as an example by evolutionists of a poorly designed limb, if there was a designer. However the panda's thumb, though not good for say writing, is good for stripping bark off of a tree.
So some critical consideration should also be given to what the objectors say is sub-optimal design. A bark stripping thumb, not suited to other functions noticed on other human like hands, could be just what a intelligent design scheme had intended.
===========================
An absence of any discernable design flaws in biological organisms would be a clear indicator of an intelligent designer but the presence of such flaws (although not precluding such a designer because he could have deliberately set out to mislead us) clearly supports evolution.
===========================
The physical world requires trade offs. A compact car design has tradeoffs from a larger model. A desktop computer has tradeoffs to a lap top computer. That a design is suited for one application but not for another is not an indication of imperfection in design. It it only an indication of design tradeoffs brought about because of the realities of the physical world.
Originally posted by PenguinI want to give your posts a little more time than I have now.
Well no, more that the obvious design flaws are not the sort of thing you would expect from an omnipient God (although he can put them in if wants to) but are exactly the sort of thing that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
An [b]absence of any discernable design flaws in biological organisms would be a clear indicator of an intelligent desig ...[text shortened]... try to ensure any timestamps I use are in UTC (and labelled as such) in future.
--- Penguin[/b]
I don't see a flaw in the design, I believe we see rather well, for
the most part that is.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo I won't go away. I would not only post it again, I would post more of the same person's comments. He argues that life requires the input of information. Matter plus energy does not = life. But he argues matter plus energy plus ideas = life:
This person knows nothing about how evolution works, or deliberately misrepresents it. Go away, find something decent to post, instead of this drivel.
"Thus according to the laws of physics it is impossible for matter to have organized itself without the aid of energy and of teleonomic machines!"
"Matter plus energy plus ideas = life."
=============================
Again you admit that design is detectable. This concedes that intelligent design detection is not therefore excluded from being an imperical science.
=============================
No, the only way it can be an empirical science is if it makes predictions that, if wrong, could be shown to be wrong. the only such prediction it could make would be for there to be no design flaws anywhere in nature. There are numerous such flaws (if you think the eye would not be more effective without a blind spot then we can use the example of the appendix). If ID does not predict no design flaws, then what does it predict that we can empirically test? For example, Evolution predicts that a mating between two Great Danes will not produce anything other than a Great Dane. It will not, for instance, produce a St Bernard.
=======================
Sub-optimal design is still design. Not quite perfect design is still a design.
=======================
But it says nothing at all about the nature of the designer. Blind Evolution is quite capable, with no outside help, of producing sub-optimal design.
======
The imperfection proposed by the critic of a design may not be an imperfection. The panda's thumb has been used as an example by evolutionists of a poorly designed limb, if there was a designer. However the panda's thumb, though not good for say writing, is good for stripping bark off of a tree.
======
I'll have to read up about this Panda's thumb before I can respond to this. I assume it's the inspiration for the title of 'Of Pandas and ...'.
===========================
The physical world requires trade offs. A compact car design has tradeoffs from a larger model. A desktop computer has tradeoffs to a lap top computer. That a design is suited for one application but not for another is not an indication of imperfection in design. It it only an indication of design tradeoffs brought about because of the realities of the physical world.
===========================
Ok, so there might be some properties of the physical universe (created by your omniscient and omnipotent God) that forced him to put a blind spot in every mammalian, reptile and bird eye (dispite his omnipotence). But the human appendix is not a design trade-off. It is an utterly usless organ (actually, scientists are still trying to establish a purpose for it in humans but so far without success. It certainly can be removed to no discernable detriment).
--- Penguin
Originally posted by jaywillThere's nothing there that says anyone has proposed that the first occurance of life came about by evolution, only that people who support evolution have also discussed the first occurance of life. Evolution, as I maintained, says nothing about abiogenesis, and never has.
Just as the people most prone to discuss [b] "natural selection" are evolutionists so the people most prone to discuss "spontaneous generation" are usually evolutionists.
"By the end of the nineteenth century, the majority of scientists believed that spontaneous generation was not possible. Loyal Darwinists, however, insisted on spontane rn theory of evolution for the last forty years. "
Quoted from TrueNews.Org.[/b]
So your assertion that "Evolution use to be about origin of life problems." is not backed up by your reference (as an aside, that page on TrueNews.org also does not give any details which would allow a reader to research the studies it mentions. At least TalkOrigins provides links for further investation of the research).
Can you point to any material that does back up the claim that "Evolution use to be about origin of life problems."? If you can't then I think you have to drop that particular argument.
--- Penguin. (sorry, forgot to sign this before hitting Post)
jaywill foolishily wrote:
The physical world requires trade offs. A compact car design has tradeoffs from a larger model. A desktop computer has tradeoffs to a lap top computer. That a design is suited for one application but not for another is not an indication of imperfection in design. It it only an indication of design tradeoffs brought about because of the realities of the physical world.
A few years ago, a city council decided to have a bridge built so that traffic could pass more easily over a wide river which ran through the city center. An engineer was commissioned to design the bridge and was promised sufficient funds to build one that was state of the art. After a few weeks, the engineer returned to the city council to submit his idea. According to his blueprints, the bridge was to be made entirely of tin foil and kite string. The council was of course immediately dismayed.
"A car could never drive over such a bridge," one councilwoman said, "The tin foil would immediately tear, and the car would fall into the river. Why don't you use cement instead?"
"Well," replied the engineer, rolling his eyes with smug exasperation, "Obviously, the kite string could never support cement."
Understand?
Originally posted by telerion[/i][/b]That is wonderful!
[i]jaywill foolishily wrote:
The physical world requires trade offs. A compact car design has tradeoffs from a larger model. A desktop computer has tradeoffs to a lap top computer. That a design is suited for one application but not for another is not an indication of imperfection in design. [b]It it only an indication of design tradeoffs brought about b g exasperation, "Obviously, the kite string could never support cement."
Understand?
I seem to have got into an interesting discussion with KellyJay (notwithstanding the suspicion I have that we will both revisit arguments given many times before with neither of us being swayed by the logic of the other side). But I'm also responding to JayWill and am sometimes responding to a post from one as if it came from the other. I must apologies if I start attributing to KellyJay something that was said by JayWill.
Since my discussion started with KellyJay, I'll try to ensure I respond to his posts and this may mean I fail to respond to anyone elses. No offence is intended.
--- Penguin.