The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I was beginning to wonder.

The penny seems not to have dropped yet that you don't actually have a designer. As such you can't assess the plausibility of him designing anything.

Evolution has natural processes that could account for the rise of self replicating molecules that could evolve into more complex forms.

But Natural Selection theoretically only kicks in once the first self replicating system comes about. Before that there is no survival of the fittest, there is no mechanism that can adequately explain how these chemicals can come together and produce life.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is independent to the quesiton of whether that actually was what happened or not. It is at least plausible.

If your designer doesn't exist then ID is not only implausible, it is impossible.

So, can you demonstrate that your designer exists and could have created life on Earth. You don't have to show he did, just that he could have?

I think there is ample enough evidence that a Being beyond nature exists. From the bringing into being of all matter, space and time from nothing at all and fine tuning all the constants of nature that combine to make possible the delicate balance in biochemistry to actually having life arise on the right kind of planet orbiting the right kind of star in the right part of the right type of galaxy at a time in the history of the universe that makes observers like us capable to finding out these things. A few million years before or after our present and we could not know any of this stuff. Seems pretty predestined to me and thus is evidence of His hand in the creation and thus is evidence of His existence. And if such a Being exists then its pretty obvious that He could have created the universe and life on earth.

Wicknight wrote: »

Evolution produces bad design. We have countless examples of this, and thus evolution explains the presence of bad, or "good enough" design in life.

Lets look at some of this so called bad design shall we? How is it that the New Zealand cuckoo bird can lay its egg in the nest of another bird then fly to far off Pacific islands and a few months later the chick which subsequently hatches and thrives with no help from its parents then leaves the nest to be united with them over 4000 miles away?

Or the Hummingbird in its migration of 600 miles crosses the Gulf of Mexico, beating its tiny wings up to 75 times a second for 25 hours, over six million wing-beats without stopping?

Or how archer fish that have the ability to spit water up to 5 feet and hit a flying bug?

How about the amazing defense system of the bombardier beetle?

The eyesight of the eagle?

The grizzly bears amazing sense of smell.

The intellect of the human mind?

The paternal instincts of Emperor penguins?

And on one can go, and this is not even scratching the tip of the iceberg. Bad design? You've got to be having a laugh.

Wicknight wrote: »

Think of it the other way around. Evolution should rarely if ever produce a perfect system. The presence of such a system would count against Evolution.

Ehem... OK how about some more badly designed products of evolution?

Sharks are perfectly designed to survive in their various environments and they haven't evolved much in millions of years apparently. The electrical pulses that they emanate from their noses in order to detect pray miles away is an astonishing piece of design.

The emergence of the beautiful butterfly from its cocoon which is made from the fluid of its previous Caterpillar form.

Lions which appear to contradict the notion that only primates exhibit altruism characteristics. They have a very delicate hierarchical structure within their ranks and seem to adhere to rules of behavior that keeps them in the pride, rules that could not have written by themselves.

Again I could go on all night but you get the picture.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course he can. But it is implausible to argue he did just because you discover the expected design doesn't match your notion of who the designer must be.

With just the aforementioned traits that we observe in living creatures it is pretty evident that whoever the designer of these systems is, He is something else. We (with all our amazing technological abilities) can just about design a robot that can kinda walk. Its easier for us to put a man on the moon that it is to create anything like even the most basic of living things.

Wicknight wrote: »

You could do the same with evolution. Evolution shouldn't produce a string of perfect design. If it did it would be come less and less plausible to argue that evolution produced it. You wouldn't argue evolution produced a gold watch in the desert, so why would you argue that God produced the female reproductive system?

It is more plausible to think of an all powerful creator creating something that we think has faults in it than it is to think that Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations has the ability to create all the aforementioned creatures with all their amazing traits perfectly tuned for survival.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't have it both ways Soul Winner.

Well I sort of can. I'm talking about an all powerful God who can freely choose to create anything He likes any way He likes. If He exists then He is not constrained by the limitations that we would put on Him. If He wishes to create suboptimal design then that it His prerogative. I could argue with Him for creating me out of clay and not out of the stuff that angels are made out of. My griping at His choice of material from which to make me is not a good argument that He doesn't exist.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a very good point. It is also a good point against saying it is designed at all.

Can you show me the species of animal you know are designed, the ones you compared life on Earth to in order to see they are designed.

Or did you just figure they were designed because you can't think of how else they arrived at.

You said that if perfect design can be found in nature then this would count against the theory of evolution. Are you willing to say that the creatures I mentioned above are badly designed? The Cuckoo's migrating instincts? The shark's sensory apparatus? The bombardier beetle's defense mechanism? Etc??

Wicknight wrote: »

So why can't I do the same? Why can't I say that by looking at it I conclude it is flawed design. If you understand that you understand why people don't take ID seriously.

Well can you? Where are the flaws in the archer fishes ability to spit water? The camouflage of the chameleon? The symbiotic relationship between certain species of plants and certain species of ants. Or the symbiotic relationship between certain species of shrimp who function as a cleaning factory for bigger fish that would other wise feed on them as natural instinct would direct them to? Again on the list goes that refutes Darwinism.

Wicknight wrote: »

Its funny how you can apply the logic of skepticism to everything but your own position

If only I were provided with adequate reasons to be skeptical of my own position then I would make haste and apply it.

Wicknight wrote: »

In fact how do you know you are in the BMW factory at all without being told. So who told you life on Earth was designed by intelligence?

For me it bears all the attributes of having been designed for a purpose. Even Professor Richard Dawkins is willing to go this far but calls this apparent design an illusion on our part. Well he's entitled to his opinion as much as the next guy I suppose. But at least he's honest when he says that it at least has the appearance of having being designed for a purpose. I agree, it has, but I contend it appears that way because that's the way it is.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course. But why suppose he did as opposed to a flawed designer?

Why not?

Wicknight wrote: »

A perfect being making a flawed design is indistinguishable from a flawed being making a flawed design if the only thing you are judging is the flawed design. To assert that the designer is perfect from the flawed design by introducing some extra arbitrary explanation is bad logic.

Nobody is making the assumption that the designer is perfect because of what He designs. We believe that God is a perfect being and that He does things well but He does not need to do things well in order to be a perfect being.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is only your religious motivation here that makes you conclude God did it.

You know what? You just might be right there. But does me being religiously motivated automatically mean that I am wrong? If so, then why so? Who says so? And what makes them right about everything? what motivates them?

Wicknight wrote: »

No actually it doesn't seem like it knows what it is doing, that is the bad design. For example the nerves in the neck of the Giraffe that go all the way up and then all the way down again, rather than just across.

Why would God do that this way? You have no answer to that other than he can do what he wants.

On the other hand it is quite clear why evolution did that, it doesn't know what it is trying to end up with.

I have to admit that I don't know much about the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes but these guys seem to know a bit about it.

From Weloennig.de

To innervate the esophagus and trachea of the giraffe and also reach its heart, the recurrent laryngeal nerve needs to be, indeed, very long. So, today's evolutionary explanations (as is also true for many other so-called rudimentary routes and organs) are not only often in contradiction to their own premises but also tend to stop looking for (and thus hinder scientific research concerning) further important morphological and physiological functions yet to be discovered. In contrast, the theory of intelligent design regularly predicts further functions (also) in these cases and thus is scientifically much more fruitful and fertile than the neo-Darwinian exegesis (i.e. the interpretations by the synthetic theory).

Wicknight wrote: »

So you are honestly happy with life not being designed by God? I doubt that, given this seems to be your main object to evolution in the first place, the absence of God.

My main objection to evolution is not that it somehow does away with God, but that its a stupid theory and its advocates seem more concerned with proving it than falsifying it, the latter being what scientists are supposed to be do with any theory.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, you don't understand what evolution explains about complexity at the molecular level. That is not the same as evolution not explaining it.

Deisgn already explains it much better.

Wicknight wrote: »

I shouldn't have to believe you if you can show it. I mean scientifically of course, that such a designer exists and might have started life on Earth.

Just open your eyes and look around you.

I'll try and get to your other points tomorrow. It's very late now and I'm going to bed.

wolfsbane

This article makes good reading for all the brethren here:

No Buzzing Little Fly — Why the Creation-Evolution Debate is So Important
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/01/05/no-buzzing-little-fly-why-the-creation-evolution-debate-is-so-important/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AlbertMohlersBlog+(Albert+Mohler's+Blog)&utm_content=FaceBook

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary — the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Overheal

Lets look at some of this so called bad design shall we? How is it that the New Zealand cuckoo bird can lay its egg in the nest of another bird then fly to far off Pacific islands and a few months later the chick which subsequently hatches and thrives with no help from its parents then leaves the nest to be united with them over 4000 miles away?

Or the Hummingbird in its migration of 600 miles crosses the Gulf of Mexico, beating its tiny wings up to 75 times a second for 25 hours, over six million wing-beats without stopping?

Or how archer fish that have the ability to spit water up to 5 feet and hit a flying bug?

How about the amazing defense system of the bombardier beetle?

The eyesight of the eagle?

The grizzly bears amazing sense of smell.

The intellect of the human mind?

The paternal instincts of Emperor penguins?

And on one can go, and this is not even scratching the tip of the iceberg. Bad design? You've got to be having a laugh.

And the Nerve-structure of a Giraffe? Why does the same Emperor Penguin also have Hollow Flight Bones, when it does not fly? Why does the Bat have no hollow flight bones for that matter when it does fly?

Morbert

Soulwinner, while I understand it would be hard to respond to everyone's posts, at least take what I have said into consideration.

Again, it is not simply that the designs are "bad". Instead, they specifically reflect a history of small modifications, favouring short-term benefits over long-term goals. The Giraffe laryngeal nerve is the classic example.

I have to admit that I don't know much about the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes but these guys seem to know a bit about it.

From Weloennig.de

To innervate the esophagus and trachea of the giraffe and also reach its heart, the recurrent laryngeal nerve needs to be, indeed, very long. So, today's evolutionary explanations (as is also true for many other so-called rudimentary routes and organs) are not only often in contradiction to their own premises but also tend to stop looking for (and thus hinder scientific research concerning) further important morphological and physiological functions yet to be discovered. In contrast, the theory of intelligent design regularly predicts further functions (also) in these cases and thus is scientifically much more fruitful and fertile than the neo-Darwinian exegesis (i.e. the interpretations by the synthetic theory).

Those guys do not know a bit about it. Just because it has been typed on the internet does not make it true. The laryngeal nerve does not need to go all the way down to the heart and back. The only sensible reason it would do so is if it was the result of a series of neck modifications. I would love to see the research paper that has revealed the necessity of a lengthened nerve. A similar case can be found in the path of the vas deferens that wraps around the ureter for no reason other than it being the consequence of short-term benefits selected over long-term goals.

But Natural Selection theoretically only kicks in once the first self replicating system comes about. Before that there is no survival of the fittest, there is no mechanism that can adequately explain how these chemicals can come together and produce life.

For the nth time, there are indeed mechanisms that place an upper bound on the probability of a self-replicating system occuring by a given chance event as 1 in 10^4. I tried to explain these chemical mechanisms, but you changed the subject.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But Natural Selection theoretically only kicks in once the first self replicating system comes about. Before that there is no survival of the fittest, there is no mechanism that can adequately explain how these chemicals can come together and produce life.

Simple chemistry explains how these chemicals come together, but at that stage they are not life. Because they are self replicating they can how ever evolve.

This should not be surprising to you Soul Winner, it has been explained many many times. The fact that you keep ignoring the answer makes your claim that in your mind this won't work ring hollow. You know it will work, but because it conflicts with your religious position you keep ignoring this and playing dumb.

This is a plausible explanation for life, irrespective of whether it actually is the explanation for life. It works under known laws of chemistry, following the known process of evolution, based on chemical compounds we know were present on the early Earth.

On the other hand ID has no known designer, has no idea if the designer was present on Earth, and have no idea what said designer is supposed to have done.

Yet you argue that your idea is the most plausible one. Bizarre.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think there is ample enough evidence that a Being beyond nature exists.

There is no scientific evidence that a "Being beyond nature" exists.

Looking at something and conclude that because you can't figure out how it naturally arose it must have been made by something is not scientific evidence. It is argument from ignorance. You could be as wrong as you could be right, and you can't tell the difference.

I can demonstrate this quite easy by asking for one scientific test for this being beyond nature.

Soul Winner wrote: »

From the bringing into being of all matter, space and time from nothing at all and fine tuning all the constants of nature that combine to make possible the delicate balance in biochemistry to actually having life arise on the right kind of planet orbiting the right kind of star in the right part of the right type of galaxy at a time in the history of the universe that makes observers like us capable to finding out these things.

None of that is evidence for a being. You don't know space arose from nothing, you don't know the universe was fine tuned for something, you don't know something balanced biochemistry.

You assume all this because you are religious, but again you have no scientific test for this. It is just a guess on your part, you might just be wrong and you can't tell either way.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if such a Being exists then its pretty obvious that He could have created the universe and life on earth.

And if he doesn't exist nothing was designed or made. So can you show a test that supports that he exists? A scientific test?

Soul Winner wrote: »

And on one can go, and this is not even scratching the tip of the iceberg. Bad design? You've got to be having a laugh.

I didn't say all life was badly designed. But since you brought it up, why is the eagle eye so much better than our eye?

Evolution explains that. Can Intelligent Design, other than saying well maybe the designer just wanted it that way?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Sharks are perfectly designed to survive in their various environments and they haven't evolved much in millions of years apparently. The electrical pulses that they emanate from their noses in order to detect pray miles away is an astonishing piece of design.

And some sharks if they stop swimming they die. Other sharks have evolved ... oh sorry ... we specially chosen by the magic man in the sky for some unknown reason, to have the ability to pump water through their gills and don't have to continuously swim to move water through their gills.

Evolution explains that. Can ID?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Again I could go on all night but you get the picture.

You are simply giving examples of good efficient design (or beauty, which is rather irrelevant) and ignoring the examples of bad design.

You are doing this because you don't have a clue why a designer would put these things in nature, because your idea of a designer is completely untestable. Maybe it was because of reason X? Untestable. Maybe it was because of reason Y? Untestable.

Are you beginning to see why science ignores intelligent design? It is basically just people guessing, with no idea at all if their guess is right or not.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well I sort of can. I'm talking about an all powerful God who can freely choose to create anything He likes any way He likes. If He exists then He is not constrained by the limitations that we would put on Him.

And such a supernatural explanation can be used to explain anything.

Why does the Earth rotate around the Sun?
Because God wants it to.
Why?
I don't have to explain that, God can do what he likes.

Why is gravity weaker than the other forces?
Because God wants it to be.
Why?
I don't have to explain that, God can do what he likes.

Why do some sharks have the ability to pump water into their gills but others have to keep swimming constantly or they will drown?
Because God wants it to be.
Why?
I don't have to explain that, God can do what he likes.

Why do the nerves of the giraffe stretch all the way up and then down the neck when it is just trying to get a short distance to the side?
Because God wants it to be.
Why?
I don't have to explain that, God can do what he likes.


You see how utterly pointless such an explanation is. It explains everything while explaining nothing. It doesn't even explain why God even does what he does.

Again are you starting to see why science ignores such arguments? Why they are pointless given we have no idea if they are right or not.
If He wishes to create suboptimal design then that it His prerogative. I could argue with Him for creating me out of clay and not out of the stuff that angels are made out of. My griping at His choice of material from which to make me is not a good argument that He doesn't exist.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You said that if perfect design can be found in nature then this would count against the theory of evolution. Are you willing to say that the creatures I mentioned above are badly designed? The Cuckoo's migrating instincts? The shark's sensory apparatus? The bombardier beetle's defense mechanism? Etc??

I'm willing to say they aren't perfectly designed. The GPS satellite system is more accurate than a cuckoo's electromagnetic homing system (your example failed to mention that many cuckoo's get lost on their migrations and die each year).

We have been working no this for 50 years and are not omnipotent being and yet we have already come up with a better way to locate yourself relative to the Earth.

So is it impressive what evolution did witht he cuckoo over millions of years of evolution? Yes, very. Is it an example of the perfect way to locate yourself relative to the Earth? No, far from it.

But then this is exactly what evolution explains. The Cuckoo's system is good enough for the survival advantage it gives the cuckoo over its ancestors that couldn't do this.

Again evolution explains this.

ID can't other than just saying Ummm, maybe the designer just wanted it like that for some unknown reason.

Again can you really not see how utterly pointless such a guess is?

wolfsbane

A bit of fun:
The Dawkins Delusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3kfDmHL5g&feature=player_embedded


___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

wolfsbane

More interesting science news:
Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

wolfsbane

And more:
Mass Extinctions: 'Giant' Fossils Are Revolutionizing Current Thinking
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210171413.htm

___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

darjeeling

wolfsbane wrote: »

More interesting science news:
Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

wolfsbane wrote: »

And more:
Mass Extinctions: 'Giant' Fossils Are Revolutionizing Current Thinking
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210171413.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usfiAsWR4qU

Great to see you branching out into non-creationist science articles! I won't spoil the moment by discussing what to make of them; no, let us simply enjoy standing for once on common ground.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

More interesting science news:
Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

Neither is true ... the birds and the dinosaurs were directly (and separately) created!!!

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

A bit of fun:
The Dawkins Delusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3kfDmHL5g&feature=player_embedded

I like it!!!!:):D:eek:

J C

... here is an interesting interview between Prof Dawkins and Nick Cowan former head of chemistry at Blue Coat School, Liverpool
... who was an Evolutionist ... and then became a Young Earth Creationist.

J C

... and here Prof Dawkins interviews Creationist John Mackay ... two great minds in discussion!!

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

Neither is true ... the birds and the dinosaurs were directly (and separately) created!!!

Yes, I agree - but I thought it was nice to see some openness to change in the evolutionary camp. The whole theory of evolution will one day likewise be discarded.


___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Morbert

More interesting science news:
Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0209183335.htm

And more:
Mass Extinctions: 'Giant' Fossils Are Revolutionizing Current Thinking
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0210171413.htm

Wolfsbane, if you could develop the habit of using scientific research like the above to build a case against evolution then this thread will progress. You can see the difference in calibre between the above research and the creationist 'papers' previously submitted on this thread.

If the case for creationism is not built on a foundation of research at the standard of the above then the thread will continue with the usual J C saying wrong things and us pointing them out.

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

... here is an interesting interview between Prof Dawkins and Nick Cowan former head of chemistry at Blue Coat School, Liverpool
... who was an Evolutionist ... and then became a Young Earth Creationist.

I've just now watched the whole interview. Excellent in content and in attitude. :):)

_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

rockbeer

Soul Winner wrote:

Lions which appear to contradict the notion that only primates exhibit altruism characteristics. They have a very delicate hierarchical structure within their ranks and seem to adhere to rules of behavior that keeps them in the pride, rules that could not have written by themselves.

You do know, don't you, that a male lion will typically kill all the existing cubs in a pride he takes control of? In order, it would seem, to destroy any genetic material that might live to compete with his own?

That's how lions do altruism - just like the rest of us in fact. Pretty well when such behaviour is of genetic (i.e. evolutionary) benefit and not much if any when it isn't.

And while we're on 'bad' design, you might like to consider parasite wasps. They lay their eggs in a caterpillar host. The eggs then hatch live larvae which eat the caterpillar alive from the inside out. What happened to god the day he designed those little charmers? Did he get out of bed on the wrong side or something? And if you want to blame the fall, you might at the same time explain why your compassionate, infinitely wise god allows the innocent caterpillar to be eaten alive from the inside out as punishment for our human failings (the very ones, should you need reminding, that 'perfect' god designed us with).

Your fluffy, cosy list describing 'beautiful' nature is so selective it's laughable. It's no more scientific than the hymn 'All things bright and beautiful". Honestly, you'd expect to find a more rigorous examination of nature in any primary school book. You really have to take on board the whole package, and believe me I could counter any archer fish or hummingbird you care to name with an example from nature's little shop of horrors.

God gets the credit for everything you (simplistically) 'like' - why does he never get the blame for the 'bad' stuff?


It's actually very interesting that you define virtually every example you come up with for 'good' design in nature by function. All this spitting, flying, navigating, seeing, smelling - it's all about what things do, which is of course the 'easiest' way for evolution to manifest the impression of being designed. I deduce from this that you aren't much of a designer yourself. Human designers generally are very much concerned with underlying form as well as function, and since we are constantly informed by christians that we are formed in god's image, I have little reason to suppose that he would approach design from any other standpoint.

It is when you start to examine the underlying forms that the 'flaws' introduced by multiple evolutionary iterations start to become apparent. Everything in nature appears to work perfectly and be designed for its purpose, but this is an illusion reinforced by the fact that few truly unworkable designs persist in nature for any length of time so, superficially, we rarely get a peek into evolution's waste pile. In fact, a detailed consideration of just about every natural form reveals signs of 'waste'. It is also an illusion that is quickly shattered when you consider form equally alongside function. Form in nature is patchy at best. So if your god did design everything, we can conclude that he was, if not a strict utilitarian, then certainly a little flighty in terms of seeming to generally prefer flashy outward appearance to solid underlying grace and efficiency of form, and as a rule prioritizing function over either. And we can also conclude that we humans have a more developed and rigorous understanding of design priorities than our creator.


Besides this, all your examples are selective even in terms of the specific abilities involved. You generally pick out a single characteristic for each creature in your list - but you couldn't hand on heart argue that any of these creatures is perfect in its entirety. Again, design is always about compromise, but any human designer worth considering would wish his or her designs to be as near to perfect as possible in as many respects as possible. God, by contrast, seems content to bestow one or two outstanding characteristics on his creations and leave them to struggle with the flaws that pervade the rest of that particular 'design'. When a human designer takes such an approach it tends to be regarded as lazy at best.

I imagine you will say it is not ours to question god's approach to design. You may be right, but consider this: your entire argument seems to be premised on the idea that nature 'looks designed'. In fact, the only people it really looks designed to are non-designers. On close examination it actually looks little or nothing like human design, and what other verified examples of design do we have against which to judge it?

So, just as you challenge Wicknight to produce examples of bad organism design, I challenge you to produce examples of known (i.e. human) design that exhibit characteristics of form as well as function which are similar to those routinely exhibited in nature.

If you can't, you must agree that nature does not in fact 'look designed' at all, since it doesn't actually look much like most examples of known design. (It may look like how you imagine design done by a god looks, but that, you will agree, is an entirely different thing, since we have no verified examples with which to compare it.)

Unless you can produce examples of known, working, human design that look like nature, in terms of both form and function, you must accept that your argument does not stand up.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've just now watched the whole interview. Excellent in content and in attitude. :):)

While it was pretty civil he still basically lied about the state of evolution, summed up pretty well when he said Its like drawing three dots on a black board and then extending the line 10 miles without any further evidence, to which Dawkins simply and correctly stated Well there is a lot of further evidence.

Whether you disagree with this evidence or not it still exists, and rather disingenuous for him to claim otherwise. He then back tracks (looking some what nervous) and says "they are all fish", which wasn't his original statement that he didn't accept evolution of species takes place. This is remarkably similar to conversations that have taken place on this forum, where debates that species change isn't possible quickly, when faced with evidence that it does, turn into requests for evidence that a dog evolved into a horse, often including the standard Creationist disclaimer I'm not a biologists but..." that he uses as well with Dawkins. If you ain't a biologists then why are you claiming 99% of them are wrong and they have no evidence for their theories? Thats right because it fits a religious agenda.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've just now watched the whole interview. Excellent in content and in attitude. :):)

... mutual respect and basic manners demand nothing less!!

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

You do know, don't you, that a male lion will typically kill all the existing cubs in a pride he takes control of? In order, it would seem, to destroy any genetic material that might live to compete with his own?

That's how lions do altruism - just like the rest of us in fact. Pretty well when such behaviour is of genetic (i.e. evolutionary) benefit and not much if any when it isn't.

And while we're on 'bad' design, you might like to consider parasite wasps. They lay their eggs in a caterpillar host. The eggs then hatch live larvae which eat the caterpillar alive from the inside out. What happened to god the day he designed those little charmers? Did he get out of bed on the wrong side or something? And if you want to blame the fall, you might at the same time explain why your compassionate, infinitely wise god allows the innocent caterpillar to be eaten alive from the inside out as punishment for our human failings (the very ones, should you need reminding, that 'perfect' god designed us with).

Your fluffy, cosy list describing 'beautiful' nature is so selective it's laughable. It's no more scientific than the hymn 'All things bright and beautiful". Honestly, you'd expect to find a more rigorous examination of nature in any primary school book. You really have to take on board the whole package, and believe me I could counter any archer fish or hummingbird you care to name with an example from nature's little shop of horrors.

God gets the credit for everything you (simplistically) 'like' - why does he never get the blame for the 'bad' stuff?


It's actually very interesting that you define virtually every example you come up with for 'good' design in nature by function. All this spitting, flying, navigating, seeing, smelling - it's all about what things do, which is of course the 'easiest' way for evolution to manifest the impression of being designed. I deduce from this that you aren't much of a designer yourself. Human designers generally are very much concerned with underlying form as well as function, and since we are constantly informed by christians that we are formed in god's image, I have little reason to suppose that he would approach design from any other standpoint.

It is when you start to examine the underlying forms that the 'flaws' introduced by multiple evolutionary iterations start to become apparent. Everything in nature appears to work perfectly and be designed for its purpose, but this is an illusion reinforced by the fact that few truly unworkable designs persist in nature for any length of time so, superficially, we rarely get a peek into evolution's waste pile. In fact, a detailed consideration of just about every natural form reveals signs of 'waste'. It is also an illusion that is quickly shattered when you consider form equally alongside function. Form in nature is patchy at best. So if your god did design everything, we can conclude that he was, if not a strict utilitarian, then certainly a little flighty in terms of seeming to generally prefer flashy outward appearance to solid underlying grace and efficiency of form, and as a rule prioritizing function over either. And we can also conclude that we humans have a more developed and rigorous understanding of design priorities than our creator.


Besides this, all your examples are selective even in terms of the specific abilities involved. You generally pick out a single characteristic for each creature in your list - but you couldn't hand on heart argue that any of these creatures is perfect in its entirety. Again, design is always about compromise, but any human designer worth considering would wish his or her designs to be as near to perfect as possible in as many respects as possible. God, by contrast, seems content to bestow one or two outstanding characteristics on his creations and leave them to struggle with the flaws that pervade the rest of that particular 'design'. When a human designer takes such an approach it tends to be regarded as lazy at best.

I imagine you will say it is not ours to question god's approach to design. You may be right, but consider this: your entire argument seems to be premised on the idea that nature 'looks designed'. In fact, the only people it really looks designed to are non-designers. On close examination it actually looks little or nothing like human design, and what other verified examples of design do we have against which to judge it?

So, just as you challenge Wicknight to produce examples of bad organism design, I challenge you to produce examples of known (i.e. human) design that exhibit characteristics of form as well as function which are similar to those routinely exhibited in nature.

If you can't, you must agree that nature does not in fact 'look designed' at all, since it doesn't actually look much like most examples of known design. (It may look like how you imagine design done by a god looks, but that, you will agree, is an entirely different thing, since we have no verified examples with which to compare it.)

Unless you can produce examples of known, working, human design that look like nature, in terms of both form and function, you must accept that your argument does not stand up.

... yes it was all originally perfectly designed ... and good.
... and it has now degenerated somewhat due to the Fall ... and it is someimes bad.
... a bit like a once pristine sports car that is now showing a few rust spots and a broken light!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

While it was pretty civil he still basically lied about the state of evolution, summed up pretty well when he said Its like drawing three dots on a black board and then extending the line 10 miles without any further evidence, to which Dawkins simply and correctly stated Well there is a lot of further evidence.

... evidence like what???

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

... yes it was all originally perfectly designed ... and good.
... and it has now degenerated somewhat due to the Fall ... and it is someimes bad.

So now we're saying it used to look designed but doesn't any more?

Am I supposed to just take your word for that?

J C wrote: »

... a bit like a once pristine sports car that is now showing a few rust spots and a broken light!!!

Next time you're chatting to the mechanic perhaps you could mention that we're overdue an MOT.

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

So now we're saying it used to look designed but doesn't any more?

Am I supposed to just take your word for that?

... life still looks designed ... because it was originally designed ...
... just the sports car ... with the rust spots and the broken light still looks designed ... because it was also originally designed!!!

The 'hallmark' of design (Complex Functional Specified Information) doesn't disappear just because the CFSI degenerates somewhat.

Genghiz Cohen

Give examples of perfect creatures. If they existed 6000 years ago, it shouldn't be that hard, should it?

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

... life still looks designed ... because it was originally designed ...
... just the sports car ... with the rust spots and the broken light still looks designed ... because it was also originally designed!!!

The 'hallmark' of design (Complex Functional Specified Information) doesn't disappear just because the CFSI degenerates somewhat.

But that's the point of my post - which you've ignored twice now. It actually doesn't look designed at all - or at least only superficially, and only to people unfamiliar with what you call 'the hallmarks of design'.

(William Dembski actually made up that 'Complex Functional Specified Information' definition of design just for this purpose, didn't he? Because it certainly doesn't fit with the known (i.e. human) examples of design we have to draw on. I think you are confusing two completely independent entities here.)

This, I think, is what is popularly known as wanting it both ways. You want to argue simultaneously that nature both 'looks designed' and that it doesn't due to 'degeneration'.

But that doesn't change the fact that on close examination nature shares few characteristics other than 'mostly fit for purpose' with any known, provable examples of design (ours). Indeed we have taken nature's undirected, undesigned blueprint and used our intelligence to improve on it considerably in many ways, and in a very short time. You might argue, correctly, that we have not yet come up with anything as complex as an eye or whatever, and of course you'd be right. But we've only been at this a few thousand years and we're already pretty close to emulating god and 'creating' life. Evolution has had many millions to do its work. What won't we have achieved in a million years time? If we haven't destroyed ourselves first thanks to our (obviously evolved - who other than a sadist would have deliberately built us this way?) aggressive and competitive natures.

If only we'd be designed we would probably be capable of so much more...

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... evidence like what???

Sorry you are a troll pretending to be a Christian/Creationist, insulting both the Christians on this forum and those who enter into genuine debate with them.

I've no interest in discussing this with you as this would require that I pretend you aren't a troll.

Soul Winner

Apologies for my absence and seeming avoidance of engagement. My ISP switched off my connection and I'm absolutely swamped in work so can't get a min to pop in. As soon as I get more time in work and pay off my bill ( ) I will reengage.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry you are a troll pretending to be a Christian/Creationist, insulting both the Christians on this forum and those who enter into genuine debate with them.

I've no interest in discussing this with you as this would require that I pretend you aren't a troll.

In other words you have no evidence for Materialistic Evolution ... so you lie about me being a troll instead!!!!

... as well as making remarks about me not being a Christian, when I loudly proclaim Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Give examples of perfect creatures. If they existed 6000 years ago, it shouldn't be that hard, should it?

All living creatures are 99.99999999999999999....% perfect, even now.
Even a 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% imperfection in their DNA can kill or seriously imair any creature ... and that's an over-estimate!!!!

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

You do know, don't you, that a male lion will typically kill all the existing cubs in a pride he takes control of? In order, it would seem, to destroy any genetic material that might live to compete with his own?

That's how lions do altruism - just like the rest of us in fact. Pretty well when such behaviour is of genetic (i.e. evolutionary) benefit and not much if any when it isn't.

... so do you think that Humans would behave like Lions, and kill other people's children, if it was to their advantage? ...

... something like this, perhaps???