I worked for many years as a designer of machinery.
Two concepts dominated my design work. I went out of my way to design parts that could be used in as many ways as possible, and new designs were developed from previous designs.
Evolutionists insist that similarities indicate common ancestry. But that is only obvious if your logical system is based on an assumption that there is no God. If we instead admit that there might be a God that designed the universe and everything in nature; then the manifold similarities observed in nature can just as logically be concluded to be evidence of an intelligent designer who used just such design principles.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
I worked for many years as a designer of machinery.
Two concepts dominated my design work. I went out of my way to design parts that could be used in as many ways as possible, and new designs were developed from previous designs.
Evolutionists insist that similarities indicate common ancestry. But that is only obvious if your logical system is based on an assumption that there is no God. If we instead admit that there might be a God that designed the universe and everything in nature; then the manifold similarities observed in nature can just as logically be concluded to be evidence of an intelligent designer who used just such design principles.
Isn't a principle of design also to keep it simple? Why does an omnipotent god need to reuse parts when he can just breathe things into being?
It's also odd a designer would make 24 chromosomes for a chimp or gorilla and the choose to make humans by fusing two of them together. Surely a more efficient design would be to create the 23 needed for humans and then just make the 24th.
Also, you can see from the link, HC2 is an exact replica of two chimp or gorilla chromosomes, include gene and retroviral insertions, and the extra centromere and telomeres. If you are a designer, then Occam's Razor gives a pretty clear answer.
Last edited by Embalmer; 20th June 2009 at 03:41 PM.
Isn't a principle of design also to keep it simple? Why does an omnipotent god need to reuse parts when he can just breathe things into being?
It's also odd a designer would make 24 chromosomes for a chimp or gorilla and the choose to make humans by fusing two of them together. Surely a more efficient design would be to create the 23 needed for humans and then just make the 24th.
Also, you can see from the link, HC2 is an exact replica of two chimp or gorilla chromosomes, include gene and retroviral insertions, and the extra centromere and telomeres. If you are a designer, then Occam's Razor gives a pretty clear answer.
A principle of design is to keep it as simple as is practical, considering the intended use of the object being designed. If you are designing a computer, you need to make it much more complex than the proper design for an axe.
The simplest living organisms are more complex than even our most sophisticated computers. At a bare minimum they have to obtain their own energy, rather than having it supplied to them, and they must reproduce themselves.
Your argument is nonsense, for everything you argue as proving common ancestry can just as logically be argued to prove design by a common mind. You are not prepared to question the judgment of such a mind unless you have at least a similar mental capacity.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
The issue is not so much with the simlarities themselves as it is with the pattern of similarities. Hair and three inner-ear bones are both useful designs. And yet, no creature with the latter lacks the former. Why not? If hair is useful for mammals who have three inner-ear bones, then why isn't it useful for any reptile or bird or fish? And why are those traits shared in creatures that vary greatly in environment, from the north pole to the desert to the sea? A polar bear and a dolphin share these traits, a dolphin and a shark do not, despite having much more similar environments.
Three inner-ear bones are found only in mammals. How is that evidence of re-use of design rather than common ancestry?
I didn't say it was evidence of re-use of design rather than common ancestry. I said that everything you argue for common ancestry can JUST AS WELL be argued as evidence of a common designer.
As to patterns of similarities, that SCREAMS common designer.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
I didn't say it was evidence of re-use of design rather than common ancestry. I said that everything you argue for common ancestry can JUST AS WELL be argued as evidence of a common designer.
As to patterns of similarities, that SCREAMS common designer.
Quite the contrary, it whispers common designer, but screams common ancestry.
Would one expect a twin-nested hierarchy from a designer? No. A designer is free to use designs however he sees fit, across any and all boundaries. On the other hand, a twin-nested hierarchy is exactly what one would expect from evolution and common ancestry.
So yes, technically it can be used as an argument for a common designer. But ANY sort of pattern (or even lack thereof) could be used as an argument for a common designer. A twin-nested hierarchy is practically required for evolutionary theory, and lo and behold, there it is.
A common designer could have given a non-mammalian organism three bones of the middle ear. But he didn't. Why not? Can you provide a reasonable explanation as to why three middle-ear bones are exclusive to mammals? Because I can.
__________________ "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams
"Skaloopdidit" - Keeping Skaloop as the first cause until science can rule him out. "I'd be a theist if it weren't for God." - Me
Quite the contrary, it whispers common designer, but screams common ancestry.
Would one expect a twin-nested hierarchy from a designer? No. A designer is free to use designs however he sees fit, across any and all boundaries. On the other hand, a twin-nested hierarchy is exactly what one would expect from evolution and common ancestry.
So yes, technically it can be used as an argument for a common designer. But ANY sort of pattern (or even lack thereof) could be used as an argument for a common designer. A twin-nested hierarchy is practically required for evolutionary theory, and lo and behold, there it is.
A common designer could have given a non-mammalian organism three bones of the middle ear. But he didn't. Why not? Can you provide a reasonable explanation as to why three middle-ear bones are exclusive to mammals? Because I can.
Can you provide a reasonable explanation as to why you can so clearly intimate God's 'purpose' in the design of living organisms but fail to come to the same conclusion about what He plainly inspired Moses to write in Genesis as to the account of the origins of life to begin with? Those of your persuasion are so sure that God used evolution to bring about the world as it is today and in many cases the same individuals argue that the Lord would not 'lie' to us by giving a mere 'appearance of age' in the evidence available, yet you don't apply the same line of thinking to what He told us plainly is His inspired revelation of the creation in six days.
"For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth..." Exodus 20:11.
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6
I Timothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve."
Can you provide a reasonable explanation as to why you can so clearly intimate God's 'purpose' in the design of living organisms but fail to come to the same conclusion about what He plainly inspired Moses to write in Genesis as to the account of the origins of life to begin with? Those of your persuasion are so sure that God used evolution to bring about the world as it is today and in many cases the same individuals argue that the Lord would not 'lie' to us by giving a mere 'appearance of age' in the evidence available, yet you don't apply the same line of thinking to what He told us plainly is His inspired revelation of the creation in six days.
"For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth..." Exodus 20:11.
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6
I Timothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve."
Hmmm...possibly because it's a made up story. Moses, who probably didn't exist didn't write Genesis.Neither did god, who almost certainly doesn't exist.
When are you guys going to realise that the bible isn't a SCIENCE BOOK! Poetry, yes. History, some. Science, no.
__________________
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Hmmm...possibly because it's a made up story. Moses, who probably didn't exist didn't write Genesis.Neither did god, who almost certainly doesn't exist.
When are you guys going to realise that the bible isn't a SCIENCE BOOK! Poetry, yes. History, some. Science, no.
God answers my prayers and the prayers of my Christian companions often, sometimes in the most detailed & specific ways. I have, on a number of occasions offered prayers to God without telling anyone else of the requests and seen Him answer quickly and specifically. Over 40 yrs this has happened on numerous occasions.
Who said the Bible is a science book? That isn't even the issue. The issue is that it correctly and truthfully conveys to us what God did in the creation of our world and the evidence points to that special creation as Moses wrote it.
It is not Moses or Jesus whom I question in this matter; it is you and those of your persuasion.
No, the Bible is not just poetry, it is the truth.
May God be honored forever and ever.
Last edited by Calypsis4; 24th June 2009 at 01:30 PM.
Reason: correction
God answers my prayers and the prayers of my Christian companions often, sometimes in the most detailed & specific ways. I have, on a number of occasions offered prayers to God without telling anyone else of the requests and seen Him answer quickly and specifically. Over 40 yrs this has happened on numerous occasions.
Who said the Bible is a science book? That isn't even the issue. The issue is that it correctly and truthfully conveys to us what God did in the creation of our world and the evidence points to that special creation as Moses wrote it.
It is not Moses or Jesus whom I question in this matter; it is you and those of your persuasion.
No, the Bible is not just poetry, it is the truth.
May God be honored forever and ever.
Hi YC
I know that you interpret the bible as truthfully conveying the creation of the world, but even you must know in your heart that this isn't the case. Given the amount of reality you have been given by actual scientists (tons of it at CARM), I figure that you must be struggling mightily with your cognitive dissonance.
The bible no doubt contains some truths, but it certainly isn't THE truth.
__________________
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Linear Mode
