Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[nuttypiglet]

I'm not giving input, I'm just asking a simple question. How do you know the way they're built is the best way they could be? If a baker said he made the best cake, and I asked him what made his cake the best, he would just tell me what made his the best based on his criteria. If you say something the best, you have to have some method of judging it as such.

Apart from the fact that they are the best aerodynamic life form on the Earth. Apart from the fact that they are so good, we copied them when producing aircraft. There is nothing any better to match them against, so how can they NOT be the best?

 

[nuttypiglet]

So then when you said it was the best, you were saying that in your opinion and based on your limited experience, it was the best. And what someone else thinks, even the Designer, doesn't matter. Good to know.

Another one steps in. Perhaps YOU can give an example then of a better aerodynamic life form, one better than birds which fly? Just one that is better than birds will do, which will make birds not the best. How about something better than an Eagle with its good vision, speed, agility and can soar on thermals to save energy.

 

[lasthero]

You would have to taste every cake in the world? WHY?

Because if I didn't, I'm not actually saying it's the best, overall, I'm just saying it's the best I've tasted. There's no way I can know there aren't better cakes out there. My experiences are limited to the cakes I've tasted.

So, let me make it real simple for you. You would have a group of tasters in different locations in different countries, tasting cakes on your behalf.

And even they wouldn't be able to taste every single cake in the world. It would still be only limited to their experiences. There's still no way to tell it's the best cake, period.

There is nothing any better to match them against, so how can they NOT be the best?

It's not that there's nothing any better to match them against, there's nothing at all. Saying something is the 'best' implies there's some competition. There isn't any, here. How do you know there's no, as of yet undiscovered, flight system that would work better? Whether or not we can think of anything better is irrelevant - that doesn't make it the 'best'.

So, again, what criteria are you using to judge that it's the 'best', and what are you comparing it to?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Because if I didn't, I'm not actually saying it's the best, overall, I'm just saying it's the best I've tasted. There's no way I can know there aren't better cakes out there. My experiences are limited to the cakes I've tasted.



And even they wouldn't be able to taste every single cake in the world. It would still be only limited to their experiences. There's still no way to tell it's the best cake, period.



It's not that there's nothing any better to match them against, there's nothing at all. Saying something is the 'best' implies there's some competition. There isn't any, here. How do you know there's no, as of yet undiscovered, flight system that would work better? Whether or not we can think of anything better is irrelevant - that doesn't make it the 'best'.

So, again, what criteria are you using to judge that it's the 'best', and what are you comparing it to?

I've already told you. They are the best on the Earth for their task of flying. What is more aerodynamically designed?

 

[lasthero]

I've already told you. They are the best on the Earth for their task of flying.

And you know this, how? How are you judging this? What makes this anymore than your opinion?

What is more aerodynamically designed?

I don't know. But again, that's sort of irrelevant. Besides, birds weren't even the first animals to fly, and they're not even the only ones that can do it. How is the way a bird flies superior to how, say, a pterasaur would fly, or the way a wasp flies?

 

[OllieFranz]

Another one steps in. Perhaps YOU can give an example then of a better aerodynamic life form, one better than birds which fly? Just one that is better than birds will do, which will make birds not the best. How about something better than an Eagle with its good vision, speed, agility and can soar on thermals to save energy.

First, my post was in response to one specific post of yours, wherein you refused to justify your position on certain grounds. And all I did was point out that those grounds, as you stated them, indicated that your opinion ranked even higher than God's. It was a comment on your specific argument in that specific post.

However, I will accept the challenge if, as in your debate with lasthero, "best" refers to "the best of all possible worlds." Because I can imagine better flyers than the birds and bees in our world. The aerodynamics of man-made aircraft began in imitation of flying creatures --mainly airplanes in imitation of birds -- but they don't stop there.

VTOL and hovering are not possible (except in specific and unusual wind conditions) in anything in nature larger than a hummingbird. Because the creature (hummingbird, bumble bee, hummingbird moth) needs to beat its wings so fast that a larger creature's larger wing would shatter. In artificial flyers, we get around this by exploiting other aerodynamic principles, and so we have the Osprey aircraft and the helicopter.

Even in straight flight, in direct competion to designs based on (and improved from) the basic "bird-shaped" airplane, the design which prvides maximum speed and fuel efficiency is the delta wing, which has no direct counterpart in nature.

So if it were just a matter of design, and nature allowed for animals that could not have evolved incrementally, it is easy to imagine delta-winged flying animals, or rotary-winged hoverers, etc. The eagle is the best flyer nature has produced precisely because it was produced by natural means -- by evolution.

 

[[serious]]

Show me where the ACLU (Antichrist Lovers Union) had to get involved in getting someone sued for teaching against Santa Claus.

It was central to Lynch v. Donnelly. I'm not sure if the ACLU was in anyway involved in that case, but since that was not a requirement of the OP, I'll leave it to you to dig into that question.

 

[nuttypiglet]

First, my post was in response to one specific post of yours, wherein you refused to justify your position on certain grounds. And all I did was point out that those grounds, as you stated them, indicated that your opinion ranked even higher than God's. It was a comment on your specific argument in that specific post.

However, I will accept the challenge if, as in your debate with lasthero, "best" refers to "the best of all possible worlds." Because I can imagine better flyers than the birds and bees in our world. The aerodynamics of man-made aircraft began in imitation of flying creatures --mainly airplanes in imitation of birds -- but they don't stop there.

VTOL and hovering are not possible (except in specific and unusual wind conditions) in anything in nature larger than a hummingbird. Because the creature (hummingbird, bumble bee, hummingbird moth) needs to beat its wings so fast that a larger creature's larger wing would shatter. In artificial flyers, we get around this by exploiting other aerodynamic principles, and so we have the Osprey aircraft and the helicopter.

Even in straight flight, in direct competion to designs based on (and improved from) the basic "bird-shaped" airplane, the design which prvides maximum speed and fuel efficiency is the delta wing, which has no direct counterpart in nature.

So if it were just a matter of design, and nature allowed for animals that could not have evolved incrementally, it is easy to imagine delta-winged flying animals, or rotary-winged hoverers, etc. The eagle is the best flyer nature has produced precisely because it was produced by natural means -- by evolution.

You've never kept birds I take it? I have kept parrots and parakeets and budgies can hover on the spot. Admittedly for a short period of time, but their wings don't shatter? Even vtol in aircraft poses a problem of overheating, the same as muscle fatigue in birds. The harrier for example can't hover for too long or the engine overheats. I've seen many birds in the garden temporarily hovering over the bird feeding table, trying to find a space among other birds to land. However, you are missing the point. The delta wing is actually unstable in flight slower than the speed of sound, which is why onboard computers exist to assist the pilot. The Euro fighter for example has many computers to assist the pilot and without these he would be crashing all the time. This is why the adjustable sweeping wing was used before onboard computers. For slower speed stability and landing, the wings would be swept forward. In dog fights, and extra agility, the wings could also be brought forward.
Now back to the birds. Birds have evolved the best way for flight because there is nothing better. Unless of course you have seen a life form that is? Perhaps you feel the Elephant or Reindeer is better equipped for flying, but in my book it's birds every time. If there is nothing better, they must be the best.

 

[Theodor1]

If you say something the best, you have to have some method of judging it as such.

This is something we run into with batteries. The lithium battery for example does not lose power until the very end. This makes lithium very good for flash photography. There is no advantage to putting lithium in a clock because they do not last any longer so there is no reason to pay the extra money. So what is best or longest lasting for one application may not be best for another.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was central to Lynch v. Donnelly. I'm not sure if the ACLU was in anyway involved in that case, but since that was not a requirement of the OP, I'll leave it to you to dig into that question.

Um ... just as a reminder of my OP:

If creationism is a fairy tale, what other fairy tale has generated so much debate and gotten so much attention in the academic world?

I somehow don't think Lynch v. Donnelly qualifies here.

 

[lasthero]

Birds have evolved the best way for flight because there is nothing better.

In your opinion.

Pterasaurs could fly. Insects can fly, and were the first creature to get the ability. Bats can fly. Why are birds better than all of these? Heck, which birds in particular are you referring to? Not all birds can fly, and not all birds can fly very well. Even among eagles, how do you know that there's absolutely no room for improvement when it comes to bird flight? How do you know they're absolutely perfect?

 

[nuttypiglet]

First, my post was in response to one specific post of yours, wherein you refused to justify your position on certain grounds. And all I did was point out that those grounds, as you stated them, indicated that your opinion ranked even higher than God's. It was a comment on your specific argument in that specific post.

However, I will accept the challenge if, as in your debate with lasthero, "best" refers to "the best of all possible worlds." Because I can imagine better flyers than the birds and bees in our world. The aerodynamics of man-made aircraft began in imitation of flying creatures --mainly airplanes in imitation of birds -- but they don't stop there.

VTOL and hovering are not possible (except in specific and unusual wind conditions) in anything in nature larger than a hummingbird. Because the creature (hummingbird, bumble bee, hummingbird moth) needs to beat its wings so fast that a larger creature's larger wing would shatter. In artificial flyers, we get around this by exploiting other aerodynamic principles, and so we have the Osprey aircraft and the helicopter.

Even in straight flight, in direct competion to designs based on (and improved from) the basic "bird-shaped" airplane, the design which prvides maximum speed and fuel efficiency is the delta wing, which has no direct counterpart in nature.

So if it were just a matter of design, and nature allowed for animals that could not have evolved incrementally, it is easy to imagine delta-winged flying animals, or rotary-winged hoverers, etc. The eagle is the best flyer nature has produced precisely because it was produced by natural means -- by evolution.

How on Earth, did I indicate my rankings were higher than Gods? LOL

 

[Theodor1]

How do you know they're absolutely perfect?

This has to do with lift. The math has to be exact. If you want to build an airplane you got to get it right.

 

[nuttypiglet]

In your opinion.

Pterasaurs could fly. Insects can fly, and were the first creature to get the ability. Bats can fly. Why are birds better than all of these? Heck, which birds in particular are you referring to? Not all birds can fly, and not all birds can fly very well. Even among eagles, how do you know that there's absolutely no room for improvement when it comes to bird flight? How do you know they're absolutely perfect?

I never said they are perfect, I said they are the best. Perhaps you aren't grasping this. They are the best there is, there is nothing better. Of course there are birds that can't fly, but plenty can, so they are the best. If one morning I woke up with a different skeletal and muscle structure, feathers, wings and a tail and could fly at supersonic speed with incredible agility, then I would be the best there is. Why are you making this so difficult?

 

[nuttypiglet]

I never said they are perfect, I said they are the best. Perhaps you aren't grasping this. They are the best there is, there is nothing better. Of course there are birds that can't fly, but plenty can, so they are the best. If one morning I woke up with a different skeletal and muscle structure, feathers, wings and a tail and could fly at supersonic speed with incredible agility, then I would be the best there is. Why are you making this so difficult?

How do you know birds existed after insects?

 

[nuttypiglet]

In your opinion.

Pterasaurs could fly. Insects can fly, and were the first creature to get the ability. Bats can fly. Why are birds better than all of these? Heck, which birds in particular are you referring to? Not all birds can fly, and not all birds can fly very well. Even among eagles, how do you know that there's absolutely no room for improvement when it comes to bird flight? How do you know they're absolutely perfect?

'absolutely perfect' show me where I said that? prove you are not putting words in there that I didn't state.

 

[lasthero]

I never said they are perfect, I said they are the best.

Actually, you said they were the 'best results'. That implies that you know of other results, that there were other results to choose from and the one that birds have is the best out of the lot. If it was the only result, that would be a rather meaningless statement. So what results are you comparing this to?

 

[lasthero]

How do you know birds existed after insects?

Because insects appear in the geologic column long, LONG before any birds or even reptiles show up.

 

[OllieFranz]

How on Earth, did I indicate my rankings were higher than Gods? LOL

When you made the cake analogy and said that what the Baker thought didn't matter --only what you thought counted. Go back and look at your post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because insects appear in the geologic column long, LONG before any birds or even reptiles show up.

How long is long and how do you know that the earliest bird fossil has been found?