unintelligent design.

Jerry Smith · Jul 22, 2002

So you think that science can have an accurate understanding of the process of human reproduction even though it is, according to your beliefs, a "supernatural" event? What is so different then about creation, that science can never have an accurate understanding of the natural processes of creation?

chickenman · Jul 22, 2002

until intelligent design advocates can explain why the designer created broken genes in humans and other primates, all broken in the same place, I don't think ID has much going for it

LouisBooth · Jul 22, 2002

"So you think that science can have an accurate understanding of the process of human reproduction even though it is, according to your beliefs, a "supernatural" event? "

This is a different subject. 1. We are talking about 1. a very short time 2. a change and process we can directly observe and 3. We don't explain the "soul or spirit" ie were they come from and what they are, when explaining that process.
Chicken regardless of what anyone says, you'll believe what you want to believe. If found that the rule on this forum, that's why I don't post too much anymore.

Jerry Smith · Jul 22, 2002

We are talking about 1. a very short time

Tell that to an eight-month pregnant woman!

Seriously, though, there is no difference in principle, only in application. We do not have the ability to directly observe the process of gestation, so the difference isn't in the "directness" of our observations. The differences are in application, not in principle, and it isn't useful to conclude that scientific findings must be wrong just because they deal with events that also have supernaturalistic explanations.

npetreley · Jul 22, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
chickenman - the function is to keep us from being able to make vitamin - c. And to keep chimps from being able to. Even though both of us have the gene that would normally enable us to. The one that rats have. And elephants. And giraffes. And horses. And shrews. And dolphins. Only broken in the same place in us and our nearest cousins. That can be explained easily in terms of common descent, but cannot be explained well at all in terms of common design. You know...

How is it you are so certain there isn't another reason that we share this trait?

npetreley · Jul 22, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

She said for me to use my noggin' and to quit being such a stiff-necked literalist... whatever that means...

You obviously dialed the wrong number.

Plan 9 · Jul 22, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

How is it you are so certain there isn't another reason that we share this trait?

What reason would that be, then? Why would our Creator have only two species share this trait?

Jerry Smith · Jul 23, 2002

How is it you are so certain there isn't another reason that we share this trait?

Sure it is possible. Let's pick one and examine it.. I pick "the fall of man by the sin of Eve." Ok, so Eve took a big chunk out of the Apple and God decided to curse her and all of her descendents. His method of doing so was to introduce disease. Now a great number of his creations-by-fiat had this gene that made vitamin c. "I know", God said, "I'll break Adam and Eve's vitamin c gene - that will help with the curse.... wow that seems to work pretty well. Now they'll get scurvy if they go without fruit for too long. Now, what else? Well that chimpanzee over there looks a lot like Adam and Eve, and shares 98% of their DNA. Plus, I left all these fossils laying around that look just like an intermediate between apes and humans. I think I'll break that chimp's vitamin-c gene at just the same locus, so that later on people who believe in evolution will go to hell. That will make my curse work even better."

That one explains it, and I imagine other scenarios explains it too. The difference is, the evolutionary scenario predicts phenomena of this kind. "Design" scenarios must be stretched to accommodate phenomena of this kind.

Jerry Smith · Jul 23, 2002

Another question: Does the "fall" explain the peculiar routing of the laryngeal nerve in humans (down the neck, around the aorta - back up to the larnyx)?

Another question, does the "fall" explain the same arrangement in giraffes, which adds a few yards to the length of this nerve?

npetreley · Jul 23, 2002

Originally posted by Plan 9
What reason would that be, then? Why would our Creator have only two species share this trait?

Why not? We didn't have a clue that the appendix was useful until relatively recently. Why do you think you know enough about DNA to say that you *KNOW* the reason why any species share this trait?

And would it matter? If tomorrow you found out that certain species worked this way because to do otherwise would have the side-effect of producing a toxin (I'm just making this up for the sake of argument), would that change your mind about evoution? Of course not. You'd simply "reason" an evolutionary explanation out of this information. So the point is moot whether or not there is another explanation, since you'll turn it into evidence for evolution, anyway.

Jerry Smith · Jul 23, 2002

It already IS evidence for evolution. It is genetic evidence for evolution. The question is, can the "common designer" hypothesis also explain it. And the answer is, no - at this point it cannot. Sure, there may be a real good reason why chimps and humans need a broken vitamin c gene, broken at the same locus, but other mammals don't need it, but the possibility is remote, so this one will most likely remain out of reach of the common designer hypothesis. If it turns out I am wrong, then the common designer hypothesis will have gained some credibility, but it will take a lot more discoveries of this nature to catch it up to common descent.

Morat · Jul 23, 2002

  What I want to know is how "common designer" managed to replicate viral insertions into the genome in patterns that mimic descent. But that's just me.

Plan 9 · Jul 23, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

Why not? We didn't have a clue that the appendix was useful until relatively recently. Why do you think you know enough about DNA to say that you *KNOW* the reason why any species share this trait? 

I don't *KNOW* enough about DNA  to assert any reason for anything. You are confusing me with one of your sparring partners, when I was just asking you a question.

npetreley · Jul 23, 2002

Originally posted by Plan 9

I don't *KNOW* enough about DNA  to assert any reason for anything. You are confusing me with one of your sparring partners, when I was just asking you a question.

Sorry.

Plan 9 · Jul 23, 2002

That's okay, Nick! I honestly am asking questions of everyone here; you included.

Jerry Smith · Jul 23, 2002

I'd like to know what sort of design produced that telometric fusion end-to end in the human chromosome 2...

LouisBooth · Jul 23, 2002

"Seriously, though, there is no difference in principle, only in application. "

So you're saying time makes no difference in any process? Umm..you wanna try and take that to the bank?

Jerry Smith · Jul 23, 2002

Lewis, Josephus just PM'd me & told me there is another new rule... you have to quote at least enough for me to be able to readily identify what post my comments came from and what the heck I was talking about so that I might properly respond. Honest! Well, not really. But it would be nice...

Anyway...

"Seriously, though, there is no difference in principle, only in application. "

So you're saying time makes no difference in any process? Umm..you wanna try and take that to the bank?

No.. I'm saying there is no difference in principle between evidence of recently past events and evidence of distantly past events. Only in application. Still, science has some pretty powerful tools for unearthing evidence of distantly past events...

chickenman · Jul 23, 2002

God is obviously very fond of the copy/paste function in his DNA editor. He probably wishes it had some form of "spell checking" though, because he seems to have made the same typo numerous times in primates.

I'm wondering though, if we are gods "special" creation, why did he only make us slightly different to the chimpanzee. You'd think if we were really all that special he'd have taken the trouble to build us from scratch. Evidently he couldn't be bothered.

LouisBooth · Jul 23, 2002

"I'm saying there is no difference in principle between evidence of recently past events and evidence of distantly past events. Only in application. "

Hmm..so in other words the processes DO differ then?

chickenman so what? A lot of things taste like chicken, does that mean God messed up because they all taste the same? I'd say we are vastly different froma chimp. If you read the bible its not the physical that God is always concerned about cm.

unintelligent design.

Fish out of water

evil unamerican

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

Absolutely Elsewhere

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

Untitled One

Absolutely Elsewhere

pumpkin sailor

Absolutely Elsewhere

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

evil unamerican

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency