What's The Matter?

[OldWiseGuy]

How would you go about determining whether an animal you had never seen before, was designed or naturally evolved that way?

That was my question.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. Which makes the impression of design subjective. Thanks for proving my point!

But you said "show dogs" are evidence of objective design. I asked how you tell the difference between those and naturally occurring canines.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If I remember rightly this is the argument that was thrown out of court because the guy who had studied it [Michael Behe] could not make a case for ID using this very thing at the Dover trial.
As usual it got dropped for a couple of years now it's back again and this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.............
which only goes to show just how desperate some people really are.

Are you trying to get this thread closed. They're cracking down on flaming.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Are you trying to get this thread closed. They're cracking down on flaming.

Since when is the truth flaming? what did I write that was flaming?
if you mean the part 'which only goes to show just how desperate some people really are.' why do creationists keep repeating the same old PRATTS time after time if they are not desperate? that's the truth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Since when is the truth flaming? what did I write that was flaming?
if you mean the part 'which only goes to show just how desperate some people really are.' why do creationists keep repeating the same old PRATTS time after time if they are not desperate? that's the truth.

It's an ad hominem aimed at those who disagree with you. Thin ice for the thread.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If misrepresenting evolution theory is the only way you have to argue against it..... Then your objections aren't going to have any impact.

Isn't developing immunity a function of evolution?

 

[Jan Volkes]

It's an ad hominem aimed at those who disagree with you. Thin ice for the thread.

How can it be an ad hominem I am not writing about one person I am writing about creationists in general who are so desperate they keep bringing back the same PRATTs time after time.

 

[Skaloop]

But you said "show dogs" are evidence of objective design. I asked how you tell the difference between those and naturally occurring canines.

Because we've observed the design process (ie - breeding).

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it relies on human opinion, not on objective measurement or observation of the actual designing.

Observation is part of science. We can take an actual objective biological system and its function and compare it to an actual functional designed system and see objectively the function and structure are designed similarly. It rests on objective evidence of both systems.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course the bacterial flagellum is designed, only maybe not that intelligently.

Now this is an intelligent argument...not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How can it be an ad hominem I am not writing about one person I am writing about creationists in general who are so desperate they keep bringing back the same PRATTs time after time.

1. Creationists are people.
2. There are Creationists in the discussion.
3. Attack the so called PRATT
4. Cartoons are flaming. Reportable to the mod's.
5. It seems more in line with desperation when one resorts to cartoons and ad hominem attacks rather than logical and reasonable argumentation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If I remember rightly this is the argument that was thrown out of court because the guy who had studied it [Michael Behe] could not make a case for ID using this very thing at the Dover trial.
As usual it got dropped for a couple of years now it's back again and this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.............
which only goes to show just how desperate some people really are.

What went on in court had a virtual montage of political and religious elements that were involved. NO one has confirmed by evidence that the BF could have evolved step by step and keep a healthy functioning organism in the process. There are could be and maybes and stories.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Double post...again.

 

[paulm50]

The Holy Spirit guides us away from our natural inclinations, which is our "deep seated" problem, toward better 'unnatural' inclinations.

I'm confused.

The Holy Spirit (god) guides us away from our natural inclinations. The ones he created in us. Why would he do that?

And why would 'unnatural' inclinations be better for us?

Unless you're referring to the sexual inclinations and those that make us want to provide more for our family. Which are absolutely right, yet the bible does frown on them sometimes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

For the same reason that we don't need to "believe" that clouds that look like ducks aren't actually ducks.

It could be because:

This is only a whisp of a shape that resembles something real which is not really functionally similar to the actual duck.

To explain it, would require to explain the difference between the words "appearance" and "actual". And you've already demonstrated time and again the inability (or unwillingness) to understand (or recognise) the difference.

The BF is actual. The function is actual. It is similar to the actual rotor system designed by humans. The actual appearance and function of both systems actually are structurally similar and functionally similar. This is a case of real systems being designed for a purpose that show similar design and function. It doesn't take Rocket Science to objectively conclude the appearance is not an illusion.

To say that an appearance is not mere appearance, but an actual thing, you'ld need to support that. Can you?

Does appearance have function? Does it have function in the way a designed similar system has function? It is you that needs to show by evidence that this similarity of function and design is an illusion.

 

[paulm50]

Isn't developing immunity a function of evolution?

As is the evolution of races.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The only people who do not accepted evolution are the people who do not understand it or reject it for religious reasons,
which are you? I suspect both.

What is evolution?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence?
What justification do you have for that claim?

What evidence do you have to justify that it is an illusion?

 

[Jan Volkes]

The only people who do not accepted evolution are the people who do not understand it or reject it for religious reasons,
which are you? I suspect both.

What is evolution?

You don't even know you are doing it do you?

 

[Skaloop]

What went on in court had a virtual montage of political and religious elements that were involved. NO one has confirmed by evidence that the BF could have evolved step by step and keep a healthy functioning organism in the process. There are could be and maybes and stories.

Nobody has confirmed that it couldn't have evolved step by step, either.

And the fact that you have one tiny little organism with one tiny little feature that maybe has some questions surrounding its evolutionary pathway is a pretty pathetic argument against evolution. It's like finding a typo in a scientific article and stating that because of that typo the article is entirely invalidated. When in fact it's merely a blip on an otherwise steady trajectory.