What's The Matter?

[Loudmouth]

And debating with you is like:

You are like the one with the tail...just holding on to the limited view you "see" as evidence and yet the entire elephant is obscured.

So are you going to produce that objective measurement for design?

 

[Loudmouth]

How is liquid disordered?

It lacks the hexaganol structure that ice has.

 

[Loudmouth]

Shifting the burden.

How low can you stoop?

YOU are the one claiming designed. YOU are the one who claims there is objective evidence for design.

YOU!!

Start producing the evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How can something be subjective when it is objectively present in life forms?

The problem with using "design" as a criterion for asserting a designer is, the word itself begs the question. Substitute a word that does not, in itself, already mean there was a designer. Instead of saying you see design in a living thing, say you see patterns and symmetries. Or perhaps you can speak of high levels of complexity that exceed the natural limit for complexity. Of course, it is then necessary for you to show a natural limit for complexity, to complete your logic.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It lacks the hexaganol structure that ice has.

On the other hand, liquids have a uniformity of distance between the consituent atoms or molecules, and a surface, things that gases lack.

 

[justlookinla]

This is still going round in circles I see.

Any ID folks provide a workable definition for ID yet?

Any ID folks provide a test to determine when this ID is present, that is falsifiable yet?

Any illusions of design folks offer any evidence yet? No?

 

[justlookinla]

How low can you stoop?

YOU are the one claiming designed. YOU are the one who claims there is objective evidence for design.

YOU!!

Start producing the evidence.

No use to get upset by your failures.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Any illusions of design folks offer any evidence yet? No?

We have evidence that it is possible to have the illusion of design when there is no designer. Snowflakes are the most popular example.

 

[justlookinla]

We have evidence that it is possible to have the illusion of design when there is no designer. Snowflakes are the most popular example.

You folks sure try your very best to change the focus from humanity to rocks, rivers and now snowflakes.

Now, where's your evidence of illusion of design in humanity?

 

[bhsmte]

How low can you stoop?

YOU are the one claiming designed. YOU are the one who claims there is objective evidence for design.

YOU!!

Start producing the evidence.

The bottom was hit a long time ago.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You folks sure try your very best to change the focus from humanity to rocks, rivers and now snowflakes.

Now, where's your evidence of illusion of design in humanity?

As supporters of evolution, we merely point out the challenges as they come. The evidence of lack of design in humans would be the features contradictory to good design practice, such as the uretha going through the prostate, the backwards wiring of nerves and blood vessels in the retina, the ridiculous routing of the nerve that activates the larynx, the development of a genetic basis for conserving vitamin c in humans when it would be just as easy for a designer to simply provide a working vitamin c gene. There are also some features that have no function, such as the little toes on the feet and the muscles for wiggling the ears. And it seems to me that linking the vitamin D production - a rather important vitamin - to how much sunlight hits our skin is not exactly the best design idea in the world.

 

[justlookinla]

As supporters of evolution, we merely point out the challenges as they come. The evidence of lack of design in humans would be the features contradictory to good design practice, such as the uretha going through the prostate, the backwards wiring of nerves and blood vessels in the retina, the ridiculous routing of the nerve that activates the larynx, the development of a genetic basis for conserving vitamin c in humans when it would be just as easy for a designer to simply provide a working vitamin c gene.

You're in disagreement with Dawkins concerning the illusion of then design then?

There are also some features that have no function, such as the little toes on the feet and the muscles for wiggling the ears. And it seems to me that linking the vitamin D production - a rather important vitamin - to how much sunlight hits our skin is not exactly the best design idea in the world.

Your conclusion, as a Christian, is that God had nothing to do with the creation of the frankenstein-ish human body?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You're in disagreement with Dawkins concerning the illusion of then design then?

I think that Dawkins would agree with my statement there.

Your conclusion, as a Christian, is that God had nothing to do with the creation of the frankenstein-ish human body?

God created a universe that would inevitably bring forth life, but God allowed life to come about through the operation of natural law, as He designed it to do.

It is possible to design a theology that requires evolution of intelligent life from natural laws. Hypothetically, for example, if there was a fallen spiritual being whose final judgement had to be postponed because of his rights to reside on our planet, it might be a legal maneuver to have the planet itself, through naturally evolved life forms, reject his rights to be on the planet. Hmmm . . . maybe there's a possible story to be written there. The ideal time for the rejection will be at the time of resurrection, after the meek have inherited the earth.

 

[justlookinla]

I think that Dawkins would agree with my statement there.

What would be the evidence for such a view?

God created a universe that would inevitably bring forth life, but God allowed life to come about through the operation of natural law, as He designed it to do.

It is possible to design a theology that requires evolution of intelligent life from natural laws. Hypothetically, for example, if there was a fallen spiritual being whose final judgement had to be postponed because of his rights to reside on our planet, it might be a legal maneuver to have the planet itself, through naturally evolved life forms, reject his rights to be on the planet. Hmmm . . . maybe there's a possible story to be written there. The ideal time for the rejection will be at the time of resurrection, after the meek have inherited the earth.

God's design was to produce flawed humans?

 

[Loudmouth]

As supporters of evolution, we merely point out the challenges as they come. The evidence of lack of design in humans would be the features contradictory to good design practice, such as the uretha going through the prostate, the backwards wiring of nerves and blood vessels in the retina, the ridiculous routing of the nerve that activates the larynx, the development of a genetic basis for conserving vitamin c in humans when it would be just as easy for a designer to simply provide a working vitamin c gene. There are also some features that have no function, such as the little toes on the feet and the muscles for wiggling the ears. And it seems to me that linking the vitamin D production - a rather important vitamin - to how much sunlight hits our skin is not exactly the best design idea in the world.

The nested hierarchy as a whole is contradictory to good design practice. Do human designers forget about good design solutions in order to make their designs fit into a nested hierarchy? Nope, sure don't. It is bad design practice to create fake evidence for evolution at the cost of suboptimal design.

 

[Ben West]

This makes no sense.
The evidence is found through scientific means.

That's circular reasoning. God refutes the ToE by showing that Humans did NOT have our origin on Planet Earth. You can read of these Scoffers of the last days, who remind me of Evolution Religionists, in ll Peter 3:3-7. They are willingly ignorant that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the Flood. Amen?

using the bible to prove the bible, but *I* am the one who is circular.... right.

Right since the False Theory of Evolution is the consensus of today's Evolution believers. The Theory is UNABLE to tell us How and When prehistoric people changed into Humans with the highest intelligence in Creation, which is like God's. Gradual long periods of time and mutations do NOT explain Humanity since Evolutionists cannot repeat the process. All they can do is REJECT God's Holy Word which explains. Can you tell us the process which causes animals to change into Humans? Amen?

 

[Davian]

This is still going round in circles I see.

Any ID folks provide a workable definition for ID yet?

Any ID folks provide a test to determine when this ID is present, that is falsifiable yet?

Shifting the burden.

The burden of evidence for ID is on the ID folks. You go around in circles of your own making.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So are you going to produce that objective measurement for design?

Are you going to produce objective evidence that apparent design is a false interpretation of the evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you going to produce objective evidence that apparent design is a false interpretation of the evidence?

Your subjective opinions of appearances are irrelevant. Where is your objective measure of design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It lacks the hexaganol structure that ice has.

Perhaps but...

Liquid water is not a bit player in the theatre of life — it’s the headline act

Water (H2O) is often perceived to be ordinary as it is transparent, odorless, tasteless and ubiquitous. It is the simplest compound of the two most common reactive elements, consisting of just two hydrogen atoms attached to a single oxygen atom. Indeed, very few molecules are smaller or lighter. Liquid water, however, is the most extraordinary substance contradicting its apparently simple molecular constituent. ⇒





Although we drink it, wash, fish and swim in it, and cook with it (although probably not all at the same time), we nearly always overlook the special relationship it has with our lives. Droughts cause famines and floods cause death and disease. It makes up over about half of us and, without it, we die within a few days. Liquid water has importance as a solvent, a solute, a reactant and a biomolecule, structuring proteins, nucleic acids and cells and controlling our consciousness. H2O is the second most common molecule in the Universe (behind hydrogen, H2), the most abundant solid material and fundamental to star formation. There is a hundred times as many water molecules in our bodies than the sum of all the other molecules put together. Life cannot evolve or continue without liquid water, which is why there is so much excitement about finding it on Mars and other planets and moons. It is unsurprising that water plays a central role in many of the World's religions. This web site discusses many aspects of water science. ⇒





Water is the most studied material on Earth but it is remarkable to find that the science behind its behavior and function are so poorly understood (or even ignored), not only by people in general, but also by scientists working with it every day. It can be extremely slippery and extremely sticky at the same time. The small size of its molecule belies the complexity of its actions and its singular capabilities. Many attempts to model water as a simple substance have failed and still are failing. Liquid water's unique properties and chameleonic nature seem to fit ideally into the requirements for life as can no other molecule. ⇒





A number of explanations of the complex behavior of liquid water have been published, many quite recently, with several stirring up great controversy. In this web site, I have attempted to present these ideas in a self-consistent and balanced manner, which I hope will encourage both its understanding and further work. ⇒

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/