Why does this creature have legs?

[Tree of Life]

Kind of easy cop out, don't you think?

I think that it’s just humbly acknowledging our limitations in light of an infinite God.

 

[driewerf]

That is simply not true.

I can write you horribly designed code, "bad code" by every single rule of the art of coding, yet deliver a working application.

I can also give you a horrible design of cabling in your house, where I take the cable from the modem all the way up to the attic, down again to the cellar, 5x around the house, once accross the street, back to your garden, up to the attic again and then back down to plug it into your pc. HORRIBLE design of cabling. But your pc will work just fine and it will be able to access the internet despite this horrible cabling design.


See? It's not even dificult to come up with such examples. I can give you 50 more in a heartbeat if you want.

Your heart must beat really slowly then. The time it would take me to type your single example; let alone 50.

 

[tas8831]

duplicate

 

[tas8831]

Thank you for your response. However, the bones for flippers are not legs. They were never meant to walk. Their body is formed for what they do best, and that is to torpedo, etc. through the water like a missile, amongst other things.

And they do not have "feet" either.

Flippers are flippers.

They just are.

It is what it is.

Still an interesting thread, however.

Thank you.

A series of question begging statements.

Dismissed.

 

[tas8831]

The more advanced we become, the more apparent it should be that something before us set this system up. Why? Because we will soon be capable of doing the same thing on a computer and when we are, we will do it.

Great argument..... LOL!

 

[tas8831]

I agree, a flipper is a flipper.
And because the bone structure is the same as in an actual leg and foot does not conclusively rule out a Creator. It just isn't direct evidence for or against creative design by a Creator.

Cool how you agreed with him, yet undermined his - and your - actual 'argument.'

'A flipper is not a leg'
'just because a flipper has the same bone structure as a leg...'


'a hammer is not a wrench'
'just because your hammer looks exactly like a wrench'

 

[tas8831]

Who was it that brought you computer coding?

Humans?

 

[tas8831]

I agree, it's not evidence to anyone else, that is exactly what I said. Do we have a communication problem? Repeating what I said doesn't progress your argument.

You can't prove to me that your wife loves you. Only you can know that. Any outside evidence is merely circumstantial, not direct evidence.

Distractions - what does this have to do with bones?

Leg and foot bone structure in a seal flipper is not direct evidence against there being a Creator, anymore than it's direct evidence for a Creator.

Non sequitur.

Any other fallacies?

 

[tas8831]

It's the Fall, dude. It's always the Fall.
If it's good it's evidence of god's perfection, and if it's flawed it was the Fall.
So christianity always win and you better convert.

True - they always have an out. 'Perfect design!' 'Er, very good design!' 'Er... The Fall!'

 

[akaDaScribe]

Great argument..... LOL!

I'm confused. Are you disagreeing with what I'm saying?

 

[tas8831]

I think that it’s just humbly acknowledging our limitations in light of an infinite God.

Looks more like begging the question.

 

[tas8831]

I'm confused. Are you disagreeing with what I'm saying?

Yes.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Yes.

With which part? That we will soon be able to make universes within computers, or that we probably aren't the first to be able to do it?

 

[Tree of Life]

Looks more like begging the question.

Perhaps you're also begging the question. Perhaps you're assuming that there is no Creator God and interpreting creation in that light, finding "sloppy design" wherever you look. "Sloppy design" is really a subjective judgment. On what objective basis do you judge that something is sloppy, inefficient, or suboptimal?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Perhaps you're also begging the question. Perhaps you're assuming that there is no Creator God and interpreting creation in that light, finding "sloppy design" wherever you look. "Sloppy design" is really a subjective judgment. On what objective basis do you judge that something is sloppy, inefficient, or suboptimal?

When you have an enzyme that does the opposite of what you want.

Enzyme is RuBisCO. Process is photo respiration. You'd think plants would make energy in photosynthesis. Not in this process. You'd think that if an organism releases CO2, it would get some energy. Nope.

 

[tas8831]

With which part? That we will soon be able to make universes within computers, or that we probably aren't the first to be able to do it?

"The more advanced we become, the more apparent it should be that something before us set this system up."

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps you're also begging the question. Perhaps you're assuming that there is no Creator God and interpreting creation in that light, finding "sloppy design" wherever you look. "Sloppy design" is really a subjective judgment. On what objective basis do you judge that something is sloppy, inefficient, or suboptimal?

I am doing two things here - using common creationist claims of 'perfect Design as evidence OF design' against them, and drawing conclusions re: design based on what we actually see.

I do not assume evolution - I conclude it.