Why don’t you just wait for a housefly to turn into a pony, evolutionist!!!11
Since the definition varies from one sect to another, and since merging science with religion makes for bad science and bad religion, let’s go with the one described in the Nicene Creed.
If you want to know how many pounds he can bench press, you have to admit upfront you’re not participating here in the best of faith.
I’m surprised the article doesn’t even mention the appendix. Here’s a vestigial piece of crap that does pretty much nothing at all (I know some scientists have posited that it plays a role in preserving the bacterial flora in the intestines, but then many people have had it removed who are no worse for wear) ; and yet should it become inflamed it kills you unless someone is quick with a knife.
That seems like a teeny tiny problem to me.
D’you think people would be OK with a car that spontaneously exploded once in a while unless you drove it to the garage double quick as soon as a particular light came on ?
Related, I thought the evolutionist theory regarding fire is that it was useful for cooking and tenderizing meat - in fact without it, humans would have difficulty eating and digesting raw meat, while other carnivores manage it easily.
Hence, the God-given reflexes that let us pull our hands from stoves is a slapdash solution to the problems created by a need for cooked meat built into our design.
So you are saying that having we have flaws as glaring as the above? Please point them out.
Oh…hyperbole to make a point maybe.
Ok its a fair point and also fair to change the argument to design limitations.
But would you really want a world where we all live forever?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
When I was in the U.S.A.F. my job was crew chief for the B-52D. When that plane was on the ground one of my many duties was to inspect it for cracks, popped rivets and other flaws. I didn’t have the knowledge to smelt the steel, design the plane or put it together. Does this mean that I was incapable of doing my job, Jon55?
[/QUOTE]
I assume you had training for this? I would also assume the manufacturers recommendations went into the training.
I think Lobohan has a fair point that if they are not design flaws then they are design limitations (I hope that is an accurate paraphrase)
Saying that God cannot be tri-omni because He was limited in what He could do with us along with the other logic exercises of that ilk. If God was all powerfull why did evil come about as a result of his creations etc etc.
Is just a logic exercise and thats it. Philosophers have been proving impossible things for ages.
At around 500 BC Zeno of Elea proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that movement was impossible. He did so with three famous paradoxes the one I like the best is that you can take any movement such as a step and divide it. So a half step then a quarter step and so on. There are infinite numbers of fractions ergo there are infinite numbers of steps in a step. So you cannot never complete a step.
Hope your chair is comfy.
All these design limitation and/or design flaw arguments are just philosophical arguments wrapped rather loosely in science.
Nah, even I mentioned before that in reality Achilles gets the turtle much to the chagrin of Zeno. And the early church was fond of following like minded philosophers like Aristotle, but then someone called Galileo showed how unreliable the church was with their chosen philosophers.
Speaking of fire, I think a philosopher of recent days once said that the church lost their best argument when they were no longer allowed to burn people.
Do you not understand that this…
…is a straw man? Not a single person here argued that a perceived design flaw concretely disproved God. Yet you said that was their claim. That’s a straw man, bucko. The actual claim was that perceived design flaws disprove an omnipotent, omniscient designer.
Prediction: When you return to this thread, you’ll read this post, find no way to rebut it, and thus ignore it entirely, hoping that no one else will remember it.
Itchy again? That story has changed four times by my count. BTW thats a terrible article. For one thing fossils have been collected since 1955 and despite at least three different expeditions the forelegs of the beast still have not been found.
The article makes no mention of the work by Jarvik even tho he did most of the reconstruction work (took him bout 40 years) and no mention of the 2005 reconstruction by Ahlberg, Clack and Blom http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/science/06obse.html
I am not dodging it but I dont have a good answer either…if I ever do I promise to let the board know.
You did touch on a counter proof for me. One of the main reasons I still hold on to my belief system is that you can take the tenets of the New Testament and lay them beside many best selling self help books and see some striking similarities.
Does this absolutely prove the writers were inspired? Sadly no because the writers of US Constitution pulled off a similar feat (not as impressive but close) much later.
So salt evolved from sugar or is it the other way around.
Oh I see, it is not good to find transition fossils, they have to be complete. Unfortunately for you it is not a show stopper for scientists much to the chagrin of many creationists, because it is clear that creationists want to ignore the hind-limbs that demonstrate that indeed they were an intermediate form as predicted.
And yes, the cite I made here does cite Ahlberg, Clack and Blom, the context is that currently scientists do see that critter as evidence of the Early Evolution of the Limbs
There is no need to depend on the god of the bible to be good in this universe, that is clear to me.
Yes.
Just wanted to say hi…
I expect in my lifetime to see artificial joints made of futuristicky ceramics or whatnot that will outlive any human. Where’s your God then?
[/QUOTE]
…but I do have to say what you or I expect really dosent have much to do with it.
Whenever science cannot explain something there are two predictable responses.
Creationist…God did it.
Atheist…We just have not gotten to it yet.
I guess you missed the part where I said it was a joke or maybe where I said I didnt believe in a literal genesis.
Also I certainly never equated scientists with atheists I am usually on the other side of that argument.
There is alot of evidence for evolution I cannot deny that but there are also many problems with it. Seems than many like to ignore those and present it as a slam dunk case which it is most certainly not.
Darwin struggled with many of the problems with his own theory and he did so in an open, honest and honorable way to bad so many of his supporters refuse to do the same.
One problem is altruism. If a monkey is attacked it will sound the alarm for its troop. Often this monkey is the one that is eaten and so its noble genes die with it and cannot be selected. So why are monkeys still sounding the alarm?
Here is an article from Stanford (as opposed to Wiki) that attempts to rectify this problem. In my humble opinion it fails maybe its these religious lens I am suppose to be wearing.
Hey if you have come to your atheistic world view on philosophical grounds while I might still try to change your mind but I do respect your opinion. I think that philosophy should be our debating ground and not science. I have the opinion that science has precious little to say about a creator or lack thereof.
And I would much much rather this discussion be in the cosmological arena. Biology is not really my cup of tea either.
Yes I got that the first two times and if you do have a judge He is not me but I would assume that as Dr Fidelous (sp?) already mentioned that our grade will be based solely on how we treat each other.
So what about the infinite number of steps to take a step?
Ok so come to work with me one day and fix my crappily networked and terrible designed operating software.
I have several Hewlit Packards running Sacmi software all installed by a rather stoned but really nice Itilian…and no I am not kidding.
This point and the ones that followed are well taken especially the one about medicine but what would you expect a creator to do? Just make clones of himself?
That really dosent sound that interesting and in any case its not what happened.
Quantum mechanics. The world does not divide into infinitely small quantities.
No, it most certainly is. It can be seen happening, and is a result of how biological reproduction works. Even if life had been created by a god, evolution would have immediately started up as soon as that life appeared.
Because the other monkeys share most of its genes.
So why dintcha use those in the first place? So much more interesting and at least at first glance looks alot more reliable.
Really thanks for the link I will persue it when I have time.
Does not have a thing with to do with what the world is made of.
Ok so what kind of selection process is that?