Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 266 of 352 (507595)
05-06-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by AdminNosy
05-06-2009 3:31 PM


The Cambrian
Indeed. It gets frustrating at times when they ignore some of my stronger claims but I try to stay on target with their comments. By the way, science knows there were at least 10,000 species that existed during the Cambrian. And why would http://www.talkorigins bother mentioning hox genes in one of their pages on the Cambrain if they didn't recognize the diversity between the phylum or if there was no need for a flexible genome?
I think I was wrong in saying that the sedimentary rock of the Cambrian was conducive to fossilizing the soft body organisms such as jellyfish. When I think about this again, there are of course fossils of soft bodies organisms during the Cambrian but that doesn't mean that all of the sedimentary strata of the Cambrian was conducive to preserving these creatures. So I don't know for sure. However, there have been very fine details that were preserved of some of the hard bodies organisms. Does this mean that something such as a jellyfish couldn't be preserved along with them?
Edited by traderdrew, : Minor editing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by AdminNosy, posted 05-06-2009 3:31 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 05-06-2009 5:18 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 269 of 352 (507618)
05-06-2009 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Percy
05-06-2009 5:18 PM


Re: The Cambrian
If you go back to the post before these circles began, you will find a part on hox genes on that talkorigins page. Look at the 5th response.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 05-06-2009 5:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by AdminNosy, posted 05-06-2009 8:18 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 05-06-2009 9:54 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 270 of 352 (507621)
05-06-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Taq
05-06-2009 6:29 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
Also, the "uniqueness" of a body plan is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to get picky, every human has a unique body plan that is their own. How else can we tell each other apart. At the most general level, all life shares characteristics so no single organism is uniqe. Both are extremes, but you can see why "unique" is a rather subjective measurement.
It might be somewhat subjective but I think the lack of differences actually strengthens my arguement. This is because some of the creatures of the Cambrain have features quite unlike anything that has been found after that era. So you see, am I going to take your word for it or a consensus of scientists?

The problem with any fossil is putting it in a direct lineage. It's impossible to do. Cladistics is the only solution where species are never put in a straight line between two others. Fossils don't come with birth certificates. The only thing we can do is organize life by shared characteristics, or in the case of cladistics by synapomorphies.
Cladistics are not the only way. I have read about another study called molecular comparisons. Here is part of some documented work of a molecular comparison from the Discovery Institute. As we see in the link below, cladistics may say one thing but when they are contrasted with molecular comparisons, it may place the theoretical evolutionary chain in question.
Darwin of the Gaps | Discovery Institute

"On morphological grounds, evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen proposed in the 1960s that modern whales are descended from an extinct group of hyena-like animals.13 In the 1990s, molecular comparisons suggested that whales are more closely related to hippopotamuses 14. In 2001, however, evolutionary biologist Kenneth D. Rose reported that substantial discrepancies remain between the morphological and molecular evidence.

Interesting stuff isn't it?

The only animals on land prior to the emergence of vertebrate tetrapods were arthropods. There wasn't much competition for the niches that tetrapods are capable of filling. Also, these early tetrapods appear to be adapted to shallow and brackish water that held very little oxygen. Their ability to extract oxygen from the air was more than likely an adapation for shallow water environments. Given the abundance of prey (arthropods) on land and the competition in the water I don't think it is much of a stretch at all, and not at all a problem for evolution.
You got me on that one but, even though they found Tiktaalik, there isn't enough evidence (that convinces me) that there was a smooth transition between tetapods and their precursors. Take a look at all of their limbs of each creature of their evolutionary chain. I'm not saying that I can't prove that tetrapods evolved from fish. I'm saying that this is another reason why I don't believe in neo-Darwinism by itself. I like my chaos paradigm that says that neo-Darwinism is possible but unlikely in a sea of possibilities.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : html
Edited by traderdrew, : Trying to find common ground with the administration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 05-06-2009 6:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Taq, posted 05-06-2009 11:52 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 274 of 352 (507692)
05-07-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Taq
05-06-2009 11:52 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
ng your two first mistakes leads us to the real answer. Modern whales and modern hippos share a common ancestor that was hyena-like (but not a hyena). This common ancestor was an artiodactyl just as whales and hippos are to this day, but not hyenas. Third mistake is in trusting the Discovery Institute to accurately portray a quote.
Actually I was wrong since I misunderstood the information from the Discovery Institute. If you keep reading the page just after my cut and paste, they actually do docuement citing a raccoon-like creature which is an artiodactyl. It seems the Discovery Institute agrees with you on the whale's ancestor. Click #16 on their page and you will see.
J. G. M. Thewissen et al., Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India, Nature 450 (2007): 1190-1194.
So you are moving from the "no transitionals" to the "not enough transitionals" camp. The moving goal posts are noted.
So how did you come to the conclusion that the transition is not smooth? Have we dug up every fossil of every species that has existed? If not, how can you come to this conclusion?
I believe that there is a lack of transitional types before the Cambrian phylum. I did not move my goal posts on other creatures. Remember, I did state that I believe in some sort of evolution. Change over time seems obvious to me.
I do understand why I couldn't understand where you guys were coming from. It all depends on your paradigm. If I read Percy correctly, he believes their ancestors were soft bodied and had a much lower chance of fossilizing. However, it seems to me that it is unlikely that all of the phylum got together and had a party and decided to become hard bodied. When I state what the Cambrian phylum had no ancestors, this is heresy to evolutionists since those ancestors had to have been there according to the TOE even though we haven't found them. I do not wish to continue to incriminate myself as a heretic for now. Evolutionists had better pray in Darwin's name that they find those ancestors. Maybe someone can carve them out of stone. Otherwise, Darwin just might deliver you guys into our hands.
Adios. I will see you all around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Taq, posted 05-06-2009 11:52 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by bluescat48, posted 05-07-2009 12:47 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 276 by Taq, posted 05-07-2009 1:01 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 277 by Coragyps, posted 05-07-2009 1:35 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 278 by Percy, posted 05-07-2009 2:34 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 279 of 352 (508253)
05-11-2009 8:26 PM


General Reply
I know I said adios but I couldn't resist thinking about these things.

What, might I ask, is the Cambrian Phylum?
Obviously I am an amateur at this. This is like a hobby on the side.
They didn't. Water chemistry changed, and more free oxygen showed up in the atmosphere, and metabolisms were able to evolve that included secreting shelly parts.
Do you realize that this might be getting away from neo-Darwinism? If environmental factors induced rapid evolution of Cambrian species, where are the random mutations? You would probably respond that this would allow them to evolve. I have another way of looking at this as usual. Why would a creator place more complex organisms in an ecosystem if environmental factors didn't allow them to flourish? When conditions became conducive to supporting these species, that would be the only time when they could flourish.

How can you say things like this and still think anyone will believe your objections aren't religious? If evolution is proven wrong it will be done through scientific investigation, not religious appeals.
I believe all of this has underlying religious implications and ramifications. You might argue that atheism is not a religion but no matter what you believe, all of us consult various frameworks of morality. Religion is partly based on abstract concepts of morality. However, I don't think I.D. can identify the creator. How could I prove that Budda or Yoda did or didn't do all of this?

When next you try to tackle this subject you might consider gathering your information first and drawing your conclusions second. When you start with the conclusions then you'll just keep being wrong.
If I did that then you wouldn't have as much fun in correcting my mistakes. I do have a sense of humor sometimes. Too bad my adversaries don't appreciate it.
I also have been thinking about some of the related topics in this thread.
Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

Inept is a point of view. I believe I have successfully refuted the idea of the necessity of making perfect biological structures by using my computer analogy. I also find this idea as out of place and maybe even ironic since there are phenomenon on the earth and in the universe that we don’t totally understand, let alone recreate. So who are we to say that the creator is inept if we don't understand certain things?
Theological Creationism and I.D.

Is I.D. just a form of creationism? I think creationism is I.D. but I.D. isn’t totally creationism. There are proponents of I.D. who believe in biological evolution. If this is so then, what is our beef? We don’t believe that evolution (particularly neo-Darwinism) explains how all organisms originated.
I think the term creationism is a misnomer. I think creationists should have studied the original Hebrew translation of the book of Genesis. If you look up the original Hebrew word that was used to describe how God made the animals and some other things, the word vaya’as was used and vaya’as means "make" but not "create". There are other Hebrew words that mean or are associated with "create". When you make something, you make it out of other parts you don't create them out of thin air. Proponents of I.D. should more appropriately be described as makeists and not creationists. Vaya’as just might explain punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism seems to be a marriage of two conceptual explanations of evolution. Neo-Darwinism may explain microevolution but when you start leaving a step by step gradual process of change, you start entering the realm of miracles. The mechanisms that explain punctuated equilibrium have escaped my research.
I have attempted to research the idea that phyla are contrivances of a hierarchical identification system both on the internet and in various books on evolution at the bookstores. Yes, I read parts of those books but sometimes there is only so much I can take before I want to debate the authors. There were some researchers who proposed this but it doesn’t seem to be held by mainstream scientists. There was also someone who proposed that classification should be categorized as a web instead of a tree. I don’t know how this theory will play out but it will be interesting to watch. I’m still for a fractal hierarchy of some of the various phyla. I even found someone who seems to agree with my realization referring to the cladogram as fractal.
Edited by traderdrew, : Minor edit

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2009 9:44 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 281 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 10:29 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 282 by Taq, posted 05-12-2009 12:11 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 283 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2009 2:26 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 284 of 352 (508508)
05-14-2009 12:30 PM


General Reply
Punctuated equilibrium is just a period of more rapid change. If you have more rapidly changing environmental conditions, those species which survive will be those changing quickly enough to get by.So, specify that miraculous "Stop sign" you see that suddenly halts genomic change when it has gone far enough.
I think there are some biochemists who are far more qualified than me to answer that. It is just a matter if people want to consider another paradigm. I don't think many want to give it up. As Max Plank stated, "Science progesses funeral by funeral." It has been said that he was referring to people who didn't want to accept new ways of looking at things. Neo-Darwinism is the most naturalistic way to express evolution. I really think it is at an extreme of possibilities.

If that were true we would all be using 8086 computers right now (no offense to Mac users). We aren't. Your refutation failed.
In other words we are still evolving better eyes. I don't know of any scientific evidence that is saying that we are. You haven't convinced me. Tag clearly has knowledge on neo-Darwinsism but this isn't the first time that I have got the impression that Tag is reaching.
The end stages are much easier to change than the early, foundational steps. It is easier to change the number of phalanges than it is to change the number of tissues (endoderm, mesoderm, ectoderm) in a triploblastic organism. Once you start building on top of these early developmental stages you can no longer change them.
I actually read something on embryonic mutations. Mutations at this stage typically kill or serverely cripple unborn fetuses. I would have thought that evolution would have evolved better mechanisms in order to prevent mutations at these stages. I would have thought that they would already have them in order to better ensure the survival of various species of the time.

To end this post. I would be more inclined to believe in some sort of guided evolution. I don't think many scientists like this idea simply because any theory that incorporates it gets closer to the idea of the existence of an intelligent creator. Once again, neo-Darwinism is at an extreme of theories pertaining to evolution.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by traderdrew, posted 05-14-2009 12:39 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 286 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 12:45 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 288 by Blue Jay, posted 05-14-2009 1:18 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 05-15-2009 12:26 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 285 of 352 (508509)
05-14-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by traderdrew
05-14-2009 12:30 PM


Re: General Reply
The genome has error correction mechanisms that prevent random mutations. I believe enzymes play a role in these sophisticated biochemical protection pathways.
I previously posted a link about how bacteria were able to somehow evolve in order to disgest lactose in which they couldn't do it before. This suggests that organisms can rearrange their own DNA with some sort of biochemical (maybe more) engineering process. This would explain punctuated equilibrium as as partly a guided process and would almost disqualify random mutations as playing a major role in it.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by traderdrew, posted 05-14-2009 12:30 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Blue Jay, posted 05-14-2009 12:45 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 295 of 352 (508818)
05-16-2009 12:12 PM


General Reply
The theory of evolution is mainstream, accepted by something like 99.9% of biologists and evolutionary biologists.
That may be true but why derive the numbers only from biologists? Why not take a survey of other types of scientists such as biochemists? Do numbers matter or does the evidence matter?

What do you mean: mutations that occur during the embryonic stages, or mutations whose effects are expressed at this stage?
I'm sure that there are errors in the replicating systems but one of my questions is, "Are there enough errors in biological systems to keep up with dramatic changes in the environment?"
My thoughts were from the book, "Icons of Evolution". I haven't read much of this book but the author was referring to the studies of purposely mutating fruit flies. Do a google search on "mutations can shut down a complex network of interactions" and you should find that page from this book.

I am a scientist, and I personally would be very interested (and, theologically speaking, relieved---I am a Christian, after all) to learn that there is a Designer involved in the process of evolution somehow. But, I do not spend my time trying to find evidence for it, because such endeavours have a long history of disappointing failures, and I have a wife and a baby whose sustenance depends on my ability to convince funding agencies and employers that my research is worth the money they'll pay me.
I don’t mean to insult your objectivity as a scientist but I do question it. By the way, I never would have thought that a Christian would declare the quote "Darwin loves you" in public. Anyway, sometimes the evidence for a creator is there before us but our paradigms don’t let it filter through. We think and perceive the world from our paradigms. Consider for instance a total solar eclipse. Has it ever struck you that this phenomenon suggests design? The moon covers the sun just perfectly from our perspective. The naturalistic paradigm prevents us from seeing the idea that this could be an example of design.
Then again, your belief system supports a theory of mine. It says that the creator isn’t interested in providing a clear pathway for us to find proof of an existence through an intellectual process. If you are correct then my creator disguised the creation process better than I thought.

the topic originator is seduced by his own intellect that he/she has failed to realize that man is not the apple of God's eye.
If you are referring to me you are confusing my religious belief system with my viewpoints on I.D. The idea that we are the apple of God's eye might part of my religious belief system but I choose not to declare my religion on this forum. I shouldn’t need to do this in order to present a case for I.D. Why should we be the only apple of God's creation? Do you think that the creator can’t focus on more than one thing at a time? We can only pay attention to one thing at a time but it is mind boggling to think about watching millions of apples at different places at once.
I find it interesting that there are scientists who don't believe in I.D. but believe in guided transpermia. And there are scientists who believe that God operates through forms of quantum physics that is undetectable through our Newtonian like perspectives. These scientists seem to be repulsed by I.D. However, I define their beliefs as examples of I.D. If find this dichotomy kind of funny because I see the dichotomy of their belief systems but they apparently don't.

Is Bill Gates (in this example) an inept engineer. I would say, unequivocably, YES. Do you agree or disagree?
I agree. However, you don't see the point that there was probably no tradeoff necessary in your example. I don't pretend to understand the biochemical reasons why the retina needed to be inverted to allow vertebrates to process the larger amounts of nutrients we need.
Apparently engineers understand that tradeoffs are necessary in order for their designs to function optimally. What is a perfect computer or a perfect camera? What kind of functions are a perfect examples of machinery capable of? What are their limits?

Edited by traderdrew, : Minor correction
Edited by traderdrew, : Minor editing
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by onifre, posted 05-16-2009 1:04 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 299 by bluescat48, posted 05-16-2009 2:04 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 301 by Blue Jay, posted 05-17-2009 12:48 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 296 of 352 (508819)
05-16-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Taq
05-15-2009 12:26 PM


Re: General Reply
The problem here is that there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary pathway that will allow us to change the flaw inherent in the vertebrate eye.
By the way, how many more dead ends exist in the evolutionary process of neo-Darwinism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 05-15-2009 12:26 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 05-16-2009 1:52 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 304 of 352 (508943)
05-17-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by onifre
05-16-2009 1:04 PM


Re: General Reply
I think the link below clarifies what both of us are saying but I don't see how you can prove me wrong.
Earth-Moon size and distance
The sun is 400 times the Moon's diameter, and 400 times as far away. It is up to you if you want to view this as a coincidence or as a part of a design. This could be part of another topic. Does the arrangement of the solar system suggest design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by onifre, posted 05-16-2009 1:04 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Coragyps, posted 05-17-2009 1:39 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 310 by onifre, posted 05-17-2009 7:08 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 311 by bluescat48, posted 05-17-2009 7:46 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 305 of 352 (508944)
05-17-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Percy
05-16-2009 1:52 PM


Re: General Reply
Third, you seem to think that flaws are evidence against evolution. This couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution is a tinkerer's approach, a spit and baling wire approach, almost a Rube Goldberg approach. "Good enough to work" is evolution's motto. Certainly the mammalian eye works well enough, and that's all that's required for selection.
I don't think that flaws by themselves are evidence against evolution. I was wondering if some of you didn't factor flaws into the random mutation equation. However, I'm sure that science has worked it out in some way even though a group of advanced mathematicians don't agree with neo-Darwinism.
Fourth, you missed Taq's point. Taq was explaining why fixing the mammalian eye is a "You can't get there from here" type of problem.
No I didn't.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 05-16-2009 1:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 05-17-2009 1:33 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 306 of 352 (508946)
05-17-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Blue Jay
05-17-2009 12:48 AM


Re: General Reply
Biochemists are biologists.
I had the impression that biochemists study the details of molecular machines at a lilliputian scale and biologists don't venture into that area.

Drew, this isn't a revelation to anybody. In fact, academic persons are so aware that their personal biases can impact their conclusions in undesirable ways, that they invented a method to lessen the effects. They called it, "the scientific method," or "science," for short.
I'm just making sure.

The creator is, however, apparently interested in making the creation process look like the result of naturalistic processes such as evolution. This creator apparently does not want us to find out about It or Its power. Yet, strangely, in the Bible, this same Creator had no qualms about manifesting Its power through magic tricks and miracles.
Why has It become so secretive of late, in your opinion?
Well, I don't think the media would be willing or wish to explain acts of God as acts of God. I think they would be more compelled to investigate or report them as some sort of natural phenomenon. I am probably stretching your point to a certain degree. Maybe it has something to do with the age of grace that Christians speak about. However, supernatural stories from the old testament might be somewhat outside of the views I am formulating on metascience. I am thinking about NOMA. Non-overlapping magisteria. I would have to give it more thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Blue Jay, posted 05-17-2009 12:48 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Blue Jay, posted 05-18-2009 3:53 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 307 of 352 (508948)
05-17-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by cavediver
05-17-2009 8:10 AM


Re: General Reply
Why don't you write a paper or a book and you can call it "Scientific Inaccuracies of the Bible"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by cavediver, posted 05-17-2009 8:10 AM cavediver has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 313 of 352 (509118)
05-18-2009 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Percy
05-17-2009 1:33 PM


On the Topic
Sure you did. You called the mammalian eye an evolutionary dead end. It's not like there's any ambiguity
I don't see how you think I called the mammalian eye a dead end when first of all, I didn't write all of that post and second of all, that was Tag's post saying that there was no evolutionary way to correct the inherent flaw. Tag didn't state that it was an evolutionary dead end.You guys are making me think so I thought that I would create a question that makes you evolutionists think.
That is OK. This is not the first time that I have had the impression that some of you guys are grasping for straws. Anyway, you and cavediver asked for it so here it goes:
Perfection is a subjective term that has applications in various fields such as physics and mathematics. We have an idea of how perfect a performance should unfold according to our immediate perceptions. How does the term perfect apply to machines? What is a perfect machine? Can you define its capabilities? Once limits are established someone will raise the bar ad infidium arguing that if the machine or process is perfect then it is surely capable of more. Where would this stop?
The idea that the creator should’ve or would’ve created perfect systems overlooks the possibility of multiple motives and the possibility that perfection wouldn’t serve at least one of those motives. It may also not consider some possible theological ramifications that we may or may not understand.
Why does the creator have to design perfect systems? Why not design adequate systems that get the job done??? Is there any sense in overdoing it?
Have you ever considered that the creator didn’t want to provide absolute proof of an existence to people? Why? The act of proving an existence would force people into making decisions in light of consequences. If you could prove that a God exists then that would force certain individuals into making decisions they really don’t want too. Perhaps by hiding his (I will assume the creator has the image of a man) existence it ensures that certain ramifications would unfold in the future.
Perhaps the creator hid the fingerprints of design because our creator wasn’t interested in our intellectual abilities. Perhaps the creator is more interested in the essence of who we are and that is who we are as expressed out of our hearts.
If there was a perfect physical utopia, would people grow and/or learn wisdom? Perhaps the best way to learn wisdom is to live through an experience where it is learned and I would argue that this would arise out of an imperfect world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 05-17-2009 1:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by lyx2no, posted 05-18-2009 8:58 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 315 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2009 10:03 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 3:06 AM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 322 by Taq, posted 05-19-2009 1:03 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 317 of 352 (509201)
05-19-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by lyx2no
05-18-2009 8:58 PM


Re: Look Who's Grasping at Straws
Who is asking for perfect? We're asking for competent. If someone invents a typewriter and doesn't bother to include vowels or punctuation marks would you be questioning his greater purpose or his competence? Or are vowels and punctuation marks overdoing it?
Like perfection, competence is a subjective term. Going back to the vertebrate eye, a trade off was necessary.

So, your God is limited in His abilities. He's a tiny god who has to work with what he's given. Inept, as it were. Given your inside scoop with god it's not surprising you make the argument for ineptitude better then an atheist ever could.
Perhaps God doesn't mind having some of his design appearing as inept in the eyes of some people. I think it is ironic that you refer to the creator as tiny. Perhaps you will tell the creator that when you meet him one day.

But he couldn't hide them from you, could he, you clever, little minx?
Some parts of my posts are based on speculation. So far my knowledge on I.D. doesn't give me anymore of an idea that the creator was a deity. There is a lot of confusion out there and it is hard to be discerning enough to be able to weed through it. I think it confounds some of the best out there.

What are all those wise African babies learning before they starve to death that's so valuable?
Again, this doesn't necessarily have to be connected with I.D. but it has an inescapable connection to the God of the Bible. If you want to read Hosea 4:6 and the rest of Hosea 4, it may give you some insights into why this is the case but then again...

Live long and prosper lyx2no. May your science serve you well.

Edited by traderdrew, : minor editing
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by lyx2no, posted 05-18-2009 8:58 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Theodoric, posted 05-19-2009 11:53 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 321 by Taq, posted 05-19-2009 12:53 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 327 by lyx2no, posted 05-19-2009 6:31 PM traderdrew has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024