Proof of evolution!!!

First of all, crash was being funny. Yeah a real teacher shouldn't rub salt into a wound, but then again crash wasn't hired to be this guy's teacher at some accredited university, he was delivering a nice lecture at the school of hard knocks. A little salt is just fine there, and may prevent the person from making the same mistake twice.As long as crash delivered the logic and evidence required, why can't he add on something funny?Frankly students shouldn't produce arguments as guido did either.Second... I don't reject that possibility, but mere possibility does not allow me to use it in a theory unless there are no sufficient alternatives.In this case you have an alien going to a planet where they know people who create things exist and then can't figure out what is technology? Or was it that they had no idea that there were people and that these people could make things? Even so, were they incapable of reading the MADE IN CHINA stamped on these products?The example just doesn't make any sense. And in fact doesn't this essentially argue that aliens (or us) should start by assuming design in everything? He did not really explain what they (we) should be using to differentiate design from nondesign except advancement in proposed tech. So is a mountain an advanced design of hill which is an advanced design of a plain?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

To be fair, under Guido's conception (I believe) there are no undesigned things. God made it all, and designed it all.

Well I hope he does not believe that every living thing is uniquely designed at this point in time... that is he allows for pregnancies and births to actually be happening. And I also hope that the formation of say islands (which we can watch in real time) are not being done by some engineers we simply cannot see.In any case, what you say is true. Perhaps God made it all. But in that case what is the point of trying to define a difference between natural and designed? My point is these aliens were unable to detect design and instead created some unusual natural process, the argument apparently that we should abandon search for natural causes? So what then was he suggesting that they use to define created v noncreated? And if it is simply that all are created, what is the point of ANY science?Even engineers use natural causes to make something. If everything is uniquely designed then there could be no science and engineering. If science and engineering are possible, then saying everything has to have been uniquely created is itself undercut because natural mechanisms are now seen to exist.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

If a student gets something wrong, the teacher doesn't partake in derision and curse at the student.

---

Yeah, and the student doesn't usually completely disregard everything the teacher tells them in a willful refusal to learn and stick his or her fingers in their ears and yell "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo!"

Sorry Crash and Lam if my comments were unnecessary. As I said, I only made the post because I thought people were ganging up on the young lad. Nothing personal ofcourse, as I don't partake in such things.Holmes, I am not suggesting assuming design.I infact said a hinderance of inference. Would you agree there's a difference?I wrote a topic on the problem. ColumboIt was a while ago, the topic.I'd like to know how somebody could infer design, without adding biased qualifiers. What objectively, could allow such an inference, if it is allowed at all?

quote:

---

Now, you need to develop a Theory for your inferred phenomenon of computers changing throughout time. I doubt its going to be the same as the biological theory of evolution

---

I believe a law already exists , at least describing the rate at which computers gain complexity over time -- namely Moore's Law . But it does not concern the way in which computers are produced or hypothetically reproduce.added link for convenience of argument.This message has been edited by CoonDawg, 11-30-2005 08:38 AM

Thank you, Holmes, that's quite generous of you.

Just who is this "we" that you are talking about? It appears to be an atheist statement. Some of us DO know the Designer! That aside, lets agree upon some definitions of terms for the benefit of our humble young friend, Guido. I maintain that were we observed by an "alien" such as Guido describes, this alien may see eveidence of belief in an Intelligent Designer and may also see intelligence within the species whom the alien meets. (so quit bickering and look intelligent, everyone!)If I were Guido, and, aside from chatting merely to alleviate boredom I actually wanted to interact with older folk than myself and test their patience as well as their intelligence, I would make sure that I had my beliefs firmly established in my mind so that I could express them concisely and eloquently rather than talking smack and ducking behind a tree as if I were in a giant intellectual paintball war! To be fair, you do express your beliefs quite briefly and concisely, Crashfrog! You always shoot from the hip like a gunslinger! You have now managed to splat Guido with numerous intellectual paintballs, although he may be behind that tree over there, reloading!This message has been edited by Phat, 11-30-2005 08:32 AM

He was so wrong, and you were quite specific, concise, and correct in your response, so you threw on something funny at the end... and it was funny... why not?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree that there is a difference. I do not agree that is occuring here. The poster appears to be arguing for an assumption. Well one of the first would be that an entity generally could not stay in existence without the intentional care of another entity, combined with its providing an output (service or product) which has no meaning to that entity.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yep, that basically sums the athiest point of view up.You assume that ID is wrong, because you don't have any evidence for existance of a creator, be it God or Aliens. Of course, you also need to give it a shadow of a doubte since you don't have any evidence disproving existance of Creator.On the other hand, people that believe in God assume that ID is right since, like Phat said, they "know" the Creator. Granted, there is no proof, except maybe for interpersonal relationship with God etc. (hardly counts), but that doesn't stop them from beleiving it, since faith does not require evidence.Both parties are convinced that they are correct, for one reason or another. I think its as hard to make an aithiest accept God, as it is to make a Christian deny him. The only difference is in how each individual treats the issue, regarding the opposite side. Some people are so sure of there own righteousness that they refuse to even listen to controdictory oppinions, thats why alot of replies are simply "I'm right and you're wrong because I know that God exists." or "I'm right and you're wrong, becuase I don't have any proof that he exists."Other people are more open-minded and are more eager to hear and even consider other points of view. This doesn't make them any less ardant in their beleifs, just more willing to listen to others.In my opinion, every argument is bound to fail here, because the fact of the matter is that none of us don't know the truth, even though some might think, and even say, that they do. This forum is meant to discuss things, is it not? The way I see it discussion does not equal to argument.Therefor, this thread was bound to fail from the very beggining. Guidosoft, you can't write such a provocative post, and expect not to be bashed. Espessially when you are surrounded by people who have superior understanding of the subject.

Gotta be careful there. Many of us see no signs of ID in the examples presented so far by the ID movement. And we certainly don't see ID at the critter level unless you consider ID as Incompetent Design.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh I'm sorry, I thought organelles were an assembly of protiens. I guess I was wrong.By talking about protiens assembling, I was actually refering to the assembly of organells.You are a bafoon and are of no intellectual challenge to me. The only problem I have it putting my arguments into words so that your mind can understand them as I understand them.

The incompletness of Critters are to Humans as Windows 3.1 is to Windows XP.Windows 3.1 is incomplete, yet there is no dought it was designed.Btw, notice the differences in Windows and Machintosh. All Windows software can easilly be said to have come from previous revised versions.Since we have one creator and not two, all biological systems exibit similar characteristics.This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-30-2005 08:48 PM

And all the designs are Rube Goldberg, just good enough to get by, really poor efforts. If humans or any other critter are the result of a designer, the designer needs to be sacked as grossly incompetent.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion