Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,213 Year: 5,470/9,624 Month: 495/323 Week: 135/204 Day: 5/4 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 95 (339490)
08-12-2006 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by mr_matrix
08-11-2006 2:10 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
I've been away from this site for a long time so i didnt notice the replys, now i came to make things more clear then i will be leaving again ...
I can certainly see why this guy wouldn't want to hear his opinions debated.
I guess when one's opinions are this feeble and foolish, stating one's position and then running away is the closest one can ever come to winning an argument. Or breaking even.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mr_matrix, posted 08-11-2006 2:10 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 95 (340069)
08-14-2006 7:02 PM


He announced his attention to run away from the debate. You're arguing with a puff of dust and a pair of heels disappearing into the distance.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 95 (340339)
08-15-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 1:36 PM


Evolutionists are not willing to admit that there is intellegent design in nature even though it is very obvious, this is because accepting design means accepting that there is a designer. Even worst, some evolutionists go as far as to make a very strange claim: "There is BAD design in nature"!!!!!!!! Since evolution relies on random mutations, blind coincidences, and unconcious nature, there should be some examples of bad and lousy design. But when we see excellent and intellegent design in nature (and there are many examples of it), this alone invalidates evolution and proves creation.
But you do not "observe intellegent design in nature", do you? What we observe in nature is mutation and selection, not miraculous fiat creation of species.
This life is intentionally designed with some difficulties and harsh conditions, and diseases are part of these difficulties and they do not constitute examples of bad design.
Have it your way: the total malfunction of a system is not bad design, because God meant it to go wrong. So please tell us what sort of thing you would consider evidence of bad design, given that total failure doesn't fall into this category.
If you want examples of bad design, you should look for designs in nature that fail because of their design or do not function at all.
Okay then, the tail of a human embryo. What function does it serve?
How does evolution accout for the avian lungs?
It should be pointed out that studies of the foramina of dinosaurs strongly suggest that they had a similar arrangement.
Keeping in mind that a gradual evolution of lungs (particularly from normal to avian) is impossible becuase there cannot be an intermediary in between the two ...
But this is not true. The merest glance at the respiratory system of birds would show you that if the air sacs inflate and deflate simulataneously, you have a two-way lung; if they inflate and deflate completely out of sync, you have a one-way lung, and in intermediate cases, the lung functions as a two-way lung when the sacs are doing the same thing and as a one-way lung when they're doing the opposite thing.
It is interesting, though irrelevant, to note that humans are capable of "circular breathing": the technique is used in playing the didgeridoo, and, IIRC, in Tibetan Buddhist plainsong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 1:36 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 5:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 95 (340435)
08-16-2006 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 5:57 PM


It is not a good tactic to misunderstand my argument and reply to the misunderstood argument. This is known as "Straw man". Obviously I never said that we observe flat creation in nature since this creation has been done long ago. I always say that we see countless examples of intellegent "design" and not present tence "designing". ID refers to systems in nature that are alredy designed and points out the intellegence involved in their design and it is not about observing the creatioin process. I have pointed this out before but evolutionists refuse to understand and continue their straw men.
But what is your point? You say that we see intelligent design. Are you merely committing petitio principii?
Now I ask you, have you (or any other evolutionist)ever observed a species turning to a different kind of species? Non of the evolutionists in these posts ever mentioned examples of newly evolved species.
Yes, many times. Unlike intelligent design, evolution is something we observe in nature.
What I said about this topic in the previous post is not hard to understand. God does not create a perfect life on this world but only in paradise.
So you get to count every example of fatally bad design as good design. A guy has an immune system which kills him if he so much as inhales near a packet of peanuts. No, that's not a design flaw, it's God being intentionally mean, right? A fatal design flaw is good design. "The white knight is sliding down the poker; he balances very badly."
I still ask you to show examples of bad designs in nature instead of asking me to show such examples since my answer is "non" because there is no bad design in nature.
You misunderstand me. I asked you what you would consider bad design.
Lets say that it is a tail, where is the bad design?
Because an embryo has no need for a tail.
If there is realy a tail we should all be born with functionless tails
You do not explain your reasoning.
but there is no such thing because it is a spinal cord that finishes debelopment in later stages.
Specifically, the spinal cord finishes its development by losing the caudal appendage. I would call that a tail, but let's not quarrel over words.
What is the function of this caudal appendage?
Denying that it's a tail does not give it a function.
How about the coat of hair grown and then lost by a human embryo? What function does that serve? Feel free to deny that it is hair, if you like. But what is its function?
But you did not answer the question. How does evolution accout for avian lungs?
They evolved from the lungs of dinosaurs.
How can the avian lung evolve from a normal lung?
You have not said what you consider to be a "normal" lung. If you consider a dinosaur's lung to be normal, then you have your answer.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 5:57 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 95 (340440)
08-16-2006 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mr_matrix
08-15-2006 5:57 PM


Just watch how many coming replies will focus on the disease and bad design rather than my previous two posts that still did not see a strong "scientific" reply, and how many will reply to insignificant scentence fragments and pretend to be tough... Typical straw man arguments!!!
Perhaps in the future you could clearly mark in your posts which of your arguments are straw men that are not deserving of a reply, and which you consider to be genuine arguments which you wish us to debate.
Let's see if I've got this right as of now: your claim that there is no bad design in nature is a straw man, and we shouldn't reply to it; your argument about avian lungs isn't and we should.
By the way, how can a claim which you've actually made be considered a straw man? Except by the magical power of wishful thinking?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 5:57 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 95 (341329)
08-19-2006 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Nighttrain
08-17-2006 10:57 PM


Yet we have many marine species, usually sedentary or reef-dwellers, that are extremely noticeable due to patterning or clash of colours. Sort of goes against the idea of hiding from predators. Any thoughts?
In the case of small reef fish, the ideal way for them to avoid being eaten is not to stay still and hope to avoid notice, but to dart as quickly as possible into the interstices of the reef.
This changes the selective pressures --- bright colors are useful for mating, and are no longer a handicap. (You might like to look at Endler's experiments on and observations of guppies to see what happens when you change the balance between protective camouflage and attracting a mate.)
As far as sedentary fish go, all the examples I can think of are beautifully camouflaged --- some flatfish can even change color the better to camouflage themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Nighttrain, posted 08-17-2006 10:57 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 08-19-2006 11:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 94 by Nighttrain, posted 08-19-2006 9:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 95 (341629)
08-20-2006 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Nighttrain
08-19-2006 9:01 PM


I don't think you followed me. I was answering two distinct and different questions, one about reef fish, one about "ground-huggers", as you put it.
Reef fish (as you, also, point out) rely on evasion. Fish that sit on the bottom and try not to be noticed rely on camouflage. These are two different kinds of fish.
Swimming in a school of like-coloured objects doesn`t seem to favour mating selection (who to choose?).
The brightest and most distinctive, as it happens.
There have been numerous experiments on this subject --- I'll see if I can find more references, but in the meantime, you might follow up about the guppies --- just google for Endler and guppies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Nighttrain, posted 08-19-2006 9:01 PM Nighttrain 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