Creation vs. Evolution II

[6days]

Evolutionists have OFTEN argued that poor design and non-functionality is evidence against a creator.

So, the logical extension of that argument is that good design is evidence for a creator.

I take it you are not aware of the law of the excluded middle?

WOW... good.....but you are wrong. *The argument I made is logical. However the evolutionist argument is poorly designed..illogical...and, it is the evolutionist argument that relies on 'excluded middle'. The flawed evolutionist argument is poor design means no intelligent designer; therefore evolution is true. They exclude other possible interpretations. (1. Person making the argument lacks knowledge and does not understand thedesign. Or, 2. A few thousand years of mutations has corrupted the original design)*I would be surprised if you don't recognize the flawed logic in evolutionist 'design' arguments; yet almost evolutionist uses it. *

 

[gcthomas]

WOW... good.....but you are wrong. *The argument I made is logical. However the evolutionist argument is poorly designed..illogical...and, it is the evolutionist argument that relies on 'excluded middle'. The flawed evolutionist argument is poor design means no intelligent designer; therefore evolution is true. They exclude other possible interpretations. (1. Person making the argument lacks knowledge and does not understand thedesign. Or, 2. A few thousand years of mutations has corrupted the original design)*I would be surprised if you don't recognize the flawed logic in evolutionist 'design' arguments; yet almost evolutionist uses it. *

6Days — the human spine is a passable design for a quadruped, but is a terrible one for walking on two legs. And the problems are not mutation related as you suggest, but are strategic: it works well in tension but is terrible for compression loads. The whole "balance a big pile of separate blocks of bone connected only by spongy stuff and some tearable ligaments, and thread it together with an essential outgrowth of the brain" specification is awful, no matter how careful the attention to detail. Any intelligent designer could have come up with a better design in moments.

 

[redfern]

…the evolutionist argument that relies on 'excluded middle'. The flawed evolutionist argument is poor design means no intelligent designer; therefore evolution is true. They exclude other possible interpretations. (1. Person making the argument lacks knowledge and does not understand thedesign. Or, 2. A few thousand years of mutations has corrupted the original design) I would be surprised if you don't recognize the flawed logic in evolutionist 'design' arguments; yet almost evolutionist uses it.

I agree with your example. But that in no way establishes that your initial argument was not similarly flawed:

Evolutionists have OFTEN argued that poor design and non-functionality is evidence against a creator.

So, the logical extension of that argument is that good design is evidence for a creator.

In those two sentences where you present your argument, show me where you admit to any possibility that good design might arise by natural means. If that is not in your argument, then it is you that preemptively excluded it, no one else.

 

[redfern]

6Days — the human spine is a passable design for a quadruped, but is a terrible one for walking on two legs. And the problems are not mutation related as you suggest, but are strategic: it works well in tension but is terrible for compression loads. The whole "balance a big pile of separate blocks of bone connected only by spongy stuff and some tearable ligaments, and thread it together with an essential outgrowth of the brain" specification is awful, no matter how careful the attention to detail. Any intelligent designer could have come up with a better design in moments.

Maybe chiropractors will have a booming business in heaven?

 

[Silent Hunter]

I pointed out in another thread that you wouldn't know a strawman if it bit you; it's why you so regularly use that sort of argument.

Not one person who supports the TOE over creationism says "poor 'design' means no intelligent designer". You argue that "good 'design' means there is an intelligent designer. If poor 'design' is found one can only conclude that that species could no have arisen through the work of an intelligent designer, least of which is one having the attributes of your preferred deity, who said that 'his' creation was "very good".

 

[6days]

the human spine is a passable design for a quadruped, but is a terrible one for walking on two legs. And the problems are not mutation related as you suggest, but are strategic: it works well in tension but is terrible for compression loads. The whole"balance a big pile of separate blocks of bone connected only by spongy stuff and some tearable ligaments, and thread it together with an essential outgrowth of the brain00"specification is awful, no matter how careful the attention to detail. Any intelligent designer could have come up with a better design in moments

Wow GC... such an antiquated argument. You remind me of the evolutionists from the past with their poorly designed arguments. Even some smart guys like Francis Collins has made similar arguments (God wouldn't have done it like that)...only later eating crow as science showed he lacked knowledge. (This was with psuedogenes he didn't understandYour comments are like those who publish in secular journals who don't understand our genome yet declare "*Our genome won't win any design awards and doesn't speak well of the intelligence of its 'designer'"

Your comments are like those from evolutionists who don't understand the design of the eye and call it "clunky".

Your argument is similar to the naieve claim that our tailbone is an evolutionary leftover that is now nothing more than fused vertebrae.

There is many many more arguments like that which science has proven false. Evolutionists love claiming* things are 'bad design '- therefore evolutiin did it. Then later when science shows it is good design, they claim evolution did it. Its a non falsifiable belief... not science.

Re. your spine argument....It's not difficult to find web sites that discuss the design , purpose function of our spine. For example, this from a UK prof who has been published 60 times on the spine... "..the curve of the lumbar spine towards the front—the lordosis—was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man having recently adopted an upright position. So, some researchers blamed back pain on this, saying the spine had not yet evolved satisfactorily. If therapists have the wrong starting assumption, then it’s not surprising that treatments for lordosis are unhelpful. If a spine fracture causes a lumbar kyphosis (curvature in the opposite direction), that spine is significantly weakened.’1
He added that the creationist perspective has always been foundational to his research:
‘I start from quite a different position. From my understanding of human anatomy and physiology and my understanding of God, I say that the form of God’s creation always matches its function. So you can be sure that the form of the spine is perfectly designed for its function. God has made a wonderful spine. If you start with that premise, it gives you a head start when trying to understand the mechanism of the spine.
‘When you start to examine the biomechanics of the curved spine, asking why it’s that shape, and what’s good about it, you find that the arch of the spine has a beautiful purpose. Like the arch of a bridge, it adds strength. Because of that arch in the lumbar spine, a person with a lumbar lordosis can lift proportionally more weight than a gorilla with its kyphotic (opposite curvature) spine! So it’s not surprising that treating back pain with postures and exercises that restore the lordosis works exceedingly well.’2 http://creation.mobi/porter

or a secular source...
"The spine is one of the most important parts of your body. Without it, you could not keep yourself upright or even stand up. It gives your body structure and support. It allows you to move about freely and to bend with flexibility. The spine is also designed to protect your spinal cord. The spinal cord is a column of nerves that connects your brain with the rest of your body, allowing you to control your movements. Without a spinal cord, you could not move any part of your body, and your organs could not function. This is why keeping your spine healthy is vital if you want to live an active life.
http://umm.edu/programs/spine/health/guides/anatomy-and-function

 

[6days]

Not one person who supports the TOE over creationism says "poor 'design' means no intelligent designer".

It isn't difficult to find articles claiming to be scientific...in journals like 'Nature' that argue poor design is evidence against an Intelligent Creator. They use poorly designed, ignorant (lacking knowledge ) arguments. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100503/full/news.2010.215.html

You argue that "good 'design' means there is an intelligent designer.

I think I said tht if you argue por design is evidence against a creator, then you should be willing to argue that good design is evidence for a Creator.

If poor 'design' is found one can only conclude that that species could no have arisen through the work of an intelligent designer, least of which is one having the attributes of your preferred deity, who said that 'his' creation was "very good".

You should check the thread called 'Rapid adaptation' (Speciation) and how it fits the Biblical creation model.

 

[6days]

Evolutionists have OFTEN argued that poor design and non-functionality is evidence against a creator.

So, the logical extension of that argument is that good design is evidence for a creator.[/qiote]
In those two sentences where you present your argument, show me where you admit to any possibility that good design might arise by natural means. If that is not in your argument, then it is you that preemptively excluded it, no one else.

I think we are talking over each other. *I still think my argument is logical. I think we are just quibling over the definition of 'evidence'. If I was to have said only this -"good design can be seen as evidence of a good designer" - would you say that is a true statement?

You question about 'good design arising by natural causes'...hmmmmm. Do you mean things like a finch adapting to longer beaks to make feeding easier? Yes, but that seems like a different discussion. The new and improved design is a result of pre-existing genetic info and mechanisms.*

 

[Why-O-U]

Why does it always come down to creation or evolution? Why not both?

A few thousand years ago is the place within Creation that God comes to create man. From there He reaches to the beginnings of the earth, gathers dust, adds it to water to make clay (protein chains/primordial soup/first "life") which he molds into one man and one woman. Until God breathes life into Adam, the creatures approaching the shape of man are only animated clay. Their movement, action and responses are the process of being molded by God's hands. God's hands use the forces of time and earthly processes to cause these forms to react in specific ways that result in the likeness of God. Same way we would use the pressure of our hands and fingers and a spinning wheel to cause pottery to become a shape of our choosing.

It would explain how there were other "humans". It explains how there is literally one man and one woman from whom all humanity came. Prior to Jesus, this view might have been used to discriminate against those not descending from Adam and would be a good reason not to make it known but subsequent to Jesus, Life has been offered to all, regardless of lineage.

 

[gcthomas]

Wow GC... such an antiquated argument. You remind me of the evolutionists from the past with their poorly designed arguments. Even some smart guys like Francis Collins has made similar arguments (God wouldn't have done it like that)...only later eating crow as science showed he lacked knowledge. (This was with psuedogenes he didn't understandYour comments are like those who publish in secular journals who don't understand our genome yet declare "*Our genome won't win any design awards and doesn't speak well of the intelligence of its 'designer'"

Your comments are like those from evolutionists who don't understand the design of the eye and call it "clunky".

Your argument is similar to the naieve claim that our tailbone is an evolutionary leftover that is now nothing more than fused vertebrae.

There is many many more arguments like that which science has proven false. Evolutionists love claiming* things are 'bad design '- therefore evolutiin did it. Then later when science shows it is good design, they claim evolution did it. Its a non falsifiable belief... not science.

Re. your spine argument....It's not difficult to find web sites that discuss the design , purpose function of our spine. For example, this from a UK prof who has been published 60 times on the spine... "..the curve of the lumbar spine towards the front—the lordosis—was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man having recently adopted an upright position. So, some researchers blamed back pain on this, saying the spine had not yet evolved satisfactorily. If therapists have the wrong starting assumption, then it’s not surprising that treatments for lordosis are unhelpful. If a spine fracture causes a lumbar kyphosis (curvature in the opposite direction), that spine is significantly weakened.’1
He added that the creationist perspective has always been foundational to his research:
‘I start from quite a different position. From my understanding of human anatomy and physiology and my understanding of God, I say that the form of God’s creation always matches its function. So you can be sure that the form of the spine is perfectly designed for its function. God has made a wonderful spine. If you start with that premise, it gives you a head start when trying to understand the mechanism of the spine.
‘When you start to examine the biomechanics of the curved spine, asking why it’s that shape, and what’s good about it, you find that the arch of the spine has a beautiful purpose. Like the arch of a bridge, it adds strength. Because of that arch in the lumbar spine, a person with a lumbar lordosis can lift proportionally more weight than a gorilla with its kyphotic (opposite curvature) spine! So it’s not surprising that treating back pain with postures and exercises that restore the lordosis works exceedingly well.’2 http://creation.mobi/porter

or a secular source...
"The spine is one of the most important parts of your body. Without it, you could not keep yourself upright or even stand up. It gives your body structure and support. It allows you to move about freely and to bend with flexibility. The spine is also designed to protect your spinal cord. The spinal cord is a column of nerves that connects your brain with the rest of your body, allowing you to control your movements. Without a spinal cord, you could not move any part of your body, and your organs could not function. This is why keeping your spine healthy is vital if you want to live an active life.
http://umm.edu/programs/spine/health/guides/anatomy-and-function

So your response is that the human spine is better for bipedal humans than the gorilla spine would be and that it has functions? OK, so the spine has evolved to a local optimum and old parts have been co-opted.

But that doesn't deal, at all, with my suggestion that there are many designs for the spine that would be MUCH better than what we've got. Your claim that it is at least marginally better than one specific variant isn't much of a claim. Is that weak argument all you've got?

Even a poor engineer would have stronger materials, and materials that weren't so brittle. The stack of soft tissue in the discs could be replaced with proper, solid, bearing surfaces. Aluminium is extremely common in surface rocks, so why not an aluminium alloy skeleton with graphite dry lubrication? Why go with protein and carbonates? Why have the solid parts that splinter and crack separated by squishy parts that slip and rupture?

Evolution has had to go for a structurally weak curve to bake the best of a poor inheritance when lifting strength was needed, but a fresh design wouldn't have started from there, would it? Why modify a quadruped's back for upright use, when it wasn't suitable to start with?

Come on, 6Days. If my argument was so old, surely there would be a better response for you to cut'n'paste for me?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Your disgusting hell fire threats are enough for me to see right through your phony Mr Nice guy facade. You've been told about that a few times already so there is no excuse. There will be no more benefit of the doubt given here. I do not believe in hell or heaven but clearly there is a cloud cuckoo land.

I'm with Redfern and request that you not bother me further. Please save your nasty, spiteful threats for someone who cares what you believe.

Thanks.

Dear Hedshaker,

I will post to you once more as my reply to your post. One of the only reasons I try to tell you about hellfire is to help scare you into realizing life without Jesus. I just wanted you to be in Heaven too, so we could still be friends up there and do fun things, like explore space. Okay, I will leave you alone, as you wish. But, I will reply if you post to me again, of course.

Warmest Blessings,

Michael

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

I will post to you once more as my reply to your post. One of the only reasons I try to tell you about hellfire is to help scare you into realizing life without Jesus. I just wanted you to be in Heaven too, so we could still be friends up there and do fun things, like explore space.

Why don't you give it a rest? Try to get it through your thick skull that I don't believe in heaven or hell, not for an instant. To me there is no such thing. Can you understand that? And quit with the mindless preaching and horrible hell-fire threats. They do not scare me at all as none of it is real, I just find your threats obnoxious and in extremely poor taste.

No one is going to hell. There is not a single shred of evidence that such a place exists in reality. Nor do I believe for a split second that you or anyone else has ever been visited by angels. The very notion is just daft.

............ But, I will reply if you post to me again, of course.

In short, I'm not interested in anything you have to say so please don't.

 

[6days]

...*that doesn't deal, at all, with my suggestion that there are many designs for the spine that would be MUCH better than what we've got.

You are sort of like Dawkins who thought he knew of a better design for our eyes.*
Rookies.....pfffft

 

[6days]

Why does it always come down to creation*orevolution? Why not both?

When somebody says such a thing, what they mean is 'Why not believe in evolutionism and compromise on God's Word'.*

His Word speaks of a perfect creation, but corrupted because of mans rejection of Him. It was after sin that thorns, sufferring and death entered our world. When you compromise on the first chapter of the Bible, it inevitably leads to compromise on why Christ came to earth to suffer physical death on our behalf.*

 

[gcthomas]

You are sort of like Dawkins who thought he knew of a better design for our eyes.*
Rookies.....pfffft

So you can't find an argument against the problem of the spine? So far all you've shown is that it is not quite the worst arrangement. Hardly a god-did-it slam dunk, is it?

 

[redfern]

I think we are talking over each other.

No we are not. You were explicitly clear in your claim.

I still think my argument is logical.

That speaks poorly of your ability to reason. Unless you are going to claim that nature is incapable of coming up with good designs, then your argument is a textbook case of an excluded middle.

I think we are just quibling over the definition of 'evidence'

No we are not. It would be best if you weren’t straining so hard trying to carry those goal posts to new positions.

 

[6days]

Unless you are going to claim that nature is incapable of coming up with good designs, then your argument is a textbook case of an excluded middle.

Do you mean to say..."if you claim that nature is incapable of coming up with good designs, then your argument is a textbook case of an excluded middle"?

 

[redfern]

Do you mean to say..."if you claim that nature is incapable of coming up with good designs, then your argument is a textbook case of an excluded middle"?

If you have a clear and relevant comment to make, do so. If you want to engage in semantic games, you will do it without me.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Why don't you give it a rest? Try to get it through your thick skull that I don't believe in heaven or hell, not for an instant. To me there is no such thing. Can you understand that? And quit with the mindless preaching and horrible hell-fire threats. They do not scare me at all as none of it is real, I just find your threats obnoxious and in extremely poor taste.

No one is going to hell. There is not a single shred of evidence that such a place exists in reality. Nor do I believe for a split second that you or anyone else has ever been visited by angels. The very notion is just daft.



In short, I'm not interested in anything you have to say so please don't.

Dear Hedshaker,

I'll see what I can do. You are sure missing out on a lot of realities. Oh well.


Michael Cadry

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

I'll see what I can do. You are sure missing out on a lot of realities. Oh well.


Michael Cadry

There is only one reality and what goes on in your head is not it, that much is clear. Now let that be an end to it.

Goodbye!