Attention Creationists and IDers!!!

[Caretaker]

Manmade objects are NOT proof nor evidence that the human body was designed!

 

Don't EVEN TRY

 

I just needed to get that out.

[Fweethawt]

Manmade objects are NOT proof nor evidence that the human body was designed!

 

Don't EVEN TRY

 

I just needed to get that out.

 

So, if I understand you correctly, then my watch really doesn't have a designer or a creator and it just appeared out of nowhere, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MQTA]

So, if I understand you correctly, then my watch really doesn't have a designer or a creator and it just appeared out of nowhere, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is that what it said?

[scitsofreaky]

But what if you found a watch in the woods? Of course you would assume it was created. Therefore the universe was created.

DUH!

[Merlinfmct87]

You KNOW satan put that watch there to Confound and Confuse you.

 

Merlin

[Mad_Gerbil]

*makes a note of it*

 

I don't think that because a watch is intricate and designed that it follows that all intricate things are designed, but rather I feel that all intricate things are designed because they are intricate.

 

In my way of thinking, the human body is just too balanced -- too complex to be the result of 'just happening'. It has nothing to do with a watch.

 

Your point about the logically fallacy makes sense though.

[Caretaker]

*makes a note of it*

 

I don't think that because a watch is intricate and designed that it follows that all intricate things are designed, but rather I feel that all intricate things are designed because they are intricate.

 

In my way of thinking, the human body is just too balanced -- too complex to be the result of 'just happening'.  It has nothing to do with a watch.

 

Your point about the logically fallacy makes sense though.

 

Mad Gerbil, what we have in common here is that we are trying to explain how the human body came to be in its present state.

 

IDers look at the complexity, throw their arms up and say somebody must have designed it. This doesn't work with science because IDers are just speculating that the human body is designed. In order for it to work, somebody actually has to demonstrate or show design in action.

 

We look at the complexity in detail, and our default judgement is unexplained. In other words, I Don't Know™ is science's answer when we haven't found any answers. Perfectly acceptable and more intellectually honest than saying God-did-it.

[Mad_Gerbil]

Mad Gerbil, what we have in common here is that we are trying to explain how the human body came to be in its present state.

 

IDers look at the complexity, throw their arms up and say somebody must have designed it. This doesn't work with science because IDers are just speculating that the human body is designed. In order for it to work, somebody actually has to demonstrate or show design in action.

 

We look at the complexity in detail, and our default judgement is unexplained. In other words, I Don't Know is science's answer when we haven't found any answers. Perfectly acceptable and more intellectually honest than saying God-did-it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For the record, I don't see ID as 'science'.

 

And if I might address a tiny straw man here:

 

The idea that 'G_d did it' isn't just a fill in the blank for processes we don't understand -- it works just fine for processes we do understand. I understand how gerbils eat seeds but the more I understand of it the more I'm convinced 'G_d did it'. So no, I don't see ID as just giving up -- in fact, I think finding the cause of things because decidedly more entertaining with the idea that one is tracing the steps of a Creator.

 

Even if evolution were explained out to the nth degree -- I'd still be of the mindset that G_d did for a variety of reasons.

[All Gods Fail]

For the record, I don't see ID as 'science'.

 

And if I might address a tiny straw man here:

 

The idea that 'G_d did it' isn't just a fill in the blank for processes we don't understand -- it works just fine for processes we do understand.  I understand how gerbils eat seeds but the more I understand of it the more I'm convinced 'G_d did it'.  So no, I don't see ID as just giving up -- in fact, I think finding the cause of things because decidedly more entertaining with the idea that one is tracing the steps of a Creator.

 

Even if evolution were explained out to the nth degree -- I'd still be of the mindset that G_d did for a variety of reasons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There isn't a valid reason why you can't believe in god and evolution. Genesis can't be anything more than an allegory, and that's fine if you understand it as that. If god caused life to evolve instead of magically poofing it up in a week, so what? Why should that destroy your faith?

 

The problem is when fanatics and extremists try to make some kind of 'scientific' proof that evolution is bunk. Then we start taking leave of reality, and wind up teaching dogma in a science class.

[Mad_Gerbil]

There isn't a valid reason why you can't believe in god and evolution. Genesis can't be anything more than an allegory, and that's fine if you understand it as that. If god caused life to evolve instead of magically poofing it up in a week, so what? Why should that destroy your faith?

 

The problem is when fanatics and extremists try to make some kind of 'scientific' proof that evolution is bunk. Then we start taking leave of reality, and wind up teaching dogma in a science class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Although I'm currently YEC there are several OEC that I respect and when I revisit the issue one day I'll be taking a real close look at the OEC position an the allegorization of Genesis.

 

I don't see where the Genesis account can be converted into Science -- I never really have understood that.

[Mad_Gerbil]

I do have this quote from Mr. Neil:

 

ID is the most exciting theory to come along in ages -- I really felt that evolution was fumbling and I was only hanging onto it because I'm a coward.  The more I investigate ID the more I find myself embracing this new solidly scientific theory.

 

I'll find the source for that quote....

I know I've got it around here somewhere....

 

*cough*

 

[Mad_Gerbil]

The quote from Mr. Neil is a joke -- for those of you slow to catch onto those kinds of things.

[Ouroboros]

There isn't a valid reason why you can't believe in god and evolution. Genesis can't be anything more than an allegory, and that's fine if you understand it as that. If god caused life to evolve instead of magically poofing it up in a week, so what? Why should that destroy your faith?

 

The problem is when fanatics and extremists try to make some kind of 'scientific' proof that evolution is bunk. Then we start taking leave of reality, and wind up teaching dogma in a science class.

What's so interesting is that there were many Jews that saw the Genesis story as a metaphor during Jesus time!!! IIRC, the Sadducees did.

 

So if they could, why can't we???

[Ouroboros]

I've been thinking about the comparison of the design of a watch and a human body.

 

A watch have very few unnecessary parts.

Every piece and component fill a purpose.

 

While the DNA is filled with redundancy and even incomplete functions.

 

If the DNA was designed, it would have been simplified and normalized for its function, not over-killed or "over-designed".

 

To me that's just one out of many hints that the DNA was NOT designed, but evolved.

[Mad_Gerbil]

I've been thinking about the comparison of the design of a watch and a human body.

 

A watch have very few unnecessary parts.

Every piece and component fill a purpose.

 

While the DNA is filled with redundancy and even incomplete functions.

 

If the DNA was designed, it would have been simplified and normalized for its function, not over-killed or "over-designed".

 

To me that's just one out of many hints that the DNA was NOT designed, but evolved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The human genome has been undergoing decay for 10,000 years.

A better analogy would be an old computer -- you know, the one where you've got cables for the Zip Drive but it got tossed 3 months ago?

 

In my way of thinking, humans are decaying and so 'features' we may have once had are lost and the genes begin to show that decay.

[LadyFeline]

In my way of thinking, humans are decaying and so 'features' we may have once had are lost and the genes begin to show that decay.

 

Humans aren't "decaying". For that to be true, we'd have to be losing our genetic diversity and stability - which, last I check, we aren't.

 

We're just doing away with parts we don't need anymore. In short, we're upgrading, gradually, to a better model.

 

You know, kind of like that old computer you mentioned. Only, instead of beign thrown out, it's being gradually rebuilt, piece by piece, into a better, more efficient machine.

[Asimov]

The human genome has been undergoing decay for 10,000 years.

A better analogy would be an old computer -- you know, the one where you've got cables for the Zip Drive but it got tossed 3 months ago?

 

In my way of thinking, humans are decaying and so 'features' we may have once had are lost and the genes begin to show that decay.

 

Decay?

[Ouroboros]

The human genome has been undergoing decay for 10,000 years.

A better analogy would be an old computer -- you know, the one where you've got cables for the Zip Drive but it got tossed 3 months ago?

 

In my way of thinking, humans are decaying and so 'features' we may have once had are lost and the genes begin to show that decay.

Decay? How? The alleles are changing? Which means mutating.

 

Any change in the DNA is a mutation.

[Ouroboros]

Humans aren't "decaying". For that to be true, we'd have to be losing our genetic diversity and stability - which, last I check, we aren't.

Correct. It has expanded instead.

 

A&E could only carry 4 different unique alleles in each locus. While there are hundreds of unique alleles in some of the locus. Where did they come from?

 

We're just doing away with parts we don't need anymore. In short, we're upgrading, gradually, to a better model.

We're replacing the codes in the DNA, and sometimes it's to our benefit, and sometimes it's not.

[LadyFeline]

We're replacing the codes in the DNA, and sometimes it's to our benefit, and sometimes it's not.

 

Right. But, usually, when it's not to our benefit, the change is phased out in the next generation.

 

Granted, that's not always the case. But, hey, we're not perfect

 

Yet.

[Ouroboros]

Right. But, usually, when it's not to our benefit, the change is phased out in the next generation.

 

Granted, that's not always the case. But, hey, we're not perfect

 

Yet.

The imperfection is what helps us evolve.

 

Evolution works almost like this.

 

Roll one die, and try to get a six.

You have a chance of 1/6.

 

Now take 100 dice, and roll them.

The chances you'll get at least one six, is extremely high.

You should get (in average) 15-16 of them.

 

You get a lot of these extra numbers 1-5 (around 80-85 of them), that you didn't want but that is the redundancy in the system.

[Mr. Neil]

I do have this quote from Mr. Neil:

 

ID is the most exciting theory to come along in ages -- I really felt that evolution was fumbling and I was only hanging onto it because I'm a coward.  The more I investigate ID the more I find myself embracing this new solidly scientific theory.

 

I'll find the source for that quote....

I know I've got it around here somewhere....

 

*cough*

 

Hmm... You must have gotten that quote from the Bizarro Universe Mr. Neil. Either that, or I was really, really drunk. Or trying to nail a Christian girl.

 

I've been thinking about the comparison of the design of a watch and a human body.

 

A watch have very few unnecessary parts.

Every piece and component fill a purpose.

A watch will also have a specific task for each part, whereas in biology, each part may have a variety of uses, or the uses may change as the environment changes.

 

The human genome has been undergoing decay for 10,000 years.

A better analogy would be an old computer -- you know, the one where you've got cables for the Zip Drive but it got tossed 3 months ago?

 

In my way of thinking, humans are decaying and so 'features' we may have once had are lost and the genes begin to show that decay.

Except that that doesn't really work in light of comparative genetics. Not only do we have a lot of strange redundancies and inefficiencies, but we share a lot of them with the chimps.

 

Besides, that's not really how it works. Dammit, I just saw this on the Science Channel, and I can't remember what the process is called, but when DNA replicates, it's actually making precise copies of itself, with a few inversions, viral insertions, and redundancies thrown in. There's actually a process that keeps the genome from making wholesale changes, and I can't remember what it was.

 

It sounds like you're confusing DNA with RNA. DNA is far more precise in duplicating itself than RNA. In fact, it's the crucial difference that makes understanding genetics so crucial to fighting diseases, and this is why certain viral diseases and be vaccinated and some can't. The ones that can't, like HIV, are RNA viruses.

 

Think of DNA like a DVD and RNA like VHS. A DVD, obviously, will eventually break down, but as long as you keep copying it onto new generations, you should have very little change, where as with a VHS, just copying it loses a lot of info.

 

Of course, you might be wondering if a an RNA virus is like a VHS tape, why don't they just mutate themselves out of existence? Well, because RNA viruses, although changing rapidly, are making changes which are beneficial, and their sudden changes makes them highly adaptive to avoiding detection by the immune system.

 

Hmm... Wait. Mutation? Adaptation? Selection? Survival? Those themes sound so familiar!

 

Yep, evolution is key to understanding viruses and keeping us healthy. In fact, it's vital for making flu vaccines. The way they vaccinate for the flu is that they inject chicken eggs with flu virus. And they do this over a number of generations. They'll inject one egg and then extract a sample from that egg later to infect the next. After a number of geneations, the flu becomes so adapted to chickens, that it's actually safe to administer to a human.

 

This is why I get rather angry with people who try to challenge the validity of evolution in the classroom. I agonize that tomorrow's doctors are being told that evolution is "just a theory" as though it's some kooky atheistic propaganda. Like I've told people before, if you're going to say that evolution is false, then you might as well not even go to the hospital. You'd be a hypocrit.

[Amethyst]

Manmade objects are NOT proof nor evidence that the human body was designed!

 

Don't EVEN TRY

 

LOL, that was one of my fundy cube mate's defenses for god existing.

 

His entire argument was that "well, my stress ball exists now, but it could spontaneously combust at any second. That means god exists."

 

I kid you not.

 

I think I eventually got him to realize the logical fallacy of that, but it was like banging my head against a steel wall, expecting to make a hole in the wall.

[Amethyst]

LOL... tell him that even if it "proved" god that it doesn't prove christian god.

 

I did. He didn't like that idea very much.

[♦ ficino ♦]

When I was a Christian I thought it was neat that Augustine said God created the full-blown universe in a moment of time - the six days were figurative but TOO LONG a time. I also thought it was neat that Aristotle said each species is eternal. Origin of species: fuggaboudit. I thought it was neat that Philo of Alexandria said Genesis I presents creation in temporal order and Genesis II presents it in order of logical importance in God's creative blueprint (i.e. human mentioned before animals because human more important in God's mind). I thought lots of contradictory things were neat.

 

Now I wish a lot of this theological juggling would go away.