666...the Devils Moving Average

Your reply just gives me MORE things to point at as flaws.

Why doesn't god just design a baby that doesn't require
licking to be stimulated??? And so on and so on...

This loop of questions will just continue forever, but in the
end I will have identified thousands of "flaws".
You even admit a "miriad of problems".

You can't deny that FLAWS exist, and that they are VERY COMMON.


" It does pose problems for both sides."

It causes no such problem for the evolution theory.
Evolution does not require perfect design, only a naturally
designed animal that is "good enough".

Flaws are expected in evolution since it proceeds down a trial
and error path, and let's nature decide.


So again.... as a rational person choosing between the
creationist hypothesis and the evolutionary theory, I have
to go with the model that fits reality better with supporting data.

The creationist claim MAKES NO SENSE with all of these
flaws and flawed processes. But flaws actually SUPPORT
the evolutionary theory. It's a no brainer.

peace

axeman




Quote from Doubter:


___________________________________________

Not creative thinking at all only many years of experience and observation. It does pose problems for both sides.

1. There is always extra inherent risk at birth time even in the best of hospitals not every baby is going to make it. Again it can be a plan thing or evolution.

2. You could but until you know all the variables you're going to have to deal with what is. They could also have evolved away from this requirement but they haven't in all these generations so who knows.

3. Most animals actually eat the placenta but their first instinct is to smell the newborn and then lick it. In the cases of the thick placenta this hasn't saved the baby in most cases. The eating usually occurs after the licking and takes quite some time. In cold climates if the eating occurred first then the baby would die from the lack of the stimulation that the licking causes. When eating the placenta it normally is eaten whole and not chewed up so it is a continual process of swallowing to get the whole thing down in one piece and can take quite a bit of time. Too much so for a cold baby to go without licking until he is stabilized and the mother can be away.

4. They are designed that way but sometimes genetics and or environment change things. The babies being backwards can be caused by a slip or fall of the mother that flips the baby in the womb or caused crossed legs or a miriad of other problems. Some people swear the certain family lines are prone to backwards babies. Also mothers having thieir first baby tend to have more live backwards babies than older mothers who have had more offspring. The reason seems to be in the strength of the birthing mother. The older mother pushes harder and tends to fill the lungs more and the younger ones push but can't stand the pain so don't push as hard and don't fill the lungs as much. Nearly all babies are either hung upside down or do a lot of coughing and sneezing to clear their lungs. After all they just spent several months suspended in fluid.

I certainly admit that I am not smart enough to design organisims that will survive in all circumstances or if I would want them all to survive if I could. I am satisfied with the plan as is and find it best to proceed with that assumption.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

SB,

You consistently assume that because I poke holes
through creationism, that I am also supporting evolution
or biogensis in the same breath.

This is not the case.

Do not assume that I hold a belief which says:
I BELIEVE life was created like so and so...
Or...
I BELIEVE the universe was created like so and so...


This is not the case.

I do NOT know how life was first started and I do NOT
know how the universe was created.

Evolution and biogensis are 2 theories which address
these issues, and I consider them stronger than
the creationist HYPOTHESIS since they at least have
some supporting data.

This is very different than holding a BELIEF.
More...

I disagree strongly. If you walk into a casino and see someone win 122 blackjacks in a row and assume that this can only occur by chance because you’ve never seen anyone cheat in a casino before is a huge gap in logic. Again, consider my example with Stu:

”Say you walk into a casino and see someone win 122 blackjacks in a row. You could deal with this situation in 3 ways:

1. "Wow, that guy was lucky. I bet he'll have a good time tonight."
2. "No big deal. I don't know how many shoes are on the table and I can't calculate the odds exactly."
3. "I don't think this was all luck. He must have cheated."

I think that you are dealing with scientific findings that aren't fitting your model of the universe with #2. (No offense intended - that's how I really see it.) But at the least I am trying to push you to at least admit that there is merit to the argument posed in #3. The person in #3 sees that the probability of this event is so low that they ask if this is guided by some sort of intelligent oversight (i.e. cheating)?”
 
Allan Sandage himself (one of the 20 most influential astrophysicists of the modern era) said, "I find it improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

He is willing to recognize the extreme order that came out of chaos. I do not understand why you are nitpicking at a few numbers here and there...
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Allan Sandage himself (one of the 20 most influential astrophysicists of the modern era) said, "I find it improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

He is willing to recognize the extreme order that came out of chaos. I do not understand why you are nitpicking at a few numbers here and there...
More...

The way to attack a broad concept is to attempt to minimize the components of it.
 
Your still using a flawed argument.

Answer my statistics question to find out why.


peace

axeman


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



I disagree strongly. If you walk into a casino and see someone win 122 blackjacks in a row and assume that this can only occur by chance because you’ve never seen anyone cheat in a casino before is a huge gap in logic. Again, consider my example with Stu:

”Say you walk into a casino and see someone win 122 blackjacks in a row. You could deal with this situation in 3 ways:

1. "Wow, that guy was lucky. I bet he'll have a good time tonight."
2. "No big deal. I don't know how many shoes are on the table and I can't calculate the odds exactly."
3. "I don't think this was all luck. He must have cheated."

I think that you are dealing with scientific findings that aren't fitting your model of the universe with #2. (No offense intended - that's how I really see it.) But at the least I am trying to push you to at least admit that there is merit to the argument posed in #3. The person in #3 sees that the probability of this event is so low that they ask if this is guided by some sort of intelligent oversight (i.e. cheating)?”
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Your reply just gives me MORE things to point at as flaws.

Why doesn't god just design a baby that doesn't require
licking to be stimulated??? And so on and so on...

This loop of questions will just continue forever, but in the
end I will have identified thousands of "flaws".
You even admit a "miriad of problems".

You can't deny that FLAWS exist, and that they are VERY COMMON.


" It does pose problems for both sides."

It causes no such problem for the evolution theory.
Evolution does not require perfect design, only a naturally
designed animal that is "good enough".

Flaws are expected in evolution since it proceeds down a trial
and error path, and let's nature decide.


So again.... as a rational person choosing between the
creationist hypothesis and the evolutionary theory, I have
to go with the model that fits reality better with supporting data.

The creationist claim MAKES NO SENSE with all of these
flaws and flawed processes. But flaws actually SUPPORT
the evolutionary theory. It's a no brainer.

peace

axeman
More...
______________________________________________

If they had evolved the survival of the fittest would naturally eliminate these flaws. If they were created but were given flaws to limit overpopulation then the flaws would seem to keep cropping up which they do.
 
Fallacy: Appeal to authority.

His OPINION is not a proof.

"I find it improbable that such order came out of chaos."

Where are his numbers???

" There has to be some organizing principle. "

Has he proven this? Has to be?? Come on now.

" God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

God *IS* the explaination? Has he proven god EXISTS
first so that he can use him as an explaination? Nope.


Does his OPINION match those of his colleagues? No.
Does hs OPINION match those of other GENIUSES of our time? No.


So what can we infer from this mans OPINION?

Nothing, except that he has an unsupported opinion.


peace

axeman







Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Allan Sandage himself (one of the 20 most influential astrophysicists of the modern era) said, "I find it improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

He is willing to recognize the extreme order that came out of chaos. I do not understand why you are nitpicking at a few numbers here and there...
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Fallacy: Appeal to authority.

His OPINION is not a proof.

"I find it improbable that such order came out of chaos."

Where are his numbers???

" There has to be some organizing principle. "

Has he proven this? Has to be?? Come on now.

" God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

God *IS* the explaination? Has he proven god EXISTS
first so that he can use him as an explaination? Nope.


Does his OPINION match those of his colleagues? No.
Does hs OPINION match those of other GENIUSES of our time? No.


So what can we infer from this mans OPINION?

Nothing, except that he has an unsupported opinion.


peace

axeman
More...

Unsupported by your own personal experiences to be sure.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:



The way to attack a broad concept is to attempt to minimize the components of it.
More...

Then what are you guys arguing? Are you arguing that Crick, Hoyle and Morowitz did not know what they were talking about when they abondoned the entire concept of RNA/DNA self-organization because it was so low probability?

Nitpicking at a few numbers is not going to help.

I would argue that if this is a "belief" that is unjustified scientifically and is every bit as much "faith" as my belief in God.

You guys are fighting the greatest minds on the planet on this one and that's what's baffling me.

Are you telling me that after four decades of intense research in alaboratory controlled environment, that this is anything but a ultra low probability event?
 
I don't get it. It's like you're trying to take us back to the golden era of secular humanism: the 60's.

This is when they assumed they'd have DNA/RNDA is test tube in short order. But that hasn't worked.

Sometimes you have to concede to the scientific research...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top