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
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 youâve never seen anyone cheat in a casino before is a huge gap in logic. Again, consider my example with Stu: âSay 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)?â
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...
______________________________________________ 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
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...