Re: Suboptimal design (dreams vs evidence)
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm wrote:
> D R Lindberg: If you asked someone for evidence of World War II, he
> send you complete copies of the Japanese plans for attacking PearlHarbor,
> and it seems that you would still reject it all.a
> Kamran: Reasoning by totally false analogy noted.
> Charles P: Kamran has a legitimate question and D R Lindberg provides
> link to a video, What Darwin Never Knew, which draws attention awayfrom
> the central issue. Nothing in the video explains the evolution of newbody
> parts from unrelated ancestors.What are you talking about?
Why would anyone want an explanation of something that never happens?
> D R Lindberg: You seem to have a strange idea of what evidence is and
> it can show.explain how
> Kamran: Yes it appears strange to you that I expect that the evidence
> should match the scope of the claim!!!!! Now if you could only
> breading dogs from wolves can explain the origination of body plans orthe
> origination of organisms, etc. Is there any other amazing thing youwant
> me to accept based on your evolutionary dreams?This
> Charles P:
> would be a perfect opportunity for D R Lindberg to explain to all ofus
> here on Origins Talk how the old Theory of Evolution can have it bothways.
> (1) body parts are inherited by descendants from a common ancestorbecause
> they are RELATED. (2) body parts are inherited by descendants from aThe
> common ancestor because they are NOT RELATED.
> Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_and_little_dog_1.jpg
> design of the body parts of chihuahuas and great danes were inheritedfrom
> a common ancestor, probably the gray wolf.common
> Charles P: The design of the body parts of shrews, most bats, most
> cetaceans, and two unrelated bird groups were not inherited from a
> ancestor. The old Theory of Evolution should either provide empiricaland
> verifiable evidence for common ancestry between non-related groups orthe
> old Theory of Evolution should be updated to teach science studentsonly
> what is actually observed in nature.You say you are not a creationist, but here again you are using a
standard creationist tactic: invent something ridiculous, pretend that
it is what "evolutionists" believe, and then conclude that
"evolutionists" believe something ridiculous.
> Animal echolocation:
> is the biological sonar used by several animals such as shrews, mostand
> bats, and most cetaceans. Two bird groups also employ this system for
> navigating through caves, the so called cave swiftlets in the genus
> Aerodramus (formerlyCollocalia) and the unrelated Oilbird Steatornis
> caripensis. Echolocating animals emit calls out to the environment
> listen to the echoes of those calls that return from various objectsin the
> environment. They use these echoes to locate, range, and identify thehunting)
> objects. Echolocation is used for navigation and for foraging (or
> in various environments.Dictionaries and encyclopedias are for explaining things briefly at an
> Animal echolocation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
> Evolution is mentioned 17 times without any empirical and verifiable
> evidence of common ancestry between non-related groups.
introductory level for those who are not specialists. If you want
evidence, read the scientific journals where the evidence is published
for all who have the interest or honesty needed to go and look at it.
> D R Lindberg: When dealing with an enormous subject, one can only
> with one part of it at a time. What do you expect from one shortposting?
> Kamran: I expect the short posting to have a token of relevance to the
> transformations that are credited to the evolutionary story.
> story is about something coming from nothing.feel
> D R Lindberg: But if it makes you feel superior to attack everything,
> Kamran: I don't attack anything. If you think evolution happens,
> provide a piece of good argument or evidence and I'll gladly reviewand
> analyze it.Me,
> Charles P:
> too. Let us resolve the unscientific parts of the old Theory ofEvolution
> that do not adequately explain the common design of animalecholocation.
> Then, we will be able to discuss all of the other examples of commonThere is no common design of animal echolocation. If you look carefully,
> design in non-related groups.
you can see that it works differently in different kinds of animals.
"Facts -- those are the cobbles that make up the road upon which we
travel." Hercule Poirot, "Murder in Mesopotamia"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM
Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and fire)
> David Williams: This letter says nothing about creationists having better scientific evidence than evolutionary biologists because they don't. This letter may fool scientific simpletons but not me.
> LA> Your comment shows only that your belief in evolutionism is more like a religion with you rather than a science. The following by a noted evolutionist seems to sum up your position;
> "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
> held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
> characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
> orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
> and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
> scientific truth."'
> (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
> "Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however
> incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure
> will arise to serve the needs of the coming era." (Sir Julian Huxley 1959)
David Williams: This is a red herring. You have no real scientific evidence for creationism, so you keep repeating the same old stale quotes and red herrings.
LA> Your continuing belief in evolutionism seems to be based on what seems to be more like a religious faith than science! What scientific evidence convinced you so positively that "people came from monkeys"? Did you know that Sir Fred Hoyle and his co-author of several books both renounced their atheism and concluded that there "must be a God".? i.e.;
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life
originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make
the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think
that the favourable properties of physics on which life
depends are in every respect deliberate.". . . .
"It is therefore almost inevitable that our own
measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the
higher intelligence to our left, even to the extreme
idealized limit of God."
(Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at
Cambridge University) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of
Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College,
Cardiff), "Convergence to God", in Evolution from Space,
J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1981, pp.141 and 144.)
"We used to have an open mind, now we [with Hoyle] realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6095 - Release Date: 02/10/13
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]