Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [creat] The Inadequacy Of Natural Selection To Bring About Brand New Functions And Organ

Expand Messages
  • Eric
    ... a firm believer at that time. However, that does not deny the validity of the observation, indeed, one could make the case that it made me more sensitive
    Message 1 of 42 , Nov 1, 2006
      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Tim Stout <tim@...> wrote:
      >

      >> Concerning my response to the chart, it is true that I was already
      a firm believer at that time. However, that does not deny the validity
      of the observation, indeed, one could make the case that it made me
      more sensitive to and open to its implications. I would like to think
      of it as being similar to a trained musician being able to truly enjoy
      all that is happening when he hear's Beethoven's 9th symphony. One
      not trained may enjoy the symphony to some degree. However, he
      typically will not be as aware of many of the subtle nuances which
      make the experience so rewarding to the trained musician. I have a
      living relationship with my God. When I see what are confirmatory
      evidences of His handiwork, I appreciate them. That is how I would
      interpret my response to the chart.
      >>

      Interesting analogy. Are you a trained biologist? No? Then I would
      submit that your response to the metabolism chart was definitely that
      of the UNtrained musician listening to Beethoven. You have some
      visceral, generalized appreciation of its beauty and complexity, but
      are oblivious to the deeper implications and subtleties conveyed by
      the information in the chart.

      Put the sheet music to Beethoven's 9th down in front of someone who
      can't read music and he will have little appreciation of why a certain
      sequence of notes in the fifth bar for the clarinet is so important
      when compared to another sequence of notes written for viola in the
      sixth bar. He might be impressed with the detail and precision of the
      musical notation, but would have no real knowledge of what it really
      means or what the juxtaposition of certain elements implies. Whereas
      a trained concert musician might well be struck silent in awe of these
      relationships.

      I submit that you were in the position of the unschooled, but
      appreciative music lover when you saw the metabolism chart. –Yet you
      seem to presume to tell the actual trained professionals who have
      spent their whole careers for almost a century and a half working in
      the field that they are fundamentally dead wrong about the very nature
      of their endeavor.

      I'm sorry to have to point this out, but you brought up the analogy,
      and I think its a good one. You are in the position of someone who
      can't play an instrument or read music standing up and asserting that
      Beethoven and all the professional symphony composers and musicians
      since have got it all wrong.

      I think you're going to have to do a heck of a lot better than your
      critiques of the shortcomings of one analogy used by Dawkins' to
      convince us.

      Take care,

      Eric
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... I would say that your behaviour here indicates that this is NOT what you do at all. Instead, you try to find excuses to interpret His work in the way that
      Message 42 of 42 , Nov 14, 2006
        On 7 Nov 2006 at 22:55, Gabor Horvath wrote:

        > Gabor(partial)
        > IF youu CAN talk about NUMBERS in any way (computers,
        > mathemetics, algorithms real CHAOS is out at once. It is
        > impossible to combine true chaos with any kind of order. It is a
        > misconception. Think it through again
        >
        > Dave O:
        > Well, if you're saying that there probably IS design behind an
        > ontology that includes such things as the mandelbrodt set, I'm
        > inclined to agree with you. But such circumstantial evidence
        > does not make a rigorous proof. And that's probably a feature,
        > not a bug. That is to say, seeing God in His handiwork is fine,
        > but it takes real faith to see Him when that handiwork is not to
        > your personal liking.
        >
        > Gabor:
        > Thanks Dave, and yes, there is order, on different level. Sadly
        > the lower levels of order are misnamed with the term "chaos"
        > which it is not. Well, I do not measure God's handiwork by my
        > liking Dave. I learn from His works waht I should accept and
        > what I should reject.

        I would say that your behaviour here indicates that this is NOT
        what you do at all. Instead, you try to find excuses to
        interpret His work in the way that your spiritual mentors say you
        MUST interpret it. They are wrong. You are wrong to follow
        them.

        --

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.