lol.....

Mott the Hoople said:
LOL Ask him to provide proof of this design/designer.
Click to expand...

that would be....
The unique phylogentic tree of life, which includes;

The unity of life.
Nested hierarchies.
The convergence of independent hierarchies.
Transitional forms of species (previously noted).
The chronology of common ancestors.

The past history of life, including;

Anatomical vestiges
Atavism
Molecular vestiges
Ontogeny and developmental biology.
Present biogeography
Past biogeography

Evolutionary opportunism, which includes;

anatomical parahomology (previously noted)
molecular parahomology
anatomical convergence
anatomical suboptimal function
molecular suboptimal function

Molecular evidence, which includes;

Protien functional redundancy
DNA functional redundancy
Transposons
Redundant psuedogenes
Endogenous Retroviruses

and Change, which includes;

Genetic change
Morphological change
Functional change
The strange and very different past
Stages of speciation
Speciation events
Morphological rates
Genetic rates
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that would be....
Click to expand...

How can it be evidence of design when you reject it as evidence? It is quite possible to argue that this is the means through which the designers design operates. But you are rejecting the idea that the design works in such a way because it does not fit with your theology. You are doing the same stupid trick you did in the mitochondrial Eve discussion.
 
Professor Baxter said:
How can it be evidence of design when you reject it as evidence?
Click to expand...

the point is, its as much evidence of design as it is of macro-evolution......you can't argue there is evidence for one and deny it for the other.....

It is quite possible to argue that this is the means through which the designers design operates. But you are rejecting the idea that the design works in such a way because it does not fit with your theology.
Click to expand...

why would an intelligent designer be so inefficient......he could trigger the altering of DNA sufficiently to shape a new species in a single gestation.......oh wait.....that would be creation....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the point is, its as much evidence of design as it is of macro-evolution......you can't argue there is evidence for one and deny it for the other.....
Click to expand...

Of course, you can.

PostmodernProphet said:
why would an intelligent designer be so inefficient......he could trigger the altering of DNA sufficiently to shape a new species in a single gestation.......oh wait.....that would be creation....
Click to expand...

Wtf? Lol, now you are arguing that it disproves design because it calls into question your definition of the designer? I thought you said it was proof of design? But who needs to understand science or how things work when you can save time believing it is all magic.

You don't want to discuss science. That's okay. I am going to continue posting things that show your beliefs are stupid. No one is asking that you contribute to proving that anymore than you already have.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if by "stupid trick" you mean demonstrating your goat-cart has no goat....yes, it is.....
Click to expand...

No, I mean your cherry picking. Evidence does not exist or is just opinion until it can be twisted into something that supports your ridiculous ideas of God.

You are delusional. The only thing you have demonstrated is your lack of integrity or capacity to understand.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that would be....
Click to expand...
OK, then how do these facts of macroevolution support design? Please clarify, for example, how in my homology example why a designer would use the exact same anatomical structures for a human arm, a bats wing and a whales pectoral fin when such a design in all three species is suboptimal? Please explain who this doesn't violate fundamental design principle? Please do! :)

Yes, please explain how these facts of macroevolution support a design infernce and do not completely discredit the design inference? :)
 
Professor Baxter said:
No, I mean your cherry picking. Evidence does not exist or is just opinion until it can be twisted into something that supports your ridiculous ideas of God.

You are delusional. The only thing you have demonstrated is your lack of integrity or capacity to understand.
Click to expand...
You forgot his capacity of stubborness and obtuseness. LOL
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the point is, its as much evidence of design as it is of macro-evolution......you can't argue there is evidence for one and deny it for the other.....



why would an intelligent designer be so inefficient......he could trigger the altering of DNA sufficiently to shape a new species in a single gestation.......oh wait.....that would be creation....
Click to expand...
Absolutely you can. I just did it. Again, you're factually wrong.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Please clarify, for example, how in my homology example why a designer would use the exact same anatomical structures for a human arm, a bats wing and a whales pectoral fin when such a design in all three species is suboptimal?
Click to expand...

by whose standard is the design of a whale's pectoral fin suboptimal......does a whale's fin not function to the whale's satisfaction?.....the human arm has performed well for quite a long time.....were you disappointed that it didn't rotate 360 degrees?......

you would do better to argue that the fact humans had a single nose was suboptimal.....if we had two your argument would stink twice as bad....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
BTW PB this is a great example of one of PiMPs infamous circular arguments. By this warped logic by proxy now he's going to argue that any evidence you have for macroevolution is evidence for ID. Hillareous isn't it? :)
Click to expand...

merely pointing out that it's illegitimate to claim its evidence of macro-evolution.....the only justification you have for the claim is that it's the result you desire.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
merely pointing out that it's illegitimate to claim its evidence of macro-evolution.....the only justification you have for the claim is that it's the result you desire.....
Click to expand...
LOL PiMP....your argument has the same intellectual logic as Pee Wee Herman saying "I know you are but what am I?" LOL

I mean seriously, you're going to argue in circles that the evidince which supports macroevolution and discredits the design argument supports your argument with out providing any data, observations, facts or references but just you're opinion.

Ring around the rosey! LOL LOL LOL
 
Mott the Hoople said:
LOL PiMP....your argument has the same intellectual logic as Pee Wee Herman saying "I know you are but what am I?" LOL

I mean seriously, you're going to argue in circles that the evidince which supports macroevolution and discredits the design argument supports your argument with out providing any data, observations, facts or references but just you're opinion.

Ring around the rosey! LOL LOL LOL
Click to expand...

can you identify a single fact from those which you claim support macro-evolution and describe how it discredits the design argument and could not actually BE evidence of design?

for example....you raised the issue of suboptimal design and I responded to it in #133......for some reason you decided to run away and not continue that line of debate......why is that?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
can you identify a single fact from those which you claim support macro-evolution and describe how it discredits the design argument and could not actually BE evidence of design?

for example....you raised the issue of suboptimal design and I responded to it in #133......for some reason you decided to run away and not continue that line of debate......why is that?.....
Click to expand...

You did not respond. You looked for a way to escape the conversation and focused on the suboptimal point to shift focus away from the actual question. Your usual chicken shit tactics. The question again, if it were design then why did the designer use the same anatomical structure in the human arm, whale fin and bat wing?

I am curious why if you believe the designer can change the species in gestation as you claim happens, then why not the kind? This non existent barrier actually makes more sense without a designer.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
can you identify a single fact from those which you claim support macro-evolution and describe how it discredits the design argument and could not actually BE evidence of design?

for example....you raised the issue of suboptimal design and I responded to it in #133......for some reason you decided to run away and not continue that line of debate......why is that?.....
Click to expand...
No I didn't. I pointed out the inanity of your argument and it's lack of logic. The fact that a specific anatomical structural orientation and adaptation works for a given task has nothing what so ever to do with the fact that they perform said task suboptimally. Why would you design something to function suboptimally? Ehh? Would use the exact same structural elements to design the wing of an airplane, the keel of a boat and the chassis of an automobile? No you wouldn't. Why? Because it defies not only logic but the design principle by creating a suboptimal design. So there, ID discredited.

As they say at Staples......That was easy. :)
 
Professor Baxter said:
You did not respond. You looked for a way to escape the conversation and focused on the suboptimal point to shift focus away from the actual question. Your usual chicken shit tactics. The question again, if it were design then why did the designer use the same anatomical structure in the human arm, whale fin and bat wing?

I am curious why if you believe the designer can change the species in gestation as you claim happens, then why not the kind? This non existent barrier actually makes more sense without a designer.
Click to expand...
He's also avoiding the obvious conclusion to be drawn from my question. That these homolgies shared by three completely divergent species are easily explained by common descent.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You did not respond. You looked for a way to escape the conversation and focused on the suboptimal point to shift focus away from the actual question. Your usual chicken shit tactics. The question again, if it were design then why did the designer use the same anatomical structure in the human arm, whale fin and bat wing?

I am curious why if you believe the designer can change the species in gestation as you claim happens, then why not the kind? This non existent barrier actually makes more sense without a designer.
Click to expand...

"if it were design then why did the designer use the same anatomical structure in the human arm, whale fin and bat wing"
.....to the limited extent to which they are the "same", because the design was well suited for the purpose each was serving...

Post #133....respond to it for the conversation to advance.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top