Designed or not designed?
Posted on 10/03/2005 6:22:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
I know the guy who wrote this has been nuked, but this classic has to be part of the "this is your brain on creationism" files.
(To paraphrase Israel Zangwill, forty years of liberal compassion/creationist love has made us very mean-spirited)
But paste tasts GOOD!
Are you serious? One can detect design without fully understanding the purposes of a designed product. That's like opening up the hood of a BMW. You know it's designed but you may not know what a certain component does.
I don't need to open the hood of a BMW to tell you what's in there is designed.
Seems that you are adept at detecting design in places you already expect to find design.
I've already got more than I need of that stuff. If I collected all the whoppers it would overwhelm the list. Maybe someone else could devote himself to just such material.
I didn't say you had to open the hood to detect design. You're engaging in meangingless banter.
You're right. I should know better than to expect that you mean what you write.
The other problem that many creationists have here is that the sources of their information deliberately mislead them. We recognize them when we see stuff like, "There are no transitional fossils," or "The second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution", or my favorite, "The laws of probability prove that evolution is impossible."
Some of these arguments were debunked in previous centuries yet they keep showing up here because hucksters keep presenting them on their websites, books and pamphlets. When we see these arguments we know we're talking to someone with no science background who's relying on someone who's taking advantage of them.
So some of the heat your receiving isn't actually aimed at you. You're just someone's pawn out here taking the heat for them while they count their cash in the background.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;)
You are *totally* missing the point.
The 'typos' are things that we have recognized in nature as being mistakes. We know what functional genes look like. We know what retrotransposons look like. We know the tell tale signs of DNA that has undergone random mutation.
The fact is the majority of our DNA consists of these things. Things we are as confident as one could be in science that these are errors.
Now if you say maybe they are not...then there is no way to detect design even if it appeared to be.
You don't read and comprehend very well for a professor.
Well, I say maybe they are not :-)
Lets say maybe some are not, but some definitely are.
BTW - you work on 'Junk DNA'?
Clarias batrachus (walking catfish) has a primitive sac structure within the gills that allow it to obtain atmospheric oxygen.
Designed or not designed?
We work on such small bits of DNA, though, that they could be in a gene, or they could be junk.
"that's Hedley!"
</Blazing Saddles>
Yup. That's me, third from the left, back row.
"Festival of the Troll-who-trolls-no-more"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.