Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[ml1954]

Against evolution:

And your arguments for what are what?

[b_sharp]

"Examine people engineered software code, it frequently contains abandoned (never executed) code, inefficiencies, and unnecessary redundancies. Particularly if it has been used for some time, and maintained and extended for a while.

I have written a number of programs and at one time hacked a few games. I am quite familiar with human written code. Code maintained with as many obvious kludges as DNA does not run well, is seldom portable and is most appropriately abandoned. Programming languages have been used and abused, changed and abandoned for languages that are more efficient and encourage fewer inefficiencies. As the languages progress so does the quality of the programming. If DNA is the result of intelligent design, the designer is either incredibly lazy or an incredibly poor programmer.

[TexCon]

Thanks. I'll look into the topic.

[RadioAstronomer]

I posted those because a friend of mine had emailed them over to me. I'm sorry if they're plagiarized. I'll ask her next time we talk about it.

Fair enough. Thank you.

I personally do not think that evolution does not exist. However, I believed it would be appropriate and relevant to bring up those facts as another side of the argument.

Unfortunately "facts" that don't fit the evidence (or are outright lies) are not exactly a good argument for the opposite side.

I do believe though that God created this beautiful earth;

Evolution does not deny this (nor supports it either). Evolution is a scientific theory.

just as we grow each day closer and closer to the so-called "end times", our earth evolves to fit God's plan.

Not to get into a theological argument with you, however, the "end times" have been imminent for the last 2000 years.

I do propose a question. Many of my friends who are Christians can't stand the fact that I give evolution some merit. They argue that all things were in its final form for example, when the Great Flood occurred. Changes then can be cited to variants of genetic alleles ,they say. I reply with facts that species behaviorally adapt according to their environment, etc. What else could I say to that claim?

Again I suggest starting with TO (the link I provided earlier). Good stuff there. :-)

[b_sharp]

:^P

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"However, I believed it would be appropriate and relevant to bring up those facts as another side of the argument."

But those *facts* are wrong. I showed you why one of them was; the link I provided showed in detail why the calculation about population growth was wildly off. Others here have provided refutations of the other claims. It's not just that the claims are recycled, it's that they are wrong.

[TexCon]

Haha! Alright! What can I say? Ya shot me down like a Kildee during a Bush hunt. :-)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Ya shot me down like a Kildee during a Bush hunt. :-)"

All in the line of duty. Remember, Darwin Central is the Conspiracy that Cares. :)

[js1138]

The sophisticated ones, that is. That leaves out all I remember encountering on FR to date...not to say there haven't been some.

The only FReeper ID advocate that I consider really knowledgeable admits that common descent seems likely.

[js1138]

Try following my example and being more diplomatic.

LOL

[Doctor Stochastic]

Note that code reuse is no different from common descent (of the codes.)

[PatrickHenry]

Note that code reuse is no different from common descent (of the codes.)

Hey, that's good!

[grey_whiskers]

PH -- 'purified gold is transparent' has got to be a your-brain-on-creation winner.

Yeah, I know, I always show up late to the threads.

But by analogy to the "abiogenesis is not evolution" dictum, shouldn't we allow that the "purified gold is transparent" more likely comes from Revelations and is therefore not strictly speaking part of "creationism" ;-)

Cheers!

[fabian]

Well, when we see order and purpose in things that we produce we know that it is by our making. All I'm saying is that also is logical to hold for natural things too as they are even more complex. Anyways, I think we all have doubt thoughts about what is evident that's always fighting our wordless commonsense.

[grey_whiskers]

PH -- 'purified gold is transparent' has got to be a your-brain-on-creation winner.

Yeah, I know, I always show up late to the threads.

But by analogy to the "abiogenesis is not evolution" dictum, shouldn't we allow that the "purified gold is transparent" more likely comes from Revelations and is therefore not strictly speaking part of "creationism" ;-)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Paul claims he was blined by a bright light and heard a voice. Stuff which now days usually gets you admitted to hospital, but I guess in the first century you could become a shaman and found a religion.

Nice cheap shot, but the difference is that before the bright light, etc., he had gone around dispossessing people of their homes and putting them to death: and AFTER the revelation became better behaved.

Kinda the opposite of those Moose-limb terrorists, BTW.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

By the way, no one claims the Tyrannosaur material is 'perfectly preserved'.

Ian Malcolm and John Hammond PING! :-)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Well done! Now just photoshop in this guy:

Yeah, I know...I always arrive late at these threads! :-(

[b_sharp]

"Note that code reuse is no different from common descent (of the codes.)

Must be that upstart C++.

[GregoryFul]

Ah, but no improbable!