Three irrefutable proofs of a Designer:
Posted on 02/07/2005 8:16:39 AM PST by metacognative
yes there is more too it than that- that is a poor attempt at definition.
The gist of it is this- if you look at a rock, it is easy to see how it 'evolved' into being a rock. But look at a transistor radio then it is impossible to imagine any set of random circumstances that would allow that radio to 'evolve' into being, so it must have been designed.
or something like that
The whole theory of darwin's is dashed lines!
The number of false starts and dead ends in the fossil record certainly implies that if there is a designer, trial and error is not unknown to him.
Maybe so, but it has lines and can be an aid to study. Keeping all the species of creature and plant straight in the mind and named systematically would be hopeless without the extension.
I think it's "modern thought " [19th century] influenced Darwin
Think of the legos as building blocks.
Of, say, life...
I've noticed that when I am teaching, people LOVE analogies, yet when I am discussing a point with folks with whom I disagree, they don't go over so well. People seem to not understand what I am talking about. I think I have figered out why.
When I am teaching, we are on common ground. We agree with what point I am trying to make and the students want to understand what I am saying. They always get it and even compliment me on the use of the analogies to clarify and simplify an otherwise complicated concept.
When the audience of the analogy does not agree with me, it is as though they do not want the analogy to apply and sort of put on blinders. I mean, the lego one is pretty obvious and yet I have had two people who disagree with me on the concept say they don't know what I am talking about. Keep in mind that on the other site where I used the same analogy, those that already agree with my on the concept knew exactly the point I was making.
This is not a slam on you. It is just an observation of human nature.
We must have evolved it... 8^>
But what if chipmunks don't really have a dotted line to hippos? Why pretend we have scientific reasons?
Not to mention the numerous imperfections present in contemporary organisms - if there's a designer, "good enough" appears to be the overriding design philosophy at work ;)
Archeology works by evaluating human designed objects vs non-designed objects. What is the non-designed object you wish to compare the universe to?
That is a branch of science. Taxonomy. It is one of the lesser forms of science. Mathematical physics is a greater form of science and one where theories arise. Taxonomy doesn't need much theory, so is perfect for the Theory of Evolution, a bottom-feeding theory. That theory is just right for those who hit the brick wall of mathematics and so can't do hard science but still like the idea of doing science.
This'll come as a shock to the anti-science crowd here.
I thought Stanley Kubrick designed that, or had it designed.
More seriously, it is unreasonable to stretch analogies and metaphors beyond their useful scope. No one denies that it is fair to assume that a book or a watch is a fabrication. It can get more difficult.
Consider the termite mounds or a bird nest. These things are constructed by living things, so I suppose at one level of perception they are designed. However, analysis reveals that the rules governing construction are much simpler than originally supposed.
I've noticed that when I am teaching, people LOVE analogies, yet when I am discussing a point with folks with whom I disagree, they don't go over so well. People seem to not understand what I am talking about. I think I have figered out why.
Your Profile page says that you're a "professing Christian fundamentalist and creationism apologist". If that's meant non-ironically, I've understood your Lego analogy (and found it wanting). Otherwise, you've whiffed one by me.
If the designer designed evolution, then He did a pretty good job. The redundancy and low tolerances found in living things maximizes adaptability.
I have no problem discerning a 'made' thing from a natural formation...eg; a bird's nest from a tumbleweed.
Ok, you understood.
All of my analogies are wanting - especially to those who disagree with the point being made.
A perfect analogy is, by definition, the thing itself.
For some reason, that's not an acceptable answer. Go figure.
Made thing, or natural formation?
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.