Designed by Natural Selection

Stands to Reason ^ | Gregory Koukl

[EBUCK]

...and I say that evidence also supports that it is not true.

Put forth some cases of evidence showing evolution to not be true. Admittedly there are anomolies that are usually thrown off because they don't fit (a practice I despise BTW) but the vast majority of evidence certainly points toward evolution IMO.

EBUCK

[lews]

-- And how do you suppose God came to be? I'm sure it must be very, very extrordinary. --

You bet, I'm sure God is very extraordinary, just not quite as miraculous as the spontaneous, unguided, combustion of the universe leading to all matter, life, intelligence, information, morals, etc.. that we know of today. At least the way I see it, there is someone there to guide it, not so with you, now that is really extraordinary.

Wow! For the Big Bang/Evolution to be true it must really be... miraculous!

[lews]

Once again, read some of the books by Michael Behe, William Dempski, and others of the ID movement. You will be pleasently suprised.

[EBUCK]

I read Darwin on Trail (don't remember the author) but couldn't substantiate his claims. Debunking Darwin is an entirely diferent subject from proving the existence of God.

EBUCK

[BMCDA]

Oh please tell me that this Koukl guy just forgot the </sarcasm> tags because I can't believe that he's serious. Has he ever heard of methodological naturalism?
Or is he really that dense to propose that if you have a natural and a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon then you should pick the supernatural one?

Sheesh, this guy should try Last Thursdayism.

[BMCDA]

Bump for a good laugh. But don't drink while reading this.

[lews]

-- I read Darwin on Trail (don't remember the author) but couldn't substantiate his claims. Debunking Darwin is an entirely diferent subject from proving the existence of God. --

Darwin on Trial looks at the (flawed) logic behind Darwinism, but, is not, by any means, an exhaustive attempt to imply the designed nature of the universe. Michael Behe's, Darwin's Black Box, is a study of irruducible complexity and might be a good place to start.

[EBUCK]

Darwinistic logic is flawed? Not in my book. But I'll give your source a try. Later for now....

EBUCK

[balrog666]

Any one for another dip in the medved-zone?

[balrog666]

But don't drink while reading this.

Too late! St. Pauli's all around.

[Virginia-American]

...Michael Behe's, Darwin's Black Box... a good place to start...

Behe has been totally refuted. See this article, where he is shown to have deliberately misquoted a scientist.

The fact that Behe has resorted to this type of lying says all that we need to know about him.

Does anyone have examples of normal scientists misquoting anti-E's?

[PatrickHenry]

Bump for a good laugh. But don't drink while reading this.

I need to drink while reading this.

[PatrickHenry]

Any one for another dip in the medved-zone?

I'll let you handle this thread without me. I need a rest.

[Gumlegs]

Bump for a good laugh. But don't drink while reading this.

I wouldn't want to face it sober.

Hey. Did you see Medved's post? I've never seen anything like that before!

[balrog666]

Hey. Did you see Medved's post? I've never seen anything like that before!

BWAAAAHAHAHAHA! Now I have to clean my keyboard.

[PatrickHenry]

Those who find medved's constantly repeated essays and links useful will also be delighted with these:

New -> VadeRetro's Rebuttal .
TIME CUBE .
The Earth is Not Moving!.
Earth Orbits? Moon Landings? A Fraud! .
Flat Earth Society Homepage! .
Creationists' Cartoons .
The Current State of Creation Astronomy.
THE MOON: A Propaganda Hoax.
CRA NK DOT NET.

[Khepera]

I'm glad you have been entertained.

[BMCDA]

I wouldn't want to face it sober.

And I didn't want you to sue me because your sceen or keyboard is ruined ;)

But you're right, reading this sober isn't such a good idea.

[PatrickHenry]

But you're right, reading this sober isn't such a good idea.

Agreed, when the author of the main article has such a strange view of the burden of proof that he makes statements like this:

Why go for natural selection rather than for God? Because God is religion and natural selection is science. Science is seen as fact--and religion as fantasy. If we have a set of physical facts that can be accounted for by a theistic explanation, then you have to have some other information that may cause you to want to dismiss the theistic option. I'm asking "where is the evidence that makes the God option an intellectually untenable one, without bringing in a mere philosophic assumption (namely naturalism)?"

[medved]

Consider the part of Reep's (VadeRepo's) "rebuttal" which deals with flying birds:

You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

All of which probably co-evolve. If there's any co-dependency, then they're going to evolve together

It's just that sort of simpleminded kind of claim which prevents me from taking Reep seriously. The claim is that some coelurosaur or velociraptor starting out with none of the things it needs to become a flying bird is going to develop the wings, flight feathers, light bone structure, flow-through heart and lungs, specialized tail, beak, and specialized balance parameters needed to become a flying bird SIMULTANEOUSLY, over a protracted time during which none of those features would serve any real purpose.

Kind of like believing in the Easter rabbit, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the fairy godfather, and the leprechaun all at the same time.