On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:18:36 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, AC wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, AC wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, gen2rev wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, david ford:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, gen2rev wrote:
Why do you take a favorable view of this book? You disagree
with several of Wesson's claims.
Over what do I disagree with Wesson about?
Regarding Archaeopteryx, Wesson writes that "The dinosaurian
ancestry is obvious..." on page 46.
I believe that the input of intelligence is needed to turn a
dinosaur into Archaeopteryx.
And that's the problem. All you have is this belief that some
intelligence (which I'm sure for you is a code word for the
Judeao-Christian god).
I think that biology has the appearance of having been designed by one
or more intelligent entities. I can think of several prominent
atheist biologists that agree with me on this point. What do you
think-- does biology have the appearance of having been designed by
one or more intelligent entities? Will you at least concede that to
me?
And why does eating and breathing through the same tube have the
appearance of design to you?
I don't understand. Are you saying that in your estimation, the
respiratory system in humans does not exhibit intelligent design?
Not when we breathe and eat through the same tube, giving an opportunity for
nutrients to go the wrong way.
Are you saying that the digestive system in humans does not exhibit
intelligent design?
I consider the appendix to make belief in that pretty difficult to support.
Are you capable of making a better respiratory system than the respiratory
system present in humans?
Am I capable. No. Neither am I capable of making a 1992 Toyota pickup
truck, but I can tell you that the radiator that Toyota put in their stock
was a pile of junk that got too easily plugged up.
I think putting two tubes in. One leading to the lungs and another leading
to the digestive system would be a far more logical set up.
Are you capable of making a better digestive system than the digestive
system present in humans?
So your argument boils down to no matter how stupid your god is, because I
can't make it one better, then it must be a good design?
I do not care one way or the other whether Archaeopteryx arose
because an intelligence(s) turned a dinosaur into it via say
genetic engineering, or whether Archaeopteryx arose because an
intelligence(s) created it from scratch.
What a fascinating view into your mind.
I believe that the input of intelligence is needed to turn a couple
rockets into the space shuttle. I do not care one way or the other
whether the space shuttle arose because intelligent humans turned a
couple rockets into it via say jerry rigging, or whether the space
shuttle arose because intelligent humans created it from scratch.
Life is not a space shuttle.
Life is far, far, far, _far_ more complicated than a space shuttle.
Define complexity.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @) or
.
