Why There's No Design Item #4

Religions > Atheism > Why There's No Design Item #4

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Budikka666"
Date:	12 Oct 2006 07:27:08 PM
Object:	Why There's No Design Item #4

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/
"Walking on Earth, Cavagna says, is a bit of a struggle - and so is
trying to understand the physics of it. Cavagna's Airbus experiments
are but the latest in a long series; he has been studying our awkward
form of locomotion for nearly 40 years. Very early on he figured out
our basic strategy: To save energy, we walk like a pendulum. The
problem is we do it badly.
"A pendulum is a device that transforms kinetic energy of motion
into gravitational potential energy and back. As it moves through the
bottom of its arc, the pendulum's velocity and thus its kinetic
energy- mass times velocity squared divided by two, or mv 2/2-
reach a maximum. At the top of its arc, the pendulum slows to a stop,
but at that point the potential energy- mass times gravity times
height- is at its peak. As the pendulum falls back down, potential
energy is converted back to kinetic energy. In a good pendulum the
conversion is close to 100 percent, with only a bit of energy lost to
the friction of moving through the air and that of the bearing from
which it is hung. One nudge, and a pendulum keeps swinging a long time.
"'...If the body were a perfect pendulum - if it could convert the
kinetic energy into potential energy and back without wasting a calorie
- walking would be nearly effortless,' says Heglund, a physiologist at
the University of Louvain in Belgium. 'But you're only 65 percent of a
perfect pendulum.' In other words, 35 percent of the energy for each
step has to be supplied afresh from the food you burn. Fish and birds
do better: They burn less energy per unit distance than we do, even
though birds are fighting gravity all the time, and fish have to fight
their way through a dense liquid. 'So why are we sweating? Where's the
work?' asks Cavagna. 'It's work we're doing against ourselves. It's a
lack of coordination.'
"Somewhere in our legs, muscles are pulling against one another,
wasting energy as heat."
This is divine design?
The truth is no surprise to evolutionists, who understand that we
literally arose from quadrupeds, but it is really tough for intelligent
design devotees to explain. Once again, their intelligent designer
collapses into a dumbshit designer, and their explanation is unarguably
worse than simply admitting that evolution actually happened just like
the evidence shows.
Budikka
.

User: "Brian Cryer"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	13 Oct 2006 05:08:45 AM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

"Walking on Earth, Cavagna says, is a bit of a struggle - and so is
trying to understand the physics of it. Cavagna's Airbus experiments
are but the latest in a long series; he has been studying our awkward
form of locomotion for nearly 40 years. Very early on he figured out
our basic strategy: To save energy, we walk like a pendulum. The
problem is we do it badly.
"A pendulum is a device that transforms kinetic energy of motion
into gravitational potential energy and back. As it moves through the
bottom of its arc, the pendulum's velocity and thus its kinetic
energy- mass times velocity squared divided by two, or mv 2/2-
reach a maximum. At the top of its arc, the pendulum slows to a stop,
but at that point the potential energy- mass times gravity times
height- is at its peak. As the pendulum falls back down, potential
energy is converted back to kinetic energy. In a good pendulum the
conversion is close to 100 percent, with only a bit of energy lost to
the friction of moving through the air and that of the bearing from
which it is hung. One nudge, and a pendulum keeps swinging a long time.
"'...If the body were a perfect pendulum - if it could convert the
kinetic energy into potential energy and back without wasting a calorie
- walking would be nearly effortless,' says Heglund, a physiologist at
the University of Louvain in Belgium. 'But you're only 65 percent of a
perfect pendulum.' In other words, 35 percent of the energy for each
step has to be supplied afresh from the food you burn. Fish and birds
do better: They burn less energy per unit distance than we do, even
though birds are fighting gravity all the time, and fish have to fight
their way through a dense liquid. 'So why are we sweating? Where's the
work?' asks Cavagna. 'It's work we're doing against ourselves. It's a
lack of coordination.'
"Somewhere in our legs, muscles are pulling against one another,
wasting energy as heat."

This is divine design?

The truth is no surprise to evolutionists, who understand that we
literally arose from quadrupeds, but it is really tough for intelligent
design devotees to explain. Once again, their intelligent designer
collapses into a dumbshit designer, and their explanation is unarguably
worse than simply admitting that evolution actually happened just like
the evidence shows.

Despite the intelligent things I know you've come out with in the past, I
think you are just trolling.
Where is the evidence for the "65 percent of a perfect pendulum" - no, I'm
not doubting it, I'm just asking for evidence.
So fish and birds to better - but they can glide so its not comparing like
with like.
If you looked at the Biblical creation theory you'd know that we live in a
fallen world, under the curse and that things are getting worse - build up
of bad genes etc, so the only problem with "only 65%" is that you don't
understand the theory. If anything haven't you highlighted a problem for
evolution? Shouldn't evolution have ensured that walking was more than
"only" 65%?
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	13 Oct 2006 07:27:06 PM

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

"Walking on Earth, Cavagna says, is a bit of a struggle - and so is
trying to understand the physics of it. Cavagna's Airbus experiments
are but the latest in a long series; he has been studying our awkward
form of locomotion for nearly 40 years. Very early on he figured out
our basic strategy: To save energy, we walk like a pendulum. The
problem is we do it badly.
"A pendulum is a device that transforms kinetic energy of motion
into gravitational potential energy and back. As it moves through the
bottom of its arc, the pendulum's velocity and thus its kinetic
energy- mass times velocity squared divided by two, or mv 2/2-
reach a maximum. At the top of its arc, the pendulum slows to a stop,
but at that point the potential energy- mass times gravity times
height- is at its peak. As the pendulum falls back down, potential
energy is converted back to kinetic energy. In a good pendulum the
conversion is close to 100 percent, with only a bit of energy lost to
the friction of moving through the air and that of the bearing from
which it is hung. One nudge, and a pendulum keeps swinging a long time.
"'...If the body were a perfect pendulum - if it could convert the
kinetic energy into potential energy and back without wasting a calorie
- walking would be nearly effortless,' says Heglund, a physiologist at
the University of Louvain in Belgium. 'But you're only 65 percent of a
perfect pendulum.' In other words, 35 percent of the energy for each
step has to be supplied afresh from the food you burn. Fish and birds
do better: They burn less energy per unit distance than we do, even
though birds are fighting gravity all the time, and fish have to fight
their way through a dense liquid. 'So why are we sweating? Where's the
work?' asks Cavagna. 'It's work we're doing against ourselves. It's a
lack of coordination.'
"Somewhere in our legs, muscles are pulling against one another,
wasting energy as heat."

This is divine design?

The truth is no surprise to evolutionists, who understand that we
literally arose from quadrupeds, but it is really tough for intelligent
design devotees to explain. Once again, their intelligent designer
collapses into a dumbshit designer, and their explanation is unarguably
worse than simply admitting that evolution actually happened just like
the evidence shows.

Ask Heglund, a physiologist at the University of Louvain in Belgium.
He's the scientist who did the research. Or read the papers he's
undoubtedly published on his research.

So fish and birds to better - but they can glide so its not comparing like
with like.

If you looked at the Biblical creation theory

What "theory"? There's no such thing as a creation "theory" or an
intelligent design "theory". There's a fairytale. It has zero
scientific support. I think it's pretty hypocritical to demand the
evidence for the 65%, while swallowing the Bible whole and
uncritically.

you'd know that we live in a
fallen world, under the curse and that things are getting worse

How is it not hypocritical to demand the evidence for the 65% and make
statements like that one? Where's your evidence that things are
getting worse? What things, and by what criteria?

- build up
of bad genes etc,

Where's your evidence for the "build up of bad genes"? Do you have any
genomes from 6,000 years ago (the time of creation according to
Biblical chronology) to compare modern ones with?

so the only problem with "only 65%" is that you don't
understand the theory. If anything haven't you highlighted a problem for
evolution? Shouldn't evolution have ensured that walking was more than
"only" 65%?

Evolution is not an intelligent agent. Organisms do not have a plan or
a direction. What works, works, and what doesn't, becomes extinct.
There's no striving for, let alone a guarantee of, excellence or
perfection. Only your god is required to achieve that. If a mutation
enables organisms to surive and reproduce, it works. It doesn't matter
if it isn't perfect.
On the other hand, your god is supposed to be perfect. He had all
eternity in which to work, and infnite resources to call upon. He saw
that his work was good, according to Bible mythology. Yet using your
own "arguments" against you, the genomes he designed are filling up
with bad genes, and things are deteriorating. How is this possible for
a perfect creation?
Budikka
.

User: "Brian Cryer"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	16 Oct 2006 08:11:55 AM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160785626.526892.285190@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

"Walking on Earth, Cavagna says, is a bit of a struggle - and so is
trying to understand the physics of it. Cavagna's Airbus experiments
are but the latest in a long series; he has been studying our awkward
form of locomotion for nearly 40 years. Very early on he figured out
our basic strategy: To save energy, we walk like a pendulum. The
problem is we do it badly.
"A pendulum is a device that transforms kinetic energy of motion
into gravitational potential energy and back. As it moves through the
bottom of its arc, the pendulum's velocity and thus its kinetic
energy- mass times velocity squared divided by two, or mv 2/2-
reach a maximum. At the top of its arc, the pendulum slows to a stop,
but at that point the potential energy- mass times gravity times
height- is at its peak. As the pendulum falls back down, potential
energy is converted back to kinetic energy. In a good pendulum the
conversion is close to 100 percent, with only a bit of energy lost to
the friction of moving through the air and that of the bearing from
which it is hung. One nudge, and a pendulum keeps swinging a long time.
"'...If the body were a perfect pendulum - if it could convert the
kinetic energy into potential energy and back without wasting a calorie
- walking would be nearly effortless,' says Heglund, a physiologist at
the University of Louvain in Belgium. 'But you're only 65 percent of a
perfect pendulum.' In other words, 35 percent of the energy for each
step has to be supplied afresh from the food you burn. Fish and birds
do better: They burn less energy per unit distance than we do, even
though birds are fighting gravity all the time, and fish have to fight
their way through a dense liquid. 'So why are we sweating? Where's the
work?' asks Cavagna. 'It's work we're doing against ourselves. It's a
lack of coordination.'
"Somewhere in our legs, muscles are pulling against one another,
wasting energy as heat."

This is divine design?

The truth is no surprise to evolutionists, who understand that we
literally arose from quadrupeds, but it is really tough for intelligent
design devotees to explain. Once again, their intelligent designer
collapses into a dumbshit designer, and their explanation is unarguably
worse than simply admitting that evolution actually happened just like
the evidence shows.

Ask Heglund, a physiologist at the University of Louvain in Belgium.
He's the scientist who did the research. Or read the papers he's
undoubtedly published on his research.

Didn't find the article by Heglund - but I'm sure I would have if I'd spent
more time. His name did come up on some of the papers I did find. The paper
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~neptune/Papers/job37(6).pdf puts it at 60% tops.

So fish and birds to better - but they can glide so its not comparing
like
with like.

If you looked at the Biblical creation theory

Intelligent design has a great deal of scientific support, as you well know.
However, I was referring to Biblical creation, and making the point that
according to that model we would expect things to be getting worse not
better.

you'd know that we live in a
fallen world, under the curse and that things are getting worse

How is it not hypocritical to demand the evidence for the 65% and make
statements like that one? Where's your evidence that things are
getting worse? What things, and by what criteria?

Did you read my post? I didn't demand evidence for the 65% figure. Quote:
"no, I'm not doubting it, I'm just asking for evidence." Its a good
principle to know where facts come from. I wasn't doubting it and I'm sorry
you interpreted my interest as a demand for evidence.

- build up
of bad genes etc,

Where's your evidence for the "build up of bad genes"? Do you have any
genomes from 6,000 years ago (the time of creation according to
Biblical chronology) to compare modern ones with?

What is available is a written account. According to the Bible it was only
in the time of Moses that the law was given not to marry close relatives.
Before this it was permissible for a man to marry his sister. Now I suppose
this doesn't per say provide direct evidence, only anecdotal. Googling for
any real evidence didn't turn up anything in the time I had available, which
I'm surprised at. I'll admit that this is a prediction based on my own
beliefs. I'll look into it further and post back (one way or the other).

Evolution is not an intelligent agent. Organisms do not have a plan or
a direction. What works, works, and what doesn't, becomes extinct.
There's no striving for, let alone a guarantee of, excellence or
perfection. Only your god is required to achieve that. If a mutation
enables organisms to surive and reproduce, it works. It doesn't matter
if it isn't perfect.

On the other hand, your god is supposed to be perfect. He had all
eternity in which to work, and infnite resources to call upon. He saw
that his work was good, according to Bible mythology. Yet using your
own "arguments" against you, the genomes he designed are filling up
with bad genes, and things are deteriorating. How is this possible for
a perfect creation?

Yes, in the Bible it says that God described what He had created was good.
But, as James has already pointed out, there is nothing to say that what God
described as good is the same as your criteria for perfect. At the end of
the creation week the world was as God had intended it to be - complete with
our ability to choose our own destiny and make our own decisions, which
leads on to the curse and the state of things today. If you don't understand
how this is possible then I suggest you give Genesis a read.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	16 Oct 2006 05:52:07 PM

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160785626.526892.285190@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

"Walking on Earth, Cavagna says, is a bit of a struggle - and so is
trying to understand the physics of it. Cavagna's Airbus experiments
are but the latest in a long series; he has been studying our awkward
form of locomotion for nearly 40 years. Very early on he figured out
our basic strategy: To save energy, we walk like a pendulum. The
problem is we do it badly.
"A pendulum is a device that transforms kinetic energy of motion
into gravitational potential energy and back. As it moves through the
bottom of its arc, the pendulum's velocity and thus its kinetic
energy- mass times velocity squared divided by two, or mv 2/2-
reach a maximum. At the top of its arc, the pendulum slows to a stop,
but at that point the potential energy- mass times gravity times
height- is at its peak. As the pendulum falls back down, potential
energy is converted back to kinetic energy. In a good pendulum the
conversion is close to 100 percent, with only a bit of energy lost to
the friction of moving through the air and that of the bearing from
which it is hung. One nudge, and a pendulum keeps swinging a long time.
"'...If the body were a perfect pendulum - if it could convert the
kinetic energy into potential energy and back without wasting a calorie
- walking would be nearly effortless,' says Heglund, a physiologist at
the University of Louvain in Belgium. 'But you're only 65 percent of a
perfect pendulum.' In other words, 35 percent of the energy for each
step has to be supplied afresh from the food you burn. Fish and birds
do better: They burn less energy per unit distance than we do, even
though birds are fighting gravity all the time, and fish have to fight
their way through a dense liquid. 'So why are we sweating? Where's the
work?' asks Cavagna. 'It's work we're doing against ourselves. It's a
lack of coordination.'
"Somewhere in our legs, muscles are pulling against one another,
wasting energy as heat."

This is divine design?

The truth is no surprise to evolutionists, who understand that we
literally arose from quadrupeds, but it is really tough for intelligent
design devotees to explain. Once again, their intelligent designer
collapses into a dumbshit designer, and their explanation is unarguably
worse than simply admitting that evolution actually happened just like
the evidence shows.

Ask Heglund, a physiologist at the University of Louvain in Belgium.
He's the scientist who did the research. Or read the papers he's
undoubtedly published on his research.

So fish and birds to better - but they can glide so its not comparing
like
with like.

If you looked at the Biblical creation theory

Intelligent design has a great deal of scientific support, as you well know.

No, I *don't* "know".
Name for me some science papers published in the standard peer-reviewed
literature that establish a "Theory of Intellgient Design" or something
along those lines, or failing that, similar papers which show that
intelligent design is a better scientific explanation than is the
Theory of Evolution for the diversity and distribution of life on
Earth.
Failing that, list some of this scientific support with brief details.
because I know of **NONE**.

However, I was referring to Biblical creation, and making the point that
according to that model we would expect things to be getting worse not
better.

Why? Where is your scientific support for that claim? Just how *does*
a perfect creation deteriorate?

you'd know that we live in a
fallen world, under the curse and that things are getting worse

How is it not hypocritical to demand the evidence for the 65% and make
statements like that one? Where's your evidence that things are
getting worse? What things, and by what criteria?

So you say "no, I'm not doubting it, I'm just asking for evidence" and
I refer you back to the article which refers to the guy who has the
evidence, and then you claim you're not demanding evidence?
I'll file that under chez what....

- build up
of bad genes etc,

Where's your evidence for the "build up of bad genes"? Do you have any
genomes from 6,000 years ago (the time of creation according to
Biblical chronology) to compare modern ones with?

What is available is a written account.

Which is patent nonsense in many places, which is anonymous, which was
written by people who were scientificly illiterate, and which
contradicts the facts.

According to the Bible it was only
in the time of Moses that the law was given not to marry close relatives.
Before this it was permissible for a man to marry his sister.

Where is that explicit permission given?

Now I suppose
this doesn't per say provide direct evidence, only anecdotal. Googling for
any real evidence didn't turn up anything in the time I had available, which
I'm surprised at. I'll admit that this is a prediction based on my own
beliefs. I'll look into it further and post back (one way or the other).

The claim about marrying sisters was Kent Hovind's, not mine. The
Bible specifies no such thing. The Bible assumes we're too stupid to
know that if Adam and Eve were the first people, then their son could
not have wandered off and found other people to marry, but this is
precisely what the Bible *does* say, and it makes a joke of the whole
"Adam/Eve first couple fairy tale.

Evolution is not an intelligent agent. Organisms do not have a plan or
a direction. What works, works, and what doesn't, becomes extinct.
There's no striving for, let alone a guarantee of, excellence or
perfection. Only your god is required to achieve that. If a mutation
enables organisms to surive and reproduce, it works. It doesn't matter
if it isn't perfect.

On the other hand, your god is supposed to be perfect. He had all
eternity in which to work, and infnite resources to call upon. He saw
that his work was good, according to Bible mythology. Yet using your
own "arguments" against you, the genomes he designed are filling up
with bad genes, and things are deteriorating. How is this possible for
a perfect creation?

Okay, let's hear it. Just what *does* it mean when a perfect being
makes something and declares it good? I'm still waiting for either of
you to detail that one - and support your answer.

At the end of
the creation week the world was as God had intended it to be - complete with

....inefficiently locomoting humans.

our ability to choose our own destiny and make our own decisions, which
leads on to the curse and the state of things today. If you don't understand
how this is possible then I suggest you give Genesis a read.

I've forgotten more about the Bible than you've apparently learned.
First of all, you allusion to free will fails if your god is
omniscient.
It's also nonsense if the "reward" for obedience/disobedience is
inequitable. You cannot claim you got a fair response if, for one
response you offer eternal pleasure, and the other you offer eternal
punishment. How do you know that this god of yours doesn't respect
people more who exercise free will against god, even knowing they will
be punished versus those who are nothing but cowardly lackeys?
Secondly, on the topic of making up your own rules, where is your
**EVIDENCE** that *any* of this is they way you;re claiming it is?
You're operating under the laughable delusion that I buy into your cosy
little Bible playscape. I don't. You may get away with such bland and
unquestioning assumptions in your cosy little Bible support groups, but
you're not going to be allowed to get away with making sweeping
assertions based on ancient scriptures from anonymous, primitive,
scientificly ignorant men with me. If you're going to make a case for
something, you need to be rationale and support your case.
Otherwise I laugh at you.
Budikka
.

User: "SeppoP"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	16 Oct 2006 08:44:10 AM

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160785626.526892.285190@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

"Walking on Earth, Cavagna says, is a bit of a struggle - and so is
trying to understand the physics of it. Cavagna's Airbus experiments
are but the latest in a long series; he has been studying our awkward
form of locomotion for nearly 40 years. Very early on he figured out
our basic strategy: To save energy, we walk like a pendulum. The
problem is we do it badly.
"A pendulum is a device that transforms kinetic energy of motion
into gravitational potential energy and back. As it moves through the
bottom of its arc, the pendulum's velocity and thus its kinetic
energy- mass times velocity squared divided by two, or mv 2/2-
reach a maximum. At the top of its arc, the pendulum slows to a stop,
but at that point the potential energy- mass times gravity times
height- is at its peak. As the pendulum falls back down, potential
energy is converted back to kinetic energy. In a good pendulum the
conversion is close to 100 percent, with only a bit of energy lost to
the friction of moving through the air and that of the bearing from
which it is hung. One nudge, and a pendulum keeps swinging a long time.
"'...If the body were a perfect pendulum - if it could convert the
kinetic energy into potential energy and back without wasting a calorie
- walking would be nearly effortless,' says Heglund, a physiologist at
the University of Louvain in Belgium. 'But you're only 65 percent of a
perfect pendulum.' In other words, 35 percent of the energy for each
step has to be supplied afresh from the food you burn. Fish and birds
do better: They burn less energy per unit distance than we do, even
though birds are fighting gravity all the time, and fish have to fight
their way through a dense liquid. 'So why are we sweating? Where's the
work?' asks Cavagna. 'It's work we're doing against ourselves. It's a
lack of coordination.'
"Somewhere in our legs, muscles are pulling against one another,
wasting energy as heat."

This is divine design?

The truth is no surprise to evolutionists, who understand that we
literally arose from quadrupeds, but it is really tough for intelligent
design devotees to explain. Once again, their intelligent designer
collapses into a dumbshit designer, and their explanation is unarguably
worse than simply admitting that evolution actually happened just like
the evidence shows.

Ask Heglund, a physiologist at the University of Louvain in Belgium.
He's the scientist who did the research. Or read the papers he's
undoubtedly published on his research.

So fish and birds to better - but they can glide so its not comparing
like
with like.

If you looked at the Biblical creation theory

Intelligent design has a great deal of scientific support, as you well know.

Intelligent Design has *no* scientific support *whatsoever*. Religious fundamentalists organizations claiming to have
"scientists" on board do not constitute scientific support.
ID proponents cannot even *define* what they mean by the term. ID proponents cannot provide *any* independently
verifiable evidence for ID, they cannot say anything beyond "Gee... that thingy looks so complicated that it *cannot*
have been created without Intelligent Creator (wink, wink)". If you are so badly educated that you do not understand
even the basics of science, it is *your* problem.
If you have some patience, here's a link for you to peruse:
<http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm>
(this is a keeper)
You might want to start with the Decision of the Court:
<www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf>
and then continue with ID "guru" Michael Behe's testimony for the defendants on days 10 to 12:
<www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10AMSession.pdf>
<www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10PMSession.pdf>
<www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11AMSession.pdf>
<www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf>
<www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AMSession.pdf>
<www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12PMSession.pdf>
It might be illuminating to you to also read the testimony of the defendants in the case, especially that of "William
Buckingham"...

However, I was referring to Biblical creation, and making the point that
according to that model we would expect things to be getting worse not
better.

<snip>
Bible is not science. Period.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.

User: "SeppoP"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	16 Oct 2006 11:28:15 PM

SeppoP wrote:

Brian Cryer wrote:

<snip>

Intelligent design has a great deal of scientific support, as you well
know.

As to 'scientific' support of ID 'Brian Cryer' claims, see pages 69 and 70 of the court decision :)
<snip>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.

User: "alextangent"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	16 Oct 2006 08:42:08 AM

Brian Cryer wrote:
[snip]

Intelligent design has a great deal of scientific support, as you well know.

Where is the science that supports ID? I have found none.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
.

User: "James Watson"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	13 Oct 2006 06:04:27 AM

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

[...]

"'...If the body were a perfect pendulum - if it could convert the
kinetic energy into potential energy and back without wasting a calorie
- walking would be nearly effortless,' says Heglund, a physiologist at
the University of Louvain in Belgium. 'But you're only 65 percent of a
perfect pendulum.' In other words, 35 percent of the energy for each
step has to be supplied afresh from the food you burn. Fish and birds
do better: They burn less energy per unit distance than we do, even
though birds are fighting gravity all the time, and fish have to fight
their way through a dense liquid. 'So why are we sweating? Where's the
work?' asks Cavagna. 'It's work we're doing against ourselves. It's a
lack of coordination.'
"Somewhere in our legs, muscles are pulling against one another,
wasting energy as heat."

This is divine design?

The truth is no surprise to evolutionists, who understand that we
literally arose from quadrupeds, but it is really tough for intelligent
design devotees to explain. Once again, their intelligent designer
collapses into a dumbshit designer, and their explanation is unarguably
worse than simply admitting that evolution actually happened just like
the evidence shows.

Despite the intelligent things I know you've come out with in the past, I
think you are just trolling.

Where is the evidence for the "65 percent of a perfect pendulum" - no, I'm
not doubting it, I'm just asking for evidence.

So fish and birds to better - but they can glide so its not comparing like
with like.

If you looked at the Biblical creation theory you'd know that we live in a
fallen world, under the curse and that things are getting worse - build up
of bad genes etc, so the only problem with "only 65%" is that you don't
understand the theory. If anything haven't you highlighted a problem for
evolution? Shouldn't evolution have ensured that walking was more than
"only" 65%?

I basically agree with you, Mr. Cryer. In addition, I would like to
ask why anyone thinks that God would be obligated to endow man with
perfect-pendulum walking. Perhaps it's good that we expend a certain
amount of energy in walking. If we would be better off expending less
-- which is by no means obvious to me -- then perhaps this is an area
in which it is better that we improve ourselves. We were given a
marvellous intellect, you know.
Cheers,
James Watson
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	13 Oct 2006 07:37:37 PM

James Watson wrote:

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

[...]

Despite the intelligent things I know you've come out with in the past, I
think you are just trolling.

Where is the evidence for the "65 percent of a perfect pendulum" - no, I'm
not doubting it, I'm just asking for evidence.

So fish and birds to better - but they can glide so its not comparing like
with like.

If you looked at the Biblical creation theory you'd know that we live in a
fallen world, under the curse and that things are getting worse - build up
of bad genes etc, so the only problem with "only 65%" is that you don't
understand the theory. If anything haven't you highlighted a problem for
evolution? Shouldn't evolution have ensured that walking was more than
"only" 65%?

I basically agree with you, Mr. Cryer. In addition, I would like to
ask why anyone thinks that God would be obligated to endow man with
perfect-pendulum walking.

So you're saying your god isn't perfect? Or that a perfect divinity is
capable of creating things that are less than perfect? Or that, having
endowed purportedly "lesser" organisms with perfection or
near-perfection, the purported pinnacle of his creation - humanity -
was sold short for some obscure reason?

Perhaps it's good that we expend a certain
amount of energy in walking. If we would be better off expending less
-- which is by no means obvious to me -- then perhaps this is an area
in which it is better that we improve ourselves. We were given a
marvellous intellect, you know.

We have a marvellous intellect. There's no evidence to show it was
"given". But you seem to think being second-best to other organisms is
somehow a testimony to some god's handiwork? That strikes me as rather
bizarre.
Cryer raised the issue of not comparing like with like: you cannot
compare walking organisms with swimming or flying ones, but this is
nonsense. Of course you can - by determining the efficiency of their
relative means of locomotion, or from a more artistic perspective, by
their relative elegance in motion.
It's hypocritical to pretend, as some creationists do, that the
universe is designed to perfection, to precision, to accommodate
humans, and then around and try to pretend that our embarrassingly
spastic means of locomotion falls short of that found routinely in
anture.
It's enough to make one believe we evolved from organisms like apes
with even asking for the wealth of scientific evidence supporting that
theory.
And this raises another embarrassing question: why did this god create
humans unable to fly or to swim? How many lives could have been saved
had we been able to fly unaided or breathe under water unaided?
How much of the world would we have been able to see with such skills?
How few international duifferences there would be if everyone could
mingle freely, regardless of petty national differences and idealogical
barriers.
Are you saying a perfect divinity was too short-sighted to see this?
Budikka
.

User: "James Watson"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	14 Oct 2006 05:32:29 AM

Budikka666 wrote:

James Watson wrote:

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

[...]

Despite the intelligent things I know you've come out with in the past, I
think you are just trolling.

Where is the evidence for the "65 percent of a perfect pendulum" - no, I'm
not doubting it, I'm just asking for evidence.

So fish and birds to better - but they can glide so its not comparing like
with like.

If you looked at the Biblical creation theory you'd know that we live in a
fallen world, under the curse and that things are getting worse - build up
of bad genes etc, so the only problem with "only 65%" is that you don't
understand the theory. If anything haven't you highlighted a problem for
evolution? Shouldn't evolution have ensured that walking was more than
"only" 65%?

I basically agree with you, Mr. Cryer. In addition, I would like to
ask why anyone thinks that God would be obligated to endow man with
perfect-pendulum walking.

I'm saying that perfection is relative to essence. A perfect
performance of Beethoven's _Ninth Symphony_ will raise your spirits to
otherwise unimaginable heights, but it won't help you cut up your
steak, the way a perfect knife would. This does not reflect any
imperfection in the performance, since it is not the sort of thing
that should be expected to slice meat. The performance might cause a
listener to think of fate, but if it does not, there is no discredit
to the performance, for the analogous reason.
The essence of man includes such things as free will, intellect and
the capacity to worship. Therefore, a perfect man must be able to
choose freely, think with perfect clarity and worship God with perfect
love. The essence of man does not include the capacity to walk, since
one would still be human even if he were incapable of taking on a
physical body. Therefore, a man who cannot walk perfectly may still
be a perfect man, even as a musical performance that cannot make the
listener think of fate may still be a perfect performance.
Perhaps more importantly, the laws of physics require that walking
expend energy. Therefore, the concept of perfect-pendulum walking is
not a concept of perfection, but one of nonsense. Since walking must
expend some energy, the question arises as to whether 65% efficiency
is consistent with perfect walking. (Actually, I'm not sure that the
concept of 'perfect walking' even makes sense. What would make
walking perfect?) A normal man today seems to walk just fine. He is
capable of walking thousands of miles in a lifetime. Why expect a
perfect man to be a more efficient walker?
Of course, we live at a time when man has fallen into imperfection, as
Mr. Cryer mentioned. Therefore, even if a perfect man could walk more
efficiently than we can, it would not imply that God did not create
man perfect.

I have already addressed this.

or from a more artistic perspective, by
their relative elegance in motion.

It's not at all clear to me that every movement of a perfect man would
have to be elegant. Even if God did intend this, it may have been
something that man was to achieve on his own, not to be handed on a
"silver platter". Also, we are now imperfect and lack many traits of
perfect men. Maybe elegant walking is one of them.

It's hypocritical to pretend, as some creationists do, that the
universe is designed to perfection, to precision, to accommodate
humans, and then around and try to pretend that our embarrassingly
spastic means of locomotion falls short of that found routinely in
anture.

You're embarrassed by walking? I must give you points for originality.

It's enough to make one believe we evolved from organisms like apes
with even asking for the wealth of scientific evidence supporting that
theory.

And this raises another embarrassing question: why did this god create
humans unable to fly or to swim? How many lives could have been saved
had we been able to fly unaided or breathe under water unaided?

As I explained in another response to you, the behaviour of the
physical universe is not entirely predictable, even by God.
Therefore, it seems very likely that God would have had to protect man
from some forms of harm however he had designed him, provided that he
gave him a physical body. So, why doesn't God protect man from
unavoidable instances of drowning or deadly falling? As I also
explained in another response to you, God currently allows us to live
in an era of sin and alienation from himself.

How much of the world would we have been able to see with such skills?

However Jehovah had made man, he (man) would have had limited
knowledge. Only God is appropriately omniscient. It is better for
created persons to explore and to learn.

How few international duifferences there would be if everyone could
mingle freely, regardless of petty national differences and idealogical
barriers.

Are you saying a perfect divinity was too short-sighted to see this?

It seems to me that you are here describing evils that we have brought
upon ourselves.
Cheers,
James Watson
.

User: "Brian Cryer"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	16 Oct 2006 03:54:36 AM

"James Watson" <arthurofalbion@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:G9CdnQUWudAjIa3YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
<snip>
James,
Budikka666 is using the classic example of defining his/her own set of rules
(in this case perfect efficiency of design) so he/she can knock them down.
Its much easier to ridicule something if you can put your own definition or
set of requirements up and ridicule those instead.
Note for example that she hasn't responded to my observation that this is
more of a problem for evolution. Nor has she given any grounds for why the
design had to be perfect. Nor has she taken on board that we live in a
fallen world and are under a curse.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	16 Oct 2006 05:32:05 PM

Brian Cryer wrote:

That might be an interesting argument if you actually supported it
instead of just announcing it and expecting everyone to swallow
everything you say without a shred of support. But you and Watson are
definitely setting new standards of vacuity.

Its much easier to ridicule something if you can put your own definition or
set of requirements up and ridicule those instead.

Which is precisely what Watson is doing. Except that I'm the one
ridiculing them because he's the one failing to support his claims.

Note for example that she hasn't responded to my observation that this is
more of a problem for evolution.

I've responded to everything you've written that I've seen. But of
course, for someone who pretends to chide others about making their own
definitions, the absence of a reference to go with your accusaiton is
pretty significant. So why not reference this message you claim I
haven't addressed instead of making unsupported accusations? Or better
yet post it in response to this and I'll deal with it.

Nor has she given any grounds for why the
design had to be perfect

This is nothing but a lie. I specified that this god is supposed to be
perfect and that this god saw that this "design" was good. This is not
some "rule" I made up to make a case out of. This is a claimed quality
of this god and the Bible itself specifies that this perfect god
declared the design good.
If that doesn't imply perfection to you, then exactly what *does* it
imply? That a perfect god does shoddy work?
That a divinity made us and said, "Oh this'll do, I can't be bothered
to make it work better than this"?
That your god went to exquisite trouble to perfect birds and fish but
then said "the hell with it" when he reached the purported pinnacle of
his efforts?
Let me make it simple for you. Which takes more gullibility to
believe:
1. That a perfect god created humans out of dirt, couldn't "get the
walk right", and declared it good?
Or
2. That we share a common ancestry with organisms that walked on four
legs and we were never "designed" to walk on two, which is why we walk
rather inefficiently?

Nor has she taken on board that we live in a
fallen world and are under a curse.

I don't know if that's more pathetic than it is hypocritical or
vice-versa, but there you are chiding me for "making up rules" and then
here you are making these statements without a shred of support for
them.
I think it's more pathetic, but I'm open to being convinced that it's
more hypocritical. Keep trying.
Budikka
.

User: "Brian Cryer"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	18 Oct 2006 08:11:42 AM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1161037924.978088.33520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"James Watson" <arthurofalbion@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:G9CdnQUWudAjIa3YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...

<snip>

Budikka666 is using the classic example of defining his/her own set of
rules
(in this case perfect efficiency of design) so he/she can knock them
down.

Its much easier to ridicule something if you can put your own definition
or
set of requirements up and ridicule those instead.

Which is precisely what Watson is doing. Except that I'm the one
ridiculing them because he's the one failing to support his claims.

Note for example that she hasn't responded to my observation that this is
more of a problem for evolution.

You certainly have a reputation for trying to respond to everything. Look
back in this thread to see what I was referring to.

Nor has she given any grounds for why the
design had to be perfect

Take the time to make yourself a fresh cup of coffee and spend a little
longer reading and trying to understand what is being said before you
respond.
Yes, God said that it was good at the close of 5 of the 6 days of creation.
However, you are the one who is defining your requirements for what that
meant, in this case requiring it to mean a locamotion system that is more
efficient than walking. I do not know what the original design requirements
were. Perhaps walking on two legs was intended to give us a reason for using
horses and later for invent other means of transport - but I readily accept
that that's just idle speculation on my part.

If that doesn't imply perfection to you, then exactly what *does* it
imply? That a perfect god does shoddy work?

In my dictionary "good" has 21 meanings (I'm sure other dictionaries have
more), but none of them mean "perfect". Of those the ones that would seem
applicable are:
1. having pleasing or favourable qualities
5. having a fine appearance
7. enjoyable; refreshing
9. of high quality
15. opportune
16. suitable for a particular medium
19. thorough
I think all of those are applicable. Of course this is its usage in English.
According to blueletterbible.org, the word in the Hebrew can mean any of:
a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
c) good, excellent (of its kind)
d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
e) good, appropriate, becoming
f) better (comparative)
g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man's sensuous nature)
h) good understanding (of man's intellectual nature)
i) good, kind, benign
j) good, right (ethical)

That a divinity made us and said, "Oh this'll do, I can't be bothered
to make it work better than this"?

That your god went to exquisite trouble to perfect birds and fish but
then said "the hell with it" when he reached the purported pinnacle of
his efforts?

Let me make it simple for you. Which takes more gullibility to
believe:
1. That a perfect god created humans out of dirt, couldn't "get the
walk right", and declared it good?
Or
2. That we share a common ancestry with organisms that walked on four
legs and we were never "designed" to walk on two, which is why we walk
rather inefficiently?

or 3 that we were created as God intended us and are now suffering under the
result of the curse.

Nor has she taken on board that we live in a
fallen world and are under a curse.

I did use the term "rules" before didn't I. "Definition" might have been a
better word - coming up with your own definition of what God should have
done and then poking holes in your own definition.
Its quite a clever debating technique. Although I still get the impression
that you can't see it.
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	18 Oct 2006 03:42:43 PM

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1161037924.978088.33520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"James Watson" <arthurofalbion@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:G9CdnQUWudAjIa3YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...

<snip>

Budikka666 is using the classic example of defining his/her own set of
rules
(in this case perfect efficiency of design) so he/she can knock them
down.

Its much easier to ridicule something if you can put your own definition
or
set of requirements up and ridicule those instead.

Which is precisely what Watson is doing. Except that I'm the one
ridiculing them because he's the one failing to support his claims.

Note for example that she hasn't responded to my observation that this is
more of a problem for evolution.

You certainly have a reputation for trying to respond to everything. Look
back in this thread to see what I was referring to.

Nor has she given any grounds for why the
design had to be perfect

No. I am not the one claiming that this god is perfect. You and
Watson are the ones claiming that a perfect god does not mean perfect
work. I've yet to see you justify that claim.
And it's not that all organisms locomote disastrously, either. As the
article I referenced made clear, other organisms, while not perfect
either, do a far more efficient job than humans.
The issue is perfectly simple and will remain so no matter how
desperately you try to obfuscate it.
There are many organisms.
Many (if not most) of them locomote far more efficently than humans.
The intelligent design crowd insist a perfect god made these organisms.
What is the explanation for why the purportedly pinnacle of design is
designed less well than other apparently lesser efforts?
Is it because this perfect god is really not perfect or curiously
thinks that less-than-perfect work from a perfect being actually
qualifies for the appellation "good"?
Or is it because there was no design, but instead, there was evolution
from a quadruped?
It really is that simple.
Rest snipped.
Budikka
.

User: "Brian Cryer"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	19 Oct 2006 07:28:24 AM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1161204163.547766.290110@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1161037924.978088.33520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"James Watson" <arthurofalbion@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:G9CdnQUWudAjIa3YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...

<snip>

Budikka666 is using the classic example of defining his/her own set of
rules
(in this case perfect efficiency of design) so he/she can knock them
down.

Its much easier to ridicule something if you can put your own
definition
or
set of requirements up and ridicule those instead.

Which is precisely what Watson is doing. Except that I'm the one
ridiculing them because he's the one failing to support his claims.

Note for example that she hasn't responded to my observation that this
is
more of a problem for evolution.

You certainly have a reputation for trying to respond to everything. Look
back in this thread to see what I was referring to.

Nor has she given any grounds for why the
design had to be perfect

No. I am not the one claiming that this god is perfect. You and
Watson are the ones claiming that a perfect god does not mean perfect
work. I've yet to see you justify that claim.

Like I said, take your time to read and understand.
You are the one claiming that our method of locomotion should be perfectly
efficient (if created by a perfect creator). That is your claim, not mine.
Regarding a perfect work. God said it was good - I've already covered what
that means both in English and the original Hebrew. Something you seem to
have chosen to disregard. Which brings me to a point of etiquet, perhaps it
doesn't apply here but in most newsgroups it is etiquet to indicate where
you have cut out part of the discussion. Just insert the phrase "<snip>" or
something similar.

And it's not that all organisms locomote disastrously, either. As the
article I referenced made clear, other organisms, while not perfect
either, do a far more efficient job than humans.

So?

The issue is perfectly simple and will remain so no matter how
desperately you try to obfuscate it.

There are many organisms.

Many (if not most) of them locomote far more efficently than humans.

The intelligent design crowd insist a perfect god made these organisms.

What is the explanation for why the purportedly pinnacle of design is
designed less well than other apparently lesser efforts?

Is it because this perfect god is really not perfect or curiously
thinks that less-than-perfect work from a perfect being actually
qualifies for the appellation "good"?

Or is it because there was no design, but instead, there was evolution
from a quadruped?

It really is that simple.

Rest snipped.

Good to see that we agree that the answer is simple, even if we don't agree
on the answer. You shouldn't have snipped the rest of my reply because you
snipped the real answer.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	19 Oct 2006 05:24:57 PM

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1161204163.547766.290110@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1161037924.978088.33520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Brian Cryer wrote:

"James Watson" <arthurofalbion@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:G9CdnQUWudAjIa3YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...

<snip>

Budikka666 is using the classic example of defining his/her own set of
rules
(in this case perfect efficiency of design) so he/she can knock them
down.

Its much easier to ridicule something if you can put your own
definition
or
set of requirements up and ridicule those instead.

Which is precisely what Watson is doing. Except that I'm the one
ridiculing them because he's the one failing to support his claims.

Note for example that she hasn't responded to my observation that this
is
more of a problem for evolution.

You certainly have a reputation for trying to respond to everything. Look
back in this thread to see what I was referring to.

Nor has she given any grounds for why the
design had to be perfect

No. I am not the one claiming that this god is perfect. You and
Watson are the ones claiming that a perfect god does not mean perfect
work. I've yet to see you justify that claim.

Like I said, take your time to read and understand.

I wish you would.

You are the one claiming that our method of locomotion should be perfectly
efficient (if created by a perfect creator). That is your claim, not mine.

No, it's implicit in the insistence that there is a creator, that he is
perfect, and that he declared his work to be good. Until and unless
you offer some rational (not just so stories and wishful thinking, as
to why this is wrong, it stands.
And what I did was highlight the fact that it is less perfect than that
of other organisms, which is yet another problem for "design".

Regarding a perfect work. God said it was good - I've already covered what
that means both in English and the original Hebrew. Something you seem to
have chosen to disregard. Which brings me to a point of etiquet, perhaps it
doesn't apply here but in most newsgroups it is etiquet to indicate where
you have cut out part of the discussion. Just insert the phrase "<snip>" or
something similar.

Whenbever you blather or preach, I snip. period.

And it's not that all organisms locomote disastrously, either. As the
article I referenced made clear, other organisms, while not perfect
either, do a far more efficient job than humans.

So?

Good to see that we agree that the answer is simple, even if we don't agree
on the answer. You shouldn't have snipped the rest of my reply because you
snipped the real answer.

Yeah, sure. Whatever makes you feel good about your impotence.
Budikka
.

User: "James Watson"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	16 Oct 2006 08:36:17 PM

Brian Cryer wrote:

"James Watson" <arthurofalbion@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:G9CdnQUWudAjIa3YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
James,

Budikka666 is using the classic example of defining his/her own set of rules
(in this case perfect efficiency of design) so he/she can knock them down.
Its much easier to ridicule something if you can put your own definition or
set of requirements up and ridicule those instead.

Note for example that she hasn't responded to my observation that this is
more of a problem for evolution. Nor has she given any grounds for why the
design had to be perfect. Nor has she taken on board that we live in a
fallen world and are under a curse.

I, too, am beginning to think that she is incapable of seeing things
from our point of view. She is certainly full of hate, and, for that
reason should be an object of our pity. Nevertheless, some of her
points are important, which is why I respond to her despite her ranting.
Here's to the love of truth that is spiritually uplifting, not full of
hate.
James Watson
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	14 Oct 2006 07:42:46 PM

James Watson wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

James Watson wrote:

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

[...]

Despite the intelligent things I know you've come out with in the past, I
think you are just trolling.

Where is the evidence for the "65 percent of a perfect pendulum" - no, I'm
not doubting it, I'm just asking for evidence.

So fish and birds to better - but they can glide so its not comparing like
with like.

If you looked at the Biblical creation theory you'd know that we live in a
fallen world, under the curse and that things are getting worse - build up
of bad genes etc, so the only problem with "only 65%" is that you don't
understand the theory. If anything haven't you highlighted a problem for
evolution? Shouldn't evolution have ensured that walking was more than
"only" 65%?

I basically agree with you, Mr. Cryer. In addition, I would like to
ask why anyone thinks that God would be obligated to endow man with
perfect-pendulum walking.

I'm saying that perfection is relative to essence. A perfect
performance of Beethoven's _Ninth Symphony_ will raise your spirits to
otherwise unimaginable heights,

Not if you can't stand Beethoven it won't.

but it won't help you cut up your
steak, the way a perfect knife would. This does not reflect any
imperfection in the performance, since it is not the sort of thing
that should be expected to slice meat. The performance might cause a
listener to think of fate, but if it does not, there is no discredit
to the performance, for the analogous reason.

Great. Now all you have to do is explain how that has any relevance
whatsoever to the matter at hand.

The essence of man includes such things as free will, intellect and
the capacity to worship. Therefore, a perfect man must be able to
choose freely, think with perfect clarity and worship God with perfect
love.

How can imperfect beings do that? Or is your claim now that humans, as
well as this god, are perfect?

The essence of man does not include the capacity to walk, since
one would still be human even if he were incapable of taking on a
physical body. Therefore, a man who cannot walk perfectly may still
be a perfect man, even as a musical performance that cannot make the
listener think of fate may still be a perfect performance.

This is entirely irrelevant. We're not talking about humans being
perfect, we're talking about humans being the creation of a purportedly
perfect being who saw that his work was good. We're talking about
humans who were purportedly designed (literally) from the ground up.
Yet we're talking about humans who clearly are defective in that they
do not walk properly (among other things).
The reason they do not walk properly is because they were not designed.
Quite the opposite. They evolved. Therefore the Bible is lying when
it claims humans were created from dirt in their present form, and the
evidence shows that they were not designed by anyone, let alone
designed by a perfect divinity who had all eternity in which to work
and infinite resources upon which to call.
Now do you have any other excuses for avoiding that issue, or other
scenic routes you wish to idly amble along before you actually face the
matter at hand?

Perhaps more importantly, the laws of physics require that walking
expend energy.

Laws which were, if you buy into the theistic position, designed by
this god.

Therefore, the concept of perfect-pendulum walking is
not a concept of perfection, but one of nonsense. Since walking must
expend some energy, the question arises as to whether 65% efficiency
is consistent with perfect walking. (Actually, I'm not sure that the
concept of 'perfect walking' even makes sense. What would make
walking perfect?)

A god.

A normal man today seems to walk just fine. He is
capable of walking thousands of miles in a lifetime. Why expect a
perfect man to be a more efficient walker?

Because he was purportedly designed by a perfect divinity who saw that
his work was good. Now which part of that is it which isn't sinking
in? It seems like I've repeated it many times and you're just not
getting it.
Humans were not designed by humans. If they had been, then we might
expect that they would not be perfect. They were, according to
scripture, designed by a divinity who was perfect and saw that his work
was good.
Now you either need to "rationalize" why they are clearly not perfect
(and walking is only one of the many imperfections in the "design" of
humans), or have the common sense to admit that they were not designed
in any way, shape, or form, but that they evolved from organisms which
walked on four legs, and **that's** the reason why we walk imperfectly.

Of course, we live at a time when man has fallen into imperfection, as
Mr. Cryer mentioned. Therefore, even if a perfect man could walk more
efficiently than we can, it would not imply that God did not create
man perfect.

Did you actually read this after you wrote it?

I have already addressed this.

or from a more artistic perspective, by
their relative elegance in motion.

All blather and no substance. You're really doing a lousy job of
witnessing for this god.

You're embarrassed by walking? I must give you points for originality.

That's not what I said, and such an ignorant retort deserves no better
response than this.

As I explained in another response to you, the behaviour of the
physical universe is not entirely predictable, even by God.

Why? And as I explained to *you* already, yes it would be if we had a
computer which was powerful enough, so once again, why is this
something which is theoretically achievable by humans but not actually
achievable by a divinity? This is another embarrassment. Not to me,
but to anything which pretends to be a perfectly divine creator.

Therefore, it seems very likely that God would have had to protect man
from some forms of harm however he had designed him, provided that he
gave him a physical body. So, why doesn't God protect man from
unavoidable instances of drowning or deadly falling? As I also
explained in another response to you, God currently allows us to live
in an era of sin and alienation from himself.

And this somehow rationalizes or justifies why so many children suffer
and die horribly? This is justifiable for no better reason than that
some idiot 6,000 years ago wanted to be able to distinguish good from
evil? Can you not comprehend how profoundly stupid and juvenile such a
belief system is? You know something? Even if you were absolutely
right in every single thing you've said, I would reject such a god as
not worthy of *me*.

How much of the world would we have been able to see with such skills?

However Jehovah had made man, he (man) would have had limited
knowledge. Only God is appropriately omniscient. It is better for
created persons to explore and to learn.

You've just denied free will by claiming this god is omniscient.

It seems to me that you are here describing evils that we have brought
upon ourselves.

I was not the one who wanted, 6,000 years ago, to be able to
distinguish good from evil. It was this god who created people in
ignorance, then put them into the path of temptation without supplying
them with the means to know what an evil act was.
Again, can you not comprehend how profoundly stupid and juvenile such a
belief system is? Again, even if you were absolutely right in every
single thing you've said, I would reject such a stupid and pathetic god
as not worthy of *me*.
Budikka
.

User: "James Watson"
Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #4	15 Oct 2006 07:20:59 PM

Budikka666 wrote:

James Watson wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

James Watson wrote:

Brian Cryer wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160699228.804672.19910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

In the July 2001 Discover magazine there was an article (Robert Kunzig
- "Falling Forward") about human gait.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-01/departments/featphysics/

[...]