Teeth are evidence for a creator!

[firedragon]

Exactly, the evidence.... cancer and heart disease are in the link which is the evidence.

Prior to that, you said that I reduced cancer and heart disease to mere bad breath. And you expected me to apologise.

Where did I do that John?

 

[John53]

Prior to that, you said that I reduced cancer and heart disease to mere bad breath. And you expected me to apologise.

Where did I do that John?

Posted twice, scroll back.

 

[firedragon]

Posted twice, scroll back.

People having bad breath, cancer, heart disease, you claim are due to bad design.

So provide the perfect design objectively to compare!

 

[John53]

People having bad breath, cancer, heart disease, you claim are due to bad design.

So provide the perfect design objectively to compare!

If I claimed I knew the perfect design I would. I didn't and I don't know a perfect design so I won't. What I did was claim teeth are an ordinary design and provided evidence for my claim. Feel free to chop the post and attempt to change the meaning of my words.

 

[firedragon]

If I claimed I knew the perfect design I would.

Exactly.

Cheers.

 

[John53]

Exactly.

Cheers.

Well done, didn't disappoint with your tactic

 

[firedragon]

Well done, didn't disappoint with your tactic

Tsk.

 

[Valjean]

So whats the perfect design of a human?

You raise a pretty high bar, Dragon. Does perfection even exist?

Perfect in what way? In what respect? What would be your criteria for perfection?

 

[firedragon]

You raise a pretty high bar, Dragon. Does perfection even exist?

If perfection doesnt exist, how do you benchmark a design? Whats the yardstick?

There is none. That is why one should not posit his or her human wishes to the status of a human being and use his subjective wishes or prayer as the yardstick and measure what we are in order to create an apologetic.

Perfect in what way? In what respect? What would be your criteria for perfection?

This is your apologetic. Not mine.

 

[Valjean]

So let's say the universe created itself. This raises philosophical issue rathers than religious one for me.
Science gives us cause and effect - no miracles.

Yes, miracles are the business of religion. A self-created universe raises questions of Physics.

A universe which just popped into existance, sans space, time, energy, physical laws, mathematics etc.
is conceptually impossible to me. That doesn't mean its impossible, it just means it's impossible for me
to accept.

Almost all of modern theoretical physics is, at best counterintuitive, and often conceptually impossible -- yet it is what it is.
Your refusal to accept what you don't understand, or incapability of accepting what you can't conceive makes me think that you're not very familiar with science and human knowledge in general. Relativity and Quantum mechanics are real.

 

[Valjean]

If perfection doesnt exist, how do you benchmark a design? Whats the yardstick?

Functionality?

There is none. That is why one should not posit his or her human wishes to the status of a human being and use his subjective wishes or prayer as the yardstick and measure what we are in order to create an apologetic.

Status is a different issue entirely. If we're talking biology, though, "good enough," not perfection, is generally sufficient for an species to survive.

This is your apologetic. Not mine.

I wasn't trying to make a case for perfection. I was more arguing against it and pointing to the flawed design of religion's paragon of animals.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, miracles are the business of religion. A self-created universe raises questions of Physics.
Almost all of modern theoretical physics is, at best counterintuitive, and often conceptually impossible -- yet it is what it is.
Your refusal to accept what you don't understand, or incapability of accepting what you can't conceive makes me think that you're not very familiar with science and human knowledge in general. Relativity and Quantum mechanics are real.

I can accept the weird things of relativity and quantum without having to 'understand' them.
Today I was looking at the Minkowski graph again - sort of understandable, but then you
take the true nature of a light photon and it's outside our comprehension. The thing is
though - we can accept the weird world of a photon as a given because we 'know' of
quantum and probability.
Creating a universe when none existed is another matter - THERE'S NO PHYSICS.
Physics was created with the universe, so too were numbers and maths. This goes
beyong 'counterintuitive' and enter the realm of 'impossible.'
No universe = no physics, no maths.
Science itself tells you that's impossible.

 

[shunyadragon]

So let's say the universe created itself.

Let's not say that. It is a foolish anthropomorphic view of our universe.

This raises philosophical issue rathers than religious one for me.

No, the word Create is religious issue. It is best to drop it unless want to continue a religious perspective, which the assertion: The universe cannot Create itself.' This is a religious assertion common in Christian arguments. The word to create is alien to science as far as the origins of the universe and the nature of our physical existence.
.

Science gives us cause and effect - no miracles.

True, no miracles, except clarification science uses Methodological Naturalism to falsify hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence to determine what causes effects.

A universe which just popped into existence, sans space, time, energy, physical laws, mathematics etc.
is conceptually impossible to me. That doesn't mean its impossible, it just means it's impossible for me
to accept.

Foolish notions not worthy of consideration. Yes impossible. Please let us move on.

YOU CREATE YOURSELF, and do so WITHOUT THE TOOLS and FOR NO REASON and
with NO CONSCIOUSNESS.

I lost you. You just went over Niagara Falls in barrel.

 

[firedragon]

Functionality?

Thats a design? Cmon.

Status is a different issue entirely.If we're talking biology, though, "good enough," not perfection, is generally sufficient for an species to survive.

Okay. So what is "Good enough"?

I wasn't trying to make a case for perfection. I was more arguing against it and pointing to the flawed design of religion's paragon of animals.

Thats just saying things for the sake of saying things. I know this is a common missionary activity, but its an illogical argument. It will end up in a slippery slope.

Hume said of the ought to be. You are making theological oughts being against religion because you have not thought this true. You need to have some criteria, a yardstick to measure. Without it you cannot make arbitrary claims. You wish you never had any flaw? So what is the human being without any flaw? Whats the description?

You dont have a choice but be absolutely vague because you have none of this. Thats the reason it's a very bad argument.

 

[Valjean]

Thats a design? Cmon.

It's design in general. In biology, a functional design is one enabling a population to reproduce and maintain itself. Some designs are pretty robust, and have survived a long time. Others, once functional, die out when they're unable to adapt to changing conditions. Perfection, though; you're not going to find it.

Okay. So what is "Good enough"

A design that, despite useless or even dysfunctional traits, is sufficient to sustain a population over time.

Thats just saying things for the sake of saying things. I know this is a common missionary activity, but its an illogical argument. It will end up in a slippery slope.

Hume said of the ought to be. You are making theological oughts being against religion because you have not thought this true. You need to have some criteria, a yardstick to measure. Without it you cannot make arbitrary claims. You wish you never had any flaw? So what is the human being without any flaw? Whats the description?

You dont have a choice but be absolutely vague because you have none of this. Thats the reason it's a very bad argument.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. I'm making a case for the natural evolution of traits and species, without any need for an intentional designer or a magical "mechanism.".
Are you proposing an alternative?[/QUOTE]

 

[firedragon]

It's design in general. In biology, a functional design is one enabling a population to reproduce and maintain itself. Some designs are pretty robust, and have survived a long time. Others, once functional, die out when they're unable to adapt to changing conditions. Perfection, though; you're not going to find it.

What is the design specifically you are talking about. Not descriptions of criteria. Whats the exact criteria?

When you go to a student say you got 50% you have to give the correct answers which are the benchmarks. Not just describe what the answers could be one day in a dream.

A design that, despite useless or even dysfunctional traits, is sufficient to sustain a population over time.

Same.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. I'm making a case for the natural evolution of traits and species, without any need for an intentional designer or magic poofing.
Are you proposing an alternative?

Nope. Im steal manning your fellow who you came to aid, and your flawed design argument, and asking you what you are comparing with.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes. And I’ve read the naysayers’ comments…we should keep in mind though, that humans — in fact the Earth and all it’s living things — have been alienated from the Creator, Jehovah, for thousands of years. (Due to the rebellion and sovereignty issues.) And without His control, imperfections would arise in natural processes.
But there’s something else you said:

the crocodile knows by instinct that the bird is doing an important job, and the bird some how knows he/she has the Crocs permission, and won't get killed.

That is impressive! That totally unrelated organisms could interact that way! It screams design, too.

Can evolution explain it (symbiosis) coherently? No, not without the usual ‘likely’s, ‘probably’s, and ‘must have been’s. Which is philosophy, not science.

There’s only 2 sources which are employed to explain reality: naturalism, and Intelligence. Both should be incorporated together. We know which one the biological sciences promote.

(There’s no third source.)

 

[PruePhillip]

.... foolish anthropomorphic view of our universe.

I lost you. You just went over Niagara Falls in barrel.

Comment to this point 'YOU CREATE YOURSELF, and do so WITHOUT THE TOOLS and FOR NO REASON and
with NO CONSCIOUSNESS.'

So instead of a universe, JUST YOU bursts into being.
It can happen according to quantum physics, purely on quantum probabalistic reasons alone.
But YOU are born WITHOUT probability and quantum mechanics - in fact, without anything
at all, ie no energy, no gravity, no space, no time etc..
Just you, emerging from some 'big bang'

Thus we narrow down the PURPOSE OF OUR BEING.
Why you?
What's the point?
How come you from pure NOTHING?
Would that be a 'miracle' or would it be 'magic' ?

 

[Valjean]

What is the design specifically you are talking about. Not descriptions of criteria. Whats the exact criteria?

My original comment, #73, was referring to normal human anatomy. I wasn't proposing perfection. I was pointing out design features that were problematic, and evidence of imperfection.

In a machine, obvious flaws would be quickly corrected, because engineers can start from scratch, even scrap whole system and replace them with radically different ones.
Nature doesn't have that option. It has to work with what's already there, making repeated, small modifications in an (unintentional) effort to adapt to changing conditions, so optimum adaptive designs are not an option. Organisms are imperfect because structures are necessarily more jerry-rigged than engineered. Nature can't just totally redesign a spine or cardiac circulation like an engineer can replace a carburetor with fuel injection.

When you go to a student say you got 50% you have to give the correct answers which are the benchmarks. Not just describe what the answers could be one day in a dream.

Not sure I'm following. Clarify?
I wasn't describing or anticipating any future perfection. I was just pointing out the imperfections that were the result of evolution, and later mentioned the fact that, even with less than optimum features, living organisms' designs are 'good enough' to survive.

Nope. Im steal manning your fellow who you came to aid, and your flawed design argument, and asking you what you are comparing with.

Could you clarify the flaws you see in my argument?

 

[firedragon]

My original comment, #73, was referring to normal human anatomy. I wasn't proposing perfection. I was pointing out design features that were problematic, and evidence of imperfection.

To call out imperfections, you need to have a set standard of perfection.