Roland98

This is more of an S&S topic. If you search through there you'll find a lot of threads/posts on that topic--or feel free to start a new one. But basic physics discussions don't belong in E/C.

Thanks,

Roland98
E/C moderator

Evoken

I understand what you mean but honestly in my opinion I am not overly obsessed like some Creationists and even IDers with the "perfect creation" or the flawless six day miracle or anything of the sort but I think that God did an amazing job when creating and the litte flaws we may encounter here and there are what l think let us apreciate the rest more.

Viti

Some are big flaws. Doesn't that sort of make you question the "Intelligent" part of "Intelligent Design"?

Sven

It's just that the "little flaws we may encounter here and there" (it's much worse, I think you need to study some examples from Oolons's list) are exactly what we would expect if evolution had occured - whereas on the other hand, a designer would explain any observation, as you yourself just demonstrated nicely. So the first is a scientific theory which can be and was tested extensively and can be falsified, whereas the latter (ID) is not scientific, but merely a philosophical point of view. That's the point Oolon, Jet (I suppose), and I try to get across.

Oikoman

He is being civil... and he has a good point. The "designer" could be some mad god out of a Lovecraftian nightmare, or some gibbering diety suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Thats the problem with creationist ideas... if you try to determine the nature of the "creator" based on his designs, you come up with a fool, a madman, or someone with a sick sense of humor.

Evoken

Not really. It is possible that what we see as a "flaw" today is a remanant of a previous adaptation that was once useful.

I have not denied that Evolution has occured. I think Evolution is a proven fact, the only thing I am not clear yet is how Macroevolution resulted from Microevolution+Time, but I have been looking into it as of late. But I do not see Evolution and God as mutually exclusive.

Jet Black

it's not just a matter of little flaws, it's the fact that aall those little flaws bar none fit into an evolutionary framework in which life has a common ancestor. Is there any sense in the recurrent laryngeal nerve in all mammals from shrews to giraffes and humans looping from the brain, under the aorta and back up to the neck again? how about manatee toenails or eyes embedded under the skin in the Itjaritjari? how about pseudogenes or ERVs, how do all of these fit in with "the little flaws" when again, they point to common ancestry? I notice you avoid the analogy about the seatbelt on cars, but that is basically the way nature works. an intelligent designer has no need to follow the rules of common ancestry, He can flout those rules whenever He likes, but we never see those rules flouted. why not?

Jet Black

where is the problem? if we look at the theropod and therapsid lineages we can see things like wings and the mammalian jaw appearing over time.

Jet Black

here is Oolon's list of little mistakes for your perusal:

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

Sparrow

The comment was about an alleged designer, not about you or someone who believes in a designer. Of course, if human life was designed and has not evolved, and if the designs are really optimal but just appear to us to be sub-optimal, then said designer could come and explain to us how we're wrong? Or would the sub-optimal designs be an indication that said designer was not omnipotent, omniscient, etc.? That is not necessarily an idiot, but clearly not all-knowing.