Sauron

Good material for a talk.origins FAQ.

Vanderzyden

Oolon,

Thank you for the attempt to demonstrate. What you have done is to provide pictures with encyclopedia entries. That's nice, but we do not have an explanation of why this is a poor design.

Some problems I see:

-- The pictures (even the large one) do not show the small "black spots".

-- None of the content in any of the links specifically elaborates upon the presence of vestigial eyes

--Some of the links indicate "reduced eyes" instead of "black spots" or "vestigial eyes". Which is it?

Most importantly, it seems that these salamanders live in caves, where there is no light. Why is that? Why don't they live in the light? Perhaps it is because THEY DON'T NEED LIGHT.

One more thing: Is this <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm" target="_blank">link</a> that you provided supposed to be a joke? Or was it a mistake?

Allow me to echo the spirit of your rhetorical question:

Do you really think that this will be easy work? (Hint: I've been down this road before.)

Vanderzyden

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

rebelnerd

A claim! A claim! Ok, assuming they don't need light, could you please tell the listening audience why these salamanders have eyes or parts of eyes? If they were designed, and the designer is without error, in what way is this a good design?

Filo

pz

Great galloping jebus.

I consider this thread completely over as far as any replies to Vanderzyden go. He is inexcusably evasive, and any further attempts to interact with him are obviously futile. Please, please everyone: ignore him. If anyone want to discuss the substantive material that Oolon has presented, that would be lovely...but if this thread sinks into another pointless wrestling match with Vanderzyden, I'll shut it down.

rebelnerd

Fine then, be that way.

Vander's just all puffed up without any answers anyway....

Filo

Valentine Pontifex

I don't see the contradiction. These are just different ways of saying pretty much the same thing.

In the end you have been shown to be wrong.

Unless you can give us good reason for
the existence of eyes in animals that do not
need to see -- eyes which would not function or would not function well if the animals were to find themselves in a place where there was light to see by -- then you really should concede the point for this case. Maybe you can use that all purpose creationist disclaimer and call it "microevolution."

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Vander, you are indeed a brick wall. Brick fucking wall.

Lying troll. That is all you are and ever will be.

Vanderzyden

Yes, pz, you would be happy if I just went away.

Are you attempting to impress us with displays of your power? Go ahead, shut it down if you like. I'm sure you'll make friends that way.


Vanderzyden

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Dr Rick

Friends?!

Sweet Jesus, I'll promise pz sexual favors if he makes you go away.

You don't debate or discuss; you merely evade. You never post anything substantative in response to the arguments against your position.

Rick

Jeremy Pallant

Vanderzyden,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. It is your assertion that the list presented by Oolon really represents examples of your god's perfect design. Is this a true statement?

If your answer is "yes", then why not pick just one example, and explain why it is a perfect design?

If your answer is "no", then explain why your perfect god elected to engage in imperfect design.

Should you claim that his creation was perfect before the mythological fall, then provide evidence for this claim.

If you feel any one of these requests is unreasonable, please explain why.