Keith

This doesn't explain how the bats who's ears DID develop in sync managed to stay in sync. It only says that some bats who's ears DID NOT develop in sync died before they could reproduce. This is unfortunately the kind of nonsense that passes as an "explanation" for evolution here. I am not impressed.

Keith

Keith

I think its a long way to get from planes that don't crash to a space shuttle emerging--all from random inputs. Do you really think a plane that flies could be designed that way? Why should we assume that non-crashing planes will eventually evolve into space shuttles without any sort of intelligent designer?

Keith

Salmon of Doubt

Look, if the bats whose ears weren't "in sync" died, what else is left except the ones whose ears worked just fine? You shouldn't criticise this as nonsense when it is in fact you who clearly don't understand the concepts here.

Keith

What I've shown is that it doesn't really matter whether the TOE is basically true or not. The intelligent and complex design shows planning and purpose. Eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, and nature generally seems to make sense. God exists. Point proven, case closed.

Keith

Keith

If nearly every soccer player thinks scoring is the point of it, then it probably is the point of it. If everyone thinks eyes are for seeing and ears are for hearing, it is not just my own opinion about what eyes and ears are for. If most living things seem to be trying to reproduce, it would not be my own subjective opinion that "nature" wants life to exist and propagate.

Keith

Keith

At one time it must have seemed perfectly reasonable to assume that the earth was the center of the universe. Your assumptions are that the vertebrate eye is sub-optimally designed. That could be true, but a better interpretation, in view of history, is that we don't currently have enough information to say for sure that these cells face the wrong way. It is only apparently true.

Keith

Batman

Wrong. You haven't proven any such thing and simply repeating it doesn't make it true. It does make you sound immature though. You choose to see intellegent design in nature because you want it to be so and not for any other reason. Every point you have tried to make has been answered. If there is a super being doing the "planning" then why have so many species become extinct? Poor planning?

Keith

Your logic is flawed. You are making the assumption that just because some bats die from getting out of sync all of the other bats have to stay in sync. It is also possible that bats who are somewhat out of sync in ear development might manage to reproduce anyway, as long as they aren't too far out of sync. It is also possible that for a given species, no bats ears will ever stay sufficiently in sync for any bat of the species to survive beyond a single generation along their echolocation development. What cannot be assumed is that the dumping of the most obvious defects will leave everything running smoothly for those who survive. Everything is in a constant state of change. Things can go horribly wrong at any time. Survival is never assured.

Keith

Keith

That can't be known. The important thing is that God is in control of everything, and he has a reason for everything he does even if we don't know the reason.

Keith

Starboy

Keith, why the big charade? Why all the coy and guarded statements. Why would you care about any evidence or theories or explanations other than your own religious beliefs? After all, your sitting pretty in the big hand of god, right? I can think of only one reason for your deceptive behavior. Deep down you don't believe that god did it. Perhaps you don't even believe in god. If you did believe, then all the machinations and deceptions you have displayed on this thread would not have been necessary. You didn't fool anybody on this thread but yourself.

Starboy