Camaban

<a href="http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3494&pagenumber=1" target="_blank">http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3494&pagenumber=1</a>

A response to the claim that creationists make that things are similar because they have a similar design (using cars as an example) I responded to the point by saying that cars designs can effectively be said to have evolved from a common ancestor design.

So, is it my argument that's screwed, or are these people just being painfully, painfully dense?

Any comments (and maybe another voice) would be appreciated

thanks

galiel

It is your argument that is screwed.



You simply strengthen the argument for a designer by using a false analogy. If cars can "evolve" from a common design, then "evolution" would not disprove the existence of a designer.

However, your problems go deeper than that. Talking about car design as "evolving" shows a complete misunderstanding of the natural mechnisms that drive (pardon the pun) biological evolution. Read the many threads here about the issue, since I have no interest in going into the whole megilla all over again. Or, better yet, pick up a good layman's text on evolution and bone up.

Personally, I believe the only value of debating creationists is in a public forum where laypeople get to hear science tell its story, and perhaps a young impressionable mind or two might be swayed. I see no value in debating creationists for the purpose of changing THEIR minds, since they have not reached their conclusions by honest application of reason and critical thinking, and will not be influenced by rational argument.

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Camaban

Problem is that it wasn't meant to disprove the existance of a designer.

All it's meant to do is show the argument I was using this one as a counter to is a load of crock by showing that cars use the same components, etc, because they're all based on modifications (albeit extensive in many cases) of one original design.

Showing that a truck and a mini, just like man and apes, use the same components (for want of a better word) etc, because we both have common ancestors (man - ape common andcestor, truck - mini common ancestor)

common components because of common design, and common design because of common ancestry.

To attempt to sum it up.

It's kinda like playing ping-pong against a brick wall

you don't win, but it's good practise

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]</p>

Daggah

Well, I think it's important to point out the ways that cars are not analagous to living things.

For example, if you tried to compile the car equivalent of a phylogenetic tree, you'd quickly realize that, often, traits aren't passed down the tree like they are in a real phylogenetic tree. Since cars ARE designed, there isn't anything stopping a trait in one car of one family (think Honda = one family, Ford = one family, etc.) from suddenly cropping up in cars of other families.

That doesn't happen in the biological world. There's no reason to assume it couldn't happen if a designer were present and active, but pure evolution would make such an event unlikely.

Zira_C

Hi Camaban:
I think a little of both. These people are being painfully, painfully dense. Berra used the car analogy in “Evolution and the Myth of Creationism”, to demonstrate how natural selection works. Natural selection acts on variation (regardless of how that variation arises) and can cause directional change in morphology. In his car example, the selecting agent was market demand. If people bought (preferentially selected) a certain model, certain aspects of it would prevail into the next season. If people did not buy a certain model (selected against), it would not be picked up and carried into the next season. That’s basically the limit of the analogy, but the point is made. Natural selection acts on variation (regardless of how that variation arises) by preferentially selecting, or rather eliminating, certain models from the current population, thereby preventing their traits from getting into the next generation. Miller used a similar example in “Finding Darwin’s God”. He talked about how he had students in College who were excellent test takers, yet no one taught them how to take tests. The reason they were so good was that the poor test takers, after years of writing tests, had been weeded out (selected against). Again, regardless of how the variation arose, natural selection can cause directional change in a population (be it cars or people).

I think where your particular car analogy goes wrong is that you attempt to say that all cars are descended from the Model T (common ancestor), and then change as a result of manufacturers changing design. This limits your ability to argue for selection as driving changes in car models, and the only way you can progress up to the modern car is through design. This leaves the Iders with the pretty comfortable position of saying that it was design all along “nope it was design not descent, and you can’t prove otherwise nyaah nyaah nyaah”.

Bubba

Exactly what the previous two posters said. It's a little like the old 747 arguement. A 747 or a Camaro doesn't reproduce (although people have been known to concieve children inside of Camaros). Thus the analogy is good but limited. It is, in the previous words market forces rather than purely natural selection that dictate automotive evolution.

However, it's still somewhat analagous to a blind watchmaker scenario. No one person or organization controlls market forces relating to vehicles. However, since this is the case natural selection allows "errors" to enter in. For instance, people who buy SUV's at 10 miles per gallon when war is an any day possibility in the middle east. Thus if Gas goes to 6 bucks a gallon, the SUV will have run into a situation similar to but not completely analagous with a evolutionary dead end.

Bubba

Bubba

In a strange sort of way their being dense exhonerates evolution. If they weren't really deep down afraid of evolution and the possibility that you were right they wouldn't mind an honest look at the evidence, would they?

Bubba

Advocatus Diaboli

I'm shamed to admit this, but it took me 4 months to realise what you just said. Now I only argue in public forums.(game, scifi,fantasy,movie etc forums)

galiel

Don't apologize. I'm 42. If we discount the 1st 4 years or so of my life, it took me about 30 years, and a lot of high blood-pressure moments, to figure it out.

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Atheist121

When the car analogy gets used, I just tend to ignore it and focus on the other parts of their analogy. It just takes to long to explain why it's wrong, and they never seem to understand why. I feel there are better issues to address.

As for theologyonline, the people there are very dense. I gave up trying to have any sort of meaningful conversation there, and now I just go there whenever I want to see how many times per second I can slap my forehead. Here are a few examples of my past experiences:

My first post there involved bob b. Bob b is quite possibly the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever met. Anyways, my first post questioned something he said, and he replied by saying my claim was wrong. So I asked him for evidence that it was wrong, and he tried to dance around it with name calling, and whatnot. I refused to acknowledge his statements, and just kept asking for any evidence at all for his claim. A link, and article, anything. He eventually gave up on the thread.

Another time I had a conversation with him about the Bible Code. I'm a computer/math person, so I found the whole thing ridiculous from the start. He tried to defend it, so I posted a link to a great site refuting it. He then responded that that was a straw man, and he was refering to a different code. So I told him that it might help if he actually told me what code he was refering to, so I could actually address whatever his real argument was. It's hard not to attack a straw man when your opponent won't reveal his position. He then said it was some stuff about some sages, and I pointed out that one of my links had the sages. Then he responded that the sages were different from the rest of the Bible Code, and explained them. It was then that I realized that there was no way he had ever looked at any of the pages. Eventually he DID back off (the only time I've ever seen him do so, I think) and started to claim that he thought that they probably weren't were put there by God, just that they were interesting. I don't think he read the pages or understands the math.

Another stupid discussion I had there wasn't with bob b, but it was with the general posters. They started a post about why nonbelievers use the Christian years if they don't believe in their God. I responded by saying that it was just convention and made it easier to "get along" with the rest of the world if we used the same calendar. I also mentioned that we use the days of the week, which are named after various gods. I pointed out that Christians also use them, and asked if this meant that they believed that Thor was really a god and worshipped him. They responded by saying that the days of the week were just used because everyone uses them, but that nonbelievers used the Christian year because they know in their heart of hearts that Jesus is the one true God. Ummmm...ok. They further went on to say that it doesn't matter with the days of the week, because those gods are false. When I mentioned that their God is as fake as the others to me, they responded by claiming that they could prove that the other gods don't exist, but you can't do that for Jesus. Ummm...ok.

I don't think I should go on anymore about those forums, other than to say again that I don't post there anymore