Wrong.
And you missed the point. It wasn't a QUESTION from Sciwriter.
The engineering student would be "expelled" for such a crap design.
So what make something a good design?
jan.
why do some theists believe in Darwinian evolution?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
So what make something a good design?
jan.
One that does its job without flaws.
Again.
Seeing what?
I am sure that an engineering student would be "expelled" for such a crap design.
But since when is engineering the alpha and omega arbiter of what makes for useful design?
Something to eat/ that's about to eat us.
Hmm, what do you suggest should be the arbiter?
How do we tell if a design is good or bad?
What other field is so concerned with function and efficiency?
Last edited:
So you don't consider the fact that the possibility of choking while eating (food cutting off air supply) is a problem?
Or that our spines aren't configured for walking upright?
Or that the appendix has no "purpose" other than to inflame and attempt to kill us?
I didn't suggest that.
Suppose that the purpose of our lives would be to see, smell or touch one perfect apricot blossom. Almost any body would be good enough for that (even if later one would choke while eating, get cancer, appendicits or get eaten by a shark).
We can't talk about "flaws" of the human body (and mind) unless we know what the human life is meant for.
A flaw is something that hinders or interferes with operation.
:shrug:
I see what you mean, I think. But I'm inclined disagree. (And not just out of bloody-mindedness!)
Not at all.
Example: I buy a car to get work and back - if it uses a gallon of fuel per mile and makes extremely loud rattling noises can I regard these as flaws despite the fact that the car serves its purpose?
More to the point, why would you not?
Don't you think a car can be designed to use considerably less than a gallon per mile, and run relatively quietly?
If the answer is "yes" then the two objections listed are flaws.
Jan,
What you said constituted faulty logic. It is circular reasoning.
You stated a point, that one can not prove god did not use evolution as the tool for our creation. I agreed because you are asking me to prove something that is un-proveable, but that doesn't make it so just because you can not prove something does not exist.
As I said you can not prove there are not invisible elephants in my yard.
The problem is that you are starting with the belief and then filling in whatever is needed to support the belief and ignoring all that does not.
This is what you are saying:
How can god not have used evolution when we know we evolved and we know there is a god.
Emphasis on "we know there is a god"
You start with the belief in god, and then assign every action to it because you can not accept that we evolved without god
or you can not accept that we evolved.
Again, more requests to prove the negative.
No not irrelevant because it was central to your statement of purpose. That we have a higher purpose.
You didn't answer 3, I asked "Why"
Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being need to practice on thousands of species before creating us, remember per you we have a purpose ?
What you said constituted faulty logic. It is circular reasoning.
You stated a point, that one can not prove god did not use evolution as the tool for our creation. I agreed because you are asking me to prove something that is un-proveable, but that doesn't make it so just because you can not prove something does not exist.
As I said you can not prove there are not invisible elephants in my yard.
The problem is that you are starting with the belief and then filling in whatever is needed to support the belief and ignoring all that does not.
This is what you are saying:
How can god not have used evolution when we know we evolved and we know there is a god.
Emphasis on "we know there is a god"
You start with the belief in god, and then assign every action to it because you can not accept that we evolved without god
or you can not accept that we evolved.
Again, more requests to prove the negative.
No not irrelevant because it was central to your statement of purpose. That we have a higher purpose.
You didn't answer 3, I asked "Why"
Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being need to practice on thousands of species before creating us, remember per you we have a purpose ?
They used to make costly and loud cars; but at the time, the particular use of fuel and the particular noise were not seen as flaws.
I still remember when it didn't bother me if the computer took a minute or two to boot. Now, it bothers me if it doesn't boot within 30 seconds.
How come? What has changed?
If the noise and the great use of fuel bother you, then this suggests that you have assigned more purpose to the car than just being a means to get you to and back from work.
I think usually, we assign many purposes to each thing, but are not aware of most of these assignments.
So cars, for example, aren't assigned merely the purpose of being the means of transportation, but are also expected to be safe, to be economical and rational in use of resources, and even to be reflections of our personalities.
Correct. Because our knowledge was incomplete and we were at the start of the learning curve.
Did that apply to god when he designed us?