Floyd, my dear chap,: However, to date, no creationist has been able or willing to answer the one question I have about "design" arguments in general:
: Premise 1) Assume that "god" created us (humans) in his own image (that is part of the argument, correct?)
: P.2) Observe the very large brain-weight to body size ratio found in humans (exceeded only by the ratio in ants and, perhaps, bottle-nosed dolphins) and the phenomenal complexity of organization of this brain (apparently unexceeded, but I'm not so sure about the dolphins).
: P.3) Observe how the use of this large, and complexly-organized brain has enabled humans to understand the way biological evolution works.
: P.4) Assume that "god" is smarter than his "creations" (that's also central to your argument, I believe).
: From this, we must conclude that "god" would also have been able to figure out how biological evolution works, and thus have been able to use this simple set of organizing principles to create life; Q.E.D.
: Now you'll notice that this argument takes the existence of "god" as a given, and also takes the purported absolute superiority of "god" and "his" similarity to humans as givens. These are all central parts to your arguments but, coupled with the observed data from biology, STILL lead to the conclusion that evolution is a reasonable explanation for the existence and diversity of life on earth.
: The only alternative that you and other creationists have offered suggests that your god was only able to work in ways that were understandable to partially literate nomadic sheep herders that lived 4000 years or so before modern science was developed. It seems to me that YOUR argument places a lot more limitations on your god than mine does, frankly.
To create the universe and its life forms the Creator must, of necessity, be transcendent. To create the universe in the first place He must have preceded it. Secondly, to order and establish the matter within galaxies, solar systems and living beings, He would need to "enter," in effect, the arena of space-time that He created. This ability to simultaneously exist inside and outside the dimensions of the universe demands a transcendent, supernatural Creator.
To many, invoking a supernatural cause for the origin of the universe is abhorrent. However, to invoke the god called "chance" is, according to many, a belief in "mathematical miracles." So we must choose between mathematical miracles, without a supernatural agent to perform them, or a transcendent Creator-the "First Cause," who ordered and established the universe and its life forms. The god called "chance" or intelligent design? You must choose.
: ... This is, in my opinion, the perfect example of the divergence of lineages that you asked for above. The genetic and biological similarities between neandertals and us are so overwhelming (greater than 99%) that we can not be unrelated, but there are differences, and these are due to the process of genetic divergence in geographically isolated populations, which is exactly the point that Farinata and I were making all along. Do you get it this time?
No, not really. You mentioned a 200,000 years earlier for man's lineage and now 500,000 years later in the same post. Rather odd, coming from one with such over-the-top accusations about scientists who dissagree with you.
As for the "99% alike" argument, I'll repeat (once again) my objection. Many different years of Volkswagens have parts that are 99% alike but that does not prove that one Volkswagen evolved into another. What it does say is that, most likely, these Volkswagens have a common maker (ie, Volkswagen Motor Car Corporation). Reading the owner's manual would be a good way of verifiying this as well.
: I'll be honest, Robert, I'm getting pretty bored with this thread. You keep making the same arguments over and over, even though we've repeatedly explained why they are invalid. ... I'm not going to respond to any argument I've already refuted, since repetition does nothing to advance the argument and just exaspirates everyone involved.
Sorry if this seems redundant, however contrary to your boredom, I think we've made great progress. A summary of what we've been able to establish thanks to you and Farinata:
1) Your admission that stooping ape-men are indeed imaginary. This is a major vindication of me, in that you as an evolutionist now defend me against those other evolutionists who disagree with this. Thank you.
2) You have disavowed the famous row of stooping ape-men as being out-dated. This is superb coming from an evolutionist because it still remains in popular "scientific" text books and periodicals under the name of evolution. This artistic falsehood has been a major point of mine for some time now. Thanks again.
3) Since there are no stooping ape-men, that is, merely tree-swingers/knuckle-walkers or fully upright bi-pedals, then the gradualism of evolution goes away. It would be impossible to mutate in one generation the leg bone structure, pelvis, and spinal column to transition from one to the other. So thanks for verifying that there is still the vast hole of the missing link.
4) You and Farinata both hold to the bizarre claim that humans COULD POSSIBLY, through isolation of races, become different species. No proof given, just mere speculation and rather quirky theories about homo-martialus. That is a giant leap of faith, and even more of a warning to those who would speculate without evidence in this manner.
5) Although you confine man to 200,000 years or so, when confronted with the computations of how many generation it took for speciation I was able to show it would take the first man back a minimum of 4 million years using your own speciation theory. Perhaps that's true, nothing in between Homo-Sapiens and the Rampithicenes (er hum plural, before I get 2 points off for spelling). That would agree more with a missing link than with gradual speciation.
and last but not least, I finally discovered that Farinata is a dear chap and not a lass (thanks to my own literary ignorance).
Floyd, as always, it's been a pleasure and know that there is only One in Whom we can trust. God Bless.
Robert
None.
