[gallo]

Quote by: Porfyra alright i have some arguments now... finally.

Not 'agruments', actually. What you really have is a serious of incredulous statements that seem to be based on extreme ignorance.

the hummingbird has little spiky things and a glue like substance on the end of its tongue without which it could not eat.

So you are claiming that the hummingbird needs glue on the end of its tongue in order to drink nectar? Or are you talking about the small insects that it catches.

the woodpecker had to close its eyes and refocus each time it pecks. if it did not do this then its eyes would pop out and it would miss its target. thus, not being able to eat. there is a bacterium which has a tiny, intricately designed motor which even we humans cannot copy successfully. without this it could not survive.

There's a couple more 'so what?' statements that you seem to think prove something.

there are countless other examples like these but i havent the time to type them all out.

I'm sure you don't.

now please tell me, how in the world did these things evolve?

Through the accumulation of small genetic changes in a population through many generations.

if they have to have these special qualities to survive then how would they make it from some other creature to the creatures they are now without dying out first because of the lack of essential body parts?

Could it be that they are descended from a population with a less specialized diet? Could it be that the evolution of these special characteristics gave them an advantage in competition with other populations?

Quote by: Porfyra also.... Archaeologists will say that a clay pot is solid evidence that a civilization once lived there. No one believes that the ground, or wind, or chemicals randomly assembled to form that clay pot and accidentally painted a design on it. People made it. If a simple clay pot shows human design, what do we conclude about an object whose make up is far more complex?

But of course, we are quite good at recognizing objects that have been designed and made by mankind.

Like, the human eye. It can distinguish among seven million colors. It moves 100,000 times each day with automatic focusing. And the eye handles 1.5 million simultaneous messages.1

My reaction is, "so what?" And why didn't you just link the article in the first place?

Are we to believe that though a clay pot did not arise from natural means, the human eye just came about from elements in the atmosphere?

But no one makes such an ignorant claim. The eye arises by the differentiation of living cells in a living organism - all kinds of eyes arise in that way. In fact, not a single eye has ever been observed to arise from the atmosphere. They always come about by the differentiation of cells in a growing embryo in a species that has eyes.

Some would say that science demands such a conclusion, because to believe in God is not scientific.

And they would be wrong. Of course, I have only seen that sort of ignorant statement made by creationists. Science doesn't demand conclusions. Science offers explanations. If you conclude explanations offered by science are not compatible with your particular mythology, than such conclusions are yours.

Of course, since the concept of god is a supernatural idea, and since science is the pursuit of methodological naturalism, the concept of god is not scientific. It is a matter of simple definition.

How is that different from finding the clay pot and starting with the assumption that people didn't exist in that location, so scientists must now find out how that clay pot developed from the elements in the ground or air.2

That's pretty silly. Why, after finding human artifacts that only exist because they were made by humans, would anyone assume that humans had never been in that location. The author of this piece seems to be a bit of a dunce. In science, the conclusions are build on the observations through the application of the scientific method. Only creationists begin by making assumptions and then reject observed facts when they do not agree with the assumed mythology.

We're told that producing a human eye takes a long time. It is assumed that such random chance takes a great amount of time to perfectly assemble something complex.

It takes less than 9 months. Of course, we have never seen a human eye arise except by the differentiation of cells in a living embryo.

theory of evolution - intelligent designSo, here is a test. Let's say someone handed you a plastic bag filled with all the parts to a watch, where you were certain that all the correct springs, screws, discs are in that bag. How long would you be willing to shake that bag hoping that the pieces would fall together and the screws would each find the right hole and tighten nicely? There must be some possibility that it could happen.

That is an idiotic statement. Why must there be such a possibility?

Picture yourself shaking that bag. You probably wouldn't shake it beyond 30 seconds. Why not? Because common sense tells you that no matter how long you shake that bag, the pieces will never align to become a working watch. It wouldn't matter if you shook that bag one minute or thousands of years.

But above you said that there must be some possibility that it could happen. Now you say that there isn't. Why don't you pick a horse and ride it?

Here's an experiment for you. Take a plastic bag and put two watches in it. Lay it aside under ideal conditions, whatever conditions that you think might be necessary. How long will you have to wait before you will find three watches in the bag, or two big watches and several small watches?

Just because someone argues that "maybe, someday, somehow, by chance"... should that line of reasoning supersede common sense?

But only creationists pretend that anyone makes such a nonsense argument, probably because they are so dismally ignorant of science or the real world. It is quite humorous to see a creationist argue about common sense when they rarely display any.

Like the Emporer's New Clothes, shouldn't there be a voice in the crowd saying, "Yeah, but complex life arising from simple non-life is such an outside chance, wouldn't it make more sense to look for another explanation?"

But 'complex life' doesn't arise from non-life. No one claims that it does. But what has been observed is that some organic molecules that arise naturally reproduce themselves. Lipid membranes have been observed to arise spontaneously.

What about the likelihood of life on Earth?

One. The question is stupid after the fact. If conditions had been otherwise, the life would be different. What's the big deal. Just because certain conditions exist that make life as we know it possible does not mean that those conditions were arranged by some mythical magic being. The universe and life as it exists now were not the intended, predetermined outcome of all the possibilities at the beginning of the universe. Try this. Take a deck of cards, shuffle it and deal yourself 5 cards. What are the odds that you can have that hand. 2,598,959 to 1. It is clearly almost impossible for you to be holding the hand that you are. Do you see how silly those 'what are the odds' arguments are?

We are so reasonable in so many areas of life. We look at clay pots and watches and are willing to say that obviously people made these, even if we don't see those people. Could not the same logic be used when we consider the human body and the universe?

But clay pots and watches don't reproduce and metabolize. It amuses me that creationists seem to have so much trouble in telling the difference between objects like watches and pots, and living things.

Don't the intricacies of the human body and the universe give reason to say, "Though I don't see him, it makes most sense to conclude that God exists"?

You can do that if you want, but it isn't apparent from the evidence. No one has ever seen your god step in and create a human body from nothing. We always observe that human bodies arise from the sexual union of two previous, living, human beings. Even you.

Quote by: Porfyra dude you make no sense...

But since you apparently thought that the previous article that you posted did make sense, it is easy to see why you might not understand.

what about while this partially developed hummingbird was developing the spiky things?

What partially developed hummingbird? Perhaps an ancestral bird that wasn't a hummingbird had the 'spiky things.' Exactly what are these 'spiky things' and why are they the essential characteristic that makes a humingbird a hummingbird?

what about before? this bird and all the others would have died off!

Why?

how would they have come from half developed bird-fish things or whatever you evolutionists say they were, to fully developed, perfectly designed hummingbirds witout eating?

Why would an ancestral bird - fully developed - not be possible? Why do you think that a hummingbird has to spring into existance from nothing? Just because you need the myth of a magical being who can make things from nothing doesn't mean that the idea is rational.

one of the criteria of life is that the creature MUST be able to take energy from its surroundings and make it into energy for itself. the hummingbird cannot meet that criteria if it is unable to eat because of a missing trait.

Why would it not be able to eat? Do you have these 'spiky things?' Can you eat? What about all of the other kinds of birds? What about the 18 different species of hummingbird in 12 genera? Do they all have these 'spiky things?'