Why would God create an expanding universe? What need is there for a universe which grows unchecked? If it’s true that nature abhors a vacuum, then surely intellect, much less a Grand Intellect, must abhor waste. And the greatest waste of space in the universe is the universe.

My book is called “the Secular Apologist,” available nowhere as of yet. It contains many more challenging questions to the supernatural, mystical universe primitive minds have fabricated over the centuries; addressed to the simple minds who embrace these out-moded concepts. If evolution is ever proven wrong, the proof cannot prove the Bible right.

There is more to this life than science or religion can ever possibly offer, but these two theosophies make for intriguing diversions. Please don’t go to my website unless you have a mighty crass sense of humor. I could have written a better bible than the one we ended up with. I would tend to surmise the creator of the universe got stuck with sub-standard scribes. I am not cowardly enough to meet Pascal’s wager. The energy expenditure to keep a paradise and an inferno maintained should be enough to occupy two deities, much less one.

That is all. Thank you for your attention.

Nice attempt to shift the goalposts. That sort of thing gets noticed, though.

I’m not really interested in defamatory argument with you – all I’m saying is that the product of the probabilities of the required beneficial mutations enabling evolution is infinitely, immeasureably and unacceptably expansive.

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”"(1 Corinthians 3:19)

Seeya.

“I work day in and day out evolving programs on the computer.”

That’s great, it makes a lot of sense…”I work” doesn’t really amount to random processes – what did these computer programs just write themselves? And I suppose if it’s not working, you might stop it, and start it again with some changes? Now who’s shooting themself in the foot??

Do the math, man.

Genetic programming is a tough field, but people other than M-PS managed to succeed where M-PS simply declared his personal failure a universal attribute of Reality. I work day in and day out evolving programs on the computer. So Denton’s quote actually goes the other way: given that evolution in fully analogous systems does happen, we have greater confidence in our other findings that show that biological evolution is well-supported.

Thanks for the great demonstration of shooting yourself in the foot, “tripa”.

When you say “but that hasn’t happened.”

How do you know what happened? Were you there? Was anyone?

What you mean is that your theory doesn’t predict that massive changes occurred, it predicts small changes (like the list Austringer provided, which I looked up) over massive time frames.

I accept that mutations have lead to other functions being enabled. But I don’t accept that it has lead to a more complex organism; I don’t accept that it is macro-evolution.

Even if the mutations are beneficial, do you know what the chances are of even getting 2 related beneficial mutations in a row is? (Let alone the amount needed for one organism to change into something else). The maths doesn’t even add up, it’s way way off the mark. I’ll use a quote to put it more eloquently,

“If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms. The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [i.e., by mutation and selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?” (Denton)

As to the problems with human design – earlier you mentioned the appendix as evidence of a lack of design, as it’s obsolete. Says who? Maybe in times gone by, it was considered obsolete, along with a number of other organs, which was an attempt to bolster evidence that we’re evolving. This list of apparently ‘functionless’ structures has gradually declined to almost zero. (while removal of an appendix may be surviveable, removal of most of the others on the list is definitely not surviveable!)

These days the appendix is recognised as having a function, and serving a purpose – a member of the lymphatic system. It is possible to live without it only due to the body’s ability to compensate after it’s removal. Gall bladder also has a function, but can also be removed and again the body compensates – kidneys, thymus (in adults) etc.

So why would have it been designed in the first place? I don’t beleive the world we live in is as it was supposed to be when it was designed. Although we are perfectly designed, the world is definitely not, and so we’re constrained by that.

Tripa can you explain why the any of the problems with human “design”?

As you admit, your theory of evolution can’t even explain if a single bacterium DID make some jumps into something more complex like a phyto-plankton. So how the hell does your useless theory account for something as amazing as a bat catching a moth in flight using sonar, or an athlete intercepting a ball in flight, and not falling over? Evidence of amazing design. Tell me how our spine could be better designed for walking on two feet than it is now?

it’s all too perfect”

If you have even a cursory knowelge of biology you would realise that the design of living organisms if far from perfect for instance: if people where specailly created why do we posses a spine built for walking on four limbs when we are a bipedal species? Why do we have a non-functioning piece of digestive system that is prone to infection? Why are our eyes “wired” in a way that leaves us with a blindspot that requires an optic trick in our brain just so we don’t see two holes in our vision (octopus eyes are “wired” without such a disability)? If we did evoulve from a tailed animal, why do we have the bone for a tail to attach to our spines?