From: "Gary Britt" 


"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:427d6189.1378712{at}216.144.1.254...
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news::
> > Where everyone loses their perspective is when they extrapolate from
> > the plentiful evidence of minute changes over time within a single
species
> > to trans-species evolution, and then go completely off the all
reasonable
> > perspective cliff ...
>
> Hmmm. I suspect you won't ever take up this offer, but if you were to read
> a bit about evolution you would discover:
>
> 1. In 100 million generations it REALLY is possible for minute changes to
> build up to quite amazing results. Apparently (I'm no expert), eyes have
> evolved 40 times (e.g. human eyes are totally unrelated to the eyes in an
> octopus).

I don't doubt that.  What I doubt is that non life becomes a human being
over time with no "help".

>
> 2. It's the molecular evidence which is the most compelling. All (that is,
> ALL) life that has so far been studied anywhere has certain key
> functionality at the molecular level that is VERY similar to all other
> life.
>

The builder of life used the same building blocks is perfectly consistent
with intelligent design.


> By all means, believe in intelligent design. But how would an intelligent
> designer work? Would the ID plop everything down just as we see it,
> complete with fake evidence that evolution works? Or, would the ID plop
> down the basic tools from which everything follows?

Could be either way.  Instant creation of an adult male would necessarily
involve the creation of an adult male with the appearance of age.  It isn't
"fake age to fool anybody" just a necessary component to creating
an adult male.  Same thing for the instant creation of the Universe, it
might necessarily require the appearance of age.  On the other hand the
creation doesn't have to be instantaneous, but could be a very long process
using natural processes set into motion by the ID.  In this scenario
evolution would be but a tool used by the ID.

>
> A good thought experiment is to consider how humans might design an
> android, complete with decent artificial intelligence. IMHO the attempts
> to program AI are not going to work. What we might one day succeed in
> doing is building a machine that can learn, and it could accumulate the
> rules of grammar and social interaction and mathematics, etc.
>

Nothing in that thought contradicts notions of ID.  I tend to agree with
most of what you wrote in the paragraph above.

Gary

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5