How can you say that? Are you smarter than the creator? Then how do you know what design constraints she was working under?

Perhaps it was her intention that the pharangal nerve take a 40 cm detour, or that we have severe spinal problems from walking upright, that women die in childbirth and that there are liver flukes.

You see fine-tuning. I see smoothing -- exactly as happens to rocks in a tumbler.



The fallacy of the strong anthropic principle. In this case, wedded to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

I argue the Earth is a failure; that all the random factors fell in exactly the WRONG way to support the low-temperature, superconducting, methane-based life form that was supposed to be here.



Why? Why is it a creator must have a diversity of body plans? What is wrong with designing conservatively, using a limited number of templates? That's what human designers do.

Not that the plans are particularly diverse. Most multicellular life is bilaterally symmetric. The family we are familiar with, that represents almost all mega-fauna, is the tetrapod; and there isn't a single one with more than four limbs. Even the birds and bats, which you would think would benefit from having a pair of hands.

But, again, you are making arbitrary definitions of what you think a designer should do, and on no rational basis.





So you can imagine exactly how a designer you know nothing about must design, but it is impossible to imagine how a symbiotic relationship might occur? Who made you god?





Or after, for that matter.





Are you confusing origins with operations? Because it sounds like you are. Understanding how the Higg's Boson makes gravitational attraction possible has nothing to do with understanding how the universe came to contain Higg's Bosons. (Well...almost all. When you get deep into particle physics you also get deep into cosmology).

We aren't asking these questions just for fun, you know. We are asking to find cures for human diseases and new power sources and and so. And, unfortunately, the real universe IS complex. You may just wish to go about building bridges without having to deal with all that horrible complexity, but if you don't spent the time with your Euler sections you are going to end up with a collapse and lawsuits and even deaths on your hands.

Saying "I have the answer to the nature of the atom...it's all here in this line in my bible here" means SHIT for someone who is trying to work out the potential contamination from a short-lived radionuclide. In our modern society, we need the complex answers. We can't afford to simplify.




Again, why?

There are plenty of peoples on Earth that believed their god or gods were pleased by blood sacrifice. How do you know they are wrong? How can you show that they weren't, in fact, created by a god who WANTED a ritual-obsessed culture that would send warriors out to bring home captives to kill?

There are peoples on Earth that believe that they are the special creation of their gods, and no other people share that. Izanami formed THESE islands with the sacred spear, and no Ainu or Gaijin need apply.

There are many peoples in my native land who believe there are many gods, of which the one to take the most interest in humanity is a trickster; his goal is personal amusement. There are people who believe the gods created an entirely different land, and this one is just a resting place between the times spent there.

None of these define their creator or his, her, it or their goals in the same way you do. Ask any one of them, and your list of predictions would be entirely different.



This isn't philosophical, these are empirical observations. How does Darwinist Evolution predict any of this, besides, "It's here... therefore Evolution... somehow." ???

We are a social species. That has a net survival advantage.

This is a hard concept for you? I shudder at the thought.

See, this is why the followers of one of those various gods we've touched upon gives me the willies. Because they apparently believe the obvious goals and behavior of a human being should be the most bloody, selfish, murderous, self-centered, sociopathic behavior they can imagine. No, more than that. They IMAGINE themselves, without the benefit of their god, in indulging in the most reckless and ultimately self-defeating behavior.

And these same people show, over and over, just how easy it is to re-interpret what they believe their god demands, and thus justify that very behavior they claimed would be abhorrent.








Citation wanted.

(I've already pointed out the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy).




Idiotic.

Evolution operates in tiny steps.

The only thing that can create the impression of long disjunct jumps is a paucity of fossils. And fossils ARE a very rare occurrence.

Every species is a species. Full stop. It isn't "on its way to becoming something else" because Evolution has no vector. There is no plan. Each species that survives and thrives enough to make it into the fossil record, does so because it is suited as well as Evolution could make it to the environment it currently inhabits.

Every species is in constant flux. Every species, every organism, every fossil is a snapshot of a single moment in time. Over spans of time, species drift, or are forced into new patterns, or bud off new patterns, or fail to adapt and die off.

Every single fossil is transitional, when taken in the full context of the fossil record. But not a single one is "changing into something else." That sort of nonsense belongs with former child actors and jailed tax evaders.





Is the ICR god trying to make you stupid? Species change doesn't look like one of those "make a monster" flip books you get as a kid!

Please, by all that is holy, read some REAL books!







I don't know why you can't grasp the idea of different domains. Perhaps a quote from a faith will help;

"Trust in Allah, but tie up the camel."

You want to sing opera, sing opera. You want to do science, do science. Don't go around complaining that it doesn't include stock car racing (although some of the operas I've seen, I wouldn't put it past them!) Science is naturalism full stop. You can't do science while faking half the answers. Do or not do. There is no fake it.

Plenty of faithful people are capable of doing good science. And do. And have, for thousands of years.