Re: Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs

On Jun 8, 8:36 am, Dr Umesh Bilagi <umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 7, 11:21 pm, James Norris <JimNorri...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 7, 11:12?am, Dr Umesh Bilagi <umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 6, 2:03 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 1, 3:46?pm, Dr Umesh Bilagi <umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

linkhttp://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligent-design-vestigial-...
Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
By
Dr Umesh R. Bilagi
Associate Prof of Medicine
KIMS Hubli
Karnataka
INDIA
umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx

http://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/

Topic :-Vestigial organs not necessarily proof of evolution for Darwin

[ ... ]
Now, if you argue that there is a vestigial structure to the first MS
Word document (the capacity - in this case, unused - for
formatting)and that this only became functional in the second
document,ultimately concluding that the first document evolved from
the second document, you would be incorrect, since I am the creator of
both documents.

Similarly, I would argue that vestigial organs do not necessarily
confirm evolution; they only point to what tools - improvable overtime
- the creator used while making the species. This same principle is
seen even in electronic gadgets today.

[...]

Why there is no perfect making from intelligent designer?
It is unwise jump to conclusion that intelligent designer has to make
things with perfection he makes things as per his wish, with his
requirement, (like, life for humans for 100years)

Why there are support systems (Immunity)in living beings? & it is
foolish have them.
Now regarding support system when we consider that we make good
intelligent soft ware programmes, there are viruses which can attack
them, for that we have (support system) antivirus Now don't call
software programmers foolish

[...]

I believe that it is possible to prove the existence of intelligent
designer one day, not sit lazily

You seem to be saying that the Intelligent Designer was not
necessarily a Perfect Being, rather more like a shoddy workman who
leaves bits of things left over from the last botched makeover. You
may well be correct, that some supernatural being (outside nature and
the universe) behaves in such an off-handed manner to us intelligent
beings, but if it were my job to create a whole species such as human
beings, I'd leave out the appendix (and probably a few other things as
well), I'd definitely equip bodies with parts that don't wear out so
quickly, and, because I happen to like music, I think I'd give human
beings better ears.

You may well be right that it will be possible to prove the existence
of an Intelligent Designer one day, to billions of people the world
over, but none of them would be 'proper' scientists. The theory of
evolution will never be proven to scientists either. A true scientist
should say that you (or he) might be right about an Intelligent
Designer, or evolution, but you (or he) haven't proved it, and won't
ever be able to. Even if a scientist met the Intelligent Designer,
they would not say "NOW I know" - an intelligent scientist would
hypothesize that the Intelligent Designer might be pretending that He
had done the work, when in fact a Stupid Designer was actually
responsible.

How do you propose to distinguish between nature and a Stupid
Designer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I dont have any problem with combined theory of evolution & Design.
When in Darwin theory clears tells that vestigila organ can not be a
present if there was elemnt of design in it. my aruments starts i.e.
In the beginng of this discussion I have discuused how it is possible
have vestigial organs even with design

So you're arguing that Darwin might have been wrong to say that
vestigial organs disprove Intelligent Design. But your argument is
that the Intelligent Designer designed vestigial organs on purpose.
You could point to anything in the universe and say that the reason
for its existence is that the creator put it there on purpose. With
an argument like that, what would you regard as evidence that there is
no creator? Do you believe that the creator decides about our every
single action, so that we have no free will?

I frankly admit I dont know anything about theology of any religion.
If just vestigial organ appears like imprpoper design by stupid
designer with not careing for rest of marvel body I think it is not
correct of course it is my opinion. Now weather you want have
gratitude towards designer or not I soppose that as yours personal
opinion not at all a scientific problem.

My comment about a Stupid Designer was in response to your remark "It
is unwise jump to conclusion that intelligent designer has to make
things with perfection, he makes things as per his wish, with his
requirement". But why didn't the intelligent designer design us
perfectly, if he could? What sort of requirements are you suggesting
that an intelligent designer might have of us? Doesn't he want
perfect beings around? Isn't it more sensible to believe, if you
believe in a creator at all, that the creator was basically rather
stupid?

I am not propagating any religion in this discussion.
It is for athiest & thiest please consider me as your fraind
Becuase of my bad english I might have hurt some people I am soory for
that. I am cotinueing this discussion. rest I will answer after few
hours.

Thanks- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear fraind James Norris
I dont ever say that vestigial organ by inttlegent designer was with
purpose I never think so.

Oh sorry, I must have misunderstood you.

Eeven humans when they make machines whom
you consider are much more intellgent than my inttlegent desgner do
not do this.

I myself don't really believe that the concept of an Intelligent
Designer is particularly relevant to evolution, so I'm basically
trying to poke fun at the idea, because I don't think it's a necessary
or logical concept.

When we humans make machine of complex things it is
tendency of us to make some comman tools so that we can use make
multiple differnet kinds of machines so in such case some fucntions of
physical items is not utilised in every machines. this is my
argument.

You're saying that the ID could have made us up from a sort of kit,
with only a few pieces, so that some pieces have to be more powerful
than necessary but they have some of the functionality disabled.

Regarding perfection I consider that vetsigial organs do not thing so
much imperffect to rule out the possiblity of being designed this is
my argument.
thanks- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, but I'm not sure why you are so keen to show that ID does not
disprove evolution, as Darwin claimed. Is it because you want to make
the point that Darwin wasn't always right about everything?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
    ... Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs ... - the creator used while making the species. ... It is unwise jump to conclusion that intelligent designer has to make ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
    ... Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs ... - the creator used while making the species. ... It is unwise jump to conclusion that intelligent designer has to make ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
    ... Topic:-Vestigial organs not necessarily proof of evolution for Darwin ... I would argue that vestigial organs do not necessarily ... Why there is no perfect making from intelligent designer? ... It is unwise jump to conclusion that intelligent designer has to make ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
    ... - the creator used while making the species. ... It is unwise jump to conclusion that intelligent designer has to make ... but none of them would be 'proper' scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
    ... - the creator used while making the species. ... It is unwise jump to conclusion that intelligent designer has to make ... but none of them would be 'proper' scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)