Re: yeah. riiiight!!

On May 16, 8:45 am, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris wrote:
On May 16, 1:04 am, "Ross  Langerak" <rlange...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:k7qPl.41899$v8.14158@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Plants that
grow as a vine will reach for the nearest stationary object to
wrap themselves around in an effort to mature, grow and thrive with
support. Even though the sun is facing east and the stationary
object is facing west the plant will reach for the stationary
object first. THEN once they grab on to something stationary they
will turn their beautiful leaves toward the sun.

And you think THAT is an evolved trait?

yeah... riiiight!

That is clearly a designed feature by a brilliant creator.

Adman

Others have already adequately responded to this silly argument.  I
am,
however, still interested in hearing you explain how you recognize
design.
Despite all of your arguments from design, you have yet to adequately
respond to this question.

He claims everything is evidence of common design- no matter if it is
similar genes giving rise to similar structures, similar genes giving
rise to different structures, different genes giving rise to similar
structures, or different genes giving rise to different structures.
All is design. He never has given any indication he even knows what
the word means, let alone a means of distinguishing design from non-
design.

Chris

Liar.

Well, no, I am not lying. In this post:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1631195e86217106?hl=en

I asked you specifically if certain things were evidence of common
design. They covered exactly the range of situations I described in my
response to Ross Langerak. Specifically I asked you about the
following:

1. Genetic similarities in humans and chimps giving rise to identical
morphology.
2. Mammalian hearts and avian hearts performing identical functions
but developing in different manners.
3. Prolactin appearing in many different vertebrates but performing
totally different functions in each Class.
4. Wings of birds and wings of insects arising from entirely different
developmental processes but performing the same function.
5. Feathers in birds and scales on butterflies performing the same
function: coloration.
6. Hair in mammals, 'hairs' in plants, and 'hairs' on insects (the
latter two, of course, not really being hair).

You asserted that each and every case I presented was evidence of
design.

Are you recanting?

Even if you do recant (which you should, since you're totally wrong in
each case) that does not make me a liar.

I expect your apology forthwith.

Chris

.

Loading