Re: yeah. riiiight!!

Caranx latus wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
Caranx latus wrote:
[M]adman wrote:

<snip>

I'd like you to present your explanation regarding how you recognize
design, as Ross requested. If we don't understand it, we can ask
questions and you can explain further or correct us. That seems
reasonable to me.

Yeah. Of course it is reasonable.But i have explained it before. It
takes a certain amount of perception to recgonize the aspects that
show evidence of designed life which you either do not have or are
unwilling to develop. In the case of my example, well, i have had all
sorts of replies.
None of them addressed the fact that the plants turned their
_leaves_ toward the sun afer they found support. If this was truly
an unguided process the leaves would turn toward the sun regardless
if they found support or not. The ones that found support would
live, the others would die.

Have you ever been in a bean field? Virtually no plant in a bean field
has the type of support that would allow it to climb. They don't die
because that don't find support, and they are still heliotropic.
Sunflowers don't require support, and they're heliotropic as well.
While I can't say that there isn't a link between the onset of
climbing and heliotropism in beans (because I haven't found any
relevant reference material yet), I strongly suspect that these are
two completely different processes. You seem certain that they are
linked. What has led you to believe that?

Beans in a field are usually of the 'bush variety with no need for support


Survival of
the fittest is evolution's claim to fame. But this was not the case.

No, differential reproductive success is what you're looking for, not
survival of the fittest. Those organisms which are more fit for their
ecological niche leave more descendants on average than those
organisms which are less fit.

Well, no support they die. Call it what you wish


In my
example all of the plants forsake the life giving sun until they
latched on to the fence. After they made the connection for support
they then turned their leaves toward the sun.

"Forsake the life giving sun"? Overly dramatic, don't you think?

I threw that in just for you

Since you're busy speculating, I presume that you won't mind if I do
as well. I suggest that turning the leaves toward the sun might be
disadvantageous for any plant which is surrounded by other plants of
the same size. More light would be expected to be coming from
directly above the plant, whereas light coming from the side is more
likely to be blocked by a neighbor. Once a plant begins to climb, it
begins to develop leaves in places where more light is available from
different angles, and the plant's heliotropic responses become more
obvious.
Let me be more direct. Bean plants (as an example) are always
heliotropic, but the effect is not as apparent in a cluster of plants
all of the same size as it is when some of the plants begin to climb.

I believe you wrote that you had planted some beans. Here's what you
can do to determine whether I'm right or wrong. If you are able to
monitor the beans before they begin to climb, take a close look at
what the plants on the edges of the plant bed are doing compared with
those within the bed. I would bet that you would see more evidence of
heliotropism on the edges than you would in the center.

Of course. In fact, there are more leaves aroind the bottom. But the plant
is more mature at the bottom as well. So it is natural to have more leaves
at the bottom compeating for light.

In my opinon this is not an evolved trait but a designed feature
that allows plants (that are vines) to survive.

The survival (life/death) of vines depends neither on heliotropism nor
on climbing. However, vines do stand a better chance of thriving if
they climb, and possibly better yet if they are heliotropic. I live
on a wooded lot, and get a significant growth of Virginia creeper
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenocissus_quinquefolia> every year,
all over the property. Although it climbs readily, it is also
perfectly happy to run along the ground if it can't find support. I
have no idea whether it is heliotropic. However, since it is a
low-growing plant if it stays on the ground, it guarantees itself
better access to light if it climbs.

Life will find a way. The key is as you said "Thrive". Plus various plants
will react in various ways. I have never seen a bean plant live long or
thrive well that crawls along the ground. But that is not unheard of.
However, your plant and mine are not really an apple to apple comparison.
Your example is a hearty vine that generally needs less light but more
water. Mine is a more fragile vegetable plant that needs support as well as
light but less water then a green vine. And that was my point. The vegetable
bean plant will find support in it's early life and then turn toward the
sun. Oddly it will vacillate. It will seek sun, then seek support until it
finds the support. I suspose because it needs both. But once it finds the
support it will generally turn the leaves toward the sun with no further
need to vacillate between the two. The orientation to the sun is important
as well.



Your response was supposed to address the question of how you
recognize design. While I thank you for your response, I'd like to
refine the question, if I may. How can you tell what is designed and
what is evolved? If, as you indicated below, you see God's
fingerprints over everything, then presumably *all*
traits/features/processes should be designed, shouldn't they? Can you
give me an example of what you think an evolved trait/feature/process
should look like?

That would depend on how you are defining evolution.

If you define evolution as the micro-version, or a variation within the same
species, then perception is needed. There is no hard evidence to point at.
It is a simple understanding that does not need scientific evidence. When
you percieve it, you will have no need for any other type of evidence. You
will just know in much the same way you know your own hand.



The same principal applies to God. You will never discover God if
(a) you do not believe He exists and b) don't look for Him. When you
believe and look you will find.

... and thereby open yourself up as a victim of confirmation bias.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias>

That is one way to look at it. Not accurate IMHO. But one way.

Because God does not take selective thinking. All is really needed to
believe in God, and then find him, is to leave yourself open to the
possibility. IOW do not have your door closed while you seek from the right
perspective. I could elaborate at this point... before you ask. So I will.

Having the proper perspective is essential when searching for anything. If
you loose your key in a cluttered drawer and shift everything around looking
for it but do not find it, then change your perspective. Remove the drawer,
set it down and turn it around backwards. Then look. You may have to change
your perspective a few times but you will find the key. Even if you get
frustrated and dump everything out of the drawer you have still changed the
perspective from which you are viewing the contents in the drawer.

If this seems like a lame example, perhaps it is. This is not an easy
subject to explain on usenet. Suffice to say that perception is everything
in my opinion. To a person sitting on a moving train the people outside of
the window appear to be moving. Change perspective with them and it becomes
apparent that you were the one moving. Well, evidences that we perceive in
the natural world with natural science may just be a matter of perspective.
Change the perspective and the science may no longer be as valid. The
supernatural is a change of perspective. That is all. The trick is to
percieve both and to understand the difference between the two. When you
understand the differences between the supernatural and the natural then it
becomes easy to spot what are natural occurances on the earth and what has
God's fingerprint on it. You can see the difference betwen something created
and something that has undergone some type of natural evolution or
variation.

In addition, Science is not all together wrong. But science also admits that
it cannot explain everything. So we need to develop our other skills. Our
supernatural skills. Humans in the past understood this. But as mankind
matures our human understanding is replaced more and more with only what we
can prove with natural science. That is a mistake IMHO. Our supernatural
skills are innate, but they need to be developed just as we have developed
our other senses.


I suspect that you have your own personal Morton's demon sitting on
your shoulder.

The problem with this is the numbers. There have been billions that believe
as I do and will be billions after me. That does not sound like a personal
demon, does it? Kermit and I had this debate several times.


I try very hard to ensure that I don't have one. Have you perhaps
noticed that I don't actually interact with other atheists much? Would
you care to speculate as to why that might be?

Not really. I am wondering why may opinion would even matter. But I'll give
it a try anyway.

I suppose you are like most everyone. You seek real truth. Based on the few
serious conversations you and I have had I can percieve that you are more
intelligent them most; You have a kind streak and can be rather sensitive
about some things. You have a lot of patience with this subject matter as
well. Thinking independently is your strong suite and you are not really a
crowd follower unless you like which way the crowd is going. You also
appear to be unsure if the existance of God is truth. But you are not sure
if the atheists are correct either although you lean their way. So you
leave a crack in the door just in case they are wrong.Which is a good place
to be i suspose. That means you can discover for yourself what is truth
without letting outside influences impact your decision. How was that?

I personally have discovered this: if you do not seek truth you will not
find it. Sometimes truth is hard to find because not all things are what
they appear.



Adman.



Jesus put it as "Knock and the Door Shall Be Opened" "Seek and You
will Find"

If you do not believe in God or that God created life your will never
develop the perception skills necessary to see his fingerprint all
over creation.

Jesus put that as "If you have the eyes to see and the ears to hear".

.

Relevant Pages