Comments on: Our “Designed” Solar System

By: Pete Moulton

Pete Moulton — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:59:28 +0000

Thanks for that edit, Ron. I still don’t guess Nick will read either essay, but now there’s no excuse that it’s too difficult.

By: Pete Moulton

Pete Moulton — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:59:09 +0000

“Intelligent Design isn’t a theory proven wrong or right yet.”

In truth it isn’t a theory at all, Nick. I refer you to the link named ‘Not Just a Theory’ that Ron has helpfully supplied under the heading ‘Evolution Explained’.

Then I’ll refer you to a brilliant essay by the late Stephen Jay Gould entitled “The Panda’s Peculiar Thumb“.

I don’t expect you’ll read either one, but at least I’ve done my bit.

“It seems al ot more plausible that there is intelligence behind our complex biological makeup.” Yeah, but only if the ‘intelligence’ was Rube Goldberg.

By: Ron Britton

Ron Britton — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:52:34 +0000

Nick:

You are asking of us the very thing that you have none of yourself: Proof.

You have no proof of God. Therefore, you cannot assume he exists.

Science, on the other hand, has mountains of evidence proving evolution, for example. It has some evidence supporting abiogenesis. You have zero evidence supporting your version of the origin of life.

Your version of events is nothing but unsupported assumptions and wishful thinking.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:25:45 +0000

I have yet to understand why all these things you mentions must be right on. There is already so much more design for you to “disprove”. Intelligent Design isn’t a theory proven wrong or right yet. There is no proof of spontaneous generation nor anything else. Who was there to observe such a phenomenon? It seems al ot more plausible that there is intelligence behind our complex biological makeup.

By: David

David — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:01:49 +0000

I suppose Mike deserves an answer. Since I’m also too lazy to Google it I’ll just make two points:

1 The Earth is believed to be about 4.5 billion years old, not 15 billion.

2 The 1.6 inches per year would not be constant. The Moon’s recession is caused by tidal friction which will be different in different eras because of changes in the shape of the oceans.

There’s a discussion at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

By: OtherRob

OtherRob — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:03:10 +0000

I’m curious, Mike. Are you still reading this thread? Without resorting to a google search I could give you some pretty good answers about that. Do you really want answers? I suspect I know the answer, but I’m willing to be proved wrong.

And if the moon moves 1.6 inches per year, why are there still monkeys?

LOL, Ron!

By: Ron Britton

Ron Britton — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:42:30 +0000

And if the moon moves 1.6 inches per year, why are there still monkeys?

By: Parrotlover77

Parrotlover77 — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:26:11 +0000

Wow, that one was full of strawmen. The universe isn’t even (probably) 15 billion years old. So I’m not sure how the earth is supposed to be that old.

By: Ron Britton

Ron Britton — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:45:22 +0000

Can you explain that?

I could, but if you’re so intellectually lazy that you can’t even Google it yourself, I sincerely doubt you’d believe the answer if it contradicted your pre-conceived ideas.

Just curious.

Apparently not.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:40:22 +0000

Perhaps a better point, or question to make here, is how it doesn’t make any sense, in the Evolutionist perspective, that the moon isn’t much farther away than it is. If the earth is 15,000,000,000 years old as is the current school of thought, and the moon moves an average of 1.6 inches per year away from the earth, then…..well, you can do the math. It should be almost twice as far away as it is right now…and that’s if the moon “started” at the earth’s surface. Can you explain that? Just curious.