Obvious Designer?

[POI]

Otseng's statement: "This is the variation of the omnipotent God argument by imagining a hypothetical perfect design. There is no need for God to be a "perfect" designer.

In human designs as well, things are not perfect and have flaws, but they are still designed. Nobody claims since iPhones have flaws in them that Apple engineers are either crappy designers or they don't exist at all."

*****************************

There is just so much to flesh out in this cluster of statements, I do not know where to begin. I guess we can start here and see where this goes.

For Debate: Is it obvious humans were designed, or not? Please explain why or why not. If you believe so, does this design lead more-so towards...

a) an intelligent designer?
b) an unintelligent designer?
c) a deceptive designer?

Like all other topics, let's see where this one goes.... And for funsies, here is a 10-minute video -- optional, but begins to put forth a case for options b) or c), if "designed" at all:

[1213]

Correct. Rats will always produce rats. Eventually these rats may have new functions (like wings), but they are still rats. At some point a scientist may add another name to these new rats (taxonomy) and they will then be known as that new name. HOWEVER, they are still ancestors of rats and therefore technically still rats. Why creationists can't grasp this (or refuse to acknowledge the actual science) is baffling.

So, why are whales not called what they "land ancestors" were?

[TRANSPONDER]

Correct. Rats will always produce rats. Eventually these rats may have new functions (like wings), but they are still rats. At some point a scientist may add another name to these new rats (taxonomy) and they will then be known as that new name. HOWEVER, they are still ancestors of rats and therefore technically still rats. Why creationists can't grasp this (or refuse to acknowledge the actual science) is baffling.

So, why are whales not called what they "land ancestors" were?

Wenchwarmer explained. (I think the Trans has) that when Micro changes (over time) become so much (like arms turning to wings or paddles) a new species -name has to be given. Though the line from rat to bat or Miocene Australian pelican to Antarctic penguin or Pakicetus to whale is a line of the same 'kind', a new name is given because it now looks a different kind of critter. I sometimes think they are a bit eager to find a new species where a beetle has three spots instead of two. They love to see their names in Latin form.

(Howls of derspair when it was discovered that a species of small dinosaur was actually a juvenile of another known species and 'Minisaurus Frenksmithionus' vanished from the books. )

[benchwarmer]

Correct. Rats will always produce rats. Eventually these rats may have new functions (like wings), but they are still rats. At some point a scientist may add another name to these new rats (taxonomy) and they will then be known as that new name. HOWEVER, they are still ancestors of rats and therefore technically still rats. Why creationists can't grasp this (or refuse to acknowledge the actual science) is baffling.

So, why are whales not called what they "land ancestors" were?

Taxonomy.

Otherwise we would just call everything 'life'.

[1213]

Correct. Rats will always produce rats. Eventually these rats may have new functions (like wings), but they are still rats. At some point a scientist may add another name to these new rats (taxonomy) and they will then be known as that new name. HOWEVER, they are still ancestors of rats and therefore technically still rats. Why creationists can't grasp this (or refuse to acknowledge the actual science) is baffling.

So, why are whales not called what they "land ancestors" were?

Taxonomy.

You don't see any contradiction in what you say?

[benchwarmer]

Correct. Rats will always produce rats. Eventually these rats may have new functions (like wings), but they are still rats. At some point a scientist may add another name to these new rats (taxonomy) and they will then be known as that new name. HOWEVER, they are still ancestors of rats and therefore technically still rats. Why creationists can't grasp this (or refuse to acknowledge the actual science) is baffling.

So, why are whales not called what they "land ancestors" were?

Taxonomy.

You don't see any contradiction in what you say?

No. Perhaps you could point it out for everyone to see?

As organisms evolved, they became different from each other. Even though they share a common ancestor, at some point the differences are enough that a new name makes things easier. Otherwise we would be having conversations like:

"Hey 1213, did you see that life cross the road chasing the life into the life? It scared the life in the life and made it fly away. So, what do you want for dinner? Life? Life? Oh wait we had fried life yesterday. Maybe some life?"

Think of it like a hierarchy. When you talk about vehicles with people, do you just always say vehicle? Do you just say car? Do you just say Ford? I'm guessing most people are a specific as they can be and say something like "Did you see that F 150 drive by?".

[TRANSPONDER]

Correct. Rats will always produce rats. Eventually these rats may have new functions (like wings), but they are still rats. At some point a scientist may add another name to these new rats (taxonomy) and they will then be known as that new name. HOWEVER, they are still ancestors of rats and therefore technically still rats. Why creationists can't grasp this (or refuse to acknowledge the actual science) is baffling.

So, why are whales not called what they "land ancestors" were?

Taxonomy.

You don't see any contradiction in what you say?

No. I see only mutually confirming evidence of deep time geology and palaeontology that says that genesis is wrong throughout and the earth is old and life evolved over millions of years, there was no Flood and the Ark saving an unfeasibly small breeding pair of every 'kind' (never mind species) including all the prehistoric ones, it seems, is just...unfeasible. That's before we get to the dubious if not wrong OT and the ludicrous and contradictory gospels.

As Benchwarmer says, it is rather like travel machines. We have aircraft, ships and botas and land vehicles. Cars are one 'kind' of vehicle, one might say. It diverges int various families (Ford, Ferrari, Toyota all basically the same but evolving to human requirements just as animal families adapt to their condition through natural selection.

Or aircraft might provide the further step. The Boeing line and the Airbus line (not forgetting Embraer ) we have the Boeing 7 - series 737, 757, 787. These are like subspecies in the Boeing species. Same with the airbus diverging into the larger species and the smaller, and variants with in each.

It would daft for a denier to say they accepted (what they could not deny) that the A320 evolved into the A350, but denied that they had evolved from the old biplanes. Even if most of the intermediary types were in photos (fossils)

"I cannot see that these are not separate kinds of plane created by man all in one go". It is the same with the fossil and morphological (as well as DNA) evidence for evolution. And thus genesis is simply a tall story.