Replies

Common ancestry simply makes far more sense than "common designer." Why fill the ocean with fish, but then make whales from mammal parts? Why also put fossils in the rocks that seem to show land animals slowly losing their legs and becoming whales?

Part A, why assume that it was a "mammal part" that was put in the whale? Why not assume that it was a part with purpose (like an eyeball) that whales and mammals happen to share since the part was DESIGNED for a specific purpose?

Part B. The fossil record does not show this. It is your interpretation that some land animal lost its legs and became a whale, but there is no proof (and don't use the alleged hip bones inside the whale as evidence as those bones are not vestigial even today but assist in a very important process for the whale- reproduction).

Why use something homologous to insectivore tree-dweller hands to make bat wings, but something like dinosaur claws to make bird wings, and just one incredibly stretched-out reptilian pinkie to support the pterodactyl wing? The supposed answer: you can't question the designer. (That's an answer!!??)
Because He's creative. Just because the designer did not design things the way the omniscient scientist would have liked for him to does not mean that it was a design flaw. Also, you can question the creator all you want. Just be prepared, like Job, to understand exactly whom you are talking to.

If something looks like design, it's proof of design. If it doesn't look like design, you're not allowed to notice or question. Can this be right?
Wrong question. If something looks like design, we aren't even allowed to consider the fact that it could have been designed. If something doesn't look like design, we aren't even allowed to consider the fact that our perceptions and understanding regarding the use of an object may be quite limited but instead must consider that this is obvious evidence against creation/I.D. and for evolution. Can That be right???

The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate.
Theological and philosophical. Evolution makes assumptions and doesn't allow for any explanations outside of its materialistic bent. I understand, science can not explain God, but does that mean that we have to blindly look the other way when something gives evidence of His existence (i.e. design)? Is it not okay to ever say "we don't know, and will probably never know because some things are just out of the reach of science?" No, because materialistic darwinian science is a god unto itself and absolutely refuses to admit anything other than its own ultimate authority.

Part A, why assume that it was a "mammal part" that was put in the whale? Why not assume that it was a part with purpose (like an eyeball) that whales and mammals happen to share since the part was DESIGNED for a specific purpose?

Because a whale is a mammal and has mammalian parts.

Part B. The fossil record does not show this. ["Why also put fossils in the rocks that seem to show land animals slowly losing their legs and becoming whales?"] It is your interpretation that some land animal lost its legs and became a whale, but there is no proof (and don't use the alleged hip bones inside the whale as evidence as those bones are not vestigial even today but assist in a very important process for the whale- reproduction).

Really jaw-dropping. So either you know nothing at all of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, or you only vaguely remember that there's an AiG naysaying article somewhere trying to dismiss it all on technicalities. Either way, ignorance of evidence is not absence of evidence.

Just because the designer did not design things the way the omniscient scientist would have liked for him to does not mean that it was a design flaw.

You can't infer much from the occasional appearance of design if nothing can be inferred from the absence of clear design intent.

Out for a while. I'll check back when I can, but I'm looking at a busy next few days.