Originally Posted by LindaLou
CTD, the substance in question is called keratin, not collagen, so my bad. Keratin is a protein that makes up most of the material in the cells forming the beaks, feathers, hair, hooves, horns, nails, scales and skin of animals.

In other words, no matter how different the 'kind' of animal, no matter what its needs are, apparently the creationist god was so limited in his abilities that he had to use and reuse the same substance over and over, and over again. He couldn't even once come up with a new substance, better designed to suit the animal's lifestyle. That's why your tender skin and a lion's nasty claws, a horse's strong hooves and a bird's delicate feathers, a cow's horn and a husky dog's warm fur are all basically the same thing. I don't think you really addressed this in your response.
So you question the efficiency of a substance ideally suited to many various purposes? You must hate things like plastic, wood, steel, etc. You know, the things mankind uses for many purposes.

I would've guessed you'd be pro-recycling; but now I see how disgusted you are by the concept. Ah well...

Quote
Quote
Life was reasonably designed:

1. for survival,


Failure there then, since the vast majority of creatures that have existed are now extinct.
We still have life.

You wouldn't be suggesting the old fall-less paradigm, by chance?
Quote
Quote
2. to look like the product of one designer (not multiple-independent designers),


So where in creationist theory is your evidence that it was one god and one god only who created everything? Apart from "it says so in the Bible"?
Theories do not contain evidence. Theories explain evidence. Evidence supports theories. These matters are pretty easy to keep straight, if one makes any effort whatsoever.

Now apart from complaining that life actually does look like the work of one designer, do you have anything to contribute?
Quote
Quote
and
3. to resist all other explanations (including Darwin’s, Lamarck’s, Gould’s, Syvanen’s, Hoyle’s, and yours)


Interesting how you are separating all of these. Are you honestly saying that Darwin is the only one on the list who accepts evolution? Interesting. As far as I'm aware, I've made it pretty clear that I accept evolution to be the best explanation for what we see in fossils and how they are sorted in the geological column.
The words won't twist that far without a great deal more effort. You need to confuse & redefine more terms. Getting lazy?

Quote
I think you're on about spontaneous generation again because you like to use this to paint scientists as idiots.
I think anyone who missed the point should read the post again. Life resists explanation by repeated spontaneous generation/abiogenesis events. I can't imagine how anyone would fail to understand if they were paying attention.

Quote
People used to think the earth was flat, too, until science proved otherwise. People have held a lot of erroneous beliefs in the past until science proved otherwise, and this includes spontaneous generation. Case closed.

I'm still waiting to see you back up any of your claims with solid evidence.
I'm still waiting for evidence that you can see.

Now it's pretty clear that life resists not only the current stories, but all bogus stories of the past. One cannot doubt the anything-but-the-truth crowd would love the chance to switch back to the older versions of evolutionism, or some silly multiple creator nonsense. But observation will always be sufficient to debunk any of it.

I imagine gnashing teeth, but I acknowledge it's probably just my imagination. Good thing I'm not like the followers of Darwin, or I'd insist everyone believe in what I imagine.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson