(March 21, 2016 at 5:43 am)AJW333 Wrote:(March 20, 2016 at 10:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I suck at math, but clearly this is a very, very, very, VERY long argument from personal incredulity. You could have just said, "the human eye is just fucking craaaaazy, you guys!" Would have conveyed the exact same point, and saved all of us a lot of time.if you want the shortened version, it goes more like this;
Analyzing the random DNA mutations required to produce the proteins that form the eye reveals it to be not just unlikely but a statistical impossibility.
(March 20, 2016 at 11:26 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: You're going with the eye to support your creator, eh? Ok then, why does your creator love Octopi more than humans? It gave them a far superior eye.I'm simply demonstrating the statistical impossibility that the eye evolved through DNA mutation. You should address this.
(March 20, 2016 at 11:54 pm)loganonekenobi Wrote: the complexity of life logic for the existence of a deity is good but it stops at logic. This is still not true evidence. The religious say "god" and often "my particular god" but a true scholar of the facts would simply says "I dont know for sure"
Of the two claims one is teetering on the edge of falsehood and arrogance. The other is on solid ground and humble.
One does not need belief to say "I don't know" and still be within the observable facts.
Can we stick to the issue, which is evidence for design? By showing you that random mutations of the DNA cannot produce the necessary structures to produce the eye, it leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that it has been designed.
The point i'm trying to make is that even if you could inference a designer you cant identify said entity. We cannot look beyond the petri dish at the designer. We are in a situation that one bacteria is saying to another "something must be beyond us and I am stating that it must be in accordance to my idea." The other bacteria says "I don't know but I'm not going to accept your idea of this until that entity communicates with me because that is the only way to know for sure." The real difference between this scenario and the god idea is that we cannot communicate with bacteria but it is claimed that a god can communicate with us. I'm sorry but i cannot concede to such arrogance, if such a being did in fact exist, that it would care if we believe in it or not or that it "loves" us.
It is still much more humble and noble to say "I don't know so I keep looking."
