Foresight is claimed. Examples that indicate a lack of foresight are discounted.

Is that about the shape of the conversation now?

(May 22, 2016 at 1:52 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 8:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You didn't acknowledge GB's the point; that an all powerful, all intelligent being should have used a little foresight in his planning.  All you gave in this response is more red herrings.  I wonder why they is?

Well I think I did acknowledge the point, but if you want me to reiterate it I can. I disagree with the assertion that the designer didn't use foresight. In fact, if the designer created life without some template to go by, the designer had tremendous foresight. If you asked us to design a cell today, we could not do it even with natural cells to use as a template. Imagine how impossible it would be for us to try to design a cell without any such template. It would take tremendous foresight.

All of which begs the question: what makes you think anything or anyone created a cell?  Is there a whole assembly line of creators turning out every perfect snow flake as well?  Does every tornado require a holy crafter?  Trust me.  Some shit just happens.

No one who is even somewhat informed about work on abiogenesis thinks the first cell suddenly appeared because a bunch of molecules suddenly happened to form a cell. The precursors of cells were likely orders of magnitude simpler.

(May 17, 2016 at 3:51 pm)sk123 Wrote: I am curious what some compelling reasons are for becoming an atheist. What are some reasons that have been the deciding factor?

The imaginary sky daddy seems like he'd be a total assclown if he were real. Why would anyone wanna follow an assclown knowing all of the horrible things they've done?

(May 23, 2016 at 10:03 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Foresight is claimed. Examples that indicate a lack of foresight are discounted.

Is that about the shape of the conversation now?

What examples of lack of foresight? The esophagus thing? Where would you like it to be? Before you answer, do you really think you could put it there without detracting from the function of the other nearby systems?

(May 22, 2016 at 11:40 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(May 22, 2016 at 12:14 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Because he can't answer why there are design flaws in an intelligently designed organism, especially considering his intelligent agent is allegedly perfect. He'll whitwash over them, belittle them and ignore them, but he can't explain them.

Not that it's a real explanation, but I suppose the approved Christian answer is "sin". What else can he say, since he refuses to assess the state of nature outside his religious bubble?

I think of three reasons that there is "poor" design. 1: The claimed poor design is the result of a damaged system (cancer, and almost all diseases involving a damaged genetic code). 2: Things are optimally designed. In other words, why can't you design a boat that is the fastest, largest, and most buoyant ship possible? It's because in order to make the fastest ship, you would have to minimize unneeded space, which would by definition keep it from being the largest ship. (I think this is the case with the esophagus). 3: We simply don't understand its function yet (I think this is the case with the RUBISCO enzyme and its photorespiration).

(May 22, 2016 at 2:32 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(May 22, 2016 at 1:53 pm)AAA Wrote: We were talking about humans vs. giraffes. Strangely enough we didn't dissect giraffes so I was guessing about it based on what was seen in humans.

Their point is that the same nerve that is found in humans is found in giraffes (and all other mammals) because we all inherited the pattern from a common ancestor. That ancestor didn't have necks like we do (part of why the best book to read about it is called Your Inner Fish), so the routing of the nerve didn't matter. However, as the same pattern was changed over time to evolve into the various mammal species, it couldn't simply "jump" to the other side of the bone it ran around; instead, it simply got longer and longer, in order to go up the neck and back down. In the extreme example, the giraffe, it makes a VERY long journey.

This is one of the thousands of ways you can see that we are all from common ancestry. [Edit to Add: And why we are skeptical of claims of design. A designer wouldn't do something as silly as running the nerve way up and back down, when a direct path would do, from the outset.]

As to your point about the Creator making a pre-formed pattern, which He knew life would follow in its evolution... um, okay. How is that different from just studying evolution as it is? It's certainly not the claims of Intelligent Design, which are essentially that life was deliberately shaped (by some unknown mechanism) by an outside crafter, in order that life as we know it might be here. It's the exact opposite claim. We can see that you recognize the insanity of that claim, by backing off from some of the Creationist elements of the ID movement, but frankly, your roots are showing, still.

Well like I said, I know that in humans it branches many times which is essential to its function. I tried google scholar looking for a paper on the extralaryngeal divisions of the giraffe, but I had no luck. If you know where I can find decent information, let me know.

Anyways, to make my point, here is a picture I found showing the divisions of the laryngeal nerve in humans.


Notice all the divisions as it moves back up. These divisions are necessary for breathing and circulation. I bet that this occurs in the giraffe too. If it didn't go down and go under the aortic arch and come back up, then how would it branch off to all these targets?

(May 24, 2016 at 5:29 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 22, 2016 at 2:32 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Their point is that the same nerve that is found in humans is found in giraffes (and all other mammals) because we all inherited the pattern from a common ancestor. That ancestor didn't have necks like we do (part of why the best book to read about it is called Your Inner Fish), so the routing of the nerve didn't matter. However, as the same pattern was changed over time to evolve into the various mammal species, it couldn't simply "jump" to the other side of the bone it ran around; instead, it simply got longer and longer, in order to go up the neck and back down. In the extreme example, the giraffe, it makes a VERY long journey.

This is one of the thousands of ways you can see that we are all from common ancestry. [Edit to Add: And why we are skeptical of claims of design. A designer wouldn't do something as silly as running the nerve way up and back down, when a direct path would do, from the outset.]

As to your point about the Creator making a pre-formed pattern, which He knew life would follow in its evolution... um, okay. How is that different from just studying evolution as it is? It's certainly not the claims of Intelligent Design, which are essentially that life was deliberately shaped (by some unknown mechanism) by an outside crafter, in order that life as we know it might be here. It's the exact opposite claim. We can see that you recognize the insanity of that claim, by backing off from some of the Creationist elements of the ID movement, but frankly, your roots are showing, still.

Well like I said, I know that in humans it branches many times which is essential to its function. I tried google scholar looking for a paper on the extralaryngeal divisions of the giraffe, but I had no luck. If you know where I can find decent information, let me know.

Anyways, to make my point, here is a picture I found showing the divisions of the laryngeal nerve in humans.


Notice all the divisions as it moves back up. These divisions are necessary for breathing and circulation. I bet that this occurs in the giraffe too. If it didn't go down and go under the aortic arch and come back up, then how would it branch off to all these targets?

(May 24, 2016 at 5:04 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 23, 2016 at 10:03 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Foresight is claimed. Examples that indicate a lack of foresight are discounted.

Is that about the shape of the conversation now?

What examples of lack of foresight? The esophagus thing? Where would you like it to be? Before you answer, do you really think you could put it there without detracting from the function of the other nearby systems?

Are you suggesting that the almighty creator of all existence couldn't?

That's some impotent deity you've got there.

(May 24, 2016 at 5:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 24, 2016 at 5:04 pm)AAA Wrote: What examples of lack of foresight? The esophagus thing? Where would you like it to be? Before you answer, do you really think you could put it there without detracting from the function of the other nearby systems?

Are you suggesting that the almighty creator of all existence couldn't?

That's some impotent deity you've got there.

Everything seems to have constraints. I think it is fine where it is. If you are wanting to know why everything is not perfect, then I don't have a answer. It is not logical to say that because everything is not perfect it was not designed. I feel like you guys are trying very hard to move this into a theological debate rather than a biological one.