(April 28, 2015 at 11:04 am)Pyrrho Wrote:

(April 28, 2015 at 10:04 am)Alex K Wrote: Original sin. Before the fall, our eyes were perfect.

I see you have spent too much time around Christians.

However, that is irrelevant to the original argument.  It is the human eye, as it presently exists, that is supposedly only to be explained by reference to God.

And for the original argument, that the human eye must have had a designer:  in that case, the designer must have been an incompetent buffoon.  If you consider all of the people who need glasses, or who get corrective surgery, one finds that the failure rate for the human eye is near 100%.  That indicates a poor design, and so we have an incompetent designer who designed the eye.  Indeed, humans are capable of making artificial eyes that are, in many respects, superior to a human eye, and so it would seem that humans must be superior to God.

Let me apologize to you all for not making my question clear to begin with. What I am saying is that theists have this double standard where they say because the eye is so complex so it has to have had a designer. On the other hand, if you ask them where god came from they dismiss the question quite flippantly, saying god needed no designer. So what I'm asking does that mean the eye is more complex than god?

BTW their eyes were actually better after the fall. Before that they walked around butt naked and didn't even know it. Dayum. I'm legally blind and know when I'm naked. But that's another thread. Thank you and 30.

(April 28, 2015 at 12:20 pm)Alex K Wrote: @Lek

This is why:

Quote:[evolution] has to work with yesterday's model

You have to look a bit closer at how evolution by natural selection works. It's not planning ahead and most of the time only finds a compromise with what is there, and what new small variation  can be produced to adapt to circumstances.

Sounds like Windows.

As to the nakedness thing, I thought it was to do with the fact that they became aware that "nakedness" was a thing to worry about, rather than them not being able to see what was going on.

(April 28, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(April 28, 2015 at 12:13 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Oh, boy... am I gonna get a beating....

Then u r doing patriarchy rong

sorta...
There's a bit after some of those verses where husbands are urged to treat their wives properly and blah blah blah... so one can't really force her to do anything...


Anyway... back to bad design: nipples on men! What's that all about?

(April 28, 2015 at 12:20 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(April 28, 2015 at 11:04 am)Pyrrho Wrote: I see you have spent too much time around Christians.

However, that is irrelevant to the original argument.  It is the human eye, as it presently exists, that is supposedly only to be explained by reference to God.

And for the original argument, that the human eye must have had a designer:  in that case, the designer must have been an incompetent buffoon.  If you consider all of the people who need glasses, or who get corrective surgery, one finds that the failure rate for the human eye is near 100%.  That indicates a poor design, and so we have an incompetent designer who designed the eye.  Indeed, humans are capable of making artificial eyes that are, in many respects, superior to a human eye, and so it would seem that humans must be superior to God.

Let me apologize to you all for not making my question clear to begin with. What I am saying is that theists have this double standard where they say because the eye is so complex so it has to have had a designer. On the other hand, if you ask them where god came from they dismiss the question quite flippantly, saying god needed no designer. So what I'm asking does that mean the eye is more complex than god?

BTW their eyes were actually better after the fall. Before that they walked around butt naked and didn't even know it. Dayum. I'm legally blind and know when I'm naked. But that's another thread. Thank you and 30.

Sorry, I was remembering an argument that I have heard frequently, and had not reread the opening post before writing that.

You are right, that if complexity required a designer, then there would have to be a designer for the designer as well, because the designer would have to be complex to be able to be a designer.

That, in turn, would lead to an infinite regress of designers, as the designer of the designer would be complex and therefore require a designer, which in turn would be complex and require a designer, which in turn would require a designer, etc., etc., etc.


What this really shows is that they do not believe their own argument, that something complex must have a designer.

IN the normally limited mind of the theist at some point they declare "goddidit" and that renders any further questions irrelevant.

Simple minded brutes that they are!

(April 28, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(April 28, 2015 at 12:13 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Oh, boy... am I gonna get a beating....

Then u r doing patriarchy rong

---

(April 28, 2015 at 12:06 pm)robvalue Wrote: Is that for realsies?

I have often wondered the same thing, about childbirth being so ridiculous for humans.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/...erman-text

Quote: A hundred years ago, childbirth was a leading cause of death for women of childbearing age.

Why do we possess a birth canal of such Byzantine design? "The human female pelvis is a classic example of evolutionary compromise," Rosenberg answers. Its design reflects a trade-off between the demand for a skeletal structure that allows for habitual walking on two feet and one that permits the passage of a baby with a big brain and wide shoulders. Its unique features didn't come about all at once, but at different times in our evolutionary history, in response to different selective pressures. "The result of these different pressures is a jerry-rigged, unsatisfactory structure," Rosenberg says. "It works, but only marginally. It's definitely not the type of system you would invent if you were designing it. But evolution is clearly a tinkerer, not an engineer; it has to work with yesterday's model."

We know you are just joking now, as you gave the right explanation in post 12.  And, obviously, pocaracas does not beat his wife enough.  Here are some links for him so he can improve his marriage:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/wi..._bible.htm

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.net

http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/home.html

He can also search for more information on beating his wife.

(April 28, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(April 28, 2015 at 12:20 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Let me apologize to you all for not making my question clear to begin with. What I am saying is that theists have this double standard where they say because the eye is so complex so it has to have had a designer. On the other hand, if you ask them where god came from they dismiss the question quite flippantly, saying god needed no designer. So what I'm asking does that mean the eye is more complex than god?

BTW their eyes were actually better after the fall. Before that they walked around butt naked and didn't even know it. Dayum. I'm legally blind and know when I'm naked. But that's another thread. Thank you and 30.

Sorry, I was remembering an argument that I have heard frequently, and had not reread the opening post before writing that.

You are right, that if complexity required a designer, then there would have to be a designer for the designer as well, because the designer would have to be complex to be able to be a designer.

That, in turn, would lead to an infinite regress of designers, as the designer of the designer would be complex and therefore require a designer, which in turn would be complex and require a designer, which in turn would require a designer, etc., etc., etc.


What this really shows is that they do not believe their own argument, that something complex must have a designer.

Precisely!

Take any theist argument to its logical conclusion and you get something as ridiculous as what you've described above.  That's why they step short and settle for fiat authority.

If this world is so intelligently designed, why do the foods that are good for me also contain things that are bad for me? Why did the doctor tell me the operation that would eliminate the problems in my eye also cause other problems that would make me go blind faster?. As one poster said over in the "Did Yahweh Set Adam Up" thread, the story of the Fall of man just makes god look like a "draconian psychopath," so let's not even go there.

God is so complex and pefect nothing could have designed Him.

GC

(April 28, 2015 at 12:08 pm)robvalue Wrote: I wonder if mortality rates have got lower though, bad as they are now. If a woman dies, she can't have any more kids... so I would have thought the longer a woman can have kids before dying, the more her genes would get passed on.

That's based on literally nothing, but it makes sense to my addled brain.

Obviously I'm talking long term here.

The thing is, a big brain helps with the survival of the offspring, and that is the cause of the big head, which is one of the things that makes childbirth more problematic.  As things are, humans are born less mature than many other animals, which is necessary because their heads would be too big if they were comparably mature to many other animals at birth.

So, you are right, that a mother who can give birth to more children is likely to be evolutionarily advantageous, if all else were equal.  But a big brain improves chances of survival of the offspring, which is essential for the survival of that line.  Or in other words, all else isn't equal.

(April 30, 2015 at 3:03 am)Godschild Wrote: God is so complex and pefect nothing could have designed Him.

GC

So you reject the idea that complexity requires a designer.