When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[robvalue]

I'm not giving some bog standard work-experience fledgling God the attention it's obviously trying to whore with this garbage creation. Come on man, I've done better on sim city back on the SNES. At least my inhabitants could walk around all of the world I made for them, until I got sick of them and started sending in disasters and ripping up the town.

If you think this universe, and humans, are a good design and a good fit I can only think you are very easily impressed. I couldn't design humans to be a lot more stupidly wired than they are if I tried. Mind you, getting them to still work at all with all that goofy stuff going on in there is an accomplishment in itself. Of course, we already know we weren't designed, we evolved. So it's kind of moot. At best God rubbed some magic mojo into some ooze, and that gap-filling argument is getting more and more squeezed as science progresses.

[AAA]

It depends on what you mean by normal function. If you want to decrease your immune function go ahead. Genetic defects are caused largely by humans exposing ourselves to mutagens. We create harmful chemicals and ingest them. Then irresponsible people who smoke and drink have children and pass on the mutations from their germline cells. It is the ancestors' faults generally. There are actually amazing mechanisms to repair DNA, like photolyase enzymes. 

You can call BS on that, but the fact is that the appendix was thought to be vestigial, but now functions are coming to light and are well known. So it is true. 

Yes other species regenerate limbs. But other species also have wings, and some have six legs, some have bio-luminescence. Why don't we have every possible quality? I don't know, but that is a pretty silly reason to disbelieve in God. If we evolved, then why do we not keep the advantageous qualities such as the ability to breathe under water? 

It isn't evil design, it has many regulatory mechanisms in place to prevent the genes from becoming corrupt, but our society seems to be doing everything possible to mutate ourselves. Maximal suffering is not in mind, I think you don't know how good we have it.

The appendix is vestigial and likely adapted in its function as humans evolved.  Yes, it likely may serve a minor function in that it stores healthy bacteria and plays a part in the immune system.  That is still being debated by medical researchers.

We likely shed our ability to breathe underwater because such a function was no longer needed as we spent more and more time out of the water and became a fully land based mammal.  Why keep a function we would barely use?

And, I won't say that if we *were* designed then that design was evil.  But it was certainly incompetent.

Ok, well if we agree it has a function, then why are you still calling it vestigial? 

"Why keep a function we would barely use?" Why would we lose a function that we sometimes would use? I understand why we would lose our ability to breathe underwater, but it was more of a point to the other person who was wondering why we don't have the ability to restore limbs.

I don't think the design is incompetent, I think that people just say that because they think it makes them seem smarter, like they could do a better job. As though all the engineers who ever lived could have done a better job if they all got together.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm on my phone and cannot easily post links. If you haven't Google's it by tonight I'll link you to possible evidence. There's also a thread about it kicking around here somewhere.

As for "explaining" aliens, I'll need to see evidence for them being here as well.

Simply because we can't currently explain a phenomenon is no justification to reach for your preferred explanation. That's sloppy thinking.

[AAA]

Ok so you have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory.


Firstly if the universe was unable to support life you would not be able to comment on it. So theres that. But also your argument depends on all forces acting independently. This would happen one force would affect the others and I have seen the odds of a universe being able to support some form of life as being 50/50. This was in one of the science of the disc world books but I can't remember which one off the top of my head.


Planet formation is quite well explained by natural means but is an emerging field and will be refined. Science ain't finished, but the idea that there was a god involved at any level rather is. 

By the way I am not an atheist because of evolution or cosmology I am an atheist because the idea of a god seems stupid. I have never found the idea to be anything other than people anthropomorphising abstract concepts and wish projection. Time to grow up sonny.

Please enlighten me on your vast knowledge of evolution.

The odds are not 50/50. Virtually no odds come out to 50/50, so it sounds it me like someone just guessing randomly. 

The idea of God has not been removed from science, and in fact most of the founders of science believed that they were studying God's design. 

You say the idea of God seems stupid, but it is more reasonable that the highly ordered things that we see around us were created than that they created themselves. You tell me I need to grow up, but it seems like you are the one wish projecting. Complex, irregular information cannot arrange itself no matter how much you wish it could.

---

I'm on my phone and cannot easily post links. If you haven't Google's it by tonight I'll link you to possible evidence. There's also a thread about it kicking around here somewhere.

As for "explaining" aliens, I'll need to see evidence for them being here as well.

Simply because we can't currently explain a phenomenon is no justification to reach for your preferred explanation. That's sloppy thinking.

Well I find it hard to believe that we are receiving indications in our universe that there are other universes. If something is being observed from our universe, then doesn't that make it part of our universe?

The UFO thing is just referring to the times you hear about UFO's being tracked on radar and then disappearing. This would break the laws of a 3D realm, but not 4D. I'm not saying I believe in these UFO sightings, but they are explainable with the 4D realm. 

And how come I can't propose an explanation that fits the evidence? Why is it sloppy thinking for me to propose an idea that works with the data rather than wait for naturalism to finally produce answers?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

So you say, and because you say - facts need not apply!

Facts do apply. How about we just pick one fact and look at it. All organisms have some ability to organize their DNA. They have proteins that twist and tighten the DNA, which allows very long strands to fit into the cell neatly. This is necessary because long strands of DNA can impair cell functions if they get in the way. The ability to store DNA efficiently would only evolve if the DNA was getting too long for the cell to function. Unfortunately the only way to gain the ability to store DNA is to gain many proteins. These would all require hundreds of additional nucleotides to the genome. Adding new nucleotides would make the problem worse. This would get selected against immediately. You cannot evolve it, because it would make the problem worse unless it appeared in fully functional form. It fits perfectly with the the design theory.

---

Nothing to see here other than an unintelligent and overcomplicated presumption. You really shouldn't have to work so hard to disprove what would make good sense if you understood it in favor of your own, which makes far less good sense...oh, wait!

[AAA]

I'm not giving some bog standard work-experience fledgling God the attention it's obviously trying to whore with this garbage creation. Come on man, I've done better on sim city back on the SNES. At least my inhabitants could walk around all of the world I made for them, until I got sick of them and started sending in disasters and ripping up the town.

If you think this universe, and humans, are a good design and a good fit I can only think you are very easily impressed. I couldn't design humans to be a lot more stupidly wired than they are if I tried. Mind you, getting them to still work at all with all that goofy stuff going on in there is an accomplishment in itself. Of course, we already know we weren't designed, we evolved. So it's kind of moot. At best God rubbed some magic mojo into some ooze, and that gap-filling argument is getting more and more squeezed as science progresses.

I am not easily impressed, and you asserting that you could design humans better is just ridiculous. You are just putting yourself up on a pedestal, and it's a little sad that you have not looked at the amazing specifics within the cell. The interactions between organelles and molecules. On a larger level, the interactions between organ systems in individuals is exceedingly complex. It's only a gap filling argument if you assume the answer. It fills the gaps from your worldview, but design is a complete argument from my worldview. Science is revealing the complexity of everything on the most fundamental level, and yet you claim you could design it better. I can't wait to see your future as the greatest engineer the world has ever seen.

[The Valkyrie]

The appendix is vestigial and likely adapted in its function as humans evolved.  Yes, it likely may serve a minor function in that it stores healthy bacteria and plays a part in the immune system.  That is still being debated by medical researchers.

We likely shed our ability to breathe underwater because such a function was no longer needed as we spent more and more time out of the water and became a fully land based mammal.  Why keep a function we would barely use?

And, I won't say that if we *were* designed then that design was evil.  But it was certainly incompetent.

Ok, well if we agree it has a function, then why are you still calling it vestigial? 

"Why keep a function we would barely use?" Why would we lose a function that we sometimes would use? I understand why we would lose our ability to breathe underwater, but it was more of a point to the other person who was wondering why we don't have the ability to restore limbs.

I don't think the design is incompetent, I think that people just say that because they think it makes them seem smarter, like they could do a better job. As though all the engineers who ever lived could have done a better job if they all got together.

Note the usage of the term "it likely serves a minor function".  At this stage that's still uncertain.  And, it's certainly not a vital organ even IF it serves such a function.  Hence, vestigial until proven to still serve a function.

Why would we keep a function that we don't use or MAY use rarely?

Why do people defend a supposedly "all powerful, all knowing designer" when it's clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution that the "design" of the human animal is flawed at best?  I think they do it just so they can appear smart to themselves or others with the same level of understanding.

Could humans design a better human?  At this stage, with our limited knowledge, no.  But there are breakthroughs in the fields of medical science, biology, and genetic engineering virtually every other week.  Hell, I just got back from a conference that brought to our attention the latest breakthroughs in my professional field and some future developments that my professors would have said was science fiction only a few years back.

Watch this space.

However, the flaws in the "design" of the human animal fit perfectly with the evolutionary models we have.

[AAA]

Ok, well if we agree it has a function, then why are you still calling it vestigial? 

"Why keep a function we would barely use?" Why would we lose a function that we sometimes would use? I understand why we would lose our ability to breathe underwater, but it was more of a point to the other person who was wondering why we don't have the ability to restore limbs.

I don't think the design is incompetent, I think that people just say that because they think it makes them seem smarter, like they could do a better job. As though all the engineers who ever lived could have done a better job if they all got together.

Note the usage of the term "it likely serves a minor function".  At this stage that's still uncertain.  And, it's certainly not a vital organ even IF it serves such a function.  Hence, vestigial until proven to still serve a function.

Why would we keep a function that we don't use or MAY use rarely?

Why do people defend a supposedly "all powerful, all knowing designer" when it's clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution that the "design" of the human animal is flawed at best?  I think they do it just so they can appear smart to themselves or others with the same level of understanding.

Could humans design a better human?  At this stage, with our limited knowledge, no.  But there are breakthroughs in the fields of medical science, biology, and genetic engineering virtually every other week.  Hell, I just got back from a conference that brought to our attention the latest breakthroughs in my professional field and some future developments that my professors would have said was science fiction only a few years back.

Watch this space.

However, the flaws in the "design" of the human animal fit perfectly with the evolutionary models we have.

---

Note the usage of the term "it likely serves a minor function".  At this stage that's still uncertain.  And, it's certainly not a vital organ even IF it serves such a function.  Hence, vestigial until proven to still serve a function.

Why would we keep a function that we don't use or MAY use rarely?

Why do people defend a supposedly "all powerful, all knowing designer" when it's clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution that the "design" of the human animal is flawed at best?  I think they do it just so they can appear smart to themselves or others with the same level of understanding.

Could humans design a better human?  At this stage, with our limited knowledge, no.  But there are breakthroughs in the fields of medical science, biology, and genetic engineering virtually every other week.  Hell, I just got back from a conference that brought to our attention the latest breakthroughs in my professional field and some future developments that my professors would have said was science fiction only a few years back.

Watch this space.

However, the flaws in the "design" of the human animal fit perfectly with the evolutionary models we have.

Why is it vestigial until proven to have a function? It does have a function. I don't think that is really being debated by anyone but us. Yeah, we are getting to the point where we can alter the genomes of organisms, but they can only do so using what already exists as templates.

How do the flaws fit perfectly?

[The Valkyrie]

Note the usage of the term "it likely serves a minor function".  At this stage that's still uncertain.  And, it's certainly not a vital organ even IF it serves such a function.  Hence, vestigial until proven to still serve a function.

Why would we keep a function that we don't use or MAY use rarely?

Why do people defend a supposedly "all powerful, all knowing designer" when it's clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution that the "design" of the human animal is flawed at best?  I think they do it just so they can appear smart to themselves or others with the same level of understanding.

Could humans design a better human?  At this stage, with our limited knowledge, no.  But there are breakthroughs in the fields of medical science, biology, and genetic engineering virtually every other week.  Hell, I just got back from a conference that brought to our attention the latest breakthroughs in my professional field and some future developments that my professors would have said was science fiction only a few years back.

Watch this space.

However, the flaws in the "design" of the human animal fit perfectly with the evolutionary models we have.

---

Why is it vestigial until proven to have a function? It does have a function. I don't think that is really being debated by anyone but us. Yeah, we are getting to the point where we can alter the genomes of organisms, but they can only do so using what already exists as templates.

How do the flaws fit perfectly?

Why are we going round in circles on this discussion?

I've already given my answer above and think it's rather clear.

The flaws don't fit perfectly.  If you think they do, ask all those who have nearly choked to death on various foods.

[AAA]

Facts do apply. How about we just pick one fact and look at it. All organisms have some ability to organize their DNA. They have proteins that twist and tighten the DNA, which allows very long strands to fit into the cell neatly. This is necessary because long strands of DNA can impair cell functions if they get in the way. The ability to store DNA efficiently would only evolve if the DNA was getting too long for the cell to function. Unfortunately the only way to gain the ability to store DNA is to gain many proteins. These would all require hundreds of additional nucleotides to the genome. Adding new nucleotides would make the problem worse. This would get selected against immediately. You cannot evolve it, because it would make the problem worse unless it appeared in fully functional form. It fits perfectly with the the design theory.

---

Nothing to see here other than an unintelligent and overcomplicated presumption. You really shouldn't have to work so hard to disprove what would make good sense if you understood it in favor of your own, which makes far less good sense...oh, wait!

You haven't even formulated an argument, you just go along with mainstream science, (which I DO understand), without ever questioning the serious flaws that it has. Name calling doesn't make your position more likely

---

---

Why is it vestigial until proven to have a function? It does have a function. I don't think that is really being debated by anyone but us. Yeah, we are getting to the point where we can alter the genomes of organisms, but they can only do so using what already exists as templates.

How do the flaws fit perfectly?

Why are we going round in circles on this discussion?

I've already given my answer above and think it's rather clear.

The flaws don't fit perfectly.  If you think they do, ask all those who have nearly choked to death on various foods.

No you were the one saying the flaws fit perfectly in the evolutionary models. 

Your scientific approach: all new structures have no function until we can PROVE what it is. They must be vestigial if we don't know what they do. Evolution of the gaps. 
My approach: if it exists it probably has a function. 

As for the throat problem, let me ask you a question. What evolved first, the esophagus/trachea settup that you hate so much, or the epiglottis, which covers the trachea during swallowing? If you ever didn't have the epiglottis, you would choke and die every time you swallowed. If you had an epiglottis with no lung/trachea settup, then you would be wasting resources by producing tissues and you would be selected against. Not to mention the fact that you could not breathe or eat.