Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 30, 2024, 8:34 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheism vs. God's Existence
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
Foresight is claimed. Examples that indicate a lack of foresight are discounted.

Is that about the shape of the conversation now?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(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.
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
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.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(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?
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand. 
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work.  If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now.  Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(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?
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(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).
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(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.

[Image: 12382.jpg]
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?
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(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.

[Image: 12382.jpg]
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?



[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(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.
Reply
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
(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.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Existence of Marcion questioned? JairCrawford 28 2224 March 4, 2022 at 1:34 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The existence of god Foxaèr 16 2992 May 5, 2018 at 3:42 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  There is no argument for the existence of "God" Foxaèr 38 7605 March 15, 2016 at 8:50 am
Last Post: popsthebuilder
  Two ways to prove the existence of God. Also, what I'm looking for. IanHulett 9 3655 July 25, 2015 at 6:37 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  20 Arguments for God's existence? Foxaèr 17 4185 May 9, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Telephones Prove God's Existence Mudhammam 9 4183 February 6, 2014 at 6:41 am
Last Post: Mudhammam
  God is god, and we are not god StoryBook 43 12790 January 6, 2014 at 5:47 pm
Last Post: StoryBook
  Debating the existence of Jesus CleanShavenJesus 52 25128 June 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Last Post: Bad Writer
  Science explains the existence of God. Greatest I am 1 1541 August 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Last Post: 5thHorseman
  God get's angry, Moses changes God's plans of wrath, God regrets "evil" he planned Mystic 9 6767 February 16, 2012 at 8:17 am
Last Post: Strongbad



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)