Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

Optimal for what (or in whose opinion)? 

Depends on the biological function 

Why do you not think that the same reasoning would apply to my car?   

Nope invalid anology 

 Have you considered, that this argument is based on faulty reasoning and or assumptions?

Nope because it's not 

  This is not a very good argument against design or for evolution as is seen easily when applied to my car, or any other thing that we know is designed.    

That's just the point that you for refuting your argument for me . You can't compare them .

That and evidence shows that changes by chance are far more likely to cause dysfunction, than to create new functions.

And that does not refute my point

Take the same reasoning, and apply it to anything else that is designed.  The conclusion doesn't follow.   So you saying that it is an invalid analogy, with no reason given... doesn't mean very much to me.  If you care to reason through this, and show where I am wrong, then I'll listen.   If you just want to say NO!  and lalalalalala  with your fingers stuck in your ears, then so be it.  I'll treat it the same way I do a 3 year old, when they throw a tantrum.

[Amarok]

Take the same reasoning, and apply it to anything else that is designed.

I just pointed out you can't apply it because were not talking about known designed things let alone man made things like cars

 The conclusion doesn't follow.  

The conclusion this comparison fails yes yes it does follow 

So you saying that it is an invalid analogy, with no reason given... doesn't mean very much to me. 

I don't care what matters to you this analogy is not alike seriously you think a man who boasts of his intelligence would see that .

 If you care to reason through this, and show where I am wrong, then I'll listen.  

No you won't you'll just cook up another nonsensical text block  and ignore everything i said then repeat the same refuted point as if i had not responded like you do every conversation ever on this forum and not just to me .

 If you just want to say NO!  and lalalalalala  with your fingers stuck in your ears, then so be it.

No i imagine that will be your role in this conversation along with baseless accusations that it's what i'm doing.Like you do every conversation on this forum even after your points been thoroughly addressed.

I'll treat it the same way I do a 3 year old, when they throw a tantrum.

Funny that's what i imagine my role in this conversation will be especially when you start losing .

[Angrboda]

The fact that you can choke to death while eating suggests that there is no such thing as "intelligent design."   Or an intelligent "designer."

So if car car wits working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently desighned.  I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Take the same reasoning, and apply it to anything else that is designed.

I just pointed out you can't apply it because were not talking about known designed things let alone man made things

 The conclusion doesn't follow.  

he conclusion this comparison fails yes yes it does follow 

So you saying that it is an invalid analogy, with no reason given... doesn't mean very much to me. 

I don't care what matters to you this analogy is not alike seriously you thin a man who boasts of his intelligence would see that .

 If you care to reason through this, and show where I am wrong, then I'll listen.  

No you won't you'll just cook up another nonsensical text block  

 If you just want to say NO!  and lalalalalala  with your fingers stuck in your ears, then so be it.

No i imagine that will be you role in this conversation along with baseless accusations that it's what i'm doing

I'll treat it the same way I do a 3 year old, when they throw a tantrum.

Funny that's what i imagine my role in this conversation will be

---

Ok, so the reasoning only follows if the designer was wanting to, and/or capable of making an optimal design (apparently as determined by you). So then if either of these premises are false, then the conclusion is invalid.

[Amarok]

Ok, so the reasoning only follows if the designer was wanting to, and/or capable of making an optimal design (apparently as determined by you). So then if either of these premises are false, then the conclusion is invalid.

And you can give a reasonable evidence based non ad hoc reason  that being powerful enough and knowledgeable enough to create life and i would imagine every system in the known universe  .Would not be capable of creating an optimal universe ? 

And you can give non ad hoc reason that this designer would not create an optimal universe and life ?

And you third point is essentially"stop asking why stuff isn't optimal because i have no answer f"

And even better question what would an undesigned universe look like? At what point would the universe be too sub optimal to be designed?

And by all means attack the premises but as i have shown above you have alot of explaining to do .

[RoadRunner79]

Ok, so the reasoning only follows if the designer was wanting to, and/or capable of making an optimal design (apparently as determined by you). So then if either of these premises are false, then the conclusion is invalid.

And you can give a reasonable evidence based non ad hoc reason  that being powerful enough and knowledgeable enough to create life and i would imagine every system in the known universe  .Would not be capable of creating an optimal universe ? 

And you can give non ad hoc reason that this designer would not create an optimal universe and life ?

And you third point is essentially"stop asking why stuff isn't optimal because i have no answer f"

And even better question what would an undesigned universe look like? At what point would the universe be too sub optimal to be designed?

And by all means attack the premises but as i have shown above you have alot of explaining to do .

So who are you, with your limited knowledge to say what is optimal?  With all the variables, with all the interactions, can you say what is optimal in the overall case?    I think that you might have difficulty seeing the forest amongst the tree's.  As we have seen, the logic doesn't follow against design, even if something is not optimal.  All you have is your assumption that things should be optimal (in the way that you see it), and that they are not.   

I often find, that things which people criticize as sub-optimal are often very short cited.   I believe that Neo has pointed out the advantages of having the having the nose and the mouth connected before.   That there is a place for mucas and other things to go when you get a cold.   That you can still breathe when your nose is stuffed up.   I had either heard or read the other day (don't remember where) of a study, that believes that this unique jaw formation which you criticize is largely given credit for the vast range of human speech, over other animals. 

You see; you don't just get to make a claim, and then assume it's true, unless others can defeat it.   What you call "ad hoc", are reasonable explanations for why things may not be optimal to your specifications.  That your premises are not necessarily true.  They also don't seem to fit with the Judeo/Christian tradition, which has never said that things should be easy or always safe.   There are a lot of good character traits which are built up from what you call sub-optimal design. I don't believe the argument, that God had to make us Gods, or else he could not have made us, is a very good one.

[Minimalist]

The fact that you can choke to death while eating suggests that there is no such thing as "intelligent design."   Or an intelligent "designer."

So if car car wits working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently desighned.  I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

If a car quits working you can fix it.  If you die from choking because your bullshit "designer" was a complete asshole you are simply dead.  I'm sure that goes right over your bible-thumping head, RR.  You're hopeless.

[Amarok]

So Road does exactly what i said he would .

Why do i even try ?

---

So if car car wits working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently desighned.  I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

If a car quits working you can fix it.  If you die from choking because your bullshit "designer" was a complete asshole you are simply dead.  I'm sure that goes right over your bible-thumping head, RR.  You're hopeless.

That too

[I_am_not_mafia]

The fact that you can choke to death while eating suggests that there is no such thing as "intelligent design."   Or an intelligent "designer."

So if car car wits working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently desighned. I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

No one is arguing that an omniscient designer designed a car. Cars with inherent flaws in their design, like the Ford Pinto which blew up if you crashed into it from behind, were designed by people who were not omniscient. They learned from their mistakes and the design of the cars has evolved over the years wih the most successful designs being re-used and improved.

[Amarok]

So if car car wits working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently desighned.  I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

No one is arguing that an omniscient designer designed a car. Cars with inherent flaws in their design, like the Ford Pinto which blew up if you crashed into it from behind, were designed by people who were not omniscient. They learned from their mistakes and the design of the cars has evolved over the years wih the most successful designs being re-used and improved.

And answer to me was trotting out the same garbage theists always deploy when they can't answer a simple question.

---

So if car car wits working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently desighned.  I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

No one is arguing that an omniscient designer designed a car. Cars with inherent flaws in their design, like the Ford Pinto which blew up if you crashed into it from behind, were designed by people who were not omniscient. They learned from their mistakes and the design of the cars has evolved over the years wih the most successful designs being re-used and improved.

Mat you of course realize he will deploy the tired "were not talking about god " argument to dodge this .Of course it's total bullshit they mean god and they mean their god .They just won't admit it .