The Argument From Design

[Godscreated]

Some stupid ass argument from ignorance.

Eye spots, eye pits, pin holes, covered pinholes, lenses, and finally the cornea, a logical procession with each succeeding step more complex and useful than the previous one. It is a progression that refutes the hell out irreducible complexity since you can remove components from an eye and still have a useful organ.

We have examples of each step in the process. More importantly than that alone though is that each step is found exactly where evolution predicts it should be. There’s nothing where it shouldn’t be in the fossil record. The comparative anatomy all works out. The genetics of every species that’s ever had its DNA sequenced confirms rather than refutes evolution.

It all adds up to a collection of facts that even His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Jesus Fucking Christ himself, admits leads to only one logical conclusion; the conclusion that humans evolved over time along with every other living organism on this planet.

First thing let's get something straight, I did not post those words, you need to find out who did and put their name to them. Second the Pope is a religious man that would do most anything to look good, not just this Pope but most of them, the hierarchy of the Catholic churh is mostly about deception, so as far as I'm concerned you should not use it as a source of agreement, it doesn't make you look credible.Third you have nothing, no one has recovered an eye from dinosaurs or any other animal perivious to them. Please show those ancient eyes that have been so well preserved over millions of years.

[The Grand Nudger]

Its humor GC, he's implying that you made an argument from ignorance. How goes the great revision of 2011 btw?

[Godscreated]

Engineered, no camera, digital or other wise comes close to human vision, even the best supercomputers can not process the info from the eye to the brain and then to the hand to reach out and touch an object as fast as the brain can,so do not spout your drivel at me. Yes squid, eagles and other animals have superior eyesight, they need to because of their enviroment. You don't see any of them living in the wild that are blind. I never said the Bible explains the eye or other body parts, the Bible is a spiritual book, the context of it has to do with the spiritual life and very little with the physical life. You would not understand this though, you are only interested in demonizing God's word. Yes I'm very concerned about the human eye, glacoma runs in my family and this is a highly inheritable disease as a matter of fact everyone on my father's side of the family has glacoma except myself and two nephews, so yes I'm very interested in the human eye.

Go and answer my post, stop ignoring it just because you don't have the answers. Your post has raised a couple more points:

1. If the Bible says so little about the physical life, how do you feel qualified to comment on whether or not things are designed? Just because it says he created everything? We deal in evidence here.

2. What kind of design would allow for the human eye to catch glaucoma so readily? You'd better get the idea that if things were designed, the design would be a load of shit.

3. There are plenty of animals living in the wild that have very poor eyesight. Moles and bats spring to mind instantly. You are right that the potency of a creature's eyesight is directly related to its environment; that is design at work right there.

Now I've told you, if you're going to clog up this thread with your uneducated ramblings, have the courtesy to address the points people are making.

I have, your original post was to the evolutionist on this forum not the creationist, that's why I posted what I did. Corrected statement #3 for you, your welcome.

[The Grand Nudger]

No such design. Good or bad. Have you finished working on your bible?

[fr0d0]

"The bible is not factually accurate, but the biblical god still exists" Would that be a fair way to distill your argument Frodo?

lol

I'll let you argue the facts with people who give a damn. The bible is about God, and it sets out the method of faith to believe in him. So both of your statements are innacurate.

With respect to this thread, could that be stated as:

"The argument from design is not factually accurate, but God still exists"

There is no argument from design - an argument should prove something.

God is not a designer, right Frodo? Thats a material claim, and god belongs in the "metaphysical". Correct? You could correct me in your own words of course.

God is a designer: Factoring in God, he is the source and maintainer of everything. Physical origins and processes are what we can study using the scientific method. God isn't limited to or by the physical. The physical is limited to the physical.

[ElDinero]

I have, your original post was to the evolutionist on this forum not the creationist, that's why I posted what I did. Corrected statement #3 for you, your welcome.

Is that a joke? Try again, dickhead. I'm going to spell it out for you so you can understand what I'm saying.

If we are designed, as you claim, why do we have all these useless body parts? What kind of design would allow a minority of pregnancies to reach full term?

Oh, and this was the post I wanted you to address, since you're too lazy/ignorant to actually read the posts:

No, listen, Godschild. We don't have to address the human eye at all. YOU have to address all the things we've raised in this thread. Why do we have an appendix? Why are we made with two kidneys if we can live with one? Why is there so much of the Earth that is uninhabitable to humans? Why are we required to sleep approx 30% of our lives? Why do a minority of fertilised eggs make it to full term? What kind of design is this?

You can't point to one specific example (which can be explained, by the way) and say 'explain that, if you can't that means I'm right'. Because if it's designed, it ALL has to be designed. Every last thing, from the womb to the pineapple. So why don't you answer our questions about these undoubtedly poor 'designs'.

I noticed you already misrepresented what one person asked, they said why don't we have big pads instead of toes and you said that you'd fall over without your big toe. That isn't what they were suggesting. So please read my post carefully and be cautious not to twist what I have said. Thanks.

Now, stop dodging the questions, and answer them as well as you can. If you can only go off a Bible, which is a 'spiritual book', then stop making claims about the material world, or provide another source.

[Anymouse]

---

Hey gang, a few weeks back I cracked my tailbone. It hurt, a lot. If anyone has ever damaged their tailbone, hopefully you will relate to this and sympathise. When I went to the doctor to get some advice (and more importantly, painkillers) he said that there wasn't much that could be done, and explained that the tailbone serves no function and is a remnant from one of our ancestors that had a tail. This got me thinking about the creationist/ID crew and how 'everything seems to be designed'.

Well I thought, since the people that make the argument from design are usually fairly simple, instead of quoting scientific mumbo-jumbo at them that they have no hope of understanding, why don't we all rattle off a list of some things that actually make it seem impossible that we were designed? I'll kick us off:

1. Tailbone - serves no purpose
2. Appendix - serves no purpose
3. Gall bladder - can easily live without it
4. Kidneys - can survive with one (admittedly, not ideal)
5. Reproduction - if we are designed, why do only a minority of fertilised eggs come to full term?

Over to you, pals. And don't feel restricted by the human body. Just thought it would be a good place to start, since I am one. Go nuts with whatever takes your fancy.

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/
Actually, the appendix has been found to have a function. When the body sends the gut into "flush mode," the appendix closes off and preserves a portion of the flora and fauna of the gut, then releases it back into the gut afterward. This allows the body to quickly repopulate its flora and fauna.

This also explains why people that have had appendectomies seem to have more troubles in this area than those who have not, such as me.

And as for gallbladders, while one can live without it, it is not "easy," as anyone who has to maintain the special low fat diet that goes with its removal, like my sweetie here BethK can attest.

And one can live without both kidneys, but that isn't easy either, as long as you like dialysis every couple of days.

Just keeping up with scientific knowledge. You never know, they might find why we have a tailbone next.

Rather than showing things that "prove" we were not "designed," that may turn out to have a use later (like the appendix), it might be better to simply debunk the ID proposition itself.
James.

[The Grand Nudger]

"The bible is not factually accurate, but the biblical god still exists" Would that be a fair way to distill your argument Frodo?

lol

I'll let you argue the facts with people who give a damn. The bible is about God, and it sets out the method of faith to believe in him. So both of your statements are innacurate.

With respect to this thread, could that be stated as:

"The argument from design is not factually accurate, but God still exists"

There is no argument from design - an argument should prove something.

God is not a designer, right Frodo? Thats a material claim, and god belongs in the "metaphysical". Correct? You could correct me in your own words of course.

God is a designer: Factoring in God, he is the source and maintainer of everything. Physical origins and processes are what we can study using the scientific method. God isn't limited to or by the physical. The physical is limited to the physical.

You don't give a damn about the facts? I have always had exactly this suspicion about you and your beliefs. Say it aint so.

I feel the same Way Frodo, arguments should prove something. Care to prove anything while we're on the topic of proof?

So then you maintain that God is the source of all things in the material world, excellent, that's a testable hypothesis given that you define exactly what moment you feel that he was responsible for such an act. You understand that we do not have to be certain of or directly observe a cause to measure it's effects, correct? It doesn't matter what god has in his toolbox when you claim that the physical world is created and maintained by him. The physical world is observable, we would be able to measure the effect of whatever tool he chose to use, even if we did not understand the tool itself. Gravity is one shining example of this. There was absolutely no way for Newton to know what gravity was, instead he defined it by describing it's effects.

I won't ever let you get away with your material/immaterial shit again. It's hollow, and apparently you can't resist the urge to reverse yourself on this position. I'm not dishonest with you when we have a discussion, reciprocate.

I will make the positive claim that your god is a product of man. You can dismantle this by establishing a timeline that places god in a position to predate humanity (or any way that you like, just mentioning the simplest route).

[fr0d0]

The facts of biblical historicity are of zero interest to me. Some people love that stuff. Hopefully one of those types will cross your path. The point of the bible to me and any believer is the information about God. Those facts I'm invested in.

So... you want to know how you can test for evidence of metaphysical influence. The very fingerprint of God is on every existent thing. Nothing doesn't have it. (Even nothing has it if you speak to Saerules ). So how do we test for that? The thing is... science, by it's own laws, can only test for the physical. So unless science decides to widen it's scope, you're stuck without a methodology. Unless that is you're willing to consider theological evidence. I guess I should cut off at this point becase I can hear the portcullis crashing down in front of you. *waves*

"It's dishonest" you shout from your self made cage. "Come back and talk to me on my terms and ignore that huge expanse I refuse to let myself consider".

Well fine... for you to maintain your position you can't let yourself be enticed out into the open. It's ironic isn't it that it's you calling me 'dishonest' and 'unwilling to address the issue'.

[Minimalist]

Why is it so hard for you guys to admit that your god is a shitty engineer?